I was doing some research and I got distracted by a Washington Post article that was posted in June of 2010.  I was going to post a comment there, but then I realized that this article is old and no one will probably ever read my thoughts.  So I figured, why not post it here, my space that has been starved for content for WAY too long?  So here we go.

The article is about a group demanding that obscenity laws be enforced regarding internet pornography.  The article defines obscene content as “graphic material that focuses on sex or sexual violence, and it includes lewd exhibition of the genitals, close-ups of graphic sex acts and deviant activities such as group sex, bestiality and incest”.  That’s the first problem: this is not the legal definition of obscenity according to US law.  The US legal definition is nowhere near as specific as this, which is the main difficulty with obscenity laws (aside from the question of whether they should exist at all in the first place).

Another problem that annoyed me was the explanation provided by Dr. Sharon Cooper, “forensic pediatrician” and medical school professor, who says that pornography normalizes all sorts of unhealthy and harmful sexual behaviors for children, who are super-vulnerable.  Ok, so I may not be a medical doctor for children, I’ll admit.  But I’ve done plenty of research in this area, and I have definite problems with the medical community’s opinion of children and the media.  In particular, the medical community (as in, the American Medical Association, the American Pediatrics Association, and so forth) puts great stock in theories of the harmful effects of media on children, and frequently (at least, as recently as 2010–I haven’t had the opportunity to read any of their reports more recent than that) recommends controlling media content as the best way to fix the problem.  The less-informed parents’ associations and community-associations, eagerly embraces medical research as the highest authority capable of validating their desire to avoid disciplining their children or talking to them about sex, happily put the blame on the media.  Unfortunately for the medical community and naive parents everywhere, and as I’ve discussed on this site before, the relationship is hardly one of direct cause-and-effect.

Dr. Cooper is also quoted here as saying “when a child sees this image of adult pornography, the mirror neurons that are in their brain will convince them that they are actually experiencing what they are seeing,” which sounds utterly ridiculous to me.  So maybe I can’t back this up with scientific research, but my experience with children (and I have literally almost two decades of experience with children) has shown me that kids older than 5 are capable of telling the difference between something happening to them and something they’re watching on a screen.  Perhaps the situation described by Dr. Cooper may be the case with really really young children, under 5.  But if you’re letting your toddler use the computer without your supervision, you really have no one to blame but yourself.  Would you let your toddler walk down the sidewalk without you watching them the entire time?  Of course not.  Because the child might walk into the street and get hit by a car.  You don’t let a child, who really doesn’t know any better, do whatever s/he wants and then blame the rest of the world for getting on with the business of living.  Any situation that, in your opinion as a parent, could be potentially dangerous  for your toddler demands your supervision of that child, whether it’s walking down the street or using the computer.

Then we get to the comments, which is what really sparked this rant.  The vast majority of the comments were in agreement with this group demanding that we protect our “children’s innocence” from the “epidemic” of internet porn.  I’d say they were whining, but they completely weren’t.  They were actually quite sharp and sarcastic comments, directed at those who would put the onus on parents.  “What parent sits beside their child EVERY night to make sure they are doing what they are looking at what they are supposed to do and doing their homework ONLY?” rants one.  Others call for forcing ISPs to block access to “obscene” sites, which is a whole different can of worms to be opening that I just don’t have the time to go into right now.  Suffice it to say that if you have a problem with the government telling you what you should and shouldn’t be seeing, you don’t want to give a corporation that kind of free-wheeling power either (or at least, more of that kind of power than they already have).  Still others argued that the entire pornography industry should be shut down (a bit of an extreme view), and there was one guy who suggested that all publishers of pornography sites should be executed (way more extreme).

There was also the guy who talked about reviving the push for an .xxx domain as a possible solution to the problem, which seems reasonable until you think about it just a little bit: wouldn’t an .xxx domain make it EASIER for kids to find porn?  let’s face it: humans are naturally curious, and children especially so (it’s how they learn).  If a kid wants to find pornography because s/he is at that age and is curious (and especially if mommy and daddy pretend like there’s no such thing as sex and babies are carried to families by the stork), that kid will do what it takes to find porn.  Teenagers and tweens have been able to find pornographic materials for much longer than there has been an internet, so don’t delude yourself into thinking that pushing it “underground” will keep your children from finding it if it’s what they’re looking for.

