You’re invited to an input session, but don’t you dare have any input

On Saturday I was invited to an "informational input session" sponsored by St. Claude Main Street (SCMS) and its design partner, Tulane City Center (TCC). The event was to address the "pocket park" and "parklet" they're planning to install in my neighborhood.

"If you're interested in contributing..."

At the time, I was on the sidewalk talking to my neighbor and her friend when an SCMS representative came up to us and asked if we had received flyers about the info session. I had not, so she gave me the flyer and two other documents about the projects (pictured).

Discussion quickly turned to other neighborhood concerns, and my neighbor’s friend started telling us about a major pothole in the middle of her street.

“I think I’m about to fall in it one of these days,” she said.

But rather than listening and taking the opportunity to consider this resident’s “informational input,” or offer referral services to one of SCMS' many "neighborhood partners," the SCMS representative excused herself quietly and walked away from the conversation.

For all your neighborhood mini-transit hub needs

[Not to be nitpicky but if it is true, as it states on their website, that “it is a goal of St. Claude Main Street to improve the ground-level conditions on the St. Claude corridor,” I would imagine that pothole awareness falls under the purview of this mission!]

Afterwards, my neighbor wondered aloud why they weren’t building a park in the other empty lot on our block, the one which abuts N. Rampart, a quieter, less-trafficked street than St. Claude. “Yeah,” I agreed with her. “If people want to bring their kids and dogs to a park, they probably want a safer location than right off St. Claude.”

But of course, the lot in question on Independence and St. Claude is owned by Maurice Slaughter, an SCMS Board member. I do not know if SCMS considered other lots for the “pocket park” plan, but the use of this lot in particular begs a number of as-yet unanswered questions about the implications of creating a “public” park on privately owned land.

For example, who will be responsible for its maintenance? Will there be rules for its use, including limited hours of access? What happens to the park if the owner wants to sell the land?

According to a 2012 Tulane City Center brochure entitled “Vacant Land – Site Strategies for New Orleans”:

The implementation of a pocket park has the potential for strong community use, greater civic pride, improvements in real estate value, and increased quality of life. However, the potential downside of pocket parks are nearly the opposite of the upside if they are not cared for or are used for illicit activities. For this reason, establishing pocket parks should be approached with much consideration to the desire and capacity of a neighborhood to support such a site as well as the committment [sic] of a community organization to maintain a permanent neighborhood amenity. 

As I’ve written before, I don’t think the “desire” of my neighborhood to host a pocket park has been adequately established. The “Community Survey” distributed by SCMS and TCC even says explicitly that the questionnaire is a “great tool for beginning to understand what residents in neighborhoods along St. Claude Avenue are concerned with and excited about in their community.” Why, after so much time, partnering, and planning, and with the promise of “final designs complete by July 2013,” are these institutions only beginning to understand what we want?

Why also does the survey ask such leading and obvious questions as “How important [is lighting]…to a safe and useful public space?” The answer options from which a survey participant may choose are “Very Important,” “Somewhat Important,” “No Impact,” and “Not Important.” What is the difference here between “No Impact” and “Not Important?” Who would say that lighting is not important to a safe and useful public space?

Why do we need an area info map if we already live here?

Additionally, the survey asks what the respondent would choose as the “best use of public space” for the Independence Street pocket park. The options given are “Garden space,” “Play space,” “Open park space,” “Sitting areas,” and a tiny area to answer the question, “What else?”

The lot is empty – its only use in the past three years has been for an SCMS night market - which seems to indicate that it already exists, albeit unofficially, as “open park space” in the neighborhood. Actually I’m mistaken - the lot is empty except for a large wooden sign advertising a Slaughter family real estate company, potentially (intentionally?) leading passersby to conclude that the lot itself is for sale.

I’m also concerned about the “improvements in real estate value” piece, given that the lot in question is privately owned (and apparently for sale) by an SCMS Board member. He also owns a number of properties in the area, including a planned gallery across the street from the lot, two houses on the same block of Independence Street, and another on St. Claude between Independence and Pauline. This is a man who has a lot of financial interest in the neighborhood, despite the fact that he lives in Virginia.

If the park is installed on his lot, the real estate values of that lot and his other properties on the block will increase. This may provide more incentive for him to sell the pocket park land, leaving its future status uncertain.

