Making Sense of DOMA Part #2 - On The Nature of the Supreme Court

OK, so in the last post we laid the groundwork for understanding this case, to some extent. If confusion remains, well, that’s part of the problem here. The Supreme Court is confused as well. Some of the Justices don’t understand the legality of the BLAG, or the middle position of the president who sees DOMA as unconstitutional but still chooses to enforce the law. Chief Justice Roberts went so far as to call the president a coward, or someone who lacked conviction, so confusion is built into this case. But where does all this confusion come from? Let’s go back to our initial question, why is the court getting bogged down in apparent technicalities and not just deciding on this historic issue?

This frustration with the Supreme Court is a historic frustration that dates back to the inception of the court. It asks the most basic question about the court i.e. what actually is the purpose of the court? You would think this is an easy question. We generally know the purpose of the executive and legislative branches, but the judicial branch is considerably murkier in its nature. (Think about it. The President and Congress play active roles, while the Supreme Court only reacts...) The first court, though symbolically important, was largely a lame duck court because of this uncertainty, and because of ambivalence about the power of the court. Eventually, the court grew more stable and solidified its power, and then the biggest question facing the court was the power of judicial review.

Judicial review gives the court power to decide on the constitutionality of an act of the president or congress. Though now essential to the nature of the court, this power isn’t explicitly given in the constitution. Rather, as Alexander Hamilton first argued, and then Justice Marshall made famous, judicial review is inherent within the nature of the constitution. The Constitution, as a code of law, is the highest law in the land. Any subsequent laws that are created which violate the constitution must be invalid because this subsequent law only receives its power from the constitution. In other words, as Hamilton argues, you can’t have a servant more powerful than the master. Or to put it in more contemporary terms, it’s as if the boss delegated power to an intern, and that intern used that power to undermine the boss, which doesn’t work.

 But who decides on the constitutionality of the law? Congress cannot because they make laws, and the president cannot because he enforces the law. Considering the need for a separation of power, only the court can hold this singular power. Fine, but shouldn’t judicial review allow the court to pass judgment on any and all laws they want, why the need for complication? Isn’t this there purpose, to protect and explain the constitution in each new generation?

On a similar note, wouldn’t it be much more useful for the court to serve in an advisory role so that even before laws are made, a president or congress receives the opinion of the court? The Justices throughout history, starting with the first court, decided that the disadvantages of this advisory role outweigh the immediate benefits. In a little piece of not well-known history, Bernard Schwartz reminds us that:

The very first Court felt constrained to withhold even from the “Father of his Country” an advisory opinion on questions regarding which Washington was most anxious to have illumination from the highest tribunal. In 1793 President Washington, through a letter sent to the Justices by Secretary of State Jefferson, sought the advice of the Supreme Court on a series of troublesome “abstract questions” in the realm of international law “which have already occurred, or may soon occur.” Chief Justice Jay and his associates first postponed their answer until the sitting of the Court and then, three weeks later, replied politely but firmly, declining to give the requested answers.
According to the Justices’ letter to Washington, both “the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution between the three departments of the government . . . and our being judges of a court in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to.”

This story highlights two important and often misunderstood aspects of the Court. First, the court was always seen as a last resort. We tend to forget that in our desire to create change. Second, it highlights the important limitation that the court can only decide legal cases.

But what does that mean that the court only uses judicial review in legal cases? Aren’t all cases legal? Not really. All cases can have legal consequences, but not all cases are necessarily "legal" in this sense. The founders established that a legal case is one that has “case or controversy,” which later theorists established a three-prong test to determine: injury, request for redress, and a real potential for the court to redress the injury. This means that the Court would only hear a case that has a real injury i.e. I am appealing a case in which I lost money, and a real request from that party to redress the injury, and only cases in which the court can actually do something. In grounding the Court’s limitations in concrete legal cases and not abstract or political cases, the early Justices kept the separation of powers intact.

Why is this so important? As usual, it all flows back to the foundation of separating powers. The early Justices realized that it was imperative that the court not have political power i.e. the power to veto a law, that court not be involved in the making of laws. Think of the alternative. Imagine the Supreme Court could just choose to pass judgment on any law they want to, or imagine that the President or congress, if they don’t like a law could just push the law into the Supreme Court. This would not only give immense power to the court in that they can stick their hands in any case they want, but would blur the line between the powers. If the president or congress is unhappy with the other branch’s decisions they could simply take every case to court.  Not only would this clog the court, and involve the court in the making of the law, but it would also take away power from the people, which is a crucial component to how laws are made.

Yet, as we can see in the DOMA case, this position also comes with downsides. It’s no mistake or act of cowardice that the President, despite the fact that he disagrees with DOMA, is still appealing to the Supreme Court as an injured party. The president wants the court to rule on the case, but realizes there exists little legal recourse to do so, ironically, because most lower courts would overturn DOMA.

Now, the court faces a choice between two of its different jobs. It needs to protect the constitution, but it also needs to protect the process of law and the integrity of the court. You can also think about this distinction in terms of short terms and long-term goals. As many note, even the more conservative justices appear ready to view DOMA as unconstitutional, but given what we’ve discussed they don’t necessarily see it as within their abilities to do so in this case. Now that sounds misguided and even stupid, no? And if you think of it in this limited context, it is stupid. It’s essentially letting a murderer get off on a technicality. Yet, if you think of it in the long-term consequences of this case, it’s portrays a perennially tough decision. If the court does decide to rule on the constitutionality of this case, then it sets a precedent that potentially goes against the nature and history of the court. If the court allows a case to go through with no real party, no real injury, and no real request of recourse, then it opens the floodgate to a breach in the separation of powers. So while people might feel frustrated with the traffic in this case, you need to factor in the long-term precedence.

Why does that matter? Because though you might urgently care about the DOMA case, you wouldn’t want the court to have this unprecedented power in a case you might disagree with. (This is always the trade off. Roe V. Wade is celebrated by pro rights groups, but pretty much all legal theorists etc. see it as a terribly argued and decided case where political expedience won over legal prudence.) Moreover, different courts take different approaches to the proactive methods of the court. Some courts take on extremely active roles that many see as undermining the purpose of the court, and others take on a more passive role and let the society decide the questions. We can see this latter approach in this case. As many have noted, the social question of same-sex marriage appears largely decided. Society is turning more and more to embracing the issue. The court approves of this bottom up approach to changing law because it sees itself as the last resort. It would always rather that the people actually decide these cases, than the court, because the government is a tool of the people, not a tool imposed upon the people.

