Losing My Religion

Text © Robert Barry Francos / FFanzeen, 2020
Images from the Internet

 

Losing My Religion

The part of Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, in which I grew up, 99 percent of the population was either Italian or Jewish. Most of Bensonhurst was Italian, but my little area was more a 50-50 mix. There were two Chinese Families (both of whom owned the local Asian restaurants), two African-American domiciles, a smattering of Irish, and then the rest of us. Our grade-school teachers were all white, nearly all women, and a vast majority Jewish.

We were quite typical for that area’s Jewish Lower Middle Class. That meant on the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we went to the local synagogue, the Yeshiva of Bensonhurst on 78 Street (now a private middle and high school called the Sinai Academy, geared towards the children of Russian Immigrants), and that was pretty much the only time. You needed to buy a ticket per person, and it sold out. It is not a small temple, and had an enormous balcony (where we usually sat).

The Italian kids in our elementary school (PS 128, the same as attended by the Three Stooges in their youth) got Wednesday afternoon off to attend classes for their Communion and general Catholic instruction, while we Jewish kids sat in the classroom, bored because the teacher didn’t want to do lessons to just half the class. In the mid-1960s, however, a small synagogue and shul (Jewish school) run by a Hassidic group opened up on 21 Avenue in a house a block away from the school (now the Congregation Anshei Sfard Khal Faltishen). They started sending the Jewish kids there for religious instructions. My memories of it are vague because I would just zone out. My only remembrance of it was being taught about King David.

During the summer, I would attend a three-week sleepaway camp for a number of years called H.E.S. (Hebrew Education Society), run by the United Jewish Appeal (usually just referred to as the UJA). It was a beautiful location in Harriman State Park along Lake Stahahe, on the side of a mountain called High Peak, which we climbed every year. There was Saturday morning services and a prayer before and after each meal, but otherwise it was a normal summer camp. Evenings were often spent in the rec hall singing Jewish songs (“Zoom Gali, Gali”) and folk protest songs (e.g., Phil Ochs’ “Draft Dodger Rag” and others like the Temptations’ “Ball of Confusion”). I remember one year, the only 45 they had was Cream’s “Sunshine of Your Love,” and during a social gathering, we’d play it at 45 to dance, 33-1/3 for slow grinds, and 78 for fast ones; I don’t remember them ever playing the flipside. Most of the time I had fun there, and the religious part was merely a function of the routine to get to the rest. I acquired a new black yarmulke each year, some of which I still own.

Within our household we were “Kosher.” My aunt Elsie (my mother’s sister) was not as keen on this, so when I would go visit her for a couple of weeks during the summer, she’d make me a pile of bacon. We were Kosher in the house because of my dad, Leo. I really don’t believe my mother, Helen, cared one way or another, and she found the whole Koshering process (using salt water to drain the blood out of the meat) tiresome, but she kept it up for him. I still have and employ the big yellow mixing bowl she used but not for that purpose. When we ate outside of the house, including with my father, such as when we ate at the local Chinese restaurant or at a friend’s house, we all ate whatever we wanted.

Like many of my friends back then, our family had five sets of dishes: there was the two daily meat and dairy set, the two in the upper cabinet that were brought down for Passover week only, and then the one under the sink that only saw light when a neighbor made lasagna and shared (thank  you Madeline), or on the very rare occasion when Chinese food was brought into the house. We never did the stereotypical Chinese food on Christmas thing. We also never had a tree, ever.

At the age of 11 or so, I started attending Hebrew School once a week at the Yeshiva of Bensonhurst, to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah. I was a terrible student, as I was slow to learn Hebrew and I honestly couldn’t care about the religious instruction. By the time of my Bar Mitzvah, I could read Hebrew phonetically quite well (a skill I no longer possess), but I still could not translate much. Around my house, my mother and father spoke Yiddish to each other when they did not want my older brother Richie and I to know what they were talking about, and so I never learned it other than a smattering of words or phrases, and that also applied to Hebrew School (I took Italian in Middle School and that was a failure, as well).

Things went along quite smoothly, and I accepted all of this Jewish culture on face value, pretty much, until I was still young, when something very subtle but ground shaking for me occurred. My father took me to the Automobile Show at the Coliseum at Columbus Circle on a lovely Spring day. It was morning when we got there and it was late afternoon when we were leaving. We were both hungry, but I knew we’d have to wait until we got home, because it was Passover, and on Passover you only eat Passover food. But my father bought us both a salted pretzel (with mustard, of course) from a street vendor. Wait, I thought, you can eat regular food on Passover? That was a thing? It took me a long time to process this, but what I realized is that being Kosher was merely arbitrary and was therefore meaningless. Keeping Kosher in the house sort of balanced the outside world eating of whatever as a yin-yang thing of centering, but this was Passover, and until that time we only ate Passover food during that period. It blew my little mind.

