Archive for April, 2008

Wieseltier v. Sullivan, with Charges of Anti-Semitism

Posted on April 21st, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In the New Republic, literary editor Leon Wieseltier has accused Andrew Sullivan, the magazine’s former editor, of anti-Semitism for writing this sentence about Bill Kristol, after Kristol questioned Barack Obama’s faith:

“A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his faith.”

Those words prompted Wieseltier to write,Ponder that early adjective. It is Jew baiting. I was not aware that only Christians can judge Christians, or that there are things about which a Jew cannot call a Christian a liar. If Kristol is wrong about Obama, it is not because Kristol is a Jew. So this fills me with a certain paschal wrath. Nice little blog you have there, Obama boy. Pity if frogs or locusts should happen to it. Let my people be!

Sullivan responds,

To be called a “Jew-baiter” in the pages of a magazine I was once proud and honored to edit, and which I love and support, is an extremely wounding blow. It is also untrue and unfair.

I agree wholeheartedly with Leon that, “if Kristol is wrong about Obama, it is not because Kristol is a Jew.” It is because he is a cynic about faith, and a ruthless partisan indifferent to the truth when it cannot be harnessed to the wielding of power.

….when accusing someone of “Jew-baiting,” a writer might be a little more careful in his own use of language. I am 44 years old, a former editor of the magazine Wieseltier works for, married, and adult. And yet this is the tone of Leon’s scorn: “Nice little blog you have there, Obama boy.”

Little? Boy? African-Americans and gay men have had one thing in common over the decades and centuries. When we are being put in our place by our superiors, we are called “boys.”

Just for the record, I’ve had my tiffs with both of these writers. But on balance, I think Andrew is a very sweet guy who truly wants the world to be a better place, while Leon, for all his many gifts and a truly remarkable mind, is not particularly interested in improving the world, and moreover, can be one of the meanest people I’ve ever encountered, particularly when he harnesses the power of his mind and his pen to conjure insult.

Not for that reason, however, I’m going to take Sullivan’s side on this one. Perhaps his criticism of Kristol was inartfully phrased, but Andrew’s no anti-Semite, and any hint therein was certainly not deliberate.But Wieseltier’s “Obama boy” language was artfully phrased—a play, of course, on YouTube’s “Obama girl,” and at the same time deeply patronizing, and, yes, possibly homophobic—and its double meaning was very much deliberate. All of the double meanings in Leon’s prose are deliberate; he does not leave accidents within his work.

That said, I think Andrew was wrong in his criticism of Kristol, whose column doesn’t seem so objectionable to me. I disagree with it, but I don’t find it offensive….

The conclusion? It’s Hillary’s fault. The nastiness with which she has infused this campaign is spreading; she is dragging all of us down into her gutter.I’m half-joking about that. But I’m half-serious, too…….

An Unexpected Exit

Posted on April 21st, 2008 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

In the Crimson, Clifford Marks and Nathan Strauss report that Elizabeth Mora, Harvard’s vice-president for finance, has suddenly resigned.

Staffers in the Office of the Vice President for Finance found what they have called an unexpected message in their e-mail inboxes last Tuesday.

Their boss—Elizabeth Mora, also the University’s chief financial officer—would leave Harvard in mid-May, the e-mail said. And with no explanation given for the sudden nature of the announcement, her staff has continued to express confusion.

Two quick thoughts: Doesn’t sound like a resignation to me! Unless it’s one that resulted from an abrupt disagreement.

And second, there sure is a lot of uncertainty about Harvard’s financial affairs these days. What happens if the endowment returns drop to, say, a single-digit increase for 2008?

Monday Morning Zen

Posted on April 21st, 2008 in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

leaf-photo.jpg

What Sons Think About

Posted on April 19th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

I’ve been watching the Showtime show, Californication, on my iPhone lately—I started on my way out to LA a couple of weeks ago, and I’m making my way through its first season. It’s the story of a novelist, Hank Moody, from New York who moves to LA with his girlfriend, Karen, and their daughter, Becca. Once the trio are relocated, Hank’s best novel is turned into a hugely successful but crummy movie, and he and his girlfriend break up, and she gets engaged to a rich (and responsible, but also pompous and priggish) guy with a beautiful house.

Hank, who is roguish and irresponsible but basically a good person, desperately wants to win her back. But until he can, he sleeps with pretty much every woman who crosses his path. It’s an explicit show, with lots of explicit sex, and I love it, though not necessarily for that reason. Underneath its shocking elements, it’s actually very romantic. It advocates the old-fashioned notion that writing still matters. That’s romantic. Plus, Hank really does love Karen, though, as a novelist, he struggles to create the structure in his life to match that of Karen’s new partner. And he has a wonderful relationship with his daughter, Becca, who would very much like to see her parents reunite. Hank and Becca talk; they fight sometimes; when Becca cuts loose with the occasional swear word, Hank charges her a buck.

Yesterday evening I watched an episode called “California Son.” In the episode, Hank is devasted by the death of his father, Al Moody. Al wasn’t a perfect dad. He cheated on Hank’s mother. He aged into a dirty old man. He could be cruel, and knew just how to push his son’s buttons. He loved his son, but rarely showed it.

