Counting in Russian

 

Counting

 

Counting BY MARGARITA ENGLE

  Counting

BY MARGARITA ENGLE

Harry Franck, from the United States of America - Census Enumerator

I came to Panama planning to dig

the Eighth Wonder of the World,

but I was told that white men

should never be seen working

with shovels, so I took a police job,

and now I've been transferred

to the census.

I roam the jungle, counting laborers

who live in shanties and those who live

on the run, fugitives who are too angry

to keep working for silver in a system

where they know that others

earn gold.

When islanders see me coming,

they're afraid of trouble, even though

I can't arrest them anymore—now

all I need is a record of their names, ages,

homelands, and colors.

The rules of this census confound me.

I'm expected to count white Jamaicans

as dark and every shade of Spaniard

as semi-white, so that Americans

can pretend

there's only one color

in each country.

How am I supposed to enumerate

this kid with the Cuban accent?

His skin is medium, but his eyes

are green.

And what about that Puerto Rican

scientist, who speaks like a New York

professor,

or the girl who says she doesn't know

where she was born or who her parents

are—she could be part native, or part French,

Jamaican, Chinese ...

She could even be part American,

from people who passed through here

way back

in gold rush days.

Counting feels just as impossible

as turning solid mountains

into a ditch

Objective truth

 Truth exists! Truth exists, even if you don't like that fact! Truth exists, even if you don't believe in truth! Truth will just keep on existing! What you believe has not one single thing to do with what is real or what is unreal! Your opinion, your beliefs influence nothing about the existence of truth! What is truly truth simply is what it is! Nothing you say or do can affect truth at all!

vampire

 

 

The Giaour [Unquenched, unquenchable]

• 
• 
• 
• 

George Gordon Byron

1788 –

1824

. . . Unquenched, unquenchable,
Around, within, thy heart shall dwell;
Nor ear can hear nor tongue can tell
The tortures of that inward hell!
But first, on earth as vampire sent,
Thy corse shall from its tomb be rent:
Then ghastly haunt thy native place,
And suck the blood of all thy race;
There from thy daughter, sister, wife,
At midnight drain the stream of life;
Yet loathe the banquet which perforce
Must feed thy livid living corse:
Thy victims ere they yet expire
Shall know the demon for their sire,
As cursing thee, thou cursing them,
Thy flowers are withered on the stem.
But one that for thy crime must fall,
The youngest, most beloved of all,
Shall bless thee with a father's name —
That word shall wrap thy heart in flame!
Yet must thou end thy task, and mark
Her cheek's last tinge, her eye's last spark,
And the last glassy glance must view
Which freezes o'er its lifeless blue;
Then with unhallowed hand shalt tear
The tresses of her yellow hair,
Of which in life a lock when shorn
Affection's fondest pledge was worn,
But now is borne away by thee,
Memorial of thine agony!

Why I Resigned From the DC Abortion Fund BY ALLISON TOMBROS KORMAN

o n Nov. 17, 2023 I resigned from my dream job at the DC Abortion Fund (DCAF). In the four months since my resignation, the organization seemed to have grown emboldened not just to demand fealty to a progressive litmus test over the war in Gaza, but to use DCAF’s resources, time, and reputation to push out individuals who do not share their perspective, most recently and explicitly signing on to a campaign to call the Jewish musician Matisyahu—known for his peace anthem “One Day”—a “white Zionist” racist. While I wish I could be surprised by this, I’m not. This is the same pattern I experienced at the DC Abortion Fund that led to my resignation.

For the previous 18 months, I had proudly served as the most senior executive at DCAF, a grassroots organization whose core mission is to provide abortion funding in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area. This dream position brought together my 20-plus-year career in sexual and reproductive health and my lifelong personal commitment to social justice. My daughters proudly acted as our “interns,” handing out swag at community events and telling anyone who would ask about their mom’s work, even when it meant enduring verbal and physical harassment from anti-abortion activists. In less than a year at DCAF, I was promoted.

After the tragic events in Israel on Oct. 7, everything changed for the Jewish community and for me. While it was well-known that I was the only Jewish staff member—I staffed all events and fundraisers hosted by the Jewish community—not one person from the staff or board reached out to me in the wake of the rape, murder, and kidnapping of 1,200 Israeli men, women, and children. Their silence mirrored the devastating silence many Jews experienced after Oct. 7.

On Oct. 9, with no mention of the terrible events from two days prior, DCAF’s communications team posted an Indigenous People’s Day Instagram post calling for “land back” and a “Free Palestine.” Jewish members of the DCAF community—volunteers, fundraisers, and me, an employee—alerted the communications team that this was, or was perceived to be, deeply insensitive. The post was removed.

