Halloween report, 2011

When I lived in Waco, there were literally hundreds of kids coming to my door on Halloween. I'm not totally sure why, though I think the fact that I lived in a relatively affluent area (Castle Heights) with houses close together might have had something to do with it. I loved seeing all the costumes, and later on when high school students would come by, I had fun giving them things like soap and Vienna sausages.

In Edina,there are not nearly as many kids, but my neighbors are more generous-- one house was apparently giving out full cans of Mountain Dew. Really. Meanwhile, I gave out a mix of tattoos and Vasito Karla Dulces, which is some kind of tamarind/guava-flavored goo from Mexico that I found at the Midtown Global Marketplace.

What's your report? What were the best costumes you saw?

Dressing for Men: Flashy Belts

As my father's and brothers' personal shopper, I am definitely biased to designer labels - for shirts, suits, shoes, ties. 

But not for belts. 

I have seen many a Jew-boy wearing a Ferragamo or Gucci belt, with the horse-bit logo taking up half their belly, but their suit looks supremely lacking, and their tie appears to have been purchased from a street vendor.

Here's the thing: a belt is meant to hold up the pants. It doesn't make a man look skinnier or chicer if it's designer. If it doesn't help the wearer look svelter, then what's the point? 

Instead of investing in a regular-priced designer belt because it's a smaller accessory and so seemingly affordable, purchase one from Marshalls, and save up for a designer suit instead. THAT makes a difference in terms of looks. 

When one wears a good-quality suit, people notice. Ma got my brother-in-law a suit once, and men were actually coming up to him in shul to ask if they could touch it. 

I like men's belts to be brown leather. And no, the shoes do not have to match. The shoes can be black and the belt brown; no worries.

The Winner!

My intern
by: oslerguy

Last week's haiku Friday brought out some great entries-- of course, I just got around to them today, since on Friday I was giving my talk at Baylor (that's me in the video above, with The Intern, and my original plan).

Though there are many strong entries, I felt that this one, by S, was most compelling:

Anticipation!
(bead of sweat) Choices!
Great, horrid choices!

I love it not just because it is true of road food, but almost everything else worthwhile.

Forthwith, her bio:

S was raised on a small farm in a rural part of South Dakota (that is, Sioux Falls). After successfully completing college, she attended Limbaugh University, which is America's Most Conservative and Accurate School of Anything, according to their brochure (capitalization in the original). After college, she took a number of jobs, including each of the following:

- Laundress to Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell III
- Copy Editor for Cat Fancy magazine
- Shrubberer to the Clampett family of Beverly Hills
- Femme de Croissants to both Alec and James Baldwin
- Lt. Col., United States Army
- Actress (credits include Dawn of the Dead, Speedbump (1997 version), Explodar IV (starring Rink Allegro), and several Van Halen, Nickelback, and Yanni videos)
- Assistant embalmer
- Homicide detective, Las Vegas PD
- Reporter for BBC World Service (Dayton Bureau)

Tired of constant tumult in her work, she finally came to law school at St. Thomas, where she now writes a "Celebrity Corner" column for the school paper, the "Grobbler." Congratulations, S!

We're Not The Only Ones With A Dress Code

As the blogosphere attests, many a frummie desires to be chic/hip/stylish as well as dress according to current Judaic standards. I thought that such a topic would not be of interest to the outside world, but as Mormons gain media attention, perhaps with Romney's campaign, NY Times gave them a fashion spotlight. 

“I think there’s an acceptance now that you can look current and interesting but still uphold the values of the Mormon religion,” [Kendra Smoot] added. There are limits, however. According to guidelines on dress and grooming on the church’s official Web site, Mormons are discouraged from wearing immodest clothing, including “short shorts and skirts,” “tight clothing” and “shirts that do not cover the stomach.” They should “avoid extremes in clothing, appearance and hairstyle” and not “disfigure” themselves “with tattoos or body piercings.”

Hey, that's our thing! 

Needless to say, countless Mormons work in fashion, design, art, music and film, and they generally dress and act just like anybody else.  

Um, sound familiar? 

. . . the center of a growing Mormon subculture, populated by creative types who dress like they stepped out of “a modest American Apparel ad,” she said.

Are you kidding me? I thought we copyrighted that image years ago!

Well, well, well. Here we were, shuffling through stores seeking long-sleeved, low-hemmed, high-collared garments, and the Mormons stole our image! 

It's okay, I suppose. There's enough fashion-conscious modesty to go around. I can be generous.

Sunday Reflection: Communion

[Click on the image to enlarge Marta's photo of her hometown]

Last night, I went to a service where the congregation went to the front to receive communion, and then served it to one another. You would take the bread and wine, then turn to serve it to the person behind you. It was very moving, and the involvement of each of us as both receiver and servant was compelling.

I am starting to take the eucharist more seriously as the center of the liturgy. It means something different to me now... like a new mist over that moment.

Eckankar

While in Waco this week, one of my favorite Razorites told me about his stumbling onto the existence of Eckankar, a religion that is apparently based on the teachings of a 40,000 year old warrior.

Intriguingly, the ECK website is big on the more normal aspects of the faith, and light on many details about said warrior. However, it does reveal that their spiritual masters include one who lives on Venus and another who teaches at the "Astral Plane." Also, there is a guy named Paul Twitchell from Kentucky.

Since the ECK Temple is located in Chanhassan, Minnesota, not far from my house, Might this merit a visit?

Battle of the Bulge: Mealtimes

When I started eating healthy and only healthy, I lost five pounds.

I wasn't in an unhealthy weight bracket, but I wanted to take control of my eating habits, and I lost unnecessary weight, which I am not complaining about.

For those who are interested, read on. 

Once the palate is accustomed to healthy foods, then the next step can be taken. 

Step 2: Mealtimes Strictly Enforced

I used to eat constantly and mindlessly. Every time I was bored, I would haul open the fridge door for something to nibble on.

I didn't change that while I adjusted my palate to good foods. But five oranges a day add up, y'know. 

Now, I made sure to be satisfied after breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with no munching in between. After holding myself back for a few weeks, I began to differentiate between hunger and boredom, to the point that unless I was hungry, I did not want to eat. 

