A little while ago, I edited this piece for the Current about Chabad in India, and specifically about the odd fact that a network of hostels and synagogues maintained by an ultra-orthodox sect serves as a home-away-from-home for the 40,000 or so  mostly-secular Israelis who travel to India each year. I’m willing to bet that a good percentage of the Israelis who had backpacked India over the past five years stopped in the Mumbai Chabad house–and I’m willing to bet that most, if not all of those people met Rabbi and Mrs. Holtzberg.

As the Current article explains, the Israeli attraction to Chabad in India represents a paradoxical sort of homecoming: Israelis go to India to escape Judaism-saturated Israel, and end up returning to the very thing they thought they were escaping from. The Holtzbergs probably didn’t think much about the sociology that underlies this–hospitality, teaching and community was what had brought them to perhaps the farthest outpost in all of Chabad. And arguably, it’s what got them killed.

Last night, Columbia’s Chabad house held a short memorial event for the victims of the Mumbai attacks, with a focus on those killed at the sect’s Mumbai center. Journalism school Prof. Samuel Freedman spoke, as did University Chaplain Jewell Davis. Probably the most moving part of the service was a jarring 20-minute video on the Holtzbergs (EDIT: special thanks to Rabbi Blum for passing this link along. It’s required, heartbreaking viewing…), who basically built Mumbai’s Chabad house from a single room in a downtown hotel to a five-storey school, synagogue, daycare center and hotel capable of serving thousands of travelers each year.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday night the two top economic advisers for Obama-Biden ’08 and McCain-Palin ’08, Austan Goolsbee and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, respectively, met in Roone Arledge Auditorium to debate the economic issues that are so prominent in the minds of voters. The moderators were four Columbia faculty members, each with various levels of economic expertise (Richard Clarida, Janet Currie, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford). It was hard to predict what would happen—would the event consist of dull, roundabout conversation, too much economic jargon, a reenactment of the presidential debates? Fortunately, the debate was surprisingly entertaining. The line of argumentation was more direct and focused than what we got in the presidential debates. The questions from the faculty members and audience were specific and pointed at particular policy issues of each campaign. Moreover, the differences between the Republican and Democratic plans could not have been more obvious.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last night, three local bands attracted a huge turn-out in the basement of the Beta House on 114th Fraternity Row. The event, Beta Jam, held every semester, provides opportunity for local bands to get some decent exposure on campus.

The line-up started with Beta’s own The Stolen Cars (pictured left) who did well to warm up the event with some up-beat, catchy tunes.

The next girl had all eyes on her. Sarah Dooley, who spends most of the time watching goonies at her house, performed some of her originals and four well-received Sarah Dooley-esque covers of Nelly’s Hot in Herre, Aretha Franklin’s Natural Woman, MIA’s Paper Planes (although Dooley regretted not having a gun to make the gunshot sounds in the chorus) and an interesting cover of the great Michael Jackson’s Thriller.

The show wrapped up with indie/folk-y band The Kitchen Cabinet, with lead vocalist Ashraya Gupta, Cindy Lou Gooden, Rob Stenson and Michael Molina. Their performance marked their first anniversary since the band started up. The band’s unassuming sound and ability to get the crowd tapping their toes and at one point, joining in with the singing, made for a great community atmosphere (which also let the band laugh off a few entertaining mess-ups).

Sadly, Columbia does very little for local bands trying to get onto their feet. Lerner recently opened up Live at Lerner, but they are asking us to show the ends without the providing the means. That is, Columbia is slowly opening up to bands performing more often on campus, but without providing them the means to practice. On campus, you are only permitted to use a practice room with a drum set if and only if you are part of Washburn’s Jazz Program. If not, tough titties. Go find a practice room somewhere else and have fun lugging around your kit. Why Columbia does not feel compelled to accommodate for the musical community here is a question I ask myself everyday.

Although it probably ranks below his various invasions, wars, purges and assassinations–and certainly below this delightful YouTube video–there’s one entry that no Vladamir Putin highlight reel can do without: his brazen dioxin attack on then-opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko during Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution.” Brazen is putting it mildly: with the world literally held captive by one of the most inspiring political events in the relatively short yet infinitely complicated history of the Russian post-Soviet sphere, Putinite goons launched a chemical attack on a leader who was briefly the face of a region ready to chart its own political and historical course. In an eerily fitting metaphor for things to come, that face was permanently marred.

The summer of ‘04 turned Yushchenko into an international sensation, and the summer of ‘08 has thrust his country into an unenviable strategicposition. By far the biggest political victim of Russia’s newfound assertiveness are the put pro-western democrats who Moscow has more than symbolically put on notice. It is for these reasons that Victor Yuschenko’s appearance at this year’s World Leader’s Forum was looking like the event of the semester, and why it was so disappointing to see it pulled from the WLF’s schedule a couple of days ago.