A couple of years after that, there was another change, again involving Passover: when the holiday came, my mother would climb up and take the Passover dishes down from the upper kitchen cabinet, and put the daily dishes in their place. Of course, living in an apartment in Brooklyn meant cockroaches were a natural part of our environment, so my mother would have to wash all the Passover dishes, and eight days later, when she switched them back, she’d have to wash all the daily dishes. At some point she had enough. “Leo,” she said, “I’m not doing this anymore. Enough!” This led to a multi-day fight that ended with my mother – all five-feet of her – standing her ground and saying, “Fine, you want it done, you do it!” And he did. That was the last year we switched dishes. In fact, they got rid of the entire two sets (leaving the one under the sink) and bought glass dishes at were used for – shock – both meat and dairy. Again, it all felt random and pointless.

Chai ("Living" or "18")

The day of my Bar Mitzvah, May 18, 1968, was the last day I set foot into the Yeshiva of Bensonhurst (YoB) until my mother passed away in 1981. You are supposed to attend synagogue every day for a year to say the Kaddish, the prayer for the dead, when a close relative dies. The funeral itself was at a synagogue on Long Island near where she was buried, so I attended the YoB after the week of sitting Shiva. This also turned into a negative experience for me. The people attending the regular service (who were unknown to us) were dressed to the nines, showing off their new clothes in direct competition with each other. I found that crass (“Sadie! $125 at Bergmans!,” shouted across the aisles). Also, as Wikipedia explains, “In gematria (a form of Jewish numerology), the number 18 stands for ‘life,’ because the Hebrew letter that spell chai, meaning ‘living,’ adds up to 18.” So when you contribute, you donate in “chais”; for example saying “I donate two chai” means $36, “three chais” is $54, and so forth. The competition with the people there was fierce, like an auction, on how many “chai” they were going to give. The final one stood up and shouted, “I donate 12 chai! Anonymously!!” It was such a turnoff and I felt ashamed just to be there. I never went back.

At PS 128, we Jewish kids were often picked on by the bigger Christian kids. It was even worse when we got to middle school, the recently opened PS 281, which was rechristened Joseph B. Cavallaro Junior High the year after. I was even called a “Jew Bastard” by one of the Italian kids in my class (my response was, “at least I don’t bow down to one,” which got me a good solid punch to the jaw). While it was 50-50 at PS 128, here we were far outnumbered by various non-Jewish groups and races. I was running scared all the time through middle school and at Lafayette High School, which a local news outlet referred to as “The School from Hell.” No argument from me.

In 1993, thanks to my Masters’ program in Media Ecology, I had the chance to take a class on communication methodologies in Tel Aviv for a week, led by social critic and philosopher Neil Postman. I found Tel Aviv proper quite uninteresting, and often referred to it as “Miami Beach with guns,” as it seemed most males walked around with rifles around their shoulders even on casual walks, in case there was a terrorist attack (SCUD missiles had landed recently not far from where we were staying). It was very modern and very tense, with lots of glass and steel. I felt more at ease outside the city, in places like Jaffa (to which we walked a few times) and the one day we had the opportunity to spend in Jerusalem on a bus trip.

While in Jerusalem, we went to the Wailing Wall and went through the security checks as everyone did, both Jews and Arabs, and learned where not to tread. At the Wall, we were told that men had to go to the left, women to the right, and they were not allowed to mix (this is still true today). I put a request on a piece of paper, and put it into the Wall, but it felt as hollow as going to a tarot card reader at a fair, or a soothsayer with a crystal ball. I also wandered into the Cave, and found many a man praying fervently (no women allowed in such a holy place), davening and shaking back and forth. All of this misogyny and exclusion was slowly eating away at the religious part of me.

As I said in an earlier blog, at the burial of the mother of a good friend, I started talking to the rabbi-for-hire who would do the ceremony. At some point, he asked me, what was my sect, and I told him somewhere between reform and conservative (probably more to the latter in those confused days). He grimaced and snarled, “No such thing, you’re either Orthodox or you’re not really a Jew.” I turned from the hole in the ground to face him, stuck my finger in his face, and said, “Whether you believe that or not, we would have both been in the same gas chamber, so don't you dare tell me I'm not a Jew.”

Jews have always been viewed as “Other” by the larger majority Christian and Muslim world, and have been persecuted for it. This is my connection to being a Jew. Whether I believe in the religion or not, it is part of my literal genetics, and I am willing to accept that. As for the religion, I refer to myself as either an agnostic, or secular Jew. We go to friends on Passover and have them over for Purim suppers. At night I say thanks as acknowledging what has happened to me during the day as a sign of appreciation of the events that have occurred (e.g., “thank you for me just catching the bus…”).

While, again, I didn’t really quite have the words for it and it would take me decades to figure it out, I realized that I was proud of my heritage but my religion meant little to me. My paternal grandparents had been kicked out of Hungary in 1910, and my maternal grandparents were forced from Prussia around the same time. I felt and feel no connection to these sites, so my being a Jew became part of my identity in a sense of culture, rather than religion. I’m proud to be a Jew. I love Israel and believe it has a right to exist (though I’m not always a fan of its government) as a homeland for the Jews (and others), as I have experienced transgenerational separateness from the land in which my family came.

