Missing Elliott February 15, 2008
Posted by voolavex in Uncategorized.Tags: cat, death, grief, loss, love, orange, pet
2 comments
Last month on January 19th, our oldest cat, Elliott, passed away. He was just 18 years old and he exercised his prerogative to die. He taught me that dying is a hard business. And as much as I would love to believe he was fighting to stay with us – I know he had no concept of that. He was merely taking his time and it was hard for him. Old age and kidney failure were the cause of death – but until his last days he walked around, basked in the sun, drank water and broth, ate a little and slept a lot. He weighed 4.5 lbs; down from his usual 15. We hoped he would just go into that dark, good night at home, but try as he did, that good night remained dusk and finally it required our friend, our vet to help him over. That part, though a difficult decision, was a final act of love and mercy. He was in a coma and shutting down – but even so, his tiny, exhausted heart beat until the very end – in spite of a small sedative to ease him and a small dose of mercy that let him go.
He had been mostly mellow in life – but death proved to outwit his laid back style and his stubborn streak emerged – he was just not quite ready to go. He spent his last night in my arms – surrounded by his sister and brothers and I hope he was comfortable – I held him like there was no tomorrow – knowing of course there wasn’t a very long one for him. His life-long, noisy, aggressive purr gave over to simply breathing and there we were, my face and his fur dampened by my sloppy tears; Elliott wrapped in the same, safe arms that had first held him in 1990. Requisat in Pacem Orange Cat. You gave us happiness without end. You convinced your new dad that orange cats were the best and you shepherded a house full of newcomers who could never have been as happy without you. You had a pink, pig nose with its own special wrinkle that appeared when you groomed, an awful smelly breath (and many visits to the dentist), endless stripes and a face that insisted that anyone who passed by, really, really needed to say hello – to which you quacked “meow” in return. You did not scratch or growl. Your endless patience when kittens sat on you and refused to move was epic. You were the star of our building and the light of our lives. As a little lad, you spent many mornings upstairs with my godson, Oliver, playing Ghostbusters; meowing loudly at his door to be let in, heading straight for the bedroom. I liked to imagine you thought you were Dr. Egon Spengler. You never stopped making us smile. At one point, bags of catnip had to be taped to the ceiling – so amazing were your early skills at climbing and opening boxes. Because you had been born around dogs you drank water like a Great Dane. Your new dad called you Blocko because you decided between us was the right spot to sleep. That was a short 16 years ago . Your long life, with few mishaps, led us into a sense of a forever that we have learned, simply doesn’t exist. But you left us far too soon Elliott. And we still weep. And we miss you.
Don’t Cry for Her, Rawalpindi January 14, 2008
Posted by voolavex in Uncategorized.Tags: assassination, Benazir, Bhutto, Jinnah, murder, Pakistan, Rawalpindi
add a comment
No Lamp. No Golden Door. No Door. December 17, 2007
Posted by voolavex in Amnesty, English, Golden door, illegal, immigration, lamp, Mexicans, peasants, solutions, Spanish, Uncategorized, USD.Tags: Amnesty, English, Golden door, illegal, immigration, lamp, Mexicans, peasants, solutions, Spanish, USD
add a comment
The forthcoming election (thank God) is bringing the perpetual immigration question back to the fore. Every “solution” is filled with landmines and this means nothing gets done because people are scared of stepping on toes. And there are lots of toes to be stepped on. The righteous right, the liberal left, the mediocre middle and the folks beating down a door to get into this country. So what really is the elementary problem? Well xenophobia is a huge factor – these folks are new and different and therefore we must fear them. One economics arguments comes in on a simplistic level – they take our jobs. Do they? (When was the last time anyone actually applied for a job cleaning toilet downtown at night?). They tax the system and steal our social benefits. Assimilationists argue they won’t fit in. Humanitarians argue they have to be absorbed. But I don’t think it’s all that complicated – it has simply been made so by our forked-tongued PC hypocrisy. First look at the who we are talking about when we say “immigrants” – oops, illegal immigrants. We are not speaking broadly of an international bunch of illegal immigrants – we are talking about Mexicans and Central Americans and we are talking about – largely – folks of indigenous heritage. So