Now, this approach can and often does slow down change in a society, but it also stabilizes the change. So again, Justices need to choose between stability and change, between the exigency of this specific law vs. the precedence it creates. There is rarely, if ever, a case of a simple black and white question of constitutionality.

To move into more explicit opinion mode, I consequently think that calling this court politicized, or cowardly is misguided. Reading through the briefs and oral arguments, it’s hard to see these justices, yes, even the often homophobic Scalia as anything but people who deeply care about the constitution. Justice Louis Brandeis once famously said that what the court doesn’t do is as important, if not more important, that what it does do. And while some of us might want the court to take a more active role in deciding the important issues of our day, historically, that is a dangerous role for the Court, one with many negative and destabilizing consequences. In a time in which our default is to mistrust politicians, I feel an odd sense of trust in this court, which might be naïve. These are many of the same people who decided Citizen’s United, but at least in reading the oral arguments and other statements, I still feel an abiding trust in their integrity. In a time in which politics is undermined by a natural cynicism, it’s nice to feel this sort of naïve trust in our officials.

Making Sense of the DOMA Case in Supreme Court

As the Supreme Court appears on the verge of a historic (non)decision on LGBT rights, I thought it would be interesting to explore some seemingly odd details of the case. Part of this post seeks to explore why is this case is so convoluted. Why doesn’t the court just pass judgment on the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws? Is this not the essential purpose of the Supreme Court, and if the court somehow finds a way to not pass any decision, does that not show the cowardice of this court? The more you read about the case the more you get the sense that the court bogs itself down in tangential questions of legalese that have nothing to do with the imperative essential question: how can you legally discriminate between hetero and homosexual marriages?

Let’s take a step back first to look at the facts of the case. In 1996, President Clinton, along with a majority of both the House and Senate quickly passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) into law. (Yes, despite all the excuses, an embarrassing cast of politicians rushed this bill into law, including some of our favorite politicians but that’s a different topic.) Right before that, Hawaii became the first state to legalize homosexual marriage, and people were worried that other states would then be forced to recognize the marriage status of same sex marriages from Hawaii. Consequently, they drafted the DOMA bill which posits two essential clauses:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The first clause posits that no state must recognize another state’s same-sex marriages. Consequently, if you did choose to get married in Hawaii you cannot move to a state that doesn’t recognize same sex marriages and expect recognition of your status. The third clause posited something considerably more ambitious. It stated that for all federal purposes, marriage would only be recognized as that between a man and a woman. Accordingly, even in a state like Hawaii, if a same sex couple married they would not be entitled to what amounts to over 1000 federal rights, exemptions, and benefits that heterosexual spouses are entitled to. People took umbrage both at the concept of the law and its manifestations. Many took offense at the limited definition of marriage, and even more took offense at the discriminatory practice of depriving a couple of the same rights simply based on their sexual orientation.

Now is where things start to get tricky and complicated. After 40 years in a relationship, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Canada, though they lived in New York. Thea died in 2009 and Edith inherited her money but was forced to pay federal inheritance tax because the government would not acknowledge their same-sex marriage as legal. Windsor consequently had to pay over 300,000 dollars in inheritance tax, of which she then sought recourse for that money in court. In New York District court, she appealed her case and actually won. The court found clause 3 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment. Fine, great, good, right? Case over, you would think.

Well, not really, because when a state court rules a federal law unconstitutional the president and Congress tend to get involved, which complicates the matter. In the middle of the Windsor case, Obama, through Attorney General Holder released a curious statement that agreed that the third clause of DOMA is indeed unconstitutional and therefore said that it would not defend the law in courts, which is normally part of the job of the Justice department. (Here is the actual statement, which indeed is a fascinating read.)

However, it did say that in deference to the president and congress who created the law, Obama would continue to enforce the law until the court or congress told him otherwise. (This seems a bit strange and counterintuitive and that’s part of the complexity...) At the same time, the House created BLAG, a great name which stands for Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which essentially takes up the role of the Attorney General and appointed itself to defend the constitutionality of DOMA where the president would not. (How could the House just appoint itself into powers not normally in it’s jurisdiction? Good question, and that’s exactly what the Supreme Court wants to know...)

None of this changes Windsor’s victory in the district court, but it explains why the Windsor case moved on past that victory. The Department of Justice, in effort to help BLAG, filed an appeal to a federal court despite the fact that the DOJ approved of the initial ruling on the unconstitutionality of the law. Why did they do this? It’s not explicit, but likely so as to push the case to a higher court to decide the issue. This is a bit sneaky for numerous reasons and smacks of the DOJ trying to have its cake and eat it too. Despite the fact that the DOJ essentially won in the initial ruling, it wanted a higher status ruling so it pushed the case up to Federal Court. BLAG wasn’t too happy with this strange situation and tried to show that the DOJ can’t do this because they received no injury in this case i.e. the intuitive claim that this is what the DOJ wanted all along, so they can’t then appeal the case as if they lost. (We will get back to this...) Windsor, seeing the mishmash here, asked for the case to be brought before the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower federal appellate court, which the Supreme Court rarely does. Windsor cited her old age, but it’s hard to imagine that is the true consideration.

The Supreme Court decided to accept the case, but the case still went to federal appellate court and was upheld, thereby becoming the first federal court to declare clause 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. The DOJ then, in addition to Windsor’s request, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, and this is where we stand. The Supreme court will now decide on three questions.

1. Is Clause 3 indeed unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment?

But before that, it needs to determine two other legal questions:

2. Does the fact that the president and the DOJ agree with the unconstitutionality of the law nullify them from being injured and therefore deprives them of the right to take the case to the Supreme Court?

3. Does the BLAG having any standing as a party in the case? It’s a similar but opposite side to question #2 here. The DOJ and the president, despite approving of the court ruling want’s to have its cake and eat too, by getting the Supreme Court to decide the case. BLAG which disapproves of the court’s decision want to defend the constitutionality of the law, but it remains unclear what standing this unprecedented BLAG group in law.

