I do believe this to be true. From Victor Davis Hanson in the National Review.
If after four years of careful planning, al Qaedists hit the Olympics in August, the terrorists know better than we do that most Europeans will do nothing — but quickly point to the U.S. and scream “Iraq!” And they know that the upscale crowds in Athens are far more likely to boo a democratic America than they are a fascist Syria or theocratic Iran. Just watch.
Monday, June 14, 2004
For those of my readers who disapprove of the angry tone of Little Green Footballs, I hope that my pointing this out does not offend.
In an article about what it is like to "live" in JFK airport for a day, there is this comment:
The place labeled "multifaith chapel" looked like a mosque, with signs in Arabic and a poster of Mecca facing east....
At the end of the hall I met Rabbi Bennett M. Rackman. A tall, good-looking man in his 50's, he touted the diversity of the terminal's religious district. "Out here is a sacred space, a safe space," he said, "where people have to respect each other." Lately, however, there has been controversy over the multifaith chapel. "The Muslims took it over," he said. "They put in the carpet. They put up signs."
Is this the sign of aggressive Muslims, a racist rabbi, a mixture of both or none of the above? Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words or misreporting. Hmmmm. And if the Muslims did "take it over" is it a fear of terrorism at the airport that prevents someone from forcing the chapel back to it's original use as a multifatih room?
I'm also curious as to which of the three chapels (Christian, Jewish, now Muslim) would someone who practices Hinduism or Buddhism feel more comfortable in? The Muslim one because it's more "Eastern". The Christian one because it's more accepting? The Jewish one because they don't proselytize?
P.S. I am of course all for Muslims having their own chapel. Perhaps there's another story behind all this where someone asked to have one built and permission was denied.
In an article about what it is like to "live" in JFK airport for a day, there is this comment:
The place labeled "multifaith chapel" looked like a mosque, with signs in Arabic and a poster of Mecca facing east....
At the end of the hall I met Rabbi Bennett M. Rackman. A tall, good-looking man in his 50's, he touted the diversity of the terminal's religious district. "Out here is a sacred space, a safe space," he said, "where people have to respect each other." Lately, however, there has been controversy over the multifaith chapel. "The Muslims took it over," he said. "They put in the carpet. They put up signs."
Is this the sign of aggressive Muslims, a racist rabbi, a mixture of both or none of the above? Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words or misreporting. Hmmmm. And if the Muslims did "take it over" is it a fear of terrorism at the airport that prevents someone from forcing the chapel back to it's original use as a multifatih room?
I'm also curious as to which of the three chapels (Christian, Jewish, now Muslim) would someone who practices Hinduism or Buddhism feel more comfortable in? The Muslim one because it's more "Eastern". The Christian one because it's more accepting? The Jewish one because they don't proselytize?
P.S. I am of course all for Muslims having their own chapel. Perhaps there's another story behind all this where someone asked to have one built and permission was denied.
I'll bet there's a whole bunch of people in Ohio who are happy with the racial (or religious?) profiling policy of the Justice Department.
Somali Is Indicted for Plan to Bomb Ohio Shopping Mall
WASHINGTON -- A Somali native living in Ohio has been charged with plotting with other al-Qaida operatives to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall, according to an indictment unsealed Monday.
The four-count indictment, returned by a grand jury in Columbus, Ohio, charges that Nuradin Abdi, 32, conspired with admitted al-Qaida member Iyman Faris and others to detonate a bomb at the unidentified shopping mall after he obtained military-style training in Ethiopia.
Apparently he's been in custody since last November on immigration charges dating back to 1999.
Somali Is Indicted for Plan to Bomb Ohio Shopping Mall
WASHINGTON -- A Somali native living in Ohio has been charged with plotting with other al-Qaida operatives to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall, according to an indictment unsealed Monday.
The four-count indictment, returned by a grand jury in Columbus, Ohio, charges that Nuradin Abdi, 32, conspired with admitted al-Qaida member Iyman Faris and others to detonate a bomb at the unidentified shopping mall after he obtained military-style training in Ethiopia.
Apparently he's been in custody since last November on immigration charges dating back to 1999.
A World Net Daily column brings up a good point. Since the county of Los Angeles has decided to remove the Christian cross from it's logo due to separation of church and state, will we have to go through a wide-ranging review of place names throughout the U.S.?
How many places are named after Christian religious figures or themes. Every place from San Francsico to Saint Paul to Las Cruces, New Mexico would have to rename themselves.
When I lived in El Paso, I always did feel a little unwelcome in Las Cruces....
How many places are named after Christian religious figures or themes. Every place from San Francsico to Saint Paul to Las Cruces, New Mexico would have to rename themselves.
When I lived in El Paso, I always did feel a little unwelcome in Las Cruces....
If you ask me, the Supreme Court wussed out on the Pledge decision, even if they are tehcnically correct.
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.
The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.
OK, let me see if I can understand Michael Moore's twisted personal ethics.