The size of the stomach (not the protruding belly; the organ where food is digested) depends on how much one eats. Eat less, and it shrinks. One will feel constant hunger for a bit while cutting down how much one eats, but if one hangs in there, the stomach will adapt and one will be satisfied with less food.

It was a big success for me, I have to say, to eat only by meals. 

While some diet plans claim the necessity of snacks, that does not work for me. Once I start munching, I don't stop. Better if I eat a full meal and wait until the next one.  

And it paid off; I shed another five pounds. 

Haiku Friday: Road Food

You're driving, and driving, and driving some more. It's time to eat... it's time for some road food.

My favorite story about road food came from someone else. For some reason he was driving through West Virginia, and stopped at a diner. He was interested in the fish sandwich, and asked the waitress "what kind of fish is it?"

She said she didn't know, but ducked into the kitchen and emerged with the answer.

"I asked the cook," she announced, "he said it's the square kind."

So... let's haiku about road food. Here is mine:

So delicious, the
Fish that is perfectly square.
Makes it hard to swim!

Now it is your turn. Author a haiku that is roughly 5 syllables in the first line, 7 in the second, and 5 in the third, and you may win the grand prize-- your bio here on Monday.

Hello, Louis

Louis C.K. is, I grant you, a potty-mouthed comedian. However, when he has to make his bits FCC-friendly, he can be thought-provoking as well as hysterical.

Political Mayhem Thursday: More on OWS

Last week, I wrote about the Occupy Wall Street movement, expressing some confusion about what they are after (much as I didn't understand the Tea Party movement back when they actually did some things in public). I got many interesting responses via email, and the best of the lot was this fascinating and informative essay by UST student Phil Steger:

The obvious thing that everyone should be clear that the protesters are upset about is economic inequality in this country. This is plain from the "99% vs. 1%" message that people can spend a lot of time picking apart but miss the main point of. The fact is that over the last 30-40 years, the United States - and the world at large - has experienced an alarmingly unequal distribution of wealth. While the annual incomes and total wealth of the richest 1% and 1/10 of 1% have increased sharply and keep increasing, the annual wages of the bottom 99% have remained stagnant, barely keeping up with and in many cases falling behind inflation. Quibble over where the lines should be drawn - at 1/10 of 1%, 1% or 10% - as you may, the overwhelming fact for the overwhelming majority is that their wages are not keeping up with expenses - healthcare, food, education, housing - and the loans they've taken out for school and homes and consumer products (which the best and brightest and the richest relentlessly pressured them to take out by appeals both to personal self-interest and the interests of national economic growth) means they are always trying to build wealth out of holes. Part of what galls many of us is the fact that the Wall Streeters (meant inclusively to refer to actual Wall St investment bankers, but also lobbyists and congressmembers, big bankers and others who've been aggressively pushing neoliberalism) who pushed and pressured us to borrow in the 90s and 00s, and who paid huge sums to lobby the mostly wealthy congressmembers to bring down the barriers between conventional and investment banks and to remove debt-to-asset rations, and who made 100s of millions of dollars from leveraging our debt and even from betting against it, now have the chutzpah to wag their fingers at our irresponsible borrowing and bad gambles on buying homes and getting the wrong college degrees.

So, there's huge economic inequality. And only the very naive would believe that economic equality doesn't translate into political inequality as the very wealthy consider political contributions and lobbying expenses to be rational investments in creating more favorable business environments for their various interests. This would be true under any system. Under a political system with enormously expensive elections, this is even more so.

So now, we not only see an economy producing enormously rich "winners" (and not all "winners" are equal...few OWSers begrudge Steve Jobs his wealth and fortune because we can see how genius and drive and hard work and interest in people led him to create products many of us love and feel make our lives better...but please explain how hedge fund managers contribute in the same way to our lives) while piling up more and more "losers" of which we see not only ourselves, but our parents, siblings, cousins, neighbors, classmates, and friends. We also see those economic winners cozying up with the policymakers to create rules that tip the balance of factors in favor of the winners, again and again. And this. Drives. Us. Crazy.

This is not just an issue for liberals who tend to value equality over pure liberty, at least in economic matters. It ought to be an issue of extreme concern to conservatives, who, at least until the Republican and Reagan radicalism of the last 30 years, placed stability, security and the preservation of hard-won civil and communal traditions and institutions somewhat ahead of both equality and liberty. Want the division of child against parent? Make the parent rich and the child poor. Make the price for the parent's comfort in old age be the child's opportunity to find a job and raise a family. Want to erode trust in a society's hard-won institutions and rule of law? Make it clear to young people that their votes don't count; only money counts. Deride them as hippies and lazy people, even better, as idiots who were too stupid to see that the world was much more ruthless than their parents taught them it was and that they were morons for not seeing, when they were adolescents, how their future was being mortgaged to pay for babyboomer excesses.

Think of what we're seeing in OWS as a reaction to the radical rewriting of the social contract that's taken place in just one generation. For our grandparents, the social contract was this: everybody pays in, everyone takes out. The better-off and more successful pay in more and take out less in direct services, but nevertheless are in a position to benefit the most from the overall health, strength, growth and stability of the political economy. The harder-luck pay in less and take out more in direct services but are less well-positioned to take advantage of the larger goods. Fair deal. The whole country prospers and we become the most powerful, secure, wealthy nation in the world. Our parents' generation's social contract was this. Why pay in more when you're rich? That's robbery. The rich should pay in less, the poor should take out less. The next generation should learn the value of hard work by being on their own from the get-go. Meanwhile, the rich and middle-age can suck up the benefits of the last generation's investments, earnings and savings with the next generation having no store to draw from. And our country stagnates, falls from its supreme intern national standing to one where, in measures like infant and child mortality, child and adult imprisonment, poverty and disease, it resembles Third World dictatorships.

So, this generation wonders, out loud, in public, in a variety of colorful and off-color ways: WTF?! I know one of your readers was scandalized that one person in the protest saw OWS as an amazing opportunity for random, anonymous sex. Surprise, surprise. Want to erode the value of stable, monogamous relationship and sexual discipline? Create a lot, I mean, a lot, of unemployed young people in the middle of a consumer culture that uses sex to sell everything. Give them nothing productive to do and little future to aspire toward and then hiss "shame, shame" when they decide immediate gratification is the way to go.