Tefillin

I have felt a lot of pressure from religious groups through my life. When I was a first-year undergraduate at Kingsborough Community College in 1974, I was targeted by the Jews for Jesus for me to “gabba gabba one of us” join their cult. At Queens College in the late 1970s, we were inundated by a sect of Hassidism that would grab men (again, can’t touch women because they might be having their “filthy” periods) and make them do their tefillin prayers in a van (again from Wikipedia, tefillin, “or phylacteries, is a set of small black leather boxes containing scrolls inscribed with verses from the Torah”). During the summer of 1977, when I worked at the Baskin-Robbins on Seventh Avenue South (a block south of the Stonewall in the West Village), there was a constant flow of young faces asking me if I had “accepted Jesus as my personal savior” (I’m sure they were there trying to “save the gays”). Over the years, there have also been subway preachers who ignored the “Jesus is Love” route and went straight for the “You’re going to Hell” line of religiosity. I often challenged them. I came to see the anti-science of religion in the late 1980s when my apartment was visited by a couple of Jehovah Witnesses. They handed me a little blue book “disproving” evolution using this argument: a computer’s molecules are simple, and a monkey’s molecules are complex. If a monkey can turn those complex molecules into an even more complex human, why can’t a simple calculator turn into a supercomputer? I laughed in their faces, and said, “A calculator doesn’t reproduce so there is no margin for mutation” (never mind that evolution takes millions of years, and calculators have only been around for a few dozen at that point). They were baffled by this, and tried to change the subject.

Now I am comfortable disassociating myself from religious beliefs. Recently, an online Orthodox Rabbi said I should be reading the Torah with the commentaries from beginning to end, and with an open mind. My reply was, “That is the exact wording used by Christians (about the New Testament) and Muslims (the Koran) who try to tell someone why they should believe their god without proof.”

When it is time for me to pass on from this world, I am comfortable knowing that, well, that’s it, it is over. I joke about my mother and father sitting at a bar in heaven with their friends Ralph (and eventually Audrey), waiting for us to join them. It’s a lovely thought, and to me the imagery is sublime, but I believe the reality is when the brain no longer functions, the person is at a permanent rest.

So use your time wisely, and I wish you all the best of health, a long and fruitful life, and when I go, I am content to know I won’t think about anything.

DVD Review: Bob Dylan Revealed

Text © Robert Barry Francos/FFanzeen, 2011
Images from the Internet



Bob Dylan Revealed
Directed by Joel Gilbert
Highway 61 Entertainment
112 minutes, USD $14.95
Highway61ent.com
MVDvisual.com

The last release I saw from Highway 61 was a pseudo-documentary about the alleged cover-up of the supposed death of Paul McCartney. It was ludicrous, but definitely imaginative. Then recently, this new Bob Dylan bio came into my hands, and I was wondering: real/fake? Imaginative/same-old-same-old?

BD Revealed takes a slightly different slant on the whole bio of Dylan, and rather than the usual narrator with live clips and talking head experts, this is almost an oral history of BD from his humble beginning until the early ‘90’s Never Ending Tour, just before it all fell apart for him.

Without narration, the only outside framework for the linear chronology is title cards presenting different sections, including chapters and sub-headings.

Most music-based documentaries, I find, are filled with authors who have written about the artist, which is all well and fine, but it’s sort of like having the Cliff Notes of those who have already done the research. Here, however, the documentary is chock full of those who know or knew him, worked with him in the studio, and had some kind of relationship with him, such as musicians with whom he has toured. This is much more anecdotal than researchers positing opinions or hearsay about they have learned. In other words, it’s first hand rather than once removed. This makes for a more dynamic telling. Do you want to hear from his childhood friend, or someone who had interviewed that friend? That’s a rhetorical question.

The segment between 1962 and 1966 is pretty short, but includes the likes of producers Jerry Wexler and Al Kasha, and his childhood friend Barry Feinstein, who uses descriptors of early Bobby Zimmerman as “interesting,” “magical,” and “hard to make out the words.” Kasha describes how he used the first low-selling album for fodder for other musicians, to help spread BD’s songs. Dylan himself is heard in a press conference clip (there are a number of them included throughout the DVD), including him stating, “I don’t know any college students.”

The next section is from 1966, and concerns his Electric World Tour. Drummer Mickey Jones (he was hired by Albert Grossman) describes extensively on what it was like to be traveling with Dylan during that period, and how the band as they were booed across Europe and Australia. It’s easy to see from the press conference clips that Dylan is exhausted, and also humorous to see him snap at the reporters, including one incident where he is asked about his songs being written to be contentious, to which he responds, “You’ve heard the songs, haven’t you!?” Another time he states his first name is “Penizovich.”

Another short segment that is full of impact is about 1967, when Dylan has his motorcycle accident. Jones describes what happened when the tour was cancelled and it’s affects on the musicians, and both Feinstein and Wexler question the reality of the crash, with Wexler going so far as to state, “He’s full of shit.”

His big comeback tour in 1974 with the Band is legendary, and there is a wonderful montage of amazing tour pix. His next outing, 1975’s Rolling Thunder Revue, has been viewed both as astonishing and a circus in its laid-back, anything goes style. Violinist Scarlet Rivera and Rob Stoner describe both being on tour with him (and how that occurred in the first place), and their working on the Desire album (which was recorded in one night). The main crux of this section is setting up the tour, the rehearsals, and the tour itself, including the “Night of the Hurricane.” Other interviews include Ramblin’ Jack Elliot who was one of the musicians involved, and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter himself. Further descriptions include BD’s involvement on the 5-hour long film, Renaldo and Clara.

