Page 143 of Megillat Esther shows one kid questioning the order of events in the story of Esther (told by the rabbi). The rabbi is sputtering as he tries to come up with an acceptable answer. Having been raised Jewish (and attending over 40 bar/bat mitzvahs in my life... and gone to Jewish summer camp... and Jewish youth groups...) I think it's fair to say that I've met at least a few rabbis over the years. The rabbi in this scene made me giggle because he seemed so real. I know it's a generalization of character, but allow me to show you some dialogue:
Child 1: That's not what you said happened!!
Child 2: (a few lines down) Yeah!! My brother Nicanor says that the real reason that we...
Rabbi (cutting him off): Therefore they called these days... Uh... Purim, b-because of the name PUR. And... Uh... Therefore, upon seeing the word from these letters... When they saw them and... Uh... when they arrived they... Um... They received and... And the Judeans established upon themselves and upon their descendants and upon all who joined them to never fail in keeping these two days at the appointed time each and every year.
It made me laugh a little because Rabbis are all about stories. Sometimes the stories don't make complete sense, but it's all about the moral. The end of the story always has some kind of message (sometimes it flows through the entire story), and that's usually the point. Except when there is no point, which is sometimes...
In these cases, though, the rabbis are not about the technicalities in the stories, it's just the fact that some Jews won a war, ate, got drunk, and partied around this time. And that's why we celebrate [insert any Jewish holiday here].
** note: To be honest, Torah years might be like dog years. A guy living to a hundred and twenty without modern medicine? I don't know... What I'm saying is, for all I know, maybe we celebrate the holidays at the wrong times of year according to the "actual" Torah calendar. It's all Hebrew to me...
Saturday, November 20, 2010
P.S. to the last post
Something I noticed that I completely forgot to add was that the words and the spacing of the people form a star of David in the center of the page. It's a symbol I really don't associate with war! I mean, I think of it as a symbol of Jewish pride and strength.
Also, there are only a couple people fighting saying, Wow, what did we DO?! There's even someone telling someone else not to steal things from the dead.
This scene really screams "lack of common courtesy" to me. I mean, I suppose all war does...
That's all. The end. For real.
Also, there are only a couple people fighting saying, Wow, what did we DO?! There's even someone telling someone else not to steal things from the dead.
This scene really screams "lack of common courtesy" to me. I mean, I suppose all war does...
That's all. The end. For real.
I love hippie music. I share with you.
Page 139 of Megillat Esther depicts a war taking place. Text in the center of the page states, "And the remainder of the Judeans which were in the states of the king assembled and stood for their lives. On the thirteenth day of Adar they killed those that hated them: 75,000 people. And on the fourteenth, they made a day of feast and happiness." There is no mention of feeling any remorse for taking thousands of human lives. It never says, "And the murderous Judeans wept for the sake of the sin they had committed," or anything like that.
I know that generally speaking, one does not mourn those he has killed himself, but there were so MANY people that I'm sure not every single ONE of them hated the Jews. There must have been some innocent people killed, too. How does that make the Jews any better than the Nazis killing people who were "unlike" themselves? Will it take us all having the same skin color due to generations upon generations of multicultural babies to realize that people are people and we should all respect and love each other?
In middle school my Judaica teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." It's like the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I so do not understand war over silly personal issues. If everyone killed everyone who did not like them, humans would be extinct.
Whatever happened to this wonderful method of thinking? It's so positive. We have coexist stickers, Threadless shirts "give peas a chance," all this "let's treat the environment better" stuff. Nothing wrong with that! BUT, why can't we start with, let's try not to kill each other over trifles? I just don't find it necessary.
Another one here: Very positive message.
The movie Love Actually is a fantastic illustration of little social successes in everyday life. What I mean by "social successes" is people exchanging positive energy. There's a scene of families reuniting in an airport. Hugging, kissing, smiling, talking... if we can kidnap little kids and teach them to be killing machines, why not teach them to be... um... "loving machines" isn't REALLY the term I want to use. Happy? Kids are happy. Affectionate? Do you know what I'm getting at? The anti-killing. The pro-coexisting, but more than "coexisting." More like, let's all be friends. I know it's idealistic and that EVERYONE can't be friends, but I also know that I've made a lot of friends in strange ways that would be considered "abnormal."
Here's a story:
I was going to eat dinner. I was alone; figured I'd find someone I knew at Blackhawk. I found a group of friends and stopped with my tray full of food to say hi. Everyone was finishing ice cream cones, so I said goodbye and headed towards a guy who I THOUGHT was someone I knew. He sat plainly in view of the table I'd just walked away from. As I approached the table for a closer look, I realize it was a stranger. I said, "Hi, um... I thought you were someone else, but... mind if I sit here anyway?" He was also alone and said okay. Now we're buds! We had a nice time. Yes, it's unconventional; but now we eat together all the time! We wave and smile at each other in passing. In the long run, my little world is ultimately happier.
