--Clyde Haberman, New York Times, Aug. 9, 2000

I'm not even sure where to begin.

Last night, circa 8:30 PM, a friend arrived at my apartment, so the two of us could write a couple of songs for the Blue Team in Color War. Circa 3:00 AM, we finished the first one, and travelled back to his home in Far Rockaway. Circa 6:00 AM, we finished the second, and I took the bus back, arriving home again circa 7:30 AM. Circa 8:30 AM, I finally went to sleep.

In the meantime, the camp's annual carnival is tomorrow, and I kinda have to be there... a fact I overlooked when I scheduled a counseling appointment for the same date. I'm still not sure how I'm gonna juggle the two.

On the bright side, I'm supposed to be meeting Jen tonight, although last I heard, that was possibly up in the air too, so we'll see.

Now, I probably should say at this point that I had had no previous experience with IMAX, or 3D movies, or Cirque Du Soleil, or, for that matter, circuses of any sort. So this was a first exposure all around.

Journey of Man contains a running narrative about the journey from boyhood to manhood. It's apparently meant to be educational, and I must say that I really felt that I learned something from this film. Specifically, I learned that it is possible to experience vertigo and boredom at the same time. Who knew?

Vertigo was definitely an issue for me, although I should state that the others with me did not have this problem. But, see, the IMAX screen is so darn big that, even without the 3D glasses, when the camera pans, the effect is not that of the camera's perspective moving (as is the case with regular fllms), but rather that the screen is staying where it is, and the whole theatre is moving.

Now, to me, this suggests the obvious conclusion that the camera should never be panned unless really, really necessary, but, then, I got sick the one time I was talked into riding the kiddie coaster at Adventureland. The effect was bad enough at first, but then they had this bit with people bouncing up and down on bungee trapeze things or something, and for no good reason the camera's focus kept bouncing up and down also, and I just closed my eyes for the remainder of the segment, 'cause it was that or barf all over the theatre.

(Okay, maybe not, but I would've felt even sicker than I already did.)

Other that that... it was pretty much boring the whole way through, with the exception of the very ending. The last bit, which took place in a giant room of a mansion, wasn't bad, partly because the camera work was okay for a change, but also because it was about the only point in which it looked like you were watching actual people, rather than special effects. What's the point of acrobatics that look like CGI, anyway?

On the whole, though... this may have cured me of the desire to see IMAX ever again. Or Cirque Du Soleil, although my friend and his wife insisted that they're much better on TV, so I may cut them a bit of slack. Perhaps.

Speaking of Lieberman's pro-abortion stance, Levin said, "There's no way in the world that any Orthodox Jew could possibly support something so horrific."

Levin added that every Orthodox Jewish child knows that abortion is "akin to murder."

Perhaps the issue that most drives me bonkers in much of feminist criticism, in fact, is the way many reduce the abortion issue to that of a woman's right to control her own body, with the collarary that those who oppose abortions are doing so specifically to keep women in their place. Both parts of the above are patently absurd. The issue is nowhere near that simple, and it does everyone a disservice to insist otherwise. I do not consider abortion to be primarily a feminist issue, and it's quite possible to be an anti-abortion feminist.

With that having been said, given the two available labels, I'm pro-choice. For religious reasons.

I don't know what the heck this Rabbi Levin is thinking, but the way I understand it, Jewish law is clear about this. There are situations where abortions are not only permissible, but are actually required. If the mother's life or health is in danger, and it comes down to a choice between the fetus or the mother, the mother wins.

(This is the case until such time as the head or most of the body of the baby emerges from the womb. At that point, under Jewish law, it is alive, and cannot be killed, even to save the mother's life. This might be relevant for the issue of so-called "partial-birth abortions," but I'm not at all clear on that. Something to look into.)

In cases where the mother is not at risk, abortions aren't generally allowed, but they're not considered murder, either. The Bible's very clear on that one, actually; if somebody causes a woman to miscarry, damages need to be paid, but it's a matter of injury, not manslaughter.

Given the fact that the pro-life forces have been taking an "all-or-nothing" approach, not making exceptions for abortions required under Jewish law, the only real option, as I see it, is to go with the pro-choice camp. Discouraging unnecessary abortions is still a good idea, but I don't think legislation is the best way to accomplish that. There are other ways to accomplish social change, more effective than trying to ram it down people's throats.

But that's just me. I don't speak for all Orthodox Jews any more than the guy in the article linked to above. I kinda wish he and many others wouldn't try to claim otherwise, though...