A short clip with Liam's memories

On Liam's 11th anniversary we hosted a group of friends for dinner. These were all folks who knew her well and  helped taking care of her. At the end of the evening, I invited them all inside to watch the below clip. But, to my embarrassment the clip got stuck a few minutes in. The next day I worked on uploading it to Youtube so I can share it electronically.

 https://youtu.be/X-IZmmhFExg

This is the story of how this clip was born in the first place:

Two or three years after Liam passed, I realized that we have a lot of video pieces of her - but they were all stored on old tapes - VHS (remember those?) and 8mm. I wanted to digitize everything before those old technologies would disappear and become completely unavailable. So I purchased the right hardware and software and over several weeks I was able to accomplish that. That was a big relief: Now our memories of hers - in motion and with her voice - are safely preserved forever.

I then thought to myself, well, now that I have it all digitized, maybe I should make one DVD summarizing her time with us. This would basically be selected clips from the larger collection all put together and edited in one DVD. I started playing with it - just to create a prototype on which I would get experience towards the larger DVD project. The goal was to train myself in video editing. But then "things happened" - as is often the case in life. The computer died (and I had to salvage the disk with all the digitized videos), the replacement was not as powerful, I was in between jobs, yadda, yadda, yadda. What I ended up with was just the "prototype" - the result of my self training. I just found it the other day. Here it is:

Questioning Biden's Armenian Genocide Recognition

 Disclaimer:

I’m neither a historian nor a political science scholar. Therefore, what I’ve written below might not be a 100% accurate. It represent my very raw thoughts. Readers are welcome to post comments below to correct me and argue with the points presented.   

And as usual, I apologize in advance for my poor English.  Ok, here we go.

—————

Recently President Biden publicly recognized the massacre of Armenians in WW-I as a genocide. At the same time that this recognition is very just, important, and historic, it is also morally hypocritical and strategically puzzling. Just to be clear: I completely understand and accept the Armenian genocide. That is not the topic of this writing.  My heart is with the Armenian people and at the same time I’m questioning Biden’s action. The two are not two mutually exclusive.

Morally:

America has never officially apologized to the Native Americans for all that was done to them - murder and forced relocation - during the expansion of the US. The US government simply ignores this. Puzzling in itself, considering Canada’s open apology to its Indigenous People and Australia’s similar act with the aboriginal people. What keeps America mum about it? 

Simultaneously and probably not a coincidence, the US is battling a fresh wave of call to social justice, which is rooted in 300 years of slavery and a 100 years of discrimination - openly and under the hood.  This is still undone and in progress at this very moment.

In light of these two, what gave Biden the chutzpah to call Turkey on this genocide? Clean up your own act first before criticizing others.  Biden took on a big items:

• Confronting Russia.
• Confronting China - not only about the Uyghur genocide (same hypocrisy as above), but mostly regarding economical and military dominance around the world.
• Infrastructure bill.
• Clean energy initiative.
• And of course the successful turnaround with the pandemic.

If Mr. Biden is so bold, brave, and ambitious in all these, what’s stopping him from recognizing the dark history of the US?  My guess is that money and politics are involved. In my opinion to scold Turkey and China on their abuse is blatantly hypocritical and it’s very surprising to me that neither black nor Native American leaders jumped at Biden’s Armenian genocide recognition. That is a bit puzzling. What am I missing here?

Strategically:

What can the US gain from such recognition?  I don’t know. But I can think of several downsides to it:

• For years the US maintained friendly relationships with Turkey - which in turn allowed for US military bases on its land. These bases are extremely important especially now - to put more pressure on Iran. Put it in these terms: If Turkey decides to ask the Americans to leave, that would leave the US with no middle-east military presence at all. Having forces on the ground and in the air north of Iran is extremely important. So why risk it all in the name of recognizing an old genocide that is hardly relevant today?  Puzzling.
• If the US is out of Turkey (and if then Turkey decides to leave NATO), who would fill that void? Well, how about Russia? In this region old enemies can quickly shake hands in light of a new common enemy. Again, this is a big risk to take - to open the door for Russia to form an alliance with Turkey. Can the US afford to risk it?
• Much os the same logic can be applied to Iran. The fact that Turkey and Iran may have chosen different allays in the past may be irrelevant too. If both of them see the US as a common adversary, they too may shake hands and form an alliance.  Can the US afford to risk it?
• Lastly, the European immigrant crisis: this one is less of an “American problem”, but nevertheless has a direct impact on America allies in Western Europe. Turkey is the roadblock between Syrian and other middle-eastern refugees and western Europe. Did Biden consult with the EU prior to his Armenian genocide recognition?