Let's assume for argument's sake that Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and all the others knew of the prisoner abuse in Iraq and never did anything about it. I guess the main reason for their inaction would be that they were "covering their ass" so that they could continue in power. Now that they have been "found out", people such as Michael Moore have called for their resignation, impeachment etc. The cover up of what some have called "war crimes" is a crime in and of itself.
Now let's say a civilian somehow got a hold of videotape prisoner abuse in Iraq months before it became publicly known and held onto it without showing anyone. What would be their motives? Fear of reprisal, perhaps. If they backed the war, maybe shame or embarrassment might be the reason. Regardless of the reason, wouldn't this be some sort of ethical violation not to make the video known to the public?
Apparently not if you're Michael Moore, who had video footage of prisoner abuse by American soldiers months before it was known to the general public. In fact he's "still not sure" if he did the right thing by withholding the video. Even though according to him, "the stuff with the detainees in my movie is even more shocking than what we saw in that prison".
His reason? "I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie." A man who was willing to produce an anti-war tirade in front of millions at last year's Oscar ceremony was afraid of a little negative publicity?
Since his movie is being distributed several months after the first 60 Minutes reports, and he couldn't have known about that report in advance, we have to assume that he decided that it was OK for people to be abused for three or four months (at least)in order to save him from feeling bad about what others thought about him.
I guess now that the stories of abuse were made public before the release of his movie, he'll feel more comfortable now that 60 minutes, those that followed them, and the media attending the Cannes Film Festival relieved him of the moral dilemma of having to publicize his movie personally.
"It's the largest opening I've had, four times the number of screens that 'Columbine,' was on."
Let's assume for argument's sake that Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and all the others knew of the prisoner abuse in Iraq and never did anything about it. I guess the main reason for their inaction would be that they were "covering their ass" so that they could continue in power. Now that they have been "found out", people such as Michael Moore have called for their resignation, impeachment etc. The cover up of what some have called "war crimes" is a crime in and of itself.
Now let's say a civilian somehow got a hold of videotape prisoner abuse in Iraq months before it became publicly known and held onto it without showing anyone. What would be their motives? Fear of reprisal, perhaps. If they backed the war, maybe shame or embarrassment might be the reason. Regardless of the reason, wouldn't this be some sort of ethical violation not to make the video known to the public?
Apparently not if you're Michael Moore, who had video footage of prisoner abuse by American soldiers months before it was known to the general public. In fact he's "still not sure" if he did the right thing by withholding the video. Even though according to him, "the stuff with the detainees in my movie is even more shocking than what we saw in that prison".
His reason? "I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie." A man who was willing to produce an anti-war tirade in front of millions at last year's Oscar ceremony was afraid of a little negative publicity?
Since his movie is being distributed several months after the first 60 Minutes reports, and he couldn't have known about that report in advance, we have to assume that he decided that it was OK for people to be abused for three or four months (at least)in order to save him from feeling bad about what others thought about him.
I guess now that the stories of abuse were made public before the release of his movie, he'll feel more comfortable now that 60 minutes, those that followed them, and the media attending the Cannes Film Festival relieved him of the moral dilemma of having to publicize his movie personally.
"It's the largest opening I've had, four times the number of screens that 'Columbine,' was on."
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Friday, June 11, 2004
I remember marching as a teenager in NY every year with hundreds of thousands of other Jews down to Dag Hammerskjold Plaza across from the U.N. to protest on behalf of Soviet Jewry. I was never completely satisfied until I saw Mayor Ed Koch give the crowd a big "thumbs up".
The Jerusalem Post has a very interesting article about how this movement which helped set free so many people was started by one young man with a vision 40 years ago. Just the mention of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ) brought back memories.
Essay: Lessons from a movement
During the last few weeks, the Jewish world has begun to take notice of the 40th anniversary of the founding of an American Soviet Jewry movement. That movement, the most successful protest campaign in Jewish history, was initiated by Yaakov Birnbaum on April 29, 1964, with a meeting at Columbia University that launched the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ). In the early years of the movement, it was SSSJ that ran the only full-time Soviet Jewry office and generated a level of activity that surpassed that of the entire Jewish establishment.
The Jerusalem Post has a very interesting article about how this movement which helped set free so many people was started by one young man with a vision 40 years ago. Just the mention of the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ) brought back memories.
Essay: Lessons from a movement
During the last few weeks, the Jewish world has begun to take notice of the 40th anniversary of the founding of an American Soviet Jewry movement. That movement, the most successful protest campaign in Jewish history, was initiated by Yaakov Birnbaum on April 29, 1964, with a meeting at Columbia University that launched the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ). In the early years of the movement, it was SSSJ that ran the only full-time Soviet Jewry office and generated a level of activity that surpassed that of the entire Jewish establishment.
One last Reagan related link now that the man is finally buried. This is for those people who seem to have forgotten just how much Ronald Reagan was despised by some of his political opponents. By Jimmy Breslin, one of the most prolific newspapermen in New York.
