fbpx

January 7, 2015

Poem: Meet Me (Breathless)

on the corner of sky and lamppost. I will look for you so wear your eyes. Wear your face that has slept in curls. I will breathe the tulip scent of your hair and the sidewalk’s soot-lined snow. Don’t forget to bring your delicate feet, those edible toes uncold in your oversized men’s boots. I will come with my hands holding bread — broad loaves creased with rosemary. And I will come with wine, two plumy reds bearing bicycles, top hats, and names we cannot pronounce. Bring your accordion mouth and your love of emptiness. Bring a fire and the wild nest of your neck. Bring your open throat.


From Hadara Bar-Nadav’s “The Frame Called Ruin,” New Issues Press, 2012.

Hadara Bar-Nadav is the author of “Lullaby (with Exit Sign),” “The Frame Called Ruin” and “A Glass of Milk to Kiss Goodnight” and is co-author of the best-selling textbook “Writing Poems, Eighth Edition.” She is an associate professor of English at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Poem: Meet Me (Breathless) Read More »

When rules should be broken

Rules and laws have been around a long time, even predating the Code of Hammurabi of ancient Mesopotamia and our own Ten Commandants and the Torah. Every day, we encounter rules wherever we go, and while many are based on common sense — always stop at a red light, and don’t drive while drunk, for example — sometimes that same common sense dictates that the rules ought to be set aside. 

The Americans With Disabilities Act recognizes that people with disabilities sometimes need accommodations that require some tweaking of a rule, so that a person with a learning disability can have more time to take an SAT exam, or that a person using a wheelchair be permitted to use a freight elevator if there are no other elevators or ramps. But some people just haven’t gotten the message, and there continue to be times when a person in a position of authority clings stubbornly to “the rules,” even if they don’t make sense in a given situation.

In the Twittersphere, the latest such incident involved a family on a Dec. 30 United Airlines flight from the Dominican Republic to New Jersey with their four children, including their 3-year-old daughter, Ivy, who had had a stroke in the womb, which resulted in her having spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. 

The family had purchased a seat for Ivy in the coach section of the plane, but the parents were seated in the business class, along with Ivy, who weighs only 25 pounds and can’t hold her head up by herself, so her mother, Elit Kirschenbaum, was prepared to hold Ivy in her lap, just as she had several times in the past. According to the Washington Post’s accounts, several flight attendants seemed fine with having Ivy sit in her mother’s lap. But a fourth flight attendant insisted that because Ivy was over the age of 2, she needed to sit in the purchased coach seat by herself, despite pleas from the family and their attempts to explain that Ivy is fully dependent on other people and can’t control her head movements without assistance. 

The plane was delayed an hour while the flight attendants disagreed among themselves — at one point, the flight attendants who wanted to make an exception to the rules dug out a flight attendant’s handbook, the mother said, that allowed for an exception to be made if the passenger cannot sit by him- or herself. But the objecting flight attendant would not budge. Ultimately, the pilot suggested Ivy sit in a seat next to her father, with her head on his lap, and the flight was able to take off.

Elit Kirschenbaum later turned to social media to air her grievance and to ask for an apology, prompting many posts supporting #UnitedwithIvy, but also causing a backlash from many posters who complained that the family was trying to get away with noncompliance of Federal Aviation Administration rules. Those regulations state, “During takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface, each person on board shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate seatbelt properly secured about him/her. However, a person who has not reached his/her second birthday may be held by an adult occupying a seat or berth.” At 25 pounds, Ivy more closely resembled the average 2-year-old girl, who weighs an average of 26.5 pounds, than a typical 3-year-old girl, who averages more than 31 pounds. United later publicly apologized to the family.

Another public example of overly strict adherence to company policy was when 17 high-school students with special needs in the St. Louis area were barred from entering a Bath & Body Works store at a local mall, which they were visiting as part of their “life skills” curriculum. Although the other stores in the mall had been welcoming to the students, an employee of the Bath & Body Works apparently assumed the group wouldn’t be buying anything and was concerned that if they walked past the sensor that tracks the number of people in the store each day, it would hurt their sales percentage. The incident went public, and the special education teacher received an email with an apology from the regional manager of Bath & Body Works, who said the company is addressing the problem.

