LarDog's Blog

2002-10-17T11:12:00.000-04:00

How Bad is Maureen Dowd?

Dowd's columns during Clinton's impeachment opened my eyes to the corruption by power and the sneering contempt for the rest of society that the Clintons had. Unfortunately, Dowd herself has now come to share this contempt and display from her perch as a columnist, as explained in this article in today's NRO:

[I]t is symptomatic of the intellectual state of the Left — and Dowd is its great exemplar in this respect — that rhetorical disdain has come to substitute for rational criticism...The problem with this sort of writing is that it's free-floating sarcasm. There's no substance underneath except for Dowd's conviction that she can peer into the souls of her political adversaries in order to discern their true motivations. In this respect, she is simply Al Franken with a bigger vocabulary or Michael Moore with table manners. (Quick aside on Moore: Flip through his book next time you pass it on a shelf. Note the SENTENCES IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Note the preponderance of exclamation points! In the current climate, Moore is a wobbling monument to the false impression that mouthing egalitarian clichés from the Sixties constitutes a reasoned worldview; in a more literate time, Moore would pass for a JERRY SPRINGER GUEST!) Dowd, Franken, and Moore, taken together, represent the evolutionary spectrum of a new species of elitists. Elitism, to be sure, is as old as human society. But never in recorded history has a less cerebrally, morally, or spiritually elite Elite looked down their noses at the majority of their countrymen. The minimum requirement for membership in the intelligentsia used to be, well, intelligence. This is no longer the case. Rather, what is now required is the mere sense of your own superiority, the smirky confidence that flows from an undergraduate grasp of history, philosophy, and literature, and which can only be sustained by a maniacal deafness to counterarguments. Listening to your political opponents is deadly under such circumstances; they must therefore be dismissed, a priori, as stupid.

This is the reason that so many Leftist critics of the coming war in Iraq don't even bother arguing against it on rational grounds. They just say that it's about oil, or a distraction from the economy, or intended to cover up corporate greed. It drives them nuts that someone they think is stupider than they are is a popular president.

2002-10-10T14:27:00.000-04:00

Mrs. Kabila Needs My Help

I got one of those Nigerian scam e-mails:

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: MRS. JUSTINA KABILA
TEL: +31-613-865-048
E-MAIL: justina49@netscape.net

ATTN:

AN APPEAL FOR YOUR PERSONAL ASSISTANCE TO INVEST IN YOUR COUNTRY

I AM FORTY-NINE YEARS OLD WIDOW (THE THIRD WIFE) OF THE LATE PRESIDENT
LAURENT KABILA OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO. MY HUSBAND
WAS ASSASINATED BY ONE OF HIS BODYGUARD ON THE 16th OF JANUARY 2001.

AT THE MID OF THE REBELLION WHICH IS STILL ON IN MY COUNTRY,MY SON
AND I WENT OUT OF CONGO ACCORDING TO MY HUSBAND INSTRUCTION BEFORE
HIS DEATH BECAUSE THE FAITH OF OUR COUNTRY WAS YET TO BE DECIDED.
WE CAME TO AMSTERDAM WITH THREE SEALED BAGGAGE CONTAINING THE SUM
OF TWENTY-TWO MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS (US$22,000,000.00).

ON ARRIVAL IN AMSTERDAM THE NETHERLANDS, WE SOUGHT FOR POLITICAL
ASYLUM. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE A BANK ACCOUNT AND DECIDED
TO DEPOSIT THE SEALED BAGGAGES CONTAINING THE FUNDS WITH A PRIVATE
SECURITY COMPANY.(UCL DIPLOMATIC SERVICES) FOR SECURITY REASONS,
I DECLARED THE CONTENT AS PHOTOGRAHPIC MATERIALS of high security
value BELONGING TO MY FOREIGN AFFILIATED BUSINESS PARTNER. SINCE
THEN WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON
TO HELP ME FOR SAFE KEEPING OF THE MONEY PRIOR TO INVESTING IN ANY
CONDUCIVE COUNTRY IN OVERSEA.

I GOT IN CONTACT WITH SOMEBODY IN AUSTRALIA,HE BECAME GREEDY
CONSIDERING
HIS SHARE IN THE TRANSACTION, HE ASKED FOR 40%. LUCKILY, I RAN
INTO YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS, AND DECIDE TO CONTACT
YOU AND SEE IF YOU COULD BE OF ANY HELP TO ME AND THE TERMS OF
THE TRANSACTION IS AS FOLLOWS:

1) 25% OF THE TOTAL SUM TO YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING
ACCOUNT AND SAFE KEEPING OF THE FUNDS.

2) 5% OF THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SET ASIDE FOR ANY EXPENSES THAT MAY
BE INCURRED IN THE PROCESS OF THIS TRANSACTION.

3) 70% OF THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE FOR ME AND MY FAMILY INVESTMENT
IN YOUR COUNTRY OF WHICH YOU WILL BE A GUIDE TO US.

PLEASE SHOULD THIS MEET YOUR ULTMOST CONSIDERATION,CONTACT MY SON
(PETER KABILA) THROUGH TELEPHONE:(+31-613-865-048)

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK (PETER) ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
CONSIDER NECESSARY, HE IS FRONTING FOR ME ;AS I LOOK FOWARD TO HEAR
FROM YOU.

YOURS TRULY,

MRS. JUSTINA KABILA.

2002-10-08T21:25:00.000-04:00

Appeasing Terrorists Never Works

This article on the IRA shows how the Good Friday Accord to end the troubles in Northern Ireland is coming apart as the IRA/Sinn Fein's continuing involvement in terrorism becomes so blatenly clear that even Tony Blair can't avoid it.

2002-10-04T14:15:00.000-04:00

Other People's Rants

Sometimes I worry that some of my remarks on this site are somewhat, shall we say, intemperate. Then I read something as hilariously over-the-top and yet dead-on like this rant about Paul Wellstone, which includes such delicious lines as,

"[T]here are two parties nowadays: the US party, and the UN party. The former includes Republicans and Democrats who have an inordinate, romantic, and almost quaint attachment to the Constitution and the notion of national sovereignty. The latter regard nation-states as subsets of a global construct that values unanimous impotence over individual effort, and values procedure over results. The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert’s Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions. Yea, though I walk through the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for evil is specifically prohibited under Article 4, subclause B."

2002-10-04T13:25:00.000-04:00

Why the Internet Was Slow Yesterday

WorldCom Glitch Causes Internet Delays

2002-10-04T12:31:00.000-04:00

NPR Series on History of Israel

Just posted on israpundit some links to an NPR series on the history of Israel.

2002-10-04T12:06:00.000-04:00

So Should I See This Movie or Not, II

This is so much fun, it will now be a regular Friday feature. Last time, it was Salon vs. Slate, but as of 11:45, Salon hasn't reviewed this movie, so it's Salon vs. CNN today.

"Red Dragon," the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal," starring Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, Edward Norton as The FBI Agent, and Ralph Feinnes as The Seriel Killer. The plot line was previously done in the movie "Manhunter" in 1996.

CNN: 'Dragon' worthy follower to 'Lambs'

Salon: "Red Dragon": Anthony Hopkins? Big deal! We've already seen the prequel to "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal" -- and it was better the first time.

Some comments:

CNN: In "Red Dragon," the prequel to 1991's "Silence Of The Lambs," Sir Anthony Hopkins -- who won an Academy Award for his earlier portrayal of Hannibal Lecter -- proves once again that Lecter is the most terrifying villain in cinematic history.

Salon: If you buy the overprocessed headcheese of the serial killer as refined genius, you'll love "Red Dragon." Or maybe not. Even Hannibal Lecter devotees may lose patience with this picture's grandiose, self-serious ponderousness -- that's Lecterese for, "It's kind of boring in patches, actually."

CNN: This film's remarkable effectiveness is also due to the fact that "Silence" screenwriter Ted Tally, who won an Academy Award for "Lambs," is back, along with a stellar cast including Emily Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Harvey Keitel.

Salon: There's an aura of dread and menace about "Red Dragon," but it's almost as if it's been pumped into the movie by an ionizer. Neither Ratner nor his actors -- working from a script by Ted Tally, who also wrote the screenplay for "The Silence of the Lambs" -- are any good at charging the atmosphere with true creepiness.

CNN: [W]e actually get to know the killer, whose real name is Francis Dolarhyde, simply known as D. [The movie], in fact, has given D a compelling back story not included in [the original] book.

Salon: We know who the killer is long before [The FBI Agent] does, of course: It's Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes), your friendly neighborhood mild-mannered impotent psychotic with a harelip..A hokey voiceover flashback tells us that Francis suffered severe emotional and physical abuse at the hands of the crazed granny who raised him. For those who have difficulty decoding such fine-grained psychoanalysis, [The FBI Agent] puts it this way: "He wasn't born a monster. He was made one through years and years of abuse."

CNN: "...a stellar cast including Emily Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Harvey Keitel."

Salon: [Fiennes] paces through the movie like a silent-film ham, making his eyes look really shiny and crazy whenever it's called for, which is basically every time he's on-screen. Did someone forget to tell him "Red Dragon" is a talkie?...Norton plods along dutifully for the ride...He delivers his lines like a guy who sure knows how to deliver lines -- he hits them like a tennis pro idly whacking a ball against the wall over and over again. They make contact; they just don't whirr or sting. At the very least, though, his brand of understatement is a blessed relief next to Hopkins' coming on like a bad Bette Davis impersonator...Hopkins takes such great care to festoon his character in crepey elegance that he succeeds only in turning it into low camp.

CNN: The score, by Danny Elfman, is excellent...

Salon: Be sure to listen for the way Danny Elfman's score swells like a flooding fjord during the electrifying blow-job scene.

2002-10-03T11:12:00.000-04:00

This Passes for Genius?

All I need is one goofy idea...

Bringing dance to prayer: Activist wins ‘genius’ grant

...

Choreographer, dancer, community organizer, teacher and now public persona, Lerman last week received a five-year MacArthur Fellowship for $500,000, a prize that carries with it the public recognition of genius status.

...

A member of [Reform] Temple Micah, Lerman at times used the congregation as a laboratory, developing synagogue-based programs like dance midrash to bring movement and dance into the stand-up-sit-down world of traditional Jewish prayer...

“To bring movement to the life of prayer is extraordinary,” says Ron Wolfson, vice president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, director of the Whizin Center for the Jewish Future and co-founder of Synagogue 2000. “Liz is able to make people comfortable with the idea that movement is a possibility, and she expresses it in a nonthreatening way to people who never believed they could move.”

[Reform rabbi Daniel Zeman] adds, “Personally my prayer experience has been changed forever” by Lerman’s work...But organized Judaism — not just alternative basement services and chavurot — he says, must acknowledge the primacy of Lerman’s work as an example of the power creative expression can provide to help create community.“It should be a signal to the Jewish community about what I’ve said all along about Liz: that there are incredible artists out there and that we have to be open enough to embrace them and bring them into our synagogues and communities. Liz is out there in the art world blazing new forms. We have to allow this in and allow it to affect the mainstream.”

“If we don’t bring these artists right into the mainstream,” Zemel warns, “if we don’t recognize them, we’re blind to the geniuses among us, and they’ll go elsewhere, out into the secular world.”

Let me show you the door...

2002-10-03T10:52:00.000-04:00

Federalist Society on the Laws of Armed Conflict

Just posted on Israpundit a link and comment on a Federalist Socieyt report, "A Legal Analysis of the Attacks on Civilians and Infliction of Collateral Damage in the Middle East Conflict."

2002-10-01T13:11:00.000-04:00

Canadian Anti-Idiotarians

According to today's FT, Canadian Business Rallies Against Kyoto:

Canada's decision on ratification is expected to have a crucial effect on the long-term future of the United Nation's efforts to curb climate change even though its approval is not essential for the protocol to come into force.

The dispute has escalated since Jean Chrétien, the prime minister, announced plans at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg last month to put the protocol to a vote in parliament this year.

The widely-held belief that it will win approval from parliament has unleashed intense criticism from opponents. "It's the goofiest, most devastating thing that was ever conceived and has ever been contemplated by a Canadian government in the history of this country," said Ralph Klein, premier of Alberta, the leading oil-producing province.

Last week, a broad cross-section of Canadian industry launched a coalition to fight ratification plans. Gwyn Morgan, president of EnCana, an energy producer, accused the government of being "led down the garden path" by a European Union plan to gain commercial advantage over other countries".

"Now that the US and Australia have dropped out, the EU countries are worried that the jig is up. They're scrambling to make sure Canada ratifies so they can at least have competitive advantage over our country," Mr Morgan said.

...

Canada does not emit enough greenhouse gases for its approval to have a decisive influence but a rejection would be significant because it would mean that there were no countries in the Americas taking on legally-binding emission targets.

Some analysts believe that could lead to the development of a North America Free Trade Area (Nafta) climate initiative, scuppering the UN's long-term ambitions of drawing the US back into its international coalition on climate change. "Canada is crucial, not because it is required to get Kyoto into force but because it changes the long-term dynamics," says Michael Grubb, professor of climate change at London's Imperial College.

Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate campaign of WWF, the environment group, says that Canada's ratification would split the north American block. "It is both economically and politically important because it sends a signal about just how isolated the Bush administration is on this."

Hold on a minute. The WWF (not World Wrestling Federation, but World Wildlife Fund; the wrestlers lost a copyright infringement suit and had to change their name to World Wide Entertainment) says that the U.S. is "isolated," but two paragraphs earlier, the article says that if Canada ratifies it will be the only country in the Americas with binding emissions targets, and if it doesn't ratify, there will be a North American climate initiative. So who is isolated?

2002-09-30T11:10:00.000-04:00

The Euroweenies Are Whining Again

The WaPo reports that New U.S. Doctrine Worries Europeans. It includes these gems from our alleged allies:

Rallies by tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators in London and Rome on Saturday were reminiscent of the protests of the early 1980s in favor of nuclear disarmament and against President Ronald Reagan's tough stance on the Soviet Union.

