Play it again, Pat

Remember Pat Boone's tirade about semi-competent women back in June? Where he dismissed the achievements of female leaders throughout history as merely being the results of the men of the period coming up short?

Back then Pat regaled us with such gems as

Is it likely that these very accomplished and brilliant women would have attained these positions if there had been men in evidence who seemed equally or perhaps even better qualified?

and also

Is it likely that women would be chosen for our leaders in politics and government and business, if men assumed their traditional, time-honored and expected responsibilities of leadership and direction?

Pat concluded by ruining the book of Judges, a personal favorite, by claiming that it illustrates that God only asks women to do things when men are incompetent (this suggests Joseph was his first pick as surrogate mother, a-la this monstrosity).

Well, guess what. Pat's run out of ideas, so this week, he decided to plagiarize himself. Yep, after reassuring us that Pat has nothing against a black President (only he thinks it would be more fitting it they came from the party of Lincoln), we get treated to another rehashing of Deborah and Barak:

Many will bristle when I say this, but – while I'm well aware there are women who can do almost anything a man can do – in my long considered view, they shouldn't.

...Women shouldn't be trained to kill, to engage in hand-to-hand combat or to risk death facing hate-crazed enemies. What man wants to let that happen, no matter how it might appeal to some women themselves? Sure, they can … but they shouldn't. If it must be done, it's a man's job, a man's duty.

Yes, I 'm well aware of Deborah, in the book of Judges in the Bible, who led Israel to a resounding military victory. But God first called on another Barak, the Israelite general, to mount the charge, and he refused to do it unless Deborah went with him, almost to hold his hand! So God turned the battle over to Deborah, and it became a woman's victory – to the everlasting disgrace of Barak, the intended and preferred leader.

And that's how I feel about the idea of a woman president. Face it, Americans will elect a woman their leader only if there seem to be no qualified men – only if they feel she's the best we can come up with. Have we come to that? Can neither party present a man who so clearly has the leadership qualities we need that we'll decide to accept a woman – to sit across from Vladimir Putin or the Chinese, Korean or Pakistani leaders who all despise the idea of having to treat a woman as their equal, politically or otherwise? A woman to be the commander in chief of our armed forces? Can you imagine Hillary vowing to "pursue Osama to the gates of hell" as Sen. McCain did, or declaiming from the Berlin Wall "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" as Ronald Reagan did?

Wow, where to begin. First, we don't need someone to vow to chase OBL to the gates of hell. Sometimes less rhetoric and more action is a better combination. Look how productive Bush's rhetoric has been.

And second, anyone who's studied Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi would know that will and strength can often be enough to demand and command respect across a negotiating table- REGARDLESS of how the other side feels about you personally.

Pat likes to say that his wife and four daughters shield him from any charges of male chauvinism. Maybe so, but I'd sure be interested in hearing what they think about dear ol' Dad's views on female leadership. They certainly seem to belie any claim towards an American meritocracy.

Is Not!

This is just getting silly. Doug Giles, famous round these parts for his valiant attempt at explaining why the South doesn't suck, is now going after Obama's claims to be a Christian. I have to admit it, this is a new one.

Giles' argument basically comes down to the fact that while Obama SAYS he's a Christian, he doesn't seem to be the kind of Christian Giles is. Heretic!

Barack Hussein Obama (or B-HO, as I like to call him) charismatically and emphatically denied reports this week that he is a closeted Muslim and instead declared candidly and with youthful verve that he believes in Jesus Christ.

Now, Doug didn't feel the need to disclose his own middle name, but I did some digging and managed to turn it up. So continue onward, Doug Douchebag Giles:

Yep, this week the junior state senator made it clear that he is not a Muslim but a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Y’know, the Jesus Christ who’s totally cool with:

1. Abortion being available to mommy in all nine months of her pregnancy

Can we get some chapter and verse, please? I don't think J.C. knew from RU-486.

2. Parents not being notified when their 13 year-old girl goes in for an abortion

Was this in Luke? I never got to Luke.

3. Opposing any and all bans on partial birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's noggin, the vacuuming of the brain matter and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium)

Or maybe Acts? It sounded boring, so I skipped it. (Actually, first I thought it was "Axe" and was going to take a look, but then I got to the first page and realized my mistake.)

