Hold the Phone

This isn't the kind of thing I usually rant about, but I practically have steam coming out of my ears. When exactly did giving drugs and alcohol to a 13-year-old before coercing her to have sex with you become not rape? I'm a Polanski film fan as much as the next guy, and I remember being soooo disappointed when I was younger and finally heard about what he'd done, but I am utterly appalled that so many prominent people are wasting their time supporting this guy. The dude had sex with a child--which is illegal in the US, by the way--confessed to it, and then evaded punishment by fleeing the country. (The man should have pled crazy, and he would have had plenty of support for that given the life he's had.) He was 44 at the time. We're not talking about a 19-year-old boy falling in love with a girl who's still in high school. Nothing about what Roman Polanski has done is defensible. Moreover, coming out in support of this guy is sending a very strong message to girls and women that their rights don't matter, that a man who takes advantage of them will not be held accountable, especially if he's well-connected. That is not okay.

Yes, I know Roman Polanski has had a really shitty life. Yes, I know the victim has said she forgives him. Yes, I know the judge went back on his word. And yes, I think that might be enough to keep him from being extradited. I'm okay with that. But what I'm not okay with is all of these really famous people defending a statutory rapist and saying he's "suffered enough." Are you kidding?! I'd consider boycotting the films of all of these Polanski supporters, but it would mean there were no movies left to watch.

She was 13. He was 44. Let me put that another way. She was thirteen. He was forty-four.

These fools are defending a guy who once said, and I quote, "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"

Some are saying that public opinion strongly favors Polanski's release. Well, you know, I have never been very popular. Why start now?

J'apprends le français. Merci de votre patience.

When we first moved here, I was fairly optimistic about my ability to learn French. I had been working with a tutor for several weeks before our move, and I was finally getting to the point where I was comfortable with some basic interactions. I took a job in the Old Town in a shop where I had to assist customers in French. (They made me a nice button to wear that said, "J'apprends le français. Merci de votre patience.) I didn't mind fumbling a bit and would often begin interactions in French. But frequently I would meet people who were impatient, or sometimes completely annoyed, with my lack of fluency. Most people would just switch to English. Other times they would incredulously exclaim something like, "You live in Québec and you don't speak French?!" It was discouraging. And I am much too self-conscious to insist upon French when the person on the other end has already given up on me.

After a year and a half, I can actually say that living here has probably made my French worse, not better. I have longed for a way to fix this problem. Wouldn't it be great if one could simply get French injections? Like vaccines. Or maybe if you could get one of those voice box things that would automatically translate whatever you said into French? Or maybe something like this:



Sadly, no such products exist, so I decided to hire a tutor. And I also subscribed to this service. My biggest problem is that I just can't understand anyone. Although my French is broken and often grammatically incorrect, I know enough to explain myself in most situations. But knowing what to say doesn't do any good if you cannot understand what the other person is saying in the first place. The Québécois accent doesn't help.

The truth is, I think the lesson I really need to learn is one that no one else can teach me. It's that I'm human. Learning a new language is hard for me. And that's okay, because I am good at a lot of other things. I will probably never be fluent in French, but I keep trying, and really that's about all anyone can do in life. J'apprends le français. Merci de votre patience.

But really, French injections would be so cool!

In Defense of Television

It's that time of year. When the leaves are changing, apples are ripe, and all of the networks compete for viewers with TV shows new and old. And I'll be one of those viewers. I love television. No matter what anyone else says, I believe it has value. And it turns out I'm not the only one.

I have a handful of friends who "don't watch television," and I certainly respect their preference not to. There's plenty of nonsense on there for sure, and I think it's totally reasonable when someone prefers to spend his/her time doing things besides staring at magic pictures in a box. However, I do feel frustrated when people disparage television on the whole or consider the fact that they don't watch television a point of pride rather than just a simple choice of hobby. (To me it's like saying, "Oh, I don't do needlepoint." Who cares?) Awhile back, a news article discussing CBS's choice to edit a racist rant out of Big Brother was followed by reader comments about the general worthlessness of television. (I quietly wondered how many of them regularly check LOLCats for updates before perusing their friends' Facebook pages and watching videos on YouTube.) But the funny part is that their rants actually just reinforced one of the major benefits of television: it can serve as a starting point for very useful conversations. In this particular case, it started a conversation about race and free speech.

The "boob tube" of late is anything but. Sure, there's still plenty of garbage on television, but there is also a lot of wonderful programming. We are fans of numerous shows these days, including Lost, Mad Men, House, History Detectives, Nova, and 30 Rock. I must admit we have never been fans of reality television, mostly because I just don't have the stomach for the drama and bickering that comes with it. But I'm willing to consent that some of those shows may have value as well. I'm just not personally aware of it.

