Five reasons my kid's still in Israel

I am one of those parents they’ve been talking about on the news who has a teenager on a trip in Israel as the Gaza violence drags on and on. Well, that’s life. We often get what we didn’t ask for, and we get handed difficult decisions we’d rather not make.

So here are five reasons a Ramaz-graduate-turned-lefty-Reform Jewish mother from New Jersey kept her kid in Israel when the rockets started falling. (Spoiler alert: It’s complicated.)

1. I didn’t drink the blue Kool Aid. I know that Israel isn’t some goldene medina where Jews till the land all day and dance the hora all night, or whatever the 21st century equivalent of that myth might be (program smartphone apps all day and go clubbing in Tel Aviv all night?). The blue Kool Aid of good old-fashioned Zionist propaganda makes Israel seem too easy. But I don’t  believe that everything will be easy because some divine destiny gives us ultimate right to the land, or because the Jews are the good guys and the Arabs are the bad guys, or because the IDF is a cross between the Avengers and the Transformers. I know that if I want my kid to learn about Israel, understand Israel, even love Israel, he had better be prepared to deal with one big goddamn unholy mess. There will be no easy answers, no idyllic safe haven. I sent my kid to a place perched on a razor’s edge among hostile neighbors, angry refugees, arrogant theocrats, intransigent ideologues, hopeless bigots, and deluded religious extremists. But it’s also a diamond in the rough, a place that makes one giddy with the heady mixture of history, art, culture, natural beauty, spirituality, and more Jews than he’s ever imagined existed. And that matters.

2. I didn’t drink the red Kool Aid, either. I  want my kid to know that Israel isn’t South Africa, some artifact of Eurocentric colonialism created by people whose main goal was to build empire and wealth. It wasn’t established by racists who saw the locals as animals whose existence could be ignored, or better yet, exploited for profit. Those who’ve drunk the red Kool Aid are quick to dismiss the whole project of Israel as a banal evil. But I want my kid to know that the modern state of Israel exists because the bloody, broken survivors of Europe’s greatest man-made catastrophe limped across the world to a place that called to them and spoke to their hearts; they were drawn to a hope they desperately wanted to believe in. Then they opened the door wide for their extended family the world over, and they simply counted on the idea that somehow it would all work out in the end, despite the inevitable displacement of people who were there first, because how could the world shit on the Jews any more than Hitler already had? So was the whole thing a winning proposition? Well, no, but it was what it was. History happens. I hope my kid comes to believe that the Jews who flocked to Israel had much more compelling, humane reasons than the Boers or the Puritans. I want my kid to understand that the fruit of that desperate 20th-century Jewish migration is bittersweet, not evil or murderous. And I hope he does not shy away from confronting the bitter irony in starting a trip in the vanished Jewish centers and preserved death camps of Eastern Europe, and finishing it in a war-torn land created as a Jewish refuge from unspeakable violence.

3. Like so many other experiences we give our kids, travel requires us to find the courage to accept some risk so that they can grow. Hell, everything in life requires us to accept some risk so that our kids can grow. If I wanted my kid to learn about the Middle East from a completely safe vantage point, I would have taken him to the library instead of the airport. When I was young, my parents took me to Warsaw, Krakow, Auschwitz, Budapest, Berlin, then Israel – and this was in the 1970s, when few Westerners dared set foot behind the Iron Curtain. I learned then that travel, when it is not easy, opens the eyes and the mind.

4. With that said, it’s all about risk assessment. Look, I have ideals, sure, but I’m not looking to sacrifice my kid’s life just to make a point. But I can read a map and a newspaper. Much of Israel is out of range of Gaza rockets. The nice folks at NFTY aren’t looking to create martyrs, and they’re going to do their damnedest to keep the kids in their care far from where the rockets fall. There was a point in this conflict when I was worried about a northern front, but that didn’t materialize. I have no doubt if it had, NFTY would have pulled the plug.