In other words, it looks like the US have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such recognition. So why did Biden say it? Again, what am I missing here?

As noted above, I would love to continue the conversation with comments below.

Heartbreak & Laughter

Recently I re-listened to this interview. I was happy it came on the air again. So inspiring. Listen to it. Now! Are you done? Can we move on? Ok, keep this interview in mind. I'll get to it in a minute. It was just a trigger for this post.

Recently I shared Liam's final year blog with a friend, who didn't know about it beforehand. He told me it's hard for him to read because it's heartbreaking.  I said I'm sorry. I meant it. I threw a really difficult subject at someone who's completely unprepared. How dumb of me. At the same time, I explained to my friend, for us there's no heartbreaking. We had to deal with every minute of the situation.

After I listened to the Joan Rivers interview I found the heartbreaking common denominator (hopefully that will be my last reference to math...). Joan's way to deal with shit is laughter. I can't say that we survived the Liam's end-of-life ordeal with laughter, but we never lost our  sense of humor and we were never too shy to laugh - no matter what the situation was. 

But what about heartbreak?  So again:

• Liam was alive and we had to take care of her the best we could; we had to be there for her. Heartbreak was not an option. 
• Meitav needed us too - often more than Liam, because Liam had the entire medical staff for herself.
• I'm not sure I understand the term 'heartbreak' in such situations. When you have a responsibility, heartbreak is, again, not an option. I will discuss it below - in different context.

So there you have it. Different people deal with different shit in different ways. I'm glad I listened to Joan Rivers. I want to learn from her not how to make life into a joke but how to be able to laugh at every situation - no matter how dark it may be. I wish I could tell her our wheelchair joke.

Liam drove a power wheelchair.  And when I say 'power', believe me: It was a powerful machine. Liam's vision was "not great" (because her impaired brain didn't know how to interpret the messages from the eyes); her coordination was lacking. So driving such a powerful machine using a tiny stick was not easy. Liam being Liam loved to roam the hallways of school and chit-chat with everybody - teachers, students, others. So what do you do if you see a power wheelchair coming at you at full speed?

Every morning when I said my goodbys and kissed her, I added:

Remember, you only allow to kill one kid a day, yes?

(Liam being a smarty pants always got the joke....or did she? I forgot to count how many kids lost limbs during her reign of the hallways.)

Shortly after the funeral, even on the same day, the house was already full of laughter.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not immune to heartbreaks and I had my fair share of them. Too many, for a matter of fact. The question is if something is or can be heartbreaking if you don't define it as such. Even if the blog is difficult to read, Is it heartbreaking?  Well, it depend what you take out of it. If Liam's suffering and eventual death is the only things you took from it, then it might be. To me Liam's last year with us, including all the suffering, left us with:

• Our love and care for each other.
• Liam's incredible mental strength - right next to her fragile body.
• Liam's humor (and our's) - whenever possible and despite the situation.
• Life after Liam. BTW, there's no life "after Liam". She's with us still, in our thoughts and feelings. Every day.
• Summary: I consider myself lucky, extremely lucky, to be near Liam, suffering and death included. Ah, sure I could do without the bad stuff; I'm just saying it was what it was. It's my choice now to look at it as a tragedy or as a gift. I choose the latter.

One last inspiration: Eva Mozes Kor, such an unbelievable lady. After she've been through hell and with all the reasons in the world to be bitter and heartbroken, she chose the opposite: she chose laughter and joy; and she found forgiveness. Without forgiveness she would not have been able to find laughter. Among her main messages about forgiveness you'd find [not sure what her exact words were]: "You can't change the past...but you can change how you treat the past."  I highly recommend listening to her amazing story. We can all learn so much from her. So she's another example for breaking the unnecessary link between heartbreak and happiness.  But she trumps the rest of us - hands down! 