Uh, yeah, right, they protested against the tough stance that actually won the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

The Europeans say the administration views them as "Euro wimps" who don't pull their weight militarily, and who prefer prevarication to plain-speaking and appeasement to action. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's recent appearance at a NATO meeting in Warsaw, during which he snubbed the German defense minister because of Schroeder's strong opposition to military action against Iraq, was the latest insult.

Okay, so at least they understand the situation. And why is it an intolerable insult for Rummy not to meet the German defense minister, but okay for Schroeder to dis the U.S. and for his foreign minister to compare our President to Hitler? Do they think they can do that without consequences?

"There's a tone of contempt that people here deeply resent," said John Wyles, a journalist and policy strategist who works for GPlus Europe, a consulting firm.

This is precious. The Europeans who have been calling us simplistic cowboys for the last year (longer, really, since right after Bush became president) are now complaining about our contempt for them!

Many people contend that the Americans have put too much emphasis on a military approach to attacking terrorism and not enough on dealing with what they identify as root causes, such as poverty and lack of freedoms. "None of this in any way justifies or explains what happened on September 11th," Patten said, "but perhaps it means we have a slightly more nuanced idea of how you deal with terrorism."

But they complain about contempt? Patten is foaming at the mouth with supercilious contempt for the U.S. And he's wrong. As many people keep pointing, out poverty does not cause terrorism. Osama is not poor! The hijackers were from middle class families. It's as if the Euroweenies just don't want to admit the facts staring them in the face. And then they act superior to us, and complain that we act superior to them.

2002-09-29T22:51:00.000-04:00

Gerry Adams Was a Terrorist?!

Why is it news that Gerry Adams was a terrorist? This is the man that Bill Clinton invited to Washington in 1993 despite the opposition of the entire U.S. intelligence community, who assured the president that Adams had personally directed murders, among others,

...the execution of a Belfast mother of 10, Jean McConville, after she was twice caught using a radio transmitter to tell British spies about the movements of IRA members in west Belfast's Divis Flats complex.

2002-09-29T22:32:00.000-04:00

German Election

Just posted on israpundit about this quote on the recent German election:

"[T]he real problem...is that 25 percent to 30 percent of the German population holds anti-Semitic beliefs,” he said. “We had an election campaign that was anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and anti-American.”

2002-09-27T15:03:00.000-04:00

Protest Update

2 pm walkabout in downtown DC revealed---nothing. Zip. Zero. How boring. How disappointing. Nothing going on in front of the World Bank. One middle-aged guy in a t-shirt and clown pants wearing a football helmet was being interviewed by a Japanese tv crew and said that the police were overreacting. But there was nothing to react to. The cops--and there were a lot of them--were just standing around. Except for the Japanese, the tv crews weren't doing much of anything either. And there were a few gawkers, like me. So I walked over to the White House. Same thing. Lots of police, no protestors. I did talk to three young women from Long Island University who were holding anti-war signs, but they were pretty much the whole thing. They said that most of the action had taken place in Freedom Plaza earlier in the day, as this WaPo article reported. Almost 600 people were arrested, so maybe that cut down on the fun by the time I got out there. A protest was planned for the afternoon in front of the Gap in G-town. (Apparently, it's going to be a "nude-in," with demonstrators taking their clothes off. I'll try to get some photos.) So, that was about it. Downtown is quiet, but other than that it's pretty much same as always: tourists, businessmen, bike messengers hanging out in the squares, homeless people talking to themselves. Only difference was, a lot more police. That was, I admit, somewhat intimidating, especially the heavily armed Park Police, who were not at all like Ranger Smith. I think Satufday will be more active.

2002-09-27T13:32:00.000-04:00

So Should I See This Movie or Not?

Moonlight Mile, staring Dustin Hoffman as Ben and Susan Sarandon as JoJo, the parents of a murdered woman and Jake Gyllenhaal as Joe, the woman's fiancee.

Salon: Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon and Jake Gyllenhaal anchor a dazzling true-life comedy that might be the funniest movie about grief ever made.

Slate: Death Takes a Quaalude: Moonlight Mile is the worst film of the year

A few comparisons:

Salon: "Moonlight Mile" is a blessed relief because it doesn't treat grieving as a cottage industry, recognizing that although grief has certain universal attributes, everyone's sorrow also has its own complex, fine-grained texture.

Slate: I'm at a loss to account for how off this film is—how a movie can seem so conscientiously earnest yet so creepily exploitive. It's like a Christmas stocking over a crematory.

Salon: "Moonlight Mile" is a prime example of a picture that survives (and maybe even thrives on) the whole brutal Hollywood moviemaking process and doesn't leave its heart at the door.

Slate: Yuck. It's not the touches of comedy in a story framed by grief. It's the combination of the maudlin and the arch. Joe [the main character] is like a Woody Allen character amid the Gentiles, and in this context his eye-rolling higher consciousness is repellent. And when Silberling [the director] turns him into a fount of truth, his candor inspiring the parents to face up to their past and move on, the movie becomes an affront to the living and the dead.

Salon: [O]ne of the most surprising qualities of "Moonlight Mile" is how strangely energizing it is.

Slate: Moonlight Mile is like In the Bedroom (2001) made sweet and uplifting. It's even more vomitous than what Silberling did to Wim Wenders' Wings of Desire (1988), which he remade as City of Angels (1998) with Nicolas Cage as an angel who becomes fully human only when the woman he loves (Meg Ryan) celebrates their impending nuptials by bicycling into a truck.

2002-09-26T14:53:00.000-04:00

Almighty Kofi

Today's Journal points out that some Christian leaders have apothesized the UN:

The Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed the Holy See's view that any decision to use force "must come about through a decision taken within the framework of the United Nations." This is the same U.N. that the Catholic Church challenges (rightly, we think) when it pushes for population control and a world-wide right to abortion.

Protestant clerics have also found a higher moral authority in Kofi Annan. General Secretary Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society -- the denomination to which both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney belong -- has stated flatly that "no member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the U.N. Security Council."

Ditto for 37 British, Canadian and American members of the World Council of Churches Central Committee...

Whatever one thinks about Mr. Bush's alleged "unilateralism," at least he's democratically elected, which is more than you can say about much of the General Assembly. Any institution that hails Yasser Arafat, who built a career on terror, is nobody's moral exemplar.

As for the Security Council, one of its permanent members is China. Leave aside the murders in Tiananmen Square and Buddhist Tibet. In China, many of the co-religionists of those clerics who now place so much trust in the Security Council are harassed, jailed and sometimes killed. Catholics loyal to the Pope remain persecuted, as are Protestants whose only crime is reading the Bible, without official authorization, in their own homes. Last December five members of an evangelical sect were sentenced to death in secret trials. This persecution goes well beyond Christians, as members of the outlawed Falun Gong can grimly attest.

Russia, another Security Council member, has its own issues with religion: Non-Russian-Orthodox from Pentecostals to the Salvation Army have faced restrictive registration laws against the exercise of their faiths.

2002-09-26T11:46:00.000-04:00

Who's a Jew?

This report from the JTA on a new census of American Jews shows the tenuous nature of Jewish identification. The compiler of the census claims that there are

6.7 million Jews out of 288 million Americans, far higher than the closest, most recent estimate of 6.1 million American Jews... and that 2.5 million Americans are a subgroup “socially or psychologically connected” with Judaism, though they are not Jews themselves. This group includes people who are practice Judaism “as a secondary religion,” or aspects of Judaism in addition to their primary religion; who were raised Jews or have a Jewish parent but now practice another religion; call Judaism their ethnicity or culture but practice another religion; or have a Jewish partner or spouse... and that 4.1 million more Americans have at least one ancestor — “a grandparent or beyond” — who is Jewish.

What is practicing Judaism as a "secondary" religion mean? Or practicing "aspects" of Judaism"? Or practicing another religion to the exclusion of Judaism, but considering oneself still ethnically Jewish? Where does that leave people--i.e., converts--who practice Judaism but aren't ethnically Jewish? And did the author include Jews for Jesus? Why, or why not?

I can see an argument that including these people in a larger, sociological definition of the Jewish community might have some benefit when trying to work to reduce anti-Semitism or increase support for Israel. But that people see the definition of "Jewish" as malleable and open to individual interpretation is alarming. Halakha is the only sure guide to Jewish identity and continuity.

The article does make this point:

Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, said both Tobin’s study and the upcoming [National Jewish Popluation Survey] NJPS will show that, in fact, the numbers of “strictly halachic” Jews are declining. If nothing else, that raises troubling questions about the future of American Jewish political influence, Sarna said. While Sarna said Tobin’s rosier portrait is not based on “utter nonsense,” since “vast numbers” of Americans today are indeed tied in some way to Jews, that does not say much about the future of American Jewry...20 million American also have ties to French Huegenots, a culture that died out, he added. “Many of these people who have a piece of Jewish heritage” aren’t selecting that piece and “see no reason why Judaism should be central to them or their children,” he said.

2002-09-23T16:03:00.000-04:00

Report on the Toronto Film Festival

From a friend, Alidog. Hey, the description of this blog does include "pop culture." But I have to be somewhat political--Alidog apparently didn't see the anti-American 9-11 movie,which I've noted(top of page), a couple of times (middle of the page, 8/28). Also, Bruce Campbell (middle of page, post entitled "Who Wants Some!") was there:

Mediocre or one of the best ever; reports varied on the quality of this
year's slate of movies at the Toronto International Film Festival. My festival
experience this year was just ok, the first time ever that I did not
see something truly mindblowing - no masterpieces. However, I did see a lot
of good films that may or may not be released within the next year or so. So
here it is, your annual report - this year very skimpy on content - for film
details - check imdb.com.

Note: One update from previous fests: Spring Forward (1999), a small
indie by Tom Gilroy starring Ned Beatty and Liev Schrieber, has just come out
on DVD. Make a point of renting this dialogue-driven gem about two men, one at
the end of his career, one just starting out, who bond over the course of a
year on the job. Production credits are very good and the acting is excellent.

Bubba Ho-Tep - directed by don coscarelli, who gave us phantasm IV,
comes this fun romp with the inimitable Bruce Campbell(!!!) playing a geriatric
elvis (the true king baby!) who teams up with Ossie Davis (who believes that he is
JFK) to defeat a soul-sucking mummy that is preying on nursing home residents.
Although the climax was lacking, this is a tour-de-force for Campbell, he is the
KING! If this comes within 50 miles of you (or more) go see it (still seeking
distributor). A must for Campbell fans (which all of you should be. else, shame!
and learn grasshoppers).

The Eye - made by the Pang Brothers, Hong Kong's answer to the
Wachowski Bros, moody suspenser follows a blind woman who, after having cornea
transplants, see the dead. Fine fun, with a kicky opening credit sequence. Word on the
street (could be bs) is that Tom Cruise has optioned this for remake. Other
than a hokey love interest that appears shoehorned into the script with a
ballpeen hammer, this is a solid work.

Spun - Jonas Akerlund of music videodom, brings quick, slap dash
video-editing and style to Jason Schwartzman's(Rushmore) lost weekend methamphetamine
binge. Film contains lots of lewdness, requisite drug use, nudity, bondage,
etc etc, and animation. Cast is top notch, including John Leguizamo (who of
course has some of the best scenes), mena suvari, brittany murphy, an arquette,
debbie harry(!), eric roberts and others of note, and features Mickey Rourke
as the cook! Not for the squeamish, but good adult fun.

Auto Focus - dir by Paul schrader (Affliction, writer of several
classics) starring Greg Kinnear as Bob Crane and Willem Dafoe as his swinging
partner in crime. This film is filthy! Chock full o' porn! You kiddies won't see
the unrated version I got a gander at, but never fear, there is more than
enuf that will pass the censors. Biopic abt the downfall of family man bob crane,
who after starting on Hogan's heroes goes on a downward spiral of sex
addiction. Kinnear is fantastic and dafoe is creepy (as usual). Again NOT FOR THE
SQUEAMISH. Do not go see this with your parents, inlaws or children.
But do see it. Naughty!

Gerry- dir by Gus Van Sant (good will hunting, to die for, but also
even cowgirls get the blues), "starring" casey affleck and matt damon.
Public Service Announcement!: whatever any smarty pants reviewer or film professor sez
(and I have one such, a friend, who calls it so) this is NOT a masterpiece,
this is torture. A film about how one wrong turn can change your life, film
tracks 2 friends on an idle hike who go off the path, get lost and wander the
desert for days. Sitting though this film felt like days.

Nada (Nothing More) - Cool spanish-cuban coprod that combines elements
of buster keaton, kafka, and various screwball comedies. Follows a young cuban
postal worker who takes to rewriting ho-hum letters passing through her office
into romantic or spiritual epics. Filmed in b&w with colored sequences.
Visually interesting and gives us a look at Cuba without the polemics. Well
worth a visit.

The Intended - dir by kristian levring, stars janet mcteer, olympia
dukakis, brenda fricker and jj field. A cross between Red Dust (if you haven't
seen this film, get on it - precode dazzler by v. fleming with Jean Harlow and
clark gable- hot!) and Conrad' Heart of Darkness, film follows a may december
couple (mcteer as the older woman) trying to make money in malaysia in the
1920's at a small english compound populated by a sinister group of people.
Mcteer's luminous eyes in the jungle night were frankly terrifying. This film is
not Dogme, but it sure seemed like it. Olympia Dukakis was beyond creepy.
A tough row to hoe, but a good film.

Lost in LaMancha - a blast. Documentary about the failed making of "The
man who killed don quixote" by Terry Gilliam (the man who brought you 12
monkeys, fisher king as well as baron munchausen etc). The problems with this film's
production are the problems of every production (cast issues, locations, sets,
money, etc) writ LARGE! The only thing that didn't happen appears to have been a
plague of locusts. If you are into Gilliam, the filmmaking process or seeing a
disaster occur, (or just want to see johnny depp wrestle with a fish) check this
film out. it is excellent.