With Jerry Weintraub (BD’s new manager) in tow, we are introduced to The Entertainer tour of 1978. With the promoter wanting basically a greatest hits show, Stoner explains how “We did what we could to make it unrecognizable.” Also interviewed is Joe Selvin of the San Francisco Chronicle, who includes his memories of attending the show.

For the section where Dylan becomes “Born Again” at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship Chapel,” we hear from Pastor Bill Dwyer (who believes Christian revitalization came after the disillusionment of Viet Nam), Kasha, and AJ Weberman, who states, in part, that at Vineyard, “it was not Christianity, it was Jesus.” The paradox of Dylan being brought up Jewish is dismissed by Dwyer who posits that Jews can be Christians (no, they can’t, but I won’t go into that now). However, Mitch Glaser, who represents the Jews for Jesus, states here that Jews are actually Christians because Jesus was a Jews, so it’s the Gentiles who are the converts” (this makes no sense at all). Regina McCrary, a singer on Dylan’s Being Born Again tour, explains her view of Dylan’s acceptance in a positive light. Wexler, who worked with Dylan on Slow Train Coming, and describes himself as a “62 year old card carrying Jewish Atheist,” comments about the “horror” of working with Dylan in this state.

For the Spreading of the Word tour, keyboardist Spooner Oldham tells about crowd reaction on the road, such as in some places each song getting half clapping and half booing. There are some smile-inducing exit interviews of the audience from period newscasts, ranging from praise to “He stinks.” The DVD also plays some of the audio track from one show where he tries a bit of preaching to audience ridicule.

Of course, Dylan famously followed this by becoming Orthodox Jewish as he rebounded from his disconnect from Christianity. The clip of him appearing on a Chassidic Lubavitch telethon is nothing short of painful as he looks so lost.

The last section of the DVD is 1992’s Never Ending Tour, told almost exclusively through the eyes of drummer Winston Watson who describes what it was like not only playing with Dylan, but hanging out with him and his host of celebrity friends and hangers-on (among them Neil Young, Al Kooper, and his opening act, the glorious Patti Smith… as a side-bar, that is a tour I would have definitely loved to have seen).

Never mind Madonna and Lady Gaga, Dylan is the original when it comes to reinvention, and this documentary takes him through four decades of growth spurts, including the good, the bad, and yes, the ugly. The presentation here is riveting, between the interviews and the clips of the period, and whether you are immersed in Dylanology or a casual attendee, there is a lot of material here that makes this a find.

Note that there are no extras included with the DVD, other than all the amazing information.

DVD Review: The Electric Chair

Text © Robert Barry Francos/FFanzeen, 2010
Images from the Internet

The Electric Chair
Written, produced and directed by Mark Eisenstein
Wild Eye, 1985 / (rereleased) 2010
105 minutes, USD $16.95
Wildeyereleasing.com
MVDvisual.com

Whether Mark (Marcus) Eisenstein’s work could be put into the transgressive film category is borderline, but he does have an aggressive style that has a large dose of religion (mostly Jewish), confrontation, and imagery.

His The Electric Chair, from 1985, has long (well, for 25 years) been considered a piece of “lost cinema,” directed by this film professor from Jersey City State College. Fortunately, Wild Eye Productions has not only seen fit to release this piece of unorthodox cinema, but has also added in a whole bunch of Eisenstein’s shorter pieces as extras, along with some trailers and a track commentary. But more of that later.

Written originally as a play that was mounted but once, Eisenstein (okay from now on I’m just referring to him as ME…deal with it) decided to make a film out of it, and offered the lead role to Harvey Keitel, who actually wanted to direct it as well. ME was all for it, but due to prior commitments, Keitel backed out and offered up his pal Victor Argo in the lead. Yes, the heavily Jewish role was handed to an actor of Puerto Rican heritage, who just nailed the role perfectly. There is a lot of dialog in long bursts, and being trained as a stage actor, Argo was more than up for the part. After filming for no pay, the film sat in the can in minimally edited form for years, even after Argo’s death in 2004.

Though filmed in the ‘80s, ME finally finished the black and white film by editing in some footage he took of decrepit buildings on Block Island in the Long Island Sound (or would that be considered the Atlantic?) in 1971, in splashes throughout the narrative, effectively adding a layer of mood to the zeitgeist of the story.

The basic premise of the plot is centered around a shoe salesman, Arnie Schwartz, a lonely man whose marriage is grown as tired as he is, and who spends nights doing a stand-up comedy and music show at a local bar in New Jersey (where most of ME’s films are located). An electric chair appears on the stage as he is bombing, and in front of an audience that represents his whole life, he is warned not to achieve several levels of intimacy with the object.

As the gig does on, the comedy act turns into a rant about the philosophy of comedy, and bit by bit focuses in on his life, God, and schtupping, which uses up most of the film. It takes a strong actor to be able to portray this level of anger and still remain somewhat sympathetic (though in the commentary, ME states that he was not going for sympathy, just the anger), if not pathetic. In front of his mother, himself as a young man dominated by her, his kid sister, a sax playing rabbi, a couple engaged in their own intimacy, and others, Arnie rails right to the climax, which comes as no surprise. However, it is the last shot of the film that I found the most effective and unnerving.

