Turned 31 a couple hours ago. Some nice plans for the b-day: a show - one of 4 in a week(!), a planned "craaaazy" afterparty.. rehearsals, friends, music. stuff I like.
Had written a post on my 30th which I'd evidently forgot to publish (a little late now, so.. never mind), but in it I tried to describe major changes from the previous year, or just stuff that was on my mind at the time. Let's have a go this time round! So:
The first major change this year was the regular exposure to what had previously been relegated to a status worse than "false" - it had been plain uninteresting to me: religion. Nope, still the same atheist I've been for a while now, but found religious people, as well as the bible, interesting, for the first time. This through a group of friends who meet round the "parshat shavua" once a week, which I stumbled on pretty much by chance. Rather than being the pathetic-bachelor club I suspected it would be, all awkward and transparent, it proved to be a remarkably varied, interesting and intelligent group of people.
So first of all, I was making new friends. This on its own was a novelty because, though I hadn't thought about it, my core group of friends had remained staunchly rooted in my high-school years and my musical exploits. That was it. So the dynamics of becoming friends when you're older, more self-aware and more self-defined, proved interesting on their own. Won't bore with details.
The second aspect of these meetings, as I mentioned, was that religion as such suddenly became interesting. For one thing, just the wildly varying shades of observance and strictness, a terrific quality in Jerusalem, was fascinating. People modern in every way but...; people who look more closed but are actually budding open-ists; and of course people who just genuinely are who they are, different from me in some ways and so similar in others. Combined with this culture of ours, this man-made tradition that for me contains so many clues, pointing at a melting pot of historical circumstance, human psychology, economics, politics and, well, more human psychology, it becomes quite fascinating. The religious text we cover each week with tremendous variety in approach and appraisal, is in itself fascinating for its own circumstance and, yes, its constant drawing power. So that's one thing that's changed.
What's stayed largely the same is the existential realization that hit me so strongly just one year and two days ago. What are we doing here and, more importantly, what am I going to do about, remain in one way or another a preoccupation informing a lot of my perceptions of this world and my life. I'm fascinated by people, what drives them, their follies and their genius; but in all this I still can't formulate a cut-and-dry path that feels right for me.
Something that emerged a little more strongly this year was the focus on the individualistic (as opposed to the universalit) viewpoint. Anyone who tries to hammer out a single, one-size-fits-all doctrine for living - or what is "right" - will earn my immediate suspicion. We are all different people, with very different needs and even basic characteristics. There are totally different mentalities, interests and perceptions amongst people. The breakdown in cultural narratives (believe it or not, I'm not a sociology major), something that always felt a little bit of a shame, now seems more inevitable and plain sensible in today's world. Like it or not, we're no longer the small, nomadic tribes we once were. In fact, every nation on earth has gotten a little too big to be held together by cross-cultural dogma.
I don't say this angrily or with a chip on my shoulder. I'm not trying to violently tear down anything. I personally am not in any way a misanthrope - on the contrary, outside of some private music, pretty much all my lasting, deep enjoyment or contentment comes from people. So it pains me a little when these statements get pigeonholed and somehow make me out as a contrarian, rebel or heretic. I'm just saying - blind beliefs don't work for me. I'm trying to improve our collective future just as much as any socially-minded believer might, in saying these beliefs have to be tailor made. I'll cringe as much as anyone at the shallow, materialistic mentality so often on display (anyone seen the tv-series "Mechubarot"? kvetch kvetch kvetch! geez, when did whine replace personality?) but I'm a firm individualist.
Relationships? Mmm.. Had a few nice shorts, but if we're talking about thoughts and realizations, let's see... what's new, what's new.. Nothing, I think. Just as mystified as ever. Probably a bit more confused, if anything. No sweeping statements or ideas to be made this time around.
And another random update for posterity - this year got me more intellectually interested in trying to characterize and correct the tremendous amounts of plain bull in common economic, social and political thinking. I'm not talking about our leaders - everyone knows what they're full of. I'm talking about regular, otherwise intelligent people: I'm plain bewildered by all the hip-shooting, snap judgment, opinion-as-fact, dramatics-as-evidence, revisionism for its own sake, conservatism for its own sake, and willful ignorance of counterarguments that I come across in ordinary, web-bourne and face-to-face conversation. It's like "reasoning" isn't even in the lexicon...
Mood-wise it's been up and down, but at the end of the day, I'm still more up than down. Thank ? for small pleasures. ;)
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
"Considered Selling Your Apartment?" Asked the Devil..