The Quiet American - directed by phillip noyce (who also has this
year's "Rabbit-Proof Fence" a reported must see - i couldn't get a ticket) and
starring Michael Caine and Brendan Frazier. Based on g. greene's novel, film
focuses on the triangle relationship between the 2 white men and the beautiful
Vietnamese woman they both love/want to possess as an allegory for the western
presence in Vietnam in the context of growing American involvement in Vietnam
(early 1950s). This film garnered an array of reviews from sucks to fantastic. I've
never read the book or seen the previous film version which seems to underpin a
lot of the fuss. The film beautifully shot (in Ho Chi Minh) and Michael Caine
feels that it is the best work he has ever done. Go see if you agree. He is sure, at
this point, of an oscar nod for this role and a nom for cinematograhy is
likely.

Tuck Everlasting directed by Jay Russell (My Dog Skip) and starring
alexis Bleidel, sissy spacek, ben kingsley, william hurt, amy irving - i could
go on...Based on my dog skip, and the huge cast I had really high hopes
for this family film, that were mercilessly dashed by a cruel, excessive use of
slo-mo and treacly voiceovers. This film looked gorgeous exteriors and
costuming were excellent but it was utterly devoid of soul. Try and find the 1980
version that stars noone who ever did anything else and achieved much more. This
version is Disney Sunday night at best (since disney made it, i shouldn't be
surprised).

Welcome to Collinwood - starring a bevy a huge stars and first rate
character actors, including george clooney, sam rockwell and william h. macy,
this very little film has some really funny bits and gags, but is all over the
place, has too many characters that aren't developed or are overdeveloped at the
expense of those others, and ultimately doesn't pay-off. it is worth it for the
surreal, comedy aspects. Certainly not bad, but wait for the video - unless you
are looking for something frothy.

The Heart of Me - Period (1930s-40s) drawing room drama from the brits
(you know the type - wings of the dove, howard's end etc) starring helena bonham
carter, olivia williams and paul bettany. Women play 2 sisters in love with the
same man, who has married the one and has an affair with the other. It's all
so very serious, the acting is superb, production top-notch and story
overwrought melodrama. It didn't produce a sniffle from me (what, you think it has
a happy ending???), so it's a miss in my book. Good video rental.

Ma Vraie Vie a Rouen - small french film from the makers of Jeanne et
le garcon formidable (fantastic you must see this film) whose conceit is that the
film, shot in digital on a handycam, is the diary of the main character, who
you only see when someone else, or a tripod has the camera. Sweet coming of age
story runs a bit (20 min) too long but is really well done and really shows
how good tech credits can be using even home digital equipment.

The Last Great Wilderness - directed by first timer David MacKenzie and
written by him and his brother alastair (who stars, and is the yummy lead on
BBC's monarch of the glen - catch this on BBCAmerica - better stuff than this
fall's drivel). Film is an odd mishmash of roadtrip gone wrong, crazy people
in the woods...all reports indicate it is a typical weekend in scotland. This
is a little film and is mainly of interest because, MacKenzie is already
shooting a big budget star vehicle, so this will give insight on how it all
started.

Spirited Away- I didn't see this, but everyone else did and said -
terrific stuff! from the director of Princess Mononoke and Kiki's Delivery
Service. This is out and you have seen the laudatory reviews. Get you to a theatre!

2002-09-20T16:20:00.000-04:00

Terrorists In Germany

Just posted on israpundit about an article in today's Journal on Muslim extremists living in Germany:

German cities are still home to extremist Muslims. That's raising the question here of what, if anything, should be done about men such as Mr. Barakat: immigrants who live off welfare, hold their new homeland in contempt and are in awe of bloody martyrdom...

2002-09-20T10:57:00.000-04:00

More on Egalitarianism

Following up my blog on the DC Minyan, or, as one of my friends calls it, the "Fake Minyan," here's an article in the Forward on allegedly Orthodox egal services. The article still inappropriately refers to such services as "Orthodox," but at least it points out that "this brand of worship appears to occupy a theological middle ground between Orthodoxy's commitment to stringent gender distinctions and Conservative Judaism's 20-year march toward full egalitarianism...[and] still lacks the public imprimatur of a prominent Orthodox institution or rabbi..."

The atricle points out that the liberalities in halakha for women's roles in davening are limited and quotes a Conservative, but traditional, rabbi along these lines:

At Kehilat Orach Eliezer, an Upper West Side Orthodox-style congregation known as K.O.E., the congregation has a divider between the sexes, or mechitza, and adheres to most of the main Orthodox restrictions on women's participation. But with the approval of spiritual leader Rabbi David Weiss Halivni, K.O.E recently decided to offer an alternative service for men and women on the evening of Simchat Torah in which all participants will be allowed to read from the Torah.

But Halivni told the Forward that his decision was a limited one, based on other leniencies permitted only on Simchat Torah, and could not be applied to a typical Sabbath. He said it was unlikely that such a practice would be allowed on a regular basis. A Jewish studies professor at Columbia University, Halivni was considered one of Conservative Judaism's top talmudists until he broke with the movement after its flagship institution, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, decided to ordain women.

Halivni went on to found the Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ), a small, non-egalitarian Conservative movement, ideologically close the Conservative movement of 50 to 70 years ago (and should not be confused with United Torah Judaism, also UTJ, a haredi political party in Israel).

The article then goes on to discuss the Orthodox position:

The legal basis for all these groups was laid out in [Jerusalem lawyer Mendel] Shapiro's article, published in the journal of the liberal Orthodox group Edah. He argued that as a result of several historical and sociological factors, people have mistakenly placed Torah reading and the recitation of the corresponding blessings in the category of rituals absolutely off limits to women. Still, Shapiro added, it is only permissible to call a woman to the Torah at a private service, or a congregation where opposition to the practice will not cause communal discord.

No leading Orthodox institution or halachic arbiter is known to have publicly endorsed the new prayer groups or Shapiro's article. At the same time, the new practices have yet to be condemned by Modern Orthodoxy's leading institutions. But insiders attributed the institutional silence to the trend being in its early stages, and said the changes were likely to be criticized by leading Orthodox rabbis.

Even Edah director Rabbi Saul Berman, who agreed to publish Shapiro's article in the spirit of open debate, said he could not accept its conclusions.

When asked if such a minyan would be granted membership in the Orthodox Union, the union's professional head, Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, said that the matter would be referred to outside religious authorities, including the Rabbinical Council of America. The RCA's executive vice president, Rabbi Stephen Dworken, said that if the issue is ever raised, his organization would have to study it. Dworken added that he did not know of any "halachic authority who permits those types of activities."

If only the WaPo reporter had bothered to do a little bit of research or at least contact someone besides the leaders of the DC Minya before writing his article.

2002-09-20T10:39:00.000-04:00

Logan's Run

The Slate Explainer briefly describes the Logan Act, which makes it illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign states under the premise of speaking for the United States. Dating from the early years of the Republic, it's never been enforced. Why should be pretty clear. No private individual--Jesse Jackson or even a Congressman--can bind the United States to an agreement. If some bozo shows up on Saddam's doorstep and purports to have a deal about inspections, well, too bad for Saddam if he believes it. People who do such things--Jesse, Jimmy, etc.--end up making themselves look like idiots. It's really just not that big a deal.

2002-09-19T00:14:00.000-04:00

They Just Don't Get It

An article in the Washington Post describes the D.C. Minyan, an egalitarian Jewish worship group, as "orthodox." It's not. They can call themselves what ever they want, but the Orthodox Union, the Young Israel movement, or the Agudath Israel, the organizations of Orthodox synagogues would not admit them, nor would any rabbi affiliated with any of those organizations, nor virtually all members of any of those synagogues, daven (pray) there, nor does the minyan have an Orthodox-ordained rabbinical advisor.

The plain fact is, egalitarian davening is not halakhically permissible (although there are some liberalities). They try to justify this by saying that there are sources that allow "active and vibrant roles for women in Jewish life" that had been "lost or swept under the carpet in the intervening centuries." Those sources do not permit egalitarian davening, as the quote itself implies--it refers only to active and vibrant roles in Jewish life, which women in Orthodox Judaism have--just not in prayer services. Furthermore, the minyan's use of a 10 men plus 10 women standard for a prayer quorum is just made up, as their leaders admit in the article. If they have 10 men, however, and do not daven as they should, they are not in conformity with Jewish law. Finally, in particular, the lack of a physical barrier between men and women (mechitza) is totally contrary to Jewish law, and the people quoted in the article don't even try to justify it. Nevertheless, they call themselves "orthodox" or "halakhic" and that they "have a commitment to observing Jewish law." Obviously, they don't if they're violating what all Orthodox rabbis--the experts in Jewish law--say.

Now, I think anybody can daven however they want. Doesn't bother me b/c I'm not involved. What does bother me is the claim that they are Orthodox and the misrepresentation of Orthodoxy that results. Non-Orthodox Jews or non-Jews don't get a realistic picture. That's clear from the article, which says, for example, that "in most Orthodox congregations, women sit separately and out of view of the men and have no role in services." Wrong. The truth is, in all Orthodox synagogues men and women sit separately and women do not have a role in davening. It is quite telling that the article does not even bother to quote an Orthodox rabbi on the issue. In fact, it doesn't quote anybody giving an alternative view of the DC Minyan. Instead, it quotes a Reform rabbi, who, by the terms of their own movement, reject Jewish law entirely.

Again, I'm not saying that the DC Minyan is a bad thing. If it's meaningful to the people who go, fine. But they should be honest with themselves and with others that they are not Orthodox.

2002-09-18T23:15:00.000-04:00

Blogs on Insrapundit: Financial Times Shills for Reuters and Harvard's Apologist for Islam

I posted two items on israpundit, shorter versions of which are below:

Wednesday's Financial Times carried a puff piece defending Reuters against claims that it is biased. It doesn't even bother to quote any Reuter's critics. Instead, it quotes the International Federation of Journalists and the head of Reuters itself. Journalists protecting their own.

The Wall St. Journal reported a couple of weeks ago (I hadn't seen this either in the paper or blogosphere) that the new dean of Harvard Divinity School, William Graham, is an apologist for Islam.

2002-09-18T13:59:00.000-04:00

Bob from Accounting

Take a look at this humor site, bob from accounting. Not as creative as the Onion, and nowhere close to satirewire.com, but great if only for the story, "Bush Launches 'Operation Shut-Your-Piehole' Against European Leaders":

Following a flurry of international criticism regarding a preemptive strike against Iraq, George Bush surprised pundits Tuesday with the announcement he was immediately launching "Operation Shut Your Piehole" against nearly a dozen whiny world leaders and United Nations officials. According to sources, the military action will first target Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whom Bush vowed to "make my bitch" after repeated comments from the close ally that he was firmly against any unilateral action taken by America to remove Saddam Hussein from power...If required, additional resources will be spent shutting up Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Louis Farrakhan and "that ungrateful little bastard Nelson Mandela."

2002-09-18T13:51:00.000-04:00

Talk Like a Pirate Tomorrow

Thursday, September 19th, is Talk Like a Pirate Day"!"

Find your pirate name here Mine was, "Bloody Harry Kidd."

And for the political among you, this anti-Chomsky siteis just bizarrely funny

2002-09-18T13:44:00.000-04:00

Ingrates

We established democracy in Germany and kept the Germans safe from the Soviets, but now they're ungrateful. So much so, in fact, that Schroeder is using opposition to an American attack on Iraq to boost his election chances, which were pretty poor earlier in the year and have recovered almost solely on that basis. Wolfgang Schauble, one of his clear-thinking landsmen, points out in the European WSJ (registration required):

[B]y working at cross purposes with the U.S. and all of Germany's European allies -- with all our friends -- the chancellor has for his own personal gain plunged the federal republic into an international crisis...German-American relations are at their lowest level since the founding of the state in 1949. A common European position on Iraq is also not in sight because Berlin is blocking it, and so Germany finds itself isolated within the EU. In the meantime, the chancellor has put Germany in the unenviable position of being Saddam Hussein's favorite Western state; no other European state has had so much praise heaped on it from Baghdad for its anti-American stance. On Iraqi state television Chancellor Schroeder and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, are shown as chief witnesses for the resistance to American imperialism. Lastly, by not wishing to associate themselves under any circumstances with any decisions of the Security Council and a resolution on Iraq, Messrs. Schroeder and Fischer are weakening the authority of the U.N. and hence trampling on a fundamental principle of German foreign policy -- the strengthening of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Schroeder has encouraged a distorted image of America in which the U.S. president is cast as a trigger-happy adventurer set on waging a lone war on Iraq. It sometimes looks in the German media as if the Bush administration represented an even greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein's regime...The damage to German-American relations has already been done. The Americans have lost confidence in Germany. Even a newly elected Chancellor Edmund Stoiber would have his work cut out for him after the elections to put the relationship between Germany and America back on an even keel.

I could've predicted this last year. A day or two after the 9-11 attacks, I got an e-mail from an old friend in Germany, a ph.d. in international relations, former sargeant in the Bundeswehr (most Germans do their 10-month national service and get out; this guy stayed for a couple of years), and professor at a military academy, expressing his solidarity with the U.S. regarding "this terrible act of terror against the USA, your people and political/economic symbols, that are in the same time the symbols for the free and democratic transatlantic community." Referring to the years-long drift in Euro-Atlantic relations, he also said, "I was fearing for the future of this community, now I hope for it." He meant, of course, that he thought that this would bring us together.

But his next e-mail, in response to my thanks for his wishes, said, "You are looking for justice, and that is the right word to use. I am really feeling with the American people, but in the same time I am to much a [political] scientist - to [sic] much a european - not to worry about America´s answer. We all have the feeling that it was not just an attack against the United States but an attack against the symbols of the free democratic world. In this regard I understand the fact, that NATO has declared Artikel [sic] 5 as relevant. Please let the American President act as a leader of the free word, not like a Lone Rider from Texas. I am hoping for justice, not revange [sic]. That would be the game and the victory of the terrorists."

So within days of 3000 Americans being murdered, I had to listen to a lecture from a European about cowboys, the rest of the world's opinion, and the terrorists "winning." As our president was recently quoted as having said, "I don't give a shit what the Europeans think."

2002-09-18T12:16:00.000-04:00

True Repentence

In this week's Onion, a dog does t'shuva. New meaning to the old palindrome of dog spelled backwards.