Yet when Al dies, Hank plunges into a depression. He finds himself snorting lines of coke off a hooker’s bare back in a cheap hotel room, and, when he doesn’t have the cash to pay her for services rendered, winds up beaten by her pimp. He is mad at his father, and doesn’t want to attend the funeral. But after he receives a letter from his father, postmarked before Al’s death, he changes his mind. Karen is present when Hank receives the letter, and she reads it to him.

It says,

To my son the writer,

Something I never said too much—I love you—my father never said it much either. I thought I’d be different, but I guess I’m not. I tried but somewhere along the line I guess you slip back into what you know, and I’m sorry about that. And I’m sorry we haven’t talked in a while because I miss you. You’re a good kid and a funny kid…. I said I never read you books but I lied, I read ’em all, I just didn’t know how to talk about them with you. I didn’t like the fathers in them. I know you writers take liberties, but I was afraid that maybe you didn’t take any at all. But that’s the thing. Boys become men and men become husbands and fathers and we do the best we can. You’re doing the best you can. You’ve done good, your books will be in libraries long after we’re both gone and this is important. More important is how you treat your family. I wasn’t a perfect husband but I loved your mother and I’m glad we spent our lives together. And I’m here if you need me. That’s all I wanted to say. Love, your old man.

As I watched the scene, I realized that I was having trouble breathing and tears were rolling down my face. Fathers, letters, love, death. These are powerful things.

My own father never said “I love you” to me. Didn’t mean that he didn’t, but that phrase wasn’t in his vocabulary, or at least not with me. He wasn’t much of a talker, and he preferred to communicate via typed letters, which he would sign with a crisp and elegant, “Aff., Dad.”

The hardest stretch in my relationship with my father came a few years back, when I decided to change my surname, “Blow,” to my mother’s maiden name, Bradley. It was, of course, my father’s name, the name of an old and proud family, but it had long been for me, a writer and, in a very small way, a public person, something of a burden. I don’t need to get into why, that’s a longer story, except to say that my decision was never meant as a commentary on my father.

For many years, I had put off making the change because I was afraid of his reaction. I knew he would take it personally. Though it had nothing to do with him, he would think it had everything to do with him. He was proud that his son was a writer; proud that I was carrying on his profession; came from a generation in which people didn’t do such things. I knew he would be hurt, and when my father felt hurt, his instinct was to inflict an equal or greater level of pain on the person who had hurt him. Obviously, it wasn’t his finest quality, but like all of us, he was human and imperfect.

I tried to communicate with my father in a way that he would understand. I sat—for weeks, a month—and wrote him a letter. It was about 40 pages long, and it was probably the hardest thing I’ve ever written. (Hard writing is not about technique; it’s about finding the strength to give voice to things that you are afraid to say.) It had two goals: to announce that I had reached a moment of psychological independence, and to assure that such independence did not mean rejection, but, in the best case scenario, might promote greater understanding, maybe even a stronger bond between father and son.

I called to tell my father that there was something I had to talk to him about and he’d be receiving a long letter in the mail. That’s fine, he said. Anything you want to talk about is fine. I think he thought that I was about to tell him that I was gay, and I thought, wow, if that were what I was disclosing, he sounds like he’d take it pretty well.

He didn’t take the actual news so well, though. He wrote back saying that I could not know how much pain I had caused him. He suggested, among other things, that it would be better had I never been born—better, in fact, if I had been aborted.

And the thing is, I was okay with that. Reading the worst is far less anxiety-inducing than fearing it. I’d spent years preparing for this moment, and I knew that my father would lash out because he did not know how else to express himself, and I knew that his lashing out would be proportional to his caring. And so I wrote back and I told him that I was not going to get angry at him. I told him that he was my father and I was his son and nothing would change that, whatever my name was. I tried to tell him that I loved him, and I tried to show that love through understanding.

Because part of growing up is working to understand your parents and forgive them the things that they did or do wrong, because it doesn’t mean that they don’t love you and sometimes it shows how much they do. And I hoped that my father could see that his son had grown up.

As my father grew sicker in recent years, I wondered if he would express himself more, if he would open up and share thoughts about his life, his feelings, about life itself. He did not, and there came a time when I realized that even if he had the desire to do so, he no longer had the motor skills with which to articulate such thoughts. How can you reflect on life when just to give breath to a sentence requires intense, exhausting concentration? And who knows how his Parkinson’s disease affected his ability to think?

In the numb hours after my father’s death, when random thoughts come into one’s head, one of my siblings wondered if my father had left any letters for us, his three children—thoughts that maybe he did not want to say while he was alive.I thought about the possibility and answered, “I doubt it.” It would be out of character for him to wax philosophical, and my father was nothing if not consistent. He had other ways to express his feelings. He brought his kids up in wonderful homes. He believed in education, and though not a wealthy man, sent three children to private schools and then Yale. He tried to teach us what he thought was important, and he lived a life that reflected the values that he thought mattered and endured. One could do far worse.

Sons learn from their fathers. They incorporate some teachings, and some they change.