SCMS’s director, Michael T. Martin, has repeatedly stated that his group works with many different neighborhood associations to ascertain and respond to neighborhood concerns. But so far all SCMS has undertaken are severely deficient and token efforts at neighborhood outreach and input solicitation. This suggests that a concerned resident must become a dues-paying member of a neighborhood association in order to be validated as a stakeholder in these projects.

Neighborhood associations are not synechdochically representative of the larger neighborhood: its residents, workers, renters, library patrons, parents of students, and so on. Voices of certain stakeholders like developers and landowners are heard much louder than others. This is why someone like Maurice Slaughter, who doesn’t even live in Louisiana, is afforded so much sway in groups like SCMS and the Bywater Neighborhood Association, in which he used to be a Board member.

I fail to see what is the purpose of participating in “visioning” the parklet process when public input has been reduced to ranking the importance of “Seating” and “Fences” on a limited survey that leaves a tiny space for “Additional Comments.”

Moreover, both of these park plans are marketed as "mini-transit hubs" for the neighborhood, but there is not actually a bus stop on Independence Street. It seems silly to have bike parking and benches a full block away from a bus stop, when the actual stop (on Congress Street) is a high-curbed, nearly impassable sidewalk chewed up by tree roots. I wonder if SCMS plans to have the bus stop moved from nearby Congress or Pauline Streets, or it doesn't intend for bus riders to use the park space at all.

Furthermore, some information on the handouts was conflicting, especially the commitment level to the proposed “parklet” at St. Claude and Desire. On one flyer, the parklet is referred to as “potentially” under construction in the near future, and on another, it says the parklet “will be located at a busy bus stop and adjacent to the bike lane that runs along St. Claude,” and it “will provide seating,” etc. When I reached out to him about this, Michael T. Martin said that the landowner’s approval was still pending for that space. I said that it seemed SCMS was going to do what it pleased regardless of any outside constructively critical input it received. In response, he told me I could “feel free to include [my] input on what should be in the park on that sheet of paper.” 

It's insulting to someone who actually lives here.

Crime at the farmers market

I was walking to the Sankofa farmers market on St. Claude this morning and had almost arrived when I saw a police officer forcibly pushing a young black man against the wall of the school where the market takes place. I watched as the officer handcuffed the man and then led him over to the police car parked on adjacent Pauline Street.

The cop pulled a number of items, including a fistful of cash, from the man’s pocket, all of which he put on the top of the car’s trunk. Pushing him into a seated position, he then instructed the man to get in the car.

Steve Earle gets his 5-a-day at a recent farmers market

Though I was about 10 feet away from the whole interaction, I did not hear the officer inform the man why he was being detained, if he was being arrested, or what his rights were if he were in fact under arrest. The officer repeatedly asked the man where “the drugs” were, to which the man kept replying that he didn’t have any.

After the man was inside the police car with the door closed, the cop asked me if I had seen the man running from him earlier. “No,” I told him. “I only saw you pushing him against the wall.”

“Well, he has drugs. You don’t see the drugs anywhere?”

“No, sorry,” I said.

A few more cops pulled up soon after, and some of them started looking around the lawn where the farmers market was set up. They told the vendors, including student workers, that they were looking for “a baggie of weed,” and that we should try to prevent children from finding it.

The whole thing was like an outtake from COPS: Amateur Hour. The police didn’t appear to be following a particular procedure for apprehending the man, confiscating and securing his belongings, and searching for the contraband he allegedly had dumped on the ground. Third-grade aspiring archeologists could have done a better job mapping out quadrants on the lawn and methodically looking for the “baggie,” no offense to third-graders intended.

I’m not sure what happened to the man or the contents of his pockets (especially the cash that was left lying on top of the cop car), or if the involved cops know that the recommended punishment for possessing a small amount of marijuana in the City of New Orleans is a summons, not an arrest. 

I’m pretty sure that whatever benefit to public safety was served by taking this alleged criminal off the streets, was overwhelmed by the negative effect on the student workers at the farmers market who watched yet another incidence of police misconduct against a black man. They were witnesses to the crime of a racist status quo.

And while I can’t exactly condone drug trafficking on school grounds, I also can’t get down with wack cop behavior. Acts of police aggression do not make us safer. They do not reduce crime and they do not build community. They reinforce structures of violent authority, and that’s just not for sale at the farmers market.

Lenten Challenge, Day 27: Going to the candidates debate

Check out the Lenten Chronicles here!

