If you STAND WITH ISRAEL...don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING

Yesterday I attended a pro-Israel, counter-really that had been quickly organized in reponse to a "free Palestine" demonstration in DC. Of course when I arrived I was a bit let down. There was not a large crowd in the anti-rally. Certainly this is to be expected with only 3 weeks notice, and I have been to enough properly organized events to know the masses that support Israel. Anyhow, I did not find 200 people to be very impressive. But that was the least of my worries.

I did not understand why, during my training with Greenpeace, an activist told me that coalitions should be a last resort. What could be so terrible about coalitions?

Well I found out.

It was nice to hear that the pro-Israel rally consisted of Christians--this is not just a Jewish issue, and it's great to feel support. HOWEVER, I was absolutely beside myself when I these Christian supporters turned out to be a group of die-hards, and upon reaching the stage, spewed religious rhetoric that made me absolutely embarassed to be in any close proximity. And this continued.

I don't care HOW last-minute the counter-protest was...sitting there listening to pro-Iraq and Lord Almighty banter absolutely undermines the case for Israel. So what did I do? I marched up to the stage to take the microphone and speak for myself.

I started off with something along the lines of, "I am here from Los Angeles, and it is great to see everyone here supporting Israel. But I want to remind you--and the world--that you don't need to believe in God to believe in Israel. You don't need to call on scripture or prayer..."

I believe I closed with something similar to "Stand with freedom...Stand with Israel."

I was very proud of myself. And while I am on the topic, I must vent a little: JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PROGRESSIVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU NEED TO BE ANTI-ISRAEL. I consider myself somewhere in the middle of progressive and radical, and let me tell you, I think it is awfully sad that the progressive movement swings in favor of ANY under dog, constantly assuming that the minority is always the victim. (I have to say the bit about the under dog was taken from Seth...but it's the perfect phrase).

On that note, I will speak of one of the most difficult trade-offs: I am thankful that America supports Israel, because Israel is a tiny country in the middle of a volatile and extreme region--and Israel needs as much support as possible.

But at the same time, Israel inherits the bad image. The tragedy that is our president, and the fiasco in Iraq equally throw Israel into the anti-American bandwagon...when the situation in Israel absolutely predates our exploited war on terror, and subsequently exploits Israel.

I know it's become trendy to be anti-everything American...but absolutism has never been positive.

Quote

"I know that all revolutions must have ideologies that spur them. That in the heat of conflict those ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic."

--Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Debates

So I feel really guilty because I have not been able to watch any of the debates over the past couple days. It's no fault of mine--I have no TV and I can't read horrendously long transcripts.

But I suppose it is appriopriate, seeing as I want to scale my already scarce TV watching (I give myself a 1 out of 10) down to nothing.

"The Quiet Holocaust"

I was emailed a copy of The Quiet Holocaust: The Perfidious Plot to Convert Jews, by Meira Bat Avraham. Personally, I think the term "quiet holocaust" is exploiting a monstrous historical occurrence to provoke emotions, instead of simply presenting the facts. Either way, it is an interesting read, and will copy and paste (emphasis on "copy and paste"...I don't hyphenate God)a few introductory paragraphs. To keep reading, click the link for the entire article (it's long).

"However, perhaps the most insidious, dangerous, and hateful anti-Semitism is more subtle, less easy to spot, less provoking of criticism. This type of anti-Semitism is societally condoned. It can be characterized as "affectionate, compassionate anti-Semitism". I am speaking of the evangelical Christians, particularly the Baptists, who are attempting to LOVE US TO DEATH.

While a determination to "save" the Jews has always been among the cornerstones of the evangelical movement, only recently have churches and ministries upgraded their mission to a more active status. In 1996, the Southern Baptist Convention not only passed a resolution calling on all Baptists to "direct their energies and resources toward the proclamation of the Gospel to the Jewish people", but directed $100,000 toward the cost of hiring a full-time missionary to the Jews. Individual churches have also directed funds toward this effort. (It is of note that the Southern Baptists were the propounders of the statement "G-d does not hear the prayer of a Jew.")

Committed Jews, of course, will have nothing to do with this effort. Those of us who are Judaically educated, secure in our relationship with G-d, or Israel, or our community, are immune to the preachings and teachings of a missionary whose own beliefs are fundamentally contrary to our own. However, our community is not invulnerable; there are many young Jews, in particular, who have been poorly or incompletely educated as to the principles of our faith, feel unwelcomed in their search for meaning and G-d, and, as a result, may be easily misled by the missionaries.

Even those vulnerable ones, however, are unlikely to be persuaded to join a Christian church. Within most Jews, regardless of affiliation or lack thereof, is a bond to our history which is repelled at the thought of actual conversion to the Christian religion. The evangelicals know this. They are not stupid, they are not blind; they are crafty.

What's the Difference?

To that end, the Baptists, in particular, have developed an interesting strategy that they hold will allow a Jew to worship Jesus (and be "saved," of course) without relinquishing their Judaism. Messianic Jews claim to be Torah-following Jews who obey the commandments; however, they fail to obey the first commandment, to not follow anyone other than G-d. They believe Jesus was the messiah, and will go to an extreme point to brainwash their beliefs into other unsuspecting Jews. They have "synagogues," which incorporate traditional Jewish prayer services with some worship of Jesus. They celebrate the holidays, and consider themselves "biblical," rather than "rabbinic," Jews. (i.e., they don't buy into the Talmud). Perhaps one of the most abundantly evident approaches of Messianic "Jews" is their non-stop attempts to sound Jewish. They, therefore, use Jewish symbols with a twist of Christianity added to them."

Shrek the Third

I forgot to say...

I saw Shrek 3 with Dylan, and I appreciated the feminist undertones. Actually, the message was quite clear. When all the storybook ladies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) were locked away in the dungeon with Shrek's wife (what's her face) and What's Her Face's Mom, our favorite Disney Beauties declared "assume the position", and took whatever damsel-in-distress pose was fitted (Sleeping Beauty went to bed, the rest sat around whimsically, such and such). Essentially, they were waiting for Prince Charming to rescue them.

As it become obvious no one would be saved this way, Shrek's wife and her Mom basically said fuck this sexist, patriarchal, make-me-demure-and-worthless shit, and busted out of the joint themselves. From this point on, each of the princesses became proactive and together they saved the day.

FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY

I have decided that "freedom" and "democracy" cannot coexist and are in fact at odds with one another.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE: Our country becomes dominated by evangelic Christians and other moralistic groups that exhibit the same "virtues" and voting patterns. In this case, a union between church and state, and prohibition of abortion/contraception are completely democratic, because each person would cast a vote, and the majority would justifiably sway our country in such a (horrifying) direction according to our own governmental principles.

However, in the same (not-so-far-fetched)hypothetical above, one would not be free to make decisions about one's body--even though one still lives in a democracy, which fairly (according to democracy) voted for the restrictions in the first place.

Are there creative ways to reconcile the two? I suppose that is what the Bill of Rights and Constitution sought to do, although these measures are really nothing compared to the issues at hand today. Like gay marriage. So if the majority does not favor/allow gay marriage, gay people are not FREE to marry, although we live in a democracy.

It is my humble opinion that America cannot present itself as the Land of the Free and as a Democracy at the same time. Pick one.

(Actually my entire argument is irrelevant because we don't even have a genuine democracy, and I don't believe in freedom anyway. But you know, in the grand sense these terms are abused in the first place everything I said holds)

Newsweek features the "Mystery of Gender"

In the May 21 issue, Newsweek highlights the no-longer-very-private world of trans. Although not particularly analytic or profound, I am happy to see issues of gender being circulated in the media and served front-page to the public.

Quote

"Gaining weight and pulling my head out of the toilet was the most political act I ever committed"--Abra Fortune Chernik

NO SUGAR ADDED

Let's get real..."no sugar added" is a wishful euphemism.

Come on, Coffee Bean, and the entire food/culture industry. Call it like it is. That's not "no sugar added," it's a fucking FAKE SUGAR SUBSTITUTE

Feederism: the new "in the closet"

The May issue of Details magazine uncovered the new "in the closet." Beginning with the story of a 336-pound man aspiring to double his weight, feederism is different than finding large people sexually arousing--it is a fat fetish where "gainers" get off on growing themselves or their partners, and consciously morph themselves into obesity.

Although this subculture remains largely unrecognized by mainstream society, its participant and fan base is growing rapidly through internet exposure (and sites like gaininggoddess.com). Even so, feeders admit that dating is difficult in our fat-phobic society where thin is in and binging as foreplay is unspeakable. Yet this is also part of the appeal.

Feederism is basically a big cultural "fuck you." One man recounts how when he hears whispers in restaurants regarding his massive consumption, he simply orders more. Other women tell stories of being high food restricters, and one day finally deciding to have it all. New York University anthropology professor Don Kulick explains, "Fat is so demonized in this society that it actually makes it attractive."

But let's remember that there is difference between feederists and overweight individuals. Both the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance and the International Size Acceptance Association condemn the practice, saying that "one partner should not be controlling another's size."

But there's another problem. For those who crave larger and larger partners, traditional positions become impractical, and sex less and less frequent.

You can check out the article in its entirety here. It is an interesting read, but I could not bring myself to summarize particular details for the sake of shock value, as I found the magazine to do all too well. I am linking this for broader understandings of the body and sex, not to laugh and gawk at different fantasies.

I began writing this blog, compulsively eying the time for my yoga class to begin. My life style is an absolute opposite to feederism, which I don't think is healthy either. Whether it is obsessing to lose weight or gain, there really seems to be no focus on a natural, balanced bodies(whatever that may be). I do raise an eyebrow whenever emotions come out in food, or any other sort of channel (alcohol, drugs, exercise). Both feedees and feeders develop lifestyles that revolve around their binging and sexual practices, which either border lines or is an addiction--not sure. But hey, I have my own, so we can all talk about the health implications of obesity, but I'm not pointing fingers. It is nice to be reminded that every one has different sexualities and can enjoy themselves with others, even without conforming to particular cultural standards.

Allure magazine is GRAVELY mistaken

In its May issue, Allure magazine features BEAUTY BREAKDOWNS: Shaved heads, drastic cuts, Crazy dye jobs.

Why does buzzed head imply a beauty breakdown? I understand that Britney is batty, but one person's personal collapse and subsequent buzz job does NOT mean that a shaved head is a sign of degeneracy. Let's all give Allure a round of applause for reinforcing age-old cultural notions of femininity.

News flash: some women make rational choices to shave their heads. Yes, others may take out emotional issues on their dos...but let's not get the two confused.

I have purposefully chosen not to post pictures of myself on The Colonic, but I am really pissed that my favorite hair cut is being marketed as some sort of female pathology. So for my own sake and every other woman without hair, this is a CHOICE and I looked incredible.

There is something wrong with this conversation...

Dad: What kind of lawyer are you going to be?

Me: A civil rights attorney.

Dad: How are you going to make money?

I just thought any one would be proud of that. Guess I'm wrong.