2002-09-13T15:06:00.000-04:00

The Sopranos Go to School

From an article in today's WJS by Tunku Varadarajan called Why We Can't Fuhgeddabout 'The Sopranos':

"This Thing of Ours: Investigating 'The Sopranos ,' " edited by David Lavery and published next month by Columbia University Press, under the rubric of Television/Cultural Studies. (It would have to be a Columbia book; after all, Meadow studies there!) It is a gloriously over-the-top exercise, proof -- if any more were needed -- of the way "The Sopranos " is now embedded in the culture generale. (It is proof, also, that the academy has not entirely lost its sense of humor.)

The book contains essays on "Weight, Body Image and Masculinity in 'The Sopranos' "; "Food, Violence and Family in 'The Sopranos' " (in which the author observes that in the series, the F-word is used elastically, "as an adjective, an adverb, a verb, a noun, as almost any conceivable grammatical unit"); Northern New Jersey and the "cultural geography" of "The Sopranos "; and, my favorite, "Beyond the Bada Bing: Negotiating Female Narrative Authority in 'The Sopranos .'

Varadarajan says this is proof that the academy hasn't lost it's humor. He's wrong. The academy takes this very seriously. And that's what's so pathetic.

2002-09-13T13:38:00.000-04:00

Black vs. White

Lots of bloggers are commenting on Mandela's comparison of the way the U.S. deals with "black" Iraq vs. "white" Israel. I'll just repost something I blogged on regarding an even more idiotic comment by the UNH professor who claims that the U.S. killed 3000 civilians in Afghanistan:

The UNH professor who blithely reports Taliban civilian casualty figures (see my 8/21 blog below) to criticize the war in Afghanistan has this gem in his "dossier":

"What I am saying is that when the 'other' is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S. government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits. A contrary case might be raised with Serbia which was also recently subjected to mass bombing. But, the Serbs were in the view of U.S. policymakers and the corporate media tainted ('darkened') by their prior 'Communist' experience."

The stupidity of this comment is amazing. First, how does he know what was in the view of US policymakers and media? He doesn't quote anyone saying, "Let's bomb the Serbs; who cares if they're former Commies." He's just making that up in order to dismiss a clear case of the U.S. bombing Europeans that contradicts his thesis. Second, note how he turns the experience of being Communist into "darkening." Another made-up distinction. Who said being Communist is darkening? There are lots of other former Communists who have joined NATO--Poles, Hungarians, Czechs. No one thinks of them as "dark." But the liar has to use that term in order to make a connection between Serbs--who are white Europeans--and Afghans so that his thesis holds up. Note, too, that he uses "communist" in quotes, as if Yugoslavia wasn't a self-proclaimed communist state. Third, he fails to point out that the people the U.S. was saving by bombing the Serbs were...Muslims. In fact, people that the Serbs acutally did view as an "other" who deserved to be killed. And the U.S. was saving them by bombing the Serbs. But that doesn't fit his narrative, so he just lies about the facts and twists reality to make the U.S. bombing of European Serbs to protect Muslims into an example of Western hatred for dark people. Such is the world these American-haters live in.

2002-09-13T10:30:00.000-04:00

Forgiveness?

At this time of the year, Jews have forgiveness on their minds. We pray for forgiveness of the Jewish people as a whole and for ourselves as individuals. We recite daily in the selichot prayers the Lord's 13 attributes of mercy as stated in the Torah and repeat them on Yom Kippur: "The Lord, the Lord, G-d, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, preserver of kindness for thousands of generations, forgiver of iniquity, willful sin, and error, who cleanses [sinners of sin]." We rely on his mercy to survive.

So forgiveness is a good thing, and all of use need it b/c we all screw up. But what about people who do really horrible things? What about rapists, murders, Nazis, and terrorists? Can we forgive them? Should we? Can we? Rabbi Benjamin Blech as an article addressing this question in jewish world review. He concludes, in what has become a standard Jewish response, that one person cannot forgive sins against another person. Forgiveness has to come from the person who has been wronged. Since the victims are dead, they certainly can't forgive, and their survivors aren't likely to either.

This is an okay response as far as it goes, but it seems too neatly to avoid answering the hard questions head on. If we could, should we forgive them? Does G-d forgive them? A better answer, I think, was given by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (whom I generally don't like for various reasons) two years ago when he became frustrated with the statesman-like treatment Syrian dictator Hafez Assad recieved upon his death.

Boteach aptly wrote, The bottom line is that there are some offenses for which there is no forgiveness; some borders whose transgression society cannot tolerate under any circumstances, and mass murder is foremost among them. Only if we hate the truly evil passionately will we summon the determination to fight them fervently."

2002-09-12T14:40:00.000-04:00

I Wasn't Making It Up

In a post below on the Earth Summit, I said that Greg Easterbrook's dismissal of the final declaration was too optimistic b/c even non-binding documents gain status through the efforst of the idiotarians. Read this article on Durban for an example: Since Durban: An entrenchment of hatred

With the blessing of the Commission, the High Commissioner proceeded to turn the non-binding result of the world conference into the centerpiece of the UN's anti-racism agenda, instead of the 1966 treaty against racial discrimination binding on almost all of the world's states, including the United States and Israel.

Even the body charged with monitoring the implementation of the racial discrimination treaty the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination now directs states' parties to consider Durban when applying the treaty. The same body issued a statement in March "welcoming" "the contribution of non-governmental organizations during the Durban Conference."

The Commission resolution of April 2002, injects Durban into every pore of the UN system. In its words, it calls upon "all relevant organs, organizations and bodies of the United Nations system to become involved in the follow-up to the World Conference Against Racism...and invites specialized agencies and related organizations of the United Nations system to...adjust...their activities, programs and...strategies to implement and follow-up the Durban Declaration..."

The human rights home page of the UN's Web site contains only five specific links, one of which is to the World Conference Against Racism alongside "The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights," "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," and "Treaties."

2002-09-12T09:34:00.000-04:00

Witness to the Palestinian Riot in Montreal

I just posted on Israpunditan e-mail message from a young women who was caught up in the Palestinian riot in Montreal that prevented Bibi from speaking. Please read it; it's scary. Interestingly enough, the woman appears to have been a Leftist activist in the past, having participated in the anti-Free Trade Area of the Americas protests in Quebec City last year.

2002-09-11T17:17:00.000-04:00

You just can't satisfy some people

AP carries a report that some newspapers and anti-death penalty activists want to re-test DNA to try to prove that an executed man was . Re-test? Yes, that's right. There was already a test indicating that he was guilty, but now these people claim that new techniques should be used just to make sure.

First, we were told that every criminal should be entitled to a DNA test, b/c it's the only truly reliable evidence, and there are now state law and a proposed federal law to guarantee it. That leaves open the problem that DNA evidence mgiht become an expection, a floor for proof of guilt. Defense attorneys would argue that a prosecution case has reasonable doubt b/c "they don't even have DNA evidence!" But what if there's no DNA evidence for entirely understandable reasons, for example if a rape isn't completed? Not all cases yield DNA evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution should not be raised. Now, we're told that we have to keep testing DNA evidence b/c it might not be reliable. We've seen the same salami-slicing arguments on finger-print evidence, with one federal judge actually ruling that finger-printing is not scientifically valid enough for use as proof.

We all know that eyewitnesses aren't reliable, so its certainly better to have scientific evidence. But now we're being told that scientific evidence isn't good enough either. I'm all in favor of making sure the court gets the right guy. But I'm pretty sure that the reason some people keep attacking various forms of evidence not to exonerate the innocent, but to prevent anyone guilty from being punished.

2002-09-11T10:51:00.000-04:00

Father of Mercy

This is the Av HaRachamim, "father of mercy," prayer, written originally to commemorate the victims of the Crusades, said following the Torah reading on the Sabbath and during memorial services:

The Father of mercy who dwells on high
in His great mercy
will remember with compassion
the pious, upright and blameless
the holy communities, who laid down their lives
for the sanctification of His name.
They were loved and pleasant in their lives
and in death they were not parted.
They were swifter than eagles and stronger than lions
to carry out the will of their Maker,
and the desire of their steadfast God.
May our Lord remember them for good
together with the other righteous of the world
and may He redress the spilled blood of His servants
as it is written in the Torah of Moses the man of God:
"O nations, make His people rejoice
for He will redress the blood of His servants
He will retaliate against His enemies
and appease His land and His people".
And through Your servants, the prophets it is written:
"Though I forgive, their bloodshed I shall not forgive
When God dwells in Zion"
And in the Holy Writings it says:
"Why should the nations say, 'Where is their God?'"
Let it be known among the nations in our sight
that You avenge the spilled blood of Your servants.
And it says: "For He who exacts retribution for spilled blood
remembers them
He does not forget the cry of the humble".
And it says:
"He will execute judgement among the corpse-filled nations
crushing the rulers of the mighty land;
from the brook by the wayside he will drink
then he will hold his head high".

2002-09-11T10:39:00.000-04:00

Song of the Day

Every day after morning prayers, Jews say a song of the day. Below is the song for Wednesday, which is very appropriate in particular on this date:

Psalm 94
O God of vengence, Lord, appear!
Rise up, you judge of the earth. Pay back the haughty what they deserve.
How long shall the wicked--Lord!--how long will the wicked exult?
They pour out arrogant words; all the evil-doers boast.
Your nation, Lord, they crush, and they afflict your heritage.
The widow and the stranger they slay, and the orphans they murder.
They say, "The Lord will not see, neither will Ya`akov's God understand."
Consider, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you gain wisdom?
He who implanted the ear, will he not hear? He who formed the eye, will he not see?
He who disciplines the nations, will he not punish? He who teaches man knows.
The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile.
Blessed is the man whom you discipline, Lord, and teach out of your law;
That you may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.
For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.
For judgment will return to righteousness, all the upright in heart shall follow it.
Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will stand up for me against the evil-doers?Had the Lord not been a help to me, my soul would have soon dwelt in silence.
When I said, "My foot falters!" your loving kindness, Lord, supported me.
In the multitude of my foreboadings within me, your comforts cheered my soul.
Shall the throne of destruction be associated with you, those who fashion evil into a way of life?
They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
But the Lord has been my stronghold, my God, the Rock of my refuge.
He has brought on them their own violence, and will cut them off in their own wickedness.
The Lord, our God, will cut them off.

2002-09-10T16:39:00.000-04:00

Whew, That's a Relief

Switzerland joined the UN today. I don't mind; I just couldn't care less. And I don't think the world--or Switzerland--is that much safer. On the other hand, if we could trade Switzerland for, say, Iran, Iraq, or Syria, that would be cool. I support a similar policy for NATO enlargement. I'll take Romania and Bulgaria if we can get rid of France and Greece.

Satirewire, of course, had the best comment on this a few months ago when the Swiss voted to join: Tormented by New U.N. Classmates, Switzerland Already Wants to Go Home: "Everyone's mean to me, and the food sucks," says Tiny Nation's Ambassador.

2002-09-10T10:02:00.000-04:00

By David

By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
If an army were to beseige me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust.
One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
For He will hide me in His sanctuary on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His sanctuary sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My presence"; Your presence, Lord, I seek.
Do not conceal Your presence from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
Had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living!
Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.

2002-09-09T11:14:00.000-04:00

Let's Roll

Let's Roll

by Neil Young

I know I said I love you,
I know you know it's true,
I've got to put the phone down,
and do what we got to do.

One's standing in the aisleway,
Two more at the door,
We've got to get inside there,
Before they kill some more.

Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.
Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.

No time for indecision,
We've got to make a move,
I hope that were forgiven,
For what we got to do

How this all got started,
I'll never understand,
I hope someone can fly this thing,
And get us back to land.

Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.
Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.

No one has the answer,
But one thing is true,
You've got to turn on evil,
When it's coming after you,

You've gotta face it down,
And when it tries to hide,
You've gotta go in after it,
And never be denied,

Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.

Let's roll for freedom,
Let's roll for love,
We're going after Satan,
On the wings of a dove.

Let's roll for justice,
Let's roll for truth,
Let's not let our children,
Grow up fearfull in their youth.

Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.
Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.
Time is runnin' out,
Let's roll.

2002-09-06T10:56:00.000-04:00

Shana Tovah!

Happy New Year!

I'll be back on Monday.

2002-09-06T10:55:00.000-04:00

Jewish Alliances

NRO has two pieces on Jewish relations with other groups. In Religious Wars:
U.S. Jewish groups and their anti-Christian hostility.
, David Klinghoffer calls out the American Jewish Committee for anti-Christian bias. He describes an AJCongress fundraising letter hostile to Christian Conservatives even tho' they are the strongest supporters of Israel at this time. (Note, AJCongess is different from the American Jewish Committee, AJCommittee, which is non-partisan but more conservative, especially on international and war issues.) Klinghoffer attributes this to an outdated political analysis by Jews that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad.

I would go one step further. I think it's related to most Jews' lack of religiosity, which leads them to be suspicious of anyone else who is passionately religious, even other Jews. Most Jews aren't observant, unfortunately, and there's a lot of hostility among non-religious Jews toward religious Jews. It's natural, therefore, to expect that non-religious Jews would be hostile to religious people of other faiths. In fact, I have often found it easier to discuss religious issues with religious non-Jews than with non-religious Jews. Religious people of any faith understand each other, and non-religous of any faith are hostile to religious people of any faith.

Edward Miller discusses the breakdown of the Black-Jewish alliance over Hilliard and McKinney in Primary Problems for Dems. He points out that Jews had enough of black Democrats who attacked Israel and predicts that this will be a problem for the Democratic Party in retaining Jewish voters. I think, unfortunately, he's wrong. As others have pointed out, the people who were elected in place of McK and Hillard were other black Democrats, just ones not hostile to Israel. I don't think most black people are hostile to Israel, certainly not in the South, where many are Bible-believing Christians. Two of the strongest Zionists I know are African-American Baptists. See my comments above about religious people understanding each other. However much sense it might make, I don't really think that Jews will start voting Republican in large numbers, nor will black people. What might happen is a reorientation of black Democrats to being more pro-Israel. Some already are, and the wacko Leftists like McK and Hillard will be pushed out b/c both black and Jewish Democrats will see the preservation of their alliance as critical for pushing their common liberal agenda on issues other than Israel.