The following opinions are personal and should not be considered representative of my place of employment.

Last night there was a candidates forum for the upcoming juvenile justice court elections in New Orleans. The event was relevant to my job - I work with court-involved teenagers - and with the promise of "light refreshments," I was good to go.

Little did I know what obscenities were about to unfold.

The four candidates were all middle-ageish with varying degrees of experience with the legal system and youth issues. They were speaking to an audience composed mainly of youth services and advocacy workers and students enrolled in a GED program, a demographic perhaps not ideal for the subsequent conversation about what type of youth can be "rehabilitated" and what type "needed" to be locked up. ["There are lions and tigers and bears that just cannot participate in our society," candidate Doug Hammel theorized. "And there are squirrels and rabbits that can."]

The questions for the candidates had been prepared in advance by the GED students, so they were usefully and amusingly direct: The first was something to the effect of, "What do you see as the role of a judge, aside from locking youth up and setting them free?"

Hammel introduced his credentials by speaking at length about his undergraduate "justice" studies at American University in Washington, DC. Now, I too studied "justice" at a well-regarded Northeastern college, but I in no way feel this qualifies me to be a criminal court judge in Orleans Parish. Actually, I've come to understand how such a pursuit counts against me in certain ways. At this forum, I might have highlighted my experience working with youth, or any other indicator of cultural competency. Obviously another audience member agreed with me; I literally heard someone murmuring, "Yankee go home."

Hammel also discussed his objective to enable children to "have the ability to participate in the school band," which is a goal I don't necessarily oppose, but it ignores the disjointed scholastic experience of many New Orleans children who frequently have to switch schools due to rampant expulsions and incarcerations, mid-year revocations of school charters, and other shuffles in our area public education system. That aside, where is the funding for all this musical training?

The other candidates sounded equally unpromising at first: George "Gino" Gates also played up his Washington, DC-based experience, having advocated extensively for alternative charter schools (aka privatized daytime jails for "bad" kids). Yolanda King talked about her work as a long-term criminal justice prosecutor, sporting an "80% win rate." Cynthia Samuel discussed the importance of not "chipping away at the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment," an extremely good - if awkwardly stated - point. But she went on to sing the praises of so-called child protective services which, in my experience, often do more to pull families apart than to stabilize them.

Throughout the event, I was texting updates from the proceedings to a colleague at another youth services agency. Here is a sampling of our correspondence, edited for clarity:

Me: I'm at the juvenile judge candidates forum and it's offensive.
L: I couldn't do it. Had to sit that one out.
Me: Yeah for real. They're all saying parents are the problem.
...
Me: They're talking about whether they would lock up nonviolent offenders. Two have said absolutely no, which is interesting.
...

Samuel agreed, saying she could not "imagine a circumstance when I would lock up a nonviolent offender. But overnight in jail," she elaborated "...sometimes - and parents should know this but they don't always - you have to be strict with kids...so they understand that you have to follow the rules."

Sure. Just like getting grounded, only they're in FUCKING JAIL.

The candidates continued to undermine parental authority throughout the conversation, King asserting that parenting classes would help parents "figure out what to do with their children so they don't continue to commit crimes."

There was a shared opinion that something is wrong with the child who gets arrested. Rehabilitation is possible, but only if (overworked? underfunded?) social workers, probation officers, teachers, and (stressed out?) parents act in accordance with the judge's wishes. There was little questioning of the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating problems for youth and their families. The law was seen as something absolute and unbiased.

Hammel and Samuel pontificated on the "multifaceted" issues some children have, including untreated emotional problems. Most of the youth I work with are on some kind of medication regimen to treat psychological disorders that the youth don't understand and in many cases can't even name. I would argue that the problem here is not a lack of treatment, but the assumption that the best course of action is to force a child to cooperate with the adverse conditions (poverty, racism, dysfunctional school system, etc) of his environment. In my opinion, it would be more effective to stop crime by interrogating those conditions.

...
Me: Gino Gates just equated getting arrested as a black 13-year-old in New Orleans to the black bar mitzvah, a coming of age ritual. I'm liking him more.
L: Is that real? Did that really happen?
Me: Yup.
...