I like television for many reasons. Perhaps the best one is that it can provide common ground where otherwise there might be none. Shows like Lost, for instance, carry a devoted group of followers that will discuss the details of an episode ad nauseam, often building positive feelings about those with whom they share this interest. Particularly entertaining Saturday Night Live skits are discussed at work and school and emailed around to friends and family. Coverage of major sporting events helps build a sense of community (and a sense of enmity, to be fair), like when most of America became enamored with Shaun White during the 2006 Winter Olympics. Along those lines, television also provides a good starting point for conversations, both lighthearted and serious. Episodes of Mad Men frequently incite long discussions in our household about what it meant to be female in the 1960s, what a marriage should be, and how to raise children, never mind which cocktails we like best. Shows like 30 Rock and The Simpsons provide social and political commentary that can raise awareness of current issues and spark discussion, not to mention make us laugh. Television also inspires creativity through programming that deals with food, fashion, home improvement, etc. The Food Network is responsible for a number of new dishes in our household, for instance. Along these lines, television also gives people access to information they might not otherwise have had. (I admit sometimes this is a bad thing, particularly when people get their "facts" from some of those "news" programs out there. Personally, we prefer to get our news from the Colbert Report.) When put in the hands of intelligent, thoughtful people, television can be a wonderful thing. Will we let our children watch it? You bet.

Honestly, though, for us television provides one thing that we value above all of this other stuff: much needed escape. We look forward to laughing at Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin each week. We like the suspense and heated debate that comes at the conclusion of each episode of Lost. And oddly enough, we even enjoy that slightly frustrated, empty feeling we get at the conclusion of each episode of Mad Men. Whereas some might proudly proclaim some superhuman resistance to the power of television, we proudly proclaim our allegiance. Sure, we can and have lived without it, but we prefer not to.

For Goodness Sake

I love the art and essays of Maira Kalman. Her latest one is a charming tribute to the public service workers of New York City.



One of my favorites is the one she did following the inauguration of Barack Obama, "The Inauguration, At Last."


Isn't she wonderful? Her work always makes me smile. I think the Fabertids might need one of her children's books.

And ohmigod, she has even illustrated The Elements of Style. I think I might have a crush on this woman.

Fishing, Etc.

Last weekend, Xander went on his annual fishing trip with the Canada Fishing Club, which is oddly enough based out of Harrisburg, PA. Xander's dad, brother-in-law, and uncles went along, as well as a whole host of family friends, and he reports that good times were had by all. He was presented with his grandfather's tam (not a beret, mind you), which sadly did not bring him much luck this year. He only caught a couple of fish. But he did take a few good photos.



A similar photo (including Xander's grandpa) from 1975:


Each year the club sponsors a contest to see who can catch the biggest bass. Our brother-in-law, Joe, was last year's "Bass Master." And he made sure everyone knew it. The bragging was ceaseless and obnoxious, so naturally some were compelled to try to take Joe down a peg or two. Xander decided to present him with a gift, which was left for him in his luggage after all of his other clothes mysteriously disappeared:


Cousin Emily sent along a lovely present she had picked up for the Fabertids while working with the Peace Corps in Benin:


Meanwhile, my brother and his wife came up for a visit. We walked around the old town, checked out the farmer's market and some of the local parks, and ate and drank A LOT of delicious things. No one had a working camera, but I did manage to get one photo just before they left:


This weekend holds promises of apples. Lots and lots of apples. It's Cortland time, and we're going apple picking! Stay tuned!

I'll Do Anything Don Draper Tells Me To Do
(Wouldn't You?)

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Catch-22

I have been sitting on this post for a week. Part of me doesn't want to post something negative regarding international adoption because I don't want to contribute to the stereotype that international adoptees are poor, long-suffering individuals that should be pitied. And I don't want to contribute to the idea that international adoption is rife with corruption. I worry that too much bad publicity could cause the program to shut down for public relations purposes rather than because of actual corruption, and that would leave a lot of children without families. I also don't feel like I have the time and energy to write the kind of thorough analysis I really want to write on this subject. BUT I refuse to become one of those sunshiny mommies who cannot acknowledge that this is a complicated subject, one that deserves a debate. While most of us are reading and thinking and doing the best we can to get a handle on these issues, there are people who jump in without thought, who act out of a sense of western superiority, who don't realize their actions can have unintended consequences. We know. We think about that a lot. We are aware that there will never be any way to know, without a shadow of doubt, that we are doing the "right" thing.

A news agency in Australia recently aired a documentary about adoption in Ethiopia. The promotional blurb and the accompanying notes from the producer gave us a taste of what to expect. The documentary was to uncover alleged rampant corruption in Ethiopian adoptions. My participation in international adoption makes me feel compelled to watch these things. I feel obligated to listen to opposing viewpoints. But I was pretty disappointed with this documentary. It was narrow, sensational, and failed to delve very deeply into the relevant issues. It showed a type of adoption experience with which we are completely unfamiliar. They followed one agency. One. And yeah, based on what they showed, it sounds like a horrible agency. (To be fair, I should say the agency has since released a very passionate statement addressing the allegations made in the film.) This is not the first time a Christian agency has been accused of unethical practices. Sometimes religious beliefs lead people to do some very questionable things.

I want to be clear that the argument that children are better off cared for within their communities is something I agree with. If it is possible for a child to be raised by another family member or someone within their community, then that is a better solution than sending them across an ocean. I believe the goal should be to minimize the need for adoption of any kind by finding ways to help mothers parent their children. I am completely opposed to this "harvesting" practice depicted in the film. BUT there is plenty of evidence that there is currently an overwhelming number of orphaned children in Ethiopia and that each day more children find themselves without families. I am sure some of the numbers and stories are exaggerated, but even if one allows for that, the situation is still rather bleak. While we look for solutions to the issues currently facing struggling nations, I don't believe children should be left to suffer in the meantime. I think international adoption is just a band-aid, a kind of triage solution, but one that is necessary at this moment in time.