Jake Tapper points out in this week's Weekly Standard (subscription required) that liberal Jews from New York and L.A. have funded the Congressional Black Caucus for a long time. He's right to say that CBC members, like Eddie Johnson of Texas, are hypocritical to criticize "outsider" Jews for funding McK's and Hilliard's challengers. But, as he does acknowledge at the end of the article, Jewish liberals will let their black allies know that their money is dependent on supporting a common agenda. Thus, the liberal black-Jewish alliance will survive.

Jewish conservatives and their non-Jewish conservative allies shouldn't hold their breath hoping that idots like McK, Hilliard, and Johnson will drive Jews out of the Democratic Party. Instead, Zionists of all faiths and all political views should focus on fostering and solidifying support for Israel among Republicans and Democrats.

2002-09-05T22:17:00.000-04:00

I Hope That When We Start Bombing Baghdad, a Few Cruise Missiles Go Astray

The anti-U.S. 9-11 movie I noted on 8/28 premiered at the Venice Film Festival to applause: Embattled 9/11 Movie Opens to Praise says the AP.

A controversial movie about the Sept. 11 attacks was received enthusiastically at the Venice Film Festival on Thursday, with the audience reportedly giving the longest applause to a segment considered among the most hostile to the United States...

At Thursday's screening, the audience of mainly film-industry and media guests applauded after each segment and at the end of the 135-minute film, the ANSA news agency reported. ANSA said the longest applause was for British filmmaker Loach's segment, which features an exiled Chilean living in Britain who writes a letter to the families of the Sept. 11 victims. He tells them that in Chile on Sept. 11, 1973, a U.S.-supported coup d'etat ushered in an era of torture and death.

Another controversial segment is by Egyptian director Youssef Chahine. In it, the ghost of a U.S. Marine who was killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983 is lectured about destruction caused by U.S. meddling in the world — from Hiroshima to the Middle East.

2002-09-05T17:40:00.000-04:00

AP=ACLU

I don't have time to Fisk this, but take a look at what AP is reporting as "Overview of Changes to Legal Rights" This is pathetic.

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:

-- FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

-- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

-- FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

-- RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

-- FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

-- RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

-- RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

2002-09-05T15:44:00.000-04:00

Who Wants Some!

One of the contributors of BOTW today was a Bruce Campbell (bottom of the page). Could that be the Bruce Campbell, star of the Ramis' "Evil Dead II," "Army of Darkness," and the "Zena"/"Hercules" shows? My favorite, tho, was "Jack of Trades," mainly b/c the bad guys were French.

2002-09-05T13:30:00.000-04:00

It's About Time

Over the last few weeks Greece has finally started rolling up the left-wing November 17 terrrorist group. The main assassin of the group has surrendered, but probably only to protect others who have been assisting him.

The WSJ has had good coverage, and this article (subscription required) talks about the group's Greek victims organizing to change public opinion. Nov. 17 has killed about two dozen US citizens, right-wing Greek politicians, Turkish diplomats, Greek businessmen, and, most recently in 2000, a British military attache in Athens.

As the article points out

Until recently, November 17's far-left, anti-American ideology held the moral high ground for many in Greece, a country with a long history of foreign domination and a strong communist party. The group took its name from the date in 1973 of a brutally suppressed student insurrection against the military junta that ruled from 1964 to 1974. Although evidence is thin, many Greeks believe the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency backed the junta, and every year on Nov. 17, hundreds of people march from Athens's Polytechnic University to rally in front of the U.S. embassy...The Greek government earned repeated denunciations from the U.S. State Department for refusing to cooperate in solving the murders of the four Americans. When suspects did go on trial, prominent politicians served as their lawyers in court. All of the trials ended in acquittals.

If there really has been a change in Greek public attitudes, it's a good sign. We'll see what happens. I'm not too optimistic, however. The Greeks, among all Euroweenies, have been the least sympathetic to the U.S. in the aftermath of 9-11. In this article in the National Interest, a Greek analyst explained,

One poll, taken a few days after the incident, revealed that 25 percent of respondents said they felt "satisfied" and "relieved", and believed that "justice had been served" upon the United States on September 11. About 30 percent said that the terror attacks constituted a justified reaction to U.S. policies. Another poll found that only 6 percent of the Greeks, the lowest number in Europe, supported a U.S. campaign against countries that harbor terrorism. (A similar poll taken among the Palestinians showed that 7 percent supported America’s anti-terror campaign.) Moreover, in a poll published in the Greek daily To Vima on December 29, 61 percent of the respondents said they felt unhappy about the coalition’s victory in Afghanistan, and only 29 percent said they were happy about the outcome of the military campaign.

The article, called "America the Despised," begins

In the summer of 1999, the popular Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis said during an interview: "I hate Americans and everything American. I hope that the youth will begin to hate everything American." This most popular of Greek contemporary composers—a close friend of Slobodan Milosevic, who was reportedly ferried around in the latter’s private plane—had already been widely acclaimed for his assertion during the Kosovo war that "there is no difference between Hitler and Clinton." Moreover, he advocated at the time a nuclear alliance formed of Greece, Belarus, Serbia and Russia and directed against Greece’s erstwhile NATO allies—the United States in particular. Celebrities everywhere have been known to say foolish things about political matters of which they know little and understand less, so Theodorakis’ ranting might not seem worthy of much attention—except that he was soon nominated as Greece’s candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Theodorakis’ candidacy was supported by leading Greek politicians and intellectuals from across the spectrum, including Prime Minister Costas Simitis, Foreign Minister George Papandreou and the leader of the conservative opposition New Democracy Party, Costas Karamanlis. Of course, not all those who supported Theodorakis’ candidacy shared his anti-American views. On the contrary, some, including Simitis, Papandreou and Karamanlis, have generally supported the United States and its policies. What is noteworthy, however, is that Theodorakis’ views did not seem to faze those supporters precisely because such views have become part of mainstream opinion in Greece.

He goes on to explain the convergence of Leftist/Communist, rightist/nationalist, and Greek Orthodox anti-Americanism and how hated America is in Greece.

Starting among the Communists, who were defeated in the post-WWII Greek civil war with President Trumans supprt (the Truman Doctrine of fighting communist expansion was delivered in a speech on aid to the anti-communist Greeks), anti-Americanism was fed by Socialist PM Andreas Papandreau in the 1980s. He had, naturally, found refuge during the Greek military regime in, where else, Berkelely. In fact, as Robert Kaplan noted in his book, Balkan Ghosts, Papandreau was saved by Pres. Johnson. After the Greek military coup, when Col. Papanikolas imprisoned Panandrea, Johnson called in the Greek ambassador in Washington and said, "Tell Papa-what's-his-name to release the other Papa-what's-his-name!"

As the Nat. Int. article points out, the leftist anti-Americanism was joined in the 1990s by a right-wing nationalist version upset over U.S. backing for the Muslims in Yugoslavia, and, in particular, for the bombing of Kosovo in 1999.

Thus, conservative Greek newspapers now denounce the United States with the same vehemence as the Communist Party paper Rizospastis. Anti-Americanism is not restricted to diatribes in the press but is increasingly forming part of the public pronouncements of conservative politicians, which, of course, influences the views of the average conservative voter. A poll taken shortly after the September 11 terrorist attack revealed that over 50 percent of conservative voters define themselves as anti-American.

And the Greek Orthodox church has gotten into the act b/c of its

"generally militant, anti-Western legacy of Eastern Orthodoxy. In attacking the United States during the war in Kosovo, the Church drew upon traditional Biblical sources to cast the United States in demonic terms. Its president was labeled a "Satan." New York became the new seat of the "Whore of Babylon." The Church, however, also drew upon its own historical legacy. Traditionally, the Greek Orthodox populations of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires had always perceived the West as being inhabited by "barbarian Franks", "schismatics" and "heretics" from the True Faith.

Interestly, tho', the author never mentions the connection here to Huntington's Clash of Civilization's thesis, in which he identifies Russian/Greek/Serbian Orthodoxy as a civilization separate from and conflicting with the West.

Furthermore, The ethnos and Orthodoxy fused. Thus, to be Greek is to be Orthodox. The leader of the Greek Church constantly stresses the nation’s identification with Orthodoxy.

The Nat. Int. article doesn't discuss it, but Kaplan in Balkan Ghosts noted that the history of Thessalonika, which was a majority (Sephardic) Jewish town until WWII, has been buried by the Greeks and even naming a single street after the Jewish community and building a Jewish museum there were resisted.

The writer concludes, however, that

The new anti-American narrative in Greece has little in common with critiques of American policies and social structures that were prevalent in the 1960s and early 1970s. The latter were rights-based discourses and had as their goal liberal emancipation. Current anti-Americanism...is suffused with xenophobia, irrationality and plain hatred. Earlier forms of Greek anti-Americanism attacked what America did. Present forms attack what America is.

So we'll see about Greece's contribution to the war.

2002-09-04T19:49:00.000-04:00

Was WSSD as Bad as It Might Have Been?

Greg Easterbrook has a good article in TNR on the World Summit on Sustainable Development, pointing out that "[b]ecause the developing world was uninterested in turning Johannesburg into a forum for denouncing the free market, the drama of the conference declined, and little happened." He also notes that "the European Commission, plus several European Union member governments, gave several million dollars in travel grant funds to various left-wing NGOs to send people to Johannesburg...to ensure that there would be angry people denouncing the United States in the streets while the summit took place. Just think how many lives might have been saved if the millions used to fly a European street demonstration all the way to the tip of Africa had, instead, simply been given to the poor of Africa."

Easterbrook is mistaken, however, to say that the WSSD will have no impact. He emphasizes that the final summit communique was a non-binding resolution that was just a "jargon exercise." But he underestimates the power of jargon in the make-believe world of current international law. NGOs, activitists, Euroweenies, and left-wing scholars often claim that summit declarations are evidence of customary international law, and they therefore cite to such documents as legally binding even when, by their own terms, they are not. Customary int'l law is defined as state practice accompanied by opinio juris, that is, the belief that it is legally required. Idiotarians, however, have ditched the idea of actual pratice altogether, speaking of "instant" customary int'l law and claiming that mere statement makes laws--what one anti-idiotarian scholar has referred to as "lex scripta." For example, UN General Assembly resolutions aren't legally binding, but idiotarians routinely refer to them as if they are, often citing to their continual passage year after year as evidence of their representation of customary int'l law, as if 0 x 20 = 20. Ditto with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which, again by its own terms is non-binding, is cited as customary international law. Doesn't stop the idiotarians, tho', from referring to it as binding int'l law.

2002-09-04T15:40:00.000-04:00

Turkish View of War on Terrorism

Following on my 8/26 blog on Spanish versus Turkish anti-terrorist actions, here's a forceful editorial from the Turkish Daily News called "Now They See the Realities.": "The Western countries are now busy fighting terrorism but couldn't they have done this several years ago?...We had warned the West about this for several years but they preferred to turn a deaf ear to us. We had said the PKK had turned into a massive crime syndicate in the West raising huge funds through all kinds of smuggling. So it was only normal that terrorist groups like al Qaeda would use the same tactics to prosper."

2002-09-04T10:37:00.000-04:00

Changes Come Around Real Soon

Over the next few days I'll be re-orienting this site. My Israel commentary will appear on the multi-blogger israpundit, which I highly recommend, altho' my comments will be linked here as well. This page will instead focus on analysis of legal, international, war, pro-America, pop culture, and Jewish issues, all from a Centrist Orthodox perspective.

note that the title of this blog is an allusion to a song by John Mellencamp Cougar Mellencamp Mellencamp or whatever he's calling himself nowadays, which is similar to what got Norah Vincent falsely and stupidly accused of plagiarism. (bottom of the page)

2002-09-03T17:48:00.000-04:00

The Pogrom Begins

The International Criminal Court officially opened for business today. First item: election of the Jordanian UN ambassador as head.

2002-09-03T16:14:00.000-04:00

Problems in Belgium

Jewsweek recently carried this story called European Jihad:
You think France is bad - the anti-Semites in Belgium are on the attack and they're not kidding around

2002-09-03T15:45:00.000-04:00

Much Praised, Little Read

For those who keep hearing the terms, but haven't read the originals:

The Roots of Muslim Rage, by Bernard Lewis

The Clash of Civilizations, by Samuel Huntington

2002-09-03T14:58:00.000-04:00

Human Rights Group Discovers That Jews Are Human

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has released a report on anti-semitism. And it only took them a year since the Durban World Festival of Jew-Hatred and countless attacks on Jews in Europe. "They´re playing catch-up," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. "But human rights groups have a long history, and the reports are not going to change 40 years of history."

Caroline Glick, esteemed deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post, was on target in her recent article in Moment: [O]ne of the most disturbing aspects of the current onslaught against Jews and the Jewish state is that it is met with such indifference, if not support, by the most "enlightened" members of the international community—namely the intellectual elite, mainstream human rights organizations, and the United Nations." They must've been too busy looking for the anti-Arab backlash that wasn't

2002-09-03T14:13:00.000-04:00

AP English

In a report on charter schools, the AP has described the Brookings Institution as a "liberal-oriented think tank." As we know, the media typically refers to liberal groups either without mentioning their political orientation or describing them as "public interest" organizations, while conservative groups, such as Heritage are always labelled. It's nice to see that AP might have recognized the problem and begun to correct it.

ps-don't you love my headlines? NRO and littlegreenfootballs already carried the story of Edward's Said's award, so I won't duplicate the effort. But if I were to do so, I'd name it "'Nuff Said."

2002-09-02T06:55:00.000-04:00

One Bad Turn Deserves Another

Israel is closing its embassy in New Zealand, supposedly b/c of budget cuts. Only what they deserve. This spring, the NZ gov't refused to send a representativeto the Israeli embassy for Israel Independence Day. According to a NZ gov't spokesman, "It was a reprimand to the Israeli Government by New Zealand over aspects of Israel´s policies which we do not regard as acceptable." He didn't say anything about New Zealand's genocidal conquest of their islands from the Maoris, which most of the world, if they knew NZ history and the tremendous racism that still exists there, would "not regard as acceptable."

