Persian Poetry Tuesday: Partow Nuriala's "I Am Human"

Shortly after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Partow Nuriala was forced by the government to stop teaching philosophy at Tehran University, where she also worked as a social worker. She subsequently founded Damavand Publications, one of the first independent woman-run presses in Iran. Three years later, the government shut the press down, an ironic development since it was during the revolution in Iran that the ban on her first book of poetry, A Share of the Years, which had been imposed by the Pahlavi regime in 1972 was lifted. In 1986, Partow came to the United States with her two young children. Since 1988, she has worked in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as a deputy jury commissioner, though she still has an active literary career. Her publications include four books of poems, literary and movie reviews, a collection of short stories and a play. “I Am Human” was published in the anthology Strange Times, My Dear and was translated by Zara Hushmand. ((Apologies to the poet and the translator for the inaccurate line breaks. I don’t know how to make WordPress show them as they are supposed to appear.))

I Am Human

Bow your form
in sight of the earth.
Hide your face
from the light
of the sun and moon,
for you are a woman.

Bury your body’s blossoming
in the pit of time.
Consign the renegade strands of your hair
to the ashes in the wood stove,
and the fiery power of your hands
to scrubbing and sweeping the home
for you are a woman.

Kill your word’s wit:
ruin it
with silence.
Feel shame for your desires
and grant your enchanted soul
to the patience of the wind
for you are a woman.

Deny yourself,
that your lord
may ride in you
at his pleasure,
for you are a woman.

I cry
I cry
in a land where ignorant kindness
cuts deeper
than the cruelty of knowledge.
I weep for my birth
as a woman.

I fight
I fight
in a land where
the zeal of manliness
bellows in the field
between home and grave.
I fight my birth
as a woman.

I keep my eyes wide open
so as not to sink
under the weight
of this dream that others
have dreamed for me,
and I rip apart
this shirt of fear
they have sewn to cover
my naked thought,
for I am a woman.

I make love to the god of war
to bury
the ancient sword of his anger.
I make war on the dark god
that the light of my name
may shine,
for I am a woman.

With love in one hand,
labor in the other,
I fashion the world
on the ground of my glorious brilliance,
and into a bed
of clouds I tuck
the scent of my smile,
that the sweet smelling rain
may bring to blossom
all the loves of the world,
for I am a woman.

My children I bring
to the feast of light,
my men
to the feast of awareness,
for I am a woman.

I am the earth’s steady purity,
the enduring glory of time,
for I am human.

Cross posted on The Poetry in the Politics and The Politics in The Poetry

Posted in Iran, literature | Tagged | 2 Comments

Eating Lunch While I Wait for Students and Think about Writing and Character

So it’s a turkey and Muenster cheese sandwich, a half pound of tomato-feta-and-cucumber salad, a brownie for dessert and pecking away a few sentences at a time here while I wait for students from my freshman composition class to come for documented essay consultations. I set this time aside to go over a draft with them in as much detail as I have time for and that their drafts deserve because they will not have the time to rewrite the essay after I have given it a grade. (My policy is that students can rewrite almost anything for a better grade as long as they hand it in to me according to the timeline defined in my syllabus; there’s just not time for that this close to the end of the semester.)

I had conferences scheduled on Wednesday and Thursday of last week too–today is Monday, and it’s about 1 PM where I am–and out of three freshman comp classes, of about 20 students each, exactly 6 showed up. I could, I realize, require students to sign up for these conferences, but at this point in the semester, frankly, I am tired and I don’t have that much energy to invest in trying to get people who don’t care enough to come on their own to care about the paper they are trying to write. (I realize this is a little unfair; that there may be people who care but are sincerely busy enough that they won’t schedule the time unless they have an appointment, but those are not the majority of my students.) In fact, here is a student come to talk to me right now. Back in a minute.

///

I’m back, and it makes me happy to be able to say that the student who left my office is a real success story this semester. She is not likely to get better than a C+, but considering that she started out failing almost every assignment I gave, that she was convinced she just did not have it in her to write a competent essay, that C+ will represent more learning than most students accomplish. If I could give her a grade based purely on the amount of progress she has made and the effort she has clearly put into the draft we just reviewed, I would give her an A, or at least a B+.