Everyone who's been paying attention by now should understand that although the official unemployment rate is a high 9%, that's not the real unemployment rate, in that it doesn't include people who've given up on finding a job, stopped looking, are unemployable. We should also know that the highest unemployment is suffered by the young, the ones to whom the most promises have been made. Some figures place this rate as high as 20%. Moreover, anyone paying attention should realize that we not only have a youth bubble, we have a youth bubble that is MUCH more diverse than our adult bubble. The very people that conservatives have been vilifying and blaming and using to divide the country for the last thirty years - gay people, African-Americans, Latinos - are now larger and larger percentages of the population. In Minnesota alone, 1 in 22 people over 65 is a person of color, but among children under 18, 1 in 3 are of color. Today's youth not only reject the scapegoating of minority populations, they are members of or best friends with those populations. And for members of these populations, the unemployment rates are again much higher, not just for the youth, but for their parents, too.

Want to know why young people are complaining about student loans? Back to social contract. A generation ago, a college degree was a distinct advantage in an economy that had a lot of great, blue collar jobs. It was a way out of hard, physical work, but was by no means the only route by which to attain the middle class. Then, globalization started up. There was a chance for the richest to make more money by sending manufacturing overseas where the labor was a fraction of the price. We were told, alternatively, that globalization was a) a force of human nature that could not be stopped and b) a good thing that would make us all richer. We were offered this promise: Let us create free trade zones all over the world, letting manufacturing jobs drain away to other shores, and we'll educate and train you to be at the top of the globalized economic food chain. Either way, we were told that the key thing for us was to get a college education. In the knowledge economy, thinkers would be rewarded. Meanwhile, globalization made competition for top teaching and research talent more expensive, so tuition had to go up. Moreover, the well-funded republican movement succeeded in selling the mantra of "no new taxes" and "cuts, cuts, cuts" using deficit scares and bullying to accomplish both cuts in financial aid and halts in the growth of education spending and, at the same time, tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, many of whom had already taken full advantage of globalization to offshore their wealth and avoid paying taxes on their income and wealth. So the deal was: get your education and prosper in the globalized economy; globalization is good, for everyone. But it's not. It might be inevitable (a moot point now, since we've thrown everything open and there's no unthrowing it), but it is plainly, manifestly, painfully not good for everyone. It is very, very, very, very good for a very few. Good for a few more. And very, very, very disruptive, unsettling and disadvantaging to the very many. Want to erode loyalty to the nation and a sense of patriotism? Have an economy where the best off view the nation as a resource pool to draw from and haul away to fantastically rich tax havens, far away from national law and national responsibility.

If globalization is inevitable, as it probably now is, then it is manageable as a country, SO LONG AS we feel we're all in it together. But we don't. The plainest message of all over the last 20 years is that we are not all in it together. You're on your own. If you're not successful, it's your own fault. Don't bother me. Rot there. By yourself.

You want a country that's going to make it through the next decade as a national union, a unity, a whole? You don't want a permanent underclass of disaffected youth preventing you from seeing plays on Broadway or visiting Times Square or whatever? You don't want America to fall further into class division and resentment, too poor, undereducated, unprepared for the demands of global competition? Then you better be about the business of genuinely understanding what young people are feeling and figuring out what to do about it. Hold your nose if you don't like the smell of hippies.

Not Quite Yet

My grandmother, getting on in years, decided a while back to get for herself a full-time woman. She's gone through a few by now, but she currently has the most amazing, lovely, caring lady that we all adore. She's kind, she's educated, she's interested in and respectful of frum Jewish culture.

A cousin of mine who is still in her teens got engaged. My grandmother is furious about this imminent marriage as I am still available, despite the fact that we are both her descendants.

But Bobby's woman initially thought it was me that got be-ringed, and she was horrified. Why?

She doesn't want me to give up my independence so soon.  

And, she added, I should hold out for a man who will take care of me (she doesn't get this "sitting and learning" thing).

I hope she doesn't go home anytime soon. She's doing wonders for my ego.

A brief theological insight...

Yesterday, I talked to the Lex Vitae group at UST about engaging in civil discourse about important issues.

Part of my regret about our current political discourse is that there is so little of it-- that is, real and worthwhile discussion about what is important. People tend to talk to those who agree with them, because it is too risky to discuss tough topics with those who may oppose (and castigate) us.

Intriguingly, Christ did not seem to shy from discussion with those who disagreed with him the most. Consider how many of his conversations were with the Pharisees, for example; he always answered their questions, and at times it seems like they were just walking around town together.

A good example?

Marriage, The Roma Way

I have found myself, despite my protestations, succumbing to more and more reality television. I have now been sucked, much to my chagrin, into My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.

I was initially intrigued by the dresses; the ads display gowns so large that the brides spend their weddings tripping and stumbling and poking eyes out. Underneath, the skin is rubbed raw and bleeding from the weight.  Emerging from the wedding day with scars is considered normal.

 

I find the dresses magnificent. A bit much, but still fabulous. In an age of less is more, ungepachkit gowns are rather appealing to see. I'm not a fan of minimalist wedding frocks, slender casual dresses lacking pomp and circumstance.

After tuning in, the Roma culture itself is rather interesting. They marry very young; brides of 16 are normal. "Long in the tooth" can be 22. While their daily attire can be rather . . . revealing, they have very strict moral standards. They don't date nor are they engaged very long.

The reality show depicts the Travellers and Roma (technically two separate ethnic groups) not in the most flattering of terms, according to the internet outrage, so I shan't relate any more as their culture, like any other, is not so simply depicted. (For instance, I once stumbled upon British reality series about the lives of observant Manchester Jews, and they were happy to make us look insane. The three episodes were available on koshertube, but they appear to have been deleted).

These girls dream of their wedding for years, the same way any other typical girl would. I always found that concept to be sad, how girls can spend years longing and planning for this one day. 

Sure, I think about a hypothetical wedding, and I may have a dress designed in my head, and perhaps I already know which makeup artist I'll be using, but I think that once I have a guy, I would be happy to be married in a rabbi's study. 