While I am willing to believe there are some agencies and organizations in the adoption business that behave unethically, and while I am horrified to think any parent would be coerced into parting with his or her children, I was disappointed the documentary did not do a more thorough job of investigating adoption in Ethiopia. It might have had a more meaningful impact if the reporters had worked a little harder and more thoughtfully on the project. The documentary seemed pretty sensational and rather patronizing. And there were questions and issues that I thought went unaddressed. Here is just a handful:

-Why isn't Ethiopia a signatory to the Hague Convention? The documentary makes it sound like Ethiopians just don't care, when we know the country currently lacks the infrastructure to meet some of the requirements of Hague. (The US is a signatory, and reputable agencies follow as many of the guidelines as possible even when working in non-Hague countries.)

-Why, when some organizations estimate there are between 5 and 6 million orphans in Ethiopia, would any organization decide to participate in this "harvesting" practice? Do they not realize the ethical problems with such practices? Or are they acting out of some presumption of western superiority? Even if the numbers of orphans in the country are exaggerated by millions, there are still many more orphans than there are adoptive families to raise them. I don't know why "harvesting" would even be necessary.

-Why was there absolutely no mention of the Ministry of Women's Affairs, the government agency that oversees adoptions?

-What made the reporter decide that families are discouraged from spending time in Ethiopia? Such a statement is exactly the opposite of our experience.

-Why didn't they look at more examples of orphanages who are working to provide housing, food, and opportunities for orphans in the country? There are children's homes in the country that, while they still allow for international adoption, do provide homes for many children within Ethiopia. While the numbers of children being adopted from Ethiopia have gone up recently, the vast majority of orphans remain in Ethiopia.

-Why didn't they interview adoptees? Why didn't they speak to adult adoptees from Ethiopia or elsewhere about their experiences?

-Why didn't they mention any of the reasons that children become orphans in Ethiopia? Parts of the documentary implied that orphans are manufactured by adoption agencies.

-They chose to interview a mother whose child ended up having medical problems. This contributes to the idea that children who were adopted have "all kinds of problems," which is an unfair stereotype that does not benefit adoptees. Moreover, potential parents are made aware that any child can have unexpected medical complications.

-I am curious to know why the mothers who were interviewed are not given access to the post placement reports that adoptive families are required to file. I've looked around online for more information on this but found nothing.

-Honestly, did they have to pick the overzealous Jesusy agency? There are plenty of normal adoptive parents who do not have hero complexes or believe Jesus commanded them to save poor, poor Africa.

-They failed to mention that many people who go through adoptions in Ethiopia don't watch agency propaganda or hand-pick their children. Reputable agencies realize children should not be treated as commercial property. When information is provided about children in Ethiopia to waiting parents, parents are asked to guard that information carefully. It's not the shopping spree the film makes it out to be.

-How is this supposed income generated for the government through adoption? This is something we are not familiar with. It made it sound like payments are made to the government for children, but this has not been our experience at all.

-Was the doctor asked to change the children's ages to be older or younger? Malnutrition in early life can cause them to be slightly smaller than children who receive proper nourishment. Parents do sometimes bring home children only to find out later that they are a year or more older than the orphanage estimated. If the agency was encouraging the doctor to change ages to be older, it's possible that this was actually an attempt to provide a more accurate description of the children. This was unclear in the film.

-I can't quite put my finger on something specific, but I thought the overall tone of the film was disrespectful of Ethiopia's attempts to get help for these children. It also sounded a bit patronizing and presumptuous. From our perspective, Ethiopia cares very much for its children. I have no doubt they would prefer to be able to support them within the country, and I do believe this is the ultimate goal. I realize part of my response in this area is emotional.

-What solutions exist to the problems they uncovered? What changes should be made? Are these changes presently feasible? Why or why not?

The documentary was beneficial in that it forced us to revisit some of these issues that we had not thought about in awhile. But it also made me feel stereotyped. I felt lumped into a group of people that I don't recognize. I don't know adoptive parents who are so desperate to have a family that they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal. I don't know any parents who believe Jesus told them to adopt and will go to any lengths to do so as a result. I think many of us are much more thoughtful about this than people realize. Why weren't any people like us interviewed? Not that we would want to be on television--no way--but surely there's some well-spoken, responsible adoptive parent out there who would be happy to talk? Or is it that none of us speak up because we are aware that our children's lives are not meant to be made examples of? That we should not treat our children like little ambassadors, despite what the McCains might have us believe.

I guess sometimes it seems like we hear nothing but squeaky wheels. But we can't do anything about it without exposing our children to ridicule, and no thoughtful parent would want to do that. We can't cry out in opposition, because people will just say we are so blinded by our desire to have a family that we refuse to see the evidence before us. What can we do? I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I think all we can really do is live our lives thoughtfully, with purpose, and hope for the best.

Say Cheese!

It's Monday. You don't really want to be working, do you? Friend Anna shared a glorious time waster last week that will definitely give you a laugh. Check out these quality family photos. (The fuzzy naked family is my favorite. I mean double u tee ef?!)

I was really hoping to have a portrait of myself to share with you. There's one in particular that is pretty classic. It was my school portrait from about third or fourth grade. I'm wearing a long-sleeved polo shirt with purple and pink horizontal stripes and have my hair braided in two pigtails on either side of my head, almost Pippi Longstocking style. On top of that, I have the most ridiculously fake smile on my face. Trust me. It's quality. Anyway, you'll just have to settle for a picture of these complete strangers instead:

Molasses Returns

Molasses is back from the summer holiday and open for business! Once again you can find a variety of gifts, art, and wearables made by me and my very talented friends. There are lots of new items up for grabs, and some of the old ones are now on sale.