Ironically, though, this student’s success illustrates very nicely what I wanted to write about when I started this post, except that when I started I wanted to use the students who haven’t been showing up as my starting point.

When I applied for promotion to full professor last year, one of the things I had to do was write a brief statement of my teaching philosophy. This was my favorite part of putting my promotion proposal together because, while I have been teaching for nearly 25 years and of course have had a philosophy (or philosophies) during all that time, this was the first time I’d ever had to articulate what matters most to me about the teaching of writing, understood both as the process and the product of what I do in the classroom. This, in part, is what I wrote:

To learn to write well is to pursue a connection between your facility with language and the content, intellectual and otherwise, of your character. I do not mean by this that people who cannot write well have no character or that writing is the only way in which people can show their character. I mean, simply, that you cannot write well if you do not make this connection, because not to make it is to fail, as a writer, in holding yourself accountable for the quality of your own thinking. Or, to put it another way, it is to fail to take your own intellect seriously. As a teacher, primarily of writing but also of literature, I measure my success not in how many A’s or B’s I give out—since grades reflect the surface of learning, not necessarily its quality—but in whether my students have begun to take on the responsibility not simply of having ideas, but of having the audacity, because we lie to our students if we do not acknowledge that it takes courage, to attempt to communicate those ideas in words compelling enough to command a reader’s attention above and beyond the fact that they were written in response to a classroom assignment…. As writers, we exercise this responsibility—we hold ourselves accountable—most obviously through the process of revision. In order for revision to be meaningful, however, in order for revision even to be possible, a writer must have a sufficient stake in what she or he is attempting to revise that the work of seeing it anew feels both worthwhile and necessary.

I originally wanted to write about how frustrating and debilitating it is to have so many students who, no matter how hard I try to craft their assignments so that they can pick topics in which they have a stake, apparently do not take this responsibility at all seriously; it is a pleasure to have written instead about one who clearly does.

Cross posted on The Politics in the Poetry, The Poetry in the Politics.

 

Posted in Education | 1 Comment

Why Barack Won't Get Angry

Barack Obama as Nat XOne of the truly annoying memes among my fellow lefties has been the recurring demand that Barack Obama get angry.

“Why won’t he fight the right?” goes the mantra, as if Obama pushing through a health care plan and massive, successful stimulus in the face of absolute and complete Republican opposition does not equal fighting. “When will Barack get angry, and start demanding that the GOP capitulate to our demand for an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the passage of the DREAM act, an unlimited extension of unemployment benefits, tax increases on the rich, single-payer health care, net neutrality, a pony in every pot, and the freeing of Mumia?”

If Obama will just “get angry,” the narrative goes, all that Republican obstinateness will fall away like the roof of the Metrodome. And Democrats will get everything we’ve ever wanted, immediately, the end.

There are two things badly wrong with this narrative. The first is that Barack’s anger and will are all that’s needed to shake loose a Republican blockade on political action that will only intensify now that it’s been ratified by a majority of Americans. Barack yelling at Susan Collins won’t make her vote for DADT repeal. Indeed, the only thing that appears to have her close to voting for DADT is the potential passage of the tax deal that is the biggest sell-out in the history of history; if DADT does get repealed, it will be only because Obama dared to compromise.

But the second major reason that Obama won’t get angry is that he can’t.

I’m not saying that Barack Obama is Spock; clearly, the man is capable of anger just like he’s capable of any other emotion. But he can’t show that anger.

In the New York Times, Ishmael Reed lays out exactly why:

Progressives have been urging the president to “man up” in the face of the Republicans. Some want him to be like John Wayne. On horseback. Slapping people left and right.

One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.

What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

Barack Obama is black. And while the right wing tried to claim his election ushered in a post-racial America, anyone with a passing familiarity with this country knew better. America is much less racist than it was in 1950, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a racist nation. And one of the great racist tropes is that of the Angry Black Man.