The idea of "MY day," and spending entire savings on it, I don't get. For some, the memories of their wedding will have to buoy them for years to come, and they know it. I hope my own joy and lifelong satisfaction doesn't have to depend on one day of celebration. 

Dispatch from the Minnesota DMV

My paper for Friday was done and out, and by 10:30 yesterday morning I was ready for class and my presentation at St. Thomas today. Having checked off those tasks, I headed out for a long-dreaded trip to the DMV, to get a car registered here in Minnesota.

In Detroit, the DMV was the 8th Circle of Hell. It was like an emergency room without the medical attention-- lots of sick and damaged people waiting endlessly as their conditions worsened. It was only slightly better in Waco, where at least hey were reasonably efficient.

Rather than heading home to Edina's DMV, I slogged down to the office at Chicago and Lake in Minneapolis, which is located across the street from Chicago Liquor (which looks to have all the friendliness one might expect at a Chicago liquor store-- or at least the burglar bars).

The DMV is in a basement, so I went down and got in a short line to check in. Actually, there were only a few people in front of me and a few behind, and it moved so quickly that I had little time for eavesdropping. Still, I could pick up some things... the couple behind me spoke to one another in Spanish, and the woman in front of me was from Eritrea, and had her Uncle there to translate. Suddenly, the place was becoming more interesting. The translating uncle had the most beautiful voice, like velvet, and it was better in Tigrinya, as he explained things to his niece. They were registering a truck, it seemed, and the clerk nodded and smiled, and drew it on a bit of paper, and they all laughed and that was done.

I got a number and a form, and as I finished the form my number was called. I went to the counter and three minutes later I was done-- much of that consumed by my trying to locate my checkbook.

Then I walked upstairs, into the Midtown Global Market. Crikeys! That place has everything-- provided that what you are looking for is books in Swedish or Mexican candy marked "Not for sale in the USA"-- which is exactly the kind of thing I usually am looking for.

Suffice it to say, come to my house this halloween if what you are after is cucumber-flavored lollipops or tamarind gum!

Shrew!

The other day The Taming of the Shrew (1967) was on TCM. While Elizabeth Taylor is wearing too much makeup for Renaissance Italy, the film is rather entertaining. It also has Michael York in a supporting tole, and I always found his voice soothing.

While Elizabeth seems a bit much, keep in mind Katherine is a drama queen. This translation deals well with Katherine's eventual and inexplicable deference to Petruchio (played with swinish abandon by Richard Burton, Elizabeth's recurring husband); one can see that he has not tamed her, merely she gets with the program that instead of shrieking, she'll have to demurely manipulate him. Since his method to break her was to "kill a wife with kindness," he has it coming.  

You go, girl.

I suppose feminists could have a field day with this play. Here we have a strong woman (when Katherine has the soliloquy about women's soft and weak bodies, I want to laugh; never mind her ability to give others a black eye, what about basic childbirth?)

But consider; times haven't changed so much. Baptista (Katherine's father) will not marry off his other daughter, the lovely (meaning sweet tempered) Bianca until the elder harpy is wed.

The first in, first out policy has only recently been repealed in some Jewish circles. Even in more chilled-out homes, I heard it said even about the sons.

There was a guy I went out with once (and happily never saw again) who was working (in a very good job I might add) and later married a lovely girl. It was said before I went out with him that the mother wanted him married and out of the way since his younger brother, the learner, would be a "hot commodity" and so quickly snapped up. It took him five years after the elder brother's wedding. Snort. 

I am happy I don't have sibling issues in that department. 

A girl I know went out with a guy, and said, "You would be perfect for my older sister." And he was. 

I've been the cheese, standing alone, since I was a teenager. And what I know is that turning into a Katherine while dealing with the dating world is all to easy. 

"Lea, please," my mother begs. "Don't give me a hard time about this." 

Good thing I don't have a sweet-tempered sister to make me look bad. Then I'd be foisted onto a Petruchio. Ew.

Congratulations, Bob!

Our winner from Haiku Firday? Bob! Here was his winning submission, complete with subtle golf reference:

Hey IPLawSmurf:
Careful! You are treading on
Some dangerous turf!

Here, forthwith, is his life story:

Bob graduated from Baylor Normal School (as it was then known) in 1936 with a bachelor of arts in fashion merchandising and dentistry. He was the editor of The Round Up (Baylor's Wrestling Magazine) and was elected Outstanding Senior Man (Misdemeanors). He received a surveying certificate from the University of North Texas in 1938. His thesis, "Between Dallas and Fort Worth: Separating East From West With Barbed Wire, Spit, and Vinegar" was later released as an R-Rated educational filmstrip by the Markham Press. From 1938 to 1986, Darden was Cars and Pets Editor for The Waco Tribune-Herald. He also wrote for a number of magazines including Road & Track, Cat Fancier, AutoWeek, Tabby Fan, Lew's Automotive Monthly, and Kitty Kar Digest. In 1985, he was the ghostwriter for the autobiography of Toonces, the Cat That Could Drive a Car, a project that finally combined his two great loves.

In 1986, Bob received a Rotary Foundation Fellowship to study the role of cats in film at the University of Bristol in England, home of Britain's largest academic program focused on cats. During this time, he was bitten by a radioactive cat during a science experiment that went horribly wrong, an incident that led to a hospitalization of nearly seven months and the acquisition of strange new powers-- including retractible claws, a long tail, and a supersensitive sense of smell. Upon his return to the United States, he was briefly a member of the Justice League, a term which ended badly with what later became known as the "hairball incident."

In 1988, after a semester of teaching several courses in breaking and entering at Texas State Technical College, Bob began freelancing full time as a scent consultant, He accepted a Baylor tenure-track position in smelling in fall 1999, and received tenure in spring 2001.

His articles and short stories have appeared in Cat Fancy, Cat Fancier, Modern Cat, Feline Fascinations, and many other magazines, newspapers and journals. He has been interviewed or featured on All Things Considered, Tapestry (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) and Fresh Air, and has been interviewed in The New Yorker. He also appeared in the movie "Catwoman," which starred his former fiancé, Halle Berry.