If it doesn’t believe that the DOJ or the President has standing, i.e. the right to bring the case to the Supreme Court, then the court cannot rule on the case, thereby obviating question #1. Windsor can’t bring the case to the Supreme Court because she is not seeking a recourse for injury i.e. she already won. It’s hard to see that the DOJ is truly seeking recourse because they want the law overturned, so the case would have no legs to stand on. What makes this case somewhat unprecedented is that there appears to be no injured party here. Windsor won all of her lower cases, and the President agrees with the unconstitutionality of the case, and the BLAG, at first glance is not a real party. So what to do, and why does this feel unnecessarily complicated? 

Here is where the nature of Supreme Court comes into play, and here is where people begin to call the court cowards, or followers, and this seems to be a prevalent sentiment, but predicated on an apparent misunderstanding of the Supreme Court. All of this we will explore in the next post.

Thanks for reading.

Joe

In Memoriam: Ronald Dworkin - One of the Greatest Public Intellectuals of Our Time

Philosopher and Law theorist Ronald Dworkin died today. A cursory look at his Wikipedia Page will let you know the countless accolades and accomplishments in his ambitious and productive life. I first encountered Dworkin and his works in a fantastic graduate course in Yeshiva University's Revel. In a class full of abstruse and unnecessarily densely written academic articles on the nature of Law, Dworkin's integrity, brilliance, and clarity separated him from above the book. His works, encapsulated in his most famous and most systematic book Law's Empire,  attempts to infuse morality back into a theory of law. This central point requires exposition, but essentially, Dworkin fought against one of his rivals, John Rawls. Rawls, and his acolytes, largely adhered to a theory of law dubbed positivism. Though many disagree with the exact definition of positivistic law, essentially the theory assumes that law emerges only of established law, or written law. As my professor simplified it, positivists see the creation and understanding of law as a closed system, almost a mechanical, mathematical system in where there are always rules as to how decide even complex cases. Essentially, positivists conclude that morality cannot and should not play any role in how we actively create law. The body of law we have, as was passed down, contains everything in it so that we don't need to outside to the realm of morality to decide law.

What this amounts to is somewhat the divide between someone like Justice Scalia, and someone Like Justice Ginsburg, or the republican vs. democratic approach to deciding law. Scalia, as is his wont, only cares about the original intent of the founders, regardless of the morality of the case. Dworkin would contest, convincingly so, that no clean divide between personal or communal morality can be separated from how we read the constitution or any case. Dworkin often pointed out the heavy ambivalence in the act of reading, an act that inherently brings to the table all the personality of a person. This doesn't do full justice to Dworkin's system of thought, but it highlights one of his greatest contributions to intellectual and cultural conversation - morality, and the nature thereof. As one of the cited, quoted, and prolific law theorists in our generation, Dworkin influenced countless next generation lawyers and law theorists, and also how we think about the nature of Law. Not a meager task for any thinker, but, and this speaks to Dworkin's ability, he appeared to never back down from any challenge. He took a theoretical world, one wholly disconnected from everyday normal life, into a system of law rooted and grounded in actual life, not in the semantic subtleties of the ivory tower.

Regardless of the power of our Supreme Court Justices, Dworkin did not simply report on their decisions, he fought with their decisions. Even after Obamacare went through, Dworkin sticked to his guns in the sense that he found the arguments largely inane, even the arguments for Obamacare. He was also one of the most intelligent and outspoken against Citizen's United, the case which ridiculously gave a corporation the status of a human being in regards to free speech. While many saw this as a travesty of law, Dworkin attacked it as law and undermined the intelligence of that decision like no one else. He didn't care about controversy, just integrity, and no one felt outside the scope of his critical abilities. Outside the realm of his obvious expertise he tackled topics like morality and happiness, abortion, the rights of all people, evolution in schools, the rights of LGBT, and affirmative action. In fact, looking back, there appeared little he could not talk, persuasively, about. He largely stood outside of the system, unafraid to condemn anyone, whether president, or justice, or NSA, or pretty much anyone. It doesn't seem far fetched to say that as one of the last public American Intellectuals, he kept us in check, acting as the liberal check on an increasingly unregulated market policy, and the apparent dismantling of the constitution by the recent Republican court.

On a more personal note, I looked forward to a new Dworkin article the same way some of us wait for that concert you are just dying to see. Regardless of the issue, reading Dworkin makes you feel smarter, challenged, and yes, even understood. The clarity with which he was able to see through the murkiness of politics was a rare trait in a world of academics that either wither in their corner of specialization or sell out to the more corporate society. Dworkin fought his beliefs, no matter the situation.

He will be missed.

You can read many of his articles here.

Obama's Inauguration Speech - A Close Read

Inauguration speeches often amount to nothing more than overblown rhetoric and congratulatory statements. Yet, some, like both of Lincoln’s inaugural speeches, signify a bold proclamation of intent, or an analysis of our founding document and principles, and an introspective investigation to the nature of American identity. President Obama’s recent inauguration speech, while filled with some congratulatory sentiment and puffed-up rhetoric represents a courageous and quietly brilliant affirmation, creation, and analysis of American vision and identity, or so I would like to contend. Given the luxury of a second term without the prospect of re-election, Obama unleashed in a subtle though clear manner an outlook for the future in rejecting the pettiness of much of the political world, specifically the Republican party. Obama achieves astounding success in this speech, one that preaches unity while implicitly calling out the Republicans, in providing not only a roadmap for the future, but also an American identity that warms our hearts. Obama's speech reminds us of the singularity of Americanism, with its attending responsibilities, rights, and obligations in a time when wearing the American tag feels inferior, when we see that our beloved country falls behind the world because of some obvious inadequacies.

