Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Mmmm, pumpkin pie


A television clip yesterday taught me that what my family calls "Irish Pumpkin Pie" may in fact be Canadian. In any case, the correct way to make it is with seven different spices.

Of course, since it's dairy, it must be served prior to your turkey dinner, and after the homemade salsas, guacamole, chips, and beverages everyone's been eating all day as they lurk around the kitchen waiting for you to finish preparing the meal.




MARY ELIZABETH DEVLIN’S DARK PUMPKIN PIE
(sorry for the non-metric measurements)

Piecrust:
Prepare the night before and refrigerate so it’s easy to roll out
2½ cups of flour
1 tsp. sugar
1 tsp. salt
two sticks of butter (room temperature) or one cup of Crisco
if necessary: add ½ cup of icy cold water, a little at a time
(after placing in pie plate, poke holes in the crust to keep it from shrinking)

Pumpkin filling:

Bowl One: Combine
4 well-beaten eggs
29 oz. of pumpkin (watch out! they are making already sweetened stuff!)

Bowl Two: Combine
1½ cups sugar
1 tsp. salt
1 tsp. allspice
¾ tsp. cinnamon
1 tsp. cloves
1 tsp. ginger
1 tsp. mace
1 tsp. nutmeg
1 tsp. pumpkin spices
Mix the contents of both bowls together
Add 12 oz. of canned milk
Pour into two pie crusts and bake
15 minutes at 425 degrees F and then
45 minutes at 350 degrees F

Whipped cream:
1 quart heavy cream
large splash of vanilla
if you must: 1 tsp. powdered sugar
whip until peaks form
then whip again for the same amount of time to keep it from turning back into liquid later

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Why aren't the smart people talking?

It was a surprise. Not that it happened, but that it happened so soon.

France attacked ISIS.

Less than forty-eight hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris, France bombed civilians.

I doubt they scared ISIS, but they definitely scared me.

Did France take time to learn whether the big-shots were there? Most likely, the leaders were gone and mostly civilians were killed. "Merciless," indeed.

George Bush took four weeks to declare war after 9/11. France gave it less thought than George Bush and his advisors.

I guess I figured that I'd have a couple of weeks to sort out my thoughts on the responses (or non-responses) of the various asshats. I thought there would be discussions and some brilliant person would propose a good plan.

So far, nothing helpful.

"The Jews did it."

Of course I knew that was coming, but within an hour of the attacks?

If you need me to tell you that's horseshit, you shouldn't be reading my blog-- or maybe you should be.

ISIS claimed responsibility. Blaming the Jews isn't going to help anyone but the terrorists. Let's take a look at reality and base our actions on that.

"They only do these things because their lives are hopeless and that's our fault."

This terrorist act was not a response to being disenfranchised. No terrorist act is. Islamic terrorists attack because they've been taught radical interpretations of the Koran.

I once heard Irshad Manji assert that radical Islam isn't an expression of the Muslim religion, but of Arab culture. Whatever its source, it's a culture that teaches children to hate and kill. (I promise that you do not want the YouTube link to the toddler beheading his teddy bear.)

One of the more creative versions of the disenfranchisement excuse can be found in an article on GodsAndRadicals, "The US government, taking the symbolic place of Grendel’s Mother, is the womb from which they all spring."

That is an example of what my mother would have called a one-track mind. In this case, his view of capitalism is the only thing on his mind.

Radical Islam was terrorizing and murdering and beheading before the war in Syria, before the Iraq War, before the Shah, before the United States existed, before capitalism, and even before the Crusades.

Why are self-proclaimed radicals eager to excuse rape and torture and beheadings? Why doesn't it matter that Muslim Extremists throw gay people off the roofs of buildings, silence and brutalize women, terrorize innocent strangers on the other side of the world, or murder and maim their own neighbors? Have they heard about the ongoing genocide of the Yazidis and other non-Muslim minorities?

Don't they know that, in the last few decades, more Arabs have been killed by other Arabs than by the West?

First Nations actually have endured "unimaginable cruelty" at the hands of white people and capitalism, but they have not become terrorists. To quote that article again, Indians are not "vicious dogs" and the U.S. government is not their "owner."