A week ago, I had lunch with a reader of this blog, a man about 40 years older than I for whom I have immense respect. He said that he enjoyed the blog, but was sometimes surprised by how personal it is.

I had a long drive ahead of me, and my thoughts were on many things, and at the time, I could not entirely answer the question implicit in his remark. Probably I still haven’t. But this is an attempt: The truth is, I think, that as scary as it is to say personal things, the idea of not saying them scares me more. And I am a writer, as was my father, and so I write.

My dad died one month ago. This morning, the sun is shining, and the season is changing, and sometimes I worry that I am forgetting the sound of his voice.

Hillary. Bleh.

Posted on April 19th, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Washington Post finds that, no matter how much Hillary Clinton tries to manipulate and spin the voters of Pennsylvania, they aren’t letting her pull them down into the gutter.

(There. That’s an honest, objective summary of the Post article.)

Yes, the Jeanmenne brothers concede, they are somewhat “bitter,” the word that Sen. Barack Obamaused at a San Francisco fundraiser to describe small-town Pennsylvania, in a riff that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on to cast him as elitist. The steel mill where Michael worked as a stenciler is slated to shut down this year; the GM parts manufacturer where Bob worked is also on its last legs. All eight of their children have left town. “There’s an awful lot of resentment around here,” said Bob Jeanmenne, 84.

And no, they do not agree with the rest of Obama’s analysis: that voters in distressed towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustration.”

Yet they find it hard to get worked up about the comments — as do other Pennsylvanians, judging by polls that so far show little damage from an episode Clinton has worked hard to exploit….

Meanwhile, another Post article shows that Clinton’s bitter attacks on Obama are causing her to lose even more ground among African-Americans.

West Philadelphia ward leader Carol Campbell said some constituents have told her “they could never support [Clinton]. They think she went too far. I’ve heard a lot of them say that if she would stoop to this to win the nomination, what would she do as president?

Exactly. It is part of HRC’s contempt for Americans that she thinks them so easily conned, and does not realize that they can look beyond the pit-bull rhetoric and see a woman whose lust for power is far more worrisome than any verbal gaffe by Barack Obama.

Harvard Prez Blasts Football

Posted on April 18th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

President Eliot, that is. The Chronicle of Higher Education digs up an annual report from Charles William Eliot to the Board of Overseers in which the reform-minded president frets about the over-importance of college athletics.

To turn out on the right day the most perfect team possible in any one of the intense sports is a piece of administrative business to which much money, the best expert advice, the skill of professional teachers and the whole life of the players must for months be devoted. One feature of this business is watching the performances of school teams all over the country and securing the best boy players by offering them opportunities, pecuniary or other. Colleges which go heartily into this business will almost certainly succeed in athletic contests more frequently than colleges which do not. Whether they will so promote the objects for which colleges exist is a different matter. …

Truer Words

Posted on April 18th, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

….one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation’s imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it….

—The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 16

Or Does She?

Posted on April 18th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

The Yale Daily News suggests that Alisa Shvartz did indeed do what she said she did to herself, though she could not say for sure that she was ever pregnant.

In an interview later Thursday afternoon, Shvarts defended her work and called the University’s statement “ultimately inaccurate.” She reiterated that she engaged in the nine-month process she publicized on Wednesday in a press release that was first reported in the News: repeatedly using a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself, then taking abortifacient herbs at the end of her menstrual cycle to induce bleeding. Thursday evening, in a tour of her art studio, she shared with the News video footage she claimed depicted her attempts at self-induced miscarriages.

“No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,” Shvarts said, adding that she does not know whether she was ever pregnant. “The nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties.”

Told of Shvarts’ comments, the University fired back. In a statement issued just before midnight on Thursday, [spokeswoman Helaine] Klasky told the News that Shvarts had vowed that if the University revealed her admission, “she would deny it.”

“Her denial is part of her performance,” Klasky wrote in an e-mail message. “We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.”

And while some news stories late Thursday dismissed Shvarts’s exhibition as a wholesale hoax, the Davenport senior showed elements of her planned exhibition to News reporters, including footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit. The tapes depict Shvarts, sometimes naked, sometimes clothed, alone in a shower stall bleeding into a cup. It was all part of a project that Shvarts said had the backing of the dean of her residential college and at least two faculty members within the School of Art.

This girl has some issues….

The Girl Who Cried Abortion

Posted on April 18th, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Yale says it was all “performance art.”

Shvarts’ “performance art” included visual representations, a news release and other narrative materials, [Yale spokeswoman Helaine] Klasky said. When confronted by three senior Yale officials, including two deans, Shvarts acknowledged that she was never pregnant and did not induce abortions.

Horror

Posted on April 17th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

At Yale, an undergraduate repeatedly got herself pregnant, then repeatedly induced miscarriages, for her senior thesis in the art department, according to the Yale Daily News and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Art major Aliza Shvarts ’08 wants to make a statement.Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Sadly—tragically—this doesn’t appear to be a joke.

It’s like something out of Neil LaBute’s The Shape of Things, only much worse.

The display of Schvarts’ project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Words fail me…..