In analyzing how he does this we will also come to a deeper understanding of what that vision entails. The first and most important rhetorical maneuver Obama uses is in expounding on the Constitution. Obama often uses bits and pieces of the constitution as the foundation of his phraseology, but here he does so not only to mine a common heritage, but for the purposes of a polemic. Obama begins in invoking what many see as the essential principle of Americanism: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then, in lines for the ages, he adds:

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

Obama posits that while self-evident, they always required more than their awareness

to bring them to life, to action. He reminds us that this document we venerate made no claim of equality for women and endorsed the notion of slavery, or at least tolerated the institution. We did not stay hewn to the most literalist reading of the constitution, but sought fit to change and re-interpret as we grew moral consciences. Obama then goes to list how our historical experiences allowed us to grow with and past this initial vision. (This in of itself already signifies an attack on those Republicans or Tea party folk who claim to truly know the intent and purpose of the constitution.)

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Step by step Obama dismantles any sort of fundamentalist argument about the constitution as perfect in of itself, or as obvious in of itself outside the context of history and interpretation. The constitution never demanded any freedom for slaves, no regulation of markets or the need to take care of our most vulnerable. In fact, each of these carefully worded and chosen instances directly attack what we now associate with republican claims. Gun nuts cite the 2nd amendment as a right to bear arms, despite the fact that no intellect with integrity could possibly espouse that the 2nd amendment not only allows, but sees it as an important right for any and every American to buy an automatic weapon. Republicans, famously, time and again see any sort of economic regulation as steps towards socialism, towards anti-Americanism, but experience has taught us that no matter the free market we need regulations. Obama then takes his next jab at the republicans who purport to speak from and for the constitution in positing that as Americans, we’ve learned and understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable, not the rich, not the comfortable, not the settled, but our most vulnerable. if you hear echoes here of the 99% they are purposeful, if you hear Obama decrying our political system’s obsession with wealth and power, again purposeful. Obama, it seems, has decided to take off his gloves and go bare knuckle with republicans who see Obama as destroying the fabric of our country. Obama offers a counter-narrative that shows the depth of the shallowness of much of the Republican rhetoric today, a rhetoric that fears immigration, vaunts militaristic pride, belittles minorities, and caters to the rich.

Further on Obama makes explicit what he hints at here. In other words, he goes for the jugular of the popular notion of republicans and what they stand for Obama insists:

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it...We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

Then, as we move forward, Obama amps up his explicitness and pushes forward perhaps one of the most liberal progressive visions for America in the past 40 years. He remarks on the insidious though quiet racism of our immigration policy, our abiding and prejudicial fear of homosexuality, our stubbornness to care only about ourselves, our distinctly American ability to quickly forget how we started, emerged, and thrived because of our commitment to immigration. More than most other countries we are a country of immigrants, built on the notion of creating a home for those yearning to be free. He comments on the absurdity of a nation with half as many guns owned as people in the USA, a place in which we cannot ensure safety to our most vulnerable, but can ensure easy access to killing machines. A country home to a party willing to stoop so low as to make voting hard for those who they know would vote against them. And perhaps the best just ass-whooping of Republicans today, Obama takes a clear and eloquent approach to global warming while insulting those who don’t believe in science:

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

We don’t need Obama to spell out who are those who don’t believe in the judgment of science for they are the same people he later refers to who, “mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.” What allows Obama to succeed so well in this speech is that he never actual names any names or any parties as guilty, or as wanting, but repeatedly calls for unity, for unified action against dogmatism. He posits a vision of the U.S. that leads, not follows, that learns from history, not simply from rigid ideology, and one that measures its success through its treatment of the most vulnerable, not the least.

Of course, Obama excluded certain topics and a person can either feel slighted by their exclusion, or understanding towards the inability to include every ill of our society in this small speech. Obama, by now characteristically, though he spoke about slavery, though he invoked the memory and word of Dr. King, time and again refuses to address the real, tangible, and abiding racism inherent within much of our system. He spoke nothing about our woeful penal system, a system that brings shame upon America with each passing day, a system which jails more of its citizens than any other country in an unprecedented manner, a system still using the death penalty, a system skewed towards imprisoning minorities and the poor. He spoke nothing of women’s reproductive rights, or of the often shady politics of drones, of torture and issues of the same ilk. I do think these omissions matter, but I think the speech transcends the importance of the omissions.

Even if you found this speech as inspiring as I did, at this point, we know enough to not conflate the spoken word as real promises. All of us will wait and use this speech as a measuring stick with which to judge Obama's second term, but I think our cynicism glosses over the importance of a speech, a vision, and a president we can actually take pride in. Because, and let's be honest here, it's grown increasingly harder and harder to take pride in our country and our identity. We've gotten to the point that we often make ourselves feel better as Americans in pointing out the flaws of other countries, like children in fact.

The previous election signified an election of little substance, and most of us voted out of frustration more than anything else. It is hard to take pride in our economy or the ludicrousness of our fiscal cliff and debt ceiling "debates", or in our morally ambiguous foreign policies, and the countless domestic massacres only continues to besmirch our international reputation. We shouldn't quickly glance over the importance of a president who can tap into our sentiments and give them voice in elegant prose. Regardless of what you say about the days after the inauguration, the speech, the ceremony signified a rightful moment of pride and honor in a country often embarrassed of its own self.

Rachel de Beer - A Folk Tale Written During Hurricane Sandy

Randomly stumbled upon this story on my Internet Sandy excursions. It’s a story that was initially passed down as a true story, but then came to be realized as a sort of folk tale. I have tried to retell it. I found it poignant regardless. Enjoy.

I gave up my life to find a lost calf. She was my calf, or my family's calf and I didn't feel any particular attachment to Frikkie, but I felt responsible as the eldest child to take care of everybody in our family, our dealings, our objects, our business. I did love Frikkie a little bit, but only because my little brother loved the cow even more. My little brother Joszef, about 6 year old at the time, I was 12, loved this cow. He loved most of the cows but he love this calf even more than the rest. I don't know, but Joszef always struck me as a bit odd in that way. He understood animals in an intuitive manner more than the rest of us. They listened to him, he calmed them down, even being only six years of age, he stilled calmed our animals down.  