The time goes quickly, and Argo is more than up for the task of possibly his only starring role in his long career. Keitel would also have done well, but Argo brings some depth to his emotions, and can punch out the lengthy gunfire dialog, while in close-up, without ever making it redundant or boring. It’s hard to turn away as he gives his all, which is even more impressive considering, as I said, he wasn’t even paid for it. That’s dedication to a craft.

The images of the super 16mm film (except for the Block Island footage, which is a grainy 16mm) is exceptionally sharp, giving a near German Expressionist pastiche, with high contrasts and an occasional glow, with Argo’s white suit against a black background. It’s the facial close-ups where the shadows are the most effective. My only qualm is the editing, sometimes a bit too sharp and jarring, or perhaps that was the meaning (the other Eisenstein filmmaker, Sergei, was famously noted for proclaiming that “editing is motion”).

This is definitely not a date movie, nor is it a backdrop film. It needs special care and attention from the viewer to see the slow build-up to the finale, and all the subtlety in-between as the tone of the film changes.

The commentary was interesting all the way through, though I felt like I wanted a second one. ME is paired up with indie filmmaker Peter Crocker (I may have this name wrong) and Rob Hauschild of Wild Eye Productions; Crocker is an “expert” on the film, and runs off with the conversation a number of times I just wanted to say “shut-up, this isn’t your film” more than once. A lot of technical questions are discussed about the film, the “hardware” as it were (pre-production, production, and post-production), but not enough, I feel, on the “software” (plot, meaning, intentions). I would have like more insight on what ME was trying to “say,” and at key moments, such as the ending, I thought, “why are you talking about that instead of what’s on the screen?” Don’t get me wrong, the commentary is full of fascinating facts, it just left me wanting more than it offered.

The shorts by ME that are included, and there are several of them, run from the “mini-feature” of “The Roach,” which lasts more than 20 minutes, to a couple that are just a few minutes.

“The Roach” is an interesting set piece of a waterbug that suddenly becomes human, but still scuttles about, played well by 20-something hipster type Eric Mednis. He has no dialog, and flops around when he’s on his back. The Roach is as confused about the human world as it is about him. He keeps following a profane exterminator named Mr. Acme, played by Nick Taylor, and is nearly seduced by a lonely woman (Joan Moossy, who is in many of ME’s productions), before the film ends, Nero-and-Poppaea -style. The film is simple and smart, and obviously a reversal of Kafka’s infamous “The Metamorphosis,” and is one of his few works here in color.

Some of the shorts are extremely esoteric, such as “The Smog” (1967; 6.5 min.), where people are filmed talking in a smog while their voices are re-recorded; “Eight Tragedy Term Papers Plus Three by Maggie Murphy” (1967; 15 min.) in which a real-life poetic term paper by a student who passed away is read by ME as a typewriter types out newswire stories; and in “Mark Eisenstein: Inventor of the Frame” (1982, 1.5 min.), the director explains how he “invented” the frame for cinema (before, supposedly no one knew where to look). There are a couple of others of varying success, but interesting to help put The Electric Chair into a larger picture of Eisenstein’s process.

There are also some trailers put out by Wild Eye Productions, though there is also one for an unreleased Eisenstein film called “God Is On Their Side,” an (I am assuming) allegorical tale of trying to get God on one side or another during a war, while all he wants to do is sing, dance, and smoke cigars. Why am I so interested in this? Simply because God is played by (and credited to) Buster Poindexter, also known as New York Dolls’ vocalist and Staten Island’s own David Johansen.


Bonus video:

GOD IS ON THE OTHER SIDE - rare UNRELEASED movie trailer - New York Dolls from Wild Eye Releasing on Vimeo.

Against One’s Self-Interests: Local Bad Choices on a Global Scale

Text © Robert Barry Francos
Images from the Internet

There are two local stories going on in the news right now, both of which are raising eyebrows on an international stage. Here is my take.

The 9/11 Pig Roast

The Saskatchewan Party is running this province right now. It is a new political organization which has a strong conservative curve that makes the Republicans in the States seem moderate. Their election to higher office has much to do with the traditional bent of rural communities whose population is wary of government spending on cities and social programs, and not paying enough attention to farming needs (there are just over a million people in Saskatchewan, but less than half in the two major cities of Saskatoon and Regina). The Prairies have long been leaning this way, despite the relatively liberal (as opposed to Liberal) leanings of Saskatoon, though currently under the thumb of the Mayor Don “me-me-me” Atchison (sort of like New York City under Giuliani or Bloomberg).

As a fundraiser for the Saskatchewan Party, they are throwing themselves a pig roast on April 11 in the local town (oh, sorry, recently declared city) of Martinsville, about 10 miles north of Saskatoon. As a guest, they have invited New York City fire chief Richard Picciotto, who was trapped in the North Tower on 9/11. Why conservatives love to drag out 9/11 for their own means even after all these years is another question, but one that this particular blog does not concern.