5. I look forward to the day when my kid comes home with stories, ideas and opinions about Israel that were formed by reality, not by the dumbed down utopian version on display in American Hebrew schools and Yeshivas, or by the shrill anti-Semitism that seems to be proliferating everywhere else. Yes, I know that a NFTY trip has a pro-Israel agenda. And contrary to what my more right-wing Orthodox friends might think, I don't actually mind, within limits. I have a pro-Israel agenda, too -- just not one that relies on myth, propaganda, or wishful thinking. More importantly, my kid has a good yiddishe kopf. He thinks for himself. I had hoped that the progressive penchant of liberal Reform Judaism would bring some balance to a NFTY trip; I have no doubt that the bloody conflict in Gaza forced difficult issues to the fore. How could I bring my kid home because the difficult, nuanced, complex reality I’m always going on about was getting a little too difficult and real?

As I write this, I’ve just learned that flights from Israel have been suspended and NFTY is working on alternatives. I don’t know when my kid will get home. The saga continues, and my nerves fray more with each passing day…

FRIDAY UPDATE: There's good news, and other less good news.

The good news is that, after some back and forth (flight cancelled, new flight arranged, original flight uncancelled), it looks like my kid is coming home on schedule.

The other news is that, during the 24 hours during which it looked like the group would be spending a few extra days in Israel, a program was put together for them that included an opportunity to discuss the current situation in Gaza with someone described in the email from NFTY as "an expert on the Middle East conflict." I was really happy to see that. I thought it was a brilliant use of the time, and a great opportunity for the kids. Until I looked up the "expert," Neil Lazarus. It turns out that what he's an expert at is hasbara, i.e. pro-Israel PR, i.e. propaganda. In other words, he serves blue Kool Aid. I was really disappointed in NFTY, though by now, I really shouldn't be surprised. See for yourself.

SATURDAY UPDATE: Just spoke at length with my kid on his last day in Israel (probably). As I expected, he said the Gaza conflict pretty much undermined NFTY's blue Kool Aid agenda, and there's been a lot of discussion of the situation among the kids and counselors. In particular, he said, they've had the opportunity to hear a wide range of opinions, left, right, and center, from the Israeli teens who joined the group for part of the trip. And, like much of Israel, events in Gaza have not affected his day-to-day experience very much. In fact, he's had a blast. I'm sure he realizes how much more fortunate he is than those who don't have an Iron Dome, or who fill the boots on the ground. Maybe someday, when the jet lag is gone, he'll write his own update, which I'll post here.

I’m not making this up

The New York Times informs me that not wearing makeup is in. I would like to jump on this opportunity to declare myself the progenitor of this trend, as I have been way out ahead of it pretty much since birth (with a few lapses here and there, which I chalk up to the wild experimentation of youth and the occasional flare-up of middle-aged insecurity. Also weddings and bar mitzvahs. And hypocrisy.).

Anyway, you’re welcome.

Ten thoughts on not wearing makeup in America:

1. Since I seem to be so good at predicting fashion, having spotted the no-makeup trend so very early, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict its speedy demise. Little-known fact: I’m also incredibly business savvy. I know that, if they can’t make money off of something, the fashion industry is not likely to stand by it for more than…oh, a nanosecond, maybe?

2. Not wearing makeup as a feminist statement and not wearing makeup as a matter of comfort and convenience are not mutually exclusive. In fact, being more concerned about comfort and convenience than about conformity and appearance IS a feminist statement.

3. A person who insists that not wearing makeup isn't a feminist statement either doesn’t know what feminism is or can't admit to it because she's afraid of the word. Okay, okay. I'm willing to entertain other possibilities as well. But I've cleverly confused the issue by putting so many negatives into one sentence that no one even knows exactly what I meant. We feminists fight dirty.

4. Women who always wear makeup are not necessarily unenlightened or anti-feminist. Unless, deep down, they really, really feel they have to wear it because they look terrible without it and people will think they’re ugly. Which, I suspect, is probably most women who always wear it. Anyway, you know who you are. I may be confusing insecurity with the internalization of conventional sexist values. Or I may be pointing out the that the former is the inevitable result of the latter. Yup. That’s it.

