Musical crush, awesome-cool update edition.

Matt Priest, of Canasta… stopped by this blog. Today. And left a comment. And said thank you. And also linked to the official video for the song that I’ve twice embedded (how the official video escaped my eye, I have no idea). No, really, he did! Click here if you don’t believe me, you un-believing-type person!

And so it seems only right that I embed the right clip! Especially as I’ve now had this very song on loop in my head for like, I don’t know – a week? Or so?

I give you: Microphone Song – the official clip!

*

(Thanks, Matt Priest! I think your band and musical oeuvre are very, very fab).

PS Squeeing may or may not have ensued when I saw the above-linked comment. We may never know, and I will never say. Ahem.

Why isn’t it hate speech if it’s about women?

Facebook-UnlikeI am famously Not On Facebook (well, “famously” among you folks, anyway), but not being on Facebook doesn’t mean that I’m entirely unaware of the phenomenon. And it strikes me that, much like Twitter, there are probably nearly as many “Facebooks” as there are users, all the various different little cultures that have been created and propagated on that platform, most users largely unaware of most of the other cultures that exist right along beside them (kind of like, you know: in the Real World).

Which is why I’ll bet most Facebook users have no idea how much vile, violent anti-woman hate speech is posted there daily, under the guise of free speech and/or “humor.”

This week, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman and Laura Bates posted an open letter to Facebook on HuffPo that reads in part:

We are calling on Facebook users to contact advertisers whose ads on Facebook appear next to content that targets women for violence, to ask these companies to withdraw from advertising on Facebook until you take the above actions to ban gender-based hate speech on your site.

Specifically, we are referring to groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about. Pages currently appearing on Facebook include Fly Kicking Sluts in the Uterus, Kicking your Girlfriend in the Fanny because she won’t make you a Sandwich, Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs, Raping your Girlfriend and many, many more. Images appearing on Facebook include photographs of women beaten, bruised, tied up, drugged, and bleeding, with captions such as “This bitch didn’t know when to shut up” and “Next time don’t get pregnant.”

These pages and images are approved by your moderators, while you regularly remove content such as pictures of women breastfeeding, women post-mastectomy and artistic representations of women’s bodies. In addition, women’s political speech, involving the use of their bodies in non-sexualized ways for protest, is regularly banned as pornographic, while pornographic content – prohibited by your own guidelines – remains. It appears that Facebook considers violence against women to be less offensive than non-violent images of women’s bodies, and that the only acceptable representation of women’s nudity are those in which women appear as sex objects or the victims of abuse. Your common practice of allowing this content by appending a [humor] disclaimer to said content literally treats violence targeting women as a joke.

For me, reading about it wasn’t enough to really jolt me — what jolted me was seeing pictures.

I won’t post any here, because they’re truly disturbing, but if you’d like to see what Chemaly, Friedman and Bates are talking about, you can click here, herehere, or here.

The first example is the one that shocked me into taking action, and after having a dispassionate exchange about Facebook ad policies with me, it was the second one that inspired my Twitter friend and J Street’s new-media associate, Ben Silverstein, to make this happen:

What these posts are, pure and simple, is hate speech. We don’t often call open misogyny hate speech, but that’s what it is. If it’s your idea of a joke to meme-ify a picture of a woman cringing in fear with the words “Women deserve equal rights… and lefts” (as can be seen here), then you are (to quote Facebook itself) “attacking a person based on… gender.” Indeed, you’re attacking half of humanity. That is hate speech.

If you want to help put a stop to this kind of willed blindness about the dehumanization of women, you can click here to learn more and do some pretty simple things: Send a tweet. Post to an FB page. Maybe write an email. That’s it. Five minutes, ten minutes. One minute.

But if Facebook and their advertisers are flooded with protest, if enough people with money to spend on ads are horrified enough, if FB is hassled enough – things can change. And that means we have to flood them with protest. We are the only ones who can.

One image – not horrifying, except for the idea behind it, and it’ll give you an idea of what I’m talking about. Please take action — this kind of thing is part and parcel of the culture in which one in every five women is raped in her lifetime, and one in every four is the victim of violence from an intimate partner.

