My neighborhood has been rechristened by the city. On a map on the ferry building, there was a new designation, from approximately Vanness to Taylor, from O'Farrell to wherever Nob Hill started. I know live in NOMA (NOrth of MArket). I moved from NOPA (NOrth of the PAnhandle) to NOMA (NOrth of MArket). Heh, now I have to SOMA (SOuth of MArket) and then, it's on to NOLITA (NOrth of Lttle ITAly), SOHO (SOuth of HOuston St.), NOHO (NOrth of HOuston St.), TRIBECA (TRIangle BElow CAnal St.) DUMBO (Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass), and RAMBO (Right After the Manhattan Bridge Overpass) all in NYC. The final destination would of course be Soho (possibly South of Holborn St.) in London.
Do other cities have this? Perhaps my parents live in SOTO (SOuth of ThOmas Rd.)? or EaSe (EAst of SEventh)? or NoDo (NOrth of DOwntown)? That won't work.......
Any suggestions?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
JROTC
I attended a meeting two nights ago at the SF School Board. The point of my presence was to lend support to those who oppose a resolution that would grant JROTC another year of existence. Last year, the SF School Board voted to end JROTC programs at all San Francisco high schools, effective at the end of this year. They voted to end it, because they believed it is a recruitment tool for the military. Also, as it is tied to the military, which the SF School Board termed a "homophobic organization", they wanted it out of schools. Those who want to keep it claim that it is about community building and discipline. Therefore, included in the resolution to end it was the recommendation for a new JROTC-like program, sans militarism.
Tuesday night's meeting was supposed to be dedicated to a vote on a resolution that would extend JROTC for one extra year, but close it at 2 of the 7 high schools (presumably those with the lowest enrollment), block freshman enrollment, and disallow the use of JROTC for PE credit (as many of the JROTC instructors don't even hold a teaching certificate (let alone a PE-teaching certificate)). This would allow for more time to come up with a new program, which detractors argue, has not been done. Upon arrival, there were about 400 students and several parents completely filling the room. I stood at the back with my friend Melissa. The nuts from Berkeley (you know, the older women who wear corduroys and don't wash their hair, etc.) were out in full force to scream about the war in Iraq and detract from real concerns. The only speaker with a brain from either side was a father of an 11-year old who railed against the militarism and the wasted tax money. He made the point that it was unfair to his son to lack a sufficient after-school program because he doesn't want to be trained to fight in a war. He spoke about the lack of teaching credentials. He directly quoted, from the Department of Defense, statements on recruitment intentions.
It didn't matter. Before the meeting even started, the School Board announced that the resolution was off the table and they were unsure if they would bring it again. Therefore, as it stands, JROTC is done in SF. Health care for all, military out of schools, plastic bags out of our city, further development of public transportation. For all of our faults, San Francisco values should be a beacon to the nation.
Tuesday night's meeting was supposed to be dedicated to a vote on a resolution that would extend JROTC for one extra year, but close it at 2 of the 7 high schools (presumably those with the lowest enrollment), block freshman enrollment, and disallow the use of JROTC for PE credit (as many of the JROTC instructors don't even hold a teaching certificate (let alone a PE-teaching certificate)). This would allow for more time to come up with a new program, which detractors argue, has not been done. Upon arrival, there were about 400 students and several parents completely filling the room. I stood at the back with my friend Melissa. The nuts from Berkeley (you know, the older women who wear corduroys and don't wash their hair, etc.) were out in full force to scream about the war in Iraq and detract from real concerns. The only speaker with a brain from either side was a father of an 11-year old who railed against the militarism and the wasted tax money. He made the point that it was unfair to his son to lack a sufficient after-school program because he doesn't want to be trained to fight in a war. He spoke about the lack of teaching credentials. He directly quoted, from the Department of Defense, statements on recruitment intentions.