This year, proceeds will be donated to the following two organizations:

Ethiopian Orphan Relief

World Bicycle Relief

There are numerous items available that make great gifts. Prices are comparable to what you would see in stores, but why buy something made for the masses when you can have something unique? New stuff is being added regularly, so check back often. If you don't find something you like, feel free to send me a message to request a custom-made item. If I can't do it, chances are I know someone who can.

Please consider supporting us by buying handmade this year for the holidays. Many thanks for your support!

Alana and Xander

No! I Won't Do It! I Won't! I Won't! I Won't!

Remember what I said about stubborn children? Well, shouting and stamping feet seems to be all the GOP is good for these days. Despite all the attempts to placate them, despite all of the points of agreement between the two parties, not a single member of the Republican party has decided to support the latest version of the health bill. Apparently these guys were not paying attention in kindergarten when the teacher explained the concepts of sharing and compromise. No one is going to get everything they want in this bill, but that's life. Both parties agree on so many issues. Can't we all just get along? What is it going to take? I just don't get it, and I'm starting to understand how some people become so apathetic about the government.

So we don't have health care. And to make our government sound even more medieval, we still do this.

Sometimes my country can be soooooo embarrassing.

Speaking of Cats...

This has to be just about the funniest cat video ever. I know, I know. Posting videos of cats is pretty lame blogging. But at least watch it before you judge me.



And really, ask yourself, when's the last time you got to watch Julius play with a coat hanger?

Plague!

I have a bitch of a cold this week. So I decided I would crawl under the covers and take a nap for a bit when suddenly I found myself plagued by something else entirely:


Does anyone know how to treat such a malady? It's heavy and itchy and has this rumbling, phlegmy sound. I think I might need to have it removed...

Translation Fail

Our friend Katie recently pointed out that in Quebec one will find either really bad English translations on products and websites or really bad French translations. Despite the apparent bilingualism in Montreal, you rarely find products or websites with comprehensible information in both languages. It's always clear the company favors one language over the other.

We recently bought a box of crackers and were amused by the exclamations on the side of the box:


Add some plus? That's the best this major food company could do? Never mind that the two phrases on the box do not quite mean the same thing. This particular Franglais phrase makes these crackers sound like food for people looking to add a few pounds. Not exactly great marketing, but it did provide some cheap entertainment.

Your Assignment

Please support the Foreign Adopted Children Equality Act (FACE). Write your senators and representatives a short note in support. It doesn't have to be long or fancy, just something to let them know you want them to vote yes:

Please support the Foreign Adopted Children Equality Act (FACE). Children who are adopted internationally by American parents should have the same rights and privileges as all American children. I support this act because it eliminates obstacles that make it difficult for internationally adopted children to become US citizens.

To be as brief as possible, the current laws require that parents who did not see their children in person prior to the finalization of adoption in the country of birth must essentially re-adopt their children in the United States before they can become US citizens. The requirements for re-adoption vary state by state, and in some cases parents must start at the very beginning as though they were undergoing a new adoption. This means more home studies, more paperwork, lawyers fees, court dates, etc. Because parents are thoroughly vetted by both the US and foreign governments as well as adoption agencies prior to adoption, the re-adoption process is repetitive and contributes nothing to the well being of the child or family. It's bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Moreover, if parents make a mistake in the adoption process or do not realize they must go through the process, children can spend their entire lives in the United States and never realize they are not fully citizens. So one day one of these adult adoptees is cited for a traffic violation and suddenly threatened with deportation. It's ridiculous.

The most relevant part of this act for us is that our children would be treated just like children whose parents had seen them in person prior to the finalization of adoption. They would be considered US citizens from birth. (Children would not, however, lose any rights to dual citizenship.)

You can learn more about the act here. Merci.

Montreal Is Here, Wish You Were Beautiful

I feel very homesick today. It hits hard. I get these little pangs in my chest like someone has died. I didn't know that could happen over a place. It tends to happen most in the fall and over the holidays, which were my favorite times to be in The City. I know everyone must be tired of hearing about it, but I think about moving back to New York almost every day. It's not like I haven't moved on. We have friends, we go out, we've seen a lot of Quebec. I thought the way this was supposed to work is that once you start establishing a life in a new place, your attachment to the old one fades. Why is this not happening? If we never manage to get jobs back in New York, does this mean I'll just go through my life moving from place to place and feeling empty like this?

One of the things people say to me when I tell them I'm homesick is something along the lines of, "Do you think you might just be building it up in your mind?" I've been thinking about this for awhile, and Xander and I talked about it, and the answer is no. The reason I know this is because we were people who actually appreciated where we lived when we lived there. There were days, like around the holidays when we'd stroll down Fifth Avenue looking in shop windows and snow would start sprinkling down from the sky, that we just felt so incredibly lucky to be where we were. Some Sunday afternoons in the fall, after church at St. John's and lunch at Miss Mamie's, we'd stroll over to Central Park for a walk in the woods feeling immensely peaceful. There were late summer nights when, after going to see a great movie at Lincoln Square, we'd decide to walk up Broadway for awhile just to soak in a little atmosphere before heading home. There were some nights when, even though it was really late and we were both tired, we would go out of our way to walk through Times Square to gawk at the lights. And when I commuted to work at the south tip of Manhattan, I never, ever got tired of that view of the harbor. I have not felt that kind of contentment in Montreal once. Sure, some days I feel happy, but it isn't the same sort of peaceful feeling I get when I go home. Yes, there were also days that I got frustrated with New York, but those days almost always involved the MTA. And there is more to life in New York than the MTA. I think.