Joszef cried when Frikkie ran away. He cried a lot, this sensitive child. He felt so much pain for such a little kid. He scared us all in this way with the intensity of his pain, all his emotional suffering and wounds. But he calmed down and quieted the animals under all circumstances. Just his presence, but even more his touch and his voice. He sung them strange songs, foreigner songs he couldn't have learned from me, or Papa. He sung them to these cows, his friends, he would say, and they would calm down, as if drinking milk before going to bed. So we brought him along to maybe calm down old Frikkie in case we found her and she was scared in her cow body and hide. I didn't think he should go, but papa thought if I watched him, he could trust me, and Joszef would be alright, as long as I watch him, and how maybe he could help with the search party, seeing how good he is with Frikkie and all. I told Papa, I told him that Joszef is too young and something bad can happen to him.

Papa told me he loved me, but I worried too much like my Mama who died a few years ago. He told me he loved my Mama for her worry, for her care about other people, and that's why he loved me too, he told me. Like my Mama, I cared about those I love. I care more than other people, it's what makes special. I think Papa  tells me this because he thinks I miss Mama. I do, but I don't think this helps. I don't think it does help me much, though I do miss Mama a bunch, but I don't think this helps because I know Mama cared much more than I do. People tell me I care, but I don't really care as much as they think. I mean, I love Joszef and my Papa, but not like my mother. She did everything for us. She always thought of us, always, like a good Mama, she helped us with our school work, and ran with us in the park, she tied our shoelaces even when we could, and she sang with us. She taught us to read. We loved her a lot, we all did. Joszef only knew her for four years and I knew her for ten. I told Joszef stories about our Mama. I finished all the stories I knew and he still asked for more. I started to make up stories that I thought would sound like Mama. I don't think Joszef noticed because he still asks me for stories. Sometimes, because I run out of ideas I take stories I know and make them about our family, and about Mama. Joszef might know. He is a very smart little brother. I think Papa is wrong. I think when he told me that I took after Mama, that I inherited her kindness I think he meant Joszef. Joszef followed in the steps of my Mama. 

He really cares, not just because he should care. I care for reasons. Joszef doesn't care. He loves people like mother used to - without reason, all people. I don't like all people. Some people make me feel sad, some make me scared, and others seem mean and selfish. I don't understand the selfish. Papa tells me I would understand the selfish in time, later in life, as if I missed some part or some experience to understand selfishness. Papa says he is often selfish, and sometimes its a good thing, and sometimes you do it because everyone makes mistake. But to me, I still don't know, selfishness never seems like a good choice to make. How could selfishness every help another person? Joszef was never selfish. He was just a little kid and I know that children can often be the most selfish, but we don't call it selfish when they are kids because children, my Mama told me, children don't understand anything besides what they need. They need to learn how to be selfless, how to be nice. But not Joszef. Joszef always cared too much. He was weaker because of that. He would never fight back or yell because he cared too much about the little child yelling at him. He wanted to make him feel better. I thought he was stupid because of that. I though all children should do the opposite of what he did. Papa told me that Joszef was special, different than the rest of the kids. That Joszef cared so much in a different way than anyone else we knew. I didn't believe Papa. I just thought Joszef was stupid because all my friends and people I knew where not like him at all. Sometimes I would treat him in a mean way just to see how he would react. He always reacted in a kind manner, maybe too kind. I tried to teach him differently. Mama and Papa both told me the same thing. We needed to treat Joszef differently. I didn't understand till recently. 

Maybe since Mama died I understood more. Joszef, though just four, he cried a lot. More than me and Papa all together. He cried a lot, and all the time. He cried even when he didn't look like he was crying. Even when he walked with me to the store or something, he cried while doing everything, a quiet cry. Even a week ago, sometimes, I would find him crying and when I asked him why he was crying, he would say he didn't really know, or he just saw something pretty, but I knew he cried for Mama, still. I think he cries because he misses what Mama could have been. He imagines a lot, and he always asks for those stories and when he finds out how great Mama was, how much she loved us, he feels sad, very sad. I think that maybe sometimes I should tell him bad stories about Mama, like when she yelled at me or at Papa, or got angry and mean even for a minute. Maybe these stories would make him less sad, but I can't tell him these stories. He would feel too much pain to think of Mama like this. He loved to think of Mama as a sort of angel, someone who never made mistakes like me. 

I once believed that about Mama, and I still think she was more nice than mean, much more nice than mean, but she still said mean things, and hurt my feelings and Papa's feelings sometimes and I think that matters. After Mama died, Papa told me that now I needed to take care of Joszef more than before. He told me that I need to act like Mama to Joszef, if I could. That Joszef needs a woman to bring him up, and that now, at age ten, I needed to be a woman for Joszef. I needed to look out for him, protect him, because he said he was like glass, he told me he was this word fragile, could easily break, and that I needed to watch him, to stay close to him, to listen to him when he felt sad or wanted to cry. I did not want to take care of him like Mama did. I did not like him enough. He cried too much and never liked to run around. He liked to walk, or sit and try to read. Or just sit and stare and look at flies, or animals, or insects, or other people. He could sit and stare and just think and smile and laugh. We became friends in the past few weeks. I don't know about friends. But he liked me more, and I kind of liked him too, at least more than before. 

After Mama first died Joszef couldn't do anything besides cry. He just sat there or stood there and wouldn't play with the other children or do the small chores given to him. He couldn't do anything. He just cried like a doll who could only cry. He reminded me too much of the sadness and I thought that if he wanted to be sad fine, but why does he need to cry around us, why couldn't he just sit on his own in his room, why did he have to remind us all about the sadness? Papa said he understood my point, but despite the fact they he did understand my feelings, he thought that it would be better for us all to hear him crying. Both for Jozsef and for us, we can all stand to cry a bit more. I didn't like how he said that to me, as if I needed to cry more for Mama, as if Joszef was a better child because he cried more. He was a child, the baby of the family. Of course he cried more, I know, but I still thought he exaggerated, made stuff up because he wanted attention.

My Papa said to me that I was gonna to be in charge of Joszef. That I needed to take responsibility for him, and to watch him, and to make sure nothing happens to him, but most importantly to make sure he comes back, that he doesn't get lost, or doesn't get hurt. I told him that I could do it, of course, he didn't need to repeat it to me, but inside, I know that I felt scared and sick, and tingly. I felt like this was a bad idea. Not because I couldn't watch Joszef, because it felt like a bad idea, a bad night to go look for a calf in the dark.