To publicize the event, they chose Nancy Heppner, the Minister of the Environment, to design the flyer. This is where the controversy starts. She chose an image of the Twin Towers burning, in itself not a wise choice, even as Picciotto was one of the surviving heroes of the attack (yes, attack, by Saudi nationals… I’m not into conspiracy theories… but I digress…), even with some benefit of the doubt. To have the buildings burning, as a promotional image though, seems a bit heartless. Okay, we are talking about conservatives, so that’s not so far off (again, their vision is “me, me, me”).

[The flyer (click to enlarge)]
And here is where the fun begins. On top of the image, it says, “Pig Roast.” I’m not sure about in Canada, but in the states, “pig” is also used as a derogative term for the members of the organizations who were the first responders to the scene. There were 341 firefighters and 23 police officers acknowledged to have been killed in the burning and subsequently collapsing towers. To use this image under the term “pig roast” is beyond an oversight, it is cruel. Definitely a lose-lose vision: If it was meant intentionally, it is disingenuous at best. If it was not meant intentionally, well, who wants someone that thoughtless in control of the government?

All governments have slip-ups, I know, such as Bushie Jr. sending out Hanukkah cards with a Christmas image, and there was one recently with the Obama administration that I can’t remember off-hand, but this is something that seems occasional with the liberals, but pretty consistent with conservatives. They are so focused on themselves and how to crush anyone they deem under them that they lose sight of what they are doing, and how they are achieving it. Liberals (Democrats in the US; NDP in Canada) seem to want to focus on spending for social programs and physical infrastructure, but conservatives (Republicans in the US; Conservatives and Liberals in Canada) want instant bottom line everything, make monuments to themselves (stadiums in New York, for instance; River Landing in Saskatoon), and create a caste system between wealth and poverty (when the liberals try to make it more level, the conservatives cry “socialism!” and try to scare everyone).

[Nancy Heppner]
Another part of this situation I don’t understand is why Picciotto is still showing up, as both he and the Fire Department of New York have both publicly denounced the use of 9/11 imagery for political purposes (hear that Giuliani? Oh, yeah, that’s right, you stated that no terrorism occurred on U.S. soil during Bushie’s administration, even when you practically use “9/11” as your phone number). This Saskatchewan Party is the same group that demanded the resignation of a NDP staff member for referring to Bushie Jr. as “Shrub.” Reminds me of how many Republicans called for Bill Clinton’s resignation after the whole Monica debacle, though many were caught with their own peckers where they didn’t belong (right, Giuliani?).

The province of Saskatchewan is equivalent to New York state, in that the majority of the people seem to vote against their own self interests, in fear of liberal social programs, and would rather see the money that would have served them go to commercial organizations and corporations that wouldn’t give a sou about their own workers, let alone the rest of the population.

Perhaps next time I’ll discuss a Saskatoon / Humboldt Minister of Parliament (U.S. equivalent is local Senator) who wants to end all funding to Planned Parenthood because he is against abortion (like that is all PP do). But again, I digress… Now back to the topics at hand.

The First Nations Leader for National Socialism

[David Ahenakew]
Recently, it was announced that David Ahenakew passed away in Saskatchewan, about an hour north of Saskatoon. The 76 year old was / is certainly a controversial figure. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) has been lauding him for the good he has done in his life, and it is quite a lot, such as being in the army for 16 years (including serving in Korea), being elected Chief of the FSIN (serving 10 years), helped establish the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College and the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College (now called the First Nations University of Canada, which I pass nearly every day), and helped bring updated technology to many of the poorer areas. Ahenakew even received the Order of Canada distinction in 1978. All well and good, and he should be noted for that. But some of his other stances should not be passed over, including his statements that Jews are a “disease” who started World War II, and that Hitler helped "clean up Europe" when he "fried six million of those guys.” He then stated that the Israel was going to help start a new world war (in a joint effort with Bushie Jr.). These comments were physically recorded with his knowledge, not in some ambush taping. His Order of Distinction, I should note here, was stripped from him in 2005 in disgrace.

So, here is a man who had spent his life helping out the needy and oppressed First Nations, who have been mistreated by the majority, stripped of rights, placed into ghettos, and scapegoated for the ills of the nation, and yet has a problem seeing the connection between the treatment of the First Nations and the Jews at the time of World War II of, well, everywhere.

What especially amazes me is the shortsightedness of the topic of the Holocaust. During WWII, the Arab nations sided with the Nazis in the destruction of Jews. If the Nazis had won, after the Jews were gone, next would have been the Arabs. And if they made it here to the North American continent, the First Nations would also have been exterminated as being non-Aryan (as would the Latinos, the Blacks, the Catholics, and the list goes on).

The WASPs of the 19th Century did their best, as it was, to rid this continent of First Nations people in their march towards “Manifest Destiny.” And what do you think the Jews contribution to that was? How many Jewish homesteaders were there then? Jews were certainly not allowed in the Army at the time, and certainly not allowed to own land in the New West. And yet Ahenakew defends the Nazis, representing the very people who would have sought to wipe his people out, and blame a minority that was as oppressed as his own. Yet another tale of voting against one’s self interest.