Bob lives in Waco with his lovely and talented wife Mary and is a deacon at Seventh & James Baptist Church. He is the drummer for After Midnight, a popular Waco-based R&B band.

Comment on my commentary...

... from Neil Alan Willard. See it here.

Tchias HaMeisim

The reigning shoe of today is Louboutin, in all its freakishly tall glory. 

I, personally, do not drool over them the way some do. In my view a shoe has to look good, not necessarily be the "in" shoe. I know of some who pursue Louboutins, but since they are reduced to the affordable yet still in-stock items, they end up purchasing pairs that are unflattering. But hey, they have red soles, so who cares if their feet look deformed.

But does anyone remember, how but a few years ago, the Queen of Saks was the Manolo? 

The Manolo Blahnik reached Louboutin-like heights not so long ago after Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) began crooning to them through store windows. "Hello, lover."  

It seems, despite getting ground underfoot, the Manolo has arisen from the dust to reclaim (at least, partially) its glory. 

While they are infinitely tamer than the Louboutin, they are also more wearable, both in terms of comfort and chicness. 

While these are tall, they are at least PRETTY.

Arriving for her Vogue shoot last spring, Ms. Parker entered a dressing room filled with the latest styles and a wall of shoes secured for the sitting by Tonne Goodman, a seasoned editor at Vogue. “I walked in and looked around and saw all these shoes, and then I spotted the Manolos and it was like water in a desert,” Ms. Parker said. “I was just so excited to see a simple black pump.”

Welcome back. 

Sunday Reflection: Wisdom Not My Own

This Friday, I am presenting a paper that summarizes some of my core ideas about teaching. I have included the introduction below, and welcome your comments.

When I was a federal prosecutor, I got to be a tangential player in one of the great and compelling dramas in American law—a beautiful juxtaposition of transgression and truth, violence and principle.

A man (it was nearly always a man) would run from the police. He had robbed a bank, or sold narcotics, or fled the border, and was caught. He would run across a street, a field, a frozen lake, pursued by three or four officers. When he was caught, as he usually was, he would be thrown to the ground, rolled over, a knee would be placed roughly on his neck to hold him in place, and his hands would be shackled behind his back while he writhed on the ground.

It would be then—after the man was subdued but while he still struggled—that the most remarkable thing would happen. One of the officers would reach, still breathing heavily, into his pocket, retrieve a card, and read aloud the Great Principles of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment:
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you.
If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.
You can decide at any time to stop any questioning….

What a glorious, amazing thing! There in that rough field or alleyway, the improbable is recited—that we do not force confessions, that we value counsel, and that we do not favor the rich over the poor. These are principles. These exemplify wisdom. And, sadly, they are rarely addressed as such in law school, where we bury ourselves in rules that have come to encase those principles within a thick coat of opaque and hoary jurisprudence.

This paper has a simple premise: That if we are to teach towards wisdom in addition to knowledge, we must teach principles in addition to rules. Principles, unlike rules, allow room for personal agency, inner conflict, and the entry of the Holy Spirit—a perfect recipe for wisdom.

Allowing our students a route to wisdom requires that we teach principles as well as rules, and that we distinguish between the two. In the end, when we see true wisdom—in heroes from Aristotle to Martin Luther King, Jr.—we see it in those who pursued principle even when those principles transgressed the rules.

It's semi-official....

I'm going Episcopal.

The (intriguing) musings of Sean Cahill

In response to my piece in the Star Tribune last week, Sean Cahill (a sharp UST law grad and former student of mine) sent me some thoughts that I thought merit broader reading:

1. Moral/Religious Conversation in America

A. Liberals/Secular Society's Need, But Failure, To Be Fluent In Moral Thought/Beliefs

My greatest disappoint in liberal society is it willingness to ignore thousands of years of philosophy and theology in light of a political agenda. I think anyone who has spent serious time reading St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, or C.S. Lewis realizes that the questions and answer posed by Christianity are not easily dismissed or ignored. However, many liberals absolutely refuse to engage with these thoughts...and in many cases, it is because they cannot. Many simply are not fluent in religious language, much less moral language. If you put a devout Christian (or any member of faith), a moderate person of faith/secularity, and an avowed atheist into one room and ask them to talk morality- it is like ships passing in the night. No common grounds, no common language, no common starting points. We need to find that common language. I'd argue that the language needs to be based one steeped in the language of traditional norms and that the non-religious must learn it.

But why the place the burden on non-religious rather than the religious? I'd argue that since non-religious movements are trying confront "traditional" notions, they bear the burden of proofs, so to say. As the ones pushing for change, I believe that they bear the burden of presenting their case in terms which address the principles and concerns of the traditional. Traditional norms are not without their validity because they have offered some sort of stability and reasonable governance of society. In addition, their values are legitimate- if God does exists, there is definite reason to be concerned with his thoughts on the matter. Liberals need to be able to discuss how they appreciate and have considered those traditional norms and why their liberal is not completely removed from other valid norms. There is a fantastic book called, Imagined Communities from a historian named Benedict that highlights that new governments/social movements must generally claim the heritage of an early community to be considered legitimate. By adopting the mantle of a previous community, the new movement shows that is based on something that once was legitimate, but lost. I think this an essential part to advocating a new idea because it validates our human experience and previous trials. By grounding a new thought in an old idea- we both validate the traditional and empower the new. That being said, in the current issue, I think "queer theology" is just emerging from its nascent beginnings and is struggling to develop itself. Where academics are struggling, it is no surprise that average people are without the language to deal with the issue. In summary, the language may not be there yet...but maybe once we can do that, the issue will much more quickly resolved

An important distinction, however, is the difference between the militant scientist/atheist and the moderate, average person on only engages in superficial or generalized discussion. The militant refuses to embrace moral/religious language on the basis that it is founded and derived from a fantastical (in the derogatory sense) story or imagined construct. Consequently, the language and thought process itself is flawed based on a mistaken (or assumed) first principle- God exists. In contrast, the militant scientist's insistence on proof, evidence and objective measurements is naturally abhhorent to persons of faith. The refusal to even consider the other side's evidence or language of explanation pretty much ensures that any attempted discussion is dead on arrival.