Joszef held my hand as we walked into the forest but not because he was scared. I saw his face, I knew what his fear looked like, and this was a calm face. But he grabbed my hand and held on tightly just to hold on tightly. We walked together with two adults, two people who knew my parents but we didn't know them so well. A husband and a wife. They were nice to us, telling us to just stay close to them and not to worry, and calling out both of our names, "Rachel, Joszef" every couple of minutes to make sure they knew we were there. They called our names a lot and each time we both answered back loud and clear and strong in our name, as in some game. I yelled my name first and then Joszef called his name in a louder voice, he yelled louder than me. But we kept close to these friends because it was very dark and very cold. We walked in line to cover our section back and forth and then move over a little bit to the left and go up and down throughout the forest so that we could cover all the places Frikkie might have run off too. 

We walked back and forth a lot Joszef holding on to my hand very tightly, his softer smaller hand fitting mine. He walked fast, without me telling him to walk faster just because he knew that we needed to walk faster, to keep up and to be safe. He just knew what to do. He walked fast with us and all of us called out Frikkie's name, we yelled her name but Joszef only said her name, softly, to himself and I could overhear him. He kept on saying her name as if speaking a secret language with the cow. He smiled a lot and held my hand and walked in my pace. I could see his smile because of his very white face. No one found Frikkie yet, and no one even found the smallest signal to where she could be. We walked for an hour just like this and made a circle, a big circle around the camp because we thought that she could only go so far. After an hour, for the first time, no one found anything. 

We took a break for 30 minutes just to rest and to get more energy for the next round of searching. We all walked to the border of the previous search and then began and went further out in the same way that we did the first search, but now the second search took longer because we needed to cover more ground. Frikkie not only was loved by a lot of us, but she also cost a lot of money because she was supposed to give birth to many expensive and beautiful calves. She was important in these two different ways. So we looked for her in a very important way. Joszef didn't even want to rest, he kept asking why we all needed to rest if he wasn't tired? Rachel told him that some other people needed a break and that we all needed to walk together for safety. Joszef never calmed down, but didn't complain anymore as if he understood. It was already about 2 or 3 o'clock. We couldn't tell the exact time, but we knew somewhere between these times, or so people told us, but it felt right. So it was late. 

Many people were tired and many people felt that if Frikkie was out for so long already, they assumed, that an animal, however sad it would be, an animal probably killed Frikkie and that we should not search anymore, because it was cold, and late, and so very cold that it would be better to wait till morning because, they told me, that we shouldn't put ourselves in danger to save an animal, that we should worry more about the human people than the animals, or any money. I agreed with them, but other people, the more powerful, or the people more people listened to, these people wanted to push on, they said that we need to take care of our property as if part of our family or we won't treat our property right in other future times something happens to our property. I didn't understand really what they might or why it made sense. I thought that it sounded strange, but I knew to respect these people and so did everyone else and so we continued to search. We searched in that same manner just moving further off, again until we found ourselves very far away from the camp from the other groups because we had to cover more ground. 

We were still with our family friends and they still called our name, and we still answered. It was late, or early, at this point and we were all tired, even Joszef was tired, we wanted to rest, to save our energy. We stopped for a few minutes and Joszef fell asleep on my arm. He felt warm and held me like he trusted me more than anyone he knew in the world. He fell asleep after two minutes and I felt like I wanted to fall asleep, but I knew that I needed to stay up, that one of us needed to stay up to make sure we knew where we were and to see the adults, the older adults than me, to make sure we weren't lost. When he did fall asleep in my arms, like a little baby even though he was six years old, he did look a bit like a baby, and he did seem very safe and warm though I was cold and very mightily scared. I didn't let him now at all that I felt scared because I knew he would get scared because of my fear. And I knew he did not react well to fear, that sometimes he reacted worse than most other people, that he felt the fear more and I knew that if he felt all of this fear he would cry and he wouldn't be able to search anymore when he woke up from the nap. 

I knew that he needed to stay safe and quiet and calm and not sad that he would be okay so I just made some noises to calm him to sleep then while he was sleeping made the same noises to keep him sleeping. I never did these voices before for Joszef and not really for anyone, I had no idea what to do so I just did what sounded and felt right. I don't know it could be that I remember something I never remembered before, maybe from what my Mama or Papa would do for me when I was younger, so I copied that idea or maybe memory and I just say shhhhhhhhh, but not as if to tell someone to shut up, but to calm them down, in a way that calmed the kid, so I did that. I held him as I sat down right against a tree and on the cold ground, and held him there like a baby, but a big baby, and rocked him back and forth and said softly to him this sound, longer than usual that I made, Shhhhhhhhh, shhhhhhhhh, over and over again until he fell asleep then stayed asleep. Even after he fell asleep I continued making this nice sound both for him but also for me because it made me calm because as much as I needed to remain calm for Joszef, now that he was asleep I found myself growing more scared and full of fear. I didn't know what to fear or why to fear at all, but I feared more for Joszef than for myself, or for anyone else really. 

I really felt scared just for him, that something might happen to him, my younger brother, the only son of my father and my dead mother. Someone they loved very much, that I love very much, that I want to take care of because I am his older sister, and older sisters take care of their younger smaller and more sensitive younger brother who needs your help to do the important things in life and he really loves you because he knows that you take care of him, he loves you because he knows you would always protect him, and he loves you because you love him, and I do love him, I really do, even though sometimes he gets annoying and sometimes he can be mean to me on purpose, and sometimes I don't want him around because he is a burden to us all, with his crying and sadness and sensitivity, and how sometimes we say or I say that I would love for him to go live somewhere else I would never want anything bad to ever happen to him.  

I realized in this weird moment that I would do anything to protect my little brother. I would hurt people, I would hurt a lot of people again and again even if it came to it, I realized, I would kill people. If I had to protect people, even though we all knew that killing was the worst sin you could do, I knew right then and right there that no matter what happened I would kill another person, even more than for myself, just to make sure that nothing bad would happen to my little brother Joszef with his little coat, and his little hat, and little gloves for his little hands. I realized that I would kill just to make sure he felt no real pain, I would kill even if the other person threatened just pain or just to make them feel uncomfortable. I would do everything in my power to destroy that other person, that the moment I thought about real pain to Joszef, to him even feeling like someone hurt his feelings made me want to kill that other person, and I would do it without even thinking about because something in me, when I think of Joszef feeling pain, something with in feels like an animal that wants to hurt another animal, I feel dangerous like an animal about to kill an animal for food.

