Shhhhh......it's Darfur

I am trying really hard not to think about the genocide in Darfur. I know that's wrong. As a Jew I have a responsibility to jump up and down and scream "Never again!" everytime there's even a hint of genocide in the world. And if for a moment I thought that jumping up and down and screaming would actually do anything, I'd be right out there on the sidewalk.

It's just that I don't know what can be done. In an ideal world, the US, allied with other developed nations, would invade Sudan, lift the regime in Khartoum by the collar, and demand its milk money -- and a cessation of all genocidal activities. It worked in WWII. An extended aeial bombing campaign worked in Kosovo. But because of Iraq, and the looming crisis with Iran, I don't think the US has the resources, or even the will, to do that.

The most we seem willing to commit to is paying neighboring African nations to "peacekeep." Except that it looks like they're just standing around "keeping" Sudanese people in refugee camps.

Embargoes, divestments, and boycotts are not going to work. Paying proxy armies is not going to work. Sending in our own army is just not going to happen. Sending the people of Darfur food they can eat while they sit in concentration camps...er....I mean refugee camps.....is not working.

So here is a modest proposal: arm the Darfur villagers. Instead of food-drops, do AK-47 drops. Keep going until either the balance of power has shifted against the Janjaweed or until Khartoum halts the genocide.

Purim thoughts

I ran into a professor on the way to tea and offered him a hamentaschen. He had never heard of Purim, so I explained why I was carrying a giant container of cookies. His response: you just keep pourin' 'em. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

Verses 4:13-4:14 of the Megillah (book of Esther) never fail to move me:

13 and Mordechai said to relay to Esther, "Do not think that you will escape [the fate of] all the Jews by being in the king's palace. 14 For if you will remain silent at this time, relief and salvation will come to the Jews from another source, and you and the house of your father will be lost. And who knows if it is not for just such a time that you reached this royal position."

During services, I couldn't help but notice that the Rabbi's black suit and fedora made him look vaguely sinister. It seemed sort of wrong. Turned out he was dressed-up as a hitman for the Purim schpiel.

More hamentaschen thoughts: it looks like pumpkin and banana hamentaschen were a clear winner this year. Neither the pumpkin nor the banana were available in ancient Persia. Traditions must change.

Hebrew school tends to gloss over parts of the Megillah: the exact reason the king divorces Vashti, the "beauty" contest, the pretext Ahashverosh uses for killing Haman, etc (nudge-nudge wink-wink know-what-I-mean). Yet even as adults, we never seem to talk about what happens after Esther saves the day. Plot synopsis: Haman tricks the king into issuing a decree to kill all Jews in Persia on the 13th of Adar. Esther risks her life to ask the king to annul the decree. He says "ok," and hangs Haman from a 70ft gallows. And they all live happily ever after. Not quite. The king does not annul his decree; instead, he issues permission for Jews to defend themselves. So on the 13th of Adar, Jews banded together and killed roughly 75,000 of their enemies. I've always found this passage a little strange: why does the king need to give permission for people to defend themselves? And what good does it possibly do? If somebody is about to murder you, your family, and all of your friends and neighbors --- what have you got to lose by fighting? I can't imagine anyone deciding not to protect themselves and their families because it is illegal.

Rights vs. Responsibility

Classical Values examines what it means to say "Education is a right." I strongly believe that every person has the right to have access to a good education. I also believe that in the long run, society as a whole benefits from public education. Educated people usually become law abiding, responsible, tax-paying citizens.

All rights come with responsibilities. I agree with Eric's statement that if all children have the right to an education, then this means they do not have the right to prevent others from getting an education. In other words, they are responsible for behaving in school.

If a child is not ready to excercise his right to an education, maybe that right should be postponed until he is? We, as a society, have agreed to pay for 12 years of schooling for every child in this country. This social contract should be modified to pay for 12 years of schooling at any point in a person's life. If a 13 year old boy refuses to behave in school, then he should be expelled and get the option to resume his education when he is ready. Who knows, maybe a year or two working might teach him some discipline and give him the motivation to actually learn.