All the candidates seemed to understand that court-involved youth typically come from distressed circumstances and are themselves products of difficult environments. However when asked more pointedly, the candidates placed the blame for criminal activity squarely on the youth "offenders" and their parents, with jabs thrown at probation officers, social workers, and teachers for not "supporting" the youth enough:

Me: The candidates have all said something about how parents are uneducated and don't know what to do with their kids ever. Probation officers need to be more strict. Gino Gates is talking about how probation should have athletic requirements.
L: Oh Jesus.
Me: I hate it. I want to throw up. I'm sitting behind Dana Kaplan. I can't tell what she's thinking.
...
Me: Nothing yet about the crushing effects of racism, poverty, and police brutality.
L: Haha of course not! Those things have nothing to do with the juvenile justice system.
Me: Oh we got something on probable cause from Gino. Police need to be better trained.
...

Indeed, when asked what they would do to a child who doesn't comply with probationary requirements, such as improved school performance or participation in a counseling program, the candidates all pointed fingers at "the parents," who supposedly need to be educated on what's right for their own children. This conception is extremely unfair, as it establishes a very specific paradigm for successful child-rearing that is not appropriate for all families. It ignores the difficulties particular to impoverished, overworked, single, and/or non-white parents and their children. It is also disrespectful of family structures in which biological parents are not the primary caregivers.

Furthermore, punitive measures that extend to every conceivably problematic area of a youth's life - "wraparound," as we say in the biz - do not alleviate the complexity of the youth's problems so much as create more opportunities for the youth to violate his probation and get in more trouble with a judge. Such measures also conveniently ignore the problems caused by court-involvement itself. Just today I had a client get in trouble with his probation officer for missing an appointment with my agency. The reason why he missed the appointment was because he was given detention at school for missing too much classtime. He missed the classtime because he had been incarcerated.

If this sounds ridiculous to you, it's because it is. Rather than being responsive to the needs of the youth offender, the court expects the youth to comply with a narrowly envisioned model of success. If he can't magically adapt, the youth is discredited as a contributing member of society. It is much easier to accuse an individual of being dysfunctional than an entire system:

Me: Yolanda King says not everyone is college material.
L: Oh my.
Me: Yeah. It's getting real. Hammel is trying to explain why a uniform school expulsion policy is different than zero tolerance.
L: How the eff is it different than zero tolerance??
...
Me: King says she doesn't believe in the school-to-prison pipeline. I think I did throw up. Discretely. In my brain.
L: Hahaha omg omg I'm dying reading this.
Me: I'm glad someone's amused. "Some kids aren't high school material," according to Samuel. We've reached a new depth of despair.
L: WHAT!!!!
...

King proposed that a judge might "get at the roots of a problem through social services and counseling," and the reason why those options sometimes don't work is because "the parents aren't educated" as to why they're important.

L. and I have seen in our work that when youth don't comply with probationary requirements, it often has less to do with parental indifference and more to do with logistics. For example, it may seem optimal or generous to sentence a kid to counseling instead of jail. But when the counseling center is two long bus rides away from the kid's house and he's afraid of certain people that hang in the neighborhood by the center, counseling becomes more of a burden than the "second chance" that so many judges are convinced it is.

Moreover, counseling is not always a positive therapeutic activity. Mandating a youth to participate in a counseling program is like telling him that he and his family are wrong or bad in some way. He must be "reconditioned," as Gates suggested. For many communities, counseling is considered invasive and degrading, and thus is met with suspicion or resentment. Such sentencing alternatives can further the general mistrust of the legal system that persists among many court-involved families in New Orleans.

Accordingly, rhetoric of salvation was strong at the forum. The candidates agreed that the most pressing community concern was the need to "save the children." From what?, I wondered. Their uneducated parents and lazy teachers, as the candidates suggested? Or the rolling wheels of a racist, classist court system? This truly gives new meaning to the idea of "blind justice."

...
Me: I was going to ask a question but I think I'll just go drink heavily instead. It seems more productive.
L: Absolutely.

Lenten Challenge, Days 14-17, aka What is St. Claude Main Street up to this time?

Sorry - tiny text!

Check out the Lenten chronicles here!

On Thursday I made a trip home from work during the afternoon to pick up my forgotten lunch. [Go through the trouble of making it ahead of time only to leave it on the counter - frustrating!] I was chatting with my neighbor in the street when I saw two representatives from St. Claude Main Street (SCMS) walking down the block. They were distributing the flyers pictured, and I flagged one of the people down - it turned out to be the SCMS manager, Michael T. Martin - to find out what they were about.