Barack Obama was able to win in 2008 in no small part because he has learned how not to fall into the trap of appearing too threatening. The level of racism aimed at Obama has been shocking to anyone paying attention; how much worse would it be had Obama given in to the temptation to yell at his opponents? You think the right enjoyed picking out the worst of Jeremiah Wright? Just imagine if Obama had hollered, as John Boehner did on the floor of the House, “Hell no”?

Obama has to keep his cool. Even when angry and frustrated, he speaks calmly and rationally. He doesn’t have a choice — if he steps over the line, he’ll be destroyed.

That doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t “fight” — he has to stand up to the GOP from time to time. And yes, I think we can all point out times when Obama has made poor opening gambits, or chosen to emphasize something that shouldn’t have been. And we can discuss that strategy rationally, discuss how Obama can really go after the right — and how we can help him.

But we can’t demand that the strategy be self-destructive. Barack Obama isn’t going to get angry, because the result of that is a cure worse than the disease. You and I, however, are free to get as angry as we want. And maybe, rather than demand Barack start yelling, we should start yelling instead.

Posted in Elections and politics, Race, racism and related issues | 52 Comments

The View From My Window

So, it’s a beautiful day here in Minnesota.

The really great part comes once the snow stops; at that point, we get temperatures around -15° F, with wind chills around -30° F.

Gotta love this state. I guess.

Posted in Whatever | 4 Comments

Open Thread and Link Farm: Darren Tends To Self-Sabotage Edition

This is an open thread. Post what you like, how you like, and while wearing whatever clothing you like. Self-linking is so welcome, it can even sit in my special chair.

I had my left big toenail removed Monday, a casualty of moving my mom’s desk in bare feet (stupid, stupid, stupid). This is only six months after my right big toenail had to be removed, after accidentally kicking a metal chair. (It’s mostly grown back now.) This has been a terrible year for my toenails. Anyhow, some links:

  1. Health Care Is Elizabeth Edwards’ Legacy
  2. Rodger Ebert on living life with no voice.
  3. 5 Myths About Innate Gender Differences
  4. CBO Estimates DREAM Act Will Reduce The Deficit By $1.4 Billion Over Ten Years
  5. Sometimes, Scientists are Furries (with a terrific photo)
  6. Electronic cigarettes win in court against the FDA
  7. Sexism in “Stargate Universe”
  8. Gabrielle Bell explains how she makes her comics. This seems about right to me.
  9. Very interesting article on why Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine refuses to engage in formal dialogue with Hillel. (Via).
  10. Jennifer Lee’s webcomic Dicebox gets a deservedly wonderful write-up on io9: “Gender-bending migrant workers of space.”
  11. Taser breakthrough: 9th circuit rules that police don’t have the right to shoot citizens full of electricity without cause.
  12. The Story of Hanukkah, in PowerPoint format.
  13. The Leather Archives & Museum is seeking to compile resources about fetishes that we don’t usually hear about.
  14. Highlights from TEDWomen Session 2: Feministing.com, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, and A Call To Men
  15. The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of “Writers Block” (circa 1974)
  16. Osamu Tezuka worked really, really, really, really, really, really, really hard. “Tezuka is very likely the hardest working cartoonist of all time. We see him draw two pages in the car on the way to an airport and three pages on the plane ride.”

(TV screencaps via Damn Cool Pics.)

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Link farms | 6 Comments

SlowpokeBlog Flashback: On Obama

Two years later, I find it interesting to read what I wrote about Obama on the eve of the 2008 Virginia primary:

Tomorrow is the Virginia primary, and for the first time ever I am considering intentionally not voting… The trouble is, neither Obama nor Hillary have shown solid progressive leadership. Both of them pander to the right to the point of grotesquery. I could almost forgive Obama his weak health care plan even though that issue is extremely important to me, but that “Harry and Louise” ad was so wildly irresponsible, it really made me question his judgment. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama used his rhetorical talents to promote a real health care plan? He has also repeated right-wing lies about there being a Social Security “crisis”; his praise of Ronald Reagan was steeped in gauzy right-wing frames about the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s; and his campaign actually created an oppo page about Paul Krugman, a true-blue progressive hero whose intellectual integrity I greatly admire… Obama has been so reckless in his approach to these bedrock issues that I simply don’t trust him. Sorry to rain on the hope parade, people, but there it is.