5. Even as I type, hundreds of new cosmetics ad campaigns that use words like “fresh,” “bare,” “natural,” and “nude” are undoubtedly being prepared in agencies up and down Madison Avenue. Their message: Now, you too can look like you have the confidence not to wear makeup without having the confidence not to wear makeup.

6. Think about this: Somewhere out there, some woman is kicking herself because she actually had makeup tattooed onto her face. (Yes, that’s a thing.) Not that she’d be the only one ever to regret a tattoo, but at least the woman who got a rose on her butt when she was 16 and drunk can say she was 16 and drunk, not middle-aged and deeply insecure.

7. Is anyone who has always worn makeup on a daily basis really going to stop because the New York Times says so? I guess, probably, for a little while, if they’re young enough. At least until the next zit.

8. Next thing you know, the fashion pages will be telling us it’s okay to wear sweats and sneakers. OUTSIDE. But don’t worry, that won’t last either. Pretty soon, fashionistas will once again be admonishing us that we must not “let ourselves go.” (Go where, one wonders? I guess, if it’s where one goes when one wears sweats, sneakers and no makeup, I already live there. I’d better clean out the guest room for when the rest of the degenerates arrive.)

9. Do I sound just a little sarcastic? Maybe even scornful? Bitter, even? Why, yes. Yes I do. No punchline here. Just, yes.

10. So what will be the next big thing after the no-makeup look becomes history? I’m going with full latex face masks. After all, we burned our bras, and now we have Spanx.

SAID NO DOCTOR EVER

So apparently, uber-reformy, Christie-appointed Newark schools superintendent Cami Anderson likes to compare herself to a surgeon. Her sister is a surgeon, so apparently that’s why Cami knows all about it. Surgeons, she says, get to do Big Lifesaving Things all on their own, without the hoi polloi breathing down their necks and telling them what to do. Just like school superintendents should. Makes perfect sense, right?

That’s the argument she made during a recent public appearance caught on tape (scroll to the end to see for yourself). Peter Greene does a mighty good job of skewering Anderson’s fine bit o’ reasoning in his Curmudgucation blog. He points out, among other things, that before a surgeon does her thing, she has to gain the consent of the patient: “Before she could set foot in that operating room, she had to convince people that she had a plan, that the plan was good, and that they should agree to it.” Cami Anderson’s One Newark plan, quite obviously, has convinced no one. (Other than Star-Ledger editor Tom Moran, that is. He is mystifyingly easy.)

See, the thing is, Cami Anderson is an administrator. If she were an actual teacher, then maybe her analogy might have at least made a little sense. Of course, if she were an actual teacher, she wouldn’t be doing what she’s doing to Newark schools. And that’s the whole point, really. She’s not like the doctors on the front lines, saving patients’ lives. She’s more like the hospital administrator piling on the paperwork, imposing senseless bureaucratic requirements that prevent doctors from getting their jobs done, implementing cost-cutting measures that harm patients, and doing everything she can to please her bottom-line-oriented masters rather than the patient population her institution is meant to serve.

But since Ms. Anderson seems to like to imagine herself as a godlike physician with the power of life and death, and seems to believe her One Newark plan for Newark schools is just like heart surgery, let’s just see how what she’s actually done, and what she proposes to do, compare with what doctors would want for themselves and their patients. I call this little game, SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“Let’s help patients by closing down the medical facilities that serve vulnerable populations!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“Unveiled in December, the plan calls for the relocation, consolidation and closing of one-quarter of the schools in the state-run district.” nj.com

“After we’ve closed all the neighborhood medical facilities, let’s make people travel clear across town for their care!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“School spokeswoman Chanelle Figueroa said the district “has no details yet to share” about the transportation options referenced in the letter. There is no busing in Newark, and many parents said distance to schools is a major flaw in the reorganization plan.” nj.com

“As long as we’re closing hospitals and moving patients around, let’s do it in a way that violates patients’ rights!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“The choice, based on arbitrary and capricious classification, to subject disproportionate shares of low income and minority children to substantial disruption to their schooling, shifting many to schools under private governance, may substantially alter the rights of these children, their parents and local taxpayers.” New Jersey Education Policy Forum