When we laugh, or just ignore it — we say it’s ok. But it’s not ok. And we need to call it out.

violence against women

My brain, the weasel.

In a wild and woolly happenstance, The Bloggess (who, if you’re unfamiliar, is kind of a Big Deal on The Internet as well as Among Geeks) wrote essentially the same post I wrote yesterday. Only her’s was funny. I highly recommend that you click here to read it, because really, how much earnestness are you going to let me dish out to you?

Also, her’s had the following video, which she posited is an accurate representation of herself, trying to get work done (aka: the cat) battling her brain (aka: the weasel). And it’s totally about me, too!!1! So, yeah, The Bloggess and me? Totes twin-like! I’m just as cool as she is! (I am so!)

So anyway. Watch this. It’s very funny.

Dear Science – here’s a true thing.

 

Getting a handle on my tools.

lake bluff public libraryMy early childhood was fairly peripatetic, but when that part of it ended, around 5th grade, we moved in across the street from the town library.

Having been raised by a librarian, moving in across the street from the library was somewhat analogous to moving in across the street from heaven. I can still remember exactly where the Betsy-Tacy-Tib books were located in the children’s section downstairs, and I can just about feel the industrial carpet through my shirt as I lay down to read whatever was next to them.

Throughout my life, going to the library has involved spending time with books for which I had not intended to reach out a hand. In fact I think that’s how I came on the BTT books in the first place; I know for a fact that I read some sizeable chunk of Maud Hart Lovelace’s oeuvre sitting with my back against that next-to-bottom shelf on which they could be found.

As you can imagine, this occasionally resulted in a trip to the library taking longer, and yielding a much bigger pile, than I’d intended, a fact that was equally true in college and graduate school, which you can further imagine didn’t always do wonders for my workload.

But it is how I discovered Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will and an entire shelf of feminist theory (which I can still see, in the library of the Naftali Building at Tel Aviv University), launching my transformation from an instinctive feminist to an educated one, so it’s not all bad — but on the other hand, let me tell you, when one allows oneself to get temporarily lost in random books in the stacks of Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, it can lead (you know: entirely theoretically) to getting actually, literally lost.

So why do I bring all of this up now?

Because the Internet.

The Internet, I have realized, is One Big (Chaotic) Library, and there you are, wandering down the stacks on your way to the “Israel/Palestine” section, or possibly the “Recipes” shelf, or mayhaps the “Interesting Stories About Scientific Advances That You Can Kind Of Understand If You Read Slowly” department, and boom! You stroll right past baby gorillas practicing thumping their chests! Or an obscure, unknown mathematician who solved an old, thorny problem about prime numbers! (And if you read slowly, you just know you can understand it!) Or a colorful and random appreciation of all things Eurovision!

And just like that, I’m sitting on the metaphorical floor of the library, enjoying baby gorillas or trying to remember what I know about prime numbers.

The up side, of course, is that I find so many utterly fascinating things in my meandering way. Our earliest ancestor! Space flight for regular folks! Everything the Vlogbrothers have ever done, alone or together!

The down side is that I find so many utterly fascinating things in my meandering way.

I mean: The day – still only 24 hours, right? If I’m wandering about the stacks, I’m not sitting on my couch reading the book that’s literally right there, waiting for me!

And I begin to feel a little unhinged when this sort of thing goes on for too long.

This is not the Internet’s fault. This is my fault. The Internet (and Twitter, and BuzzFeed, and Wired, and YouTube, and on and on) are all just tools that I haven’t learned how to use properly yet. I used to know how to keep going past that tantalizing spine in the not-where-I’m-supposed-to-be section of the library when I really had to. I have to teach myself again, is all, and teach myself that “I really have to” includes things that aren’t on deadline, but that are ultimately more important to me than the meandering bit. It’s a constant rejiggering of the hierarchy of importance, and a constant retooling of my skill set in that field. It requires a level of mindfulness that is, I’m guessing, fairly new to the human animal.

But that’s ok. As this young man would no doubt assure me, if I believe in myself, I will get the hang of it, I know it!