Jews have a history of support for those oppressed, such as participating in the Civil Rights marches of the early ‘60s, and helping to start the NAACP; if there was a positive cause, there were Jews backing it, and sometimes leading the charge. My mother would have mah jongg games with all the winnings going towards some social cause; this was common practice in the period of time when Ahenakew claims the Jews were a “disease.”

Some people, such as Ahenakew’s lawyer Doug Christie, is saying that Ahenakew’s comments should not be held against that many years of dedication. Well, I’m mixed about that, because he was not just a person spouting a misguided belief; rather, he was in a leadership position, and his opinion is the equivalent of inciting a riot. He was initially found guilty of hate speech, but was then exonerated in court in appeal, because they said it was just an opinion. However, he was in no less power than James Keegstra, the popular teacher from Eckville, Alberta (near Red Deer) who was a staunch Holocaust denier in the classroom, and who was consequently found guilty of that same charge.

I am not saying that Ahenakew should have been thrown in jail, but his comments should stick like the stigma it should be, as rightfully so with Jesse Jackson’s “Hymietown” statement, or John McCain’s “Bomb, bomb Iran” ditty. These are leaders, and should be held accountable. If it was some shmoe living down the street, I’d tisk and be done with it. I know people who have jokingly made racist jokes and statements, but they were not in a position of power and influence. There comes a point when one must realize that everything they say will have some import to someone.

Another point is that this lawyer, “Christie,” said that he only said this once, and under dire circumstances (new medication, being in a press conference, etc.). But this comment is much like seeing a single cockroach in a kitchen. If you see one, there are many more hiding out. If the man said this statement once, then the odds are there is a lot of ice under the surface of the water, and we’re only seeing the tip. This can effect this person’s decisions in his power-position, and it is important to note that, and not to sweep it under the carpet of the good the person has done. It should be like a pile of shit that sits on top of the carpet, for all to know. Let the people judge how they like the carpet, but know that the pile of shit is there.

[Sources: TheStarPhoenix.com, Wikipedia.org]

MARC H. ELLIS Lecture: Does Judaism Equal Israel?

Text and photos by Robert Barry Francos
Book cover image and video from Internet

Earlier in the week, I was told about a coming evening lecture at the university, which was to feature historical theologian Marc H. Ellis discussing Israel.

On November 19, 2009, in the afternoon of the presentation, while I was on the phone with my good pal, Alan Abramowitz (who is historically knowledgeable about Israel and its neighbors), I looked up Ellis on the Internet. There I saw that he has numerous books and articles about the Holocaust, Israel, and Christians (he teaches at Baylor in Waco, TX, a heart of Born Again fundamentalism), but mostly it was pretty clear that he was an apologist for Israel, and in favor of a two-state solution. At that point I knew that (a) he would be interesting, (b) I would disagree with him, and (c) I would need to keep my temper wholly in check.

This is not exactly a town full of Jews (there are two synagogues for a population of 250,000), and during a march against George Bush recently, there was someone with a scarf covering his face carrying a sign which read, “Bush is a Zionist Patsi” [sic]. The overfull room reflected many more of Muslim faith than of Jews, and I certainly knew which side they were on. That is the problem with the Middle East, as it is hard to be centralist; it’s usually either “them or us,” depending on your stance.

Let me start out by stating clearly, Marc Ellis is an excellent speaker. Scheduled to go on for 45 minutes to be followed by 30 minutes of questions, he talked for well over an hour and was never boring, was often charming and humorous, and especially self-deprecating in a culturally European Jewish way. He is someone you would meet at a dinner party and probably enjoy spending time with. In mild mocking tones, he said that traveling around the world was difficult with Bush Jr. being president, but now it’s easier with Obama (he admits he loves Obama, but doesn’t believe he will do anything to solve the Middle East issues), especially in Canada with the prime minster, Stephen Harper, being “right of Bush.”

Ellis started by positing that he is proud to be a Jew, but does not like how Israel is (re)acting. He brought up what he called the “prophetic,” meaning that it was Jewish culture, specifically the Exodus story with Moses bringing down the commandments, which is the basis of the entire Jewish-Christian-Muslim culture. As he spoke, a PowerPoint presentation flashed overhead, initially including the covers of some of his tomes, which seemed a bit disingenuous to me (but I feel that way about any author who lectures and pushes more than the present book, Judaism Does Not Equal Israel: The Rebirth of the Jewish Prophetic).

His essential argument is that the Jews of Europe, who migrated to the Middle East after World War II, basically used the Holocaust as a tool and justification for taking over the land, and treated its inhabitants poorly. Ellis used images of the walls built in Israel and especially the West Bank, and compared them to the walls built around the Warsaw Ghetto. What he left out mostly was why both these walls were built, and the difference between the motivations. The Warsaw wall was built to keep the Jews in for extermination purposes, whereas the walls in the West Bank are to keep the threat of violence to the Israeli citizens out. Ellis referred to “a few crude missiles” lobbed over to Israel so the wall is an overreaction, but in fact it is thousands of missiles every month that fly into Israel. As I’ve stated before, if Hamilton, Ontario, started lobbing bombs into Buffalo, NY, within a week the US would be attacking and sealing off Hamilton. Meanwhile, Israel is told by everyone else to just say, “Oh, well.”