The NZ foreign minister "officially object[ed] to Israel´s continued military presence in the West Bank," met with "an Australian-based Palestinian representative, Ali Kazak," and "condemned the Israeli military 'over-reaction'" to the Passover bombing. Well, the foreign minister did "condemn" suicide bombings. Thanks, pal. At least you didn't overreact. And the foreign minister's name? Phil Goff, who spent time on a kibbutz.

2002-09-02T04:36:00.000-04:00

Har HaBayit BeYadeinu?

From the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a frightening synopsis of what the Waqf is doing to the Temple Mount, including this chilling comment:

The Muslims claim that the Temple Mount is an ancient mosque dating from the time of Adam and Eve. Thus, their goal is to turn the entire area into one giant mosque, and into an exclusively Muslim area. They have been working diligently to erase and destroy every archeological remnant and finding that may testify to any Jewish spark or connection to the place. Their intention is to change the status quo of the place by turning all the areas of the Mount into Muslim holy places, mosques, and prayer areas, with the intention of preventing any Jewish presence whatsoever in the future.

2002-09-02T04:12:00.000-04:00

NRO Gets It Right Again

I hestitate to link to a National Review Online article b/c everybody I know--and everybody who is anybody--devours it everyday. Victor Davis Hanson is, as we all know, the god of war. But today's piece by John O'Sullivan in support of capital punishmentshould be the last word on the subject. He points out, as I did in my 8/22 blog, that cap pun is favored by the public in Europe, with 82% of Britons desiring it, despite how European politicians hector the U.S., that the scientific evidence is that cap pun does deter murders, and he points out that there are 820 people on death row for second murders after they had been let out of prison or while they were still in prison, a definite 820 lives that would have been saved--in addition to the tens of thousands saved by deterrence--had those murderers been executed. Finally, he notes that those who claim that un-executed murderers would serve life in prison are being disingenuous b/c we all know that once executions stopped the ACLU "and its camp-followers" (beautiful phrase) would start claiming that life in prison was cruel and unusual punishment.

The only mistake O'Sullivan makes is to refer to the anti-death penalty activists by their chosen label of "abolitionists." They're trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of the anti-slavery movement. Its supporters shouldn't cede them any rhetorical moral ground. Also, O'Sullivan could have made one more point. The opponents of cap pun claim that eliminating it would increase respect for life. Now, the immediate response is that putting to death a murderer establishes the value of the life of the victim. Simple enough. But, as with deterrence, we have empirical evidence on this point. Look at any country that has eliminated cap pun, and instead of respecting life, one finds that the value of the lives of crime victims is diminished or negated entirely. Italy, for example, where much of the population is vocally anti-cap pun and where some cities have even made murderers honorary citizens, allows furloughs for convicted murderers. In fact, a few years ago, one of the Palestinian terrorists who shot Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly wheelchair-bound man and dumped him over the side of the Achille Lauro, was released on a weekend furlough. And what he did do on his time off? He tried to escape from Italy, with the help of sympathic locals. Is that respect for life?

2002-09-02T02:16:00.000-04:00

How Pathetic is Tikkun magazine?

I went to the Tikkun magazine site looking for outrageous anti-American and anti-Israel stuff from a supposedly Jewish point of view. I found it. Let's start with the magazine's reprint of the manifesto of a bunch of British Jewish academics renouncing their right to become Israeli citizens under the law of return, published in The Guardian, of course. They say, "We regard it as morally wrong that this legal entitlement should be bestowed on us while the very people who should have most right to a genuine 'return', having been forced or terrorized into fleeing, are excluded...We wish to express our solidarity with all those who are working for a time when Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be lived in by people without any restrictions based on so-called racial, cultural, or ethnic origins." (The post doesn't include all the signatories. I'll be looking for the list over the next few days.) Good riddence, obviously. Israel doesn't need any more Meretz or Shinui voters, or Labor voters for that matter, altho' Mitzna's not as popular as he thought he was, at least.

But to add to insult to the injury of even dignifying such a screed, Tikkun published it under the headline, "The Right of Return--Consistent with a Jewish Perspective?" Even to ask such a question is shocking and plainly idiotic. But what do you expect from a magazine that a few years ago published a debate about whether Jews should practice circumcision.

2002-09-01T22:49:00.000-04:00

Keeping Tabs on the Other Side

I came across the "warincontext" blog on blogger.com's recently updated list. haven't had too much of a chance to look through it, but it seems to be the usual suspects. It bills itself as "Alternative Perspectives on the 'War on Terrorism' and the Middle East Conflict" and has a lot standard "blame America, blame Israel" crap. The links include a section called "the power behind the throne" that lists the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, AIPAC, JINSA, Christian Coalition, National Review, Weekly Standard, etc. Since I read two of these and am a member of several others, I'm glad to have confirmed by independent observers that I personally have so much power. Other links include four sites under the "Israel's Attack on USS Liberty" (for more on the Liberty, see my 8/27 blog) and bunch of Israeli and Jewish Leftist groups (b'tselem, etc.), and int'l "human rights" groups. It's worth keeping track of what they post, if anything just for one-stop idiot shopping.

2002-09-01T00:14:00.000-04:00

Zbig Deal

This op-ed by Zbigniew Brzezinski on the political roots of anti-Americanism is incoherent. He points to the underlying political causes of various terrorist groups--such as ETA and the IRA--to claim that hatred of the West isn't the main reason for Muslim anti-Americanism, but rather the Arab-Israeli conflict is.

Brez misses the key point that just b/c there's a political cause behind a terrorist campaign doesn't mean that the proper way to end the terrorist campaign is to resolve the political dispute. The alleged political cause may be irrational. Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber had political causes, after all. Second, ETA and the IRA have continued their terrorism long after their allegedly legitimate political causes have been settled. The Basques are part of a democratic society and they even have a regional parliament, far different from the days of the Franco dictatorship. But ETA is still blowing up children. The IRA, meanwhile, agreed to the Good Friday Accord a few years back--in which its murderers were let out prison and a local Northern Irish government set up for the first time since the early 1970s--but continues to refuse to decommission its arms and has recently been caught training FARC guerrillas in Colombia. So, the examples of ETA and the IRA actually work against Brez's argument. Resolving the political causes of those conflicts has not brought peace, b/c the terrorists are not fighting legitimate causes and b/c they are not interested in peace--lessons applicable to the Palestinians, too. In addition, Brez mentions all the places where Muslim violence is going on--Chechnya, the Middle East, CEntral Asia, Kashmir--but doesn't put any kind of overarching framework on it, b/c he wants to avoid the fact of civilizational conflict. But those are just the realities that led Sam Huntington to point to Islam's "bloody borders" as a cause of the clash of civilizations, which remains the most coherent explanation of world politics today.

2002-08-31T23:01:00.000-04:00

Some Truth in the Times

The Times notes today that the U.S. isn't to blame for all the world's problems being talked about at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The U.S. has made concessions on fisheries replenishment, while the EU wants to continue subsidizing its commerical fishing fleet. The U.S. might have trade-distoring agriculture subsidies, but the EU is far worse and has been slammed by the developing countries. And the U.S. is joined by Japan, Australia, and Canada in opposing deadlines for conversion to renewable engery. But the U.S. is the world's badguy, accused of "unilateralism."

Recall that the U.S. wasn't the only country to be wary of the Rome Statute creating the Int'l Criminal Court. It's true that some nasties like Libya also didn't sign, but neither did the world's biggest democracy, India. Also, check out who has ratified, brining the treaty into force--mostly the Europeans (including Andorra and San Marino), a few African countries, and some Latin American countries, including such military powerhouses as Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Antigua. The "international community" has spoken.

And by the way--who didn't sing the landmines ban, along with the U.S.? Russia, China, India, Finland, and Korea. In other words, all the country that still need landmines for military protection. It's easy for countries like Canada to swear of landmines. They don't need them and they don't want them. I'll sign a treaty saying I'll never own a landmine, too. But nobody in the world would ever be safer, since I never planned to have one the first place and couldn't find any use for it if I had. But the US, Russia, China, and India, all major military powers with long borders, think they need them. And Finland and Korea--they're afraid of getting invaded. As one Finnish military officer is said to have remarked of his vocal landmine ban-supporting neighbors, "The Norwegians don't think they need landmines because Finland is their landmine." Oh, and who was the 60th country to ratify the landmine ban, brining it into for? That major military power...Jamaica. The world is now so much safer b/c Jamaica foreswore landmines. They really don't go well with daquiries and beaches.

2002-08-29T12:40:00.000-04:00

Clearly We Need a New Treaty to Deal with This Global Menace

Traffic Deaths on Rise Globally, says the AP. My prediction: Prodded by NGOs, the World Health Organization will propose an international treaty to deal with road deaths, with high speed limits to be declared a violation of the human rights to life and effective public health measures. Think I'm kidding? WHO has a draft tobacco control treaty in the works now, including limits on advertising that would violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of commercial free speech.

2002-08-28T18:18:00.000-04:00

Filmakers Attack US on Sept. 11th--with Canadian and French help

This is a Toronto Star article about a film called 11'09''01 that will open at the Toronto Film Festival and in France on 9-11.

Is it a commemoration of the all the innocent people killed? No, of course, not. According to the article, relying on the entertainment trade pub Variety, "[t]he work includes segments, especially those made by Chahine, Makhmalbaf and British filmmaker Ken Loach, which are fiercely critical of the United States and could prove embarrassing when the film opens in French movie houses on Sept. 11...[I]n Chahine's film, an unnamed filmmaker, who says: 'The U.S. and Israel are democracies, their governments are elected by their people — thus it is legitimate to attack their people.' Other examples cited by the trade publication include an allegedly sympathetic depiction of a suicide bomber and his family, and a tirade against the United States by British filmmaker Ken Loach."

No surprise its a French-produced film, especially given the best-selling status of the book that claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks. But I thought even the French would have some class and not show something like this on 9-11. And the Canadians? Wimps, yes, but I thought they had manners.

2002-08-28T15:37:00.000-04:00

Background on the Temple Mount

As reports continue of the imminent collapse of the south wall of the Temple Mount because of the Waqf's destruction of Jewish archeology on the site, Moment Magazine has a good article by Herschel Shanks on the topic. My prediction: the wall collapses during Ramadan b/c of the weight of all the Muslim worshippers at the al-Aksa Mosque, and Muslims use the collapse as proof of the Israeli effort to undermine the site. The international media dutifully reports the lie.

2002-08-28T14:15:00.000-04:00

Bring on the Lawyers

AP carries this report on "a bid by a male inmate to force the state to pay for a sex change operation and hormone therapy that would allow him to live as a woman." The federal district court said that the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require the treatment.

My prediction: If s/he hasn't already, s/he will next claim that the U.S. is violating international human rights law on the protection of prisoners, probably citing to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Torture Convention and listing various Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN, and EU reports on prison conditions in the US. S/he will gain support from various gay rights groups, human rights NGOs, and international law professors, who will write amicus briefs and law review articles on the subject and gain sympathetic hearings in Europe and on law school campuses in the fight to make the U.S. recognize "internationally accepted norms of fair treatment of incarcerated persons."

2002-08-28T11:54:00.000-04:00

Arab Think-Tank's Jew-Hatred

The Jerusalem Post reports today that the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up will be hosting a Holocaust denial conference. According to its website, the Zayed Center was founded by the Arab League and endorsed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity.

Here's material from the Center's most recent conference on "Semitism":

"In his opening speech Mr. Mohammed Khalifa Al Murar, the Executive Director of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up repudiated Israelis claim of being the real Semites. 'Paradoxically, they accuse Arabs who are Semites themselves, of anti-Semitism. After having usurped the land of Palestine, they claim to be the sons of soil. They have exploited all possible tactics and their military and political clout to change world opinion in their favor. They know the hollowness of their claims...[T]hey churn out lies after lies till they make people believe that they are Semites and are being persecuted by others. They resort to this in order to cover their heinous crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people...Jews claim to be God’s most preferred people but the truth is they are the enemies of all nations. Most philosophers like Zimmer, consider Jews as cheaters whose greed knows no bounds. Today, after having controlled print and electronic media, they distort facts to suit their objectives.'" He claimed that today's Jews are descendants of the Khazars who settled in Eastern Europe. (No comment about Jews from Arab lands or DNA tests that show Jews genetically related to Armenians and Arabs.)

Recent speakers at the Center have included both Lydon Larouche and his wife and Kurt Waldheim, described as "a strong supporter of oppressed people in general and the Palestinian people in particular...[who faced] the fierce campaign lead by Israel and global Zionism against Waldheim, accusing him of the grossest offences. Such accusations were just a Zionist reaction to this man’s honorable stances, as manifested in the issue of UN historical Resolution on considering Zionism a racist movement."

Appearing next week: former French Prime Minister and European Parliamentarian Mr. Michel Rocard, "well known for his pro-Arab stances and in particular his latest stand in which he called upon Israel to stop its blatant aggression against Palestinian people in different towns and villages."

But lest we think that the Center is just a collection of nutty Jew-haters, other visitors have included the German ambassador to the UAE and the US charge d'affairs in the UAE, and the Center has recieved mainstream scholars of Islam and high gov't officials from France (inlcuding Pres. Chirac), Japan, Germany, India, and Romania (including Pres. Ion Iliescu), and messages of support from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Many of the other activities of the Center appear to be straight-forward seminars and publications on events in the Muslim world.

And that's what is most scary. For all I know, this place actually is a standard, well-regarded Arab think-tank. And Jew-hatred is part of their regular fare.

2002-08-27T18:57:00.000-04:00

Day of Mourning Declared as Satirewire Closes Down

Satirewire.com, which overtook the Onion as the web's best humor site, announced today that it is closing down. Very sad. My favorite stories:

God Names Next "Chosen People"; It's Jews Again.
"Oh Shit," Say Jews

U.S. Promises to Consult Allies Before Doing What It Was Going to Do Anyway

Correction: Bush Faints After Choking "The" Pretzel, Not Choking "On" Pretzel

U.S., Russia Sign Historic Nuke Treaty Neither Side Plans to Abide By

Canadian Warship Seizes Tanker In...Wait...Canada Has a Warship?

