Who's speaking at which commencement? Who cares?

Ordinarily, I am dismissive of those who lament technology’s effects on our previously “untainted” lives. My response to those who wax nostalgic about pen-and-ink letters and how e-mail doesn’t reflect tone and nuance (and ink on paper does?) is “Get over it”. However, there’s one phenomenon to which I have a visceral opposition: the media circus surrounding college graduations. Well, not all college graduations, as none but the local press are covering 90% thereof. I’m talking about the top colleges, i.e., the Ivy League and the second tier.

We see here, in fact, that through the 1990s, U. of Michigan’s commencement speakers were either past or present officeholders, educators, or esteemed journalists. But scroll up to 2009 and 2013, and who do we see? The CEOs of Google and Twitter, respectively. We see here that in the 41 years 1972-2013, 19 of Northfield Mount Hermon’s speakers, i.e., nearly half, were alums. Totally appropriate. In this list from Syracuse University, we see that the first TV personality showed up in 1980, and it was the host of a PBS news program. But from 1994 onward, and especially from 2000, we see the glitz becoming more and more prominent. These are just a few lists reflecting the trend.

Pre-Internet, there was college bookstore merch. Sure, you wore your crimson / blue hoodie and your car sported your Harvard / Yale bumper sticker. You were signaling, or perhaps you just liked the hoodie, but it was an individual, unmediated affair. Sure the New York Times reported on commencement keynote speakers, but it wasn’t splashed across the front page and trumpeted for weeks on end.

Now, however, from March through May, you can hardly open your browser without seeing “who’s speaking at which commencement”. It’s signaling on steroids, and it gets more frenzied every year. I propose a mass “mental boycott” of the hoopla. You attend a selective school? Good for you. Wear your hoodie with pride. Your school has glitzy alums? Great. Invite ‘em back for commencement and award ‘em an honorary degree. But please, leave the rest of us out of it. We Officially Don’t Care.

ברוכים הבאים למאה ה21 Welcome to the 21st century

True story: I ate breakfast with someone I don’t ordinarily see, and she was waxing on about an amazing lecture she’d heard on interpersonal relationships by therapist Hedy Schleifer. Intrigued, when I got to work I looked up Shleifer and found her on TED. Because I enjoy follow-through, i.e., telling the rest of you with whom I share this planet that I’m listening to you; and assuming that most of us are flattered and feel validated when what we say is followed up on, I shot my breakfast companion a mail with the Subject line “Hedy Schleifer”. The body: “Found this. Will view later!” Telegraphic, you say? Perhaps. Apparently, the recipient found it curt, even offensive.

Smiling, I asked her at lunch if she’d seen my mail. Here’s how the rest of the conversation went [recall that ironically, Schleifer is now her interpersonal relations guru]:

She: Yeah. What was that?

Me: What do you mean?

She: What was I supposed to do with that?

Me: Uh, click on the link.

She: What was the link?

Me: Her lecture.

She: I don’t need to hear her lecture [walks off, leaving me feeling like I’d committed an unforgivable faux pas].

OK, Schleifer Chasid and all you other Earth-dwellers who haven’t get gotten the memo: You know those words in e-mails (often “this” or “here”) that are in blue and underlined, as above? Those are this 20^th-century invention called hyperlinks. What are you supposed to do with them? You left-click them with your mouse and they lead you to a website, in which you presumably have some passing interest. It saves us from having to write mails like the following:

Dear Breakfast Companion,

I was so intrigued by your description of Hedy Schliefer that as soon as I got to a computer, I performed an online search for her. Lo and behold, I found a lecture by her. You can see the lecture by clicking on the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEaERAnIqsY hwww.youtube.com/watch?v=HEaERAnIqsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEaERAnIqsY www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEaERAnIqsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEaERAnIqsY. Have a nice day!

In the 21^st century, that translates to: “Found this. Will view later!” It’s meant to be neither curt nor offensive; it’s meant to save us both time. Got it?