On the flip side, I think philosopher's tend to be a bit more forgiving given that philosophy has tried to play with concepts of a "first mover" and the nature of non-physical existence. (I.e., "Cogito,ergo sum." or its Chrisitan predecessor from St. Augustine: "Pecco, ergo sum"). Maybe we all need to be a little more like philosophers and not activists.

However, I think most people cannot approach religious discussions because they don't have the tools. From lack of language of itself (i.e.,even a working, comprehensive definition of the idea of "faith" is hard to come by) to an inability to withhold our personal convictions (and interepreting disagreement as personal affronts), people are quite unable to speak on the issue at all without considerable frustration and pain. The few chances we take in offering controversial opinions is often met with derision and anger because we are neither understood in our offer nor understanding of a response. I.e. "I think gays are entitled to equal rights." Response: "Thats because you failing to consider God's intended purpose." Counter: "God's 'purpose' is an archaic notion that has no place dictating modern policy." In three lines, everyone is offended because we can't listen and respond in terms that are not offensive to the other side. Again, a common, respectful approach is required, but not presently embraced.

Also, most people do not have time or desire to commit to this type of discussion. "I'm just going to think what I want, and leave me alone" sort of mentality. As a society, we need to acknowledge that we are being confronted with dramatically different ways of viewing and understanding our human existence. No one can afford to sit on the sidelines. If anything, we all need to practice and live argument so that when someone from the opposing side speaks, we can at least understand and respond.

B. Greater Need For Acknowledgment and Articulation of Atheist/Secular Morality

A common problem with dealing with atheism and/or secular morality is there are little resources or persons who can present an organized, rational articulation of an atheist morality. I'm not saying it does not exist, but it does not have the benefit of 2000 years of human history to write down. Serious efforts need to be taken by atheism/secularism to develop its own moral system. For starters, I think one needs to start with a valuation of the human person and the human experience. Indeed, if our goal is "equal rights," it seems necessary that an atheist principle must espouse why there is a need for rights at all. Again, I'm not saying such explanations do not exist, I just contend they are neither readily available, widely shared, or commonly known. And without it, the religious have nothing to engage or compare itself with.

Conversely, members of faith needs to at least appreciate that atheism/secularism is not practically evil. While we may disagree fundamentally, that does not mean that we cannot find common practical grounds to share and espouse. This is sort of a "ends matter, means do not" type argument. By at least, turning to practical similarities (i.e., violence is bad), we can at least attempt to craft reasonable laws and/or mores.

C. Science Is At Its Limit In Issues of Sexuality

With respect to human sexuality, there is a lot of new questions posed by science that do not have answers. Transgender issues and experiences raise troubling questions that shatter assumptions about physicality, the nature of gender, and morality associated with perceived gender roles. Yet, no answers can provided! We have yet to explain why transgenderism or homosexuality occurs in nature, its effects, or the consequences it has on others who are exposed to it. (I.e., the notion of "gay parents=gay kids."). There is a huge vacuum in science. Like homosexulaity, where the religious cry out: "Disordered Love!!"; scientists are left to respond: "But it seems okay, practically...." without a whole lot of evidence. Dealings with love, emotions, and attraction are still fairly mysterious to us, I'd argue. Until science can provide some evidence on its own terms (i.e. objective, measurable data) or atheist system of values/philsopgy , the conversation will be inflammatory and derisive.

2. Who Is Talking? Academia, Not Media Punditry, Needs to Step Up and Actively Participate

I'll give you kudos for this one. I think you're unique in your approach that you're willing to take a public stance on issues and reflect on them in an open forum. More academics need to do just that- reflect in public. With the growing rise of individualistic media, larger media corporations are abandoning principles of neutrality. (The debate whether "neutrality" existed at all is a whole other question...) Regardless, with the rise of position-drive media, there is a greater need for experienced "thinkers" to serve as examples of reasonable, thoughtful consideration. Pundits don't serve as examples of moderation or exemplify how a general citizen may approach and weigh an issue; they merely offer catchy phrases and snarky bullets that are easily repeated. What we need are conversations in which a person can both validate and empower both sides of the issue. Instead of find ways to shoot down one side, commentators need to find ways in which they can acknowledge and co-opt opposing principles.

In short, reflection, meditation, and conversation are not celebrated or exhibited methods to approaching an issue. In a world dominated by definitive, bombastic headlines, "Maybe" has no place. We should be turning to reasoned consideration rather than popularist advocacy to answer these issues. Otherwise, we end up isolating everyone and no one wants to get together at all to do anything constructive. But then again, when has "shut up and listen" ever been popular?

Haiku Friday: Welcome, IPLawSmurf!

It's wonderful to welcome a new character to the blog, one who showed up out of the blue (so to speak) yesterday. Welcome to IPLawSmurf!

I can only assume that this guy is working as a low-paid associate to IPLawGuy at his large law firm. This much we can assume: He is blue, he cares deeply about intellectual property, and he has found his way over to the Razor.

So, let's welcome IPLawSmurf in Haiku! Feel free to offer advice about the Razor, modern America, or just about anything else. I would suggest using the first line of "Hey, IPLawSmurf!" Here is mine:

Hey, IPLawSmurf!
It's good times at the Razor,
Now there's two Christines...

Go ahead and make your own-- just make sure it is more or less 5 syllables for the first line, 7 for the second, and 5 for the third. As usual, the prize will be your bio here on Monday....

Political Mayhem Thursday: Occupy Wall Street

I'm as baffled by Occupy Wall Street as I am by the Tea Party protests, neither of which seem to have a coherent core of belief.

I think that the Tea Party movement was in large part driven by private money and older people who had some personal beef with the government-- a perception informed mainly by the Tea Party people I talked to (one of whom was upset because he had been rejected in his bid for Social Security Disability checks).

The Occupy Wall Street protests are (unlike the Tea Party) not something I have personally observed, but they seem even more unfocused and are driven largely by unemployed people who have time on their hands and anger to express.

The media seems to think that Occupy Wall Street is a significant development, but I am not so sure it is going to have an impact-- being vaguely mad at rich people is not much of a political platform.

What do you think is going on?

Overheard - Rather, Said in My Presence

Woman 1: "You know about that lovely girl that lives next to me, right?"

