I’m not entirely sure why. I was very sick a couple of weeks ago and I’m not entirely over it. I still have a tight feeling in my chest.

I wrote about giving a man my phone number, and he never called, so there’s that. When I asked if he wanted it, he seemed happy in a way that’s hard to fake, so, although I usually try to take such things in my stride, I did expect that he would call. I’ve actually stopped dating because dating has mainly moved on-line. I have much better luck with men in person than online. I suspect I appear better in person than I do on paper. There’s also something I call the R. Mutt theory of life, but that probably deserves its own post.

I have a strange lack of concentration at the moment. There are a couple of books sitting on my coffee table, but five minutes at a stretch seems to be all I can give them before getting antsy.

Another possibility is a sudden cessation of activity and company. Normally, I spend lots of time alone and am fairly used to it. However, the past two months have been odd since I took the trip to China and the trip to California, which was to attend a convention-type thing for a week. Therefore, until a few days ago, I was a very busy person, doing lots of things, mostly with other people around. Usually, I pride myself on never being bored. I wonder if this odd feeling is boredom?

Finally, there’s the weather. We’re having a heat wave, which is predicted to continue until nearly the end of the month. I hate heat. A heat wave like this is the equivalent of a month of rainy days or freezing cold. In a way, it’s worse because I’ve been keeping the blinds drawn to block out the sun and I feel like I’m in a cave. I’m getting a little stir crazy and there’s no relief in sight. Making things worse, the temperature doesn’t drop much at night.

It’s all pretty petty stuff, but I’ve been feeling this for a few days now, so I thought I try writing it down to see if it helps.

In a little bit, once the sun is fully up, I’ll go take a jog or a walk. If I want to get out, this will be the coolest it will be all day, although the humidity is 68%.

I know this is all a lot of whining. Except for the tightness in my chest, all of these are problems in my own mind. I feel like I’ve been trying to solve the loneliness problem for about four or five years now. It doesn’t get worse, but it doesn’t get better either. I was able to temporarily alleviate it for a week, but now it feels like it’s come back even worse.


Last year, I planted two window boxes. I meant to replant them this year, but then the trip to China came up and I knew that it was going to be followed by another trip to California, so I didn’t bother since I wouldn’t be there to water them. The plants appeared dead. I saw some green leaves, but presumed they were weeds. Then, yesterday, I saw this:


I was poking around looking for something online last night and I came across a year-old essay which appeared on the Huffington Post website, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being a Radical: Assata Taught Me,” by Justin Adkins. In it he writes that he had recently read the convicted cop killer and fugitive Assata Shakur’s autobiography and that made him feel more energized as an activist. It was not an especially interesting piece, however there was one sentence that jumped out at me.

I fight for the day that all people are free. I don’t fight for democracy but for freedom.

There’s a growing drumbeat against democracy. On a left-right axis, I tend to fall to the left on almost every issue. On the authoritarian-libertarian axis I tend to fall slightly towards the the libertarian side. That static picture misses many things. In this case it misses which should have priority. Generally, I prefer to view it in terms of the history of ideas and the underlying concepts rather than a collection of positions. Conservatism has always had an elitist strain which distrusts the masses and therefore is suspicious of democracy.

In a recent article in Commentary, “Illiberalism: The Worldwide Crisis,” Sohrab Ahrami writes:

Today’s illiberals are less likely to be organized around systematic philosophies like Fascism and Communism than was the case in the years between the two world wars—the last time liberalism appeared this vulnerable. In our time, illiberal forces are disparate, instinctual, inchoate, more likely to be local in focus, and internally divided.

This seems to me to ignore a resurgent interest in Marxism among the young. Further down in the article, however, he writes:

Reducing political and ideological phenomena to social, economic, and legal ones is one of liberalism’s chief strengths and major blind spots, as the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt long ago recognized.

He also mentions Manifesto for a New Europe, by Charles Champetier and Alain de Benoist. The article is an interesting survey of current, worldwide political movements. The scope renders it unfortunately superficial. Still, it is worth taking a look at it.

Besides the attacks from the left and the right, we have to contend with the technocratic and meritocratic distrust of the masses.

In an article which upset many people last year, Jonathan Chait wrote:

The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations. This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception — not only among conservatives but even many liberals — that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things.

It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents…. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones. …

Political correctness appeals to liberals because it claims to represent a more authentic and strident opposition to their shared enemy of race and gender bias. And of course liberals are correct not only to oppose racism and sexism but to grasp (in a way conservatives generally do not) that these biases cast a nefarious and continuing shadow over nearly every facet of American life. Since race and gender biases are embedded in our social and familial habits, our economic patterns, and even our subconscious minds, they need to be fought with some level of consciousness. The mere absence of overt discrimination will not do.