A push for civility

I recently learned from a guy working at Kinkos that nothing is more alluring about a woman than what's written on her health insurance claim. Even if this irresistible piece of paper is safely hidden in my purse, men must be able to sense its nearness. That's the only explanation for the hoots, whistles, and car honks I frequently get. (The later I don't get: what am I supposed to do, run after the car screaming, YES! YES! I WILL be the mother of your children!).

So with mixed feelings I present Holla Back NYC. Women (and a few men) who take pictures of New York's Don Juans and post them on the internet, so that women all over the world can admire their wit, charm and stunning good looks. That's what these men want, right?

Generally, I don't approve of violating people's privacy. I don't like it when people post pictures of other people on-line without their premission. I don't like when people feel free to discuss their friends by name on their personal websites. That's why I publish under a pseudonym.

But think of it this way, Street Don Juans humiliate women in public. Holla Back humiliates them right back. The men are just as anonymous and exposed as they were on that street corner. In some sense, it is the perfect libertarian response. If you act like a pig in public, well, some individual around you might decide to make sure it really is in public. And then other individuals who know you might decide they don't really need Porky Pig in their lives.

Shaming and Shunning: works for Puritans, Cheerleaders, and now, Internet Users. It's almost quaint.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the etymology of Holla Back.

Abandon all cars, ye who enter here!

One of my friends spent a summer living in Central Square, Boston. The parking situation there was insane. When she moved into her apartment, she had to go to the police with a proof-of-residence. They assigned her three blocks on which she was allowed to park her car. So every evening, she would have to circle her three blocks to find a parking space. No-one else was allowed to park in the area, day or night.

Such a system is inherently self-contradictory. If there are just enough parking spots for residents, why not assign people an actual spot? If there are not enough, some people will have to park illegally every night. The latter is more likely because the town's policy of offering pseudo-parking is bound to encourage residents to collectively own more cars than there is space to put them. Tragedy of the commons, anyone?

Oh, and did I mention that it is nearly impossible for a visitor to park *anywhere* in Boston? And no, public transportation does not solve the problem because the commuter rail and busses run infrequently and stop early at night.

The situation becomes only worse during snow storms. Plows can't clear the entire road because cars are parked there. Therefore, it is up to car owners to dig themselves out. Except that they have nowhere to park when they return, unless it is back in their original spots. This leads to asphalt squating.

Providence does not have the same problem because of the overnight parking ban. Car owners are forced to find their own parking; if you can't afford parking then you can't afford to own a car in Providence. This really annoyed me when I moved to Providence. But I find Boston even more annoying. It is annoying for residents. It is annoying for visitors. It is annoying for anyone who has to drive on a half-plowed street.

Providence, I forgive you!

You WILL be assimilated

Dean Esmay posts:

Because so much science these days is funded by the U.S. government (i.e. the taxpayers) it is outright obscene to suggest that scientists shouldn't answer to our elected leaders. You do not have a right to demand billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers, then slap a label on your chest and say, "We are scientists! You are not allowed to question us! Just give us your money and accept whatever we tell you!"

But we still insist on the right to publish our results using the scientific We.

Save the serfs!

Interesting post at Classical Values on affordable housing. An expanding hospital is buying up adjacent cheap rowhouses (I think that means multi-family houses) for $300,000 a pop. Apparently, the hospital is exerting no pressure, except dangling bigger and bigger bags of cash in front of the owners.

Critics complain that there will be no more cheap houses left in the town. This is a problem because people like teachers and firefighters will not be able to afford to live, and more importantly, work, there.

Something doesn't add up. The teachers and firemen who don't sell their houses get to stay where they are. The ones that do sell, should have enough money to buy a much better house somewhere else in the community. The only way the town would lose teachers and firefighters is if all of them sell their homes, move to cheaper neighborhoods, and use the money they gained when the value of their houses doubled to pay their kids college tuition.

There is a simple solution for averting the above tragedy: poor people who sell their homes for large profits must be heavily taxed to ensure they stay where they belong.