ACLU Takes Over Terror Investigation, Will Focus Attention on No One in Particular

2002-08-27T17:57:00.000-04:00

Idiocy Watch--Jane Goodall

Too stupid for comment:

"Primate expert Jane Goodall told participants at the U.N. development summit Tuesday the fight against terrorism threatens to overshadow environmental concerns in the United States.

"Since Sept. 11, Americans haven't wanted to speak out for the environment because it doesn't seem patriotic,'' Goodall said. "If we allow our planet to deteriorate any more, the terrorists will get their victory."

2002-08-27T13:51:00.000-04:00

More on the Lying UNH Professor

The UNH professor who blithely reports Taliban civilian casualty figures (see my 8/21 blog below) to criticize the war in Afghanistan has this gem in his "dossier":

"What I am saying is that when the 'other' is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S. government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits. A contrary case might be raised with Serbia which was also recently subjected to mass bombing. But, the Serbs were in the view of U.S. policymakers and the corporate media tainted ['darkened'] by their prior 'Communist' experience."

The stupidity of this comment is amazing. First, how does he know what was in the view of US policymakers and media? He doesn't quote anyone saying, "Let's bomb the Serbs; who cares if they're former Commies." He's just making that up in oder to dismiss a clear case of the U.S. bombing Europeans that contradicts his thesis. Second, note how he turns the experience of being Communist into "darkening." Another made-up distinction. Who said being Communist is darkening? There are lots of other former Communists who have joined NATO--Poles, Hungarians, Czechs. No one thinks of them as "dark." But the liar has to use that term in order to make a connection between Serbs--who are white Europeans--and Afghans so that his thesis holds up. Note, too, that he uses "communist" in quotes, as if Yugoslavia wasn't a self-proclaimed communist state. Third, he fails to point out that the people the U.S. was saving by bombing the Serbs were...Muslims. In fact, people that the Serbs acutally did view as an "other" who deserved to be killed. And the U.S. was saving them by bombing the Serbs. But that doesn't fit his narrative, so he just lies about the facts and twists reality to make the U.S. bombing of European Serbs to protect Muslims into an example of Western hatred for dark people. Such is the world these lying American-haters live in.

Why take this guy seriously? Because he has, unfortunately, had an impact b/c credulous Euroweenies and assorted American leftists and media believe him. We have to expose his lies.

And he just plain pisses me off.

2002-08-27T13:28:00.000-04:00

Who Does the Times Like?

Today's Times carries an op-ed by James Bamford likening the admistration to the persecutors of Josef K in Kafka's "The Trial." Bamford implies that the slander against Josef K is what the administration is doing to innocent victims of the war on terrorism. Bamford should know all about slander. He's the guy who claimed in a book published last year that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in order to hide the killing of prisoners of war. This was a new twist on an old lie that the attack on the Liberty was intentional. Of course, it's not true, as Michael Oren and CAMERA demonstrated. Bamford doesn't even know the basic history of the war, relies on dubious sources, makes up other sources, and straight out lies about the sources he does cite, such as articles in the Times itself that just don't say what he claims they say.

The Times credulously reported the publication of his book as front page news, altho' the book review section (as shown in the CAMERA piece cited above) noted the problems with the book. Now, the last book that the Times reported as news on its front page was Michael Bellesiles', who claimed that most early Americans didn't own guns and that, therefore, the 2nd Amendment applied only to state militias and did not establish an individual right to possess firearms. Reporters from the Boston Globe and National Review and other scholars have exposed Bellesiles as a fraud who made up a lot of his sources and mischaracterized others, and he's been put on leave by Emory while his case is investigated. The Times, months after the allegations against Bellesiles had been reported on by other people, finally did a story about Bellesiles lies, but never mentioned that its own paper had given him front-page coverage. The Times simply likes to report frauds--and won't apologize for it--when they advance its editorial line.

2002-08-26T18:02:00.000-04:00

Religous Law on Capital Punishment

Today's National Review on-line has an article about Muslim views of cap pun. The author mistakenly views capital punishment in Islamic law outside its context, however. It is true that Islamic law contains stringent requirements of proof before a capital sentence is imposed, such as having two upstanding Muslim witnesses (defined as those who have two character witnesses testify that among other things, they attend mosque, fast during Ramadan, etc.) to the crime, etc. But Islamic law makes a distinction between "fiqh"--lawmaking authority by the ulema, the Muslim clergy--and "siyasa"--lawmaking authority by the secular ruler. If a criminal cannot be punished by a religious court b/c of failure to meet the Qu'ranic burden of proof, he's not set free. He is simply punished by the secular ruler under less stringent rules. The reason is the need for religious authorities to be absolutely sure of their proof b/c they are engaged in a religously mandated action and are imposing Allah's will on the criminal. The secular ruler, however, is ony imposing what society needs for its functioning. It's important to keep this distinction in mind, something the author of the NRO article didn't.

The same distinction exists in Jewish criminal law, where the king could always punish criminals based on society's need for social order even if a rabbinical court couldn't. The commonly cited Talmudic requirements of two witnesses, forewarning, etc. before imposing capital punishment did not apply to the king. In fact, the Talmudic criminal law was not, historically, a the primary criminal justice system. Thus, even if the evidentiary rules do express some kind of Jewish view of the ethics of cap pun, that view has to take into account that the rabbis knew that murderers were still subject to cap pun in another forum. Had murderers not been liable to the king's justice--or for that matter, to God's--then a very different view might have been expressed. Furthermore, even within the Talmudic system, the rabbis would suspend the evidentiary rules if the times required it, and they would execute people for non-biblically proscribed offenses. When opponents of cap pun cite the Talmudic evidentiary bars to cap pun as evidence that Jewish law is opposed to it, they are obscuring these facts.

"If there are murderers who are not subject to the [rabbinic] death penalty, then an Israelite king may execute them by his royal prerogative and by reason of societal need, if he so wishes. Likewise, if a court wishes to execute such a person as a temporary measure, they may do so if such are the need of the hour." Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Rotziach 2:4

"R. Eleazar b. Jacob says, 'I have heard that a court may decree capital punishment without the warrant of the Torah. This would not be in violation of the Torah but to protect it Such was the case with a man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of the Hellenists, for which he was brought to court and stoned to death. It was not that such a punishment was biblically mandated for that act, but that the times required it.'" Sanhedrin 46a

2002-08-26T16:31:00.000-04:00

NPR Collaborates

NPR--commonly known as "National Public Radio"--should remame itself "National Palestinian Radio." They had a report today on the murder of a Palestinian mother of seven for alleged collaboration with Israel, one of whose sons says that he and his mother were tortured into confessing. According to NPR, guess who is to blame? That's right...Israel, for making life so bad for Palestinians that they have no choice but to turn each other in and for using collaborators in the first place. Of course, the NPR reporter didn't say that herself. She just interviewed Palestinian and Israeli "human rights activists" who said that for her. Naturally, the reporter didn't bother interviewing anyone who provided a contrary, sane, not "blame the Jews" view of the situation.

I hereby propose two more renamings for NPR. The morning show should be called "Morning Sedition," and the afternoon show should be called "All Things Distorted."

2002-08-26T13:04:00.000-04:00

Spain, Turkey, and Terrorism

Spain is moving toward outlawing Batasuna, the Basque independence political party, for having ties to the Basque terrorist group, ETA. Judge Baltazar Garzon (best known for indicting right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet but not left-wing dictator Fidel Casto) today suspended the party's political activities, and Parliament is meeting in special session to endorse a gov't move to have the Supreme Court outlaw the party entirely.

These are good policies for groups that attack innocent Spaniards, killing, most recently, a six-year-old girl in a bombing, and a politician in front of his wife and children. But they raise, once again, the issue of European hypocrisy.

In addition to these recent moves, the then-Socialist Spanish government ran death squads in the early-to-mid 1980s called Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberacion (GAL, Antiterrorist Liberation Groups). The GAL kidnapped, tortured, and executed a few dozen suspected and actual Basque separatists in both Spain and France, partly to put pressure on the French, who had let Spanish Basques operate from French terroritory with impunity. (French appeasement of terrorists is nothing surprising, but ignoring terrorists harming another European country? Again, not surprising. The French let go a couple of Iranian agents wanted by the Swiss for killing an Iranian dissident in Geneva. And French military officers let Serb war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia know that American and Dutch NATO troops were planning an operation to arrest them. Remember that the next time the French say anything about U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.) But back to the Spanish. The GAL were finally shut down after the Defense Minister and other top leaders were arrested and convicted of planning the kidnapping of a Basque businessman who, it turned out, was not tied to ETA. But during the trial, information came out that suggested that the Socialist prime minister, Felipe Gonzalez, might have known about GAL. Even the guys convicted in that case recieved pardons and served almost no time for the crimes.

Are other Europeans any better? Well, the British government under Maggie Thatcher had a shoot-to-kill policy against IRA terrorists, including the famous operation in Gibralter when Special Air Service (SAS) commandos killed three terrorists who were apparently trying to surrender. A British police inspected named, of all things, Stalker, documented this in a report following the Gibralter operation and subsequently had his career ruined.

Amnesty International also has reported that ETA prisoners are tortured and their tortures hardly punished. I don't believe AI is a reliable source at all, but I should note that the Euroweenies trust AI implicitly on anything it says about the US, Turkey, or Israel, but ignore them when it their own ox on the alter. I should also point out that AI apparently has been condeming ETA terrorism for years, but only just got around to condeming Palestinians a couple of months ago.

But what's okay for the Spaniards and Brits isn't okay for the Turks. When Turkey has taken similar actions to destroy the Kurdish terrorist group, PKK, and to shut down political parties that support it, it has been condemned by the EU, and those actions have been used as an excuse to delay Turkey's entrance into the union. It seems that the only Muslims Europeans are willing to tolerate in Europe are the radicals who preach hatred in Hamburg, Paris, and London's Finley Square mosque. Secular, pro-American, anti-Communist Turks aren't good enough. The PKK ran its tv station out of London and raised money and sympathy among leftists in Europe. Furthermore, like ETA and Batasuna, the PKK and their Kurdish political party supporters are Marxist-Leninist and raise money through extortion and drug-dealing. Despite the Europeans, the PKK was mostly crushed by harsh military measures and its leader, Abdullah Ocalan (pronounced "URGE-alan"), captured after hiding out in the Greek embassy in Kenya. (There were rumors of Israeli assistance to the Turks in the operation to get Ocalan. I can only hope that's true.)

The vast majority of Turks wanted Ocalan executed, and he was tried and sentenced to death. But then the EU intervened and said that his execution would cause problems for Turkey's EU membership application. And, indeed, Turkey's cabinet recently voted to abolish cap pun, a move opposed by the nationalist party in the governing coalition to no avail. Do the Turks really think that will help? The Euroweenies will find another excuse to keep them out (note--my use of the term "Euroweenies" implies no animus whatsoever toward weenies. I quite fond of my own, tho' I prefer that other people keep theirs to themselves. Live and let live, I say.)

I should add that I don't particularly have a problem with the Spanish are doing, or what the Brits, and one of my favorite politicians, the Iron Lady, did. But why can't the Turks, the Israelis, and U.S. do the same? Who the are the Euroweenies to criticize other countries' antiterrorist activities?

2002-08-26T11:51:00.000-04:00

Wedgie Death

If I had been as uptight as this guy , my older brother would not have survived adolescence: "A man accused of trying to kill a friend who gave him a 'wedgie' will stand trial on an attempted murder charge, a judge ruled."

2002-08-23T13:37:00.000-04:00

Wisdom on Perle

Slate today attacks Richard Perle, former Pentagon official and top DC neocon hawk. For one thing, the article is rather ironic since it is a long profile--at least for web publishing--that contains a couple of snide comments about other people's long profiles of the same person. More importantly, tho', it contains a couple of comments that reveal that the author doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. The author refers to Perle's job as an assistant secretary of defense as a "third rank" job. In titles, that's true. But assistant secretaries, at the Pentagon and around the fed gov't in general, run their issues on a day-to-day basis and are the lead decision-makers on their areas of responsibility. Also, the author makes a passing reference to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment that tied trade benefits for the Soviet Union to emigration for Soviet Jews. In a dig at Perle's hawkishness, the author says that the amendment helped end detente. What he doesn't mention is that it led to the Soviets allowing tens of thousands of Jews (and eventually other groups) to escape communist oppression. See these comments, for example, from the White House, a Russia expert, and Rep. Chris Cox about its success. There's debate now about whether to repeal it in recognition of Russia's democratization.

2002-08-23T10:30:00.000-04:00

TNR has an article about the treatment of gay Palestinians . They're tortured and killed by PA officials and their own families. Where do they go for safety's sake--Israel, which has a flourishing gay community. I wonder what the Queers Undermining Israeli Tyranny think about that. But human rights groups don't bother reporting these facts b/c it would contradict their narrative that Israel is evil and that the Palestinians are noble victims of oppression. Similarly, the PA's routine summary executions are rarely reported by the media, and the PA is never held to account for them by their European paymasters. The Europeans are more upset by U.S. execuctions than they are by PA executions of the mentally retarded, one of which happened a couple of weeks ago at Arafat's compound in full sight and hearing of the int'l media, who were there to cover a summit of PA leaders. Only the Jerusalem Post had an article on it. No UN investigations, no EU condemnations...

2002-08-22T20:31:00.000-04:00

Guilty

The AP today carries a story about Sacco and Vanzetti that never even considers the possibility that they were guilty of robbing and killing a payroll keeper and his guard. Unlike the impression a reader gets from the article, scholars now believe that Sacco was clearly guilty of the murder and Vanzetti knew about it either before or after the fact. But the article assumes not only that they were innocent of the charge, but doesnt' even bother to mention any of the evidence against the two.