Thumbs up for rock n’ roll!

(And libraries).

How Lapid reflects the ill-defined Israeli center.

yair lapidIn a recent interview with the New York Times, Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid said the following: “I used to have so many opinions before I learned the facts.”

He was talking about his transition from television to politics, and I have to say, that is a remarkable sentence from a man who was very recently elected based on his pre-fact opinions—particularly, but not exclusively, as he continues to function in a fact-free zone.

Thousands of Israelis protested the entire array of austerity measures in Lapid’s budget earlier this month, largely because they are so at odds with the promises he appeared to be making in his election campaign. As my colleague Gershom Gorenberg noted yesterday, among Lapid’s many fanciful notions is the idea that forcing hunger on the children of detested sub-cultures is an effective way to mainstream their parents into society—and given his position in the government, Lapid’s budget and opinions about the people it’s meant to serve are a pretty important indication of his ability to function without the constraints of reality.

But Yair Lapid is far more than just Finance Minister. He’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s greatest threat in the political arena, he reflects the views of Israel’s somewhat ill-defined “center” (non-religious Jews who, when polled, say they want to be shed of the occupation but are pretty sure the Palestinians are entirely at fault for the failure of the peace process), and as head of the second largest party in the Knesset, he’s instrumental in setting policy and shaping public opinion.

Thus, we must listen closely to his opinions about a wide variety of things, particularly (but not exclusively) regarding the conflict with the Palestinians (which, no matter how hard Israeli officials try to distract us, remains the country’s most salient, most defining concern)—and as I have noted before, a time or two, Lapid is very much wedded to creating his own reality.

For instance, in his interview with the Times, he said that a two-state peace is “crucial” to Israel’s future, but rejected curtailing settlement activity and/or any possibility of a shared Jerusalem, while also apparently questioning whether Palestinians really want a state, anyway.

He furthermore called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas—who has supported a two-state peace since 1977 and led Palestinian negotiations in Oslo in 1993—“one of the founding fathers of the victimizing concept of the Palestinians.” Speaking with the Israeli outlet Yediot in the course of the same media blitz that brought him to theTimesLapid also pronounced Abbas “still not psychologically ready for an agreement with Israel, either partial or full.”

I don’t know—is Yair Lapid ill-informed? Under-educated? Spectacularly dim? Lying through his sizeable teeth? Or some combination of those things?

Short of the statement that a two-state agreement is crucial (a line that’s now de rigueur for all wannabe national leaders of the Jewish State), there is nothing even remotely reality-based in any of the above.

The Palestinians will not agree to an agreement if Israel doesn’t stop building on their land; they will not give up their generations-long dream of a national capital in their holy city of Jerusalem; they do, in fact want a state; Abbas is the man who’s been trying to tell Palestinians that they may have to give up on a full return of their refugees (and, frankly, one doesn’t need to invent a narrative of victimization—the Palestinians are, among many other things, victims); and Abbas has been “psychologically ready” for a two-state peace since Yair Lapid became bar mitzvah.That’s the truth, not whatever fatuities the Finance Minister holds in his mind and sends out through his mouth.

Lapid does get one thing very right, however: He reflects that ill-defined Israeli center, the one that wants peace but doesn’t seem to understand the role its country plays in the perpetuation of war.

A brave politician, a bold politician, an honest politician would start telling his or her people the truth. Such a politician would do everything within his or her not-inconsiderable power to finally help shift the discourse away from Israel’s own “concept of victimization” and toward an honest reckoning of responsibility and possibility.

As Noam Sheizaf notes in +972:

The public simply doesn’t want to deal with the Palestinian issue in any meaningful way…. There is an almost instinctive, little-spoken understanding that both alternatives—both one-state and two-state solution—are inferior to the status quo. Talks regarding the “unsustainability” of current trends seem very abstract. So far, the occupation seems to be the most sustainable thing this country has known.

Politicians understand this, and those who don’t lose elections (see: Livni). Lapid certainly understands.

Whether Lapid is ignorant, dumb, or dishonest about the facts doesn’t change the one thing about which he is very clever: Public opinion.