I actually admire Obama for what he managed to accomplish on health insurance — but aside from that, I’d say my misgivings were justified. Not that you’ll ever see me as a vaunted TV pundit.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on SlowpokeBlog Flashback: On Obama

In Defense Of The Tax Cut Compromise

There’s a lot I’d criticize Obama for: His Bush-like despotic abuse of civil liberties and presidential powers when it comes to US prisoners, for example, is nothing less than loathsome. His ridiculous habit of making concessions to Republicans in return for nothing. His government’s attack on Wikileaks. His refusal to make the filibuster an issue (although here the majority of blame rightly belongs to Harry Reid). His lack of leadership on climate change, the most important issue of this century. (Although here, again, the Senate deserves most of the blame).

So I’m hoping this post won’t lead to accusations that I’m a mindless Obama-worshipers, etc..

But this week’s tax deal isn’t something I’ll hate on Obama for.

Because it’s a good deal.

The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.

That’s $125 billion in the tax cuts Republicans wanted, and $246-$396 billion of the tax cuts Democrats wanted. Frankly, that’s about $200-$300 billion dollars better than I expected. (It’s likely that Congress will wind up changing these numbers somewhat before the final bill is signed, but the baseline has been changed in a very positive direction). Overall, imperfect though it is, it’s more stimulus than anyone expected — and stimulus for the economy should be a higher priority than either deficit-cutting, or tax fairness, until unemployment drops to reasonable levels.

I think we might have gotten a better deal if the Democrats in the Senate had been standing firm on taxes over the last month, rather than a whole bunch of them being obviously and publicly weak on blocking the extra tax cuts for the rich. That wasn’t Obama’s fault, but it put him in a bad bargaining position.

And nonetheless, Obama walked away with a much better than expected bargain.

I know that the press thinks otherwise, and Republicans think otherwise. That’s because both the press and the Republicans are fools. They don’t do the math; they just pay attention to who won the news cycle. Well, Republicans won this week’s news cycle. But they lost on the numbers.

Paul Krugman writes:

President Obama did, after all, extract more concessions than most of us expected. […] All of this is very much second-best policy: consumers would probably spend only part of the payroll tax break, and it’s unclear whether the business break would do much to spur investment given the excess capacity in the economy. Still, it would be a noticeable net positive for the economy next year. […]

This political reality makes the tax deal a bad bargain for Democrats. Think of it this way: The deal essentially sets up 2011-2012 to be a repeat of 2009-2010. Once again, there would be initial benefits from the stimulus, and decent growth a year before the election. But as the stimulus faded, growth would tend to stall — and this stall would, once again, come in the months leading up to the election, with seriously negative consequences for Mr. Obama and his party.

Krugman’s argument is that even if though the compromise is more than he thought Obama would be able to get, and “would be a noticeable net positive for the economy next year,” it could also lead to electoral trouble in two year’s time.

First of all, that amounts to criticizing Obama for taking a deal that’s good for the country even if it’s not ideal for the Democrats politically. Since when is putting the country’s needs first the wrong thing to do?

Secondly, the politics of this aren’t as clear-cut as Krugman claims (Krugman is an authority on economics, not on politics). The problem in 2010 wasn’t that the “recovery” had stalled; it was that the recovery only existed on paper and in corporate balance sheets, but not in the areas that ordinary Americans care about. The unemployment rate didn’t drop, and in general people don’t have any more money to spend or feel less economically vulnerable.

If we see some real economic improvement — dropping unemployment, more security, more spending money — then the Democrats will be in a stronger position for the 2012 election, even if things level off before November 2012.