Reagan should be on a $3 bill
I won't soil my page by directly quoting his insults.
His diatribe remind me of the people who criticize Howard Stern because they don't like his show, but can't bring themselves to turn it off because deep down inside they are titillated by it.
Reagan should be on a $3 bill
I won't soil my page by directly quoting his insults.
His diatribe remind me of the people who criticize Howard Stern because they don't like his show, but can't bring themselves to turn it off because deep down inside they are titillated by it.
I'm not going to comment, because I'll just say something stupid that will come out wrong.
Gay Shabbat planned
Temple Beth Torah, a Jewish Reform congregation, will be hosting a Gay Pride Shabbat this evening in correspondence with the weeklong celebration of Rockland's gay community.
"The Reform movement has seen itself to be welcoming to the gay and lesbian community," said Rabbi Brian Beale, who will be officiating the service.
The county's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered communities are encouraged to attend this and every week's Shabbat, which is "a liturgy and celebration of God," said Beale.
Today's shabbat will be like any other, said Beale. However, the rabbi's usual 20-minute sermon will be replaced by a featured speaker addressing gay concerns in Judaism.
OK, I'll comment. I personally would be interested in hearing the speaker, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how I'd explain the issues coherently to my (almost) 4 year-old daughter. The rabbi in my Conservative shul usually asks the congregation some questions on Friday nights as part of his sermon, most of which an educated child can answer. Can issues of concern to the gay community be addressed to an audience made in large part of young children? I guess the Orthodox deal with this both by not welcoming gays (at least openly) and not having children go to shul.
Sometimes I'm really glad that I was born into the first adult generation that only has to deal with the remnants of discrimination based on sex, race and religion. I wish I could have avoided the sexual preference debates as well. My apathetic butt was born a generation or two too early.
There isn't any other general group lacking rights out there...is there? Maybe if we can be done with this, we can move on as a society?
Gay Shabbat planned
Temple Beth Torah, a Jewish Reform congregation, will be hosting a Gay Pride Shabbat this evening in correspondence with the weeklong celebration of Rockland's gay community.
"The Reform movement has seen itself to be welcoming to the gay and lesbian community," said Rabbi Brian Beale, who will be officiating the service.
The county's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered communities are encouraged to attend this and every week's Shabbat, which is "a liturgy and celebration of God," said Beale.
Today's shabbat will be like any other, said Beale. However, the rabbi's usual 20-minute sermon will be replaced by a featured speaker addressing gay concerns in Judaism.
OK, I'll comment. I personally would be interested in hearing the speaker, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how I'd explain the issues coherently to my (almost) 4 year-old daughter. The rabbi in my Conservative shul usually asks the congregation some questions on Friday nights as part of his sermon, most of which an educated child can answer. Can issues of concern to the gay community be addressed to an audience made in large part of young children? I guess the Orthodox deal with this both by not welcoming gays (at least openly) and not having children go to shul.
Sometimes I'm really glad that I was born into the first adult generation that only has to deal with the remnants of discrimination based on sex, race and religion. I wish I could have avoided the sexual preference debates as well. My apathetic butt was born a generation or two too early.
There isn't any other general group lacking rights out there...is there? Maybe if we can be done with this, we can move on as a society?
I kept hearing about a huge front page hatchet job on Ronald Reagan by R.W. Apple Jr. of the NY Times today, so I finally got around to reading it. Although it may be a bit of political grandstanding to call it a disrepectful thing to publish on a National Day of Mourning and his church funeral, it is certainly not neutral.
Legacy of Reagan's Presidency Now Begins the Test of Time
Lets look at the positive (?) things Mr. Apple has to say about the 8 years of the Reagan Presidency:
- He was respected and beloved (only perhaps, and only by some)
- He was popular (although not as popular as he could have been and having been popular wouldn't have meant he was a good President anyway)
- He was a great communicator
- He had an intuitive understanding of the average American
- He built and sustained friendships across partisan lines
- He was a good leader in times of national mourning
(The last four points are negated by the only quote in the article with an independent opinion of the Reagan presidency saying that "...he was not a great president. He was master at projecting a mood; he could certainly rally the country. He would have made a great king, a great constitutional monarch, but we do not have that form of government."
- He brought the long struggle with the Soviet Union to a conclusion in part by beefing up the military (while joining with Gorbachev)
- He was trustworthy and had immense charisma
- He was pragmatic (i.e. he admitted his own mistakes)
- He lifted the Carter era malaise (with a veil that kept our problems hidden)
In summary, he did have many positive personal traits, but not everyone thought so and they weren't what is needed to be a great president anyway. The only good that is mentioned about his policies (sort of) is that he assisted Mr. Gorbachev in destroying the Soviet Union, which would have happened anyway.