Eva is a much better example and inspiration than any of us. This post was written backwards, wasn't it? 

How to miss the target

I'm throwing a few observations and thoughts regarding all the recent shooting.  It's pretty raw - both the thinking, the poor grammar, etc.  But I hope the message is clear.

1. Police victims were armed

One of the major arguments of the gun supporters is that with more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, less shooting would occur.  And if such mass shooting does occur, they claim,good guys with guns would be equipped to defend themselves.  Well, the ambushed policemen both in Dallas and in Louisiana WERE armed.  Not only were they armed, but heavily armed.  And professionally trained.  And in both cases they were still unable to take care of the shooter before he killed a bunch of them.  

This is not to take any side in the gun control argument.  Just to point out how armed people are not necessarily the answer to stop a mass shooter.  It really depends on the situation.

2. Now, how about this gun control argument?

A few hours after his fellow policemen were shot, the Baton Rouge sheriff had the audacity to say in front of the camera that "it was not an issue of gun control"*.  He said the problem was "with the people"*.  Seriously?  

A.  Mr. Sheriff chose to go out with a political statement of a hot issue while his fellow policemen are fighting for their lives; and families of slain policemen are trying to swallow the bitter news.  How tasteless of him.  Leave your political views aside right now, you small man.  How disappointing to hear that from a man of authority at such time. (Am I the only one with ears?)

B.  So, Mr. Sheriff, are you ok with allowing anybody - the mentally ill, the unstable, the ex-con, the terrorist, etc. - to buy a gun, no background check, no wait time?  There's no argument that the problem is more complex than yes-guns no-guns, but I don't get the thought of making it easy for the future-shooters to get guns.  It just doesn't make sense.

C. How many more policemen, kindergarten kids, college students, movie goers, club patrons, next-group-of-victims - have to die before we do something about it?

(D.  There's really no reason for any automatic or even semi-auto weapons in the civilian market.  A lot was written on it.  E-nuf said.)

Yup, the problem continues, every time in a different form, yet, Congress does not connect the dots.  Ahhhh, let me rephrase that:  And money from the NRA is still more important to elected representatives.

Others already pointed how the first step is to realize that there's a problem.  And to study the issue.  But Congress blocks that.  Congress pretends there's no problem.

* These may not have been his exact words, but that was the gist of it.

3. Police failure to protect the public

Police commanders, mayors, the President - all praise police for their dedication and heroism.  No doubt - it's a hard and risky job.  I wouldn't want to be a policeman myself.  One could die.  Having said that, the police #1 assignment is not to protect itself but to protect the public they are serving.  Of course, it goes without saying, that  they must protect themselves too.  Having said that, let's face it:  In all the recent shooting cases - Orlando, Dallas, Louisiana (and many more that came before that), police failed.  It failed to protect the public and it failed to protect itself.  It's unpleasant to hear that in such painful times, but it's the truth.

One can try to give explanations: A crazy guy with a gun; a surprise ambush; etc.  The reasons could all be very valid.  It's very possible that all these shootings were so unpredictable that there was no way of stopping them.  But the bottom line is plain and simple: Police not only was unable to protect the public, but also failed to protect itself. And policemen everywhere are scratching their heads.  The truth is that the problem is bigger than something the police can solve.

Which brings the conversation back to #2 above:  If all these shootings - and many more to come, unfortunately - are non-preventable, how come the conversation doesn't change?  Are we that stupid as a society?

4. Why are they shooting at the police?

We all know why:  Because a seeking-revenge guy with a gun is angry at the police (for killing black people during routine traffic stop; etc.)  The shooter is acting out of rage.  In other words, the shooter is acting out of emotions, not thought.  (BTW, notice how even that rage is not strong enough to stop the shooter from careful planning for max "efficiency" - to kill as many policemen as he could. In other words, it's a calculated rage....sort of.)  But the shooter of course is missing the largest target - no pun intended.  He's harming the larger cause - of fighting police brutality.  If policemen would continue to be killed by angry black men with guns, why wouldn't they suspect every black man?  How would they know who's a real suspect and who's not?  