I know that generally speaking, one does not mourn those he has killed himself, but there were so MANY people that I'm sure not every single ONE of them hated the Jews. There must have been some innocent people killed, too. How does that make the Jews any better than the Nazis killing people who were "unlike" themselves? Will it take us all having the same skin color due to generations upon generations of multicultural babies to realize that people are people and we should all respect and love each other?
In middle school my Judaica teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." It's like the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I so do not understand war over silly personal issues. If everyone killed everyone who did not like them, humans would be extinct.
Whatever happened to this wonderful method of thinking? It's so positive. We have coexist stickers, Threadless shirts "give peas a chance," all this "let's treat the environment better" stuff. Nothing wrong with that! BUT, why can't we start with, let's try not to kill each other over trifles? I just don't find it necessary.
Another one here: Very positive message.
The movie Love Actually is a fantastic illustration of little social successes in everyday life. What I mean by "social successes" is people exchanging positive energy. There's a scene of families reuniting in an airport. Hugging, kissing, smiling, talking... if we can kidnap little kids and teach them to be killing machines, why not teach them to be... um... "loving machines" isn't REALLY the term I want to use. Happy? Kids are happy. Affectionate? Do you know what I'm getting at? The anti-killing. The pro-coexisting, but more than "coexisting." More like, let's all be friends. I know it's idealistic and that EVERYONE can't be friends, but I also know that I've made a lot of friends in strange ways that would be considered "abnormal."
Here's a story:
I was going to eat dinner. I was alone; figured I'd find someone I knew at Blackhawk. I found a group of friends and stopped with my tray full of food to say hi. Everyone was finishing ice cream cones, so I said goodbye and headed towards a guy who I THOUGHT was someone I knew. He sat plainly in view of the table I'd just walked away from. As I approached the table for a closer look, I realize it was a stranger. I said, "Hi, um... I thought you were someone else, but... mind if I sit here anyway?" He was also alone and said okay. Now we're buds! We had a nice time. Yes, it's unconventional; but now we eat together all the time! We wave and smile at each other in passing. In the long run, my little world is ultimately happier.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
I forgot to comment on modern society and gender!
Woops.
Now we have many options; not just female or male. Maybe the artist took this into consideration while drawing the characters. It definitely could be related to the sexuality theme we see throughout this graphic novel (no pun intended). Uh... people accepting themselves, accepting others, changing the way they view themselves (or others. And others. It's kind of late.).
In the sex scenes in the first half of Esther, we never see anything really "naughty looking." I wouldn't call it pornographic by any means. I would, however, argue that the women do all the work, and sex in this context never is depicted as a two-way street. She does things to him while he lays back and enjoys. He never reciprocates the favor, as far as we know.
Maybe the artist is saying that leaders have many opportunities to be lazy. As far as I've seen in human nature, when someone has the power to command others, s/he uses it, and it appears easy to abuse without knowing. Maybe the king's power gets so out of control that it goes from, "You do X while I do Y" (collaborative chores, for example - part-part-whole) to, "You do X and Y [while I sleep]. [Or watch football.] [Or enjoy the benefits of my harem.]"
Thoughts? Am I crazy?
Now we have many options; not just female or male. Maybe the artist took this into consideration while drawing the characters. It definitely could be related to the sexuality theme we see throughout this graphic novel (no pun intended). Uh... people accepting themselves, accepting others, changing the way they view themselves (or others. And others. It's kind of late.).
In the sex scenes in the first half of Esther, we never see anything really "naughty looking." I wouldn't call it pornographic by any means. I would, however, argue that the women do all the work, and sex in this context never is depicted as a two-way street. She does things to him while he lays back and enjoys. He never reciprocates the favor, as far as we know.
Maybe the artist is saying that leaders have many opportunities to be lazy. As far as I've seen in human nature, when someone has the power to command others, s/he uses it, and it appears easy to abuse without knowing. Maybe the king's power gets so out of control that it goes from, "You do X while I do Y" (collaborative chores, for example - part-part-whole) to, "You do X and Y [while I sleep]. [Or watch football.] [Or enjoy the benefits of my harem.]"
Thoughts? Am I crazy?
Crazy world.
In Migillat Esther, the king has a harem and a wife. Of course, all those wives were a sign of prestige and wealth; many people cannot afford to feed and care for so many people. So many wives equals many monies.
Let's consider the modern housewife stereotype:
-She cooks breakfast
-She cleans up breakfast
-She gets the kids from point A to point B
-She drives home and makes lunch for her husband (who, in WI, in the meantime, of course, has been chugging Miller Lites all morning. -OR- He leaves for his 9-5 job. If I'm gonna make fun of anyone, may as well make fun of everyone.)