The staff letter noted, ‘we cannot ignore the mass violations to human rights and sexual and reproductive health outcomes that we’re seeing out of Gaza.’ Remarkably, the letter neglected any mention of health outcomes for the Israeli survivors of rape or assault, or for the hostages.

→︎
Twitter
Facebook
EmailCopied link

On Oct. 26, the communications team proposed a series of Instagram slides for my review. The “Gaza Carousel,” as the draft was titled, felt deeply one-sided for a reproductive health organization that had not publicly acknowledged the rapes and other atrocities of Oct. 7. Instead, the post focused on the so-called “U.S.-funded genocide” in Gaza and only mentioned the hostages in a single bullet on the final slide. As the former executive director of a national sexual violence prevention program, I could not fathom how if choosing to speak about the war, my colleagues could willfully ignore the devastating violations of reproductive justice that happened to Israelis on Oct. 7. I brought my concerns about the draft to my supervisor, the chair of the Board of Directors. I explained how specific accusations against Jews and Israel on social media were offensive and were used to justify violence against Jews on campus, in local businesses, and across the world. I maintained in that meeting—and until the end of my tenure there—that DCAF did not have the expertise in Middle East policy to weigh in on the war. DCAF had never before issued a statement on international events or foreign policy and I felt we should use the fund’s limited capacity to remain focused on the core mission of providing abortion funding. The board chair agreed that the post should not go up. It didn’t, but my decision to go directly to the chair set in motion a division within the staff that would devolve until my departure.

To rebuild staff unity and in keeping with our organizational values around open communication, the board chair arranged a meeting for me and the comms team to discuss our feelings about what had transpired. I sincerely apologized for any breach of trust caused by bringing my concerns to the chair. No apology was given by the comms team, or prompted by the chair, for sending me a draft I found hurtful and offensive. I made the point that if a similar situation had occurred with another minority group, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to consult a supervisor, but I was told that this was “different.” I was told that “everyone knows when something is racist,” but that the language used in this post was up for debate, as if I, the only Jewish voice on staff, should not be qualified to decide for myself what was or could be deemed offensive to a Jewish person.

As the war ramped up, it was clear that this issue was not going away. Not only was I struggling to process Oct. 7 with friends, family, and my community, I was also navigating the conflict every day at work. As the only Jewish voice in the organization, I was repeatedly put in the position to speak for all Jewish people—an impossible task—or to defend my perspective and why it did not align with that of Jewish Voices for Peace, a group that purports to represent Jews but rejects the basic premise of a Jewish homeland, or similar entities. At the same time, if I advocated for DCAF staying out of this discussion, I was told I was silencing the organization and its staff. I shared my heartbreak about the violence against both Israelis and Palestinians and how, though complex, these feelings could coexist. In return, it was explained to me, often by people with no direct connection to the land or its people, that I needed to understand “context.”

At the same time, other abortion funds and reproductive health organizations began issuing statements about what was happening in Gaza. These statements contained much of the same offensive nomenclature as DCAF’s draft and some, like ARC-Southeast’s letter, went further, calling Zionism—the belief that Israel simply has a right to exist—“a contradiction to Reproductive Justice.” Every member of the DCAF staff except me signed on to a letter to the board advising them that they would be participating in a walkout in support of Palestine. The letter noted, “We are using our collective power as DCAF workers to show up for Gazans and call for an immediate ceasefire, as well as liberation for Palestinians ... we cannot ignore the mass violations to human rights and sexual and reproductive health outcomes that we’re seeing out of Gaza.” Remarkably, the letter neglected any mention of health outcomes for the Israeli survivors of rape or assault, or for the hostages.

In an effort to work collaboratively and keep focused on our primary objectives, we agreed that establishing social media procedures was a critical next step. On Nov. 14, I and the communications team sat down to decide what, if anything, DCAF would be posting about the war and to ensure there were not more situations like that which occurred around the “Gaza Carousel.” I recognized that my colleagues felt strongly that DCAF should weigh in on this discussion, and in an effort to compromise, I agreed to a process that would allow DCAF to uplift existing content from trusted partners in the field, but not create original content, as this would be beyond our expertise. We agreed to abstain from using nomenclature that could be distracting or divisive to our community, such as the “Free Palestine” hashtag or calling Israel’s actions “genocide.” We developed a system to review and discuss potentially controversial content related to the war before posting, starting with a small group of reviewers, including me, and escalating to a vote by a mix of board and staff.