He doesn’t want to be brave, or bold, or honest. Yair Lapid wants to be elected. And he’s not going to risk that for anything so inconsequential as the truth.

Crossposted from Open Zion/The Daily Beast.

The Swedish meatballs have lingonberry hats.

eurovision2013The Eurovision Song Contest is this mildly disturbing/culturally regressive annual song contest that I have largely ignored since leaving Israel, and which I pretty much ignored even while in Israel (except for that one year when we wuz robbed! And, as we say in Hebrew: He who understands will understand!), but having watched a few videos from this year’s entirely over-the-top event, I may have to get on board next year. It.was.bananas!

If you’ve never heard of Eurovision before, or don’t know much about it, I highly recommend that you click through to this BuzzFeed post: Everything Non-Europeans Need To Know About Eurovision – it is extremely entertaining, and also informative! (Servicey!) In fact, it’s the source of my newly-acquired knowledge that the contest was literally established (in 1956) as something of an alternative to/balm for all the wars the Europeans had put themselves through up until a little more than a decade prior. Singing instead of shooting! There’s a thought!

Anyhoo, the previous year’s winner gets/has to host the current year’s event (a fact which apparently leads poorer countries to maybe-sorta trying to lose sometimes), which gives them the opportunity to promote their country through whatever means are at their disposal. Sweden chose the following means, and all I’m going to say in advance is that the Swedish meatballs have lingonberry hats.

*

I am merely saying.

(I’m also going to say that you might want to watch the following, Belgium’s entry. BuzzFeed rightfully noted  [in its aptly titled post "Check out the 11 most absurd moments from Eurovision 2013"]  the amusing manner in which the backup dancers essentially stole the show from the song, but as you watch the clip, it becomes clear that the singer is just so very thrilled to be on that stage, and it’s adorable [just look at that smile at the 1:57 mark!], and at the end, he jumps up and down, and I’m pretty sure he broke down in tears).

*

(Also, does he not sound quite a bit like Belgium Bruno Mars?! Yes, he does).

h/t BuzzFeed, obvs.

My new crush: Canasta (the band, not the card game).

Remember back when I posted about Canasta? Don’t lie, I can see you through the screen.

Anyway, since that post went up two weeks ago, I’ve listened to one or both of their albums nearly every day.

I only caught the very end of their set on the night of which I wrote (back when I posted about Canasta), but between the energy they brought, and what keeps coming off those two discs, they’ve actually, genuinely morphed into one of my favorite bands. Just like *that*! They’ll be performing at The Taste of Chicago on July 13, and I’m distraught that I won’t get to see them any earlier (well, maybe not distraught. Disappointed). (But very disappointed!).

This doesn’t happen to me very often — indeed, I can remember exactly one other case in which I went into a show essentially blind, and emerged an uber-fan, and that was in Israel and the artist was Jeremy (aka: Irmi) Kaplan. And it was a very long time ago.

But I mostly didn’t understand the words at first– it was a little like how I’ve found that I listen to REM: That one voice is among the musical elements, another of the instruments, the energy and the timbre of it, its depths and richness, but actual understanding? Pretty much just occasional words and phrases.

Which is odd, because unlike Michael Stipe, Canasta’s Matt Priest sings pretty dang clearly.

Und zo! I quickly came to understand! And though I didn’t know this when I posted it two weeks ago, “Microphone Song” pretty neatly sums up my experience as a writer (even though Priest writes lyrics [obvs], and I don’t [also obvs]. You kind of have to rejigger two or three lines to make it work, but trust me, it totally works).

So here are the lyrics, followed again by the video. And really — check them out. They’re pretty ding-dang fab.

MICROPHONE SONG

So, here I sit
Pen hangs forever an inch above the page
Feels just like schoolwork
Thought I’d be through with all that by this age
Caffeinated ideas race to and fro I can’t catch even one
Two hours to go
Someone remind me that this should be fun

I’m tired of trying
To express what’s not there
Forming opinions worthy to share
I’ve got things I’m thinking but why would you care?
Who am I?