Now the negative:
- Iran-Contra affair is mentioned
- He was often ignorant of or impatient with policy minutiae (unlike most)
- Iran-Contra mentioned again
- believed words counted for far more in politics than mere deeds (I'll take that as negative)
- Spent WWII making training films (clearly a negative here re: his status among Presidents)
- Received undeserved credit for bringing about the end of communism
- His tax cuts failed to produce as much revenue as he expected
- He had a vision, but fell well short of producing consensus behind it
- Much of the country deeply resented and still resent his insistence that government is the problem, not the solution.
- The physically challenged resented him
- The economically challenged resented him
- The "otherwise" challenged resented him
- His celebrated optimism obscured major problems
- African-Americans were particularly aggrieved (for lack of commitment to civil rights and human rights)
- Trade unionists were also particularly aggrieved
- "Many" Jews were also particularly aggrieved and resentful (for Bitburg as well)
- He has no status overseas
- His brand of radical conservatism has achieved little success elsewhere.
And this they saved for the day he was buried - they couldn't even wait for the "Week in Review" section on Sunday.
Legacy of Reagan's Presidency Now Begins the Test of Time
Lets look at the positive (?) things Mr. Apple has to say about the 8 years of the Reagan Presidency:
- He was respected and beloved (only perhaps, and only by some)
- He was popular (although not as popular as he could have been and having been popular wouldn't have meant he was a good President anyway)
- He was a great communicator
- He had an intuitive understanding of the average American
- He built and sustained friendships across partisan lines
- He was a good leader in times of national mourning
(The last four points are negated by the only quote in the article with an independent opinion of the Reagan presidency saying that "...he was not a great president. He was master at projecting a mood; he could certainly rally the country. He would have made a great king, a great constitutional monarch, but we do not have that form of government."
- He brought the long struggle with the Soviet Union to a conclusion in part by beefing up the military (while joining with Gorbachev)
- He was trustworthy and had immense charisma
- He was pragmatic (i.e. he admitted his own mistakes)
- He lifted the Carter era malaise (with a veil that kept our problems hidden)
In summary, he did have many positive personal traits, but not everyone thought so and they weren't what is needed to be a great president anyway. The only good that is mentioned about his policies (sort of) is that he assisted Mr. Gorbachev in destroying the Soviet Union, which would have happened anyway.
Now the negative:
- Iran-Contra affair is mentioned
- He was often ignorant of or impatient with policy minutiae (unlike most)
- Iran-Contra mentioned again
- believed words counted for far more in politics than mere deeds (I'll take that as negative)
- Spent WWII making training films (clearly a negative here re: his status among Presidents)
- Received undeserved credit for bringing about the end of communism
- His tax cuts failed to produce as much revenue as he expected
- He had a vision, but fell well short of producing consensus behind it
- Much of the country deeply resented and still resent his insistence that government is the problem, not the solution.
- The physically challenged resented him
- The economically challenged resented him
- The "otherwise" challenged resented him
- His celebrated optimism obscured major problems
- African-Americans were particularly aggrieved (for lack of commitment to civil rights and human rights)
- Trade unionists were also particularly aggrieved
- "Many" Jews were also particularly aggrieved and resentful (for Bitburg as well)
- He has no status overseas
- His brand of radical conservatism has achieved little success elsewhere.
And this they saved for the day he was buried - they couldn't even wait for the "Week in Review" section on Sunday.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
I just got back from seeing Alan Dershowitz speak at Congregation Shearith Israel in Dallas on behalf of the American Jewish Congress. There were 1400 people there and I think it is fair to say that Professor Dershowitz had a captive audience.
I didn't take notes and I can't relay everything he said in this space, but I will try to remember some of the points he made that I may not have heard before. I suggest you read his book The Case For Israel to get the basic gist about what he spoke about.
There are few university professors in the entire country who are willing to speak out on behalf of Israel and against divestment and other anti-Israel movements.
If anti-Israel sentiment wasn't fueled by anti-Semitism, why aren't they killing Israelis in France and Morocco and Turkey? They're killing local Jews.
You can be a strong supporter of Israel even if you only agree with 90 percent of what they do and not 100 percent.
You can disagree with the specific methods of fighting terrorism, but there can be no argument that the combination of walls/fences, security checkpoints and targeted killings seems to be working.
I'm not sure if this is the case, but he said that the parts of the security fence that are actually walls are built in areas where Palestinians were shooting at homes or is on land that is within Israel proper.
Jews have a right to live anywhere, including Hebron and other areas of the West Bank. That does not mean that for the sake of peace and saving lives that some of them, including Hebron, should be given up.
Israel is a vital ally to the U.S. today because of shared military knowledge and intelligence. The argument that we must support the Arab countries is bound to come to a close by the middle of the century as oil is either depleted or replaced by alternative fuels.
The question is not why the U.S. is an ally of Israel but why Norway, France, etc. are not.