But it gets worse. Citing such experts as a "professor of rhetoric" and a "filmmaker," the AP turn the story into a civil liberties warning about the war on al-Queda. Because, you know, the whole terrorist thing is just being made up and we're not actually under attack or anything.

Here's some news for the AP: Hiss was guilty, the Rosenbergs were guilty, Leonard Peltier is guilty, Mumia Abu Jamal is guilty. And oh, yeah, OJ was guilty.

2002-08-22T20:04:00.000-04:00

Sound Thoughts on Capital Punishment

Slate has had a couple of fairminded articles about the death penalty recently. William Saletan describes himself as "one of those mushy-middle Americans who favor capital punishment in principle but are deeply uneasy about it," but is put off by the disingenousness of its opponents. As he demonstrates in the article, the opponents use hypocritical and inconsistent arguments, saying that murderers are either too old or too young to die, or are too smart or mentally handicapped, and that executions are too secret or too public. Regarding the Supreme Court's recent decision prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded, Saletan points out that murderers often score at different IQ levels at different times, and that opponents of cap pun cite different IQ levels as the lower limit for permissable executions.

Another example is a recent whine by the UN Human Rights Committee (yes, the same Committee that will soon be led by Libya's Ghaddafi and includes various other paragons of human rights protection, such as Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe, and that routinely devotes days of its annual meeting to attacking Israel and not a single session to, say, China). The Committee criticized the execution of a Mexican in Texas partly on the basis that he was "only 19" at the time of the murder. Only 19? But the U.S. is already criticized for executions of people under 18 when they committed their crime. So now it's 19? And if 19-year olds weren't executed, then they'd say, "He was only 20" or "He was only 21" etc...My response: "He was only 19. And his victim was only 5. Pull the switch."

Slate also has a good article on the weakness of the Court's decision in substance. Howard Bashman points out that the Court reversed its 1989 decision permitting execution of the mentally retarded based partly on poll numbers. Is that a wise way for the Court to make decisions, rather than Constitutional text and history? "If some mentally retarded person committed a horrific offense next week, a majority of Americans might abandon their opposition to executing the retarded. Such a shift in opinion would mirror how the country has—within the past 30 years—trended first against and then in favor of any death penalty. And if public opinion once again permitted execution of the retarded, presumably the court would have to flop back to the 1989 ruling from which it so recently flipped." And basing decisions on polls means that those who oppose the decision will organize politically to change public opinion and elections, as has happened with abortion, polarizing politics over issues on which most voters are in the middle.

A law professor at Notre Dame who opposes cap pun made a similar point in the National Review recently. "I am quite convinced that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant to the question of whether the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitutions forbids those who disagree with me from enacting and enforcing laws that reflect their likes and dislikes. Similarly irrelevant, in my view, are most of the (inconclusive) evidence and authorities (e.g., advocacy groups' amicus curiae briefs, legislative margins and trends, the views of European Union, and even the position of my own Catholic bishops) on which Justice Stevens's majority opinion purports to rely."

And why, in any event, should the opinion of the EU count? Should we get rid of the exclusionary rule and Miranda rights? The EU doesn't have them, so why should we? Why do liberals in this country cite the opinions of foreigners only when they agree with them? Abortion is illegal in Mexico, our fellow North American state. Is that a reason for the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? Furthermore, as The New Republic has pointed out, cap pun is actually popular among the public in Europe, but legislators, courts, and the elites there ignore them. "Europe doesn't have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic."

And I would also like an explanation from those liberals opposing cap pun for the mentally retarded why they suddenly believe in the validity of IQ tests. They're all in favor of them to save a murderer from getting his just punishment, but not to establish, say, that some people are actually smarter than others. And don't liberals believe that there are multiple intelligences? How did it suddenly get reduced to one number in order to save a murderer?

Finally, the WSJ had an article in June that demolished the oft-repeated and totally untrue claim that the death penalty doesn't deter murders. "From 1930 to 1963 murder rates and executions track very closely, both falling. After 1963, they separate, with murders rising rapidly while executions fall to zero. Around 1990, the lines reverse again, only recently returning to early '60s levels. The original break occurs at the exact moment the Supreme Court began its wholesale intervention into state criminal cases." The article points out that a New York Times article purporting to show no connection was flawed b/c it included states that have cap pun but have never executed anyone. When those states are taken out, the connection appears, demonstrating that deterrence depends on calculations of probability of punishment, exactly what sound economic theory would predict. A letter to the editor by a couple of economists said that a "growing body of research on the subject reported in the economic literature" confirms these facts. Furthermore, "[a]n execution moratorium may result in more-than-expected homicides over the affected period, and ..[e]xecutions have a deterrent effect over and above that of life sentences," with 11 to 18 murders committed for every execution defferred. As the authors point out, "To date, the scientific studies that find evidence of a deterrent effect of executions have gone largely unreported by the media. Readers of the nation's periodicals would be well-served if they were provided with a dose of scientific evidence along with the steady diet of oft- times uninformed journalistic and personal opinion.." Amen.

2002-08-22T16:30:00.000-04:00

CNN and Reuters Cover Up for Terrorists

CNN and Reuters cover the U. of South Florida's attempt to fire terrorist supporter Professor Sami al-Arian, but downplay his offenses, saying only that he is "believed to have said 'Death to Israel'," made some comments on 9-11 on the O'Reilly Factor, and wrote what al-Arian says was an unsent fundraising letter for terrorists. They conclude, "Al-Arian...has never been charged with a crime and has consistently denied any connection to terrorists."

Foxnews.com reports the full story: "He and his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprises, a now-defunct Islamic think tank at USF that was raided by the FBI in 1995. Al-Arian also founded the Islamic Concern Project Inc. in 1988. Ramadan Adbulah Shallah, a former head of WISE, left the group in 1995 and later resurfaced as head of the terrorist organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Wonder why CNN and Reuters didn't think that was relevant to the story? Of course, Reuters are the people who put quotes around the word "terrorism" when referring to the slaughter of civilians by Muslims. The New York Times engaged in a similar cover-up last fall, painting Al-Najjar as an innocent victim of anti-Muslim bias and never mentioning WISE.

And what about "believed to have said 'Death to Israel'"? Al-Arian himself admitted he said it on 60 Minutes! CNN is covering up for a guy who doesn't even bother covering up for himself. Of course, al-Arian claims that "Death to Israel" doesn't really mean "death" or "Israel." Just an end to the "occupation." He does make a Freudian slip tho' when trying to explain that he was taken out of context: "[W]hen Arab and Muslim people hear me, they understand what I mean."

I'm sure they do, professor. And so do the rest of us.

2002-08-21T13:50:00.000-04:00

On-Line Petition Numbers

CNN reports that an on-line petition to have the tv show "Soul Train" revoke its Lady of Soul award to Ashanti has gotten 20,000 signatures. A petition opposing a US invasion of Iraq has 2,300. Reminds me of the dueling Harvard/MIT Israel petitions. The petition to divest Harvard and MIT funds from companies doing business with Israel got about 500; the petition not to divest got 5,800.

2002-08-21T13:36:00.000-04:00

Civilian Casualties

The Wall St. Journal Europe carries a great article by Joshua Muravcik (requires subscription) ripping apart the claim that 3000-3400 civilains were killed by U.S. bombing in Afghanistan. Muravic shows how the claim, by an economic development and women's studies professor at U. of New Hampshire named Marc Herold, is based on Taliban and Al-Jazeera reports and contradicts other sources that the report itself cites. The study is available here For example, Herold says, based on al-Jazeera, that 93 civlians died at the village of Chowkar-Karez and cites for further back up a Human Rights Watch report. But HRW says that between 25 and 35 civilians died. He also cites to other media articles, as if they provide back-up, but those media cite the HRW report. This is a standard tactic in dishonest sourcing--listing multiple sources to pretend that there is lots of back-up when in fact there is only one basic source for the claim, as if citing one thing seven times makes it more reliable. Herold refused to answer Muravchic's e-mail queries about his sources.

Not that this has caused Herold any problems. According to Muravchic, this "study" is taken at face value in Europe, espcially by the European press. No surprise there. This is the same press that lied about the alleged "massacre" in Jenin. In the examples Muravchic provides of European coverage of the study, the Herold's work is referred to as a "study by the University of New Hampshire," which adds the institutional prestige of the university in an attempt to bolster the document's credibility. Of course, it's not by UNH at all. It's by one person there. But "dishonest study by a lying left-wing nut who happens to teach at the University of New Hampshire" just doesn't sound as impressive.

2002-08-20T10:08:00.000-04:00

Terrorist Abu Nidal was found shot to death in Baghdad yesterday. Here's a description of what Abu Nidal was responsible for, from an article by Kenneth Timmerman in today's Wall St. Journal:

"He attacked Jewish schoolchildren in Antwerp in 1980, and a synagogue in Vienna in 1981. On June 2, 1982, an Abu Nidal hit team shot Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in the head as he was leaving a dinner at London's Dorchester Hotel. Mr. Argov survived, but Israel launched retaliatory raids against Palestinian targets in Lebanon two days later. When Arafat's PLO responded by shelling Israeli civilians in Galilee, the Israelis launched a full-fledged invasion of Lebanon, driving all the way up to Beirut. If Arafat and Abu Nidal were not consciously working together, jointly their actions provoked Israel's first siege of an Arab capital.

"On Sept. 8, 1982, shortly after Israel ousted Arafat from Lebanon, Abu Nidal struck again against innocent Jews, this time in Paris. The machine-gun attack on diners at the Jo Goldenberg restaurant on the rue de Rosiers left six persons dead and 22 wounded. Once again, Nidal's action appeared to coincide with Arafat's plan to strike Israel wherever Jews were most vulnerable. For the past 20 years, French counter-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguière has attempted to bring Abu Nidal to justice for this attack, and told me not long ago he would pursue him "to the ends of the earth." Abu Nidal's planet just ended.

"Nidal's attacks against Jews continued, with or without Arafat's knowledge. In December 1985, commandos from his group machine-gunned the El Al ticket counter at the Vienna airport, killing three persons, while a more successful assault on the Rome airport killed 15 and wounded 100. In 1986, Nidal struck the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and hijacked Pan Am flight 73 in Karachi.

"Over the years, Israel's Mossad has attempted to infiltrate Abu Nidal's group, and in 1988 engaged in a shootout with an Abu Nidal hit squad on board the Greek day-excursion ship, the City of Poros. According to information I gathered at the time from a variety of intelligence sources, two Mossad teams boarded the ship in Piraeus at the same time as the Abu Nidal hit squad, while a third Mossad team sabotaged a car that was supposed to bring additional explosives onto the ship. When one of the Abu Nidal operatives on the ship saw a television report on the car explosion he pulled out a Beretta machine-pistol and began to spray passengers out on the sun deck. Before the Mossad teams could neutralize the killers, they had murdered nine passengers and wounded 98 others."

So, how did NPR describe Abu Nidal in its report on his death, in the Monday, Aug. 19, "All Things Considered" broadcast by Linda Gradstein? "Dissident Palestinian leader." Never used the word "terrorist." Instead, it reported his life and death as part of a struggle between pro-peace Palestinians (!) and anti-peace Palestinians, despite the facts that his occasional killing of other Palestinians was linked not to debates over whether or how to make peace with Israel, but rather on internecine struggles over control of power and resources and leadership of the Palestinian cause. But for NPR and it's reporters, the deaths of Jews aren't particularly important and the framework of analysis for all events is "peace" vs. "anti-peace" in order to obscure the true nature of Arab hatred for Israel.

2002-08-14T21:30:00.000-04:00

Hi, bloggers. After I sent a long email about this Salon article
about French support for Philadelphia murderer
Ira Einhorn, I decided it was time for a blog.

Here are my thoughts on the article:

As usual in media reports of criminal cases, the only
legal opinions offered are those of the defense.
Altho' the writer notes that the Philly DA declined to
be interviewed, he still could've found a someone to
defend the constitutionality of the Einhorn Law.

The law provided for Einhorn's extradition from France
to face a second trial, altho' he'd already been tried
in absentia in the States. His American lawyer says,
"An in-absentia trial is the "mark of the totalitarian government," Gelman says.
"To my mind it was a blatant crushing of all of his rights. Everything rang hollow.
The defendant is presumed innocent. Well, of course, the defendant isn't there,
he ran away. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, proof is, he ran away.
It eviscerated the right to a fair and impartial trial."

But there's nothing Constitutionally infirm about using his flight as evidence of guilt.
It is the defendant who has deprived himself of the right to a trial in person!
He had his right to a fair trial, and he waived it. Why should the government be burdened
with trying to prove again that he's guilty?

So the PA legislature passed a law that said that
people in Einhorn's position could have a second
trial. Then the French and other Einhorn supporters
claimed the law was unconstitutional b/c it applied retroactively
and violated the separation of powers. "[It] was clearly made not for a general case,"
he explains, "but clearly in order to obtain the extradition of Ira Einhorn.
For any jurist in a legally constituted country, to pass a law for a specific
interest and a specific case is not, let's face it, a very good way to pass laws."
"In this country there are three branches in our government: There's the legislative,
the judicial and the executive. Now, the legislative branch has absolutely no power,
under any circumstances, to pass a law that says any defendant is entitled to a new trial."

But retroactive laws and bills of attainder (those
directed at an individual's prior action) are
prohibited out of fear that they will reduce rights
that someone had when he took a particular action and
will make action legal when they are taken illegal at
some future time, thus reducing predictabilty of the
law and inhibiting people from acting. But this law
granted Einhorn rights that he didn't have before.
He is in a better position under the law than he was
when he killed his girlfriend. Neither rationale for prohibiting
retroactive laws or bills of attainder applies.

The separation of powers claim is just stupid. The
legislature can creates rights, such as the right to
another trial or the right to sue for certain actions
(e.g. discrimination on the basis of disability, which
was created by the ADA in 1990), so long as they do
not violate the Constitution, which this law doesn't
(see point above).

Now, I just wrote that off the top of my head based on
my general J.D. education. Slate could've at least
bothered to ask someone about these issues to
counterbalance Einhorn's lawyers