I definitely wonder how the dynamic would change with two children. I worry about dealing with the school system. I worry about having less control over their surroundings when they get older. But I also love the idea of raising them in this place where they really and truly can grow up to be anything they want to be. I think about taking them to Coney Island and the Met. I think about baseball games. I think about picnics in Central or Prospect parks with friends. I think about taking them to the farmer's market when the first apples are in and buying them cider donuts. I think about the stories we'll be able to tell them about when we lived there and first knew we wanted to have them. About when we had no money and eating out involved $2.50 pizza slices and a shared root beer. I think about living in a quirky apartment in Harlem or Brooklyn. I also think about my own career. The fact that I have connections there. The fact that there are countless museums, so if you get frustrated with one position, there's always the hope you'll find another. I think about how great it was that we met so many different kinds of people with all kinds of different hobbies and jobs. I think about teaching our kids the history of New York and wonder if they'll appreciate being in a place with so many layers.

What would it take for us to get back to the island? A really amazing theorem, it turns out. Competition for math jobs in the area is fierce, so getting back there will have to involve a major stroke of brilliance. (My nonprofit career is not exactly going to bring in the cash to support a family of four in the Big Apple.) And while Xander might consider working on Wall Street, I won't. I don't want to be married to the guy who never gets to come home for dinner. So dear Universe, please send Xander really good math ideas this year. Really, really, really good math ideas. Like A Beautiful Mind, but without the craziness.

US Health Reform: A Few More Thoughts

1. I thought what I really wanted was a plan like Canada's. But after listening to the President's speech, I realize there's just no way that is going to happen on this round. I'm actually okay with the compromise. I think a public option should and probably will come along eventually, but I can live without it for now as long as someone is providing decent, affordable coverage for everyone. It doesn't really matter to me if the government does it or a private insurer as long as people are getting what they need when they need it.

2. I do think the US is putting off the inevitable. I think eventually there will be an expansion of government health insurance. And I think the people who are afraid of this are overreacting by a lot. It is hard for me to understand. I just don't think it's that scary. Yeah, it would take some adjustments, but I'm sure it would all work out just fine in the end and we'd all get to move on to bickering over something else.

3. That dude from South Carolina is a fool. Could he have possibly illustrated the claim that some people are just being disruptive any better? Maybe, I guess, if he'd called Obama a liar and a poopyhead.

4. Given that the "response" by the GOP was basically an endorsement of most of what Obama had just said, I feel hopeful that some kind of useful bill might actually pass. If they keep fighting for much longer, it will be clear to me that they really are just behaving like stubborn children. Everyone seems to agree people need access to health insurance they can afford, and this is not a bad place to start.

5. I wholeheartedly believe that the health care industry has an equally twisted sister: the food industry. I'd half-jokingly said to Xander a couple of weeks ago that I think we should stop subsidizing corn and use the money to fund health reform. No cheap corn equals no cheap soda, beef, fast food, etc. People might have to resort to eating real food again. But I bet it would make health care cheaper. It turns out I'm not the only one who has had these thoughts.

6. I'm going to relish every day that I have "socialized" medicine. No matter what happens with this bill, it is clear I will not return home to the same peace of mind I have been afforded here. Oh well. At least American television is better.

The Future

We totally live in the future now. Check out these images from the new camera on the Hubble Telescope. You can see more images and watch a video on the Hubble website.

Far out. Really.

Reflections on Inglourious Basterds By a Holocaust (Museum) Survivor

I survived working at a Holocaust museum by developing an incredibly morbid sense of humor. My colleagues and I, some Jewish and some not, would definitely have sounded like insensitive jerks--anti-Semites even--to an outsider. I mean, who cracks jokes about the Holocaust? That's one subject that is just not funny. But hey, when your job involves being surrounded by the memories of suffering and death, you have to cope somehow.

While working at the museum, I read about and saw photographs of horrible things. "Yeah, yeah," you're thinking, "The bodies. We've all seen photographs of the bodies." And yes, there are the photos of the bodies. Thousands and thousands of photographs of bodies. But there are worse photographs than that. Much, much worse. You see, when you are watching that documentary on PBS or walking through that museum exhibit, you're seeing the tamest stuff they could get their hands on, the stuff that was deemed appropriate for public consumption. You're seeing the results of heavily censored material. My job at the Holocaust museum was to care for the entire collection. Everything. From Nazi flags to heart-wrenching correspondence between separated lovers to prisoner uniforms. And some days this job was easier than others. There were days that, while my coworkers bantered and bitched in neighboring cubicles, I numbered and housed image after image of nightmarish evidence. The worst photos were the torture photos. Bodies are nothing after torture photos. There's one in particular that haunts me, a photograph I have never and will never describe to anyone. I will never forget that image. It's the one that flashes into my mind anytime the subject of the Holocaust comes up, anytime someone mentions torture or war crimes or anything of that sort.