The following morning, I circulated the notes from that meeting to DCAF leadership and members of the Board. At 3 p.m. that day, I was alerted by a Jewish DCAF volunteer that the DCAF Instagram feed featured graphics from The Washington Post about deaths in Gaza with commentary overlaid, specifically that “collective punishment is the tool of fascists” and that what was happening in Gaza was “a prime and top-of-mind example of said collective punishment.” I immediately flagged this for the communications team and asked if perhaps the content was posted inadvertently since it violated the norms we had established in the meeting the previous day. Surely, equating the actions of the entire State of Israel with fascism was a perspective that needed to be discussed as potentially controversial. They assured me the post was intentional (they later stealthily removed it).

Immediately, DCAF received angry messages from Jewish members of their community. The messages criticized DCAF for being so one-sided on the issue. They were furious that DCAF, who claimed to deeply value reproductive justice, had remained silent on the rapes of Israeli women. They stated that as Jews, they felt abandoned by and isolated from the organization.

By Nov. 17, I could barely get out of bed. The last five weeks had wrung me out, physically, emotionally, and mentally. I had been iced out by my colleagues for my unwillingness to get on board with their specific perspective. They canceled meetings with me and when they had to be in meetings with me, they kept their cameras off. I had been told that I was wrong to feel that specific language was harmful or offensive, even when I could feel its burn. I felt that I was being forced, at best, to bury my identity at work and at worst, to apologize for or decry it. I had become something of a walking zombie at home, thinking about what was happening at work constantly, trying to see a way through this. My children, with whom we elected to be honest about what I was facing each day at work, had stopped asking if I was OK and instead just carefully hugged me and told me they were sorry.

That morning, after weeks of agonizing over the matter, I realized I could not go back. I called my board chair and left a voicemail in which I tendered my resignation. My board chair texted back to say she understood if I “no longer [thought] DCAF [was] a fit.” I was devastated, but I felt this was my only option. While I remain fully committed to ensuring everyone has abortion access no matter where they live or who they are, I could not stay in an organization that refused to acknowledge my humanity or that of my people.

As painful as it was to leave my dream job, I hoped that my leaving would be a wake-up call for DCAF. I hoped they would realize just how bad things must have been for a Jewish person at their organization to resign from their position. They didn’t. DCAF chose Repro Shabbat, an annual celebration that honors the Jewish value of reproductive freedom, to center “Palestinian liberation” and included only a passing and perfunctory mention of the Israeli civilian hostages, and no mention of the Hamas-inflicted sexual violence on Oct. 7. In mid-March, DCAF signed on to the campaign protesting Matisyahu. These actions confirmed my previous pleas had gone unheard and that I made the right decision to leave.

This experience broke my heart. I’ve spoken with many Jews who are also broken-hearted as they feel pushed out of progressive spaces, specifically abortion funds and other reproductive health organizations. We feel betrayed by and disappointed in our movement for failing to live the values it purports to embody. The erasure of our history as a people that has struggled to survive and the erasure of our current lived experiences is nothing short of devastating. Jews are not asking progressive movements, causes, or individuals to condone or celebrate Israel’s response to Oct. 7. We are not asking for them to identify solely with our suffering. We are asking that if they insist on wading into this conflict, they do so in a way that recognizes our humanity.

Allison Tombros Korman is the former Senior Operations and Strategy Director at the DC Abortion Fund (April 2022-December 2023) and the Inaugural Executive Director of Culture of Respect (2014-2015), a national initiative to end campus sexual violence.

Leviticus 12:1–13:59

 Leviticus 12:1–13:59

English Standard Version

Purification After Childbirth

12 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then ushe shall be unclean seven days. vAs at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the weighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

6 u“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take xtwo turtledoves or two pigeons,1 yone for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. zAnd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

Laws About Leprosy

13 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 “When a person has on the skin of his body a aswelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a case of leprous1 disease on the skin of his body, bthen he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests, 3 and the priest shall examine the diseased area on the skin of his body. And if the hair in the diseased area has turned white and the disease appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a case of leprous disease. When the priest has examined him, he shall pronounce him unclean. 4 But if the spot is white in the skin of his body and appears no deeper than the skin, and the hair in it has not turned white, cthe priest shall shut up the diseased person for seven days. 5 And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and if in his eyes the disease is checked and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the cpriest shall shut him up for another seven days. 6 And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and if the diseased area has faded and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only an eruption. And dhe shall wash his clothes and be clean. 7 But if the eruption spreads in the skin, after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall appear again before the priest. 8 And the priest shall look, and if the eruption has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous disease.