When I worked for the American Diabetes Association, I heard about one local elementary school that prohibited students with Type 1 diabetes from keeping close at hand in their desks their glucose tablets or juice boxes needed during an insulin low “because then all the students would want to do the same thing.” As a result, those kids had to walk to the nurse’s office — often some distance away — to get the quick-sugar items. I also heard from cashiers with diabetes who worked at big-box stores and weren’t allowed to keep a snack or drink at their check stand; they had to keep such items locked away in the employee break room.

All of these incidents point to the need for those in decision-making positions  to look at each situation with fresh eyes and a thoughtful approach that recognizes, when it is appropriate, the need to make exceptions to rules and regulations. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur famously said, “Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind.” 

 

Michelle K. Wolf writes a monthly column for the Jewish Journal. Visit her Jews and Special Needs blog at jewishjournal.com/jews_and_special_needs.

When rules should be broken Read More »

Charlie Hebdo and the freedom to offend

“We are avenging Mohammed!” the attackers shouted as they went about their murderous business against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris Wednesday morning, as can be seen on witness videos. Once again, Islamic terrorists responded violently to a routine ritual of the free world—we like to make fun of things.

We make fun of kings, presidents, popes, saints, even prophets. We make fun of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Obama, Queen Elizabeth, North Korean dictators, and, yes, even Mohammed. Sometimes, that kind of mockery helps us get to a deeper truth. But even when it doesn’t, we’re free to take on whomever and whatever we like. It’s called freedom of speech.

This freedom to criticize and offend is worshiped by millions of people, including, yes, the Islamic terrorists themselves.

[Related: Jewish caricaturist among Paris victims]

You see, here’s what I find utterly fascinating about Islamic murderers who are easily offended: They cherish their own freedom to offend. God forbid anyone should ever try to curtail that freedom and tell Islamic murderers to stop offending other religions or religious groups.

It’s freedom of expression for them, but not for others.

When we accept this dynamic and single out Islam for special sensitivity, we don’t do Islam any favors. Remember how much of the U.S. media refused to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that sparked riots over a decade ago? The free speech junkies who caved into Islamic bullying were also those who blasted Sony recently for caving into the North Korean threats against the film, “The Interview.”

Apparently, when the bullies are not Islamic, and the target is not Islam, our media is fearless.

Now, with this blatant and cowardly attack against free speech in Paris, I wonder: Will the Western media call for a doubling down of Charlie Hebdo-style satire as the appropriate response to those who want to shut us up, just as they boldly called for an in-your-face response to the North Korean threats against Sony?

Or will they resort to form and put on their special kid gloves so as not to “offend” Islam?

We often hear that Islam is “a religion of peace” and that, although more than 24,000 terrorist acts have been done in its name since 9/11, these acts don’t represent the “true Islam.” Rather, they represent a violent and distorted interpretation of Islam. In this view, Islam cannot be held accountable.

But is it reasonable to completely isolate interpretation from a religion?

In his book, “The Great Partnership,” Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks cautions against doing just that.

“Interpretation,” he writes, “is as fundamental to any text-based religion as is the act of revelation itself. No word, especially the word of God, is self-explanatory. Exegetes and commentators are to religion what judges are to law. They are essential to the system, and they can make all the difference between justice and injustice, right and wrong.”

It’s too easy to look at the murderous acts done in the name of Islam and just say, “This is not Islam.” Tragically, for too many Muslims, it is Islam.

Moderate Muslims must stop using “wrong interpretation” as the excuse to let their religion off the hook. It's not enough to condemn terrorism and call Islam a religion of peace. Moderates must fight for that interpretation to win the day. For starters, instead of going after critics of Islam with accusations of Islamophobia, they ought to go after those who are really damaging Islam– the murderers acting in the name of their religion.

What we need is not a Battle of Civilizations, but a Battle of Interpretations. The champions of moderate Islam have no choice but to win that battle, which is an internal battle best fought by Muslims themselves.

We know the moderates will be winning when Muslims feel free to publish a magazine that pokes fun at the world's sacred cows… including their own.

They should dedicate that magazine to the free speech heroes who perished in Paris.

Charlie Hebdo and the freedom to offend Read More »