On a lighter note he mentioned that he grew up as a Brooklyn Dodger fan in the same neighborhood as Sandy Koufax, Jackie Mason, and others. Since moving to Boston he has become a Red Sox fan and loves to wear a t-shirt that says "I love NY but I hate the Yankees". He also told the story of how he got an orthodox rabbi to do a "mi shebarach" for Jackie Robinson by giving him a fake name like Yaakov ben Robin (I actually didn't catch the last name).
Rabbi Bloch of Chabad then closed the event with a little d'var torah about the story of the spies who were sent by Moses into the land of Israel. When they came back, ten of them were afraid because there were giants in the land and "just as we appeared as grasshoppers in our own eyes, so did we appear to them". As a result G-d punished the entire generation for their lack of faith in his promise to them and they were destined to wander for 40 years and die in the desert without seeing the Holy Land. The message for today is that if we keep thinking of ourselves as second class citizens and not worthy of living in the Land of Israel, others will see us this way and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that we don't live there anymore.
I didn't take notes and I can't relay everything he said in this space, but I will try to remember some of the points he made that I may not have heard before. I suggest you read his book The Case For Israel to get the basic gist about what he spoke about.
There are few university professors in the entire country who are willing to speak out on behalf of Israel and against divestment and other anti-Israel movements.
If anti-Israel sentiment wasn't fueled by anti-Semitism, why aren't they killing Israelis in France and Morocco and Turkey? They're killing local Jews.
You can be a strong supporter of Israel even if you only agree with 90 percent of what they do and not 100 percent.
You can disagree with the specific methods of fighting terrorism, but there can be no argument that the combination of walls/fences, security checkpoints and targeted killings seems to be working.
I'm not sure if this is the case, but he said that the parts of the security fence that are actually walls are built in areas where Palestinians were shooting at homes or is on land that is within Israel proper.
Jews have a right to live anywhere, including Hebron and other areas of the West Bank. That does not mean that for the sake of peace and saving lives that some of them, including Hebron, should be given up.
Israel is a vital ally to the U.S. today because of shared military knowledge and intelligence. The argument that we must support the Arab countries is bound to come to a close by the middle of the century as oil is either depleted or replaced by alternative fuels.
The question is not why the U.S. is an ally of Israel but why Norway, France, etc. are not.
On a lighter note he mentioned that he grew up as a Brooklyn Dodger fan in the same neighborhood as Sandy Koufax, Jackie Mason, and others. Since moving to Boston he has become a Red Sox fan and loves to wear a t-shirt that says "I love NY but I hate the Yankees". He also told the story of how he got an orthodox rabbi to do a "mi shebarach" for Jackie Robinson by giving him a fake name like Yaakov ben Robin (I actually didn't catch the last name).
Rabbi Bloch of Chabad then closed the event with a little d'var torah about the story of the spies who were sent by Moses into the land of Israel. When they came back, ten of them were afraid because there were giants in the land and "just as we appeared as grasshoppers in our own eyes, so did we appear to them". As a result G-d punished the entire generation for their lack of faith in his promise to them and they were destined to wander for 40 years and die in the desert without seeing the Holy Land. The message for today is that if we keep thinking of ourselves as second class citizens and not worthy of living in the Land of Israel, others will see us this way and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that we don't live there anymore.
Now that President Bush has confounded his critics and made nice with Chirac of France, another world leader that we supposedly pushed away forever is calling the entire Democrat party a bunch of hypocrites.
Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq
Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush (news - web sites) over Iraq (news - web sites).
The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) forces.
The reporter had asked Putin to respond to U.S. press articles questioning Russia's place at the G8 feast of leading industrial countries.
Putin brushed these off, saying such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate.
He went on: "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.
"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."
Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq
Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush (news - web sites) over Iraq (news - web sites).
The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) forces.
The reporter had asked Putin to respond to U.S. press articles questioning Russia's place at the G8 feast of leading industrial countries.
Putin brushed these off, saying such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate.
He went on: "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.
"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."
Some Detroiters are upset with comic Jimmy Kimmell for suggesting during a recent NBA Finals broadcast that, "They're going to burn the city of Detroit down if the Pistons win."
Kimmel's show was pulled from the air Wednesday night in the Detroit market.
"We think that there is a lot of discussion about how Jimmy Kimmel has jeopardized his right to have clearance in this community." said Channel 7's news director.
WDFN 1130 mid-morning host Sean Baligian fielded an hour of calls Wednesday, fueled by people outraged at Kimmel.
“It was unreal. Man, did that statement ever touch a nerve,” Baligian said. “People are mad. They're offended. I have never received such a quick reaction.”
Now it may have been a bad joke, but it's not like it couldn't happen. I'm having a hard time finding articles on past NBA chamopionships in Detroit since the last two were in 1989 and 1990 and there was no internet back then. I did however, find a study on the impact of sports on cities from Williams University which says:
"...violent celebrations first received widespread publicity following the NBA title won by the Detroit Pistons in the late 1980s..."
Seems to me that Detroit is the birthplace of violent celebrations.