He also discussed the “Nakba” (Arabic word for catastrophe) which is the “Palestinian” word for their being kicked out of Israel at its formation in 1948 by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). This is a misnomer, however, and what Ellis did not address at all that “Nakba” is a word created as a tool for something that pretty much never happened on a large scale. What actually occurred was when Israel was formed, the leaders of the neighboring Arab states declared that if any Arabs stayed in the territory after Israel was created, then when the neighboring Arabs destroyed “the Zionist entity,” then they would be tortured and killed as collaborators, so most Arabs left their homes of out fear from other Arab states. When these “refugees” moved out and to what was to be safe havens in their threatening neighbors, they were ostracized and placed instead into miserable ghettos and mistreated worse than anything done by the Israelis. No one has been crueler to the “Palestinians” than their own brother states. This is never addressed by apologists.

Ellis declares that he is in favor of a “two-state” system, with the West Bank and a large part of Jerusalem becoming a home-land for the “Palestinians.” However, what he does not mention is that when the British left Palestine, the UN split Palestine into two parts, a tiny percentage to the west went to become Israel, and the rest became an Arab State of Palestine, which became annexed by Jordan shortly later. But when the Arab people who were living in the territory to become Israel were forced to leave by other Arab states under threat of death and thereby losing their land that way, that is what became known as Nakba.

As for Jerusalem being bi-owned, this will not solve the problem of the Wailing Wall and the adjacent building, a holy Muslim site. After the Six Day War in 1968, as is stated in Wikipedia, “Jews could visit the Old City of Jerusalem and pray at the Western Wall to which they had been denied access by the Jordanians (in contravention of the 1949 Armistice agreement). In Hebron, Jews gained access to the Cave of the Patriarchs (the second most holy site in Judaism) for the first time since the 14th Century (previously Jews were only allowed to pray at the entrance).[67] A third Jewish holy site, Rachel's Tomb, in Bethlehem, also became accessible.” Since the Israeli’s took over Jerusalem, all can come to the holy sites, with the only restrictions being that a visitor must go through a check point similar to going to, say, the Statue of Liberty or the Arch of St. Louis.

Ellis claims he is glad Israel exists, but is also in favor of arming the “Palestinians” so they can fight for themselves. Che? He states that there is a “second Diaspora,” where 2 million Jewish Israelis have fled, he claims out of guilt of how the “Palestinians” are treated. That may be accurate for some, and in fact I’m sure it is, but for most Israelis in New York I have known it was for two basic reasons: first, they can make money here (like most immigrants from anywhere), and they are tired of living in fear of daily threats and bombings.

The largest question I had about what he did not talk about was why Israel has its policies, such as building walls. But he went around that by stating his talk is about Israel, “not about the Palestinians.” So he is only talking one sided, which is hardly impartial.

What would I like? I’d like to see the Arabs recognize Israel and declare (and follow through) that they will stop attacking. If that happened, I bet within a couple of years trade between all parties would start and both would benefit, then the walls would come down, and a second Palestinian statehood would probably emerge. Most of the world just wants Israel to give and give, and not get anything, especially safety, in return. While I certainly do not necessarily agree with all of Israel’s policies about the “Palestinians,” on the other hand I understand the reaction to them. Sure it is sometimes harsh, but it is a country that was built by the survivors of the Holocaust, was attacked by all its neighbors within 24 hours of its creation, and is still under constant threats (too often one hears some Middle East head of state claim that they want to eliminate Israel).

On the part of Israel, and here is the part I actually agree with Ellis, I can imagine it becoming a secular state rather than a “Jewish State,” where everyone was equal, but be put into the charter that is especially safe for Jews and aboriginal Arabs. Theocracy as rule just does not work, as is evident in many countries in the Middle East, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. That’s why the US has a separation of church and state (though there are those in the US who would both argue against the separation, and believe it should be a “Christian State,” and others that fight for it, such as the much-bashed ACLU).

At the beginning of the Question and Answer period, the moderator (who is a Jewish professor from another university), clearly stated she would take charge and there would be no statements allowed, only questions, and they must be respectful. In other words, one must agree. Ellis denigrated Bush, but seems to follow his questioning policies. All the questions I heard (I left after about 30 minutes of this section) clearly showed that most of the audience was behind Ellis, though one woman asked why he showed slides of walls but not of the blown up and burned bodies of babies from the suicide bombers, to which he dodged the answer to a query that I found very relevant.

The important thing to remember is that truth is like the word “objective,” as it doesn’t truly exist in a pure form. There is always bias, as Harold Innis pointed out. My truth is not necessarily “your” truth. Language philosopher Alfred Korzypski declared his Law of Non-Identification as, "Whatever I say a thing is, it is not."

This event was sponsored by the Dean’s Office of Arts & Sciences, Religion and Culture of Arts & Sciences, Sociology of Arts & Sciences, St. Thomas Moore College, the Fellowship for Reconciliation and Peace (FRAP), Independent Jewish Voices, and Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation.

Information on Ellis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_H._Ellis
Baylor University site on Ellis: http://www.baylor.edu/jewish_studies/index.php?id=33813
Some online articles: http://www.baylor.edu/jewish_studies/index.php?id=34842

A very similar lecture, given five days earlier, in Toronto: