Battle of the sub-headlines: MSNBC v. Newsweek
"Eight plans released, initial reaction from families is positive" (MSNBC, AP article)
"Families of victims of the September 11 attacks say plans are beautiful but fall short" (Newsweek)
Next week: FoxNews.com v. Washington Times
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Rep. Jim "The Jews Control Everything" Moran endorses Dean at a Dean campaign event...
...Leading me to again urge people to not vote for Dean. Pay the Deandertals no heed. If Dean is elected president he will be a huge disaster in foreign policy.
...Leading me to again urge people to not vote for Dean. Pay the Deandertals no heed. If Dean is elected president he will be a huge disaster in foreign policy.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Why do people hate the Jews?
Because of a cycle. The early Christians rejected the Jews because they would not convert, so the Jews became less connected with the society of Christian nations. Because they were less connected, they would not be drawn into the demagoguery of the political and religious leaders. Because they did not buy into the demagoguery, their only use to those in power and the mob was as the scapegoat. Whenever there was religious extremism, the Jews refused to convert, and the mob and the church used them as scapegoats. Because they were used as scapegoats, they learned to distrust demagoguery and mob politics.
Because they had learned to distrust demagoguery and mob politics, they would always oppose it. Because they would always oppose it, the only recourse of the demagogues was to suppress their opinion. Because the only recourse was suppression, anti-Semitism became the last resort of dictators and despots. Because it was the only recourse, Hitler saw that even if he controlled all of Europe, the Jews would still dissent his rule unless he suppressed them all. Because he needed to suppress them all, he tried to kill them all.
He had succeeded at suppressing six million by the time he drank poison like a rat.
Because he had killed six million Jews across more than eight countries, the European Jews saw that they would not be safe as long as they had no power. Because they needed power to be safe, they argued for a Jewish state. That state could only be in the one place that held religious meaning to the Jews, the place they had come from nearly two millennia ago. The Jews began to go back to Israel.
Because the Jews went back to Israel, the Muslims saw a threat to their cultural hegemony over the Middle East. They saw a place where those they had persecuted in their own lands could go to for freedom. They saw a nation filled with people that would never accept being dhimmas to the Muslim world. Most of all, they saw a people who would not be ruled by nobles or imams, people who would show the Arab world that they were oppressed by their leaders, because they were not. They would make a nation that would show a tolerance of ideas and people that was anathema to the religious and political leaders of the Muslims. And so it was necessary to destroy them.
But that was not all that was necessary. They also had to slander every facet of their culture, lie that they were in conspiracy to destroy the Muslim people, lie that they were a satanic people who drank the blood of Muslims, a people who were the incarnation of evil. And only then would the Muslim people reject the Jews, and reject everything that was part of Israel.
But in 1948, they failed. Israel survived. And because it survived, the Arab leaders invented the Palestinians to criticize the Jews for surviving and cast the mere existence of a Jewish state as causing suffering. They brainwashed those who had left during the war and could not return to Israel to think that Israel was the root of their problems, and that if they could return to Israel and destroy the state they would no longer suffer. In fact, their suffering was due only to Arab despots who had exiled the Jews of their own nations, tried and failed to destroy Israel, and then refused to offer a single hand to those Arab "brothers" who could not return to Israel. Even today many Palestinian "refugees" cannot find good employment in the Arab world because they are not recognized as citizens or residents by their so-called brethren. Even thought they impugned Israel with accusations of causing a "diaspora," the Arabs would not lift one finger to help these "refugees." The best proof of this is that the PLO predates the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, neither of which were independent states or the center of any nationalist Palestinian activity t the time.
In 1967, Israel showed again that they would not be defeated by the Arab world, and suddenly the democratic and independent state clashed with European romanticization of the Arab world, and their "principles" of world peace through equilibrium and homogeneity. The same forces that led to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia were at work again, prepared to sacrifice a "shitty little state" called Israel. They are the same forces that opposed the overthrow of the most brutal tyrant in this generation, loved only by the Arab mob and European elitist.
I don't pretend to understand why some European cultures have historically been craven about their own interests, while completely rejecting that others have any right to anything, or that others are capable of doing something that is just. I don't think that Sharansky is correct to characterize it as a merely left-wing problem, because he fails to explain how it became like that, and ignores the very relevant right-wing opponents of Israel, which include Chirac and his past extremist opponent le Pen, as well as Nazi remnants in eastern Europe.
So here we are today, and again anti-Semitism has become the last resort of despots in the Middle East. I honestly do not think Muslim society is perverted enough for someone as craven and manipulative as Yassir Arafat or as violent and hateful as the leaders of Hamas to rise to any role of importance and respect if they could not beset loose on Israel. Osama bin Laden is Churchill in comparison to the corrupt and useless leadership of Yasser Arafat, and at the very least the Arabs know exactly what they are getting into when they support him. Who knows how many people Yasser Arafat has betrayed and tricked to gain and hold onto power and wealth? (King Hussein, the leaders of Lebanon before the invasion, the UN, the UNRWA, the Israelis, Abu Mazen, Clinton, the Palestinians, the Palestinians...)
I see a gathering storm on the horizon. When the storm breaks, it will lead to the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it can only end in the complete devastation of one of the sides. Significant anti-Semitism will only end when Israel and the world show that we will not tolerate persecution, will not tolerate oppression, will not tolerate genocidal hatred, and will not tolerate mass murder. At various points in the past and present the world has done very well at tolerating all of those.
Because of a cycle. The early Christians rejected the Jews because they would not convert, so the Jews became less connected with the society of Christian nations. Because they were less connected, they would not be drawn into the demagoguery of the political and religious leaders. Because they did not buy into the demagoguery, their only use to those in power and the mob was as the scapegoat. Whenever there was religious extremism, the Jews refused to convert, and the mob and the church used them as scapegoats. Because they were used as scapegoats, they learned to distrust demagoguery and mob politics.
Because they had learned to distrust demagoguery and mob politics, they would always oppose it. Because they would always oppose it, the only recourse of the demagogues was to suppress their opinion. Because the only recourse was suppression, anti-Semitism became the last resort of dictators and despots. Because it was the only recourse, Hitler saw that even if he controlled all of Europe, the Jews would still dissent his rule unless he suppressed them all. Because he needed to suppress them all, he tried to kill them all.
He had succeeded at suppressing six million by the time he drank poison like a rat.
Because he had killed six million Jews across more than eight countries, the European Jews saw that they would not be safe as long as they had no power. Because they needed power to be safe, they argued for a Jewish state. That state could only be in the one place that held religious meaning to the Jews, the place they had come from nearly two millennia ago. The Jews began to go back to Israel.
Because the Jews went back to Israel, the Muslims saw a threat to their cultural hegemony over the Middle East. They saw a place where those they had persecuted in their own lands could go to for freedom. They saw a nation filled with people that would never accept being dhimmas to the Muslim world. Most of all, they saw a people who would not be ruled by nobles or imams, people who would show the Arab world that they were oppressed by their leaders, because they were not. They would make a nation that would show a tolerance of ideas and people that was anathema to the religious and political leaders of the Muslims. And so it was necessary to destroy them.
But that was not all that was necessary. They also had to slander every facet of their culture, lie that they were in conspiracy to destroy the Muslim people, lie that they were a satanic people who drank the blood of Muslims, a people who were the incarnation of evil. And only then would the Muslim people reject the Jews, and reject everything that was part of Israel.
But in 1948, they failed. Israel survived. And because it survived, the Arab leaders invented the Palestinians to criticize the Jews for surviving and cast the mere existence of a Jewish state as causing suffering. They brainwashed those who had left during the war and could not return to Israel to think that Israel was the root of their problems, and that if they could return to Israel and destroy the state they would no longer suffer. In fact, their suffering was due only to Arab despots who had exiled the Jews of their own nations, tried and failed to destroy Israel, and then refused to offer a single hand to those Arab "brothers" who could not return to Israel. Even today many Palestinian "refugees" cannot find good employment in the Arab world because they are not recognized as citizens or residents by their so-called brethren. Even thought they impugned Israel with accusations of causing a "diaspora," the Arabs would not lift one finger to help these "refugees." The best proof of this is that the PLO predates the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, neither of which were independent states or the center of any nationalist Palestinian activity t the time.
In 1967, Israel showed again that they would not be defeated by the Arab world, and suddenly the democratic and independent state clashed with European romanticization of the Arab world, and their "principles" of world peace through equilibrium and homogeneity. The same forces that led to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia were at work again, prepared to sacrifice a "shitty little state" called Israel. They are the same forces that opposed the overthrow of the most brutal tyrant in this generation, loved only by the Arab mob and European elitist.
I don't pretend to understand why some European cultures have historically been craven about their own interests, while completely rejecting that others have any right to anything, or that others are capable of doing something that is just. I don't think that Sharansky is correct to characterize it as a merely left-wing problem, because he fails to explain how it became like that, and ignores the very relevant right-wing opponents of Israel, which include Chirac and his past extremist opponent le Pen, as well as Nazi remnants in eastern Europe.
So here we are today, and again anti-Semitism has become the last resort of despots in the Middle East. I honestly do not think Muslim society is perverted enough for someone as craven and manipulative as Yassir Arafat or as violent and hateful as the leaders of Hamas to rise to any role of importance and respect if they could not beset loose on Israel. Osama bin Laden is Churchill in comparison to the corrupt and useless leadership of Yasser Arafat, and at the very least the Arabs know exactly what they are getting into when they support him. Who knows how many people Yasser Arafat has betrayed and tricked to gain and hold onto power and wealth? (King Hussein, the leaders of Lebanon before the invasion, the UN, the UNRWA, the Israelis, Abu Mazen, Clinton, the Palestinians, the Palestinians...)
I see a gathering storm on the horizon. When the storm breaks, it will lead to the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it can only end in the complete devastation of one of the sides. Significant anti-Semitism will only end when Israel and the world show that we will not tolerate persecution, will not tolerate oppression, will not tolerate genocidal hatred, and will not tolerate mass murder. At various points in the past and present the world has done very well at tolerating all of those.
Monday, November 10, 2003
"Yeetgadal v' yeetkadash sh'mey rabbah B'almah dee v'rah kheer'utey.
v' yamleekh malkhutei, b'chahyeykhohn, uv' yohmeykhohn, ba'agalah u'veez'man kareev, Amein.
Y'hey sh'met rabbah m'varach l'alam u'l'almey almahyah.
Yeet'barakh, v' yeesh'tabach, v' yeetpa'ar, v' yeetrohmam, v' yeet'nasei, v' yeet'hadar, v' yeet'aleh, v' yeet'halal sh'mey d'kudshah b'reekh hoo L'eylah meen kohl beerkhatah v'sheeratah, toosh'b'chatah v'nechematah, da'ameeran b'al'mah. Amein.
Y'hei shlamah rabbah meen sh'mahyah, v'chahyeem aleynu. Amein
Oseh shalom beem'roh'mahv, hoo ya'aseh shalom, aleynu. Amein"
(Mourner's Kaddish)
v' yamleekh malkhutei, b'chahyeykhohn, uv' yohmeykhohn, ba'agalah u'veez'man kareev, Amein.
Y'hey sh'met rabbah m'varach l'alam u'l'almey almahyah.
Yeet'barakh, v' yeesh'tabach, v' yeetpa'ar, v' yeetrohmam, v' yeet'nasei, v' yeet'hadar, v' yeet'aleh, v' yeet'halal sh'mey d'kudshah b'reekh hoo L'eylah meen kohl beerkhatah v'sheeratah, toosh'b'chatah v'nechematah, da'ameeran b'al'mah. Amein.
Y'hei shlamah rabbah meen sh'mahyah, v'chahyeem aleynu. Amein
Oseh shalom beem'roh'mahv, hoo ya'aseh shalom, aleynu. Amein"
(Mourner's Kaddish)
Friday, November 07, 2003
The Kim du Toit post: Yeah, it's a caricature of itself. There's a joke I could make about his name and "essay" but that is just really stupid. And the absurd neo-antifeminist rant that it is isn't worth it. An ad hominem that is worth bringing up because he claims to be a "real man," is that in his bio he claims to have been married three times, and one wonders what degree of personal anger he is expressing in paragraph 23, in his Cheerios rant. Another thing is that he is obviously arguing to remove suffrage from women given that he says it is the root of the problem.
Kim, you're a whiner, a misogynist, and a hypochondriac. If you're so manly get off your ass and prove it by doing something useful.
If anyone thinks I'm being hypercritical, may I note that his only concrete insight into the state of men today is a Cheerios ad and an old comedy sitcom. That is just stupid, and is equivalent to saying that Fatal Attractions proved that independent working women were vilified in the '80s.
Kim, you're a whiner, a misogynist, and a hypochondriac. If you're so manly get off your ass and prove it by doing something useful.
If anyone thinks I'm being hypercritical, may I note that his only concrete insight into the state of men today is a Cheerios ad and an old comedy sitcom. That is just stupid, and is equivalent to saying that Fatal Attractions proved that independent working women were vilified in the '80s.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Lieberman Campaign: Right on Track
From Slate:
You'd grin too if things were going this well.
From Slate:
Unlike Gephardt, who tried to mute his difference with Kerry and John Edwards over the $87 billion for Iraq, Lieberman went after those two senators vociferously for flip-flopping on the vote. When Al Sharpton asked whether Lieberman would meet with Yasser Arafat, Lieberman made his case against such a meeting—a position obviously unpopular with the crowd—in such a forceful, well-argued way that the crowd ended up applauding him. Later, when he was asked about being "Bush lite," Lieberman replied, "I get angry when people say to me somehow that I'm not an authentic Democrat because I'm strong on defense, strong on values, and willing to talk about the role of faith in American life. I'm not going to yield that ground to the Republicans. I'm Joe Lieberman. I'm an independent-minded Democrat. And as president, I'm going to restore prosperity and security to the American people." The only flaw in his otherwise powerful delivery was a classic Liebermanism: a grin as he called himself angry.
You'd grin too if things were going this well.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Joke post of the month
(Thanks to Yourish for linking to it first)
Note: I have called November 29th for the Arafat Death Watch.
(Thanks to Yourish for linking to it first)
Note: I have called November 29th for the Arafat Death Watch.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
I know I'm late to post on this, but if you haven't read this, you should. This is probably the best example of what is wrong with the Muslim political world. Unitentionally insightful quote:
The scapegoatism that Jews are used for reinforces the idea that antisemitism is promoted by Muslim leaders to deflect blame for their complete negligence of the welfare of their people. Does any semi-sane person anywhere have an explanation for how 13 million Jews are "responsible" for the backwardness of 1.3 billion Muslims?
Next: A discussion of the Rumsfeld Memo, and why it is insignificant to the public at large.
There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel that they can do nothing right. They believe that things can only get worse. The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews. They will forever be poor, backward and weak. Some believe, as I have said, this is the Will of Allah, that the proper state of the Muslims is to be poor and oppressed in this world.
But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves? Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy?
The scapegoatism that Jews are used for reinforces the idea that antisemitism is promoted by Muslim leaders to deflect blame for their complete negligence of the welfare of their people. Does any semi-sane person anywhere have an explanation for how 13 million Jews are "responsible" for the backwardness of 1.3 billion Muslims?
Next: A discussion of the Rumsfeld Memo, and why it is insignificant to the public at large.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Zero Hour in North Korea
If North Korea isn't bluffing (which, given its past accusations of bluffing, would make this one hell of a bluff) then the time for mere talk is over. Bush needs to take serious action in the next week, or the consequences will not be pretty. Here are two of my ideas of what serious action could entail.
1) Tell North Korea that they can start a bilateral negotiation on a short-term treaty with the U.S. to conclude within weeks, under the unbending condition that the U.N. has total access to all facets of North Korea's nuclear program, and will totally dismantle said program, in exchange for a promise by the U.S. that it will not engage in a conflict to destroy the North Korean government. Also warn that if they do not accept the offer within a week, the U.S. will seek U.N. and NATO cooperation in a war to remove the North Korean government and thereby destroy its nuclear program.
2) (This is less a separate option than a truncation of the above) Create and implement plans to bomb or otherwise destroy all known nuclear infrastructure, while simultaneously beginning operations to eliminate the leadership of the North Korean government. Follow up with complete quarantine of North Korean borders through naval and aerial means to ensure that nuclear materials do not leave North Korea. At this point the country could be disorganized enough for U.S. forces to movein with significantly less casualties then a straight invasion would inflict. Tactical air strikes should also be implemented on all known artillery positions within range of Seoul.
To be honest, neither of these plans will be an improvement of the current situation. The second one should have the caveat that effectively accomplishing the goal of destroying the North Korean government will likely require carrying out a tactical nuclear strike on Pyongyang. The first one has the problem that what will happen becomes much fuzzier and there is an increased risk that North Korea will somehow export nuclear technology or materials. Both of them bring the immense risk that China will become involved. It is unlikely, however, that they will make things worse than the situation will be with continued inactivity. Bush has to ask himself if a nuclear-armed North Korea is an acceptable risk to America's national security. If not, he must act now.
If North Korea isn't bluffing (which, given its past accusations of bluffing, would make this one hell of a bluff) then the time for mere talk is over. Bush needs to take serious action in the next week, or the consequences will not be pretty. Here are two of my ideas of what serious action could entail.
1) Tell North Korea that they can start a bilateral negotiation on a short-term treaty with the U.S. to conclude within weeks, under the unbending condition that the U.N. has total access to all facets of North Korea's nuclear program, and will totally dismantle said program, in exchange for a promise by the U.S. that it will not engage in a conflict to destroy the North Korean government. Also warn that if they do not accept the offer within a week, the U.S. will seek U.N. and NATO cooperation in a war to remove the North Korean government and thereby destroy its nuclear program.
2) (This is less a separate option than a truncation of the above) Create and implement plans to bomb or otherwise destroy all known nuclear infrastructure, while simultaneously beginning operations to eliminate the leadership of the North Korean government. Follow up with complete quarantine of North Korean borders through naval and aerial means to ensure that nuclear materials do not leave North Korea. At this point the country could be disorganized enough for U.S. forces to movein with significantly less casualties then a straight invasion would inflict. Tactical air strikes should also be implemented on all known artillery positions within range of Seoul.
To be honest, neither of these plans will be an improvement of the current situation. The second one should have the caveat that effectively accomplishing the goal of destroying the North Korean government will likely require carrying out a tactical nuclear strike on Pyongyang. The first one has the problem that what will happen becomes much fuzzier and there is an increased risk that North Korea will somehow export nuclear technology or materials. Both of them bring the immense risk that China will become involved. It is unlikely, however, that they will make things worse than the situation will be with continued inactivity. Bush has to ask himself if a nuclear-armed North Korea is an acceptable risk to America's national security. If not, he must act now.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Lt. Smash is the Indepundit
Lt. Cmdr. Smash (formerly Lt. Smash) reveals himself to be the Indepundit, someone I have never heard of. So, until next time, I am NF.
That was a joke. And the link is being updated.
I am he,
And he is me,
And we are we,
And now we’re all together.
I am The Indepundit.
I am L.T. Smash.
I am the Walrus.
Goo goo g’joob.
Lt. Cmdr. Smash (formerly Lt. Smash) reveals himself to be the Indepundit, someone I have never heard of. So, until next time, I am NF.
That was a joke. And the link is being updated.
Monday, September 22, 2003
Hope For The Middle East
I believe this article from IsraelInsider.com is a pretty good explanation of how I feel about Israel sometimes, and explains a lot about the opinions of Jewish-Americans on Israeli actions. The whole idea about how Jewish-Americans want Israel to be a credit to Jewish culture is probably correct (witness Abraham Foxman of the ADL criticizing the recent marriage ban), and I completely believe that it should be a shining example of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, as the author points out, the world isn't that nice a place, and Israel has had to do a bunch of things to ensure its survival that would be considered morally repugnant in America. In certain circles off and on over the last few decades, there has been talk that by having to live on the same continent as millions of Muslims intent on expunging Israel, the character of the nation has coarsened and degraded. Some of the people who have argued this are the very extremists whose character one thinks has been degraded. Others may sincerely want peace even if it involves tough compromises. The reason I mention this is that I fervently hope it isn't true and is never true. This, and the above argument, is much of the root cause for the comments below rejecting extreme action against the Palestinian people.
Because of all I have said, I think it is a necessity that Israel reach a final agreement with its neighbors that guarantees peace and security in Israel. Israel itself does not need to reach that agreement, given free reign in the territories it can defend itself for decades. My concern is, at what cost?
A peace agreement that actually brings peace and security is still possible. The "facts on the ground" have not changed, in a sense we may be back to '92, after the Intifada died down but before Oslo. The problem so far has been finding a partner who is willing to negotiate that agreement. Someone on the other side may rise up to the challenge. Stranger things have happened.
Do I have any answers? No. I am predicting rain, not building arks. All I really have to offer is the hope that somehow, perhaps through the inherent goodness of people that Anne Frank believed in, there will be peace and happiness in Israel and the rest of the Middle East.
I believe this article from IsraelInsider.com is a pretty good explanation of how I feel about Israel sometimes, and explains a lot about the opinions of Jewish-Americans on Israeli actions. The whole idea about how Jewish-Americans want Israel to be a credit to Jewish culture is probably correct (witness Abraham Foxman of the ADL criticizing the recent marriage ban), and I completely believe that it should be a shining example of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, as the author points out, the world isn't that nice a place, and Israel has had to do a bunch of things to ensure its survival that would be considered morally repugnant in America. In certain circles off and on over the last few decades, there has been talk that by having to live on the same continent as millions of Muslims intent on expunging Israel, the character of the nation has coarsened and degraded. Some of the people who have argued this are the very extremists whose character one thinks has been degraded. Others may sincerely want peace even if it involves tough compromises. The reason I mention this is that I fervently hope it isn't true and is never true. This, and the above argument, is much of the root cause for the comments below rejecting extreme action against the Palestinian people.
Because of all I have said, I think it is a necessity that Israel reach a final agreement with its neighbors that guarantees peace and security in Israel. Israel itself does not need to reach that agreement, given free reign in the territories it can defend itself for decades. My concern is, at what cost?
A peace agreement that actually brings peace and security is still possible. The "facts on the ground" have not changed, in a sense we may be back to '92, after the Intifada died down but before Oslo. The problem so far has been finding a partner who is willing to negotiate that agreement. Someone on the other side may rise up to the challenge. Stranger things have happened.
Do I have any answers? No. I am predicting rain, not building arks. All I really have to offer is the hope that somehow, perhaps through the inherent goodness of people that Anne Frank believed in, there will be peace and happiness in Israel and the rest of the Middle East.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Meanderings on Mass Destuction
Comments on a post on Israpundit:
Comments on a post on Israpundit:
I think the author's recomendations, if carried out, would be a severe over-reaction that would only lead to further loss of allies and greater scale of conflict in the Middle East.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done against an enemy that was broken in all but spirit. If it had not been for the declaration by the emperor that Japan was turning away from warfare and the strict observance of authority by the Japanese it would have been necessary to turn all of Japan to ashes to end the war. In retrospect it can be clearly said that far more Japanese died in Nagasaki and Hiroshma then Americans and allies would have died in an invasion. Even after both cities were nuked, Japan did not finally surrender until a last bombing raid was launched on nearly every major Japanese city. The emperor realized that the Americans would not stop until Japan surrendered, and that ultimately the Japanese would lose, that it was simply a question of how many more Japanese would die. However, the Arabs believe they have Allah on their side, and that the will win because Allah wants them to win.