I'm surprised at the leaders of the black community.  They're too quiet.  I would expect several of them to explain to the entire black community that shooting policemen just hurts their own cause.  Such message should come out loud and clear from all church and community leaders - especially the black ones.  But so far it's delivered rarely and too quietly.  

5. Why is the police killing them?

No policeman should ever die a stupid death - by a coward, revenging shooter.  But why are the shooters angry in the first place?  Because of police brutality, of course.  I don't understand police brutality so I won't get into that.  But I do want to address those many cases of unnecessary killing of [mostly] black folks.  Let me tell you very quickly why I'm so certain about the "unnecessary" part:

When I served in the military in a war zone many years ago, the circumstances were quite different.  Not always we could see the suspect.  It was dark, you heard a rustle in the bushes, or you saw a silhouette trying to escape.  Sometimes you heard nothing and saw nothing, but you sensed danger.  The open-live-fire instructions were very clear:

* First you shout "who's there" (in our case, in Arabic).

* Next you call them to come out with their hands in the air.

* Next you give a warning (that you're about to shoot).

* Next you shoot in the air.

* Next you shoot at the person - but just to injure him, not to kill.

* Lastly, if he shoots back at you, you shoot to kill.

But in the US the policemen don't do any of that.  Never mind that most incidents don't even justify shooting in the first place, not even from a taser guns, but even in the case where the use of a gun is called for, the American policemen  jump to the last step - shoot to kill.  I don't get it.  There's really no need for it. The reason for such behavior is lack of training and early panic.  Such policemen, are acting out of emotions, not thoughts (ironically, much like the raged guys  killing policemen).  People are arguing with me saying "of course they have to shoot to kill ....otherwise he would kill them first".  Yeah, anybody can make the argument around the lunch table.  But have you ever shot a living creature (doesn't have to be another human) or were you the victim of a bullet?  In most cases, one bullet is pretty debilitating - almost no matter where in the body the injury is.  In 99% of the cases the injured would be busy with the painful injury.  Shooting back takes a backseat.  So I don't find this argument very convincing.  Simply put, policemen are too easy on the trigger.  Police chiefs should take note and conduct better training.  Police job is not only to keep us safe, but also to keep us calm - in stressful situations.  But it seems that exactly the opposite is happening:  Police is the one to escalate such situations to where it's unsafe; then they use unnecessary force, causing panic (at best) or even death - clearly failing both in the safety and calmness departments.

6.  Ok, I couldn't hold back

What is the first thing we hear after all those many tragedies?  That we need to pray for the victims or for the injured or for the families.  Pray to God.  Seriously?  We put that at the top of the priority list?  I understand that many folks need to pray.  They find comfort and hope in it.  Fine.  Go ahead and pray.  But don't make it a national priority as if it is the single thing that would help.  It's a clear sign of folks who either can't or don't want to deal with the real issues - some of which I listed above.  Requesting the public to pray rather than seek ways to address the real issues is burying the had in the sand.  See #2 above.

(BTW, if we're already discussing prayers, I'd like a clarification:  What are we praying for?  The dead, the injured, those who lost someone?  Or do we pray to prevent future killing?  

And who do we pray for?  Any God or specific ones?

But most importantly:  Is there any data on how effective were past prayers? Did they ever help? Because history is full of killings.  Are we doing it wrong?  What's the right way?) 

7. Sadness

The sad part of all of the above is that it seems like our entire society lost the ability to think (collectively).  We're all in panic mode.  It looks like thinkers don't have any influence.  Those with the influence, on the other hand, either refuse to think, refuse to talk (to the thinkers), or refuse to act.  The net result is that as a society we are failing to hit the target.  Crazy.

A few tips how to maybe stay alive

A few days ago I wrote my daughter a letter.  The last line was "feel free to share it....everybody needs to know it".  Then I was thinking:  If everybody really need to know it, why not share it right here?  So here it is, with slight modifications.

