Ramble on Morality and the Global Economy

In advance, I'm really sorry that this is super not-uplifting. I think it's legit though.

For today's Quaker class, we read this Pendle Hill pamphlet by David Morse called "John Woolman on Today's Global Economy." Basically, John Woolman was this Quaker dude in the 1700s who wasn't a fan of slavery, and he boycotted slave-made products and traveled around telling other people why slavery was bad. That was super radical for his time. In the pamphlet, Morse uses Woolman's life as a point of comparison to today's world and all the injustices that go on - how would Woolman have responded? (WWWD?)

The clothes you're wearing, unless you got them all from American Apparel or another sweat-free source, were probably made by slave labor or children or under other horrible working conditions in some other country. Seriously. Check the tag. Does it say "Made in the USA"? Didn't think so. My sweatshirt says "Made in Lesotho." I've never even heard of Lesotho and I as a consumer am probably exploiting people there. (It's this one, for the record, one of the ones that's landlocked in the middle of South Africa.) My t-shirt was made in Pakistan, my jeans in China, and my leggings in Latvia. Children weave carpets in Nepal who sleep next to their looms, get no education or medical care, don't eat enough, end up with horrible ailments, and will probably be sexually abused in their lifetime. Where do those carpets end up? In the homes of people who live in the wealtheir parts of the world. (For the sake of academic integrity, I tried to paraphrase but really I just plagiarized a lot of that wording. Page 9, if you're wondering.) Oh, and bananas? Banana pickers in Ecuador are exposed to pesticides, and their union leaders are beaten or they "disappear." So what IS safe for the moral consumer to buy?

Well that's the kicker - we're left in the dark. It's nearly impossible for our "actions [to be] consonant with [our] beliefs" (10). Clearly Morse's words describe this way better: "Today we are invited to sit blindfolded within the box, to feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to experience a paradoxical choicelessness before the glut of information and goods that bombards us daily. How can we restore our own field of moral choice" (19) when everyone is out to make a profit rather instead of paying attention to human rights and fair treatment and sustainability and honesty? The media doesn't report on it, the government doesn't regulate it, and the companies don't tell us what really goes on behind it.

So then he goes on about how we often praise the work of John Woolman or Gandhi or MLK, but we view ourselves as insufficient for that "depth of moral conviction" and "content [ourselves] with lesser goals and lesser degrees of passion." Maybe I could be the next Woolman. In fact I could be if I wanted to be. But realistically I probably won't be, since I'm not about to devote my life to attaining that level of goals and passion. I still plan on functioning within the confines of my society, quite frankly, even if it means not reaching my full moral potential. The question is, what CAN I do? What can I do today or tomorrow, small or big? Morse suggests things like working for non-profits and networking and talking to people, and he says something about "finding God in the supermarket," but I don't get that because he had already said we're denied information about the products we buy. Of course, that left me incredibly frustrated, because I got all worked up and then didn't get any real solutions or answers to my questions.

Here's another good one (last one, I swear): "When we are systematically denied a basis for making moral choices, we are forced to make amoral choices; this knowledge of our own complicity in turn reinforces our apathy, and thus we deny ourselves the possibility of a moral choice" (24). I fear that I fall into this category. I'll probably forget about this pamphlet within a month, even though I hope I don't. I'm so overwhelmed by my desire to end sweatshop labor and profit-focused greed and implement organic-ness and sustainability everywhere.

So then, our homework assignment was to come up with and do, in the next 48 hours, something to improve our moral choices. Something small, since we only have 48 hours. No leading a campus-wide fruit boycott or something drastic. So I cleaned out the brita pitcher in which the water has literally been gathering dust in my fridge (it tasted funny so I left it there to rot), so now I can stop gathering plastic water bottles. I also looked up American Apparel and sweatshop-free products on Google. I was surprised by how much is out there, but EVERYTHING IS SO FREAKING EXPENSIVE! Which it would be, since the whole point of exploiting people is to create cheap enough products to compete in the global marketplace. Which leads me to the conclusion that living a moral lifestyle within the context of the global economy is impossible unless you're privileged enough to be able to regularly afford $250 jackets and $40 leggings and $50 t-shirts. Which leaves me even MORE bitter and helpless-feeling. Why is it so hard?!