And while we’re on the subject, Here’s a short quiz: I write you a mail containing the text, “…not to go all Hedy Schleifer on you, but…” You have no idea what I’m referring to. You:

   
                 a) Write me back asking, “Who’s Hedy Schleifer?"
                 b) Look up “Hedy Schleifer” online

The correct answer is (b). You necessarily have Internet access if you’re downloading and reading mail, no? Therefore, you open your browser and search for “Hedy Schleifer”. If you do (a), I’ll reply with “Look here.” Ah, that pesky blue underlined word again. What’s that? All together now: A hyperlink! And what do we do when we see a hyperlink? If you don’t know by now, sign up for remedial reading comprehension.

In case you haven't figured it out, I have less and less patience for anyone under the age of 60 who’s still sheepishly referring to hizzerself as a “technophobe” or who can’t perform a basic online search. And I don’t accept the claim that my work is computer based, so I have a leg up. This is now basic stuff, folks. The wheel is not going to turn back: Master these skills and get on board with the digital world. You can only benefit.

Stupidity on Holocaust Day על הטמטום ביום השואה

להלן כתבה שכתב יורם הופמן, עורך כל אלה בני קטורה לרגל יום השואה 2014: English translation follows Hebrew

דבר העורך: "על הטמטום"

בחלומי ראיתי איך קם מנהיג ערבי, ובפומבי מצהיר: "השואה היא הפשע הנורא ביותר שבוצע כנגד האנושות"

התעוררתי ומצאתי שזה לא היה חלום. זה קרה במציאות, בשנת 2014, והמנהיג הערבי שהעז לקום ולצאת בפומבי כנגד מחוללי השואה היה לא אחר מאשר אבו מאזן – יושב ראש הראשות הפלשתינאית, אויבנו המר.

  יו"ר הרשות הפלסטינית, שבעבר נטען כי הוא מכחיש שואה, פרסם היום הצהרה תקדימית על השואה. "העם הפלסטיני הוא הראשון לדרוש להסיר את העוול והגזענות שעמים אחרים סובלים מהם"

ומה עשו "מנהיגינו"? במקום לברך אותו על אומץ ליבו, במקום ליפול על צווארו ולהכריז "אחינו אתה", במקום להכריז כי על מחווה כזו יש להשיב במחווה, מה הם עשו לדעתכם? הם כמובן דחו אותו בזלזול. "הוא לא התכוון ברצינות" נאמר בתגובתם, "הוא מנסה לעשות שואה שנייה"

איזה טמטום. הרי זו הזדמנות להסכים על משהו, קו התחלה שממנו אפשר להתקדם. ברור לכולם שהפלשתינאים, ובראשם אבו מאזן, לא נהפכו לאוהבי ישראל. ברור שהסכנות רבות וצריך למדוד את הפלשתינאים גם לפי מעשיהם – הטובים והרעים – אבל אנחנו חייבים להקשיב לדבריו של אבו מאזן. אולי זאת מלכודת, אבל אם זה אמיתי – יש לנו בסיס, ובכל מקרה, למה לסרב ולדחות את המסר שהביא?

הממשלה הזו, באטימותה ובעיוורונה הולכת ומזכירה את ממשלת גולדה, והתוצאות של מעשיה ומחדליה עלולות להיות לא פחות קשות, לנו ולכול המזרח התיכון.

יורם

On Stupidity

Translated from an article by Yoram Hoffman on Holocaust Remembrance Day

In my dreams, I see an Arab leader rise up and declare publicly, “The Holocaust is the most terrible crime committed against humanity.” I awoke and discovered that it wasn’t a dream; it actually took place, in 2014, and the Arab leader who dared to rise up and come out publicly against the perpetrators of the Holocaust was none other than Abu Mazen, head of the Palestinian Authority, our archenemy.

The chair of the Palestinian Authority, about whom in the past it was claimed that he denies the Holocaust, today declared unprecedentedly in reference to the Holocaust: “The Palestinian people is the first to demand eradicating the grief and bigotry from which other nations suffer.”