Cuz on the ki-ki-kinda day like today
When I-I-I’ve got nothing to say
I feel that my-my-my words get in the way
Of what the fi-fi-five of them are trying to play
So please do-do-don’t pay attention to me
Cuz I’m go-go-goin’ broke lyrically
And if a po-po-poet’s what I wanted to be
A micropho-pho-phone’s not something I’d need
C’mon!

Still here I sit
Minutes to go and I’m losing my cool
I start to resent
All those of you who swear by the rule
That great rock n roll isn’t just something you pick up and play
But great rock n roll should always have something of value to say

Cuz on the ki-ki-kinda day like today
When I-I-I’ve got nothing to say
I feel that my-my-my words get in the way
Of what the fi-fi-five of them are trying to play
So please do-do-don’t pay attention to me
Cuz I’m go-go-goin’ broke lyrically
And if a po-po-poet’s what I wanted to be
A micropho-pho-phone’s not something I’d need
C’mon!

Israel legalizes ‘outpost’ settlements.

The illegal outpost of Givat Asaf is among the four outposts to be declared legal.

The illegal outpost of Givat Asaf is among the four outposts to be declared legal.

By now the story almost writes itself: A high-ranking representative of the U.S. government—in this case, John Kerry—is slated to arrive soon in Israel, part of an effort to reinvigorate a peace process described as “moribund” since at least the early aughts. That effort is already making everyone mad, and Israel has taken the same steps it always takes to ensure that the U.S. government understands exactly where it stands: It’s expanding settlements.

The state said that it will act to legalize four West Bank outposts for which a delimitation order was issued in 2003 by the Israel Defense Forces GOC Central Command. Such an order allows the army to demolish at any time structures located within the delimited area.

In 2007, attorneys Michael Sfard and Shlomi Zecharya petitioned the High Court on behalf of the Israeli anti-settlement organization Peace Now, to implement the order.

…construction in the outposts continued despite the order. The High Court requested clarification from the state, and on Tuesday a detailed opinion concerning each one of the four outpost[s] was submitted to the court. In the document, the government said it had taken steps in recent weeks to retroactively authorize the outposts, which were built without official permission.

Built illegally, even by Israel’s standards; acknowledged as illegal, and thus ordered demolished; construction continues, despite state acknowledgement of the illegality of the outposts’ very existence—so sure, ten years later, why not rejigger your country’s laws to provide a patina of respectability? Why not give cover and support to lawbreakers in a manner that is not only insulting to all Israelis who respect the law, but which also flies in the face of the very thing to which your greatest ally has called you to commit yourself time and again?

There’s plenty that’s infuriating in this story, but there’s absolutely nothing new. If you’re a settler, you learned long ago that if you just push hard enough, you can do whatever you want. You will not be held accountable for illegal construction, any more than you might be for setting fire to Palestinian fields, or attacking Palestinian villages.

And if you’re an American diplomat, you learned nearly as long ago that pretty much no matter what you say, no matter what you do, no matter what international law or the global community might say—Israel’s going to keep building. Keep expanding its hold on the West Bank until it has a complete and final hold on all those lands it now occupies illegally, and has ground down or kicked out as many of those lands’ legal occupants as humanly possible. Keep going until a two-state piece is literally impossible, the Palestinians have given up all hope, and Israel reigns triumphant.

At least, as an American and Israeli citizen, I would hope that the Administration and State Department understand by now that that’s the plan. Because that’s the plan. I mean surely, any sentient being with two eyes in their head can see that that’s the plan? Even just one eye?

The only people who might, conceivably, change the plan’s course are all those same Americans. Only if and when it becomes diplomatically untenable for Israel to continue down this illegal and destructive course will my Israeli government even consider throwing on the brakes. Only if and when a U.S. government takes a firm stand and sticks by it will Israelis and Palestinians have so much as a chance at the peace that Kerry is working so hard to achieve.