Liberals believe (or ought to believe) that social progress can continue while we maintain our traditional ideal of a free political marketplace where we can reason together as individuals….

Chait’s article focused mainly of restrictions to free speech, but free speech is only one component of liberalism. Others, like democratic self-governance, are being challenged as well.


DSC_0388_8671It feels like ages ago that I promised China pictures.

In the northern part of Sichuan Province there’s a large nature reserve and national park. It’s located at a very high altitude and the scenery is very spectacular. Here is a quickie map I did to give you an idea of the location. I apologize for any inaccuracies.

Jiuzhaigou-LocationJiuzhaigou translates to “nine village valley,” and there are still several Tibetan villages within the park two of which are accessible to tourists. The best approximation of the pronunciation I could manage was “Joe – Jai – Go,” but I should warn you that without at least making a stab at the tones no one could understand what I was saying. The park is known for its waterfalls and lakes. The lakes have a high mineral content and are unusually colorful. We went there in the late spring/early summer, but the most popular time is the fall due to the colorful leaves. There are so many scenic spots, it’s really hard to take bad pictures.

The cutie was a commie. Admittedly, I don’t know that for a fact, but I think it’s a reasonable guess based on his reading material and musical tastes. The books were big, fat, serious ones, the kind that people don’t read unless they’re motivated. The musical tastes… well, he first took note of me when I said something that indicated we might have overlapping musical tastes. Which I suppose we do, if you subtract the more obviously political stuff. For now, I’m assuming he is a flat-out Marxist.

Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are pinkos, the rest are anarchists, various flavors of socialist and whatnot. A true Marxist is rarity, but, you see, he had this smile. The cliché is to say that his smile made me “weak at the knees,” although the weakness was definitely located a foot and a half higher than that, and it wasn’t weak so much as wet. Every time he smiled, and I mean every time dammit, my rational, logical mind, which was busy trying to feed my mouth something half-way intelligent to say about art, or literature, or music, (After all, we’re not just talking about any old cutie, but a cutie with very large… books.) was interrupted by that primal part of the brain – you know that part that’s not well-connected to the language part of the brain. So, just as I was formulating some brilliant, or at least coherent, observation about the subject at hand, he’d smile and that other side of my brain would start redirecting my attention to how much I would like to touch him, specifically, how much I would like to get inside his pants. But even putting it that way implies a higher level of thinking than was actually going on. It would be more accurate to say that every time he smiled a gorilla jumped up and down in my brain shouting, “Cock!”

That would cause stammering and stumbling which I played off by asking if he had an opinion. He smiles easily and I must have seemed very interested in his… opinions. After all, not only were the books large, but they looked rather hard. One would expect such a man to have opinions worth exploring.

So, about a week ago, I had, if I’m not mistaken, which I could be, two men flirting with me and I felt prettier than I have in about five years. One seemed to drop out of the picture for a reason I can’t account for, leaving me with Mr. Dimples. (To be honest, I don’t recall whether or not he had dimples, but that’s shorter than Mr. Serious-but-smiles-easily.)

For a couple of days, I was a little nervous because I think Mr. Dimples was assuming, with no encouragement from me, that I share his radical leanings. So I need to ask Mr. Dimples, “Do you think you could make it with Frankenstein?” Or, in this case, an anti-authoritarian liberal, which in my social world might as well be Frankenstein.

So this was the first time in several years that I have really had an overwhelming primal reaction to a potential lover and actually felt good about it, and I’m really hoping my damn opinions don’t get in the way. I’ve tried agreeing with the majority, and it just doesn’t add up in my head. I can’t make myself go along with it. The best I can do is avoid talking about it.

The good news is, I’m not much of a talker in bed. In fact, lovers have found that a little bit remarkable about me since I tend to run on at length outside of bed. Shockingly, a couple of people have been disappointed. Most, however, are relieved.

The bad news is, I gave him my phone number a few days ago and he hasn’t called, so maybe all my wondering if I was too far to the center for him was all for naught.

In any case, the likelihood that he would actually read this is close to nil, so I feel like I can be more open about it here than I was in front of a crowd. I’m pretty sure I adequately communicated my desire for him to call. So, everyone, keep your fingers crossed.

Yesterday, I was shocked and deeply upset by one of the most blatant displays of virulent antisemitism that I have seen in twenty years. It is hard to explain how upset I was without edging towards melodrama. After all, they were only words. No one was injured.