But the bottom line here is that you can’t keep this stuff from your kids forever.  Eventually, they hit puberty, no matter how much you want them to stay little kids forever.  And if you want to prevent them from emulating the behaviors they see everywhere else around them (even in non-porn contexts, I mean), then you had better make sure you take an active role in their sex education, because research has shown that more than any other influence in a child’s life, their PARENTS are the ones they tend to listen to the most.  “Protecting” children from exposure to any kind of sexual knowledge might make parents feel better (because they don’t have to have “the talk”), but it only teaches kids that sex is an unacceptable topic of conversation to have with your parents.  And if your kid can’t talk to you about sex, they aren’t just going to shrug their shoulders and say, well, I’m sure my parents will teach me about sex when they think the time is right, so there’s no point in trying to figure anything out by myself.  More likely, if you deny your adolescent the benefits of your wisdom in the arena of sex, s/he will simply turn to the next available “tutor”: their friends (arguably as clueless as themselves), TV, and yes, internet pornography.

Instead of being squeamish, parents should take the initiative and teach their kids about sex (and I mean ALL of it, including the pleasures as well as the potential physical and emotional consequences involved).  If all parents did this, kids would be less likely to go looking for porn, and less likely to be completely warped by coming upon it by accident.  In addition, you wouldn’t have to worry about whether your kids were having sex – they’d tell you if they were thinking about it.  Imagine that!  You could have the opportunity to try to reason with them and convince them not to take that step before they make a mistake, and with a good chance of actually succeeding (because they have learned to respect your opinion, not because you’ve threatened them with punishment)!  Or have the opportunity to reinforce the importance of safe sex so that they don’t have to face pregnancy or STDs!  Or get the chance to high-five them and celebrate their decision!  See, there’s an option for every possible parenting opinion on teenage sex.  But only if you keep that line of communication open.  Otherwise, they’ll still be looking at pornography and having sex; the only difference is that you’ll be completely ignorant of it all until it’s too late.

It’s hardly a secret that some members of the Fox News talent have made a habit of referring to President Obama, his administration, and his policies (as well as Democrats, Liberal activists, other journalists, and pretty much anyone else they disagree with) as Nazis or Nazi-like or Hitler or the Gestapo.  But in the past, every time I heard about such an instance, I had always just shook my head and dismissed it as the ranting of overexcited entertainers prone to exaggeration.  That is, until this morning.  This morning I watched last night’s episode of The Daily Show.  I had been itching to see this episode ever since I heard that Friday night, Keith Olbermann abruptly ended his tenure with MSNBC.  I was disappointed that Jon barely touched upon what was, in my mind, a rather big story.  But I soon forgot all about it when he went on to address Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s on-air assertion that no one on Fox News ever uses Nazis and Hitler as a point of comparison.  Jon’s response?  A montage of Fox News personalities and guests doing precisely that.  Oh, not every clip showed a direct case of name-calling, but there were a lot of read-between-the-lines implications that were so clear they needed no explanation.

Something about all those instances gathered together in one place must have made something click in my brain, because suddenly, it wasn’t just a matter of dismissing one loudmouth for a tendency to exaggerate and a lack of restraint.  Rather, the aggregation of these examples made me instantly aware of how words like “Nazi” and “Hitler” and “Gestapo” are being casually used for no other reason than to bludgeon the opposition (or anyone who might smell like the opposition).  And that made me angry.

My problem here is this: World War II was less than a century ago.  There are still many people alive in this country who survived that time, either as a veteran of the U.S. army or as an Eastern European refugee.  Yet time and generations have removed us from the historical reality, apparently to the point that we can hear someone equate democratic government processes with Hitler’s totalitarian regime, or suggest that an individual, because of his/her opinions or policies, is nothing less than a Nazi or a disciple of Joseph Goebbels and not even blink.  It’s the casualness with which these references are made that I find to be problematic and most offensive, because it shows a complete lack of respect for the people Hitler and his officers murdered with his war, and especially those he destroyed with his Final Solution.