But alas–even Fair Alma is subject to the whims of the outside world. Alla Rachkov, who is in charge of programming at the Harriman Institute, explained that political pressures in his home country forced Yuschenko to shorten his visit to New York. “The government is kind of falling apart,” she said, adding that PrezYu break from the political crisis state (oblast?)-side leaves him with just enough time to attend bilateral meetings at the UN. “Leaders need a 3-4 hour chunk to speak at Columbia” she said, adding that there’s still a chance that Yuschenko’s schedule will allow him a WLF appearance. Keep your fingers crossed.

Meanwhile, it’s looking like law alum and beleaguered Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili could be the first leader to speak at the WLF twice. Rachkov says that the Saakashvili–who is controversial both for his handling of the situation in South Ossetia and his suspension of his country’s constitution last year–is planning on coming to New York, and has been invited to come to Columbia. Again: keep your fingers crossed. And keep checking the WLF site for updates.

By way of an introduction to my take on this past weekend’s 1968 festivities, a look at my friend Pierce Stanley’s impression of things over at Bwog. There’s nothing here that I disagree with, per se. I attended four or five panels and sessions, heard Mark Rudd speak twice, saw a probably stoned Tom Hayden give a grim assessment of the legacy of ‘68 (and if you think I’m being unfair…well, you just have to have been there Thursday night, I guess), and learned about “faction fights,” “Maoism,” and other discarded relics of the late-60s left. So after my own ‘68-centric weekend, I think that Pierce was correct in characterizing most of the event’s participants as single-minded and out of touch.

But in the interest of fairness–they weren’t there to commemorate the greater society’s reaction to them, but to commemorate their own by-now mythologized (and, of course, self-mythologized) reaction to the greater society. Paradoxically, we shouldn’t be so closed minded as to reject an event just because it offers only one side of the story. Besides which, the ‘68ers self-valorization is interesting enough on its own, itself part and parcel–albeit inadvertently–of the weighty historical issues that were discussed with such infuriating selectivity.

So Pierce is right. But the ‘68 weekend wasn’t totally undone by its glut of self-congratulation. If anything, it’s that self-congratulation that made this such a zany and, subsequently, memorable event to begin with.

The ‘68 reunion concerned itself with a few, variously interesting Big Ideas: the legacy of 60s activism, the dissolution of the New Left in the wake of the Nixon retrenchment, Columbia’s attitude towards Harlem, the Academy’s attitude towards war, and, most pervasively, the enduring (yet qualified) virtues of 60s radicalism and radicalism in general. These are interesting issues to ponder, but since this event was a four-day push for historical vindication, the only relevant question here is whether or not the ‘68ers deserve it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Just a fad, apparently. Or maybe the dazzling rhetorical performances of Columbia’s most level-headed Israel-basher led me to forget that ours is a campus of not-so level-headed Israel-bashers, outspoken and intellectually-muddled followers of Fanon and Foucault–people undoubtedly more interested in cheerleading than honest discussion (with one notable exception, which I’ll link to later).

Take, for instance, next Monday’s panel discussion on the 60th anniversary of the 1948 Middle East War (at Schermerhorn from 7-9…but get there at 6:30 if you want a seat), an event in which ten Arab armies invaded Israel’s partition-era borders and began a war that resulted in the creation of around 650,000 Arab refugees. Whether they were directly expelled or indirectly displaced by fighting speaks more to the moral ambiguities of war than to any genocidal impulse at the heart of the Zionist enterprise–although it’s certainly tempting to sound-byte (i.e., completely and misleadingly decontextualize) early quotes from Jabotsinksy or Ben Gurion and argue otherwise. And it’s just as easy to do what David Judd did in an article earlier this year, and conveniently ignore that Israel was, in fact, faced with extinction in 1948.

Read the rest of this entry »

The annual Columbia University National Undergraduate Film Festival kicked off last night with Gossip Girl actor Connor Paolo hosting the sold-out event. After a few technical difficulties that no campus event can seem to ever avoid, Paolo’s small stature and 1990 birth-year became irrelevant as he came out with some rather smooth hosting skills. (Did he get trained to do that?) Although, sometimes acting (pun intended) a little too old for his age, his jokes came across as a little too Billy-Crystal-hosting-the-Academy-Awards-esque for my liking.

As for the films, there was a good variety, although Harvard-Westlake entry Ticklish was somewhat questionable. Awards were given out rather liberally (and diplomatically) in the end and it seemed like “everyone’s a winner“ was the rule of the night. The coveted Best Picture Award went to Sweet Jesus, which I thought was the meatiest of the 10 films shown. Set at a Catholic school, the film dealt with different cultures in a rather cutesy way and the risk of using child actors was proven well worthwhile: the two lead actresses performed remarkably well. Sweet Jesus also took Best Directed and the audience-selected Concord Award–all of which were the only cash prizes given out.