Woman 2: "Oh, yes! She's amazing. Sooooo accomplished." (voice drops to serious tone) "Did she ever get married?"

Woman 1: (shakes head sorrowfully) "No."

Woman 2: "How old is she now? 23? 24?"

Halloween 1994

As you can see in the photo above, I was the Original Box Head Guy-- it was my Halloween costume in 1994. I'm not sure what Eric Drummond, in the photo next to me, was supposed to be, exactly. It was the '90's.

What you can't see in the photo is that I have a trick up my sleeve. I had procured a "tongue-activated half mouse," a little gizmo where you put what looked like the back half of a mouse in your mouth, and you could wiggle the tail by jiggling a button with your tongue. It was excellent-- when people tried to find out who was in the box, I would take it off and wiggle the tail of the mouse.

Notably, this was before 9/11, and thus our Lebanese friend could go as a terrorist:



I had several great Halloweens in Waco, too, including one with a fortune teller... now that's fun. And a little spooky, looking back on it...

The One, The Only . . .

He's baaaaaaaaack. 

I have been eagerly awaiting the resumption of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Navi shiur, and according to a schedule I uncovered, it will begin October 22 at 9 pm (eastern standard time). 

Here is a list of locations that link up to TCN, or Torah Conferencing Network.

I cannot recommend him highly enough if one wants to be inspired. He also gives mussar better than anyone else I know (he has an adept hand at Jewish guilt, and he says the "fire and brimstone" method was no longer viable after churban bayis rishon). 

For those who are unable to attend, his book Pathways of the Prophets, which is composed of his Navi shiurim over the years, is a great read. I've probably bought five of them in all, as I kept giving them as gifts. 

Halloween...

Should I be Box-Head-Guy? Any better ideas?

I Tried. I Really Tried.

It has become obvious that the Colorscience Sunforgettable Mineral Powder in Perfectly Clear is too dark for my skin tone. Before I give the lighter shade, All Clear, a shot, I wanted to try other available brands.

BareMinerals is the highest rated and best selling mineral makeup out there, and I really wanted to like it.

I bought: 

Light: straight yellow. 
Golden Fair: too yellow. 
Fairly Light: too orange. 

They all went back. 

Then, I tried Korres Wild Rose Mineral Foundation.

Light: too dark.
Fair: too orange. 

Both went back. 

I was starting to feel what Jon Stewart sadly called John Boehner: "You misguided tangerine."

I didn't give the Philosophy The Supernatural Airbrushed Canvas a second look because the lightest shade (warm ivory, or something like that) was straight brown. 

Clinique Superbalanced Powder Makeup was too dark as well. I was really bummed about that as I really like the idea of freshly-shaved makeup.

I do have a mineral makeup that is positively gorgeous, which is the Dior Diorskin Nude Natural Glow Face Powder Makeup in Light Beige 020. It's not even in the lightest shade available, yet with these other companies I cannot find something light enough.

It's odd, because I do not have porcelain white skin. Not remotely.

There are many makeup companies who are not able to  (or will not) accommodate some skin tones.When Calvin Klein first came out with makeup, Ma was told by the sales associates that she can do nothing for her porcelain white skin. Yes, there is prejudice against skin color amongst cosmetic companies.

I do not want to cheapen the divine effect of Dior  by buffing it on daily, and additionally I want a mineral makeup with a little more SPF to cover my bases. 

But after spending many cumulative hours in-store and online, I am near frustrated tears. 

I have one last option:  

Sephora Mineral Foundation Compact in D10.

Here goes . . .

With baited breath, I swish it on . . . 

Go out into sunlight . . . 

YEEEEEEEEEES! Victory! 

While previously I would have preferred a mineral makeup with at least SPF 30 for weekday, the Elta MD that I apply beneath keeps me covered. 

I buff it on with my drugstore-issue mineral foundation brush, and my face is actually now the same color as my neck! Ha ha! 

It's a tie!

Now that I have purchased the blog back from RRL, it falls to me to judge the haiku contest. My decision: It's a tie!

First, we have this dazzler from Neil Alan Willard:

Free gifts at Christmas
Blitzen always resented.
“They don’t deserve them.”

Also in first, this winner from the always-stellar Megan Willome:


No squib was Neville.
Augusta sent a howler--
unnecessary.

Coincidentally, I can do a bio on both... because their life stories are tragically intertwined.

It was the 90's at Wake Forest, a fine school deep in the piney woods of North Carolina. It is a school where football is a forgotten stepchild, basketball is an afterthought, but liturgical dance is king. And the king of liturgical dance was Neil Alan Willard. He swept the school championship with a triumphant performance based on the first stanza of Song of Solomon's second chapter, leaving the audience literally in tears before rising as one in full-throated roar.

Meanwhile, in Central Texas, liturgical dance was almost unknown, due to the fear of dancing. Yet one woman soldiered on, performing where she could-- Unitarian potlucks, stoner weddings, SXSW-- and honed her skills until she was the best liturgical dancer no one ever heard of.

It is inevitable that the two would meet, and they did: In the national finals, which were part of Liturgi-Con 1995 in Jeffersonville, Tennessee. The theme was "Noah after the flood," a challenging passage for any dancer. Too challenging, it turned out, as both were arrested for indecency for their separate performances and the grand prize was awarded to the third-place finisher, Box Head Guy.

Congratulations!

Dorian Gray vs. His Portrait

A fellow shul-member approached my mother telling her that she is quite impressed with my davening.

I was taken aback. My davening is not exactly stellar. While in high school I was able to enter a plane of trance-like prayer to the point that my head buzzed upon surfacing, my davening nowadays is rather pathetic. I'm unable to focus the way I would like, easily distracted by the silliest thoughts ("She wore that? But she's so pretty! Why would she put on a horrible waist-obscuring top like that?") While my nose may be piously planted inside the siddur, believe me, my head is elsewhere.

We really only see the outward appearance of people. Not the inside.

One never knows what is going on in other people's lives. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Some may think that others are enjoying wonderful lives; maybe they aren't. Nor do we know the true worth of a person based on the outside. 

When I left the "ghetto" for the outside world (college) and met other Jews (waddya know? There are other types of Jews!) it definitely took my brain some time to recalibrate. I found myself focusing on another's personality rather than the outward appearance I was used to. 

After meeting many amazing, admirably religious people who would not qualify as "tznius" by my former BY, I no longer use rulers as a gauge for individual worth. While I abide by the hems/sleeves/collar requirements  for myself (with a little wiggle room) I do not expect another Jew to. 

Take as well the concept of physical beauty. How often have I met someone, male or female, thinking them to be oh-so-bad looking, but after ten minutes in their company they have become the most beautiful person in the room? Perhaps they don't photograph well, but if they are given the chance to converse one-on-one they are positively stunning. 

A while back there was a "controversy" - Michell Bachmann was featured in Newsweek, and the cover photo made her look loony.

Jon Stewart (hysterical, as always) said that there are many things that can be said about Michele Bachmann, but she is definitely photogenic. Therefore, Newsweek had look long and hard to find an unflattering shot.

"This one could be a shampoo ad!" - Jon Stewart

You don't need a bad photo to prove she's crazy, Jon said, "Because that's what her words are for." (Example: The HPV vaccine causes mental retardation in 12-year-olds).

Let us give the non-photogenic a chance. Because the ones that look great aren't necessarily keepers.

Sunday Reflection: My Neighbor

Yesterday, I drove my mom from Minneapolis down to Chicago, and this evening I sat on a porch in the cool fall air with my mother and father and sister, eating and laughing. There is a gentleness to such days; they can't be forced.

Yesterday's article in the Star Tribune lead to a lot of wonderful messages, from some people I knew and many I didn't (but now I do). One asked why I wrote it, and the truth is this: On Thursday afternoon, I heard Dale Carpenter of the University of Minnesota speak very eloquently on the issue at St. Thomas, and then on Friday morning, working on something else, I found myself reading the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where Jesus announces the Two Great Commandments.

To me, that moment in which Jesus answers the lawyer's question is freighted with great meaning. It marks the shift in our faith from the primacy of rules to the primacy of principles-- after all, they ask Jesus what the greatest commandment (or rule) is, and he answers with two principles (love God, and love your neighbor).

Principles are harder than rules, because they require such active engagement on our part. They tell us how we should think about something in deciding on an action, not what to do, and that is hard work.

Hard work, though, is a blessing, as I was reminded again today, even amidst the gentleness of fall.

In Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune...

is this piece I wrote after a debate on gay marriage at St. Thomas on Thursday of this week. Let me know what you think!

Meanwhile, I am taking my Mom down to Chicago today, on her way back to Detroit. We will get to spend the night with my sister Kathy, pictured here doing some kind of race my mom probably doesn't know about:

I have repurchased the blog from RRL!

Osler buys a blog
by: oslerguy

Where Have You Been All My Life?

Us tall girls don't have an easy time with shidduchim, simply because every guy suggested turns out to be a pygmy. Not that I object to a man shorter than me, just they get particularly nasty.

Then, it finally happened . . . I went to a wedding, and all the guys there, I mean practically every one, was tall. Six footah, as the Bobbies would say.

She looks a lot like mine.

I felt like a kid in a candy store. 

"Look! Can I have that one? Never mind, how about him, his head practically brushes the ceiling! Ooh, ooh, let's get him!" 

I whirled about in childlike glee, ecstatic at the options available, noticing how I was getting speculative glances rather than murderous glares. 

And then I bumped into her. 

Since she hijacked me for quite some time and I was only staying for the chuppah, my shopping spree was cut short.

I sadly slunk through the door, knowing a sale like this doesn't happen often, woefully bidding a silent goodbye to all the  merchandise. 

Dang.

Yes, You CAN Trim Your Own Bangs

Here's a video that provides tips on cutting one's own bangs.

I've had bangs since age 4 due to a gigantic forehead, but they suit so many face shapes. 

I found these tips to be quite helpful. 

Judgmental? Me?

I went to B&H to buy an electrical accessory, and I was being helped by (who else?) a chassidishe fellow. Pathetically, I felt a need to prove my heimishness, and began to shamelessly drop Yiddish terms, which he was rather unimpressed by. 

While waiting for my item to be fished out from the basement stockroom, a Hispanic worker came by and they chatted. She was complaining about having to greet the customers in the doorway as the cold air made her shoulder ache. 

She walked away, and the chassid said that she had just gotten a tattoo on that shoulder. 

I expressed my perplexity in terms of tattoo allure - the pain, the permanence. 

He looked disapprovingly at me. "It's another lifestyle," he admonished. 

That really gave me something to chew on. 

Divisiveness nowadays is based usually on the flimsiest of premises - skirt length, Cholov Yisroel vs. Stam, velvet or knit kapul. In other words, sinas chinum: baseless hatred. 

 

Many smaller communities outside New York are more welcoming of their fellow neighbor. A relative of mine in Australia doesn't eat in the house of her best friend - there's a real problem with her kashrus, but they are still BFFs. In many areas, everyone does their own thing and no one holds that against them. 

But I think the divisiveness stems from another area; I think many of us don't trust ourselves, and in order to feel as though they are "proper" they have to alienate themselves from true, kind, frum people for rather shvach (weak) reasons. 

These people are not the "chaver ra." That person will incite others into bad behavior. They simply don't do things exactly like you.

Acceptance is the understanding of who one is, yet welcoming those whose lifestyles are not the same.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz wrote an article called, "Why Doesn't Religion Make Us Better People?"

. . . that of the person who is very particular about religion, but sees it only as a form of ritual. For him, religious practice does not have any meaning — except for going through a routine in a particular way. While such people may be good or evil by nature, ritual life may become mechanical. Over time, they may be more and more involved with meticulous observance. They may measure others only by the way they, themselves, practice religion. They may see observance as an excuse for avoiding any good deeds that are not part of the ritual. And sometimes ritual practice even serves as atonement for very immoral behavior in other arenas, or for belittling or despising other religions. They see God as an idol that demands sacrifices — the sacrifice of other human beings.

This line that ends off with nutshells it: 

Both wisdom and faith work much better when the worshipper identifies with them internally rather than being tamed to show them off externally.