But let me stress: The plan’s end-goal is, despite everything, unachievable. Israel will not be able to convince the Palestinians to give up all hope, and the Jewish State will ultimately be lost in the effort. At best, all Israel will be able to achieve is a single political entity in which constant, low-level ethnic violence makes any semblance of normal life a distant dream (which is to say: an even worse version of what already exists). That’s the best case scenario. I shudder to think about the other options.

It may already be too late for Kerry to do anything, frankly. Nothing and no one in the current Israeli government gives me any reason to believe that Israel has any interest in turning the country’s Titanic around. For what it’s worth, those who support the settlement project (which is virtually the entire government) appear to be genuine in their assumption that they can force their will on the world.

And why shouldn’t they?

Just like the settlers, Israel’s governments have never been held accountable for their actions. Witness Kerry’s upcoming trip.

Crossposted at Open Zion/The Daily Beast.

On Netanyahu’s in-flight ‘rest chamber.’

el alI was not going to begrudge the Netanyahus their ice cream.

When it emerged in February that Israel’s Prime Minister was spending hundreds of dollars every month at a local ice cream parlor, I honestly thought “C’mon, now. Let the man have his ice cream!” Because you know what? He’s the Prime Minister, and I’m comfortable with the notion that heads of state get little perks here and there. You want $2,700 worth of ice cream every year? Go ahead. You’re Prime Minister.

But dagnabbit, even in those rare moments in which I’m feeling magnanimous toward Bibi, he has to come along and ruin it.

You see, on Monday we learned that the Netanyahus have been extravagant with much more than just dessert. According to Ynet, between 2009 and 2012 the Prime Minister’s food and hosting bills more than doubled; cleaning expenses went from $17,000 to $30,000; and “representation expenses”—clothes, shoes, makeup, and hair—“nearly doubled.”

And then, then—then there was the in-flight rest chamber.

You heard me:

Per Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office’s request, a special “rest chamber” was installed in the airplane which took the PM and his wife to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London.

According to the report, the chamber included a double-bed and was surrounded by four walls to give the couple absolute privacy.

… The airline received $427,000 for the flight, $127,000 of which were paid for the chamber and its complex installation, which required electricians, engineers, porters and additional workers.

… Netanyahu’s office stated: “The flight was scheduled for midnight after a hectic day. The following day, the PM was supposed to represent the State of Israel in a number of formal international events, including meetings with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“In light of this, it is appropriate that Israel’s Prime Minister will be able to rest the night between such busy days.”

Close to $3,000 a year for ice cream? Okay, sure. But $30,000 worth of wardrobe and hair, and a $127,000 bed? For what was likely a five-hour flight? Are you kidding me with this?

In all my years of watching the Bibi Show (a show which began for me back in the 90s and includes such highlights as Hate Speech from a BalconyInciting The Western Wall Tunnel Riots; and Making Stuff Up in Front of Congress), I’ve never known him to have anything more than a slippery grasp of any reality other than his own political prospects.

For instance, I have no doubt that he did not intend to give aid and comfort to Rabin’s assassin-to-be on that balcony—but that’s what he did. I similarly have no doubt that he did not want to see 17 soldiers killed in the tunnel riots (though I’m less convinced that he gave much of a thought to the 70 Palestinians who also died)—but that’s what happened. And when he stood before Congress and talked as if 20 years of history hadn’t happened? Well, actually…okay, that time he got exactly what he wanted, because America proceeded to continue to do nothing to advance a two-state peace. (But I would argue that was a bad thing!)

How badly did he miss the mark regarding his flight to Thatcher’s funeral? Here’s how bad: Confronted with the expensive bed, the Prime Minister’s Office actually said the following:

According to the PM’s instructions, the expenses for the visit, which lasted less than 48 hours, were reduced as much as possible.

Bibi, I tried. I really did. And I continue to think your ice cream budget is really not that big a deal.

But there is no way in Actually-Real-Reality that a $127,000 in-flight bed (for a five-hour flight!) can be considered anything other than sheer, egocentric folly of the highest order. It certainly can’t be considered a “reduction” of expenses.

And in a country in which upcoming budget cuts mean 40,000 more families will soon find themselves living below the poverty line? It’s not too far from obscene.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,196 other followers