Michael explained that he was flyering to announce conducting research that will inform the creation of a "mini-park" on the lot across the street from my house. This lot has served as the site of a SCMS-sponsored pop-up night market once before, and Loyal Readers will remember that the market, despite its merits, was experienced by me and many of my neighbors as an imposition on the space. It billed itself as a community event yet was hosted without the involvement of the very people who live on the block.

After the market took place, I told St. Claude Main Street's representatives that their efforts at neighborhood communication fell short and had a lot of us feeling left out of decisions being made on our behalf.

That they're flyering our houses now is a new and good thing, but the fact remains that since the first night market, they have done nothing meaningful to connect with us as a block or community. Michael told me he'd been working closely with the Bywater Neighborhood Association (BNA), but it would be supremely naive to assume that most people in the area are affiliated with or have any sort of relationship with the BNA. In fact, the BNA does a lot of things that go against people's interests in the neighborhood, especially with regard to zoning changes for popular or helpful causes.

Moreover, St. Claude Main Street conducted research on Friday (the next day!!) between 10am and 3pm. Sorry, I have to work at those times. I can't stop by and say hello. Should I have rearranged my schedule? Also, where was I supposed to go? There was no location listed on the flyer for the research event. If the success of the project depends on my participation, why is it hard for me to participate? And isn't it SCMS' responsibility to check in with me, not the other way around? I didn't feel like this was a real invitation, considering the short notice and lack of pertinent details.

I wonder what will happen if I email (or mail a letter to?) Alita Edgar. The last time I submitted my comments to Michael T. Martin, I got a blisteringly defensive reply and then an apology note in my mailbox days later. Frankly I did not feel like my input was received very well.

My neighbor who registered her dissatisfaction with the last night market, calling it a "retail event" that disturbed her rest on a worknight, is upset with this newest initiative. "These people are...relentless," she wrote me. And she didn't mean relentless in their efforts to improve the block. She meant they persist in doing what they want.

I believe it is incredibly important and valid to continue interrogating the intentions of groups like St. Claude Main Street. The burden is on them to prove their legitimacy to the neighborhood. They should not only research what the community wants but actually do what we want. They were fortunate enough to receive $275,000 to help our neighborhood; theoretically this should mean that they are accountable to the people their projects impact. And as one of those people, let me just say that we do not want to be included in "visioning" anything unless our input is seriously considered.

We need accessible and effective communication with the people making decisions on our behalf, and we need regular, thorough, and honest updates on the consequences of these decisions.

For your research, Michael and Alita, here are some of my present concerns:

• You're planning a mini-park across the street from my house. Did you ask anyone on the block if that's one of our needs or desires? It seems that you're just informing us that that's what's going to happen there. Moreover, the lot in question is not public space; it is in fact owned by one of your Board members, Maurice Slaughter. That in and of itself indicates that public input is not required for the project. So why act like it is? Furthermore, are permits required for this project, and if so, what is the relevant public input process?
• The language of the flyer is exclusionary in several ways. It presumes knowledge of your organization's mission, its programs, and its objectives. For example, who are your grant recipients and what activities do they promote? What is Second Saturday? What is Tulane City Center and what does it mean to be "partners" with this project? Nobody would be able to divine answers to these questions based solely on the limited outreach you've done with us. Instructing us to email you or mail you a letter is a pretty big stretch of the principles of community engagement.
• Your push for "revitalization" ignores the reality that there is already a great deal of vibrancy in the St. Claude area. Instead it presumes an absence of neighborhood street life. Therefore by its own interpretation, SCMS is needed to produce street life and an appropriate kind of vibrancy in the form of night markets and Second Saturday events. But when I go jogging in the daytime or evening, plenty of people are on their porches, stoops, or impromptu sidewalk patios. Lots of people congregate outside of bars and corner stores. This all happens without SCMS intervention. Similarly, musicians, sculptors, and others make art in the neighborhood all the time, yet the "Bywater Art Garden" backed by presumed SCMS ally Pres Kabacoff is essentially closed to the public, although public funds supported its creation. In this way, you are creating a hierarchy of communal activities in the neighborhood by making certain forms of street life "official" while devaluing others.

Please don't jump to the lazy conclusion that I am a "Not in my backyard" kind of neighbor. I am not against parks or art markets. I am not against spaces that have "wide community benefit." In fact, I am for all of these things. I am also for improved street lighting, affordable nearby grocery stores, and riverfront access, which hopefully are objectives of your organization.