I sshhhhhhh'ed so much that I began to feel sleepy and I thought to myself that I could fall asleep for a few minutes with Joszef in my arms feeling very warm and calm and breathing in his sleep so that I keep feel his life. We feel asleep holding on to each other, leaning on a tree sitting on the the cold floor, but we still fell asleep because we were both so tired and both now so calm because of the shhhhhhhhing.

Mama and Papa used to talk us for walks in the woods. Papa not as much as Mama, but both would still walk us in the woods. Mama would always point out the different plants and animals in the woods, what we could or could not eat, what the animals ate, what the animals made. Mama loved the woods, she always told us that when she was a kid she also liked the forest and would spend hours in the forest sometimes alone, sometimes with friends, and how she liked to get to know the plants, how they looked and felt. She taught me how know which plants we could or could not touch, and which plants contained poison. She felt at home here, she would always say, but I never felt at home like she did. I liked when she would show us the different animals in the forest, nothing too big or too scary, but sometimes, not most of the time, but sometimes the animals would come next to us and say hi and smell us and walk away. I used to be scared of the animals, but Mama made me calm and taught me to be calm when an animal would come by to say hi.

I woke up with Joszef still cuddling next to me. The cold sun shone in on our faces and woke us both up. It wasnt so bright and it was foggy and very cold. I looked around and saw that I no one was around us. Not Papa, and not our family friends, and I couldn’t see anyone else searching for Frikkie. Maybe they found her, which would be good, but we were lost, and separated from our family and our friends, and I felt scared. Joszef looked scared, but he wouldn’t say anything about his fear and I felt thankful for that. I worried that if he worried I would worry even more, and I knew because Papa told me that when you are in trouble worrying never helps. We were in trouble. We were very cold and even though it was during the day there was a lot of fog and we couldn’t see anything or anyone. We held onto each others hand so as not lose the other person, and to stay warm. We were wearing very big coats, but it was still cold almost freezing and we hadn’t eaten anything in a while and we were both hungry.

I decided, because I was the adult and the older person, to search for the other people in the same way that we searched for Frikkie. We started by walking out past our tree, a tree that I ripped off some bark to remember which tree we slept next to, in case people came looking for us, then we walked out in a straight line then moved to the right and walked back that way. We came back to the tree then did all of that again to keep on going farther and farther away. We didn’t really know which way to go, but we needed to go one way. Joszef didn’t say much, but whenever I looked at him he smiled at me, a very nice and comforting smile that he smiled at me. He didn’t cry or ask me annoying questions. I think he understood our situation, and he understood that I didn’t know anything or know what to do but he smiled at me and told me he trusted me. I loved him for that.

Mama once showed me an aardvark. She told me that aardvark was called that because those words mean a ground pig, because the aardvark always looks for food in the ground. I liked the aardvark because I thought it looked funny, with its big and weird nose. Mama used to tell me that sometimes aardvarks take out everything in an ant hill leaving them empty.

We searched a lot. We walked far then returned to our tree for a few minutes to rest. It started to now, a lot, and we got colder and colder and still didn’t have any food. Joszef was much smaller and skinnier than me, and therefore he shivered a lot from the cold, much more than me. We both were wearing a lot of clothing, but with the snow falling all over us, and the cold, Joszef shivered so much that I got more scared. We still held hands and I could feel his hand turning to ice and I got scared. He said we should walk more to find other people, but I wasn’t so sure. I was the adult here and I needed to make a decision. I needed to make a decision to either keep walking or to stay put and try to find some shelter or some food. I didn’t know what to do neither Papa or Mama ever told me or Joszef how to deal with something like this.

Joszef shivered more and more. He wouldn’t say anything bad about the situaiton, but I knew anyway it was bad. We were both very scared and didn’t know what to do and I worried that Joszef would get hurt, or worse die from being so cold and having no food to eat. Papa told me stories about people in our community who died from both of those and he told me that it was a painful death. I knew that I couldn’t tell Joszef about any of my worries, but I know that he worried about it too. He was a very smart little brother and he understood our situation. He told me that we should remember to walk around a little bit to not only look for food but to get our blood flowing. Papa used to say that all the time that we should move around to get our blood flowing and that it’s good to fight cold to keep moving. After some time though, we couldn’t move much we were so cold. We walked around some more and I noticed that Joszef started to look different. His skin looked like a sick persons, and he looked more cold than me. His skin was blue and a bit read, he looked beaten up but very white. I touched his skin with my fingers and his skin felt colder than my fingers. He still smiled but I could tell he was in a lot of pain. We couldn’t find any food, especially with all the snow coming down making everything look white with powder.

At first, Joszef wouldn’t take my coat from me. He told me I was crazy, and that I must be cold too. I told him I am the older sister and that he has to listen to what I say and that he was colder than me and that he needed this jacket more than me and that if he didn’t take the jacket he would get in trouble with Papa when Papa found us. Joszef knew that my threat wasn’t such a real threat, but I think he understood how serious I was so he took my coat. The coat was too big for him and he tried to put it on his shoulders but I made him put it over his head because I remember that Papa told me that when you are cold it’s most important to cover your head. Joszef looked funny with my coat over his head and we both laughed for a second. I got colder when I took my jacket off, much colder, but I could tell that Joszef was warmer and this made me proud of myself and happy. I realized that if I didnt find Joszef a place to hide while it snowed that giving him my coat, or anything else wouldn’t help in the long run and that he would get hurt from the cold and snow if I couldnt find some way to protect him better than this.