let’s take a risk and call it what it is right away. These folks are usually Catholic and they have lots of babies. They don’t come to the US to get PhD.s – they come to escape a life of dirt floors and not enough food in many central Latin American countries. They do this by sneaking over the border. Sneaking over the border is illegal and as such – no one is supposed to do it for any reason. Too bad for your dirt floors and snotty kids, but you can’t just amble or swim or coyote over the border when you want to come here. So on one level it’s a criminal act instantly and in doing it these folks are breaking the law and therefore are technically criminals before they even get a breath of air. So send them home. That’s one thing. But moreover, to us, how they get here is an act of risk and desperation and messy. Not at all the way we think people should come into the US. Most of us think planes and trains are more fitting. Catholic churches offer sanctuary – and why not – they have to at least look as though they practice what they preach. And these illegal border crossers fill empty pews in churches that are rapidly losing their congregations. And churches are sacrosanct, so we can’t raid the church and ship the folks in hiding, back over the border because that would violate something – I am not sure exactly what – but it does. The next level of disdain and argument is what they are. They are peasants. We don’t have peasants in America and we don’t like them. It’s a shame too because we might have a better work force if we did. These Latino peasants are often unread and uneducated and speak Spanish and don’t feel good about trying to learn English. So we get annoyed. But instead of making it simpler for them to use English- we print lots of stuff in Spanish and English. This is an unfair mixed message. You don’t see it in other countries very often. We haven’t made it essential to learn English and so many don’t. Why bother? Would you? This presents a weird dichotomy because their children often emerge from our schools bi-lingual – something we don’t often produce in native born kids. So they wind up better equipped for better jobs in the public sector because of this very bilinguality and we get pissed about that. Moreover, in peasant culture your wealth is your children. That doesn’t really change for them here. And better yet, babies born in the US are automatically US citizens – probably something that should have been better thought out when we made it a law. You have to do more in other countries to get the official seal and the work permit. Being born isn’t enough. Yet we oblige ourselves to offer these tiny citizens (and their families) the same benefits as other Americans and this includes the social welfare system. You can see where I am going with this. And because we are essentially a cheap nation when it comes to wages – these people present a perfect chance to get cheap help with cheap pay in cheap jobs that are not very appealing. Certain cultural characteristics make many Latinos very polite and agreeable and so when it’s time to get a raise they get fired instead and don’t make too much of a stink. Americans sue. Why wouldn’t you hire the cheap labor at the best price and the added value of fast turnover? There is a little Wal-Mart in all of us .
But even more, the nub of the whole mess is money. Many, many illegal immigrants become citizens one way or another but there are others who don’t. But either way – we allow them to export US money (in the form of wages in high value dollars) back home. One LATimes story put the exportation of USD at 6 billion in a six month period giving USD the distinction of being Mexico’s most profitable GNP.
Here is my suggestion. Why not just take the carrot off the stick and see what happens as a result. No more giros to Mexico.No envio dineros – No mas. Stop giving automatic citizenship to all immigrant newborns here and set a ceiling on how much anyone can send back home to improve another country’s economy. (Years back Britain would not allow UK subjects to bring more than a certain amount of pounds out of the UK. ) Others have come to this country with their diamonds the soles of their shoes – not to mention undies. Most illegals come with nothing. But we must stop putting the blame on the peasants who, after all, just want a better bite of the apple Remove the damned apple. Do as Canada does – insist potential workers bring something to the table. We can’t improve the politics south of the border so give up that pipe dream. Simply get rid of the incentive for trying to cross the border. Declare an amnesty on anyone who made it over and then end the ride there. No harm, no foul, no lamp. And enforce it. The last I looked no statue was lifting her lamp beside the golden door on either our northern or southern borders.