It was with this background that I went to see Inglourious Basterds. Let me say first that I loved it. This was the first movie we saw in Montreal that the audience actually clapped for at the end. (People frequently clap at the end of movies in New York, but we had decided Montrealers were just too reserved for such displays of emotion.) It's quirky and entertaining beyond reason. Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz are wonderful. The story is compelling without being too cute. It is probably my favorite Tarantino film now behind, as always, Pulp Fiction.

That said, the parallels between the Basterds' treatment of the Nazis and the Nazis' treatment of the Jews brought up all sorts of "memories." I use quotes because these are not my memories, really. But I guess when you care for the stuff that marks the memories, to some degree you take on the memories themselves. This is why anyone goes to a museum, why it's necessary to see anything in person when we can see images of whatever we like online. I think we all sense that being near the object somehow puts us closer to the memory and closer to the people in the memory.

Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were given invitations to the opening of an exhibition of photographs at the International Center of Photography entitled Only Skin Deep. One of the photographs in the exhibition was of a black man being hanged by members of the KKK. The artist had enlarged the photo and written on it, "Who took this photo?!" It was a simple question, but one I may not have thought of otherwise. I remember standing in front of that image for a long time. Years later, when I came across torture photos, I wondered the same thing. Who took these? Who stood by and took these photographs?

In the case of Inglourious Basterds, that person is Quentin Tarantino. In Tarantino's film, the response of the Basterds to the Nazis' crimes is violent and unforgiving and sometimes hard to watch. It's the exact opposite of the way most Jews responded to the Holocaust. But witnessing the violence of the Basterds, while revolting, also called up mirror images of the Nazis' treatment of the Jews. While Nazis burned in the film, I recalled the burning of Jews in barns and churches. When a Nazi was being tortured, I remembered all those photographs I'd seen. Maybe these "memories" should have served as cause for revenge. However, rather than a story of revenge, it was like a violent memorial. And the result for me was this pervasive feeling of sadness. Yes, I laughed when everyone else laughed, but I wondered if they also felt the stab of grief. You see, that morbid sense of humor is still just a cover, a way of protecting ourselves. There are tears there as well. And I suspect I am not the only one.

Don't Listen to This!

Whatever you do, kids, don't listen to this! Don't! It will brainwash you. Totally mess you up. Turn you into a socialist. No, really, don't listen. In fact, I forbid it!

You really want to click on that link, don't you? Go ahead. I'll wait.

Seriously GOP, what the hell is wrong with you these days? Besides making total asses of yourselves, you've just ensured that every kid old enough to surf the web is going to want to read Obama's speech. You'd think the President was planning to show them porn on live television or something instead of just reiterate the same old motivational speech kids hear every year from adults. Well done to you. As one student notes, you've turned something that should have been utterly boring into something controversial and, therefore, immensely appealing. Now even I want to hear what President Obama has to say to schoolchildren, and I haven't been one of those in...awhile.

I don't know about you, but I know what I'm doing for lunch today!

Art for Babies

Xander and I have not spent much on decorating the babies' room. Most of what we have is recycled and will be painted or recovered to make it new. However, one of the things that is really important to me is art, so of course there was no way I was going to put just any old thing on my babies' walls. We already have a few things in there, mostly from our travels or the travels of friends. There's a giraffe from Jamaica. Turtles from El Salvador. Another turtle from Belize. Textiles from Argentina. A print from Italy. A bit of American folk art. And of course there will be art from Ethiopia. But for the walls, we chose prints of some of our favorite scenes in some of our favorite places:


A Train from 175th Street by A. Coghlan


Water Towers by Rich and Beautiful



The Water Village and 1 Dollar Store by Janice J


London by Paola of REphilosophy

This is art that will grow with them. And the best part of it all is that we spent less than if we'd decorated the room at your average home decorating store. Handmade and original is the way to go, and it's often cheaper than you think!

Health Care Here and There: What We Think and What We Know

In the past year, Xander and I have enjoyed what some people in the United States refer to as "socialized" (or even Communist) medicine. Our personal experience so far is limited, but we like what we've had. (You can read about our first experience with socialized medicine here.) We've seen doctors several times in the past year and a half, had various tests run, been referred to specialists when needed, and we've paid nothing for it. No co-pays, no deductibles. Nothing beyond what we pay in taxes. (More on that soon.) We like our physician a lot, we've been reassured that the children's hospital here is quite good, and generally the system seems pretty efficient. The worst wait we've had was an hour in the emergency clinic, but I've waited that long for a scheduled appointment in the US before. It does take some doing to get in to see a physician for the first time, but we've also experienced the same thing in the US. And if you can't get an appointment with a physician soon enough to fit your needs, there are numerous walk-in clinics you can go to. Getting an appointment with a specialist can take several weeks if it's not an emergency, but again this was nothing new for us. Of course, we've also spoken to numerous Canadians about how they feel about health care here. In short, they like it. They have a few fairly minor complaints, but nothing that they believe is directly related to government involvement in the system. Our friends and neighbors here seem genuinely perplexed by the accusations that are being thrown around back home regarding Canadian health care.

Canada, like many countries accused of having "socialized" medicine, has a mixed system. Everyone in Canada has access to basic health care through what is essentially a government-run insurance program administered province by province. People also have the option of purchasing private health insurance to fill in the gaps, which we did. In our case, the private insurance costs about $400 per year and covers prescriptions, dental and eye care, and any emergency costs incurred in the United States. (If a person does not have the provincial health insurance here in Quebec, say their card expired or they are visiting from another country, visits to the doctor at the neighborhood walk-in clinics here are $35.)