I rent an apartment in Jerusalem. Came home today to find this letter (in Hebrew) on my door handle:
"Dear bla bla,
have you considered selling your apartment? We [are thieving bastards who want to make a killing off your already overpriced apartment, and] would be happy to help you. After years on the rise, real estate prices have reached an unprecedented peak [allowing your greed to far outstrip what you actually need to return your original investment and make a comfortable living]. The recovery from recession; the booming economy [which hasn't raised real wages by even one seventh of the rise in Jerusalem apartment prices over the last 2 years]; stronger European currencies against the Dollar; purchase of apartments by diaspora Jewry - all these have contributed to the sharp climb in prices we are witnessing.
Our market analysis shows us that this is the time for you to optimally realize your assets and sell your apartment during a period of record prices. [..] We specialize in [the non-crap areas of Jerusalem, soon to be another Manhattan.]
We would be happy to visit your apartment, offer a price estimate [..] survey recently sold apartments in the area [and contribute to an additional, artificial increase of real-estate pricing by encouraging you and other homeowners to sell for much more than you might have otherwise. In a sense, we're "unionizing" home owners to take maximum advantage of the psychological element of these soaring prices, which is great for our real estate agency and terrible for the forever non-"unionized", individual renter] and help sell your apartment for maximum price [which we helped raise by encouraging greed through letters such as these.]
Love, hugs and kisses,
bla bla Real Estate Agency"
Jerusalem municipality: BUILD BUILD BUILD*. This can't go on.
*as in, approve building plots.
(P.S.
This is not in any way an endorsement of socialism over capitalism, nor a call for market intervention. It merely represents my distaste for what I consider (justifiably legal) greed.)
"Dear bla bla,
have you considered selling your apartment? We [are thieving bastards who want to make a killing off your already overpriced apartment, and] would be happy to help you. After years on the rise, real estate prices have reached an unprecedented peak [allowing your greed to far outstrip what you actually need to return your original investment and make a comfortable living]. The recovery from recession; the booming economy [which hasn't raised real wages by even one seventh of the rise in Jerusalem apartment prices over the last 2 years]; stronger European currencies against the Dollar; purchase of apartments by diaspora Jewry - all these have contributed to the sharp climb in prices we are witnessing.
Our market analysis shows us that this is the time for you to optimally realize your assets and sell your apartment during a period of record prices. [..] We specialize in [the non-crap areas of Jerusalem, soon to be another Manhattan.]
We would be happy to visit your apartment, offer a price estimate [..] survey recently sold apartments in the area [and contribute to an additional, artificial increase of real-estate pricing by encouraging you and other homeowners to sell for much more than you might have otherwise. In a sense, we're "unionizing" home owners to take maximum advantage of the psychological element of these soaring prices, which is great for our real estate agency and terrible for the forever non-"unionized", individual renter] and help sell your apartment for maximum price [which we helped raise by encouraging greed through letters such as these.]
Love, hugs and kisses,
bla bla Real Estate Agency"
Jerusalem municipality: BUILD BUILD BUILD*. This can't go on.
*as in, approve building plots.
(P.S.
This is not in any way an endorsement of socialism over capitalism, nor a call for market intervention. It merely represents my distaste for what I consider (justifiably legal) greed.)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Why I Support the Anti-Smoking Law with Every Fiber of My Being
The new, tougher smoking law that has gone into effect recently is completely justified. Not everyone seems to agree on this, though*.
The naysayers generally fall into two groups:
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.(clap, clap.) Good for you. (clap clap.)
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument? I mean, is that question supposed to conversely insinuate that by justifying the legality of food they've somehow proved it's OK to smoke in someone's face?? it makes me want to answer back with convenient, ridiculously over-simplistic analogies of my own: "Adolf Hitler was bad for a lot of people's health - I suppose you would've supported him!"
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
** not that it's a popularity contest. Even if there were a majority of smokers, it still wouldn't entitle them to inconvenience and possibly harm the health of others with no good purpose.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
When god created humans, and with them the innate desire to socialize in a dimly-lit space after a hard day's work, he/she didn't create said space full of cigarette smoke.
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument?
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
Which brings me to the first group. They seem to have garnered a fair bit of support. On the face of it, there's a certain neat logic to it: allow nightspot owners to choose for themselves what sort of business they'll have. Non-smokers will be able to choose to go to non-smoking venues, while smokers could still enjoy themselves in smoking establishments.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Talk Talk Talk
In an article that came out today, Jerusalem's glorious mayor, Uri Lupolianski, wrote Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz requesting that Road 9 not become a toll road. Road 9 connects those coming to Jerusalem from the direction of Tel-Aviv straight to the Begin thruway, and bypasses the traffic at the center of the city.