“Let’s evaluate doctors by patient outcome with no regard to factors completely outside the doctor’s control and no transparency in the process!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“According to Baker, his and others' research has found that the methods used to determine one of New Jersey's primary measures of student progress, student growth percentiles, ‘are particularly bad - that they merely reflect the demography of the students served because they don't try to control for anything but prior scores.’ He added, ‘As a result, in New Jersey, the schools with more low-income kids, more nonproficient special education kids and so on have significantly lower growth percentiles,’ before clarifying that it was unclear what weight the student growth percentiles played in Newark's teacher evaluations. Documentation provided by the district did not state how teachers' annual evaluations were determined beyond including observations ‘from an outside, independent, experienced organization’ based on a ‘Framework for Effective Teaching.’ When asked, the district did not provide the name of the independent evaluators.” TruthOut

“Let’s punish people who speak out against plans to close hospitals in underserved communities!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“Five Newark public school principals were suspended indefinitely on Friday, including four who spoke at a community meeting opposing proposed changes to the state-run school district.” nj.com

“Let’s fire hundreds of experienced physicians and replace them with recent college graduates with some first aid training!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“Superintendent Cami Anderson, Governor Chris Christie‘s appointee, proposed a systematic overhaul of the school district in 2013 titled “One Newark.” The reform plan includes school closures, teacher layoffs, Teach for America hirings and changes to the district’s enrollment system for both traditional and charter schools.” Ballot News

“Let’s pay some doctors more than others for doing the same job, based on arbitrary, meaningless measures!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“To achieve fairness in the merit-pay system, policymakers will attempt to adopt objective measures of student learning, usually a test. But this approach leads to major pitfalls, such as narrowing the curriculum, gaming the system through teaching to the test, and victimizing struggling students and their families through blame or worse. In addition, the literature is full of challenges to the validity of even the most highly regarded tests (Popham, 2008; Wiliam, 2010). Besides, tests are typically designed to measure student learning—not instruction or teacher effectiveness.” ASCD

“Let’s use hundreds of thousands of dollars in donated funding to pay politically connected consultants instead of helping patients!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“One of every three dollars of private money spent so far in Newark’s bid to reform its schools has gone to consultants and contractors, many with ties to Mayor Cory Booker and acting state Education Commissioner Chris Cerf, records show.” nj.com

“Let’s transfer all the very sickest patients out of the nicest hospitals and into the most run-down ones, then punish the doctors there when their patient outcomes are worse!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“I’ve explained that Newark charter schools in particular, persist in having an overall cream-skimming effect in Newark, creating demographic advantage for themselves and ultimately to the detriment of the district.” School Finance 101

“Let’s work for a boss appointed by a guy who thinks we’re lazy, good-for-nothing deadbeats protecting sweet, cushy jobs doing absolutely nothing all day!” SAID NO DOCTOR EVER.

“Nov 2, 2013 - Teacher Melissa Tomlinson calls Christie out on the failure factories comment during a campaign stop in Somers Point. The two have a brief exchange, during which Tomlinson said he told her "I'm tired of you people." According to the governor, what he actually said 'It's never enough for you people. No matter how much money I give, it's never enough for you people.'" nj.com

So if Cami Anderson WERE a doctor – would you want her to be YOUR doctor?

Turns out tznius is just what it says on the tin

I remember being a self-styled feminist grappling with the whole issue of tznius, or modesty, when I was in high school in Ramaz, a Modern Orthodox Jewish day school. The dress code required us to wear tops that were not low-cut, with sleeves at least halfway to the elbow, and skirts to the knee. (For some mysterious reason, they allowed miniskirts in the 1960s, when I was in elementary school. I think during that period the emphasis was more on “modern,” less on “Orthodox.” But I digress. Sorta.)

When I wasn’t busy hating the dress code for keeping me out of jeans, I told myself that it was kind of cool, because it was more of an attack on the shallow vanity and materialism at the core of the Western feminine ideal than a means of oppressing women and making them culpable for male sexual appetites. We were not going to fall prey to the hypersexualized, Madison Avenue-promoted image of the perfect teenage girl. Nope. Our Jewish culture was above all that. We were too busy contemplating the nature of good and evil, or something. In fact, tznius was the most feminist thing ever.