-She takes a minute or two to herself to shower?
-Maybe she eats breakfast herself...
What I'm getting at is that doing EVERYTHING is hard work! Why not split it up among many parties? The only thing I'm not a fan of, though, is that we don't seem to see the king doing a whole lot. There are many scenes of him in bed. He lies there while the pretty women (a new one each night)... erm... deliver pleasure, if you will. He never seems to get up and do any real, get-your-hands-dirty type work. Work work, ya know, let's go help those guys with my crops, let's help my wife do dishes.
These days, nobody has servants OR harems. Why did they get both then, and neither now?
Because society is a terrible, cruel, and, to be blunt, UNFAIR PLACE.
Also, because in American society, we marry the pretty people instead of the let's-work-together people.
One could argue that now we have fewer children due to modern birth control methods, so theoretically speaking, there is less to take care of. That said, we have less family and more house. More yard. More junk, more clutter, more clothes. Did I say more? You understand. There should be some adjustment in society to help people maintain all their STUFF and SPACE and CATS.
Now that we have the interwebs, there is a solution:
I just learned of this last year, and I think it's silly, so I will share. I guess one time my *insert relative here* was perusing craig's list and discovered that people can actually be hired to clean your house wearing little to no clothing (it comes with a "look but don't touch" clause). I was going to post a link to a job ad, because I thought it might bring amusement to some, but after a brief search, could not find one. But it's out there.
Crazy world.
Let's consider the modern housewife stereotype:
-She cooks breakfast
-She cleans up breakfast
-She gets the kids from point A to point B
-She drives home and makes lunch for her husband (who, in WI, in the meantime, of course, has been chugging Miller Lites all morning. -OR- He leaves for his 9-5 job. If I'm gonna make fun of anyone, may as well make fun of everyone.)
-She takes a minute or two to herself to shower?
-Maybe she eats breakfast herself...
What I'm getting at is that doing EVERYTHING is hard work! Why not split it up among many parties? The only thing I'm not a fan of, though, is that we don't seem to see the king doing a whole lot. There are many scenes of him in bed. He lies there while the pretty women (a new one each night)... erm... deliver pleasure, if you will. He never seems to get up and do any real, get-your-hands-dirty type work. Work work, ya know, let's go help those guys with my crops, let's help my wife do dishes.
These days, nobody has servants OR harems. Why did they get both then, and neither now?
Because society is a terrible, cruel, and, to be blunt, UNFAIR PLACE.
Also, because in American society, we marry the pretty people instead of the let's-work-together people.
One could argue that now we have fewer children due to modern birth control methods, so theoretically speaking, there is less to take care of. That said, we have less family and more house. More yard. More junk, more clutter, more clothes. Did I say more? You understand. There should be some adjustment in society to help people maintain all their STUFF and SPACE and CATS.
Now that we have the interwebs, there is a solution:
I just learned of this last year, and I think it's silly, so I will share. I guess one time my *insert relative here* was perusing craig's list and discovered that people can actually be hired to clean your house wearing little to no clothing (it comes with a "look but don't touch" clause). I was going to post a link to a job ad, because I thought it might bring amusement to some, but after a brief search, could not find one. But it's out there.
Crazy world.
Manly Men
Has anyone noticed that in Migillat Esther (first half) everybody looks feminine? Especially when the eunuchs show up -- they are slender and have long, voluptuous eyelashes... just the look [American} women strive for!
Upon reflection, I realized that the author may be making a social commentary on the interconnection that exists among all humans. When I was about five years old, I told my mom that babies are babies and they don't become boys or girls 'til later. That's what I thought! Babies didn't have a sex, they were little smelly crying things that eat mushed up food and get more attention than you (*note: I'm the oldest in my house). The author must be saying, "People are people."
It also could be the fact that these people tend to come from a similar climate, so their facial bone structures have adapted to the heat and sun. They have thick, dark hair to protect their scalps from harmful UV rays and to insulate their scalps; beautiful, black eyelashes to keep sand out of their eyes; angular noses to accommodate the dry air (big nose = big surface area of mucous membrane = better breathing and sinus function).
But then I thought -- wait, if babies are babies that turn into people who are people, then why don't all of them look like men?
Sadly, the best theory I can come up with is that women are much more attractive aesthetically speaking than men are. Big eyes, nice lips, a curvy figure... who thinks this is a bad thing?
Comments welcome.
Upon reflection, I realized that the author may be making a social commentary on the interconnection that exists among all humans. When I was about five years old, I told my mom that babies are babies and they don't become boys or girls 'til later. That's what I thought! Babies didn't have a sex, they were little smelly crying things that eat mushed up food and get more attention than you (*note: I'm the oldest in my house). The author must be saying, "People are people."