4. Advancing the radical homosexual activist lobby in their pursuit to destroy traditional marriage and voting against the defense of traditional marriage (you know, that old Adam and Eve thing God came up with in Genesis? Well, that’s so yesterday with B-HO’s Jesus and his Church of the New Groove)

Funny, Jesus seemed pretty interested in overthrowing social norms when he was kicking ass in the Temple. The sacrificial system was pretty old, but it didn't stop him. In fact, Doug's given Hay-seuss an e-five for it:

Christ is portrayed in the gospel according to Mark... as a dragon slayer. Yes, the Incarnate One showed up on this terra firma 2,000 years ago as a throttler of the works of darkness. Mark whipped out his inspired quill and depicted Jesus as a warrior picking fights with that which was detrimental to people and places.

Whether it was in the whipping of the avaricious religious glitterati who were desecrating the Temple, casting a nest of demons out of a 1st century Emily Rose, publicly rebuking a bad politician or priest or foreswearing the wrath of God upon those who would harm kids—one cannot skip away from the holy script thinking Christ was cool with creeps. That is, unless of course, he chooses to close his eyes to these ubiquitous texts.

Interesting.

5. The creation of “special rights” for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing and litigation

I don't know, Jesus was pretty progressive on some of the issues of his day. Lepers, for instance.

6. The advancement of all “hate crimes” legislation, which ultimately could be used to silence pastors who believe—according to their own convictions—that homosexual behavior is . . . uh . . . wrong . . . and preach the same from biblical texts

This one's tricky. I don't support banning free speech. On the other hand, Jesus seems to like bitch-slapping people that disagree with him. So it's really an open question.

7. The continued funding of Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities, which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there

Was that Revelations? I'll be honest, I got bored.

8. B-HO going to a church that propagates anti-white, anti-American and anti-Jewish blather, zany 9/11 “was our fault because we’re racists” rancor, and a “black value system” (Hello! Can you imagine if a white guy did this?)—all via a pastor who has hung out with Qaddafi and honors Louis Farrakhan. Isn’t that special?

But Southern Baptists, THEY walk with the Lord, right?

As far as I’m concerned, B-HO is to Christianity what Michael Jackson is to heterosexuality: He might be one, but he’s certainly not the poster child for the cause.

When did he ever claim he was, you nutjob? He only started talking about being a Christian because Conservative mudslingers started saying he was a Muslim. And now you want to shit on him because he isn't Christian ENOUGH. That's like Yehuda Levin trying to cockblock Elliot Spitzer by saying he's not Jewish enough. When do we get to talk about Giuliani's Catholic credentials? How do we know Romney's really the "right" kind of Mormon? We don't want any Reform Mormons in OUR White House!

The only way Obama and his followers can keep Christ and their liberal credo is to blow off huge chunks of the Bible and replace Scripture with the make-believe notions of SP's new malleable “Gumby Jesus” who offers “suggestions” instead of thundering commandments.

The giddy, in love with B-HO Christian skipping around the maypole wearing rose-colored glasses needs to understand something: If it were left up to the punch drunk secular Left, evangelical Christians would officially be SOL in the USA, fo’ shizzle my nizzle.

Not SOL, just not in the elevated place they've been in under Bush. Of course, to folks like Giles, that amounts to religious persecution.

Are you kidding me?

The National Organization of Women's NY chapter issued a very interesting press release yesterday responding to Ted Kennedy's support for Obama:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us."

I just think this is sad. It's like a bad parody of angry feminists from Fox News. I understand why they would be miffed, especially after everyone was assuming that Kennedy might just as easily have decided to support Hillary, but saying that anyone who opposes Hillary opposes "us?" Give me a break. And I love the way NOW-NY declares that their feelings and those of all women are synonymous. It's "really hit women hard?" Really. Where's that poll, exactly? I spoke with my parents last night and my mother commented that it made her think about changing her vote. She didn't say anything about "betrayal."

News flash: the election of a President invariably involves picking someone that presumes they know best. That's where the checks and balances come in (in theory). Yet I would hope that very few men would try to make the same argument that electing or supporting Hillary would constitute a betrayal of men's views, or a subjugation of men's voices. Some people just DON'T LIKE HILLARY. Sorry to break it to you. This is like when everyone was doing celebratory Cossack dances because Joe Leiberman was named as Gore's VP- hooray, a Jew, a Jew! Never mind that most people had never heard of him and that a large majority of American Jews' policies were nowhere close to his. Similarly, folks like my paranoid grandmother (sorry, Bubbe) were convinced that Gore lost the election because of antisemitism. Not really. Even if that was a factor, I think (or would at least hope) that any votes Lieberman cost Gore had to do with his policies.

It's positively boneheaded to say that a person's support or lack thereof for the only female candidate in the race automatically determines their support or respect for women's views, opinions, right, etc. Hillary is no more the Pope of women than Obama is the Pope of black males. And frankly, not only is framing them that way not very helpful or productive, I don't think it's very healthy for the political process, either. That would mean that everyone who didn't vote for Richardson is anti-Hispanic, or that everyone who didn't vote for Kucinich is anti-idealistic Wood Nymph.

Get a grip, ladies. Please. Before the Republicans hear about this.

Hat-tip: Americablog.

Edit: Shiska Girlfriend pointed me towards this. Thank God, there are still sane people with ovaries:

In case you didn’t get that, women have been betrayed by voting on the issues instead of according to what’s in their pants. It’s like the Lifetime Movie version of a shitty-to-begin-with press release.
Not only am I not a die-hard Clinton supporter, but I work for Alternet, which is apparently on the release-writer’s Organizations to Kill list. I suppose I must have been psychologically gang-banged into whoring for the patriarchy — it’s the only possible explanation.

My feeble attempts at Liveblogging the SotU speech

(My clock was 2 minutes ahead of CSPAN's. I couldn't be bothered to change my time-stamps.)

6:07- Bush walks in. What a pretty blue tie. And there's Hillary, in a bright red pantsuit. What delicious red/blue state irony. Good one, God. (Condie Rice seems to be trying to stay neutral in a nice little oatmeal number.)

6:09- That's right, Cheney and Pelosi are standing on the same podium. I bet they had some fun conversation waiting for this thing to start.

6:10- "I have the distinct honor of presenting the President of the United States." And one lone person huzzahs or something. Huh? What is this, the House of Commons?

6:11- "We faced hard decisions about peace and war." Really? WE did? Funny, I thought you were pretty determined to do whatever you wanted.

6:13- "We believe in the powers of individuals to determine their destiny." Sort of, kind of, maybe. *Middle East cough cough*

6:14- Well at least he's giving lip service to bipartisanship. Of course, it's a little late.

6:15- Tax relief, eh? Good point about the little guy getting screwed in taxes, except that they aren't really the ones assisted by Bush's tax policies.

6:17- And the veto comes out. Bipartisanship, right?

6:17- I like the idea of trimming the fat off the budget. However I anticipate Bush's and my ideas of what's essential may not be the same.

6:18- "You guys really sucked at stopping this earmark thing." He sounds like an annoyed Vice-Principal. Good point, but I don't remember him talking so tough when his own party was controlling Congress.

6:22- "No one can deny NCLB's results." Really?

6:24- Bush on trade. Free trade good. Apparently we like trading with Peru. Really? If you say so. Something about how people like our products. Call me cynical, but exactly which American products are being bought in Peru?

6:26- Helping Columbia is vital to preserving the well-being of our hemisphere. Hemisphere, that's a word we haven't used in a while. Yeah, go NoHem! Screw you, Chile. Go ask someone in your dinky Southern Hemisphere for help. Maybe Australia.

6:30- We need to make sure American scientists remain the best on earth. Are we declaring war on India and China? I think that's going to have to be step one.

6:31- "Congress should ban unethical practices of buying, selling, patenting or cloning human life." Who's going around PATENTING life? This is a new problem I haven't heard about.

6:32- "The Constitution means what it says." Truly, an orator not heard since the likes of Cicero.

6:33- "The Armies of Compassion" sounds like a new offshoot of Islamic Jihad. Just saying.

6:34- Is Pelosi reading a damn book? What the hell Nancy? It's not like you don't know your hands (and bosom) are on camera. Bush's head is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.

6:35- "We will never fully secure our border until we find a lawful way for immigrants to come here and support our economy... Illegal immigration is complicated but it must be solved according to both our laws and our highest ideals." This, I like. Not sure how the hell to do it, though.

6:36- "We trust that when given the chance, people will choose freedom and liberty." Except when they vote for Hamas or Al-Sadr. Not quite sure how your "always choose liberty" doctrine deals with that.

6:39- "In the long run, men and women will reject terror and choose liberty." Except in Russia. Sigh.

6:40- No, Afghans are "defending their freedom" by building up the armies of local warlords, you boob! It's the same old problem!

6:41- The Surrrrge! Yar! Yes, it's great that the Sunni Awakening councils have been helping us fight Al Qaeda, but we're still ignoring that the problem is a lot deeper than Al Qaeda versus everybody else.

6:45- "Al Qaeda will be defeated." Hooray, but Al Qaeda isn't what's stopping Iraq from being a successful nation-state, the CIVIL WAR is.

6:50- "Political reconciliation." Well, at least he knows the buzzwords.

6:52- A "new cause for hope" in Palestine? Really?