“Oh, but that’s not what the people using this language aim to do,” comes the argument.  “The Nazi party was socialist and propagandist and that’s the part they are intending to reference!”  Yes, that is probably true.  But that is also precisely what makes their efforts so loathsome.  I’ll be the first to admit that the Nazi party was a socialist movement and that Hitler was a socialist leader, and that they successfully implemented vast and effective propaganda campaigns to achieve their ends.  However, the fact of the matter is that NONE of that is what people most remember them for, and rightfully so.  The Nazi party started out as an anti-Semitic, and yes, socialist movement, but Hitler was really not so interested in the “socialist” aspect of its philosophy, and his actions reflected as much.  People who use this rhetoric are well aware of this history (or else are just brainless drones parroting without thinking, which tells me they ought not to hold prominent positions at all), and I’ll bet they find it quite convenient.  They recognize the opportunity of having labels that allow them to both elicit the fear they desire without actually lying.  It’s a friggin’ brilliant bit of strategy when you think about it.   By using these words in association with individuals or policies, they effectively evoke a response of fear that efficiently overrides common sense, yet automatically have a seemingly valid defense to critics.  What?  The Nazi Party was a socialist party!  And they did use vicious propaganda!  Am I wrong?  Look it up!  It’s a wonderful tool to have in your belt if your sole objective is to discredit the opposition.

But if your opposition isn’t actually, and actively, trying to ethnically cleanse the population, not only are the comparisons deeply offensive, but they are also intentionally misleading.  It’s like making the statement “Ludwig von Mises was just like Hitler” without any explanation.  People who know nothing or very little about von Mises would automatically come to the most common conclusion, associating the former with the atrocities of the latter.  While this conclusion is an outright fallacy (von Mises was actually a Jewish economist who fled Europe just before the start of WWII in fear of Hitler’s Germany), the original statement is still true, as both Hitler and von Mises sported a toothbrush mustache.  But unless you knew that information (or looked it up on Wikipedia, which is what I did) before hearing someone make the statement, your only recourse is to assume that the comparison refers to the most commonly known information about Hitler.  That’s the beauty (and danger) of simile.  Like human beings take advantage of available natural resources, the people using this language are taking advantage of the automatic associations similes naturally provoke.

No one could accuse me of thinking that Fox News is god’s gift to journalism.  However, unlike many people in my field, I don’t think that Fox News, on the whole, was forged by the devil in exchange for Rupert Murdoch’s soul (some might say that the devil got swindled in that exchange).  I don’t think Fox News is more biased than any other news organization – I just think they’re biased in a different direction.  And I do believe that that they are a valuable part of any balanced news media diet, because, even if you disagree with their position (and I frequently do), they nevertheless do bring attention to stories and perspectives that are not covered by other news sources.  The problem is, however, that not all the positions and opinions advanced on Fox News are necessarily equal in validity to those promulgated by other news sources (and vice versa, by the way), and some of their tactics and strategies are equally questionable (again, this is not exclusive to Fox).  This is one such situation, however, and it is particularly despicable, and it seems to be one that is, for the most part, limited to Fox News.

I suspect that the individuals using such rhetoric don’t really understand how offensive they are being, probably because none of them lost anyone to the Nazi genocide.  Maybe a grandfather or an uncle died in the military conflict, but I highly doubt that Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, or anyone else who casually makes such references have members of their family whom they never got to meet because those relatives were killed in concentration camps or during a pogrom.  They do not fully understand true horror of what was done to Jews, Poles, Africans, Asians, gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally and physically handicapped people (along with anyone else who was deemed not to be “Aryan” or who opposed Nazi power), probably because they have only seen it in pictures and read it in books.  Have they ever seen their grandmother weep as she told of how she watched members of her family being led away, never to see them again?  Have they ever gotten chills or felt sick to their stomach, seeing the faces of their lost family members in the background while watching Schinlder’s List? I would think not.  If they had, it might not be so easy for them to use words like Hitler or Nazi to describe people they simply disagree with.

The fact that the Nazis used propaganda is not the biggest crime of which they were guilty.  I mean, nearly every country in the world has used propaganda at one time or another, and the United States has relied on propaganda for nearly the entirety of its existence.  What was deplorable about Nazi propaganda was the objective for which they used it.  Likewise, what made the Nazi party so horrible was not the fact that they were socialists.  What made them horrible was that they were selective socialists.  The only people worthy of social benefits were the members of the Aryan race (which, frankly, seems to have been a very narrow category) – everyone else did not deserve to live.  Calling someone a Nazi (or even to suggest that they are like Nazis or Hitler) simply because you want to make a political point, evoke an emotional response, or discredit certain opinions and/or policies, is a sickening practice that uses the suffering of others to further your own petty motives.  Further, it is horribly disrespectful to the millions of people who Hitler and his followers dehumanized, raped, dismembered, burned, and otherwise unconscionably murdered with gas chambers, with starvation in forced labor camps, and with bullets in the street.  It takes the defining acts of Hitler and the Nazi regime, which was nothing less than brutal genocide, and reduces these inhuman crimes and their victims to little more than political ammunition and talking points.  In short, this rhetoric is both disgusting and false, and therefore doubly reprehensible.  As such, it has no place in civilized debate and discussion in the United States.  And that goes for anyone who publicly makes such assertions, whether you’re a host or a guest on Fox News (or, indeed, any media outlet), a protester in the street, or a Congressman on the floor of the House.  You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I happen to glance in my rearview mirror and I notice there’s a tiny little white Volkswagon coming up on me fast.  When I’m in the left lane and I see a car coming up behind me quickly like that, I usually try to move over to the right once I get the chance, even if the approaching car appears to be set to ludicrous speed.  But I was in the middle of passing a truck, so there was nowhere to go.  I was planning on moving over to let him pass once I was clear of the truck, but then I saw that there was another car right in front of the truck, and another car in front of the first car, and there was about a car’s length of space in between each – enough for a quick emergency merge if I absolutely had to, but small enough that doing so would be akin to cutting someone off.  From previous experience, I know it’s a very bad idea to cut a truck off like that, and doing it to another car, while not as dangerous, is still pretty rude if there’s no good reason for it.  As I was not in a rush or an emergency, so I decided I would stay in the left lane until it was clear for me to move over. Meanwhile, I’ve got my eye on the little Volkswagon.  He’s coming up much faster than I’m driving – musta been doing at least 95 (but probably faster) – until suddenly, he’s practically on top of me.

Now, when a car comes up behind me fast (and I can usually see them coming, since I check my mirrors neurotically), I move over if I’m able.  Sometimes I don’t move over right away — maybe I was distracted by something or lost in a driving coma (that would be when my mind wanders to something else and my internal autopilot takes over – my brain has a very solid autopilot mode, but it tends to make me drive a little slower than normal…) — and I’ll notice suddenly that there’s someone behind me who clearly wants to go faster than I’m currently driving.  As long as the person is giving me a respectful distance – if I can at least see their headlights – I’ll either speed up (if I’ve been going unusually slow) and/or move over at the first opportunity.

It’s funny, because until I moved out of New York, I never thought to do this.  On NYC highways, the left lane is really not much different from any of the other lanes.  Oh, I’m sure I remember learning something about “the passing lane” in driver’s ed, but in practice, inchworm traffic is such a common phenomenon on the highways that the concept of a “passing lane” becomes completely irrelevant to the way you drive.  In New York City, the “passing lane” is any lane you are in while you’re going faster than the other cars.  But since moving away, I have spent a lot of my time driving on interstate highways, and there, the “passing lane” isn’t a fictional character.  So I quickly came to recognize that the left-most lane is meant for passing, and that if I’m not actually passing anyone, I really shouldn’t hang out there.  But I digress…

As I was saying, IF a car behind me is giving me reasonable distance, I’ll usually yield to him/her at the first opportunity.  However, this Volkswagon was NOT being reasonable.  He was practically up my car’s ass.  Now, I don’t tolerate this kind of driving behavior (not even from cops).  It’s rude, childish, and incredibly dangerous.  So whenever someone tailgates me like that in an effort to force me to go faster, my initial reaction is to slow down.  I don’t slam on my brakes or anything (I’m not interested in causing an accident) but I just slowly stop giving my car gas and let it slow down naturally, which is what I did here.  Usually, this gets them to back off within a matter of seconds, but this idiot was persistent.  He slowed down too, but kept right on me.  I could see the disgusting sneer on his dumb face and on the face of his buddy in the passenger seat.  I cared little.  I continued to slow down.  Now the two cars and the truck to my right began to pass us.  I stayed this way until the truck had fully passed him and he finally merged right in frustration.  Unfortunately I got excited by my triumph and immediately sped up, which, of course, prompted him to switch back to my lane and follow me (he didn’t tailgate me because it took him too long to speed up to catch me) until he could pass me on the right and damn near hit me as he cut me off trying to get in front of me.

I’m sure he thinks he “won,” cutting me off and getting me to slam on my brakes and swerve right to avoid smashing into him.  But I’m a little pleased that I still got him to change his behavior, even if only for a second.  I should have kept pace with the truck, so he would have been boxed in, and would have been forced to slow down if he wanted to pass either me or the truck.  Lesson learned, and won’t soon be forgotten.

To my fellow decent drivers:  We should have no patience for tailgaters.  They are the naughty children of the driving family.  They want something, and they want it now, and you’d better give it to them or they’re going keep to bugging you until you do.  These people require some good, old-fashioned discipline.  We must shake our index fingers at them and firmly tell them “NO!”, just as we would any misbehaving child or bad dog.  We must all endeavor to have good manners on the road, because it’s not about protecting personal pride so much as avoiding broken bones.  If you’re driving slower or at the same speed than most of the cars around you, stay out of the left lane so that those of us who don’t mind tempting fate may pass you.  If you’re in the left lane and you see someone behind you at a respectful yet urgent distance, have the decency to move over (when you get the chance) and let him/her pass, since you would want them to do the same for you.  But if some asshole is insistently shoving his/her car’s nose into your tailpipe, don’t speed up or move over to let him/her pass.  Don’t reward this disgusting behavior.  Just ease into Driving Miss Daisy mode until the idiot calms down and backs the fuck off.

The story of Departed is simple enough.  Massachusetts State Police are chasing Boston’s Irish Mafia, and each coterie has an operative well-placed in the ranks of the enemy.  The way Scorsese tells the story, however, is frustrating.  Similar to riding the T, The Departed jostles us along with aggravating sluggishness briefly interrupted by short bursts of speed.  The film especially takes its time at the beginning, making painfully sure the audience possesses every last molecule of background information.  When the movie does quicken its pace, the audience suddenly revives.  Their anticipation and the scene’s excitement crackle together in the shared space of the theater.

The precious spans of tight action, respectable acting, and some well-placed dialogue make up for the loitering explanations.  Scorsese adds to these a brew of deliciously raw action shots.  The force of a bullet propels heads violently backward, healing bones are forcefully re-broken, and a body tossed off a roof splatters gloriously on the pavement.  These ingredients serve up the suspense and story mobility that rabid audiences crave, but are nearly invalidated by the film’s disappointingly hollow ending and the pandering metaphor that accompanies it.

The acting is notable, as it ought to be with casting such as this.  There are so many big names in this picture (Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg) that there was barely any room in the trailer for a plot summary.  DiCaprio hasn’t gotten much respect from me in the past, but as Billy Costigan, the rat on the side of righteousness, he does better than expected, despite a forehead that is forever creased with worry.  Damon’s authentic Boston accent (He and Wahlberg are the only major cast members who’s got it) is thankfully not the only good thing about his performance.  As Colin Sullivan, the mob’s greedy, silver-tongued mole in the State Police, Matt is convincing enough to make screaming fans look away from his baby blues with a little distaste.  Sheen and Wahlberg play good cop/bad cop as Costigan’s supervisors, and while far from forgettable, their performances are unfortunately sidelined.  Baldwin plays Sullivan’s supervisor, Ellerby, and although his part is minor, Alec stands out in a major way. Of course, it would be inexcusable to neglect the man we all paid $10.75 to see.  As Frank Costello, the Big Cheese himself, Nicholson is powerful and domineering, with a touch of crazy.  This is how we like Jack, and his performance leaves us content.

If the Gangster genre were a crime family, The Godfather would be Mr. Big, with Goodfellas as his right hand man.  Angels with Dirty Faces would survive as the revered elder, Scarface would be the megalomaniac with illusions of grandeur, and Pulp Fiction would inhabit the role of the loose cannon with the itchy trigger finger.  The Departed would probably be the pipsqueak cousin who acquires a place in the gang as a result of nepotism rather than actually being fit for the job.  Departed definitely has the good vs. evil component so intrinsic to the gangster type, as well as the requisite cat and mouse game with the police involving lots of gunfire and corpses.  Yet, the element of morality is missing from this movie.  A “hero” of gangland acknowledges his misdeeds, even if only in a minor way, which justifies audience admiration.  Vigilante justice replaces this tacit repentance, robbing the audience of the comforting triumph of ethical ideals.