Kimmel's show was pulled from the air Wednesday night in the Detroit market.
"We think that there is a lot of discussion about how Jimmy Kimmel has jeopardized his right to have clearance in this community." said Channel 7's news director.
WDFN 1130 mid-morning host Sean Baligian fielded an hour of calls Wednesday, fueled by people outraged at Kimmel.
“It was unreal. Man, did that statement ever touch a nerve,” Baligian said. “People are mad. They're offended. I have never received such a quick reaction.”
Now it may have been a bad joke, but it's not like it couldn't happen. I'm having a hard time finding articles on past NBA chamopionships in Detroit since the last two were in 1989 and 1990 and there was no internet back then. I did however, find a study on the impact of sports on cities from Williams University which says:
"...violent celebrations first received widespread publicity following the NBA title won by the Detroit Pistons in the late 1980s..."
Seems to me that Detroit is the birthplace of violent celebrations.
This has to be some of the worst reporting I've seen in a long time. I'm not even sure if "reporting" is the right word.
From the Financial Times: Settlers vow to defy calls to leave Gaza
The article begins - "Jewish settlers reacted angrily to reports on Thursday that Israel will encourage them to leave the Gaza Strip in return for compensation, with many vowing they would not leave."
There is no attempt to quantify "many". Neither is the attempt made to quote even one angry settler. You would think that a quote would have been pretty easy to get. If someone, somewhere didn't verbally state their opposition to the compensation plan, there would have been no impulse to create this story in the first place, right? I guess since it's "common sense" that the settlers would be angry no research was necessary for this piece.
I'm not saying this couldn't be true, or isn't true. But I'm not going the take the word of this reporter that it is.
In addition, the final paragraph reflects the type of bias in the media that was written about by Bernard Goldberg. It's not that what is said is wrong, it's that what is chosen to be said creates an inacuurate impression.
"The plan represents the first time Israel has decided in principle to remove the settlements, which were built in the West Bank and Gaza Strip following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and have been deemed illegal under international law."
I'm not sure which formal international body "deemed" the settlements illegal. But even accepting that they are, perhaps some mention could have been made regarding the past removal of settlements in the Sinai. This would have shown that it is not unprecedented for Israel to destroy settlements in an effort to make peace with its neighbors.
From the Financial Times: Settlers vow to defy calls to leave Gaza
The article begins - "Jewish settlers reacted angrily to reports on Thursday that Israel will encourage them to leave the Gaza Strip in return for compensation, with many vowing they would not leave."
There is no attempt to quantify "many". Neither is the attempt made to quote even one angry settler. You would think that a quote would have been pretty easy to get. If someone, somewhere didn't verbally state their opposition to the compensation plan, there would have been no impulse to create this story in the first place, right? I guess since it's "common sense" that the settlers would be angry no research was necessary for this piece.
I'm not saying this couldn't be true, or isn't true. But I'm not going the take the word of this reporter that it is.
In addition, the final paragraph reflects the type of bias in the media that was written about by Bernard Goldberg. It's not that what is said is wrong, it's that what is chosen to be said creates an inacuurate impression.
"The plan represents the first time Israel has decided in principle to remove the settlements, which were built in the West Bank and Gaza Strip following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and have been deemed illegal under international law."
I'm not sure which formal international body "deemed" the settlements illegal. But even accepting that they are, perhaps some mention could have been made regarding the past removal of settlements in the Sinai. This would have shown that it is not unprecedented for Israel to destroy settlements in an effort to make peace with its neighbors.
I wouldn't say that one Muslim assistant professor's thoughts posted on a right-wing/libertatrian website is going to change the world, but one can dream....
Scholar: Quran says Israel belongs to Jews
The professor quotes from Chapter 5: 20-21, which says Moses declared, "O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."
Mohammed points specifically to the reference to the Holy Land as a place God has "written" for the Israelites, a term that conveys, in Jewish and Islamic understandings, a "meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability..."
He says medieval scholars, "without any exception known to me," interpreted the Quran to recognize Israel as belonging to the Jews.
According to Mohammed, the idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, "probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism, etc., but certainly not having anything to do with the Quran."
Even if this were the case, someone would still have to define "Israel".
Scholar: Quran says Israel belongs to Jews
The professor quotes from Chapter 5: 20-21, which says Moses declared, "O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."
Mohammed points specifically to the reference to the Holy Land as a place God has "written" for the Israelites, a term that conveys, in Jewish and Islamic understandings, a "meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability..."
He says medieval scholars, "without any exception known to me," interpreted the Quran to recognize Israel as belonging to the Jews.
According to Mohammed, the idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, "probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism, etc., but certainly not having anything to do with the Quran."
Even if this were the case, someone would still have to define "Israel".
The NY Times lead editorial today (The U.N. Go-Ahead on Iraq) deserves an uber-fisking today. It begins:
At a time when not much has been going right in Iraq...