We walked around a little bit to get our blood flowing and to try to find some food because the snow stopped snowing so hard and because we could walk a little better. Joszef saw how cold I was but also saw that I wouldn’t take the coat back. We walked around and still found nothing but I saw an ant hill, a very big ant hill covered mostly by snow but I could still tell it was an anthill. I walked over to it and with my sweater over my hand I brushed aside some of the snow. The ant hill looked strong and intact. My mother once told that sometimes, aardvarks as they looked for food would look for their food in an anthill. Sometimes, I remember her telling me with her soft kind voice, aardvarks will empty out the whole anthill making it look like an anthill from the outside but inside there will be nothing, just space. I remembered all this when I saw this anthill. I thought, maybe, Joszef and I could both hide in the anthill. We would need to make a small hole so we could get in and then maybe we could cover it up and it would provide us a place to rest and be out of the cold. Joszef thought it was a good idea so we first brushed off some of the snow from the anthill.

We kicked in a small hole, and Joszef crawled in and said that he felt much warmer in here, but he told me that he didn’t think we could both fit in there and maybe we should take turns. He got out and I tried to get in but I didn’t fit. Joszef wanted to make the hole bigger so I could get in but I had to explain to him that if we made the hole too big it might not work for either of us, and it might break. He didn’t really understand but I told him that for now, if it only worked for one person we needed to use it. I told him to go first, and that he should rest up and then after he rested up and got warm maybe we could switch spots. I lied to him, but I think both Mama and Papa would be proud of the lie I told him. In fact, I knew both Mama and Papa would be proud of everything that I was doing for Joszef. I was the adult and I was taking care of my younger brother because he couldn’t take care of himself. I was being a good older sister, and I knew it and this made me feel good. I was very cold on the outside but inside I felt very warm, like I used to feel when my mother would hug us after we came inside from the cold outside.

Joszef sat inside the anthill, and I told him I sat watch on the outside, but I really just wanted to cover the hole against the wind for him. I worried that even inside he would be too cold so I sat on the hole but made a little space so he could breathe, because I wanted him to be warm but also to have air. Joszef, I called from time to time, and he told me that he did feel more warm, and he felt tired and warm and comfortable and that he loved me and always loved me even though sometimes I didn’t seem to love him as much. I told him that even when I seemed angry I always loved him that you can be angry or annoyed with someone you loved and still love them more than anything in life as I loved Joszef. Joszef said he didn’t really understand but he knew how much I loved him and he loved me even more than that. I said I really felt the love and that his love was keeping me warm outside in the cold while the anthill kept him warm. He asked me every couple of minutes or so if it was time to switch. I told him not yet, not yet, and then he understand he didn’t need to ask so much. I told him that he was my favorite person in the world since Mama died and he said the same to me. He told me he missed Mama still, all the time, and I told him I knew that because he cried so much. He apologized for crying so much and I told him it was good that he cried so much because it reminded us how much we all loved Mama and how much we all still cared and remembered Mama. He said sometimes he cried because he felt like he couldn’t remember Mama besides for what I told him. I said not to worry because as he grows up more and more people will talk about Mama, about all the things she did for us and how much she loved us and that he will always remember Mama. He said that I reminded him of Mama. I really liked that he said that because I did think that if Mama was in this situation she would do like I did to protect Joszef, and I also knew that if she could see us now she would be both sad but very proud of how we treated each other. Mama always liked when we were nice to each other. I told Joszef that this was a very nice thing to say because I loved Mama and I always tried to act like her, and he said that I was the kindest person he ever met. I knew that this was a lie because Mama was nicer than me and didn’t say or think mean things about the people in her family, but right now I felt like Mama a lot and it made me feel very warm inside and tired.

Eventually, after about 20 minutes like this Joszef told me that being in the hole was making him sleepy and I told him he needed a nap to save his energy because we would need our energy to wait for all the people and family who would come to rescue us. Joszef said that he was scared and I said I was a bit scared too, but that we shouldn’t be because sooner or later someone, probably Papa or one of his friends would find us and we would go back home and take a very hot bath. Joszef felt good about that but told me that he couldn’t fall asleep right now because he felt too afraid and that he didn’t think he could fall asleep without a story. I asked him what kind of story he would want, my lips shaking at this point, making all sorts of noises, and he told me that if I could, please tell me another story about Mama because he loved when I told him all these stories about Mama. I told him I told him all of my stories about Mama. That I had no stories left. He said that couldn’t be and that anything can be a story, maybe one time Mama walked funny, or took me to a park, anything, even something stupid or not fun or funny.

I tried to think through my cold and teeth making noises but I couldn’t come up with anything. I really wanted to come up with something about Mama, a new story that I could tell Joszef so that he could fall asleep while warm, but I couldn’t remember anything at that point. I needed to tell Joszef a story because I really wanted him to fall asleep so that I could fall asleep and not feel so cold anymore. I asked Joszef if I told him about how pretty our Mama looked. He said that I told him all the time, but that he loved when I talked about how Mama’s prettiness. I talked about how her skin was softer than a babies and how I loved to just hold her hand or to brush her hair with my fingers, and how Mama always let me do that. Sometimes I would just rub my fingers over her hands and fingers to feel how soft her skin was. Her skin was softer than mine because I got my skin from Papa. I could hear Joszef short and loud breathes he would make when asleep and I felt good that he was asleep in a warm and somewhat comfortable place. I stopped telling my Mama story, but I kept on reminding myself in my mind all about Mama because it made me feel warmer. I remember that Mama had very pretty eyes that sometimes looked very blue and sometimes looked green. They always looked pretty and big and like they contained other worlds in her eyes, like she could see more than anyone else. I used to sit and ask Mama if I could just stare at her eyes and most of the time she said yes, but only for a minute because she was busy. Sometimes though, she would let me sit and stare into her eyes because she would say that when I stared into her eyes she never felt more loved than she did right at this moment.

I could see her eyes looking at me as I got more cold and more tired. I felt really tired and all I wanted to do was to go to sleep just so I wouldn’t feel this cold. I realized that Joszef, however warm he said he was, couldn’t be that warm because my body couldn’t cover the whole hole. I took off my sweater, the purple one I was wearing, a heavy sweater, and used it to cover up the hole before I fall asleep just to make sure that Joszef would be actually warm for however long he could fall asleep. I saw my Mama’s eyes all blue and green, all warm just smiling at me as I fell asleep. I knew that if she could talk to me she would tell me how much she loved me at this moment and how proud she was of how I took care of my little brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_de_beer