I couldn't help but notice there was no mention of who had put such an offer on the table in the first place, or anyone explaining the underlying logic for such a proposal. I'd be happy to make up my mind, if I were given some rational explanations either way, but instead the article only quotes politicians too busy covering their own asses to professionally address this issue.
One by one, they dispel and excoriate the idea. It's a chorus of them, yelling "noooo... no no no. Of course I'm against it. It's a terrible idea". It's almost like these damned empty-rhetoric throw-a-fish-to-the-"masses" politicos are trying to one-up each other in the vividness of their description; all, presumably, to get more votes next time their sorry asses are up for reelection. Loophole-ianski went for gold by writing, "it's inconceivable that at the entrance to our nation's capital, there will be one slow, clogged road for the poor, while next to them the Mercedes', Volvo's and luxury cars of the wealthy will be whizzing by". Yep, you write 'em, boy. Tug on the hearts of your constituency you must think are really, really, stupid. Thanks for the professional assessment.
I can't get over this incredibly annoying habit politicians have - a complete and utter disconnect between action and rhetoric. Do anything you want, absolutely anything you feel like; just remember to give it a ridiculous, shamelessly see-through spin for the "masses" you must scorn so much.
A couple other recent examples come to mind: the laughable stipend the government has offered Holocaust survivors, and the bread price wars. In the first affair, Prime Minister Olmert's Office offered an 83-shekel (around $20) monthly stipend for Holocaust survivors, to begin next year (and gradually grow). I couldn't believe this when I read it. It's like a government course in shamelessness: let's give our people, who have endured the worst horror ever wrought in history, as little money as possible. Holocaust survivors are old, so let's start next year, since progressively more are dying every year. Then, let's not give a lump sum, but again - a monthly stipend, so we can stop as soon as those costly survivors drop off. As if that's not enough, let's make that monthly sum the price of, well, nothing. Sure, we'll increase the amount as time goes on - once virtually none of them are left.
Of course, Olmert's office describes this is as somehow having righted an historical injustice, patting themselves on the back like this has been a major achievement. Said Olmert, (I can't believe he's still in power! I can't!) "Survivors living in Israel deserve to live with respect without reaching a state where they can't enjoy a hot meal or a slice of bread [..] over the years nothing has been done to take care of this, and the neglect on the part of past governments won't continue. With us, this [problem] will be taken care of." With $20. starting next year. Bull.
Same with the bread wars. Events conspired to make the price of flour go up. This meant the price of the plain, price-controlled bread was liable to go up as well. Eli Yishai, Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, immediately started swearing up and down that bread prices won't go up. It's so transparent: He has to say that, purely for votes' sake. No serious discussion, nothing. In the end, of course, the prices went up, because you can only fight simple facts on the ground - transportation costs are not what they were in 1999 - for so long. But no, like a mother pacifying her baby, he has to tell the "people" one thing while whatever has to happen goes ahead anyway. Can't you give the public a little more credit and share some of the considerations? No dilemmas? What, would our tiny little brains explode trying to wrap our heads around notions like, "listen guys, the price of wheat worldwide, has gone up. So has gas. Bread is made of wheat. Bread has to be brought to the store using gas-consuming vehicles. We may have a problem here"?
That's really what it is - the mother pacifying the baby. But we're not babies. I would hope most readers have reached this conclusion long ago, but in case you haven't:
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
"That's the End of That" - by Resident Traveler
Introduction here.
(AKA "The Impossible Dream", AKA "She's a Frecha")
They say every pot has its lid. But whenever I look around:
She's a frecha* - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, she's a neo-hippie - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, nor a neo-hippie, she's either the over-driven career type, a scantily-clad, deathly-thin Mars-creature, or a sour-faced urban burnout - and that's the end of that.
If she's not (any of the above), she's not physically attractive enough (hard as I try to overlook it), and that's the end of that.
If she's still not any of the above, she lacks heart. Or any kind of joi d'vivre (joy of life), and that's the end of that. (Lots of these. Lots and lots and lots.)
ISSNAOTA, she's married, or has a long-term boyfriend. She does. Trust me. No "that" to end. (OODLES of these.)