the margin of page 21

On a slightly more hopeful note though, John Woolman never saw slavery get abolished. He definitely didn't do all that work for nothing - he just unfortunately never got to see his efforts come to fruition. And for Thursday we have to skim through everything and find our favorite quotes from everything we read in the class, and one of the ones I found from another Pendle Hill pamphlet by Daniel O. Snyder was: "Together we learn to discern the contours of hope, for although we yearn to see and to celebrate the visible results of our work, we dare not anchor hope in the visible results of our work, for we are working toward a future that may be many generation in the making, a future that we may not see in our lifetime, indeed a future that may never exist. We learned that the work itself is our sign of hope ("Quaker Witness as Sacrament" 30). So I guess that's kind of pessimistic and optimistic at the same time - despite the fact that I'm still not entirely sure what I can do, in terms of being overwhelmed by trying to end all evils in the world ASAP, it's just not going to happen in my lifetime and I need to accept that. That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't work towards improvement so that it might happen in generations to come.

Ramble Inspired by Quaker Meeting

Just a heads up: this one is mostly for me to sort out my thoughts. I just feel like posting it online in case someone else is interested or feels like commenting on anything I'm saying, which is always welcome. It's going to be a long and convoluted ramble about Judaism, Quakerism, and agnosticism, and it's going to be mostly about myself.

So this morning I went to Quaker Meeting with Josh and Olivia. Olivia goes every week, and Josh and I were going because we have an assignment for Quaker Social Witness class to attend a Quaker event and then reflect on it. I really like that class - it's giving me a whole new insight into a really cool religion, and beyond that the set of beliefs and ideals that have led my school to run the way it does.

The thing is, I feel like I'm kind of on this spiritual journey. Gag me, that sounds so cliché. But I feel like a lot of people hit this around college; you've been brought up one way, and all of a sudden the whole world is open to you and you're not sure what you believe in anymore. Not that I've always believed in the Judeo-Christian God, or in Adonai, or whatever you want to call him/her/it. I have a really hard time with the concept of faith in something that you can't prove is there, but something that a book said did thus-and-such thousands of years ago. I'm not okay with ruling out the presence of (a) higher power(s), because hell, life exists and that's crazy. But I don't think that whatever power or powers that exist are within the realm of human understanding. And anthropologically, it makes sense that people create religion for themselves, and Christianity happens to be the one that's dominant in this country, and Judaism happens to be the one I was brought up in, and Quakerism happens to be the one I have started experiencing more of this year.

That said, I do want some sort of spirituality in my life. It doesn't have to be related to God with a capital G, nor does it have to be related to Light or Truth with a capital L and T. I am ridiculously small, and I am part of things greater than myself. And anyway, religion isn't just about God; it's about values and morals and how a person should live his or her life.

So during this class, I've been entertaining the thought of Quakerism in my mind. The main testimonies of Quakerism are the SPICES - Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, and Stewardship. In other words: not living too lavishly, living peacefully and not supporting war/violence/conflict, being honest in words and actions, valuing the communities of which we are apart and collective opinion, understanding that all humans are equal and that there is the Light of God in everyone, and concern for the environment. These are all things that I agree with, and things that I want to work on in my life. Plus, a lot of Quakers have come to Quakerism from other faiths, although most of them are from other divisions of Protestantism. I mean, Quakerism is a sect of Christianity. Quakers are Christian. That's kind of a problem for me I think. And at first I just thought it was about guilt, the amazing Jewish value. But I think it's more than guilt and a sense of obligation. I still want to raise my kids Jewish, and stay a part of the community, because the community is ridiculously important to me and has played a pretty big role in my life. However, there's also this voice in my head saying that sending said kids to a Quaker school would be a really awesome environment for them (hypothetically), and that those are values that I'd want them to be strongly exposed to, and that I like the ideas of silence and an individual relationship with whatever it is you want to believe in.

Also, going to Meeting today made me see a lot of the differences between Quaker worship and Reform Jewish worship. First of all, I really like the silence. I like that everyone can have their own personal relationship with whatever it is they believe in - God, Truth, Light, the Inner Guide, themselves, the community, whathaveyou. Also, I like the idea of being moved by said force(s) to speak out of the silence and share a message with the community. Plus, I like how decisions are made in the Quaker community - consensus, because everyone is equal and every voice counts. But it's missing so much of what I was brought up in. Music, for one. Emotion. The silence is very calming, but the prayers I'm familiar with are joyous, sad, exciting, solemnly reflective. They have a lot in them that one doesn't get from silence, even if I don't find that everything in every Jewish prayers resonates with me. In fact, there is a lot in them that doesn't resonate with me at all, particularly about God, because I don't think that's the God I believe in, so why should I pray like that? But at the same time, I have no real desire to leave Judaism. I'm okay with being connected mostly to the community and the traditions of it. (And hello, the FOOD.)

So I guess that leaves me with answers, but at the same time not really at all. But I shouldn't have answers at this point in my life. I think I want to keep going to Meeting. In the future, like way in the future, I wouldn't mind going to Meeting, but I don't know if I want to be a member (there's a difference between member and attender) because I'm not Christian. And I don't think I want to give up Judaism for Quakerism, or give up Judaism in general. I think that if I'm doing Quakerism, I'm doing both. I don't know if that makes sense or can be done, but when I think about it, it's perfectly okay to like both or to be somewhere in between. And who's to say that I can't send my kids to a Quaker school (if I have that kind of money...) and take them to Meeting but also to Temple too so that they're part of that community? Although I guess that gets kind of confusing after awhile, since what do you do about First Day School vs. Hebrew School? But thinking about this now is honestly kind of silly, and probably unrealistic, since whoever I end up with will obviously weigh in a lot, like 50%. But Meeting got me thinking, and I hadn't really told anyone that all this was on my mind. So here you go: my ramble for today.

Ramble on How Technology Makes Us Antisocial

Yes, that's right. Facebook makes you antisocial. I mean, not within facebook, obviously. It's a social networking site. What I mean is, it makes you antisocial in real life. Not completely, obviously. Most of us have friends in real life too. And I know I'm a really big hypocrite, but I feel like rambling about it anyway.

My dad just got a crackberry. That thing can get internet all the time. You know all those things you do to procrastinate doing your homework because the internet has endless possibilities? Well now you can take that anywhere. So we were in a shoe store, and he was watching ESPN.com refreshing the baseball game play-by-play. We were standing in a restaurant entrance waiting for my mom, and instead of talking to me, he was checking his email. Antisocial. And I really want one, too, which just makes it even worse. I don't claim immunity from all this. The temptation to retreat into our world of screens and computers and updates is everywhere.

But you know what's not included in screens and computers and updates? Real live people, who you can actually get to know. As much as I love to facebook stalk, you can never really know what someone's like just by looking at their facebook profile. The only thing you can say for sure about them is what they chose to put on their facebook profile. Even now, there are people who I stalked on facebook before getting to know them, and now it almost seems like their facebook persona and their real life persona are two different people. But it's natural to think you can really know someone that way, since there's so much information on there. Plus there's the whole communication thing; people don't say the same things online that they'd say in person. Sure, who doesn't like it when people like their statuses and comment on them? I like dialogues online, and feedback on my pictures. It's awesome to get 500,000 wall posts on your birthday, but you know what? That's cheating. You wouldn't have known it was my birthday if facebook hadn't told you, unless you're one of the handful of people who actually know my birthday. (It's May 20th, by the way.) Sure, sometimes facebook is an extension of my IRL social life. Maybe I was talking to someone about something in the DC and then left a link about it on their wall. And sometimes it's just a really convenient way to get in touch with that random kid from Spanish class to ask about homework, or to stay in touch with friends who don't live near me who I don't get to see that often. But it can never replace actual friendships, actual late-night secret sharing and hugs and adventures.

My dad and I were also talking once about having TVs in restaurants. It's just another example of technology being everywhere, grabbing your attention away from the people right in front of you. When I'm sitting across from my parents at a table, and some random hockey game is going on above their heads, I'm going to watch the hockey game just because it's moving. I don't have the slightest interest in watching hockey. But it makes me antisocial, and I know I'm not the only one who does it.

I mean, come on...right now I'm in the car with my parents, driving home from New Hampshire. And you know what I'm doing? I'm typing on my laptop, headphones in ears, multitasking between this, editing photos, and texting a friend. It's borderline irritating when my parents want to talk to me because I have to make the music go away and break my focus from the illuminated screen in front of me.

Technology. Progressing the entire world to new levels of awesomeness, and also making us that much more antisocial.

Ramble on Internet Wiretapping

Take a look at this article, which was in the subject line of my NY Times email this morning.

The gist is, terrorists used to communicate via means that the government could easily tap - mainly the telephone - but now there are ways of communication that the government doesn't have the technological ability intercept. For example, encrypted emails (such as those trasmitted by BlackBerries), Facebook, and Skype. So now, the Obama administration is planning to submit a bill to Congress that would basically require such means of communication to be interceptable.

According to the article, new requirements would be:

• Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
• Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.
• Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception.

I can't decide how I feel about this. Of course, my gut reaction is "Hey government, get off my Facebook and get out of my inbox!" I mean no one wants the government to be able to hack into their Skype conversations or arrest them because they wrote "Obama sucks" on someone else's Facebook wall. Plus, it's reminding me of post-9/11 Bush all over again (although to be fair, most of the information I have on the whole arresting-innocent-people thing comes from Farenheit 911). But still, I thought we were maybe moving away from the Patriot Act and back towards privacy except with a warrant.

Then again, maybe it's not such a bad thing. Why should there be such a loophole, such a gap in our security where terrorists can easily communicate? Before the technologies developed away from it, the government could always intercept communications. And really, the main purpose of the FBI and the CIA is to keep us safe. This supposed bill wouldn't even give them more power per se, it would just maintain the investigative powers the government already has, and anyway, no one says that they're going to be banging down doors and torturing people for three days just because of an "Obama sucks" comment. So it's fine, as long as they don't abuse this power. Right? Or should they not be able to tap private communications in the first place? When is it Big Brother, and when is it protecting the well-being of American citizens?

For example, the Times Square bombing that failed in May might've been prevented completely if the government had been able to intercept the terrorists' communications. Investigations into things like drug cartels would be possible. It seems like it's in our best interests for our governmental intelligence agencies not to be hindered in working to stop terrorists. What they do makes all of us safer. So where's the line where those of us who have nothing to fear sacrifice some personal privacy in order to increase national security? But then again, how can we really trust that the government will use that power well if it's granted? Based on the fact that technologies have moved away from being interceptable by the government, is it really fair to require the creators of such technologies to put time, money, and effort into altering their systems just so that the government can hack in?

Mmkay, I think this ramble is long enough. We'll see if this plan even goes anywhere. But it surprised me when I read about it this morning, and then I talked about it with some people at lunch, and I figured it'd be a good topic to ramble about.

Ramble on September 11th, Etc.

First of all, Burn a Quran Day?! What the fuck. September 11th was once a day that brought Americans together, united the nation, reminded us of the ideals on which our country was founded. One of those is freedom of religion. How did this day, for some, turn into a day for hating all people of a certain faith?

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this would agree with me that Islam is not a hateful, terrorism-happy religion. But how can we change the people behind Burn a Quran Day, behind the opposition to the mosque being built at Ground Zero? How can we stop people from thinking that Islam is an evil religion that has no place on American soil, much less near the site of an attack that was supposedly carried out by Islam as a whole?

And anyway, do I really have a right to claim that my preachings of love, tolerance, and so-called open-mindedness are any more legit than their unwavering belief that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as the savior/almighty/son of God is evil? Freedom of religion and speech, right? I mean, that's a bit extreme, but more generally, who am I to legitimately claim that my liberal beliefs are more legitimate than conservative beliefs, just because more people I know agree with me?

We have freedom of speech in this country. We have elections, so that the masses can have a voice and change the government if they want to. But sometimes I feel like the masses are getting dumber and dumber. Obviously that's a giant overstatement. It's not actually that many people; they're just disproportionately covered in the media. It's really not the masses at all. It's just that it gets me so angry.


So on a completely different note: May all those who passed away on September 11, 2001 rest in peace; may their families and friends find comfort; and may this country continue to move forward in strength and love.

Ramble on Multiculturalism

Wow, what a Haverfordian topic to ramble about. But of course, our discussions yesterday made me think, and when I think it's a good excuse to blog.

So if you go to Haverford, what I'm saying might be familiar, just because I feel like we talk about this so much. Or maybe just cause we talked about it yesterday. But my main pet peeve with how we tend to use the word "multicultural" on campus and even in society at large is that it tends to mean either "not white" or "including large number of races/ethnicities." So a multicultural student might be a student who isn't white, or if a high school adopts a multicultural standpoint (I know there's a better word but I'm sleep deprived and can't think of it), it embraces all the cultures - meaning races and immigrant ethnicities - of the students who go there, rather than trying to Americanize all of them or something.

But culture is a way broader word than that. It's not just about your skin color and where you're from. Culture can mean the food you eat, or the diversity of where you live, or your class, or the general socioeconomic status of the people where you live, or the traditions, or the commonly accepted values. So sure, ethnicity and race can cover a lot of those things, because people of one ethnicity might eat similar foods or hold the same general values. But although I feel like I'm not considered a multicultural student at Haverford because I'm white, I consider myself to be multicultural mainly because I'm Jewish and because I identify as LGBT and am so much a part of that community and those two cultures. (Or, well, I'm starting to have a problem with that acronym because the LGBT community tends to turn its back on its T members so often, but that's another ramble.) So while I and so many other white students here could bring a diverse perspective to things like Honor Council trials, we aren't considered to be "multicultural" members of a jury because we're white and thus not considered "multicultural." I feel like when we talk about multiculturalism here, we're talking about race, maybe country of origin or family origin. Who gets invited to Spectrum and Multicultural Weekend? Mostly specs of color. (Haha, that sounds like I took paint and flung it at a wall and then there were specs of color. Spec = Prospective student. Need sleep.) Then again, we aren't really asked to identify our sexuality or our religion on college applications, so how should they know? But there are other ways, I think. Like I put down youth group, temple committees, and GSA on my app. I just feel that race and nationality/ethnicity are not the only kinds of culture that should be included in the term "multiculturalism," especially at Haverford where we have a fairly diverse student body in so many aspects of life.

Ramble About Nothing

Yes, it is such a riveting topic. Actually, I don't know why you're bothering to read this. But whoever you are, I love you for it anyway.

So I am a freak when it comes to packing. I think I accidentally never unpacked, cause I live my life out of plastic drawers. Plus I've been in denial all summer that I was actually home, and had to wait to go back. So then on Sunday I was like okay I'll spend this week packing! Ready, go! *20 minutes later* Wait, what else needs to go in? Oh, just my clothes and toiletries...no I'm not allowed to do that til Friday. *waits*

Seriously though, thank goodness for my mom's van. I know I made fun of it because it's red, but it's been a lifesaver in terms of how much crap I have. And shout out to my dad for driving 6 hours with me on Saturday and 6 hours back on Sunday after I move in. Yeah, he's pretty awesome like that.

So now I'm just bored. I keep losing track of what day it is - since Sunday I've thought it was Friday. I accidentally referred to when I was leaving as "tomorrow" earlier today and scared the crap out of Charly. Whoops.

Also I'm not allowed to go to bed before midnight. I need to get off grandmother time, especially since I have to stay up til 4:30ish am whatever night that is. And I generally need to get back onto college time. It's 12:28, so I guess I'm technically allowed to go to bed, but I'm not really tired. Which is the goal. But I'm still bored. And sick of the internet. So why not blog if I'm sick of the internet, right? Yeah, that makes sense.

Or I can just facbook stalk my freshmen more. Always fun.
God I hope theyre not reading this.
It's out of love, I swear!
You'll understand when you meet me.
Or maybe you'll just think I'm weird. (More likely.)
Or maybe you'll understand if any of you someday have freshmen of your own.
Yeah, you'll understand eventually.
Hopefully.

Man, I should not have license to blabber like this online after a certain time of night. It just shouldn't be allowed because people will assume I'm on drugs, or drunk (I'm not, I pinky swear), and later I'll be embarrassed about it. (It's also way too early for me to be hitting the point of delirium. But hey, at least I'm awake - one step at a time.)

Oh well. Bonus points if you read this before I take it down.

Good night!

Ramble on That Thing Called Love

This is one that always eludes me. What the hell is love anyway? When I say love, I mean "I Love You" kind of love, with capital letters, as in being in love with someone. How can you define that???

Whatever it is, it calls for a ramble. (A really, really long ramble, apparently. This might actually be the rambliest ramble I've ever written. Whoops.) So here goes.

In my philosophy class first semester, we talked about how reason separates humans from animals, but I think emotion does too. I don't think love is just an instinct – I don't think animals can feel this kind of love. I think it's more of a deep emotional connection that is a distinctively human phenomenon. And I think it takes time to create this connection, which is why I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe in lust at first sight, and really awesome chemistry at first sight, but I don't think you can love someone without knowing him or her incredibly well. But at the same time, I'm not sure if you can really put a time frame on how long that takes either. I mean, I know of many times when people have said "I Love You" too soon, before they really meant it. That's bad. But can you ever really advise those people, "You need to wait at least a month," or something like that? How fast can love happen? How fast can you really get to know a person? Or do you really have to get to know them all that well before you feel that thing that you identify as being Love? I feel like it’s a gradual thing; it's not just a black and white, I'm in love or I'm not. Even though we make it black and white because when someone says it, there's this moment when it's established. But how else would we express it for sure, than that moment when we say it out loud? There's always the "I'm falling for you" line - that shows how it's gradual - but how do you really know (other than "you just know") when you've fallen for someone?

Which of course brings up the issue of how to know you're actually in love, and don't just have a super big crush, or just feel really comfortable, or it's just been long enough that you're sick of not having said it. I'd like to believe that it's more complicated than [time + really big crush + feeling comfortable + chemistry = Love]. I've heard, as I mentioned, that "You Just Know," which I'm putting in capital letters because it's intimidating and scary (at least to me). What if you just think you know, and you really believe you know, and then you realize you were wrong? Saying "I Love You" and not meaning it, or having to take it back later, is basically one of the worst things ever. It's something you never want to hear taken back.

But what if you thought you loved someone, and then it turned out that they weren't the person you thought they were? I think that all we can ever really understand of anyone is the concept of that person we have in our own mind, which will always be flawed and limited. So can we ever really love another person, or can we only really love our concept of that person and who we think they are? That's kind of depressing. Or maybe it isn't. All we can know about even ourselves is our self-concept, which can be just as twisted and wrong as our concept of someone else. It's just how the mind works. (Thank you, Social Cognition term paper.)

Going back to when to say "I Love You," I once read a quote that was something like, "Don’t make decisions when angry, and don’t make promises when happy." I knew the first part, but I hadn't really thought about the second. It makes sense, though. Just like you can be overly mean and unfair when you're all upset and riled up, you can be unrealistically optimistic when you're in a really good mood. And to say "I Love You" is kind of like a promise. It's like a promise that you mean it, and all of the things that go along with that. So maybe people shouldn't say I Love You when really, really happy at the moment, just like we shouldn't send nasty, unfair emails or texts when we're mad; we need to wait until we're emotionally balanced again to make sure we're saying what we really mean.

And off on another tangent, is anyone else really annoyed by how difficult it is to say "I love you" to a significant other without its meaning that you're in love with that person? I feel like when you're flirting, or you're first start something with someone, or even if you've been in it for awhile but aren't ready to proclaim that you're in love with them, the natural reaction so often is to say I love you, but then you don't because that phrase is off limits or something. It's reserved for something bigger. But you can love someone without being in love with them. There are so many different kinds of love. So why do we censor ourselves and find something else to say when we want to say I love you, but not to mean that we're in love? It's silly. I think we should be able to say it, and then when we mean to say that we're in love with someone we should just say that, I'm In Love With You.

Ok, I think that’s enough rambling on this topic, seeing as I could probably ramble about it forever and ever, and I basically already have. :P

Wow, that was long...

Ramble on Judaism and Christianity

For some reason, I keep thinking about this.

The Christian Bible includes both the Old and New Testaments, so why is it that Christians don't keep kosher or celebrate Hanukkah?

Disclaimers:
1. For the intents of this ramble, I am treating both testaments as true. This ramble isn't about my personal beliefs – it's about the relationships between the two religions and their texts, in a very basic and general sense.
2. I haven't read the whole bible. I've read all of Genesis and Exodus, all of Matthew, and various other stories, all only once through, plus whatever excerpts I've read at Hebrew School, Torah Study, or camp.
3. I'm honestly not that familiar with the history of Christianity in terms of what happened hundreds of years after Jesus' lifetime and the formation of the religion, so that might account for a good chunk of what I'm missing.

So. Why is it that Christians aren't Jews, plus? Why don't Christians celebrate all the Jewish holidays and observe the Jewish customs, plus the ones centered around Jesus' life and teachings? If Jesus was supposedly Jewish, and furthermore the son of the God that made all the rules of Judaism, why wouldn't he preach his new teachings in addition to those rules? It seems like he kind of let his new followers off the hook for all the old Jewish stuff, in favor of the new things he was teaching them.

I was talking to Erica about this, and she said that the way she's had it explained to her, Judaism was sort of an elite religion. To be truly observant you basically had to sit around studying Torah all day, and only the rich could really afford to do that. So along comes Jesus, who says that no, you don't have to sit around studying all day – all you really have to do is be good people to be good in the eyes of God, and here's how to be good people. All of a sudden, pleasing God was something that was accessible to the masses.

But if Jesus is the son of God, and God is perfect, and God made those rules laid out in the Old Testament, how could Jesus have had the authority to go to the people and tell them the rules had changed? If God told him to, did that mean that the original rules weren't perfect? If God didn't tell him to…well that would be really bad, wouldn't it? Or are the father and the son supposed to be equals in the trinity? Even if they are equals, why would one deity say to the people that they don't really have to observe the Sabbath, even if the other deity told them to? That would mean a weird competition for power over dictating the rules that just doesn't seem right in this context. Plus, (and here's the kicker,) if the rules did change so that all you had to do was be a good person and not follow all of the 613 commandments in the Torah, why does the Christian Bible still include the Old Testament?

I have no idea. Maybe I'm wrong about some of these details or interpretations. Maybe I'm vastly over generalizing. Maybe it has to do with the history of the formation of the religion. Maybe I'm completely way off and just don't know my stuff that well. But these are things I wonder about, and it'd be cool to understand more about these questions and their answers.

Ramble on Numbers as Identity

This one's really, really random, but it's just a thought I had. I have better rambles on the way, I promise.

In Logic class last semester, we learned how in ancient Greece, there was no concept of 0. If something didn't exist, why quantify it? Even 1 wasn't a number – it was a unit. The numbers started with 2, and they represented quantities. They quantified people or objects, such as a merchant's stock. That's why roman numerals were so easy. People weren't doing math with them; they were just recording that they had XXXIV of something, and the next day they only had XXVII left.

When did numbers start being used in ways that didn't quantify anything? When did they start representing places and people? We are all labeled by so many numbers, quietly nestled away in various systems based on these strings of digits that identify us. (And if they're just randomized strings of digits, can they even be called numbers?) Social Security numbers, student ID numbers, bank account and credit card numbers, College Board and AP numbers, even telephone numbers, street addresses, and zip codes all somehow identify us and where we're from. Yet they don't really quantify anything - they didn't start at 0. They're just impersonal and efficient ways to keep large quantities of people organized within systems.

So when, historically, did that happen? When did numbers stop being used just for quantities and start being used as labels?

That's my random thought for the day.

Ramble on Taste

I sometimes have incredibly random thoughts that I thought I'd share just in case anyone's interested. So this might become a sort of series, if I keep coming up with these random thoughts.

Also the next day topic in the 30-day thing is Your Week in Great Detail, and I'm saving that for the end of this trip.

So taste. I'm currently sitting on the Megabus to Baltimore, and I'm listening to Regina Spektor's new CD on repeat. It's kick-ass. It's funny, because I remember that I was first introduced to Regina Spektor the summer after 9th grade when Pargol sent me a mix CD of Regina's music while I was at camp. Back then I was very much in the throes of my relatively-obscure-music phase. I refused to listen to top 40, opting instead for Ani DiFranco, Ben Folds, Tori Amos, Joni Mitchell, Alanis Morrisette, and Regina Spektor (okay, and some Kelly Clarkson. But I never would've admitted it.) And that was honestly what I liked. I didn't like top 40, even though just the year before that had been all I'd listened to. But I've always found that my taste shifts towards what my friends like, because we all introduce each other to new things. Before I was friends with the people I became closer to in 8th and 9th grade, I'd never even heard of any of the singers in the above list. But my friends burned me CDs, and my music taste changed, and my life was changing.

Around junior year of high school, I had two friends who listened to a lot of poppy hip hop songs. I had sworn off hip hop because I was picky and pretentious and it wasn't artsy enough. But no matter how much I complained, they kept playing it whenever we drove anywhere, and after awhile I came to really like a lot of it. My taste changed. And I stopped listening to Tori and Joni and Alanis, and I listen to Ani way less, but I still love love love Regina Spektor. And I like a lot of top 40 again, but I still listen to the Indigo Girls all the time because I really like folksy music. I came to like TSwift just because I kept hearing her songs over and over again. I'm not a huge fan of Miley Cyrus, but I'm sure if you played me enough of her stuff I'd like her too. Debatable about the Jonas Brothers though.

So why is that? What makes our taste in music, movies, books, food, art, TV shows, etc. what it is? Certain things bring out certain emotions, which we may or may not want to feel. We can relate to some lyrics or plot lines better than others, and different songs and movies and activities have different energy levels. Horror movies and loud drums and watching sports can give us adrenaline rushes, and some people thrive on that. Plus watching certain sports teams or listening to certain genres of music can show our loyalties and project an image, and we can talk about those things with others. When we listen to things over and over, they become familiar, and maybe that makes us like them more. When our friends like things, we want to like them too so we can relate to our friends, and we trust their taste.

But sometimes after we stop hearing things over and over, or when our friends change, or when our friends' tastes change, we stop liking those things. Does that mean we never really liked them in the first place? Or were we just in a different place then and our taste changes as our lives change? How much of our so-called "taste" depends on the image we want to project? In 9th grade I really, really wanted to be artsy and original, and the music I liked was artsy and original. Now that I've leveled off a little, I listen to a mix of top 40, artsy music, dance music, and super obscure things that I get from friends and around the internet. (First Aid Kit = LOVE.) But I don't watch Red Sox games not because I don't want to be a part of Red Sox Nation and show my love and pride for Boston; it's because I find watching most sports to be boring as hell. (Exceptions include gynmastics, figure skating, volleyball, and synchronized diving.)

Which brings us to the most important question of all: If Neelima tries hard enough, will she ever be able to get me to enjoy watching sports?


So anyway, that's pointless ramble #1. Upcoming rambles may or may not include such topics as love and how we are all reduced to numbers that label us but don't actually quantify anything.

Day 16.5 - Ramble

Edit: I'm taking this post down and reposting it as a facebook note. I can monitor the privacy settings on that, but I'm not sure how on this. Sorry!

Day 6 - Whatever Tickles Your Fancy

That's kind of a weird way of putting it. I was unaware that I have a fancy capable of being ticked, much less that doing what I want creates a tickly feeling in this...fancy....

I feel like this might be getting dirty.

Anyway.

What so-called "tickles my fancy" today? Ooh! I can ramble about a news story I heard/saw yesterday. I heard it on NPR after seeing it at this link. It's about Ultra-Orthadox (a.k.a. Hassidic) Jews in Israel, which is always kind of interesting. The dynamic between religious and secular Jews in Israel is a whole different ramble, but this article is particularly interesting because it's about how the Ashkenazi Hassidim (the Hassidim descended from Eastern Europe) are resisting the forced integration of their public girls' school with Sephardi Hassidim (descended from Israel, Spain, Northern Africa, and basically everywhere besides Eastern Europe). The Israeli Supreme Court had ruled against the segregation that the Ashkenazi were imposing, not allowing Sephardi girls to attend the school. After forcing integration, the government actually arrested 43 sets of Ashkenazi parents who then refused to send their daughters to this school.

My favorite quote: "Esther Bark, 50, who has seven daughters, said the issue is keeping the girls away from the temptations of the modern world. 'To suddenly put them in an open-minded place is not good for them,' she said."

So this brings up a few things. The first is this discrimination by the Ashkenazi Ultra-Orthodox against the Sephardi. Now as a disclaimer, I'm really not informed about this at all. I don't know what kind of "open-mindedness" the woman is talking about. But I didn't know that this racism existed, although I guess it makes sense since the Ashkenazi and Sephardi have always had slightly different rules based on what their rabbis have said. And don't groups tend to clash when they end up with slightly different rules? I wonder what exactly makes the Sephardi more open-minded or liberal compared to the Ashkenazi.

Also, this is a public school. My reaction is: if you care so much, send your daughters to a segregated private school! And if there isn't one, start one! You have to listen to the government when you're sending your children to state-funded schools. Plus, the school system in Israel is already pretty segregated – there are public Jewish, public secular, orthodox Agudat Israel (partially state-funded), public Arabic, and private schools (source).

My dad's reaction, because he was in the car with me when the story was on NPR, was that the Ultra-Orthodox have always expected to be able to do whatever they wanted on the government's dime. He cited the fact that the Ultra-Orthodox are the only non-Arab Israelis that don't have to join the Israeli Army at age 18, although this isn't true. The Modern Orthodox (only Modern Orthodox women?) don't have to either, although I think that while the Ultra-Orthodox are busy studying Torah during the time they'd be in the army, the Modern Orthodox do community service instead. Bottom line is, I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, and I don't think my dad is either.

But my feeling is mixed, because yeah, it's not fair for the Hassidim to expect the government and taxpayers to let them do whatever they want with government money when it's against the laws of Israel or court rulings or whatever. But at the same time, it's a Jewish state. So why is it that the Hassidim have to jump through hoops to be able to practice Judaism the way they want to, and the way that they are miraculously able to in the state of Israel, just because the secular government doesn't agree with it? I'm not saying I agree with it either. But isn't that kind of the point of Israel's existence? Just a thought.

And that said, I still say they should just have a private school, and then the taxpayers wouldn't be funding their discrimination, nor would they be forced to integrate against their beliefs, and then everything would be fine.

And that's my ramble for today.