And if that doesn’t happen, my bet is that things like the payroll tax cut get extended another year. Extending tax cuts for the majority of working Americans during a time of economic crisis is not the most difficult political lift in the world. But if Republicans want to fight for raising every working American’s taxes with just 10 months to go until the 2012 elections, would that really hurt the Democrats in 2012?

Posted in crossposted on TADA, Economics and the like, Elections and politics, In the news | 15 Comments

Barry's Interview On KBOO

Here’s my interview on KBOO. Thanks to interviewer, host, and man-about-town SW Conser — I’ve done interviews before, but this was my first live interview, and he made it easy.

Click to hear the interview!

Posted in Hereville | 1 Comment

Hanukkah Post on Jewish Identity, Jewish Fantasy, and People of the Book: a Decade of Jewish Science Fiction & Fantasy

SFF Chat put together a series of essays by Jewish writers for this Hanukkah series. I’m honored to have been included, with an essay about the process of editing People of the Book: A Decade of Jewish Science Fiction and Fantasy (available on Amazon).

Some sample quotes:

When I was eleven, I remember a boy my age asking, “So which is it? Are you an atheist or a Jew?”

His tone was one of skeptical indignation. He was clearly intimating that he’d caught me in a lie because I’d described myself as both. The weird thing was that my perspective immediately flipped to his. Even as I explained that the situation was more complicated than either/or, that I was both Jewish and an atheist, I saw him as right. I saw myself as a liar.

I suppose that was a tiny fragment of what W. E. B. DuBois describes as double consciousness—a “sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others.”…

I mention all of this to work my way toward the context of how I understand the question with which Michael Weingrad, writing in the Jewish Review of Books, perturbed the internet (or at least my corner of it) several months ago—”Why Is There No Jewish Narnia?”

Weingrad wonders why “amidst all the initiatives to solve the crisis in Jewish continuity, no one has yet proposed commissioning a Jewish fantasy series that might plumb the theological depths like Lewis or at least thrill Jewish preteens with tales of Potterish derring-do.”…

Others have challenged Weingrad’s assertions in detail, but at this late point in the discussion, I have to admit that my central response to Weingrad is to wonder whether the entire problem is definitional. Weingrad appears to be defining the fantasy genre in such a way that it excludes most Jewish fantasy. Most secondary world fantasy by Jewish authors doesn’t count because it’s not theologically based in the way Lewis’s Narnia is based in Christianity. And apparently for Weingrad, Jewish primary world fantasy doesn’t evoke the same sense of wonder as Rowling’s Harry Potter.

It seems to me that Weingrad defines fantasy by the terms of Christian writers, and then wonders why Jewish doesn’t look exactly like Christian fantasy does.

Well, why should it?

Why is primacy and centrality given to Narnia but not Kafka?

Why is Christian fantasy taken on its own terms, but Jewish fantasy compared to a Christian default?

Read the rest at SFF Chat.

There’s also a book giveaway going on over there. Leave your name and email in comments and SFF Chat will enter you to win a free copy of People of the Book.

Posted in Whatever | Comments Off on Hanukkah Post on Jewish Identity, Jewish Fantasy, and People of the Book: a Decade of Jewish Science Fiction & Fantasy

Barry to be interviewed on “Word & Pictures” radio show on Thursday

The press release from Words & Pictures, a Portland radio show devoted to comics:

Tomorrow morning (Thursday December 9th) from 11:30am to noon (PDT), Words & Pictures celebrates its seventh anniversary on the air by returning to its local roots. This month’s guest is up-and-coming Portland author Barry Deutsch, who’s just published his first graphic novel Hereville: How Mirka Got Her Sword, the adventures of a troll-fighting eleven-year-old Orthodox Jewish girl.

Words & Pictures airs on KBOO community radio, 90.7fm, Not near a radio? You can listen to the real-time webstream at http://kboo.fm/listen via iTunes or Abacast. And look for the webcast version on KBOO’s home page shortly after the show airs.

More info and links to recent webcasts can be found at http://www.tooningin.com

Jake Richmond, Hereville’s colorist, will be there as well. Should be fun!

Posted in Hereville, Syndicated feeds | 1 Comment