For who? The insurgents/rebels/militants?
*In the last month hundreds of them have been killed and the al-Sadr insurgency has been defeated.
*With UN assistance, a new Iraqi government was appointed and plans for a June 30 handover have not been postponed
*U.S. military casualties have dropped significantly from 150 in April to 88 in May to only 15 in the first ten days of June.
Then there's the everyday stuff that has improved as a direct result of U.S. involvement in Iraq (via FrontPage):
*Hundreds of thousands of children who had not received proper medical care now have up-to-date immunizations and other medical care.
*School attendance, by some estimates, is up 80% from levels before the war. Among those being educated are young girls who previously may not have received proper education.
*Despite much publicity early in the war that power plants had been bombed or sabotaged, what hasn't received wide publicity is that today Iraq now has more electrical power than it did before the war.
*Hundreds of thousands of people have telephones for the first time ever.
------------------
"While the outcome was inevitable..." and "There was never any chance that the Security Council would not support a motion..."
That's very interesting considering the Times own reporting on June 6:
"American and French officials said the understanding reached between the United States and Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, could remove a big hurdle to approval" and
"Mr. Chirac suggested that France still had concerns about the resolution that must be addressed before it could be completed"
------------------
"Nor, unfortunately, will it substantially broaden the international oversight of Iraq's passage to elected government in the ways that Senator John Kerry and others have recently proposed."
As if Senator Kerry would be able to dictate international action as President! Maybe it's possible that they don't want to get more involved at this stage and the wording of the resolution was an effective balance of American, Iraqi and International interests. Does the Times think a Kerry administration could have done better than a 15-0 vote?
------------------
"Unfortunately, this progress cannot undo everything that went before: President Bush's disastrous decision to rush into the invasion without Security Council endorsement, the ineptly planned occupation and all the damage those policies have done to Iraq and the Middle East, and to American relationships around the world."
Let's ignore that fact that Bush did not invade Iraq until more than 2 years into his presidency and 1 1/2 years after 9/11. (He was supposedly planning this invasion from day one, right?) And let's ignore the fact the "damage" of a Taliban-free Afghanistan, Saddam-free Iraq, fewer people being killed on both sides in Israel and a return of Libya to the international community. Let's also ignore that this resolution itself proves that American relationships with it's allies are not permanently damaged and we are creating new ones.
Even ignoring all that, what is the purpose of dwelling on the past if things are headed in the right direction (if not to Bush-bash before the reader leaves the page)? The fact of the matter is that worse decisions that these can indeed be undone. Should we not have tried to become allies with Germany and Japan after WWII because we could not undo the damage we caused by fire-bombing cities and dropping atomic bombs? Should Israel not try to build it's relationship with Germany which cannot undo the horrors of the Holocaust? Can we in this country live life with an attitude that we shouldn't push for racial equality because we can't undo the damage done by slavery?
What a depressing world the Times editors must live in!
UPDATE: NY Times website reports in a new article "Bush and Chirac Break Any Tension With a Joke About Food"
The two world leaders looked like and proclaimed themselves friends today, with hardly a hint of the deep differences that divided them over the invasion of Iraq last year.
And by the way, what makes Chirac a "world leader"? His country is no longer powerful either militarily or economically and has just a fraction of the territory and population of the world's largest nations. If Chriac is a "world leader" based on France's position on the Security Council, then that makes Sudan a "world leader" in Human Rights.
At a time when not much has been going right in Iraq...
For who? The insurgents/rebels/militants?
*In the last month hundreds of them have been killed and the al-Sadr insurgency has been defeated.
*With UN assistance, a new Iraqi government was appointed and plans for a June 30 handover have not been postponed
*U.S. military casualties have dropped significantly from 150 in April to 88 in May to only 15 in the first ten days of June.
Then there's the everyday stuff that has improved as a direct result of U.S. involvement in Iraq (via FrontPage):
*Hundreds of thousands of children who had not received proper medical care now have up-to-date immunizations and other medical care.
*School attendance, by some estimates, is up 80% from levels before the war. Among those being educated are young girls who previously may not have received proper education.
*Despite much publicity early in the war that power plants had been bombed or sabotaged, what hasn't received wide publicity is that today Iraq now has more electrical power than it did before the war.
*Hundreds of thousands of people have telephones for the first time ever.
------------------
"While the outcome was inevitable..." and "There was never any chance that the Security Council would not support a motion..."
That's very interesting considering the Times own reporting on June 6:
"American and French officials said the understanding reached between the United States and Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, could remove a big hurdle to approval" and
"Mr. Chirac suggested that France still had concerns about the resolution that must be addressed before it could be completed"
------------------
"Nor, unfortunately, will it substantially broaden the international oversight of Iraq's passage to elected government in the ways that Senator John Kerry and others have recently proposed."