My criticisms of the author's plan are two-fold. One, killing on the scale that is recommended is indeed a 7th-century action and is in no way morally justified by the broad opinion support of terrorism by the Palestinian people. If we are forced to sink to that level then the terrorists have won, because they and the Muslim world can claim moral equaity, and then there will be nothing that will stop the killing from continuing. It is true that these tactics are continually repeated by even the defenders in conflicts, such as the WWII fire-bombing by the US and the nuking of Japan, but we live in a world where, to borrow a quote from "Herzog" by Saul Bellow, "Annihilation is no longer a metaphor. Good and Evil are real." So, secondly, if we take a path to total-war, that path no longer ends. Acts that are evil can lead to acts that cause the death of large portions of the human race. If we say that the death of a 10,000 partially-innocent people is justified if it ends a conflict, what if it doesn't? Will 50,000 people justify it? 100,000? 1,000,000? Who here has the will or lack of conscience to engage in a war that will kill at least a tenth of all Arabs in the Middle East and untold numbers of Israelis. If it ends the conflict, will you be able to look at yourself in the mirror and say "I ended the Israeli-Arab Conflict." and feel anything but sickness because of the all those who died for to stop it.
If humanity cannot prove that it has stopped the evil and meaningless mass murder of the first two millenia, I have little hope it will survive the third.
As for what I would recommend; the full arrest and deportation of all Palestinian leaders not irectly implicatable in terrorism, and the execution of all members of terrorist organizations and leaders who actively supprted them. When that happens we will see what can be done next.
Friday, September 05, 2003
Monday, September 01, 2003
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Kurdish Jews in Israel
Kesher Talk has links. I, being part-Sephardic, appear to be related to the Kurds. I will take this opportunity to remind the reader of the link to the Kurdish National Congress of North America. Their website has information on the historical and present-day oppression of the Kurds, and the organization is active in lobbying for North American support of the Kurdish people.
Kesher Talk has links. I, being part-Sephardic, appear to be related to the Kurds. I will take this opportunity to remind the reader of the link to the Kurdish National Congress of North America. Their website has information on the historical and present-day oppression of the Kurds, and the organization is active in lobbying for North American support of the Kurdish people.
Gregg Easterbrook takes on David Edelstein:
Somebody's Head Was Swimming All Right: A critic for the New York Times swooned that "movies as we knew them changed" because of "The Matrix" and declared that its "inspirations" could "make your head swim." Matrix inspirations included, supposedly, "video games, Hong Kong sword-fighting ghost epics, Japanese anime, William Gibson cyberpunk, Philip K. Dick dystopian science fiction, druggy Alice-in-Wonderland surrealism, the bio-mechanical designs of the artists H. R. Giger and Geoff Barlow, David Cronenberg's visions of cybernetically enhanced flesh and Terminator-like battles of man vs. runaway machine (with a nod to the writer Harlan Ellison and the father of robotics, Hans Moravec), the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism, which in this case overlaps with Jean Baudrillard's postmodern book Simulacra and Simulation (which makes a cameo in "The Matrix"), messianic Christianity and even Zen Buddhism. (Also) a philosophy essential to many Eastern martial arts, that the material world is secondary."
The review further declared, "A science-fiction screenwriter I know said he'd been stewing over his own simulated-universe project for years when "The Matrix" came out. 'What I didn't think of,' he said sadly, 'was the martial-arts angle.' And that's the crux of it." So - Gnosticism, Jean Baudrillard and H.R. Giger, but what was missing was fist fights! Talk about a great breakthrough by The Matrix's producers. Coming soon to a theater near you: Catharism, Andre Malraux and Lo Spagna, plus naked women!