And what did our “leaders” do? Instead of congratulating him on his courage, instead of embracing him and declaring, “Thou art our brother”*, instead of announcing that such a gesture deserves a gesture in kind, what do you think our “leaders” did? Naturally, they dismissed his statement outright: “He didn’t mean it,” was their response. “He’s trying to carry out a second Holocaust.”

What stupidity. Here we had the opportunity to agree on something, a starting point from which we could progress. We all know that the Palestinians, led by Abu Mazen, aren’t our biggest fans. We know that the dangers are many and that we need to judge the Palestinians by their actions as well as by their words, both good and bad. But we also have to heed Abu Mazen’s words. Perhaps it’s a trap; but if he’s for real, then we have a foundation. In any case, why reject his message?

Our government, in its blindness and obtuseness, is more and more reminiscent of that of Golda Meir, and the results of our intransigence are liable to be no less grave than were her deeds and omissions — for us and for the entire Middle East.

reference to Genesis 45:14-15

Hooting at the Huppa תרועות ליד החופה: וֶטוֹ

Overall, I prefer Israeli (Jewish) weddings to American Jewish ones, mainly because of the relaxed informality. However, there’s one practice that crosses the line from casual to inappropriate: the widespread practice of whooping as the groom -- and increasing in volume with the bride -- walk to the chuppa.

In discussing it with my kids, one of them brought up its origins in Middle Eastern cultures where the women ululate, thus according to said daughter, labeling me “racist”. Truthfully, I hadn’t even made this connection; although I believe she’s correct about the origins of the practice, I humbly disagree with her conclusion. She blames my bias on my having grown up in the US, where brides (and grooms, and endless maids and groomsmen) proceed down the aisle in silence except for any music being played; and where to cheer or applaud would be considered wildly out of place.

In that sense I agree. However, while in the wider sense, it’s indeed a cultural bias, disliking it doesn’t make me racist, or even bigoted; it simply means I’m biased in favor of my own cultural (non)practices, which I believe is OK. In my perception, ululating, like strapless bridal gowns, hints at the act that will supposedly be taking place post-nuptials, which to me places it in the realm of prepubescent bathroom humor, or frat boy humor, neither of which has any place surrounding the solemn ritual of kiddushin [holy matrimony].

To me the whooping says: Here we are, dressed in our best, gathered to witness this couple’s union -- and suddenly, voila! It’s a sports bar! Or a soccer stadium! Or a construction site! Woot! No, just no. Call me uptight -- even pearl-clutching -- but I find it objectionable.

But besides my personal bias, which is admittedly subjective, what about the objective fact that at many a wedding, the couple has asked one of the guests to play and / or sing a particular song as they’re led to the chuppa? Your friend(s) or family member(s) have graciously obliged, presumably rehearsing so it sounds lovely, right? They begin their piece, everyone’s in the moment…here comes the groom…and suddenly we’re at a rock concert or a World Cup game.

Certainly not every foreign practice is worth importing. For instance, I dearly hope we never import the arrangement wherein the couple stands with their backs to the guests, so -- yea! -- I got all dressed up to see…the rabbi’s face! Immigrants, feel free to check that practice at the door. But whooping as the bride and groom walk to the chuppa is a practice to wish I’d dearly love to say שלום ולא להתראות good riddance!

That's right: Harness those minorities to your cause יש לרתום את בני המיעוטים למסע הצלב

עברית לאחר האנגלית

I was actually kept awake at night after reading Bristol Palin’s shamelessly cynical blog post claiming that black and Hispanic fetuses are targeted for abortion by none other than Planned Parenthood, then asks “How liberals justify their support for this?”

Bristol, there is such convoluted fallacy in your claims that it’s hard to untangle it all, but I feel compelled to try. I’m not even going to go into the critiques of the research and the numbers, as there is extensive discussion in the 350+ comments. Instead, I’m just going to tackle your underlying message.