The Green Guilt Relief Fund December 8, 2007
Posted by voolavex in bribery, carbon emissions, carbon offset, global warming, green, guilt, Guilt relief, hippies, Hummers, Kyoto.Tags: Guilt relief, Kyoto
add a comment
Without entering the complicated world of global warming and planetary catastrophe- let’s just have a look at carbon emissions and how you can still have them and feel green too. To be clear, I am speaking only for the US because I don’t know if anyone else in the world has a similar buy out. Having said this – it is not hard to understand why Americans talk the green but drive the car. People were green in the 70’s and got laughed at so often they gave up. It was viewed as some lunatic fringe behavior that was a holdover from the hippies. Plus the fact there was no tangible return on the effort. The heart of the matter: return on the effort. We like to be paid for everything. No good deed should go unpaid in this country. Including litigation if you happen to do one out of kindness and get caught. But we have sunk recently to a new low with the advent of Terrapass. According to the NYTimes “”…companies like Terrapass allow consumers to invest in projects like renewable energy and reforestation in an effort to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere equal to that produced by their cars, airplane trips and home energy use”. So this is really having your “fill in the blank” amount of cake and eating it too. No restrictions apply. Not to mention having had ample time and warning for the upcoming climate change and all it brings with it; face it, using the planet like a styrofoam cup is not new. Now we have guilt relief and it’s cheap too. I give up. Where did it say it should or would be easy to try to fix the environmental problems we face. Why should it be easy? Shouldn’t all of us have to do a lot more to try to save the only place we have in the entire universe to live? As it says in the Times “give us your money and we’ll deal with the problem”. And of course you get a snappy bumper sticker to let others know just how lazy and willing to pass the buck you are. Stop. We need hands on efforts to face this dilemma – not pay-offs to the private sector to assuage our guilt while we toddle around town in our Hummer, SUV or other gas guzzler. I think what we need are rules – not guidelines, laws, not suggestions and participation, not bribery to bring this country into being a more aware and involved partner in fixing our global health. I promise you, that should the moment come when it gets too hot to handle and we start to be a serious part of it , global warming will NOT exclude the US and its pay as you go citizens. No matter what anyone thinks. We sould have signed Kyoto.
For Gillian Gibbons November 30, 2007
Posted by voolavex in Catholic Church, Darfur, Gillian Gibbons, Hadith, Koran, Lashes, Muhammad, Sudan, Sunnah, Teddy bear, Uncategorized.Tags: Catholic Church, Darfur, Gillian Gibbons, Hadith, Koran, Lashes, Muhammad, Sudan, Sunnah, Teddy bear
add a comment
Recently I posted about the ins and outs of “Baby Shopping with Leviticus” – my adventure into buying a baby gift for a brand new Orthodox Jewish baby. After today’s alarming news about Gillian Gibbons’ ordeal in Sudan, I revisited my post and realized that even had I brought a teddy bear to that baby, it would have been a faux pas at worst and something we would all laugh about.
How does our tattered, damaged, world explain Gillian Gibbons, her students and the bear? As I understand it, the students named the bear in a class election and the name Muhammad got 20/23 votes. I suspect they thought they were naming him the most wonderful, respectful name of the three names suggested. So where is the problem that will put a British woman in jail for allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammad. If Islamic children were not allowed this name because it was sacred, one might understand. There would be no exceptions obviously. (even a small baby of special goodness or intelligence might be idolized if improperly named Muhammad – it’s happened before). And in spite of some cultures using the name Jesus for boys – it is not widespread because I suspect it sounds a little sacrilegious to most Christians. But certainly not blasphemous. Even though Leviticus, himself mentioned those who has blasphemed would “surely be put to death” (Leviticus 24:10-16). And Luke the Apostle (Luke 12:10) called it the eternal sin, I don’t think it had much to do with the naming of stuffed animals or babies. The times they spoke in and of were rife with Idol Worshippers. And the act of blaspheming is generally meant to libel or defame a god or gods. That presents another problem with the bear who was not even named Allah; he was named after Allah’s prophet who made it quite clear he was not God. You might also ask why these children – some of whom are Muslims, felt it was perfectly all right to name the bear as they did. Probably because it was okay.
The real question for me is why this particular faith in God requires so much, dying, bloodletting and debasing punishments for so many things – with no recourse. I am not Islamic, nor do I presume to imagine what Allah told his prophet – but in general, quoting from Wikipedia:
“In ethics and law, “Let the punishment fit the crime” is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction. The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world. (“Italics mine).
In the Koran there appears to be no injunction about the naming of people Muhammad nor does it specify a teddy bear. The law was simply meant to keep Islam idol free. Just as Judaism has done. And the Koran – which is more widely misused for gain, than quoted accurately does not condone the mistreatment of the innocent or the unknowing. TheHadith and Sunnah – the laws and traditions of Islam began being added to Islam a full 100 years after the death of the prophet. It comes as no surprise that anyone codifying a revealed faith might get some of its best ideas for heresy from an already successful endeavor called the Roman Church. They, after all, excelled at burnings, stonings, autos da fe and torture for those who didn’t believe correctly. ( Possibly the Baltimore Catechism was a later inspiration, but you see where this is going) Just as the Roman Church eagerly ordered these burnings and stonings and autos da fe; so too did the mullahs and ayatollahs who devised these codifications of the Koran. Dramatic laws and punishment are proven methods for leading to a greater control of the population and a way to advance ones group into power.
Submission.org is an excellent source for logical information about the Islamic faith and what it doesn’t stand for.
Since the bear was not being worshipped and there was never any intention to worship the bear and nothing is in the Koran that even mentions naming toys after the prophet – I tend to think this is a convenient spin on Hadith and Sunnah in the Sudan and I can tell you it is not going to enhance or further the Sudanese government, its dictator or the cause of Islam an iota. If you ever needed a small course in the mindset of the folks who created the Janjaweed and the disaster in Darfur – this should be your wake up call.
And it makes me wonder too, what will become of the children and their bear?
Wal-Mart Saves Money November 27, 2007
Posted by voolavex in Deborah Shank, despicable, health care, Wal-Mart.Tags: Deborah Shank, despicable, health care, Wal-Mart
4 comments
This is the full text of an email sent to me by Wal-mart Watch. This is a disgusting story of greed and immorality. It asks you to donate – but I am not asking that of you – I ask only that you to write to Wal-Mart, email Wal-Mart, call Wal-Mart and otherwise bombard Wal-Mart asking them why this is happening? I could list other companies that are just as guilty – but clouding the issue is not constructive. Go to the website if you want to donate – but I am NOT asking you to do that. Send your message of disgust to Wal-Mart.com. Their slogan: “Live Better. Save Money”. Bullshit
Scroll down for the story.
Seven years ago, a semi-trailer plowed into the driver’s side of Deborah Shank’s minivan.The 52-year-old Missouri Wal-Mart employee and devoted mother of three suffered permanent brain damage. Today she lives in a nursing home for round-the clock care, unable to walk, feed or dress herself.As the Wall Street Journal reported on November 20, it’s a tragic story – but it gets worse:
“Wal-Mart started out as one of the good guys in this story, paying almost $470,000 of Shank’s initial medical bills. But three years after Shank’s husband sued and settled with the semi driver’s employer, the retail giant changed hats. It demanded every penny back, plus interest and legal fees — more, in fact, than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special trust fund specifically for Shank’s future health care expenses.”Wal-Mart sued a permanently brain-damaged woman out of her medical care funds. Thanks to her former employer – the world’s largest retailer – Deborah’s family is sinking deeper into debt and Deborah will be completely dependent on Medicaid and Social Security for a lifetime of medical care.Wal-Mart Watch is collecting funds to help Deborah Shank’s family with her medical bills. Will you make a donation?
http://action.walmartwatch.com/deborahshank
Wal-Mart’s actions are horribly unethical and morally bankrupt, but the company says it’s legal – and it’s right about that.As the Wall Street Journal explains:The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart’s health plan that Mrs. Shank didn’t notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart’s reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone’s treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.
In cases like the Shanks’, where injuries and medical costs are catastrophic, accident victims sometimes can be left with little or none of the money they fight for in court. Company health plans are increasingly adopting language such as Wal-Mart’s, which dictates that it is to be paid first out of any settlement, regardless of what remains for the injured person. Moreover, the victim is responsible for all legal costs in pursuing the suit.
Last year the U.S. District Court sided with Wal-Mart over the Shank family – making its ruling just six days before Deborah Shank’s 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed while serving in Iraq.
The decision has forced Deborah’s family to take drastic measures. Earlier this year, her husband divorced her because of advice from a health care administrator, who said that she would qualify for more public assistance as a single woman.
The Shanks aren’t gold-diggers. They are an honest, hard-working American family trying to deal with a catastrophic event, and now they’re doing it with an empty wallet – thanks to Wal-Mart.
Please do your part to help the Shank family by making a donation now:
http://action.walmartwatch.com/deborahshank
This holiday season, Wal-Mart rolled out a new slogan: “Save money. Live better.”But who lives better with Wal-Mart’s low prices? Clearly, it isn’t Wal-Mart employees like Deborah Shank.Sincerely,
David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch
Paid for by WalmartWatch.com, a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics
To unsubscribe: http://action.walmartwatch.com/unsubscribe
The Da Vinci Dilemma November 27, 2007
Posted by voolavex in CBC, Chris Haddock, Da Vinci's Inquest, DVD, Netflix, Nicholas Campbell, TV, Uncategorized.Tags: CBC, Chris Haddock, Da Vinci's Inquest, DVD, Netflix, Nicholas Campbell, TV
1 comment so far
Why is it I can watch a telenovela from Venezuela ( I actually worked on one, La Traidora in the 90’s) and the BBC whenever I want, but I can’t get Canadian content unless they are pretending Vancouver or Toronto is anywhere but Canada? Who, reading this, has watched the best show on TV in North America? (FYI – it’s not an Emmy winner or nominee). It’s an import called “Da Vinci’s Inquest” , so full of talent, great writing and Canadian content that I have sat up until 3 a.m. to catch an episode. They describe it as a cross between Law and Order and CSI and to some degree it is – but it’s so much more. For those of you who read the Sunday New York Times – thank them for a small article (11/26) that heralded the second season of DVI, now on DVD. That information knocked The Soprano’s final second half right down the list on my Netflix queue and frankly – I love the Soprano’s. Da Vinci is something else all together. The creator, Chris Haddock, should be a household word in this country by now. Nicholas Campbell in the title role is dead-on perfect as the rumpled, believable coroner in the city of Vancouver, B.C. – ( for once not masquerading as somewhere in the US). Donnelly Rhodes (from Soap) is on the police force and is perfect – an old school copper who is trying to make sense of the brave new world of policing. Think Canada’s blue ? Thinker bluer. The conversations about a Red Light District for prostitutes to work safely and a clean needle exchange program don’t bother DaVinci and his crew at all. They’re all for them. That doesn’t mean he is the golden boy of the VPD – far from it – he is a thorn in everyone’s side and for good reason. Dominic DaVinci is everything you might hope for in a real person in law enforcement – (but not in the US). He is no saint; he has a real life, a drinking problem (his trips between AA and the local are really stunningly captured; funny and sad). He dates ( he’s divorced) and he likes sex. He is loyal to the people he trusts and they reward him with a respect and bonhommie that is curiously devoid of macho competition. The rest of the cast is stellar – but you won’t recognize their names. Trust me – we have the securest border on the planet when it comes to CBC airwaves. Yeah, I know – DeGrassi and some of SNL – but real TV is alive and well in the Great White North. They just aren’t invited to show it to us. So do yourself a great favor and rent/buy both of the two seasons now on DVD and write to ProgramPartners.com to tell them you want more DaVinci and at a better time. Then write Acorn media.com, who is the DVD producer. For chriss’ sweet sake – haven’t we endured Benny Hill – still do; and the black and white, archaic and insufferable “Are You Being Served?” Well as far as I’m concerned until we have a reliable, normal airtime for DaVinci in this neck of the continent – we are not being served. This is great television.
Dubya’s Buddy List November 23, 2007
Posted by voolavex in Buddy List, Chavez, Dubya, Musharraf, Putin.Tags: Buddy List, Chavez, Dubya, Musharraf, Putin
add a comment
If eyes are the windows to the soul, looking into the eyes of the folks on Dubya’s buddy list probably reveals optic nerves. I doubt there is anything more to see in them – but George sees something I don’t and it makes me wonder if he is seeing himself as he would like to be and not as he is. I used to think it was odd that George found looking into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and Pervez Musharraf so edifying (unless you are looking for upscale dictators who wield the kind of iron grip on their countries that George will never wield). Not any longer. I think too many people have let George slide with this “he’s naive” garbage when he says he finds “depth” in the eyes of these two leaders. “At the end of their first summit meeting in Slovenia Mr Bush described Mr Putin (he calls him Vlad) as a straightforward and trustworthy man.” Referring to a visit here by Pervez he said this “We remember fondly, Mr. President, your great hospitality in Pakistan and we remember the importance of that visit — it reconfirmed our friendship…” I think he sees very clearly what he sees. He may say something else (who can even tell what he says anymore) but these two are stone cold despots and I think George knows it and really likes what he really sees. I think he really likes Dick too for the same reason. They may remind him of Momma but mostly they probably take him to a place he thought he might go in 2000 when he stole the election from Al Gore. Why isn’t Chavez on the list? I suspect he finds Hugo Chavez an oaf and because he doesn’t see that he too is an oaf, he mocks him. Chavez is an oaf but he is also a despot so I am still surprised George hasn’t added him for a trifecta – but oafs and bullies tend to be picky about the people they IM. I wonder who gets mocked more? Dubya or Hugo? (Kudos to the King of Spain for his recent outburst too) And now Dubya is confused – Tony Blair is history and Gordon Brown just axed Pakistan from the Commonwealth nations so George must be thinking like a chameleon on plaid right now. Or sucking on a pretzel.
Every morning when I wake up I am pimp slapped by the fact that Dubya is still president – I find comfort only in the thought that a collective pimp slap is taking place all over this country. I miss Bill and I am not sure about Hilary because I still have a slight crush on Bill and so that seems weird. I like Obama too. But more than anything, I look forward to the day when I wake up and smile because Dubya, his buddy list and his smirk will be back in Crawford – kicking shit – which is what he seems to do best.
I’m Too Sexy for My Hat November 17, 2007
Posted by voolavex in Halter tops, sexist, sexy, Southwest Airlines.Tags: airlines, blondes, passengers, sexy, southwest, thighs
4 comments
I had a couple of other posts in mind but they will have to wait because this story is just too good to ignore.
Right Said Fred had a one hit moment in 1992 with a song that still sticks in the back of people’s minds today- “I’m Too Sexy“. It was a goof on a male model’s own view of himself and it inspired numerous parodies.
(”I’m too sexy for my car too sexy for my car Too sexy by far And I’m too sexy for my hat Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that” ).
That’s just one line of the song – but you get the point. It seems to have also inspired some employee at Southwest Airlines to decide that a passenger was too sexy for the plane.
Who is allowed to make such a decision if an airline – by its own statement – has no dress code? They must have a special “I’m Too Sexy” customer care associate to size up these matters and provide on the spot removal of people who are too sexy for the ride. (“Okay – you there Toots, with too much of everything, you have to go”. And go, she did; straight to Playboy – smart girl). But let’s get past the fact that this young woman was, in fact, very pretty, a blond with large breasts and dressed sparingly, in what is a very common outfit these days. SW Airlines claims that it simply doesn’t accept clothing that would offend their flyers. This would have to mean that they have either polled their flyers about sexy clothing or have an arbitrary rule about where the line is drawn. I wonder how that works? Do they measure male ground crew erections to determine this? That might be a way. Or tote up the number of female ground crew who crack on the size of the passenger’s breasts – though that seems a little biased to me. Could we see this passenger’s vajayjay? No – that was covered – as were the bosoms. Did they expect a gang rape on the flight?
Just exactly who is this censor who made the decision and what prompted it? It’s sexist, ageist, presumptuous and insulting – the first two are covered by free speech and the last are just really bad PR. And how did this person simply disallow a customer to board. I didn’t think the airline industry was that fiscally healthy that they could pick and choose who flies and who doesn’t. Is there now a new “no fly list” that covers clothing choices? Suppose you were on a flight with religious people in their various garb? That might be offensive to some. I happen to love saris, but suppose an employee thought that six yards of fabric wrapped without fasteners was potentially too sexy? What about spaghetti straps? Over the knee boots, stilettos? And what does it say about the male passengers on board. Does SW Airlines assume they are all so sex-crazed they would disrupt the flight drooling over this woman’s outfit? What if she had been a gymnast? I suspect this could never happen on Air France.
No, no. I suspect it wasn’t so much the outfit as it was the breasts and thighs in the outfit. Therefore and hence, I shall steer quite clear of Southwest Airlines, thank you very much. With such an arbitrary policy one can never be too careful or too sure it seems. The risks are simply too – well- risky. Too final you say – I don’t think so, because, despite being of a certain age – I know that I’m far too sexy for their planes.