When we were visiting the United States recently, nearly everyone we met asked us how we liked our health care. This question was often accompanied by a question like, "But don't you pay really high taxes?" The answer is no, we don't. I'm not sure where this idea came from. Xander and I are taxed at nearly the same rate as we were in the United States. Provincial taxes are comparable to many US states. The only folks who might have a complaint are those who live in states that do not tax income, like Florida. But we're really not sure why everyone else is so freaked out. Moreover, for middle class families and students, you'll find a lot of exemptions similar to what you would see on a US tax form. (We paid what we thought we owed, and the government actually noticed some exemption we missed and sent us money back. We actually paid less than the rate listed.) Granted, we're middle class folks, so maybe things get worse if you make a whole lot more than we did last year, but from what we've read, heard, and experienced, the difference is pretty small. Not only do we pay the same amount in taxes, but we do not have to pay for health insurance, deductibles, and co-pays on top of that.

Let me put it another way. We saved around $4,000 this year on my health care alone if you add in everything. I can't tell you what the savings would be with two children, but that number is only going up. And this is compared to the subsidized health insurance we had because Xander was still a grad student when we lived in New York. I can't imagine what we would have saved had we been paying full price for my health care back then.

The other complaint we hear from folks in the US is that our mother country will somehow lose her ability to attract doctors, to create new technology, to remain on the cutting edge of medical research if the government offers public health insurance. I wonder if these people realize exactly how much money the government pours into research every year. (Or that some of that government-funded research becomes patented by drug companies, who then turn around and sell it back to the public at outrageous prices.) Meaning that, while the private sector also funds a great deal of research, the government has also been a leading participant in innovation for decades. This government that everyone says may squelch research actually pays my husband to do nothing but research. In fact, this year the amount of money given by the government to researchers like him increased dramatically. I just don't see the United States losing its drive for research because citizens have access to public health insurance. I think it would take a major cultural shift for this to change. I don't think our doctors and scientists are going anywhere anytime soon.

The most horrifying argument I've heard against having a public health insurance option is that health care is a privilege, not a right. This argument usually comes from privileged people. Now, I understand people who would prefer not to pay taxes, who believe that families should have total control over how they spend their money. I think these families should have a right to check out of the system if they like. Grow their own food, live on their own land, educate their own children, etc. There is a part of me that would really like to do that myself. But what I don't understand is why many people who live in communities are okay with the government subsidizing certain parts of their lives and not others. People are happy to drive on highways, send their kids to public schools, enjoy the protection of law enforcement, eat government-subsidized corn and beef, etc., but they don't want the government to subsidize one of the most basic services: health care. Some of these people are perfectly happy to pay for weapons that kill poor people in other countries, all in the name of protecting American citizens, but they don't want to pay to protect these citizens right here at home by investing in their health. They were horrified that so many people died on 9/11, but they look the other way when disadvantaged folks die for lack of medical treatment. They believe that people who cannot afford health care, people who were born into poverty or lost their jobs or whatever, have less of a right to see a doctor than they do. They still cling to this idea that if a person does not have health insurance, it is because they are too lazy to get it. And when I hear this, I can't help but think of all the people I know who work their asses off, or who spent years working their asses off only to be fired, and yet lost their health insurance, can't afford health insurance, or can't get health insurance due to medical conditions. I just can't wrap my head around it. I do not possess the ability to understand their reasoning.

It's not that we think the current bill is perfect or that the US should be modeling the entire system on Canada. We don't think that at all. What we'd like is for the committee to pass a bill that provides for a public health insurance option, then continue to survey other countries' public health systems and use these ideas to slowly refine the system in the US to better fit our country's needs. More than anything we believe it doesn't hurt to try. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't. If it doesn't work, changes can be made. But we'll never know if we don't try. We have to start by being open-minded. A good way to begin would be for those screaming opposition to actually look at the bill.

Let me reassure you that we have survived the switch to public health insurance just fine. Public health insurance is not a precursor to Communism. It's not a sign that a new Hitler will be storming in any day. Grandmas and grandpas are not being killed off here in an attempt to save money. People are not dying in the streets waiting for treatment. Government-run health care is just not that scary. It's not. In fact, I bet most of the people presently objecting wouldn't even notice a difference. But the people who have lost their homes due to mounting health bills, the people who avoid taking their children to the doctor because they can't afford it, the people who are worried about paying for their diabetes treatments, the people who aren't getting prenatal care, their lives will most likely change very much.

Isn't the United States supposed to be the land of hope and progress and opportunity? Where are our explorers, the brave people who are supposed to be forging ahead? When did we become citizens of a country that clings so desperately to dated methods and ideas that we are petrified of trying something new? Even something new that is really something old?

The media makes it look like people are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of a public health insurance option, but we've talked to so many people back home, including "red staters," who are very much interested. If you are interested in giving public health insurance a shot, have you told anyone? Have you written your senators and representatives? If not, you should. Otherwise, this thing may very well die on the table without ever getting a fair discussion.

If that happens, we might just have to stay in Canada. And we really don't want to do that.

South and West

Before we headed out west, we had to go south. To New York. I had originally planned to write the whole story of our misadventures at JFK, but I'm tired of thinking about it. So just trust me on these two points:

1) JFK Airport sucks and should be avoided at all costs.