-----------------

Dear <>,

This is a follow up to our discussion regarding what to do in the case of shooting.  First of all I'd like you to understand the purpose of this discussion.  It is not to freak you out.  It's to help you stay alive.  Unfortunately, this country has gone mad and so we must prepare ourselves for the worst.  Let me assure you:  I'm not enjoying writing this email; I'm not happy discussing the possibility of being a shooting victim.  This is a terrible subject to write about.  But, it's better to be prepared than to be sorry later.  It's better to stay alive.  

Before we dive into the details and just to put things in perspective, remember that  thousands of universities and public places are open every day throughout this country without any shooting incidents.  It's very unlikely that you'll ever be involved in one.  So no need to freak out or to panic.  But, as I said, it's important to be prepared - just in case.

The following are a few tips of what action you might take in case of an incident.  Please realize that there's not just one way to do it.  It all depends on the situation and where you are.

• When you first hear what might sound like gun shots, duck, hide somewhere: under a bench, behind a bush, around the corner.  Somewhere.  
• Try to assess where the sound of the shooting is coming from.  Sometimes it could get tricky.  The sound might be echoing or bounce between tall buildings.

• If you hear shooting not in the same building where you are:  Run away from the shooting.  Run to the woods or to the neighborhood.  Try to think ahead of time what would be your escape route.  Don't stick with the big group - that's the easy target for the shooter.  Run away.  Don't wait for instructions.  Take action immediately.  But, before you run make sure you're running AWAY from the shooting - not towards it.

• If the shooting is in your building, but not yet in the room/hall where you are:  If there's an external door - take it to run away.  If there's a window, break it with a chair or whatever is handy and climb through it to get away.  Don't wait with the group; don't wait for instructions.  Run for your life.

• If the shooting is in the same room where you are:  If you have time to hide in a closet, do that.  If not, if you see people getting hurt, play dead.

The most important thing to remember is not to freak out but to stay cool.  To act quickly and composed.  It is easier said than done in such situations, but if we discuss it and practice it, you will be somewhat prepared.  

Please realize that these advices are not just for campus.  They are relevant to everywhere:  the mall, airports, movie theatre, etc.  Everywhere!  You never know where the crazy guy with a gun might act. This is important to remember.

Maybe all this sounds weird and scary and not even realistic, but sadly people are still dying from crazy shooting in this country.  Please understand that unfortunately this is not the end of the discussion.  Nobody knows how to fix the gun violence problem in America.  Until then we have to be vigilant.

Feel free to share these advices with your friends.  Everybody need to know that.  I welcome questions/comments/additions.

Asking better questions

The supreme court had a major decision this week regarding gay marriage.  The main argument  - you heard it too many times already - is that the new ruling is "against the word of the bible" or "against God's will", which is - you heard this one too too many times - marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.  On the other side of the argument the progressive folks are bringing "evidence" from either the church or the bible that there are no such writings, therefore it's open to interpretation.  The progressive folks reasoning is that the church does not have a monopoly over such decision.  And yes, the progressives too are bringing God and the bible into the argument.  Unfortunately, both sides leave the most critical questions out of the argument:

Who wrote the bible?
When?
Wait, there's more than one version?  How so?
And which God?  There are thousands of gods out there, which one are "we" listening to? 
Why this god's word is important and not other gods? 

The answers to such questions are crucial to the conversation, because without them it may seem that all people believe in the same god or gods and follow the same bible.  And we all know that this is not the case.  The goal of this document is not to examine the bible itself or God.  Rather, we will try to show how the we, the people who choose which laws are governing us, don't ask the right questions.

Before we dive into the discussion about God, which might be more complex, let's quickly clarify the biblical question, because with all due respect, it's just a document.  It was authored by humans at a certain time (and was rewritten several times since).   Science now knows a whole lot about it than ever before.  So let's start there.

One more thing, sort of a disclaimer:  I'm writing this piece fairly quick.  Maybe some language is not formed well; maybe not all the facts are precise.  But the main idea is there.  Alright, here we go.

The Bible

Well, the first question to ask is "which bible"?  The Hebrew one (the Old Testament)?  The New Testament?
The next question would be:  Which version?  