Baby Shopping with Leviticus November 11, 2007
Posted by voolavex in baby gifts, chasids, evil eye, Jews, kosher, leviticus, Lubavitch, talmud, teddy bears, torah.Tags: baby gifts, chasids, evil eye, Jews, kosher, leviticus, Lubavitch, talmud, teddy bears, torah
1 comment so far
I have very close friends who are Lubavitch Chasids. I have known them for years and this year they welcomed their first grandchild – a lovely little girl. Usually when one goes to visit a new baby it’s fairly simple. Pink or blue, high end or tacky? Toys or clothes? Stocks or bonds? Usually.
To start, most Jewish folks do not have baby showers. It is considered bad luck to purchase anything for the baby before it is safely delivered from the womb. I tend to agree with this idea. By extension, however, Chasidic Jews do not even discuss names or gender. The basis for this is called kinahora – although it is spelled many ways. Ritualwell.org has this to say: “Jews have long believed that to call attention to a good thing-like overpraising a child-is to tempt the evil eye, a faux pas that demands the immediate recitation of “keyn eyn harah”, or kinahora, meaning “no evil eye” in Yiddish. This is also, in part, the basis for the little red string or bead that many observant Jews wear. Having this in mind I prepared to visit the new baby and her ecstatic family laden with gifts. But this was not just any baby; she was a Chasidic babe and if you want to do to the right thing for your friends’ joyous occasion (called a simcha), respecting their faith and tradition is the right thing to do and righter still if it’s your own faith as well.
Let me say this right away, shopping for babies is better than being pregnant and for little little girls it’s even better. Nowadays there are so many wonderful things to buy and knit and look for, that it boggles the mind. There seem to be endless sources of clothes and toys in every price range for boys and girls. Pale pastels, bright primaries and a world of amazing animals and soft things that shout “buy me!”. Except for the very observant. This is not to say that the very observant don’t go wild over their babies – they just don’t go hog-wild. Fortunately as I was tucking lions and tigers and bears, oh my, into my gift bags, I realized that these stuffies might not work for this little girl and her family. Now is when the concept of Tum’ah enters the picture. Tum’ah is a form of ritual impurity which can be expressed in several ways. For my purposes the most important consideration was in the representation of the stuffed animals. Wikipedia tells me that one may become tum’ah by coming in contact with certain animals; including some insects and lizards (enumerated in Leviticus, Chapter 11, verses 29 – 32). Leviticus is where we get the list of what’s kosher and what’s not and this includes animals. (I am still monumentally confused about Noah and the Ark – but that is another whole story.) And come on, who gets a baby bugs or lizards anway? I had also thought this restriction meant animals one ate – not house pets certainly, but apparently I was incorrect. I called my friend, the Bubbe (grandmother) who told me that ” you think a teddy bear is just a teddy bear – but it’s not”. I gather it’s a big, unkosher maneater. I started to point out that most Jews in Brooklyn don’t go out and run into bears but before I could mention this, she started to include other warm, fuzzy creatures that were treif (this is Yiddish for unclean) while I started to toss the poor, hapless stuffies from the bags. Pigs were out – no Olivia for this baby; no cats, no dogs, nothing with scales, no shellfish (Spongebob’s friends were totally a no-no – but the Sponge himself – not sure – isn’t he a kitchen sponge?), no crocodiles or alligators, no bunnies and presumably no mice or squirrels. The list is sort of narrow but I saw it as a challenge and one that I welcomed because domestic fowl are okay as are cows and goats and lambs. Ducklings!!! Chicks!!! And what could be more wonderful than a fuzzy, woolly little lamb? Could it be that simple? Not so fast. Nothing is wrong with a lamb unless the sheep wool is mixed with linen (and with things as they are in China you really cannot know). This is called “sha’atnez”. And is also covered in Leviticus and in the Talmud. Companies exist only to examine garments to guard against this admixture. So, in the end, the bags that went to visit this lovely little sheina maidele (beautiful girl) were filled with cotton onesies, little cotton tights, smocked cotton dresses, a Got Milk outfit in pink and androgynous little dolls that turned out to be perfect. I think I even worked in a little lamb too. Next time, though, I will go for duckies. The baby herself was adorable and just as sweet as she could be and the entire event was made even better because everything was, well, kosher. And when the next one arrives, I will be way ahead of the game. As soon as I know the gender I may even knit something – but not with sheep wool or spun flax; no, no, no – more likely it will be cashmere or cotton. Pareve, in kosher speak, neutral. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Voolavex 