Anti-semitism

While I think that the IHRA definition is a good working start, I wanted to put down some of my ideas about anti-Semitism which might help clarify how I understand the term.

First, the word was coined specifically to mean "against Jews." Look it up. It was never meant to be "against anyone who is called a semite".

Second, the Jews who are those who are defined as Jews by Jews and the canon of Jewish law. Deciding that a group is or isn't the "real" Jews because of some other set of beliefs is not in the scope of this piece of writing. 

Anti-semitism (and yes, I will be wonderfully inconsistent in my capitalization and hyphenation practices -- sorry, not sorry) is speech or actions which posit inherent negativity in Jews or Judaism (or both or a combination of aspects of each). If a guy kills a bird, and the guy happens to be Jewish, identifying him as Jewish in order to add detail to the story is already problematic. Would one identify the culprit by any other religious marker? Why does that fact become appropriate or relevant? Adding it in in an effort to connect the Jewish aspect of identity with the behavior is to operate negatively against Jews.

So simply pointing out the otherwise irrelevant religious affiliation is a problem. Pointing out the actions of a person as a function of his religion (when that is neither accurate nor in evidence) is anti-Semitism. This sometimes happens in conjunction with stereotypes but can happen in most any case. Trying to represent Jewish law in a negative light is inherently anti-Semitic.

A Jew can be equally as anti-Semitic as a non-Jew. If the intent is to criticize the religion without understanding the religion, or the religious practitioners by associating actions which are not based in religion with the religion, that is problematic.

Zionism is the movement to ensure Jewish autonomy in an ancestral homeland. Criticizing that (in order not to be anti-Semitic) would have to be done with a consistency that would criticize any nationalist movement. Claiming that Israel's government acts in a certain way against non-Jews as a homogeneous group then puts the government's behavior in the context of "Jewish action" even though the Israeli government is full of non-Jews. So isolating the jewish identity piece and claiming that it is what drives Zionist actions can be anti-Semitic. Holding Israel to a standard that is not applied elsewhere is clearly problematic and possibly anti-Semitic.

So ascribing a behavior to someone's Jewish identity (unless you can prove that it was done as a function of that identity/belief, as defined by the Jew, himself) is anti-Semitic. Ascribing beliefs and actions to Judaism as a religion (unless you can confirm that they are, as defined by Jews who practice the religion) is anti-Semitic. Denying Judaism the right to its own identity and autonomy as a valid belief system is also a problem, as is denying Israel a right to exist as a Jewish state by applying a standard which is not applied to other contemporary political creations.

Thoughts, as long as they stay inside a person's head, might or might not be anti-Semitic, depending on whether they are ever expressed in speech or action.

Just some ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure there is more.

2 versions of a joke -- looking for input (Language NSFW)

I thought of a scenario which (IMHO) is very funny, but there are 2 versions, and each one works the humor slightly differently.

The situation is in the end zone right after a player has just scored a touchdown, while playing away from home. He and his teammates are dancing in the endzone and there are boos rainging down on him from the home-town fans. Among the yelling, one voice, especially louds keeps yelling "Hey Jew! Hey Jew!"

The other players hear it and serious up, but quick. The player who made the TD walks over as the crowd quiets down and he confronts the guy who yelled. This guy has no shirt on and is 280 pounds of solid blob. He is covered in body paint and is wearing a ridiculous, themed helmet.

The player closes in on him and stares him down.

"Yeah, I'm Jewish. So what?" he challenges the guy.

The fan pauses and nods his head quickly towards the inner recesses of the stands and then says, "mincha? We have a chiyuv and need a 10th."

------------------

Same joke but the guy doing the yelling just says "Kike!" over and over.

also, the punch line might be better as just "mincha?" and nothing else.

opinions?

I need to go watch some football

 I can finally see how insanity begins.

 Take a man.

Take him and put him in a cage of any and no particular size. Stick him there for a good long time with nothing else and he very well might start to pace, just to “stay in shape.” Next thing you know he begins to count steps. How many across to here and how few accounting for this and that, just to “stay mentally sharp.” Then, struggling with mid-high school level math skills he starts computing and writing down. And he figures, if only to pass the time, the dimensions and square footage of the cell.

But even that victory fades and he must consider his confinement from another angle – the above and beyond. A new dimension in perception. So now a bit more climbing and counting and retooling the numbers. Quick estimations and the cubic feet appear leading to a consideration of the volume of the air and, as a passing gag, a joke about who pays for it all.

The years resume to refuse to resume and he, that man, stuck in a box, familiar with its every corner and cobweb, in an exercise to keep himself sharp reconsiders the question of cost and the volume of a human breath. He counts his own ins-and-outs, logging his lungs’ work and figuring his annual consumption of air. Bills had to be paid so a going rate, one that made sense considering comps, was established and he began to figure his daily air use in dollars per minute. He WAS sharp. He WAS in shape. He was the old man about the house – ask him any question about his cell and he can tell you a story. Ah, the adventures that that cell and he shared.

Then one day he is released. But where others see freedom he can only see disorder, unpredictability and an overflow of stimuli and no one else seems to notice. He is drowning in all that is happening, weaving uneasily through the street. He needs an apartment and insists on measuring its dimensions and working his numbers as he mumbles to himself.  He wonders aloud about the price of oxygen compared to the rate 24 hours ago and sounds as perfectly reasonable as any man who chooses to go into finance. He cannot interact with anyone, can’t leave his comfort zone and ends up recreating the world with which he is most recently familiar and retreating into that fantasy. He was more free when he was in a cell than when he wasn’t.

And we look at him, homeless, obsessed, angry and constantly shouting random numbers or words, and even prone to violent outbursts – this insanity might be so attractive to the patient because the real world cannot promise the same payoff.

I Can Fly

Over this past weekend, I learned something very important from my almost 3 year old great niece. She reports that she can fly. I see no reason to argue the point as she seemed rather insistent and it was not in anyone's best interest to disagree.

What I found most incredible was the variety of responses to the claim.

1. No you can't

2. How do you do that?

3. Can I fly, too?

only one person asked a really useful question: "Where will you fly to?"

Upon the 100th watching of the Avengers

Marvel Questions:

Why would Captain America's costume ever have a mask on it? The whole world knows he's Steve Rogers, so no one has to hide an identity.

What is a "god" in the MCU version of Norse mythology? Loki was adopted from Frost Giants. How does he get elevated to god stats as the god of mischief? ("the humans think US immortal" but no one thinks Frost Giants are immortal).

At the end of the Avengers movie, how does Thor take Loki back to Asgard? They both hold on to some device and Thor twists one end and they go. Was that via the bifrost? Something else? Did the device call the bifrost? Was it Helmdal? Or what?

Why they hate us

I have been hearing and reading much, this high holiday season, about the dual natures of the day and even the (seemingly) dual nature of our relationship with Hashem. he is both father and king and the two separate roles contextualize aspects of our prayer. More about that maybe later. But first, a note about dual natures.

We, as a people, are driven by our need to reconcile a variety of approaches and ideas. Our pilgrimage holidays are both remembereances of the Exodus and agricultural celebrations. Channukah has both the mirculous oil and the miraculous victories in war. Our sabbath is marked by the obligation both the guard and remember. Even in that relationship to God we start with a concept of "the attribute of justice" and the "attribute of mercy" and then we move to "father" and "mother" (or the aforesaid father and king).

But we, too, are defined by a split nature. We pray for peace. Our daily and holiday texts are filled with wishes for a peaceful present and a messianically peaceful future. We avoid conflict and sing songs about not having to be at war. And the world knows us as its door mat because our history is full of people oppressing us. Only rarely do we fight back, do we assert our natural right to existence. And when we do, we expect to lose so our cultural stories are of surprising victories and unlikely heroes.

However in our historical texts, we are taught to pray for peace but prepare for war. The world needs to stop seeing us as the default patsy and eternal victim, and it doesn't want to. We are so expected to let people stomp on us that when we respond, our actions are addressed as a unique behavior -- we are judged by a separate standard imposed upon as "peaceful people."

Why do they hate us?

Historically, the answers included "because we are different" and "because we did something which was an affront to their religious ideals" and we can add to it "because we are supposed to roll over and yet we fought back."

The DH and why I don't like it

 Recently, I listed my view of the newer rules in baseball (I have opinions about football, but that's a story for a different blog post). I have help strong opinions about baseball rules for a while and one which I have been against for a long time (in either league) is the designated hitter rule. Now that it has infiltrated the National League, I fear that its insidious nature will begin to infect the game as a whole.

Baseball is a chess match, slow and minute. The pace should be comfortable until it needs to be otherwise. The tension is often subtle and a result of the limited roster and the fact that the players play both offense and defense. The direct competition is (or was) highlighted by the face off of the pitchers, one pitching and one at bat, until the situation is reversed. In football, when does the quarteback of one team confront the QB of the other? Football fields two separate teams per side: the offense of one competes against the defense of the other. Offenses never meet, nor do defenses. Two simultaneous games are being played. Two separate quarterbacks are passing in the night (or mid afternoon).

But baseball requires that the players do double duty and see each other on both sides of the ball, and this should include pitchers. All players contribute to both phases of the team's efforts. The designated hitter upsets this balance (unlike the momentary pinch hitter or runner) as in the DH situation, one player is only playing offense and one is only there for defense. So we lose both the interaction between pitchers (I mean, in what sense is a game QB 1 vs. QB 2? It isn't. But when pitchers have to bat, they are more fully invested in the battle) and the full involvement of all players in the entire of the game.

What's next, official pitchers? Dead Fields?

Get rid of the DH and let the players play.