"There are bigger problems."

I only half agree with Bernie Sanders; we can not wait to address climate change. But get your head out of your-- out of the sand, Bernie. Islamic terror must be addressed immediately, too. (Preferably with good sense, good intelligence, conviction, and firmness.)

"All religions are about love. Terrorists aren't real Muslims."

Have you been awake? They've told us who they are and what motivates them. It's past time to figure out how to respond.

"Islam is evil."

Nearly a quarter of the word's people are Muslim, so obviously, the majority of Muslims are not psychopaths. If they were, most of the rest of us would be dead already. The problem is not the words in the Koran; it's how people interpret the Koran. The problem is allowing teachers of radicalism and hate to have so much influence.

We might have seen this coming forty years ago, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. We certainly could have helped four years ago, when moderate Syrians took a rare and courageous stand against ISIS; instead we abandoned people who really expected our support. Moderate Muslims are usually too scared to fight; we owe it to everyone, including ourselves, to help them.

We'll never save the kid who eviscerated his teddy bear, but we should ask ourselves how we can help moderate Muslims take control of their societies.

"We can't let refugees into our country."

We need to help them return to their homes and stand up to the bad guys, but in the meantime-- with caution-- we must be compassionate. Perhaps Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations could be compassionate, too.

Right now, we need to be worrying about the people we know are bad guys and if civilians have nowhere to go, there only options are join or die.

"There will be a backlash against Muslims in the West."

For the most part, we're better than that. (I can only speak for the U.S.)

A day or two after 9/11, a Muslim woman had a cameraman follow her around New York so she could show that people would take out their frustrations on all Muslims. Several people went up to her, asking if she was okay, concerned for her well being. The young woman seemed annoyed at these expressions of solidarity.

If we see a backlash against Muslims, we can fight it and I know that many of us would.

* * I want to hear people asking, "What is the sane response to this?" * *

A successful response to ISIS will probably include bombing, but we should have a plan first. It will also require sending "our boys" in, so we should definitely have a good plan. (What about Saudi Arabia-- when will we insist they stop pretending to be on the fence?) This war is going to last for many years, and longer than that if we don't have a plan.

It wouldn't be okay for Israel to respond the way France has. We know the French can say "disproportionate" because they use the word all the time, criticizing Israel for anything it does in defense of its civilians and ignoring the fact that terrorists use their own civilians as human shields.

Hollande laughed when Netenyahu said that ISIS is a threat to everyone. For years, France has ignored attacks on French Jews. Willfully blind.

Is France going to get a grip on reality or just drop bombs indiscriminantly?

We need a plan, so I'd like the asshats to shut up now and the smart people to step forward and lead. Without further delay.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Hagar

On the first day of Rosh HaShanah, it is tradition to read about Hagar and Yishmael, while the second day is dedicated to the story of Avraham and Yitzhak. Each of these narratives revolves around the near-death experiences of a child under the care of a parent.

Jean-Charles Cazin
However, in a few benighted synagogues, like the one here, only one day of Rosh HaShanah is observed, and the reading exclusively focuses on the Akedah, the story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son. Consequently, the story of Hagar and Yishmael is not explored.

Today, I found myself wondering how Hagar raised her son and what lessons Avraham imparted to him. What kind of parents were they, and how did their parenting shape the lives of each of their sons?

The written Torah says little of Hagar's origins or ends, but the oral tradition has a great more to say. According to one midrash, she was the daughter of Pharaoh. Impressed by the miracles that God performed for Sarah (originally Sarai), Hagar chose to become a servant in Sarai's household, stating, "It is better for me to be a slave in Sarah's house than a mistress in my own."

Sarah, who had been childless for many years, eventually gave up on becoming a mother herself. She adhered to the custom of her era and region. She sent Hagar to Avraham so that Hagar could bear a child on Sarah's behalf.

When Hagar realized she was pregnant, "her mistress was despised in her eyes." She began to look down on Sarah. Ignoring the long partnership of Sarah and Avraham, Hagar boasted that her position in the household had become higher than Sarah's because she had conceived in one night while Sarah had not conceived in many years. This triggered a reaction from Sarah, who complained to Avraham. After consulting with God, Avraham told Sarah to to deal with Hagar as she saw fit.