Of course, in order to stick with that interpretation, I really had to close one eye and squint the other one. For one thing, tznius was only applied to girls. There was no equivalent concept for boys. The male dress code – button-down shirt and tie – had more to do with looking like other Upper East Side prep schools than with anything inherently Jewish, including tznius. Apparently, Judaism did not see fit to build in protections against fashion marketing for boys. And that extra eye-squint? That was to avoid noticing that plenty of Ramaz girls were serious clothes horses, which they managed quite comfortably without violating the dress code.

Which brings me to today, and this article from the desperate-to-be-relevant online Jewish publication, Tablet. It reminds me that, as one former Ramaz history teacher used to tell us, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The title really says it all: “This Fashion Week, Dress Modestly While Staying Stylish.” So much for resisting fashion hype. It turns out shallow vanity and materialism are actually okay, and we have the word of Hadar Magazine fashion editor Jessica Gugenheim on that.

But that’s not all. She also tells us: “I think modest dressing lends any woman an air of sophistication. I think modestly dressed women command more respect; they use their minds rather than sexuality to get things done.”

Yup. That’s your choice: cover up and be respected, or play the slut card.

If I hadn’t ditched the whole thing years ago, at this point I’d be shutting both eyes tight and sticking my fingers in my ears to make a go of it. That would make driving really hard.

The Orwellian Irony of Common Core

How many decades will it be before we can have a productive, reasonable conversation about national standards in education? I think many, and here’s why: The biggest, most successful push to date for national standards was co-opted by the data junkies of the current education reform movement, who married the idea of national standards to the misbegotten notion that data from standardized tests should be used to reward and punish teachers, kids and schools.

That’s incredibly unfortunate. National standards, done well, could solve certain problems that plague public education, like the influence of local and regional extremists on what happens in the classroom, or the elimination of important subjects to make room for the pedagogical flavor of the day, or the sacrifice of valuable traditional skills on the altar of new technology. When you read about a state school board modifying the social studies curriculum to include American exceptionalism, the insertion of intelligent design into the science curriculum, sex education programs that teach only abstinence, books banned from classrooms for content relating to sexual orientation or atheism, the replacement of foreign language instruction with computer programming, or the elimination of civics classes from public schools, you wonder why there isn’t a mechanism to protect kids from the stupidity of their elders. As with civil rights and the environment, national standards for education would be less easily manipulated and could be a powerful tool for progress.

I hear the objection now: What if the forces of stupid take control of the national discourse, and all those terrible things become part of the national standard to be imposed on every kid throughout the land?

Which is exactly why national standards are not a no-brainer and need to be discussed in a reasonable way. Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, though I tend to think that, as with civil rights, the tendency of the nation as a whole is more trustworthy than certain regional proclivities.

But as things stand now, we can’t even hope to have that discussion, because the education-industrial complex has gotten its mitts on the whole idea and hijacked it as a way to sell tests, testing technology and test-prep materials; to beat up the unions by predicating decisions on teacher tenure and merit pay on the results of those tests; and to privatize public education by touting magic silver-bullet charter schools that churn out better test scores through drill-and-kill practices. The name of their strategy? Common Core.

Meanwhile, parents are waking up to the data-driven nightmare their schools have become after years of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, federal programs that encouraged the ballooning of high-stakes standardized testing. They're waking up, and they are not happy. They've been watching their kids become nervous wrecks over tests; seen schools scrap art, music and other subjects that don't appear on the tests; heard from teachers who are being directed to teach to the tests; and seen good schools labeled as failures because of scores on the tests. Their ire is being directed at the Common Core and the new tests being introduced under it, even though the testing problem has been upon us for quite some time.