Let’s even say for the sake of argument that PP is part of some white supremacist eugenics conspiracy being carried out by deliberately locating its clinics in areas populated by non-whites and “marketing” their services thereto. Can we wrap our liberal brains around this just for a moment? If so, the assumptions in Palin’s rhetorical query are that:

1) Liberals necessarily support this alleged eugenics program, as support of abortion rights and abortion availability necessarily means supporting any uses or purpose to which abortion is put. Uh, no.

2) Liberals have historically championed the rights of racial minorities, therefore it is our job exclusively to correct or rectify any perceived violation of those rights.

3) These downtrodden minority members have no voice of their own; they depend upon us liberals to represent them.

4) Implicitly, conservatives neither have nor feel any responsibility toward minorities, and have never recruited them to their ranks nor made any attempt to advance their parity in society. Palin, are you sure you want to put your name to such a claim? Are you sure you want to suddenly cry crocodile tears for all the unborn minority babies after never having shown any interest in the welfare of already-born minority members?

Bristol Palin’s anti-abortion arguments are nearly as ludicrous as her mother’s claim that we should all be OK with nativity scenes in public spaces because after all, the infant depicted therein is “a Jewish baby!”

I’m picturing all the Jews (and others) who oppose the mixing of church and state reading that statement and saying “[slap forehead] Of course! That doll in that plastic manger depicts a Jewish baby! How did I not see that? She’s so right: Remind me: What was the problem with that nativity scene being in the public school entrance? [scratches head]”

It’s one thing to take a stand; but it’s quite another to try to bolster it by playing on our emotions…and insulting our intelligence.

שנתי נדדה בלילה אחרי שקראתי את הפוסט הציני וחסר-הבושה של בריסטול פיילין בבלוג שלה, בו היא טוענת שאגודת "פּלנד פּארנטהוּד" ("הורות מתוכננת") מסמנת עוּבּרים שחורים והיספניים כמטרה להפלות, ומעלה את השאלה: "כיצד יכולים הליברלים להצדיק את תמיכתם בכך?"

 

בריסטול, סברת השווא שעליה מבוססת טענתך היא כל-כך מפותלת שקשה להתיר את הפלונטר כולו, אך אני מחוייבת לפחות לנסות. אני לא הולכת לעסוק בביקורת על המחקר והמספרים, שנידונו כבר בהרחבה בלמעלה מ-350 התגוביות לפוסט שלך. במקום זאת, אתעמת עם המסר שבבסיס טענותייך.

בואו נאמר אפילו לשם הויכוח ש"פלנד פארנטהוד" היא אמנם חלק מקשר להשבחת הגזע מטעם התנועה לעליונות לבנה, המבוצע באמצעות איתור מכוון של מרפאות באזורים עם אוכלוסיה לא-לבנה ו"שיווק" השירותים שלה למרפאות הנ"ל. בואו נמקד את המוחות הליברליים שלנו לרגע סביב ההנחה הזו. אם כך, ההנחות שעליהן מתבססת השאילתא הרטורית של פיילין הן כדילקמן:

1)   הליברלים בהכרח תומכים בתוכנית זו להשבחת הגזע לכאורה, היות ותמיכה בזכות לבצע הפלות ולזמינותן פירושה בהכרח תמיכה בכל סיבה ומטרה שלמענה מתבצעת הפלה. ממש לא.

2)   הליברלים מאז ומתמיד הניפו את דגל הזכויות של המיעוטים האתניים והגזעיים, ולכן זה התפקיד שלנו בלבד לתקן את המעוות כאשר מתקיימת הפרה לכאורה של הזכויות הנ"ל.

3)   לבני המיעוטים הנרדפים אין שום קול משלהם. הם תלויים לחלוטין בנו, הליברלים, שנייצג אותם.

4)   במשתמע, לשמרנים אין שום רגשות או אחריות כלפי המיעוטים, והם מעולם לא גייסו אותם לשורותיהם או ניסו לקדם את שיוויונם בחברה. פיילין, את בטוחה שאת רוצה לצרף את שמך לטענה כזו? את בטוחה שאת רוצה להזיל לפתע דמעות תנין על גורלם של כל תינוקות בני-המיעוטים שלא נולדו, אחרי שמעולם לא גילית שום עניין ברווחתם של אותם בני מיעוטים שכבר נולדו?