Sarah chose to "afflict" or "deal harshly with" Hagar;the Torah uses the same Hebrew word (תענה/מעונה) that it would later use to describe the treatment of Israelite slaves in Egypt, generations later. This harsh treatment prompted Hagar to flee to the desert, where she encountered a messenger of God who advised her to return to Sarah, which she did.

בְּרֵאשִׁית - לֶךְ-לְךָ
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said: 'Hagar, Sarai's handmaid, whence camest thou? and whither goest thou?' And she said: 'I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.'
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.'
16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
16:12 And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.'
16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spoke unto her, Thou art a God of seeing; for she said: 'Have I even here seen Him that seeth Me?'
16:14 Wherefore the well was called 'Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.


The figure of the lone seeker in the desert is a powerful archetype. Even more powerful is the moment when Hagar named God "El Roi," meaning "The God Who Sees." To my knowledge, Hagar is the only individual in the Tanakh who names God.

Hagar eventually gave birth to a son, whom Avraham named Yishmael. Afterward, Yishmael disappears from the narrative until God made another covenant with Avraham and commanded that "every male among you shall be circumcised." Not long after this event, Sarah gave birth to Yitzhak.

The pivotal moment in the story occurred after Yitzhak's weaning, when Yishmael engaged in an action that angered Sarah. The action is described as "m'tzahek," a word that relates to "play" and is also a homophone for Yitzhak's name, which means "laughter." The same word was used to describe something that Yitzhak and Rivka did that revealed that they were a married couple. This ambiguity has led some Rabbis to speculate whether Yishmael's action was sexual in nature.

In response to Sarah's displeasure, Avraham heeded her request to send Hagar and her son away into the wilderness. In the desert again, this time not of her own choosing, Hagar was lost and out of water. Her son was dying.

בְּרֵאשִׁית - וַיֵּרָא
21:14 And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
21:15 And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; for she said: 'Let me not look upon the death of the child.' And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.
21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her: 'What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast by thy hand; for I will make him a great nation.'
21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
21:20 And God was with the lad, and he grew; and he dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
21:21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. 

The moment when Hagar abandoned her dying child under a shrub and distanced herself from him is as disturbing as Avraham's intention to sacrifice his son, Yitzhak. However, it is then that a messenger of God calls to Hagar from heaven, responding to the child's cries. Hagar's inability to see the well until God opens her eyes is puzzling.

There are many things to wonder about in these seven verses.

1. Before the Akedah, God and Abraham spoke with each other often, but afterward, God never spoke to Avraham again. An angel, not god, spoke to Avraham during the Akedah. Rabbi Jill Hammer points out that the angel described Yitzhak differently than God had described him before the Akedah; the angel said, "thy son, thine only son," omitting the additional phrase God had used, "thy son... thine only son... whom thou lovest." This raises questions about Avraham's feelings toward his son. God's actions on Hagar's behalf after she abandoned her infant to cry alone under a bush contrast with His silence toward Avraham. God apparently approved of Hagar's behavior during her trial, but not Avraham behavior during his.

2. God promised to make Hagar's son a great nation, just as he had promised to make Sarah's son a great nation.

3. Earlier God had seen Hagar, this time God helped Hagar see. According to another midrash, Hagar had seen the well the first time she was in the desert and had named it Be'er Lachai Roi, the "Wellspring of the Living One Who Sees Me." Hagar's ability to name both God and a place, suggests something-- I'm not sure what. Empowerment? Self awareness? A unique relationship with God?

The Tanakh shifts its focus from the parents to the children as the story progresses. However, we know a little more. Hagar reappeared when, according to oral tradition, after the death of his mother, Yitzhak traveled to Be'er Lachai Roi to bring Hagar back to Avraham. In the written Torah, she is thereafter known as Keturah, "tie," because she remained faithful to Avraham even after he sent her away.

When hearing this story, we can't help but anticipate the Akedah, in which Avraham nearly sacrifices the child Sarah gave birth to. These two stories, read on Rosh HaShanah, delve into the complex relationships between parents and children. The question remains: Why do we read these narratives on Rosh HaShanah, the "birthday" of the world?