As if Senator Kerry would be able to dictate international action as President! Maybe it's possible that they don't want to get more involved at this stage and the wording of the resolution was an effective balance of American, Iraqi and International interests. Does the Times think a Kerry administration could have done better than a 15-0 vote?
------------------
"Unfortunately, this progress cannot undo everything that went before: President Bush's disastrous decision to rush into the invasion without Security Council endorsement, the ineptly planned occupation and all the damage those policies have done to Iraq and the Middle East, and to American relationships around the world."
Let's ignore that fact that Bush did not invade Iraq until more than 2 years into his presidency and 1 1/2 years after 9/11. (He was supposedly planning this invasion from day one, right?) And let's ignore the fact the "damage" of a Taliban-free Afghanistan, Saddam-free Iraq, fewer people being killed on both sides in Israel and a return of Libya to the international community. Let's also ignore that this resolution itself proves that American relationships with it's allies are not permanently damaged and we are creating new ones.
Even ignoring all that, what is the purpose of dwelling on the past if things are headed in the right direction (if not to Bush-bash before the reader leaves the page)? The fact of the matter is that worse decisions that these can indeed be undone. Should we not have tried to become allies with Germany and Japan after WWII because we could not undo the damage we caused by fire-bombing cities and dropping atomic bombs? Should Israel not try to build it's relationship with Germany which cannot undo the horrors of the Holocaust? Can we in this country live life with an attitude that we shouldn't push for racial equality because we can't undo the damage done by slavery?
What a depressing world the Times editors must live in!
UPDATE: NY Times website reports in a new article "Bush and Chirac Break Any Tension With a Joke About Food"
The two world leaders looked like and proclaimed themselves friends today, with hardly a hint of the deep differences that divided them over the invasion of Iraq last year.
And by the way, what makes Chirac a "world leader"? His country is no longer powerful either militarily or economically and has just a fraction of the territory and population of the world's largest nations. If Chriac is a "world leader" based on France's position on the Security Council, then that makes Sudan a "world leader" in Human Rights.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
If it's wrong for a non-Jewish person to tell jokes about Jews, but OK for a Jewish person to do the same, what are the rules for a convert?
Anyway, here is an audio link from National Public Radio with a brief commentary by black Jew (that's how he refers to himself) Aaron Freeman. It's called "Conspiracy Theory". The tag line is "commentator Aaron Freeman has a proposal for his fellow Jews".
Eevn though the commentary is meant to me comic and facetious, I don't find it funny to suggest that religious jews get drunk every Sabbath and that it's a good idea to invite non-Jews over to get them so drunk that they forget to criticize Jews about topics like Ariel Sharon and The Passion when they go to their country clubs and klan meetings.
I feel like making the same comment as I did about the anti-Israel protests below. What do I tell my children?
Anyway, here is an audio link from National Public Radio with a brief commentary by black Jew (that's how he refers to himself) Aaron Freeman. It's called "Conspiracy Theory". The tag line is "commentator Aaron Freeman has a proposal for his fellow Jews".
Eevn though the commentary is meant to me comic and facetious, I don't find it funny to suggest that religious jews get drunk every Sabbath and that it's a good idea to invite non-Jews over to get them so drunk that they forget to criticize Jews about topics like Ariel Sharon and The Passion when they go to their country clubs and klan meetings.
I feel like making the same comment as I did about the anti-Israel protests below. What do I tell my children?
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Continuing yesterday's diversion into the world of Jewish religious history, I thought I needed to know what "Tz'enah Ur'ena" referred to. Now I know.
According to Artscroll:
From 1610 until the Holocaust, an Eastern European Jewish home had a Tz'enah Ur'enah on its Shabbos table. At least 210 editions of Rabbi Yaakov Ashkenazi's classic combining Torah commentary, Midrashic insights, and ethical teachings on the weekly sidrah have appeared.
And this from an Orthodox site:
(lit., "go out and see [O daughters of Jerusalem]"): a text featuring passages from the Chumash and related excerpts from the Midrash, translated into Yiddish and arranged according to the weekly *Parshah and the festivals; originally compiled and translated by R. Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazy (c. 1540-c. 1626), though the printed edition now used was extensively edited by a later (unknown) author; it has been studied for centuries by generations of pious Jewish women, both uneducated and highly erudite
According to Artscroll:
From 1610 until the Holocaust, an Eastern European Jewish home had a Tz'enah Ur'enah on its Shabbos table. At least 210 editions of Rabbi Yaakov Ashkenazi's classic combining Torah commentary, Midrashic insights, and ethical teachings on the weekly sidrah have appeared.
And this from an Orthodox site:
(lit., "go out and see [O daughters of Jerusalem]"): a text featuring passages from the Chumash and related excerpts from the Midrash, translated into Yiddish and arranged according to the weekly *Parshah and the festivals; originally compiled and translated by R. Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazy (c. 1540-c. 1626), though the printed edition now used was extensively edited by a later (unknown) author; it has been studied for centuries by generations of pious Jewish women, both uneducated and highly erudite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)