It is agreed upon by most biblical scholars that the Hebrew bible, the one everything else was based upon, was first written around the 6th century BCE or, roughly 2600 years ago.    While not all the stories in this early version can be explained by modern science, we do know the name of the Judean king who ordered it written - Josiah.  And it was written according to his religious and political agenda.  We will not dive into that discussion right now.  The above is just a reference point in time.  So we know who wrote the first version of the bible, when, and why.

But, and this is key to the conversation, we don't have that very early version of the bible.  What Jews are reading today are later versions, which changed again and again over the years.  For example, the idea of monotheism did not exist yet when King Josiah's authors did their work.  Each author or authors changed things - according to their own time and agenda.  These are well known facts.  The idea of monotheism was inserted into the Hebrew bible only after Jews returned from Babylon to the land of Israel.  Anyway, I made this comment not to discuss monotheism but to show how the bible changed according to whoever edited it at the time.

And then Christianity.  I won't go into the history of who wrote what and when.  For one, I'm not a scholar.  I don't know enough about it.  But I do know enough to know that early Christians were actually "new Jews" and that Christianity caught on 200-300 years after Jesus.  This, too, is sort of irrelevant to the discussion.  What's important is that the New Testament was written "late" (compared to the Old testament) and was modified even later.  The version that is used today was written by King James only 400 years ago.  And if you study the subject you would find that he shaped this version, like many of previous authors, according to his era and his own agenda.  So what you read today is not the word of Jesus; not even Paul or Mathew.  These are the words of King James's authors.

So, without judging which bible people talk about and what's in the bible itself, we already see that all documents were written for a much earlier times.  Society was different.  For example, women had no rights at all; sick kids were left to die; people owned slaves "legally"; it was ok to conquer far away countries and rob all their gold for the church.  Etc. etc. etc. So if there's any  word about marriage, shouldn't it be taken into account nowadays who wrote it, when, and why?

And all of that without even mentioning other documents belonging to non Judeo-Christian tradition.  What about African/South American/south Pacific tribes?  Is gay marriage ok in such societies because they don't follow the bible?

Bottom line: Those who are quoting the bible - on either side of the gay marriage argument - never took the time to learn where this document came from.  They're assuming it's the word of God.  Which brings us to...

God

There are at least two ways to discuss "God's word".  One way would be to analyze which god (or gods) people talk about, the role of such god (or gods) in the bible (wait, which bible???).  If you study the above mentioned versions of the bible, you'd discover that the people at the time when the bible was written practiced polytheism.   Again, I could have dove into the complex question of the history of the concept of god, the different gods, and so on.  But I'm not sure how such discussion would have contributed to the argument at hand.  A better questions to ask, when presented the sentence "but this is the Word of God", might be: Which god?  What do you know about this god?  Where is he from (by this I mean, from which tradition and when and under which circumstances did this god came about)?  There's a whole exploration to do here.  To say "I believe in God and that's enough for me" is really not enough if you don't bother to explain it to yourself.

But the other way to discuss all of that is to simply realize that one person believes in God and the other not.  Since belief is equal between all humans, your belief is as good as mine.  It's just a belief - a feeling, complex or simple as it may be.  Just a feeling.  The concept of God, thus, is subjective.  As strong as your belief might be, you can't make anybody believe in what you do.  And since we're all different, we all have different beliefs, different values, etc.  So why do the constitution have one size fits all?  One god (it is still unclear which one), one bible (same story).  

In short, rather than trying to determine if gay marriage is according to the word of God or is permissible in the bible, wouldn't it be better if the high court dug into the sources of these?

--------

I'm not stupid (well....) and certainly not naive.  I know that this is unlikely to change.  People are not comfortable asking such questions.  We prefer to believe in the unknown rather than dig for the truth.  That is unfortunate.  But what is more unfortunate is that we deprive our fellow citizens of their rights based on our ill beliefs.  

So next time you either support the court decision or oppose it, maybe you'd take the time to ask the hard questions:  Who wrote the documents that our laws are based on?  When?  Why?  What was the religious and geo-political situation at the time?  How are such ancient writings still relevant to today's society and law?  Or, are they?

Would have been 20

Happy would have been birthday, Liami

We miss your infectious lough so much.