9 “When a man is afflicted with a leprous disease, he shall be brought to the priest, 10 and the priest shall look. And if there is a ewhite swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, 11 it is a chronic leprous disease in the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. fHe shall not shut him up, for he is unclean. 12 And if the leprous disease breaks out in the skin, so that the leprous disease covers all the skin of the diseased person from head to foot, so far as the priest can see, 13 then the priest shall look, and if the leprous disease has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him clean of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean. 14 But when raw flesh appears on him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall examine the raw flesh and pronounce him unclean. Raw flesh is unclean, for it is a leprous disease. 16 But if the raw flesh recovers and turns white again, then he shall come to the priest, 17 and the priest shall examine him, and if the disease has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce the diseased person clean; he is clean.

18 “If there is in the skin of one’s body a gboil and it heals, 19 and in the place of the boil there comes a white swelling or a hreddish-white spot, then it shall be shown to the priest. 20 And the priest shall look, and if it appears deeper than the skin and its hair has turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is a case of leprous disease that has broken out in the boil. 21 But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in it and it is not deeper than the skin, but has faded, then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 22 And if it spreads in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a disease. 23 But iif the spot remains in one place and does not spread, it is the scar of the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

24 “Or, when the body has a burn on its skin and the raw flesh of the burn becomes a spot, jreddish-white or white, 25 the priest shall examine it, and if the hair in the spot has turned white and it appears deeper than the skin, then it is a leprous disease. It has broken out in the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a case of leprous disease. 26 But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and it is no deeper than the skin, but has faded, the priest shall shut him up seven days, 27 and the priest shall examine him the seventh day. If it is spreading in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a case of leprous disease. 28 But if the spot remains kin one place and does not spread in the skin, but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the scar of the burn.

29 “When a man or woman has a disease on the head or the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the disease. And if it appears deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is yellow and thin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an itch, a leprous disease of the head or the beard. 31 And if the priest examines the itching disease and it appears no deeper than the skin and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for seven days, 32 and on the seventh day the priest shall examine the disease. If the itch has not spread, and there is in it no yellow hair, and the itch appears to be no deeper than the skin, 33 then he shall shave himself, but the itch he shall not shave; and the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for another seven days. 34 And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the itch, and if the itch has not spread in the skin and it appears to be no deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. And lhe shall wash his clothes and be clean. 35 But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing, 36 then the priest shall examine him, and if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest need not seek for the yellow hair; he is unclean. 37 But if in his eyes the itch is unchanged and black hair has grown in it, the itch is healed and he is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

38 “When a man or a woman has spots on the skin of the body, white spots, 39 the priest shall look, and if the spots on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is leukoderma that has broken out in the skin; he is clean.

40 “If a man’s hair falls out from his head, he is bald; he is clean. 41 And if a man’s hair falls out from his forehead, he has baldness of the forehead; he is clean. 42 But if there is on the bald head or the bald forehead a reddish-white diseased area, it is a leprous disease breaking out on his bald head or his bald forehead. 43 Then the priest shall examine him, and if the diseased swelling is reddish-white on his bald head or on his bald forehead, like the appearance of leprous disease in the skin of the body, 44 he is a leprous man, he is unclean. The priest must pronounce him unclean; his disease is on his head.

45 “The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and mlet the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall ncover his upper lip2 and cry out, o‘Unclean, unclean.’ 46 He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be poutside the camp.

47 “When there is a case of leprous disease in a qgarment, whether a woolen or a linen garment, 48 in warp or woof of linen or wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin, 49 if the disease is greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin or in the warp or the woof or in any article made of skin, it is a case of leprous disease, and it shall be shown to the priest. 50 And the priest shall examine the disease and shut up that which has the disease for seven days. 51 Then he shall examine the disease on the seventh day. If the disease has spread in the garment, in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, whatever be the use of the skin, the disease is a rpersistent leprous disease; it is unclean. 52 And he shall burn the garment, or the warp or the woof, the wool or the linen, or any article made of skin that is diseased, for it is a persistent leprous disease. It shall be burned in the fire.

53 “And if the priest examines, and if the disease has not spread in the garment, in the warp or the woof or in any article made of skin, 54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which is the disease, and he shall shut it up for another seven days. 55 And the priest shall examine the diseased thing after it has been washed. And if the appearance of the diseased area has not changed, though the disease has not spread, it is unclean. You shall burn it in the fire, whether the rot is on the back or on the front.

56 “But if the priest examines, and if the diseased area has faded after it has been washed, he shall tear it out of the garment or the skin or the warp or the woof. 57 Then if it appears again in the garment, in the warp or the woof, or in any article made of skin, it is spreading. You …