However I am not for some bullshit. So please, St. Claude Main Street, et al: Do not dismissively tell us we need to be revitalized when our community already has a lot of vitality. Do not be coercive or disingenuous in your tactics to engage with and listen to us. If you are actually my neighbor, you will hear and care about what I say. You need to build the trust, and honestly, you've got a long way to go.

Lenten Challenge, Days 7-13

Check out the beginning of the series here!




Jared recovers from the revelry

Welcome back, Dear Readers, to my enthusiastic (if sparse) chronicling of this year's Lenten Challenge to not eat in restaurants from Ash Wednesday to Easter.

I've achieved an appreciation for two things during this time, one of which is how great it is to have friends who, unlike me, actually like to cook and are good at it and let me eat their tasty foods; and the other is how cooking is so much less terrible when you invite such friends over and make them do it with you.

In the spirit of this attitude of gratitude, last night I had a bunch of people over to celebrate the Jewish festival of Purim. As with most Jewish holidays, this one involves a predictable narrative of the Jews' near-vanquishment, miraculous survival, and subsequent invention of a special food to commemorate the whole ordeal.

In this case, the special food is hamantaschen, a triangular "pocket" cookie traditionally stuffed with fruit filling. As Loyal Readers know, this particular pastry also traditionally brings me a great many feelings of frustration and inadequacy in the kitchen. But this year I was determined to have success, and so it went:

Whether as a result of my newfound commitment to the social aspect of dining, or just my highly disorganized method of party-hosting, we all ended up making the hamantaschen together - mixing and rolling out the dough, filling and shaping the cookies, and counting down impatiently for the magic moment when they'd be done baking.

We deviated a bit from the traditional fruit fillings, lending a sort of kitchen-sink effect to the effort: A wasabi-asparagus variety shared the serving plate alongside cookies stuffed with tomato, basil, and feta; peanut butter and jelly; or kumquat-habanero marmalade lovingly preserved by the multi-talented Jessi Taylor (though I did have to veto the decidedly unkosher suggestion of "shrimp hamantaschen").

We had a great time together eating a ton of delicious cookies, and thanks to the masterful baking skills of our beloved bagel hero, Laura Sugerman, we didn't fuck up a single one!

Who's cooking for me tomorrow?

Lenten Challenge, Days 5 & 6

Check out Days 1 and 2, Day 3, and Day 4 here!

I was asked recently by a Catholic friend why I'm giving up something for Lent. As I explained on my Days 1 & 2 rundown, I feel that as a resident of the United States, I am constantly surrounded by Christian culture, politics, morality, and other guiding principles: Streets are named after saints and other Christian heroes, the federal government celebrates Christmas, and even our currency has references to Christian monotheism. Here in Louisiana, our counties are called parishes, and the main annual tourist attraction is Mardi Gras, a precursor to the Lenten commemoration of Jesus' meditative fasting in the desert.

Indeed we are saturated by Christianity, and no amount of lip-service to the "separation of church and state" undoes such a reality. [For an even sassier perspective, here's a recent NYTimes article characterizing the Catholic Church as a "global business" and "service industry."]

As a Jew, I experience this saturation somewhat indifferently. My literacy - meaning my ability to survive and thrive - in mainstream American culture is greatly assisted by the fact that Judaism is, after all, integral to Christianity. That is, when I see "In G-d We Trust" printed on a dollar bill, I understand it. While I'm not quite certain why religious faith is relevant to our system of monetary exchange, I get that they're talking about monotheism, and Jews are down with monotheism (even though we don't like seeing the name of G-d spelled out on destructible or erasable media - that's why I substitute the "-" symbol).

Just like Moses ate

We are also down with getting paid days off for Christmas (or overtime pay if we "do a favor" for a Christian colleague). We like parades, so St. Patrick's Day is fine; we like retail sales, so let's hear it again for Christmas. And I didn't even get to Peeps, "Home Alone," or the floral hat processionals outside Baptist churches on Sundays. Thanks for all the bounty, Christians!

There's so much to enjoy about being forced to observe someone else's religion, but I'd be lying if I said things didn't ever get itchy. For example, I could tell you a lot about Easter, a holy event of the Christian calendar, but how many Christians know the significance of Yom Kippur, the most sacred day to Jewish people?