ISSNAOTA, she's got serious emotional baggage from past relationships, can't shake it off - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's "going through a rough period in her life", turning hot and cold at the drop of a hat - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's intensely interested in fashion and/or new-ageism, excessive materialism, hip-hop, smoking or, god help me, "real men" - commanding, go-getting, impulse-driven, egotisitical, insensitive, stubble-faced men - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she simply doesn't know what she wants. I give up! That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's insecure - which on its own is ok - but expresses said insecurity in an unwillingness to attach to anyone and will string me along like I'm a toy. Once reality finally seeps in - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's just sort of apathetic. Has no burning interest in something - anything. And for me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, are you sure she doesn't have a boyfriend? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's rabidly anti-religion, anti-Zionist or anti-any form of capitalism, with a major chip on her shoulder, and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's religious. Just a liiittle too religious to give me a chance because, after all, she wants to get married, so why waste her time with someone who isn't her particular micro-stream of orthodoxy? - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA - and we're already talking about something rarer than an incorrupt politician - she doesn't give a damn about music and has no artistic interest (either would be surmountable). For me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, did I mention we're talking only about women here? Who are under 40? Without children? WHO LIKE MEN? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, This is it, I've found her. After years of searching, I've found my one-in-a-million. My holy grail, my lid. I'm ecstatic, and can now preach to my pessimist single friends not to lose heart; that despite all the potential pitfalls, they are out there.
But remember, all this has only been half the equation: she still has to like me. And guess what:
That's the end of that.
* - Frecha: the Israeli equivalent of whatever they call women overly preoccupied with an intensely juvenile fashion sense in your country.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
(AKA "The Impossible Dream", AKA "She's a Frecha")
They say every pot has its lid. But whenever I look around:
She's a frecha* - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, she's a neo-hippie - and that's the end of that.
If she's not a frecha, nor a neo-hippie, she's either the over-driven career type, a scantily-clad, deathly-thin Mars-creature, or a sour-faced urban burnout - and that's the end of that.
If she's not (any of the above), she's not physically attractive enough (hard as I try to overlook it), and that's the end of that.
If she's still not any of the above, she lacks heart. Or any kind of joi d'vivre (joy of life), and that's the end of that. (Lots of these. Lots and lots and lots.)
ISSNAOTA, she's married, or has a long-term boyfriend. She does. Trust me. No "that" to end. (OODLES of these.)
ISSNAOTA, she's got serious emotional baggage from past relationships, can't shake it off - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's "going through a rough period in her life", turning hot and cold at the drop of a hat - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's intensely interested in fashion and/or new-ageism, excessive materialism, hip-hop, smoking or, god help me, "real men" - commanding, go-getting, impulse-driven, egotisitical, insensitive, stubble-faced men - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she simply doesn't know what she wants. I give up! That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's insecure - which on its own is ok - but expresses said insecurity in an unwillingness to attach to anyone and will string me along like I'm a toy. Once reality finally seeps in - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's just sort of apathetic. Has no burning interest in something - anything. And for me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, are you sure she doesn't have a boyfriend? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's rabidly anti-religion, anti-Zionist or anti-any form of capitalism, with a major chip on her shoulder, and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, she's religious. Just a liiittle too religious to give me a chance because, after all, she wants to get married, so why waste her time with someone who isn't her particular micro-stream of orthodoxy? - and that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA - and we're already talking about something rarer than an incorrupt politician - she doesn't give a damn about music and has no artistic interest (either would be surmountable). For me - that's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, did I mention we're talking only about women here? Who are under 40? Without children? WHO LIKE MEN? Thought so. That's the end of that.
ISSNAOTA, This is it, I've found her. After years of searching, I've found my one-in-a-million. My holy grail, my lid. I'm ecstatic, and can now preach to my pessimist single friends not to lose heart; that despite all the potential pitfalls, they are out there.
But remember, all this has only been half the equation: she still has to like me. And guess what:
That's the end of that.
* - Frecha: the Israeli equivalent of whatever they call women overly preoccupied with an intensely juvenile fashion sense in your country.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Dirty Hypocrites
It's been ages, I know. Lots going on, so I'll just quickly point out one peeve and leave it at that:
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
I live in Jerusalem, and I happen to like this city. Lots of my friends do too. But we all know plenty of people who don't, which is fine. I can even see why they don't - it just doesn't bother me as much.