2) Delta is not to be trusted.

Thanks to our extensive experience coping with bureaucrats who don't know what they are talking about, we managed to get through it all and eventually made it to our destination. But in the meantime, we got to crash with best friends John and Dana and walk around in our old neighborhood, where we met the new owner of our old favorite bar and ran into the homeless guy who hangs out on our old block. He's known us for years, hugged us both, and informed us that we're going to make great parents. Yeah, we have to get back to the island.


After we left Utah, we got to spend a few days in Colorado with our best cousins and their new daughter, Cora. We call her our little "Buddha Baby," which is not a comment on her round tummy and yoga poses--impressive though they may be--but rather her designation as what some people might think of as our "godchild." We love her already. Even though newborns look like aliens, there's still nothing quite like having a tiny, squishy newborn sleeping on your chest. Her parents were so apologetic, but seriously, we were more than happy to occupy her while they caught up on sleep.



And because we still hadn't had enough of the West, Xander headed out to do some math in San Francisco while I went back to Wyoming for some quality time with Trey. We shopped around in downtown Laramie and checked out Register Cliff and the Oregon Trail ruts. I love, love, love Wyoming and can't wait to return to Wyoming with our kids in a few years.






On the way back home, I enjoyed another layover in New York and crashed with my friend Molly. We had dinner at one of my favorite restaurants and washed it down with cream puffs from Beard Papa's. It was the perfect end to a perfect vacation.

Utah: Swimming, Climbing, and Scrambling

As I mentioned in the last post, the primary goal of our vacation to Utah was to do things we would not do with small children. While we did a few easy hikes, we also looked for hikes that were more challenging than usual, and Utah has no shortage of them. Actually, we did see some people with small children on the more difficult hikes, but it didn't seem like a very good idea to us. We had a hard time keeping ourselves on our feet at points. I can't imagine attempting to wrangle babes at the same time.

All that said, our first hike was a very short one out to Horseshoe Bend in Arizona, which would actually be really easy with kids. It's in the Marble Canyon area, which feeds into the Grand Canyon. It was a quick hike out to the canyon, but once you're out there you have the option to scramble up and down rocks to get different views of the bend. The only down side to this detour is that it's a really sandy one.




Our first day hike, The Narrows, was in Zion National Park. It was recommended to us by an old high school friend. (Thanks, Katherine!) We really loved Zion, which surprised me because what I had read online was not convincing. It just goes to show that the internet is no substitute for actual experience, despite what some people like to think.

The Narrows is not an actual trail, but a river. There's a short "Riverwalk" path that dead ends as the river becomes wider. From there, you slip on your neoprene socks and head right up the river. (Xander was a bit sheepish about doing this at first, but he finally plunged in when he could no longer hop from rock to rock.) There are many points where, if the water is low, you can walk for awhile on the rocks, crossing the river repeatedly to get to these narrow banks. Most of the time the river was shallow and remained below my knees, but there were a couple of points when it came over my waist. The first such point was really scary for me, as I have a mild fear of bodies of water, especially very cold bodies of water like that one. But I got past it with a little encouragement. We followed the river up to Orderville Canyon, and then followed that for a bit before turning back. This would be a great hike with older children, and we saw several having a blast wading through the water, although I did see a few folks with babies on their backs. Given that the current knocked both of us off our feet at different points, I don't recommend this hike for babies.







Our second hike was also in Zion to a place called Angels Landing, a steep climb up a 1500-foot cliff. You can read more about the hike and see a video here. This hike was quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever done, but it was totally worth it. The photographs don't even begin to illustrate the steepness and height of the narrow ridge up to the top of the cliff. The most dangerous parts of the hike were our encounters with teenagers who, as you may know, are invincible. They seemed more than happy to push us right off the cliff if we got in their way.











If I look a little worried in that last photo, it's because I was already wondering how I was going to get down.

Our third big day hike was through slot canyons on the Hole-in-the-Rock Road in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. (Side note: Our Prius handled this poorly maintained road like a champ, but it was still a scary drive, especially the parts where the washes had unexpectedly removed chunks of the road. Next time, we're renting a four-wheel drive vehicle no matter what the guidebooks say.) The slot canyons are in fairly remote locations, and good directions are necessary to find them, which we did not have. Luckily, after wandering around lost in the desert for an hour, we ran into some nice folks who gave us better instructions. (Um, yeah, don't recommend getting lost in the desert with babies, either.) The slot canyons were amazing, especially Spooky Gulch, which requires serious maneuvering in order to squeeze through its tight turns. At one point, the gulch became so narrow that Xander had to remove his hat in order to get through. Along the way, you could see logs stuck in the canyon way overhead, evidence of flash flooding in the area. These are hikes you don't want to do if it has rained recently or if there's any chance of rain within the area.











We also did a little bit of climbing and hiking in Kodachrome Basin, and we camped there as well. Kodachrome has a small, lovely campground right in the basin. Our campsite was behind a wall of juniper trees facing sandstone cliffs. This spot is my new favorite place to camp, and I hope we get to go back one day.




We stopped by Arches National Park on our way back. As much as we enjoyed seeing the arches, we were a little disappointed with the hiking options there. Although I think part of the problem was that we were a little desert weary by the time we got there. It was beautiful, but we were happy to see trees and water again when we returned to Colorado.