Also contributing to the growing public animosity is the fact that, in some part of the country, knee-jerk opposition to national standards in anything has become the norm, whether it has to do with education, public health, guns, or voters' rights. That's why the Tea Party mob is breaking out the pitchforks on Common Core. Note that, despite what Tea Partiers might think, Common Core is not a federal program, but a set of standards created in the hope that all states would adopt them, making them a de facto national standard. Also note the irony of Tea Party opposition; many of the same education-industry players who stand to make a mint out of Common Core, and therefore promoted the hell out of it, are also the people who fomented the Tea Party mentality. It's a wonder the Kochs and Waltons of America didn't see this coming.

So now, for a wide variety of often contradictory reasons, the people are starting to rise up against the Common Core. In the short term, that’s a good thing, because the whole project has become more about testing and related data-driven reform than about actual standards. The pushback from parents could slow the onrushing Common Core train, stanch the hemorrhaging of teachers from a system that imposes unreasonable demands on them, and generally throw a monkey wrench into the plans of those who would use data-driven reform to dismantle government-run public education. But the unfortunate collateral damage is that the underlying notion of national standards in education is now poison. A sensible endeavor by actual educators to formulate a workable standard that could promote academic excellence uniformly throughout the nation won’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell for quite some time.

Shaking Hands With Erma Bombeck

You know how in a nice restaurant, they serve you these beautifully arranged dishes of food that look like works of art? No misplaced glops of sauce near the edge of the plate, burnt bits scraped off the bottom of the pan, or stray bay leaves forgotten in the stew? Everything is absurdly neat and pretty – unlike anything you would dream of serving at home. Because these guys are professionals, right? Undoubtedly, a beautiful presentation makes dining out more fun, but what home cook is going to spend time and energy to create composed plates? We’re just happy when we manage to present delicious home-cooked meals served, as the restaurant critics like to call it, “family style.”

Similarly, when I go to a hotel, I expect everything to be immaculate: beds perfectly made, towels neatly folded, floors freshly vacuumed – basically, no sign anyone has ever lived in the room before me. But at home? Not so much. And then there’s hotel décor. Everything matches. The furniture is all from the same set. The rug matches the bedspread. The paintings even match the environment -- or suggest some other, more pleasant environment. (Beach hotel? Seashells! City hotel? Skyline! Ski chalet? Mountains! Middle-of-nowhere hotel by the side of the road? Paris!) But at home, I am content with a much smaller set of necessities: everything in basic working order, nothing so filthy or gross that I can’t look at it, comfortable places for my family to plunk our weary bones at the end of the day, and the stuff we’ve accumulated over the years that makes the house ours.

But unlike food presentation, the world seems to be full of people who value hotel-level perfection so much that they manage it at home, too. This is a complete mystery to me. Sure, it would be nice to live in that Good Housekeeping environment. But the amount of effort it would take? That, I can’t manage. In fact, I tried to come up with a fitting analogy – you know, something that would hold some appeal but would take way more effort that it’s worth. “Sure, a perfect home would be nice. So would ____________.” Trouble is, everything I came up with to fill in the blank seemed to beat perfect housekeeping hands down. Having a pony? Flying a hot-air balloon? Speaking Swahili? Becoming a champion watermelon seed spitter? Climbing Mount Everest? Growing wings and flying? All things I’d be way more willing to sink some serious time into.

So, without further ado, my list of ten things other people manage to have at home that I just…don’t.

1. Matching towels. I know, it wouldn’t be that hard to just go out and buy a stack of towels that are all the same. But then I’d have to figure out what to do with the closet full of towels I already have. Clear out more closet space? Too much effort. Throw away perfectly good towels? What a waste. Donate them to charity? I guess I could do that. But I could also just keep the towels I have and write a check so the charity can buy whatever they really need more than a stack of used towels.

2. Made beds. All of them, all at the same time, every single day. We all know the nightly problem with this one. The ultimate act of futility. What’s the point?

3. Empty kitchen counters. All that stuff people use multiple times a day, hidden away somewhere out of sight. No sign of salt, cooking oil or soy sauce, let alone balsamic vinegar or Sriracha. And then there are the appliances. Where do they put them all? If I wanted to put away my stand mixer, rice cooker, soda maker, blender, coffee grinder, etc., I’d have to build a new kitchen. Either that, or get rid of all the stuff that’s already in the cabinets. And how would I do that? I guess I could donate them…(see number 1 above).