Every year on Jerusalem Day, and several times in between, an article comes out with doomsday predictions for the non-haredi 20- and 30-year-olds of this city. Haredis pouring in, young "talents" leaving, no employment etc. This is legitimate subject matter for an article, but what always gets me is the hypocrisy of the talkbackers: with each new damning article, dozens of bozos go online with responses titled "dirty city", alluding to Jerusalem's allegedly filthy streets, under anonymous pen-names indicating they're from Tel Aviv.
And I ask: have these morons ever been to the entire half of their own city known as South Tel Aviv? This large area contains unique mixtures of organic and non-organic substances, the odor of which could bring a hardcore New Yorker to his knees. We're talking about streets that make Gotham City look like Toronto. To tell the truth, I find parts of south Tel Aviv quite charming in a grotty, nahlaot kind of way, but I'll never accuse Jerusalem of being particularly filthy after seeing/smelling that.
Jerusalem's got tons of problems - the municipality first among them - but let's refrain from gloating at one of Israel's truly special cities for gloating's sake.
P.S. Unbelievable! The day after I post this, another article comes out (Hebrew, article titled "Jerusalem of Ugliness").
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Why I Went to the Demonstration: Hubris
It was enough to stand in line for a bus at the Jerusalem Central Bus Station to see how wide the spectrum of people was for the demonstration on Thursday. In the long queue for Tel Aviv, an obvious old-school Jerusalem-intelligentsia left-winger was having a low-level argument with a family of settlers, even as they were headed to the exact same rally. No point in specifying types: everyone was represented.
I consider myself a somewhat intelligent person, and I'm not normally one to go for mass rallies, typically over-politicized and dumbed-down for the perennially underestimated "masses". Indeed, the demo on Thursday had several predictable detractions to it - first and foremost the shameless attempts by various political parties to claim ownership over the cause at hand. Several giant banners, splashed with the usual political sloganeering, were raised above the crowd. Also, while most of the speakers maintained a surprisingly respectful tone towards the protesters' intelligence, the cheesy Galgalatz pop-shmaltz of the musical interludes occasionally made me question what I was doing there. Adding insult to injury, Israel's favorite goat-voiced Lennon-wannabee, who had not served in the army, sang at a rally largely protesting the shameful preparation and direction of the IDF by the current administration.
But I was not there for any political reason. The two main (interconnected) arguments I had heard for not going concerned the inherent watering-down of the message at a mass rally, and the claim that forcing our Prime Minister to resign immediately may not be the best course of action at the moment, rocking-the-boat-wise.
I was well aware of both those points when I went. But after some deliberation, I reached the conclusion that by that same last point, I had to go - the alternative was worse. I knew few if any of the speakers would be speaking for me. I also knew factions across the political spectrum had all sorts of irrelevant personal and, of course, political axes to grind with Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz. But I went for one reason: not going would be an expression of apathy towards the incredible hubris of Olmert and Peretz. And that I couldn't live with.
No country deserves such shamelessly opportunistic "leaders". If it were the only bad move Peretz ever made, that he did not voluntarily refuse the position of Defense Minister due to utter lack of compatibility would be enough for me to brand him unfit for politics for life. And Olmert - well, where do I begin? Long story short, I watched him badly mismanage and spinelessly sell short my hometown of Jerusalem during his period as mayor. Surrounded by empty-rhetoric politicians, Olmert really takes the cake. During last elections, well before he had so many opportunities to screw up, and facing nothing but bad options, I knew one thing: there was no way I'd ever vote for that man. After the war, both men's desperate attempts to shun responsibility and keep their seats was sickening to me.
Not going would have meant I don't oppose these people - their conduct and their values, as leaders - to the core; and I most certainly do. On a larger scale, not going would be an indication to our leaders that Israel's citizens are not watching, do not care, and/or might even forgive their conduct. This had very little to do with politics. It has to do with leadership, and we currently have none.
I consider myself a somewhat intelligent person, and I'm not normally one to go for mass rallies, typically over-politicized and dumbed-down for the perennially underestimated "masses". Indeed, the demo on Thursday had several predictable detractions to it - first and foremost the shameless attempts by various political parties to claim ownership over the cause at hand. Several giant banners, splashed with the usual political sloganeering, were raised above the crowd. Also, while most of the speakers maintained a surprisingly respectful tone towards the protesters' intelligence, the cheesy Galgalatz pop-shmaltz of the musical interludes occasionally made me question what I was doing there. Adding insult to injury, Israel's favorite goat-voiced Lennon-wannabee, who had not served in the army, sang at a rally largely protesting the shameful preparation and direction of the IDF by the current administration.