      הטיעונים של בריסטול פיילין כנגד הפלות מגוחכים כמעט כמו טענתה של אמה שרה, לפיה כולנו צריכים לחוש בנוח עם הצגתן של סצנות המולד של ישו במקומות ציבוריים כי, אחרי ככלות הכל, הרך הנולד המוצג שם הוא "תינוק יהודי"!

אני מתארת בדמיוני את היהודים (ואחרים) המתנגדים לערבוב דת ומדינה קוראים את הטענה הנ"ל ואומרים: "[טפיחה על המצח] כמובן! הבובה הזו באבוס המלאכותי מפלסטיק מייצגת תינוק יהודי! כיצד לא ראיתי זאת? היא צודקת לחלוטין: מה בכלל הבעיה בהצבתה של סצנת המולד בפתח בית הספר הציבורי? [גירוד בראש]"

דבר אחד הוא לאמץ עמדה; אולם דבר אחר לגמרי הוא לנסות לחזק אותה באמצעות משחק ברגשותינו... ועלבון לבינתנו.

תורגם בנדיבות ע"י עמי ארגמן

Where the girlz are

This fall’s cyber-hubbub over GoldieBlox got me thinking. One of the better evaluations of the new toy that aims to interest girls in STEM (sciences, technologies, engineering, math) was that of Deborah Siegel. I tend to agree that princess-coated though it be, GoldieBlox weighs in on the plus side in terms of its objective, which leads me to dig further down to the matter of teaching our daughters (and sons) about feminism.

Before anyone can counter, “But why are you indoctrinating them ‘one way or another’?” let me say that I firmly believe there is a place for indoctrinating them, if that’s what you want to call it. Humans have inhabited the earth for – what? – 10,000 years, and for about 9,800 of those years, patriarchy dominated. And it still dominates. So our daughters are getting plenty of it, packaged quite slickly and going down oh-so-smoothly. So, yeah, I’m gonna indoctrinate, and I’m not apologizing.

So, once we’ve decided to introduce our daughters to feminism, how do we go about it? It’s indeed a daunting task, so I’m here to de-dauntify it. Just as Caitlin Moran distilled feminism thusly [paraphrasing; I couldn’t find the exact quote]: “If I have to worry about it and men don’t, it’s sexism.” Ready examples are removing body hair and walking unaccompanied after dark. While Moran’s formula works beautifully, it’s a bit out of reach for our little ones. Therefore, along the same lines, I suggest introducing this query into your household lexicon: “Where are the girls?”

The beauty of this query is that as soon as you start asking it, it fits in in every circumstance. For instance, as soon as my kids were old enough to be read to (that starts with picture books before age one, right?) I edited the text in real time. And you know what? They never questioned it, even after they themselves could read. Once you start doing this regularly, you’re surprised to find that nearly every character in children’s books — and invariably the animal characters — can easily be referred to as “she”. There’s no reason on earth that any of the three little pigs, nor the wolf, can’t be females, is there? Once you start asking, “Where are the girls?” there’s no limit to incorporating the answer everywhere, including using “she” and “her” as your default pronoun.

I knew I’d gotten through when my eldest, at the age of seven, was playing with a deck of cards, and she asked me, “Ima, if there’s a násich [Hebrew for “jack”], how come there’s no nisichá? [would-be “jill”, if she existed]. Yay! I thought. She gets it! She’s begun asking ‘Where are the girls?’” Because when you get down to it, where girls and women are absent, there’s an imbalance, and the odds are it’s due to sexism. Yet it’s within our power to correct that imbalance early, at least linguistically and theoretically, which is where all education begins.

Which brings me back to GoldieBlox: If we use the yardstick “Where are the girls?” then GoldieBlox has answered correctly: They’re right there, front and center — constructing, making, thinking, strategizing, producing. And isn’t that, after all, where we want them?

Mystery Photo צילום תעלומה

Taking a break from our regular programming to post this photo