Also, when we testify in court, we are supposed to swear to G-d on top of a bible that contains both the Old and New Testaments. Jews are not permitted by religious law to swear to each other or G-d, so in court we "affirm" on the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament - the only one we believe in). While some view this alternative as a thoughtful accomodation, it actually detracts from our participation in mainstream culture. Who, after all, would not look suspiciously upon a witness who refuses to "swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you G-d"?

In so many ways, we non-Christians have to fit into the Christian mold in order to operate successfully in this country. Our traditions and holidays are, when acknowledged, treated as equivalents of Christian ones; our differences are oftentimes met with skepticism and interrogation:

Coworker: "Why don't you eat on Yom Kippur?"
Me: "Because we're so concerned about praying and repenting, we can't make time for food."
Coworker: "But why?"
Me: "It's kind of like Lent when you don't eat meat."
Coworker. "Oh."

To participate in such a social system, we have to have a deep understanding of Christianity both in theory and practice. I don't have any problem with Christianity as a religion or Christians as people (some of my best friends are Christians!), just the established cultural hierarchy that pervades my present experience as a Jew in this country.

It's for that reason that I feel totally comfortable "observing" Lent as a non-Christian.

If Christians are fasting and otherwise doing acts of penitence to enhance their spiritual development, I see no conflict with my own simultaneous pursuit of self-edification. Lent happens to be a great excuse for checking in with neglected New Year's resolutions. And because it is so mainstream, it also offers a convenient explanation for otherwise abnormal behavior (especially in New Orleans), such as abstinence from drinking, smoking, or eating out in restaurants. People seem to accept voluntary sobriety when they think you're doing it just for Lent, despite your actual level of long-term ambition.

All in all, my Lenten Challenge is the product of my adjustment as a non-Christian in a Christian context: I'm not repenting for my sins, but I am trying to lead a more focused and intentional life.  I'm counting and sharing my blessings. I'm taking care to ensure that my choices do not hurt others. I think Jesus would be down with that, and if not, I affirm that I'll continue to try.

Lenten Challenge, Day 4

Check out Days 1 & 2 and Day 3 here!

People have been asking me if I'm doing this project for improved health, and the answer is “not really, but that would probably be a nice side effect."

It’s true that cooking for oneself yields greater control over one’s nutritional intake. Yet it’s also true that when people refer to “health,” they usually mean “weight.”

I usually avoid conversations about weight because I don’t think they’re useful beyond legitimizing the false connection between a person’s physicality and self-worth. This is a totally bogus framework to understand health and wellness.

For similar reasons, I also make sure to avoid dieting. I think it’s more physically and emotionally valuable to concentrate on overall lifestyle health. So if one day I want to eat an entire bag of Zapp’s pickle chips without sharing, I feel okay about that because there are other days when I am an exercise badass. It all balances out if you’re mindful of what your body needs.

This is not to say that I'm immune to the societal imposition of beauty and health standards on our bodies. To be sure, I find the conflation of health and weight to be not only misleading but damaging. Plenty of skinny people are unhealthy, and plenty of fat people are pinnacles of health. Everyone’s body is different. And such reductive logic tends to obscure the social determinants of health, such as access to healthful foods and medical care. Yet if we try to visualize “healthy” or “fit” bodies, we are likely to conjure up very specific images that are intended to make us feel inadequate, especially as women.

I recently came across this article on "Fitspiration," or how various industries collude to "inspire" us to achieve our fitness goals:

Pay attention to the advertising so often being done in these “fitness inspiration” messages and you will see what is really being sold here. Is it a message of real health and fitness or a message asking you to commodify yourself by buying sports bras, yoga pants, the latest fitness DVD, etc. to appear a certain way. Advertisers are VERY GOOD at framing their messages as an empowering “You Go Girl!” message with their fists in the air cheering you on. But pay attention to their swift move from using that pumping fist to cheer you on, to punching you in the face for not being enough. If you do not have rock hard chiseled abs, the right workout outfit, etc., you are not good enough until you do. These advertisers will make sure you know that, because their profit depends on your wallet and your beliefs about yourself.

Such messaging is empowering only when it can be read for what it is: profit-driven nonsense.

I think it’s important to try to be healthy, even though it is hard a lot of the time. It’s also important to recognize that a colossal amount of imagery and other media exist to make us feel like we need to change ourselves to fit a narrow mold of fitness and health. I think a great wellness exercise is to call bullshit on those who tell us we are inadequate.