It also could be the fact that these people tend to come from a similar climate, so their facial bone structures have adapted to the heat and sun. They have thick, dark hair to protect their scalps from harmful UV rays and to insulate their scalps; beautiful, black eyelashes to keep sand out of their eyes; angular noses to accommodate the dry air (big nose = big surface area of mucous membrane = better breathing and sinus function).
But then I thought -- wait, if babies are babies that turn into people who are people, then why don't all of them look like men?
Sadly, the best theory I can come up with is that women are much more attractive aesthetically speaking than men are. Big eyes, nice lips, a curvy figure... who thinks this is a bad thing?
Comments welcome.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Addiction and PTSD: Go!
In Waltz with Bashir, one could argue that the filmmaker's creation of the film in the first place is an illustration of PTSD. Throughout the film, he incessantly interviews people, trying to differentiate what really happened from what he imagined and where he really was versus where he thought he was. In reference to his constant searching, his friend says, "You're obsessed. You're sick."
We also see other characters doing things to separate themselves from reality, like the guy who floats away on a... is she a mermaid? A mermaid-raft? It seems crazy to me that our bodies have the capability to do physical things to escape emotional burdens. Someone imagines his friends exploding on the boat while he floats peacefully on the nude blue giant.
A Scanner Darkly (ASD from here on out) deals with addiction. The opening scene shows *spoiler alert* symptoms of withdrawal as someone itches and showers bugs from his skin. The more he showers and scrubs, the more there seem to be. They come out of nowhere, and they don't quit! Soon afterwards, the bugs reappear and the guy calls a friend to tell him about it. The friend tells him to put the bugs in a jar. As in the war, this addict needs a way to separate reality from fantasy in his mind. He starts picking the bugs up and watching them crawl around, and I think he starts to feel a little better. Since the bugs are trapped in the jar, they can't all be on his person.
Another thing that really sticks out for me is that in war, people lose track of who they really are. Perfectly nice young men start using cars as if they're archery targets, but with their huge, military-grade guns. Hm, can I shoot THAT car in THIS window? Bang. Yup. There is absolutely NOTHING in their minds that says, Hey, what if there's a baby sleeping in that car? It become irrelevant. I don't understand the mentality at ALL. There's a scene that really upset me in Waltz: the soldiers see a car and shoot until everyone inside is dead. Turns out it was completely unnecessary. There was no threat to begin with. Is it killing out of habit?
In ASD, there is a guy giving a speech in a special suit that masks his identity completely. It hides his face, body... Even his voice. That's what it seems like people do when they're partaking in wars. It's like a long-term body mask. You keep your "real self" locked away for a while and let the "survival mode" take charge, not really worrying about the repercussions. When the guys who shot the car go and see its contents, no one appears to feel any remorse. I just don't get it.
We also see other characters doing things to separate themselves from reality, like the guy who floats away on a... is she a mermaid? A mermaid-raft? It seems crazy to me that our bodies have the capability to do physical things to escape emotional burdens. Someone imagines his friends exploding on the boat while he floats peacefully on the nude blue giant.
A Scanner Darkly (ASD from here on out) deals with addiction. The opening scene shows *spoiler alert* symptoms of withdrawal as someone itches and showers bugs from his skin. The more he showers and scrubs, the more there seem to be. They come out of nowhere, and they don't quit! Soon afterwards, the bugs reappear and the guy calls a friend to tell him about it. The friend tells him to put the bugs in a jar. As in the war, this addict needs a way to separate reality from fantasy in his mind. He starts picking the bugs up and watching them crawl around, and I think he starts to feel a little better. Since the bugs are trapped in the jar, they can't all be on his person.
Another thing that really sticks out for me is that in war, people lose track of who they really are. Perfectly nice young men start using cars as if they're archery targets, but with their huge, military-grade guns. Hm, can I shoot THAT car in THIS window? Bang. Yup. There is absolutely NOTHING in their minds that says, Hey, what if there's a baby sleeping in that car? It become irrelevant. I don't understand the mentality at ALL. There's a scene that really upset me in Waltz: the soldiers see a car and shoot until everyone inside is dead. Turns out it was completely unnecessary. There was no threat to begin with. Is it killing out of habit?
In ASD, there is a guy giving a speech in a special suit that masks his identity completely. It hides his face, body... Even his voice. That's what it seems like people do when they're partaking in wars. It's like a long-term body mask. You keep your "real self" locked away for a while and let the "survival mode" take charge, not really worrying about the repercussions. When the guys who shot the car go and see its contents, no one appears to feel any remorse. I just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)