I brooded on this for much of yesterday evening. Finally, I had to ask myself, “Why are you surprised? After all, you’ve been tolerating low-level antisemitism for sometime now. Suddenly, someone declares that she doesn’t care about ‘rich y**s’ and you’re shocked. If people had been making comments about the laziness of African Americans and such comments were left unchallenged would you be shocked to find that the thread had degenerated to someone writing about ‘dumb n*****s’?”

So, why did I, and other people as well, allow things to slide for so long?

A few months ago, someone suggested that Jews are “inbred.” At the time I, and no one else, addressed the writer. I tried to be diplomatic, suggesting that he did not intend to be antisemitic but that his statement could be interpreted that way. He defended himself by saying that it was simply a fact as demonstrated by certain diseases that are more prevalent among Jews. “Inbreeding” was most certainly used to justify persecution of Jews. In 1919, Hitler wrote, “Through thousands of years of the closest kind of inbreeding, Jews in general have maintained their race and their peculiarities far more distinctly than many of the peoples among whom they have lived. And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non­ German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do.”

The original commenter insisted that just because a fact had been used to justify the extermination of the Jews didn’t mean that we could ignore that it was true. I tried to look at the question another way: How can we define “inbred” and, once it was clearly defined, did we apply it consistently? It seemed to me that many small nations might be equally “inbred.” Perhaps it was my familiarity with the Ramapough, but I had an inkling such notions were not applied impartially. After a some searching on the internet, I could not find a satisfactory answer. Although Wikipedia does mention a couple of different measures of inbreeding, I couldn’t find these more objective measures for different populations and how other distinct groups might compare to Jews. The information may very well be out there. After searching for long enough that I had to recognize I would not find an answer that night, I let the subject drop. Perhaps I was wrong to let it go. Perhaps I should have asked why the original commenter was so interested in Jews in the first place.

A few weeks later, in a different comment thread on the same blog, a different commenter said Jews were to be blamed for Christianity. Now, the topic of the blog is often atheism and most of the commenters are former Christians so a bit of bellyaching about Christianity is par for the course. However a sudden declaration to the effect of, “I know it’s not PC, but let’s blame the Jews,” struck me as being antisemitic.

Europe has blamed the Jews for an encyclopedia of sins. The Church blamed the Jews for killing Jesus; Voltaire blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. In the febrile minds of anti-Semites, Jews were usurers and well-poisoners and spreaders of disease. Jews were the creators of both communism and capitalism; they were clannish but also cosmopolitan; cowardly and warmongering; self-righteous moralists and defilers of culture. Ideologues and demagogues of many permutations have understood the Jews to be a singularly malevolent force standing between the world and its perfection.

That comes from an article which appeared in the Atlantic last year, “Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe.” This is a time of increasing antisemitism in Europe and what some people worry is a nascent exodus. Some people have complained about the tone of articles such as that one calling it the “would the last Jew in Europe please shut out the lights” attitude. However, such bravado should not cause us to entirely dismiss the fact that such a conversation is taking place.

One of the strange ironies of the Holocaust is that it deflects attention from the antisemitism which existed in Europe in the centuries before it. The first half of the paragraph I quoted above is:

The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years. The Church itself functioned as the centrifuge of anti-Semitism from the time it rebelled against its mother religion until the middle of the 20th century. As Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Great Britain, has observed, Europe has added to the global lexicon of bigotry such terms as Inquisition, blood libel, auto‑da‑fé, ghetto, pogrom, and Holocaust.

Although today we tend to associate the Inquisition with individuals such as Galileo, the “Inquisition was originally intended primarily to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam.” If large numbers of Jews were not killed in England during the middle ages and the Rennaisance, perhaps that is because the were expelled in 1290. The word “pogrom” comes from Russian. “As a descriptive term, “pogrom” came into common usage with extensive anti-Jewish riots that swept Ukraine and southern Russia in 1881-1884, following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II.”

The perpetrators of pogroms organized locally, sometimes with government and police encouragement. They raped and murdered their Jewish victims and looted their property. During the civil war that followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Ukrainian nationalists, Polish officials, and Red Army soldiers all engaged in pogrom-like violence in western Belorussia (Belarus) and Poland’s Galicia province (now West Ukraine), killing tens of thousands of Jews between 1918 and 1920. (Source)

It is important to note that antisemitism predates the rise of racial theories that resulted in modern notions of racism. Hitler, for instance, insisted that he was not “antisemetic” in the traditional sense and called his ideas “scientific racism.”

Although it is beyond the scope of a blog post to prove, antisemitism has a different times been religious bigotry, racism and suspicion of a potentially disloyal group that might be a fifth column within a country, or some combination of those three.