Compared to both Scorsese’s recent fare and this year’s long list of clunkers, The Departed is more than just a step in the right direction.  Its plot engages, its acting compels, and its editing stimulates without disorienting.  These factors cover major ground in the battle for an audience’s favor.  Let’s not forget, however, that covering ground isn’t tantamount to victory.

My dad was the one who chose my first car.  Part of the reason for this was because he (and my mother) were fronting me the money to buy a car (it would take me several years to pay them back), but also because, as a 20-year-old girl with no brothers, I knew squat about cars, and so I deferred to my father, who seemed to know a lot (relatively speaking).  Plus, I was just so happy at the idea of getting a car that I didn’t care what it looked like so long as it had four wheels and an engine.  He could have gotten me a dune buggy for all I cared, and I would have been ecstatic.  But I thought I should tell him about my fondness for the Maxima, just so he’d be informed of my tastes.  In response to this information, my dad frowned and replied “that’s an expensive car.”  At the time, it was only about 5 years old, so it probably WAS expensive then.  Knowing I was in no financial position to argue, I considered the matter closed.

That summer, he found me my first car, which was a 1988 Oldsmobile Regency.  NOTHING like the ’95 Maxima (except perhaps for the V6 engine).  I drove my old-man Oldsmobile (I named him “The Boat,” because he very much was one) for five years.  Then, a few months before I was going to move to Boston to start my masters, my sister happened to mention that her friend was making aliya (moving to Israel) and was selling his black, 1995 Nissan Maxima.  V6 and leather seats, just like my Olds (though, the similarities ended there).  The Boat was aging gracefully, to be sure, and he still had some juice in him, but I rationalized the hell out of the situation (new city, new start, new car; it’s the opportunity I never had to get the car I’ve always wanted), and snapped that baby up.

My Gluteus Maximas (as I christened her) now has been my companion for over four years.  I totally love her.  Some time after I first acquired her, however, I began to notice that, once again, 95 Maximas were everywhere.  Parked on the street, passing me on the highway.  It got to the point where I could recognize them as they come up behind me in my rearview mirror.  But we’re not talking about a 5 year old car here anymore; we’re talking about a 15 year old car.  When I remarked to a friend of mine that for so many people to own the same car from the same exact year really says something about the quality of that particular car, he agreed with me and then explained that it’s not surprising, since the 95 and 96 were actually two of the best years for the Maxima.  This tidbit of information boosted my already inflated pride in my car.

And so here I am, several years later, still with my beautiful Gluteus Maximas.   I drive now nearly four hundred miles per week, most of it on the NJ Turnpike, and the number of 95/96 Maximas I see on the road has held steady.  And I began to think, I’m probably not the only Maxima driver who is proud of their ride.  And I think those of us who do drive this car ought to feel a certain camaraderie for one another, a sort of joint-pride.  And to signal this camaraderie, I truly believe that we should make up some way to greet one another as we pass each other on the road.  A hand gesture or a horn-honk or some kind of signal that acknowledges our shared membership in a select group of Maximites.

So if you drive a 95/96 Maxima and you see me pull up beside you one day and salute you from my leather bucket seats, don’t be confused.  Just smile and return the gesture, and let the Maximite pride carry you through the rest of your day.