A mere one week after penning the above love poem to the "Matrix" series, the same critic wrote on Slate that Matrix Revisited[sic] was "messy and flat-footed ... ugly, bloated, repetitive ... the disposable feel of a video game ... fake." The same critic complained that "Matrix Reloaded" was bad because it's a bunch of pretentious mumbo-jumbo tied together with obviously staged kung-fu fights: exactly what the same critic had praised as inspirational just one week before.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Today's Critics Don't Boost Movies, They Down Them
I saw The Road To Perdition last night. It was one of the best films I've seen in a while. I believe tat it should have won an Academy Award if The Pianist hadn't also been made in the same year. That it won only one Emmie and was not nominated for Best Picture is a sign that Hollywood is becoming increasingly phobic of films that mean things, give the award to Chicago, an entertaining comedy of little real meaning, in short, the only films David Edelstein of Slate likes, except for films like the Pianist. From reading his review of The Core, you get the distinct feeling he thought it was a better film than The Road To Perdition.
One can't help but wonder why Edelstein is so obsessively negative about films like About Schmidt, The Road to Perdition, The Matrix Reloaded, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels; (Caveat: the second half of these aren't high-concept films, but I liked them.) even when it is obvious that they are trying to make something other than a formulaic crowd-pleaser, and almost almost half of the films Edelstein reviews are pure commercial crap, even (or especially, if you want to be cynical) many he liked. (I'm thinkling the whole Austin Powers series, The Core, The Italian Job, etc.) Therefore, I bring you the Thre Rules of David Edlestein's Movie Criticism:
1. If you think the film is good but flawed, remember, a flawed good film is a bad film.
2. If the film is bad, relentlesly attempt to find good things about it.
3. Corollary to #2: If the film is good but you think the creator is a "showbiz whore" for making and promoting high-concept films, or "pickling in their own self-importance" for making a film that is merely decent when you expect them to build the Sistine Chapel, relentlessly use any real or imagined bad points to justify panning it as a horrible film. And remember, the public cares intensely what you thought of acting plot, etc. on a deeply subjective, biased basis. So if you the think the acting is bad because of your own preconceptions of what the acting should have been, the pubic must know that the film is bad because you think the acting is bad.
Coming soon: An "Edelstein-ing" of the Road To Perdition review, and an important announcement.
I saw The Road To Perdition last night. It was one of the best films I've seen in a while. I believe tat it should have won an Academy Award if The Pianist hadn't also been made in the same year. That it won only one Emmie and was not nominated for Best Picture is a sign that Hollywood is becoming increasingly phobic of films that mean things, give the award to Chicago, an entertaining comedy of little real meaning, in short, the only films David Edelstein of Slate likes, except for films like the Pianist. From reading his review of The Core, you get the distinct feeling he thought it was a better film than The Road To Perdition.
One can't help but wonder why Edelstein is so obsessively negative about films like About Schmidt, The Road to Perdition, The Matrix Reloaded, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels; (Caveat: the second half of these aren't high-concept films, but I liked them.) even when it is obvious that they are trying to make something other than a formulaic crowd-pleaser, and almost almost half of the films Edelstein reviews are pure commercial crap, even (or especially, if you want to be cynical) many he liked. (I'm thinkling the whole Austin Powers series, The Core, The Italian Job, etc.) Therefore, I bring you the Thre Rules of David Edlestein's Movie Criticism:
1. If you think the film is good but flawed, remember, a flawed good film is a bad film.
2. If the film is bad, relentlesly attempt to find good things about it.
3. Corollary to #2: If the film is good but you think the creator is a "showbiz whore" for making and promoting high-concept films, or "pickling in their own self-importance" for making a film that is merely decent when you expect them to build the Sistine Chapel, relentlessly use any real or imagined bad points to justify panning it as a horrible film. And remember, the public cares intensely what you thought of acting plot, etc. on a deeply subjective, biased basis. So if you the think the acting is bad because of your own preconceptions of what the acting should have been, the pubic must know that the film is bad because you think the acting is bad.
Coming soon: An "Edelstein-ing" of the Road To Perdition review, and an important announcement.