It didn't matter. Before the meeting even started, the School Board announced that the resolution was off the table and they were unsure if they would bring it again. Therefore, as it stands, JROTC is done in SF. Health care for all, military out of schools, plastic bags out of our city, further development of public transportation. For all of our faults, San Francisco values should be a beacon to the nation.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Oil
The cover of the Chronicle today featured a duck drenched in oil. The headline read "Heartbreaking". There was a major oil spill in the bay when a ship smashed into the bridge dumping its fuel on the marine life. Disgusting. Filth.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sad
Last night around 6pm a man jumped in front of a BART train at Powell Station. What a sad event. I also feel sorry for all the other people who had to stand and watch. And the BART driver. And the train passengers who could apparently feel it. I am also eternally grateful that I decided to walk to Powell Street after work at 5:50 and did not take a train. There are only a few trains that go through there... Really sad though.
Jesus Barabbas
For anyone who has ever wondered about the origins of Anti-Semitism, one must at least go back as far as, if not much further than, the composition of the Bible. The figure of Barabbas, depicted in different places as thief, murder or most recently, terrorist is important to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was brought before a group of people, the identity of which is the key, and was placed next to the figure of Barabbas, or more completely, Yeshua bar-Abbas. Pontius Pilate gave the crowd the choice of setting either Barabbas or Jesus free and they picked Barabbas. Jesus was crucified.
The identity of the crowd is disputed. The word used to describe it is "masses", "people" or sometimes "Jews". This is the origin of the seemingly specious claim that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Obviously the Romans did the actual killing, but the responsibility was often placed on Jews because they chose to free Barabbas and not Jesus. This was used by Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ" and is one of the reasons many see the film as anti-Semitic.
The story becomes much more interesting when you research the identity of Barabbas, or Yeshua bar-Abbas. He was born in the city of Galilee between 7BCE (BC) and 7CE (AD). Jesus was born in Nazareth between 8BCE and 2BCE. Galilee is another name for Nazareth. Yeshua is the actual Hebrew name of Jesus. The years overlap. Finally "bar" means "son of" and "Abba" is "father". When Jesus Christ prayed to God, he called God "Abba". So, one could translate "Barabbas" as "Son of God". The "s" on the end of "Abbas" is an ending for the possessive or genitive case.
This means that Jesus Barabbas) Son of God the Father was born in Nazareth in 7BCE-7CE and was crucified next to Jesus Christ, Son of God, who was born in Nazareth btw. 8-2BCE. This seems too large a coincidence to ignore. There was likely only one person crucified and the choice offered by Pontius Pilate is different than it seems.
Jesus Christ was seen by his adversaries as in insurrectionist against the Roman Empire. He was crucified as a revolutionary.
The story goes like this. The two are brought before the crowd and Pontius Pilate asks which one should be saved. Let's say for the sake of argument that the crowd was actually mostly Jewish. The Jews yell out "Save Barabbas!" or translated "Save the Son of the Father". The Romas decided to crucify Jesus. Why the second figure? The possibilities here are plentiful. One is that it was a common parable in stories from the time to free one person while lynching another. Another is that it was a misinterpretation in translation or relating the story over time. The third is that it was added in by Paul of Tsaurus around 310. This is the most interesting account. The Christian religion was legalized in the Roman Empire to Emperor Constantine between 310 and 315. The Romans did not want to be seen as the murderers of Jesus, so Paul shifted the blame onto the adversaries of the Romans, the Jews. This could have been done in order to allow for its legalization. The question would then be, were there Jews there calling for Jesus's freedom, calling him Yeshua bar-Abbas, but not referring to someone else.... OR, were there no Jews at all, and the Jews and the second figure were fabricated in the story?
This assumes a lot. There are other ideas. One is that early Christians were persecuted by Jews and therefore sought revenge by putting anti-Semitic statements in the Bible, using the word "Jews", when it shouldn't have been there, or fabricating the whole aspect of the second figure (same as above, only it was not done to appease the Romans, but rather to propagandize Anti-Semitism). Or that anti-Semitism largely predates this and this was one in a long line of attacks on Jews through propaganda.
Either way, assuming that it would be difficult for a Roman convert to accept that his own people murdered the only Son of God, thus inflaming anti-Semitism, or assuming that an anti-Semitic attitude was placed in the Bible to inflame hatred, it would seem quite interesting for the history of anti-Semitism.
The final, most controversial interpretation, is that Jesus was actually somewhat violent. That he was more of the wrathful righteous one than the peaceful righteous one. This would claim that Pontius Pilate said, "Should we kill this violent terrorist?" and the Jews responded with, "No, please save him, he's the Son of God!" The result is the same as the first one above, that the idea that someone was actually freed was either an intentional fabrication, a parable, a metaphor or a mistake.