So, when the commenter said that the Jews were at fault, I responded angrily and told him he was an anti-Semite, to which he replied, in effect, “so what.” (I’m recounting this from memory, so those are not likely to be his exact words.) I felt annoyed, not only at him, but at the silence of everyone else. Eventually, my opinion of the blog owner softened because, it occurred to me that he was African and perhaps not fully aware of the history of European antisemitism. It occurred to me that I should discuss this with him at length, but I never quite got around to it.

So, yesterday, I looked at the same blog again. You might be thinking, “What, were you looking to get upset,” but understand that these were two isolated comments among many on many threads on many posts. Therefore, they were easy to rationalize away as odd aberrations. Then, suddenly, “I don’t care about rich y**s.” Again, I’m quoting from memory, but I am certain of “rich y**s.”

It suddenly struck me that if I had ignored comments the genetic endowment of people of African descent, and ignored comments about how blacks caused all the problems, I would hardly be surprised one day I saw somebody writing about “dumb n*****s.”

I was furious and I was upset. I began to respond, but what would I say? “You’re an anti-Semite!” I think she knows that. Perhaps I would get another “so what.”

I thought to myself, “You have to draw a line somewhere.” This is where I’m currently having a problem, where to draw a line. I feel confident that the blog owner is not, himself, an antisemite. Yet it does bother me that antisemitic comments keep popping up and he lets them go unchallenged. “Y**” is, to me, as shocking as “the n-word.” My mother would certainly have punished me if she had heard me utter either, which she never did. In fact, I don’t think I ever heard anyone use either word in person except to talk about them.

Then I thought of something else I’ve been feeling uncomfortable about for about as long: Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn insists that he is not a racist, however, as I mentioned earlier, racism and antisemitism are not perfectly congruent.

As Labour and the media debate whether or not there is an anti-Semitism “crisis” within the party, nearly everybody seems to agree on at least one thing: Jeremy Corbyn himself is no anti-Semite. This generousness extends even to Corbyn’s harshest critics.

The article continues:

On the contrary, there is every reason to believe Corbyn is exactly that.

Another article on the same website presented the evidence as bullet points:

• Donated to the organization of Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier, and appeared at his events. He later claimed he was unaware of Eisen’s unsavory views, despite 15 years of association.
• Defended vicar Stephen Sizer, who disseminated materials arguing the Mossad did 9/11, after he was banned from social media by the Church of England for posting anti-Semitic material.
• Praised preacher Raed Salah and invited him to parliament. Salah claims that Jews make their Passover matzoh with gentile blood, that Jews had foreknowledge of 9/11, and that homosexuality is “a great crime.” He has been banned from the U.K. for anti-Semitic incitement.
• Invited activist Dyab Abou Jahjah to parliament and spoke alongside him. Abou Jahjah had called the 9/11 attacks “sweet revenge,” said Europe made “the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion,” and called gays “Aids-spreading faggots.” He is now banned in the U.K.
• Described himself as a “very good friend” of Ibrahim Hewitt, a preacher who likened homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, and labeled it an “abominable practice.”
• Campaigned for the release of Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, who were convicted in Britain in 1996 for bombing the Israeli Embassy in London and one of the country’s largest Jewish charities.

Stephen Daisley says that the situation is worse than simply Corbyn being an antisemite.

Contrary to left-wing mythology, anti-Jewish prejudice has never been the exclusive preserve of aristocratic snobs or skinhead fantasists. “The Jew is the enemy of the human race,” declared Proudhon. “One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it.” Bakunin labelled Jews “bloodsucking people” while Orwell, self-consciously anti-Semitic, even obsessed over the excessive number of Jews sheltering in London’s Underground during World War II. (No matter what the Jews do to protect themselves, it’s always disproportionate.) Marx, the grandson of a rabbi, essayed: “Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible”.”


For too many on the Left, Jewish suffering does not touch them the way Muslim suffering or gay suffering or black suffering touches them. Scrutiny of Corbyn’s associations elicits cries of “smear” or just a collective shrug of the shoulders. It was always going to. We lack a language to talk about anti-Semitism because too many on the Left don’t consider it a serious problem and couldn’t recognise it as readily as racism, misogyny or homophobia anyway.

He concludes:

Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite and nor are most people on the Left. He is a petition-signer who never reads the small-print, a sincere man blinded as so many radicals are by hatred of the United States and Western power. But his ascendancy comes at a time of great upheaval and populist torrents battering the centre-left and centre-right. It is a storm in which the organisation of politics against the Jews could once again prove an anchoring force in Europe.