Several things are over. Firstly, the election. I can’t say I’m happy with the results, but then, I think no matter what had happened, I would still be unhappy. It was a choice between gnawing on rancid raw meat or using liquid dog feces as eyedrops. I’m not sure which one I chose and which one got elected.
What else is over? My midterms! Praise the lord! I can barely see straight, but they’re finally over. I stayed up till 6 AM lat night, so I guess the main question is, why am I still awake? I’m not really so sure myself. I guess just wondering what I’m going to do once I graduate. I know what my ultimate goal is: to be a published professor of film at some hoity-toity college and maybe a published film critic as well. But how to get there? I dont see a clear road. I mean, yes, I see graduate school and going for a PhD, but where? The first thought that came to my mind was NYU, but it’s so expensive and I havent exactly won the lottery lately. My advisor told me about a City University Masters of Arts and Liberal Sciences program with a focus in cinema studies, but that doesnt really sit well with me. I mean, have you ever heard of a published, respected professor graduating from the City University of New York? No, of course not! They get their masters from prestigiuos state universities or fancy private colleges. I could get a loan or scholarships, I suppose, but scholarships are tough to get, and I dont feel like being in debt for the rest of my life. I’m not even elligible for finanacial aid. My parents can afford it, they just wont pay for it.
Of course, all this is school business is really just a moot point. I am not interested in continuing my education just yet. I am finishing my BA in December, and I have had enough of school for the time being. I want to go for a little bit without having to worry about papers and homework. I want my evenings and weekends to myself for a while. Maybe that’s wrong. Maybe I should be going directly into school, do it full time and finish my masters and PhD in another five years? I dont know. Is it wrong to work for a little bit? I dont want to end up wondering, what if. But then, what if I take a job, and I just get lazy and end up staying at the job instead of going back to school? Man, being at a crossroads really sucks ass. I dont know which way is the right way. Did you know that a goldfish’s memory is so bad that by the time it swims to one end of the tank, it’s forgotten that it just swam it? So when it turns around, it’s as if it sees new, uncharted territory when in actuality, it’s the same dirty stinky tank it’s been in its entire life. “Oh wow, there’s something new!” I kind of feel like a fish in a tank. Every time I look at one of my options, it looks great. But as soon as I look over at a different option, that one starts to look perfect for me. Then, when I look back at the first one in order to make a comparison, the first one starts looking good again. It’s a vicious cycle. How do people do this??

Lucky for you I’m so exhausted, since it saves you from having to read my usual 2000-word post.

Children are a strange sort. I teach kindergarten in a Hebrew school once a week. You’d think that teaching the basics of Jewish life to five-year olds would be a simple task, right? You’d be wrong. These kids arent religious, and their parents send them to Hebrew school so that they get some sort of Jewish or religious education in their lives to counteract the effects of growing up in the secular public school system. This is all fine and good. However, I find it very difficult to teach the elements of prayer and blessings over foods when the children bring non-kosher candy into class, and proceed to share the uncleanliness with all the rest of the kids. It’s also kind of hard to talk about the stories of Abraham and Noah and Moses when all these kids want to talk about is what they dressed up as for Halloween.

Dont get me wrong: I have nothing against public school, non-Jewish activities and holidays or eating non-Kosher food. Hell, Halloween is one of my favorite holidays and I even sometimes eat non-kosher food!  But I grew up in a religious household, and learned in a Yeshiva setting most of my educational carreer. Forget being affected by it, I wasnt even aware that popular culture existed until I was in college!! We’re talking really sheltered and naive. (In some ways, I still am naive.) I didnt even talk to members of the opposite sex until I graduated high school (I went to an all-girls school. Here’s a tip: an all-female environment starting from puberty is not so great for a girl’s socialization with guys. She may come out of the experience either a lesbian or completely terrified of men. I became the latter).  Meanwhile, these kids, by contrast, are so desensytized to everything, it’s incredible! It’s like they’re these sexual beings trapped inside of five-year-olds’ bodies. For example, today, the music teacher came into class. He was playing his guitar, singing his songs about thanking God, beautiful mornings, and generally happy, innocent Jewish concepts. All the kids get up to dance like little kids often do. You know, you’ve seen it on Barney or Sesame Street. How do kids dance? They jump around and shake various parts of their bodies in random rhythms. It’s normally very cute. But one little girl decided today that she’s gonna shake her booty like a pole dancer. I’m talking pelvic thrusts and gyrations that belong in a strip club, not a kindergarten classroom. I didnt know what to do! This is also the same girl who insists that several of the boys in the class are her boyfriend. She switches off weekly. One week Timmy is her boyfriend and the next week Johnny is her boyfriend. Sometimes she two-times them. There are seven boys and four girls in the class. She can have her pick! She could go for a month and not even get with every guy in the class!! She likes to play with their minds. I hope this doesnt lead to a fight. If only this were the only instance. Last week, one of my boys pinched my ass as he was walking past me and then said “You go, girl!” I wish I was kidding. Don’t get me wrong. I love these kids. They are cute, and most of the time they behave. Of course, sometimes I want to run from the room screaming and give myself a swirly. Children are our future. Frankly, that kind of worries me.