4. Window treatments. I don’t mean shades or blinds that are useful for keeping out the sun or your neighbor’s curious gaze. We have those. (And we only lived in the house about a decade before getting them.) I mean those entirely decorative things. Big hunks of fabric that hang across the tops and sides of windows for the purpose of “tying a room together.” It’s a miracle my rooms don’t fly apart into a million pieces.

5. Closets that close completely. Y’know – without piles of crap getting in the way? Again, this is probably doable. All I’d have to do would be to clear out space in the basement and move some of the stuff down there. But to do that, I’d have to clear out space in the garage for the stuff that’s in the basement. And to do that, I’d have to…donate stuff from the garage? Hmmm.

6. Laundry that’s all done. I mean, at the same time. And folded. And put away. Days when the only dirty clothing in the house is what’s on my family’s backs. Nope, we don’t have those. Around here, laundry is one ongoing, never-ending process, with piles of stuff at every stage—dirty, washed but not folded, washed and folded but not put away, washed and folded and put away – coexisting peacefully. The U.N. could learn from us.

7. Filed papers. Like the laundry, filing is an ongoing process. The last time every piece of paper was in its appropriately labeled folder inside a filing cabinet was probably the day we got our very first apartment. So…late ‘80s sometime?

8. Stuff that makes the air smell good. Sure, we have that from time to time, in the form of good smells coming from the kitchen. But I mean all those little tricks people use to make their houses smell good all the time. Sprays, plug-ins, candles, potpourri. Once every blue moon I decide maybe we could have at least that much. How hard could it be? You just buy something and plug it in or shpritz it or light it. A year later, we have empty, discolored plastic things sticking out of the outlets, or empty cans sitting on the backs of all the toilets, or lumps of melted, cinnamon-scented paraffin on the end tables. And speaking of things that smell good…

9. Cut flowers. This is one I would love to get the hang of. I may not give a damn about window treatments, but I do love flowers. This, too, I have tried. And I have the vases full of withered stems and slimy water to prove it.

10. A bowl of candy that actually has candy in it. For more than ten minutes.

Of course, I could probably have made a good start on any one of the above in the time it took me to write this…

Come to think of it, there is one thing I could get rid of that would make me feel really good about my home. Guilt.

Warlord Christie

Can we take a minute to stop and think about what a terrible thing Christie’s top staffers (and possibly the governor himself) did to Fort Lee? Because there are some people still saying it wasn’t such a big deal. It was a lane closure. It was a traffic jam in a spot where everyone who lives in the tristate area has sat in miserable traffic at some point in their lives. A Tea Party darling, hard-right Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, dismissed it as a prank gone wrong.

What these people are missing (or willfully ignoring, most likely) is the much deeper implication of Bridgegate. Yes, the people stuck in traffic were the direct victims, as were the people waiting for emergency responders who were late in coming. But the truth is, every New Jerseyan became a victim that day -- a victim of a direct assault on their democratic rights.

A functional democracy depends on one fundamental idea: that every citizen is free to vote for the candidate of his or her choice, and that once elected, every official must act for the benefit of all, no matter whom they voted for. It’s as simple as that.

There was a time – there still is, in many parts of the world – when citizens declared their allegiance to one king or another, one warlord or another, and then stuck by him, right or wrong, because if they didn’t, he wouldn’t protect them from the attacks of rival monarchs, bands of thieves, or any rampaging hoard that came along. Or worse, he’d send his own army to beat the crap out of them. He’d let them starve when their crops failed, levy impossible taxes, forcibly conscript their sons. But we’ve moved past all that. We are civilized now. We can vote our consciences and still expect equal protection under the law, equal access to services, fair treatment by our government.

Except in Chris Christie’s New Jersey. This is a place where the refusal of a local leader, Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, to endorse the governor -- or perhaps a conflict with a legislator, Sen. Loretta Weinberg, over judicial appointments -- can and did lead to direct retribution against the citizens themselves. And that is a direct assault on the fundamental principle of democracy.

Just a traffic jam? Hardly.

PS: Is anyone buying Christie's sad clown act?