There are enough articles weighing whether or not Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite that most people should be aware that his sentiments on that subject have certainly been questioned. While trying to quickly read at least a dozen articles on that subject this morning it struck me that Americans are far less likely than Brits to give him a pass. At minimum, he shields antisemites and I would certainly not support him myself if I were a member of the British Labour Party, which I am not anyway.

Which leads to the uncomfortable question that I’ve been asking myself since last night, exactly where do I draw the line?

We all view the past with a moral clarity that we lack in the present. We know who the good guys were and who were the bad guys. We project ourselves into history in a heroic mode. We always seem to believe we would have been Sophie Scholl or the Grimke sisters, never Neville Chamberlin. I do not myself always possess moral clarity and I ask myself how much I can expect in others.

As it happens, it was a video that prompted the “rich y**s” comment that upset me so much. At the time, I hadn’t watch the video because it didn’t work for me. I finally was able to watch it a few minutes ago. Watching the video I am even more struck by the bizarre psychosis antisemitism seems to have induced in the commenter. As I’ve mentioned before, I grew up in a community with a large Jewish population and, consequently, I’ve known plenty of Jews who were not “rich,” although I am aware that statistically they earn more than most other religious groups. There is nothing about the woman in the video, however, that indicates she is what most people would call rich. It’s hard to be certain, but her environment looks fairly ordinary. When, at the end of the film, she goes out to eat, her neighborhood looks unremarkable and she eats at a coffee shop that appears commonplace. She does not look poor either. We simply can’t tell from the film. “Rich” was obviously something that had been projected onto her.

We stopped by a church to take some photos. There were a lot of chipmunks there, which was interesting because they're solitary and territorial.

We stopped by a church to take some photos. There were a lot of chipmunks there, which was interesting because they’re solitary and territorial.

This is the train station.

This is the train station.

I went upstate to visit a friend over the weekend and I took my camera with me.

Since I didn't get a good look at this butterfly with it's wings open, I'm not sure of the species.

Since I didn’t get a good look at this butterfly with it’s wings open, I’m not sure of the species.

I thought it might look good in black and white, so I tried that.

I thought it might look good in black and white, so I tried that.

I saw several Great Blue Herons. Nearly missed this photo.

I saw several Great Blue Herons. Nearly missed this photo.

Well, I had some other photos, but WordPress is flaking out on me as usual.

I’ve been meaning to put up more of my photos from my trip. Normally, I shoot in camera RAW format, which means that I can’t just throw them up as if they were jpegs, but I have to process them first and then save them as jpegs. Not very difficult, but it just adds one more step. So, I should be getting more photos up soon enough. However, instead of processing the photos, I decided to make myself a pair of pants.

More and more, I’ve been noticing women walking around in loose-fitting, lightweight pants. Every time I see them, I think to myself, “Those look some comfortable. I need something like that.”

Secondly, I have this fantasy that I can actually sew. It’s not exactly delusional, but let’s say it’s a bit of an exaggeration. I keep starting ambitious projects and then get frustrated half-way through. So, I think to myself, “I should try making a few simple things and build up my skills.”

Since I think that I can sew, I check out the new arrivals on the website of Mood, a very large fabric store in midtown. Whenever I see a really great fabric on their website, a few days later it says, “Sold Out.” A few days ago, I saw a great fabric, a lightweight mercerized cotton in a bright stripey print, and I thought to myself, “I’m going to buy it right away.”

I put number three with one and two and decided that I was going to make a pair of simple pants that will be really comfy on hot summer days.

Success!!! Yay! And I’m not going to show them to my mother so she can’t rain on my parade by telling me I look fat – which I probably do, but I still have to leave the house.

Which brings me to another thing. When I was young, I used to like to incorporate a lot of menswear pieces into my wardrobe. I would have worn more of it, but good quality menswear is expensive, and I’m short and I couldn’t have afforded the tailoring for it to look right. Menswear inspired women’s wear often just doesn’t have the right feel for me. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly what’s wrong. Meanwhile, now that I’m older, and heavier, it’s easier for me to find dresses and feminine things that look okay on me. I can’t figure out what to do. Should I follow my taste? Should I worry about what makes my ass look big, to put it bluntly? It’s not just a matter of looking pretty or not. It’s about a loss of identity.

Anyway, one of my little fantasies is getting my sewing skills up to the point that I can make some tailored suits. So I’ve been browsing on the internet this evening trying going back and forth between men’s suits and women’s clothes trying to get a handle on what it is that I actually like and what among those things might actually not look dreadful on a dumpy fifty-something.

My next project is to make a loose-fitting tunic to wear with the pants. After that, thought, maybe somewhat more tailored pants might be the next step up.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,803 other followers