But I was not there for any political reason. The two main (interconnected) arguments I had heard for not going concerned the inherent watering-down of the message at a mass rally, and the claim that forcing our Prime Minister to resign immediately may not be the best course of action at the moment, rocking-the-boat-wise.
I was well aware of both those points when I went. But after some deliberation, I reached the conclusion that by that same last point, I had to go - the alternative was worse. I knew few if any of the speakers would be speaking for me. I also knew factions across the political spectrum had all sorts of irrelevant personal and, of course, political axes to grind with Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz. But I went for one reason: not going would be an expression of apathy towards the incredible hubris of Olmert and Peretz. And that I couldn't live with.
No country deserves such shamelessly opportunistic "leaders". If it were the only bad move Peretz ever made, that he did not voluntarily refuse the position of Defense Minister due to utter lack of compatibility would be enough for me to brand him unfit for politics for life. And Olmert - well, where do I begin? Long story short, I watched him badly mismanage and spinelessly sell short my hometown of Jerusalem during his period as mayor. Surrounded by empty-rhetoric politicians, Olmert really takes the cake. During last elections, well before he had so many opportunities to screw up, and facing nothing but bad options, I knew one thing: there was no way I'd ever vote for that man. After the war, both men's desperate attempts to shun responsibility and keep their seats was sickening to me.
Not going would have meant I don't oppose these people - their conduct and their values, as leaders - to the core; and I most certainly do. On a larger scale, not going would be an indication to our leaders that Israel's citizens are not watching, do not care, and/or might even forgive their conduct. This had very little to do with politics. It has to do with leadership, and we currently have none.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Israeli Disease
(warning - rant coming up)
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
A friend of mine was kind enough to fly me on a business trip with him once. We were going to have a stopover in Europe, and I wanted to duck into the city for something. I was certain I could do it and come back in time for the connecting flight. He wasn't too thrilled about my plan, but I kept pressing - "It'll work out, c'mon!".
He then asked me The Question - the one question Israelis avoid bringing up, or even contemplating privately, ever:
What happens if it doesn't work out?
This is really a simple question. I couldn't word it any more simply. It means exactly what it says, and doesn't insinuate anything beyond. To an Israeli, however, this question is negative thinking at best, an out-and-out accusation at worst. "What do you mean 'what happens if it doesn't work out'? what, you don't trust me? nothing will go wrong!". And that's exactly it - to an Israeli, nothing will ever go wrong. It's an amazing, widespread delirium. If you don't live in Israel, you may think I'm exaggerating; but if you do, this should sound pretty familiar - it's the Israeli Disease.
While completely detached from reality, the Israeli Disease has its (few) advantages - this eternal optimism is behind our renowned ability to improvise, to miraculously create a solution out of thin air at the last second. It can also be said to be the result of a traditionally more cohesive, trusting society. However, its main problem is that it entails the wholesale sidestepping of consequences to one's actions. Everything will work out because "somehow, it always does", and the results - well, we see the results every day: in the news, and all around us.
Ahh, we lucky Israelis. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we allow ourselves to ask for any favor, big or small, damned the consequences. For the same reason exactly, warranties are nice pieces of paper that give an American-esque aura to a purchase or a service, but not much else. Since nothing will ever go wrong, we can build a rail system and then discover later the rails don't fit the cars. We can build event halls with floors that cave in, not to mention bridges. Since nothing will ever go wrong, government ministries and municipalities needn't concern themselves too much with, say, doing anything. The expression "cover for me" should be in the national anthem.
The Israeli Disease is responsible for us finding ourselves, again and again, up s#!t creek without a paddle. We see our politicians spreading promises left and right with no hope of fulfilling them, blabbing to the press, groping subordinates and taking bribes with no thought of consequence; we see wars fought under the assumption that winning them is somehow an ingrained Israeli "trait"; we see social security messing up, hospitals messing up, the police messing up, the army messing up, companies messing up, drivers messing up. As a good friend pointed out once, the common line you'll hear from a reckless driver - "haven't been killed yet!" - applies to every single person who has, one second before the crash.
So if you're Israeli, by birth or by symptom: please, stop and think. Ask yourself what happens if it doesn't work out exactly the way you planned*. By doing this you're not paranoid or self-defeating, you're merely being smart. By all means, go ahead with your plan, just remember it's only that- not a certainty.
As for my plan? As soon as my friend asked The Question, I dropped it. And surprise surprise: turned out there was no way in hell I could've pulled it off.
* if there even was a plan; "assumed" might be more appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)