In one of the films, Three Syllables, a certain Alex Mack (aka Larisa Oleynik) surprisingly starred as a behind-the-counter smoke shop lady who is regularly approached by a young guy who was a little too good-looking compared to Oleynik (who doesn’t really look like her prime anymore, but I still love her for inviting me to her Secret World every day after school).

The festival ended with an almost empty room (nobody cares about the winners these days) and a rather flustered host, trying to control the restless audience (who, come to think of it, probably wished they had left with the others). I later saw young Paolo at a fraternity-hosted party that night with his little entourage. I was generally impressed with his demeanour and I think he handled himself nicely at both the event and at the lackluster party last night. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), Paolo himself plans to go to NYU.

Eight ten Democratic Congressmen received images of the military recruitment center right before it was attacked, and, now, we have more details about what exactly the congressmen were sent.

Oh, and it turns out, the perps were anti-war zealots or “activists,” as the Left calls them. Who’s surprised?

The manilla envelopes contained a photo of a (now identified) man standing in front of the recruiting station — like the kind one might receive over the holidays — and it said, “Happy New Year. We did it.” The packets also contained about ten pages of anti-war rhetoric, which he signed, and some type of a booklet.

However, MSBNC says that the letters and the bombings are unrelated. How they can discount the anti-Iraq manifesto … who knows?

But this is a classic MSNBC response. I think “We did it” pretty much clinches it. Most likely, it was this guy and whoever else was with him — somebody had to take the photo. [Could these guys be making a comeback? -ed.]

American politics is a dog and pony show of the lowest order. Despite the worldwide coverage our presidential elections generate, the attention is hardly deserved. It’s not rocket science; it’s not even political science.

The high-minded among us would like the democratic process to be a contest of ideologies fought in the halls of power. Instead, a presidential campaign is a bare-knuncle brawl between two beauty queens with enornous sums of cash and a legion of expensive stylists. Are you smarter than a 5th Grader? If so, try to tone it down. All that fancy policy talk won’t fly at the Iowa State Fair or Koop’s Frozen Custard.

How do I know? I worked on the frontlines of the 2004 presidential race in Seattle, Washington. Seattle is the most educated city in the United States, where more than 25 percent of residents have at least a bachelors degree. It’s also one of the bluest enclaves on the West Coast. In spite of these fact I heard an unimaginable litany of irrational, inarticulate reasons why people were voting for George W. Bush and why they couldn’t stand John Kerry. Ideas had nothing to do with it.

Pop quiz: how did the Kennedy clan first make its money? If you answered bootlegging and other questionable activities, you are a winner. While we love the notion of Camelot or the image of John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father’s casket, the reality of our politician’s private lives is something different entirely. We should be distrustful of any person who claims to want to lead us, but instead we follow politicians like sunflowers in the early morning light.

Read the rest of this entry »

Lecture junkies (and I know you’re out there…or not), tomorrow could be one of the best days of the semester. Here’s why:

A softer, gentler middle east studies controversy. As far as middle eastern studies tiffs go, the one over Yinon Cohen’s recent appointment as the Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies barely registers on the tiff-o-meter. Cohen has written extensively about labor trends and social inequality in Israel; he is center-left, but not anti-Zionist or even aggressively anti-Israel. Yet according to a mailer from a blogger who’s been keeping track of developments within Columbia middle eastern studies, the search for an endowed Israel studies professor involved Rashid Khalidi and Lila Abu Lughod, neither of whom are friends of Israel. At Columbia, it’s an open question whether an Israel studies professorship can, y’know, study Israel without being sucked into the hysterical agitprop that’s turned MEALAC into something of a national disgrace–for some, it’s an open question whether Columbia wants to even study Israel at all. Those of you interested in seeing if the tides have turned–and in sizing up the new top Israel scholar on campus–should definitely check out this event tomorrow. It doesn’t hurt that the topic is pretty fascinating.

And a war that’s neither soft nor gentle. Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel prize-winning economist whose work with the Committee and Global Thought has involved globalization, conflict zones, and other topics relevant to America’s Iraq quagmire. Michael Massing is the most interesting, evenhanded and intelligent commentator on Iraq working today, while the vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs is, well, the vice chairman of Goldman Sachs. This is a chance to hear a couple of top experts discuss a depressing afterthought to an overall depressing Middle Eastern saga: the economic cost of America’s invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Get the congressional treatment...even before Congress does!

Are you a policy wonk? No matter. Tomorrow’s panel on the sub-prime shakeup includes an economist from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, although it sucks that one of the few chances to hear some intelligent, ideologically-fueled debate on this campus involves an issue that non-econ majors probably know nothing about. But hey, it’s never too late to educate yourselves, right Art History majors? And do give Chris Kulawik a hug for me...