Anyway you see it, it's pretty interesting stuff. In the end, it seems that in the original story there was likely only the one figure of Jesus, either peaceful or violent and that over time the story was altered, either mistakenly due to retelling, or intentionally in order to either to shift the blame away from the Romans, to satisfy the propaganda needs of anti-Semites, or both. Interesting stuff, huh?
The identity of the crowd is disputed. The word used to describe it is "masses", "people" or sometimes "Jews". This is the origin of the seemingly specious claim that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Obviously the Romans did the actual killing, but the responsibility was often placed on Jews because they chose to free Barabbas and not Jesus. This was used by Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ" and is one of the reasons many see the film as anti-Semitic.
The story becomes much more interesting when you research the identity of Barabbas, or Yeshua bar-Abbas. He was born in the city of Galilee between 7BCE (BC) and 7CE (AD). Jesus was born in Nazareth between 8BCE and 2BCE. Galilee is another name for Nazareth. Yeshua is the actual Hebrew name of Jesus. The years overlap. Finally "bar" means "son of" and "Abba" is "father". When Jesus Christ prayed to God, he called God "Abba". So, one could translate "Barabbas" as "Son of God". The "s" on the end of "Abbas" is an ending for the possessive or genitive case.
This means that Jesus Barabbas) Son of God the Father was born in Nazareth in 7BCE-7CE and was crucified next to Jesus Christ, Son of God, who was born in Nazareth btw. 8-2BCE. This seems too large a coincidence to ignore. There was likely only one person crucified and the choice offered by Pontius Pilate is different than it seems.
Jesus Christ was seen by his adversaries as in insurrectionist against the Roman Empire. He was crucified as a revolutionary.
The story goes like this. The two are brought before the crowd and Pontius Pilate asks which one should be saved. Let's say for the sake of argument that the crowd was actually mostly Jewish. The Jews yell out "Save Barabbas!" or translated "Save the Son of the Father". The Romas decided to crucify Jesus. Why the second figure? The possibilities here are plentiful. One is that it was a common parable in stories from the time to free one person while lynching another. Another is that it was a misinterpretation in translation or relating the story over time. The third is that it was added in by Paul of Tsaurus around 310. This is the most interesting account. The Christian religion was legalized in the Roman Empire to Emperor Constantine between 310 and 315. The Romans did not want to be seen as the murderers of Jesus, so Paul shifted the blame onto the adversaries of the Romans, the Jews. This could have been done in order to allow for its legalization. The question would then be, were there Jews there calling for Jesus's freedom, calling him Yeshua bar-Abbas, but not referring to someone else.... OR, were there no Jews at all, and the Jews and the second figure were fabricated in the story?
This assumes a lot. There are other ideas. One is that early Christians were persecuted by Jews and therefore sought revenge by putting anti-Semitic statements in the Bible, using the word "Jews", when it shouldn't have been there, or fabricating the whole aspect of the second figure (same as above, only it was not done to appease the Romans, but rather to propagandize Anti-Semitism). Or that anti-Semitism largely predates this and this was one in a long line of attacks on Jews through propaganda.
Either way, assuming that it would be difficult for a Roman convert to accept that his own people murdered the only Son of God, thus inflaming anti-Semitism, or assuming that an anti-Semitic attitude was placed in the Bible to inflame hatred, it would seem quite interesting for the history of anti-Semitism.
The final, most controversial interpretation, is that Jesus was actually somewhat violent. That he was more of the wrathful righteous one than the peaceful righteous one. This would claim that Pontius Pilate said, "Should we kill this violent terrorist?" and the Jews responded with, "No, please save him, he's the Son of God!" The result is the same as the first one above, that the idea that someone was actually freed was either an intentional fabrication, a parable, a metaphor or a mistake.
Anyway you see it, it's pretty interesting stuff. In the end, it seems that in the original story there was likely only the one figure of Jesus, either peaceful or violent and that over time the story was altered, either mistakenly due to retelling, or intentionally in order to either to shift the blame away from the Romans, to satisfy the propaganda needs of anti-Semites, or both. Interesting stuff, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)