6:53- As long as we're talking about a democratic Israel, can someone get working on writing it a Constitution? I mean, it would be pretty embarrassing if the Palestinians got one before Israel did, wouldn't it?

6:54- "We respect the traditions and history [of Iran]." This is a lovely sentiment, but I'm quite curious as to what Bush knows about Persian history.

6:55- "We will defend our interests in the Persian gulf." You just know this asshole is laughing his head off.

6:57- "The time to act is now." And the Republican cheerleaders come out. It really is the House of Commons. "Yeah! Yeah!"

6:58- "We oppose the genocide in Sudan." Yes we do. Now what?

6:58- ZimBABwe. There's a "bob."

7:00- More money for AIDS research. Always good.

7:01- "Increase funding for veteran's pensions." There's the cheering again. Wait, now I get it, those aren't Republicans- it's the Marines! "Ooo-rah!"

7:04- Articles of Confederation? That's a little obscure. Well, at least maybe it will make the kids go look something up.

And thus concludes this evening's entertainment. Thank god I'm watching this on CSPAN without all the idiots chiming in.

Havel Havalim 151

Courtesy of Jack, who was also gracious enough to include one of my posts (without me even submitting it).

Jackie Mason Still a Crank

I saw Jackie Mason in "concert" once with my mother and some elderly relatives. I was enjoying myself until he started making racist jokes about Puerto Ricans (being from the West Coast, I've not only never met a Puerto Rican, I don't even know what the stereotypes about them are supposed to be). At that point I took a look around the concert hall and realized that most of the people in the audience were wearing yarmulkes, black hats, and Linda Richmond hair. That was when I started getting really creeped out. The next creepy moment came when my great-aunt leaped out of her chair and started shrieking about Puerto Ricans along with Jackie. I slunk into my seat and looked for an escape hatch.

Anyway, over the years Jackie's schtick has largely remained the same (Gentiles like beer! Jews like cake!), but he seems to have gotten increasingly political. Needless to say, our views don't seem to match much. In addition to saying delirious things like "the current President has done more for minorities than any President since Johnson" and that "Nobody in America including the Jews themselves has worked harder than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to support the state of Israel."

Mason's most recent book, Schmucks (don't be fooled, it's not an autobiography), has a whole "chapter" (two whole pages, and this is with a co-author and who knows how many ghostwriters) devoted to Reform Jews, who the former Orthodox rabbi apparently feels are "getting their noses done and changing their names everyday to appear more Gentile." Yeah, Jackie, because so many people are still changing their names these days. I'm pretty sure most of the name changing was over and done with oh, 80 years ago. But way to use relevant topics.

Jackie's got other fresh observations, too. He notices that Reform Jews are giving their kids weird first names too, like Tiffany, Ashley and Rex, oh the shanda. I'm no fan of a name that conjurs up a Barbie doll, but things could always be worse, Jackie. It's not like Yerucham, Nimrod or Chanania are such prizes. Or, say, Jyll.

Mason continues with the Reform Jews and nose-jobs patter, adding that they also seem to like tanning beds so they can brag about how people "mistake them for Greeks, Italians or other Mediterranean peoples." Yeah, that's clearly the provenance of Reform Jews. That would be news to my olive-skinned great-grandfather from Poland. And the timing on these, wow. Nose job jokes? No one's ever heard one of those before. Where do you get your ideas. Presumably it involves a time machine.

Why so much ire? Oh, no reason. I just came across a semi-recent Video Blog of his from November where he goes after that freshest of targets, France.

Money quote: "The French as a people are just miserable, nauseous, obnoxious, hateful and contemptuous people. That's the perfect description for all the people in France."

Funny, I thought that was the perfect description for Jackie Mason.

Jews and Chavez: Part 3

Apparently Chavez just won't stop going after the Jews:

One of the first points of tension was the April 2002 coup attempt against Chavez. Michael Penfold-Becerra, a political scientist at Caracas’s institute of superior administrative studies, said that among some government officials, suspicions against Jews were fueled by the alleged support of prominent rabbi Pinchas Brenner for the authors of the short-lived coup, as well as by the perception that Israelis and Jews were active in the arms business.

The first raid, in 2004, heightened the tensions, especially since it took place early in the day when hundreds of children were on their way to school.

The tensions escalated again during the 2006 summer war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, when Chavez accused Israelis of behaving like Nazis. He recalled the charge d’affaires of the Venezuelan Embassy in Tel Aviv, and Israel, in turn, called back its ambassador. Although the Israeli diplomat returned to Caracas a month later, and Venezuela sent a low-level envoy to Tel Aviv, the relationship remains fraught.

The Jewish community turned to Argentina’s government to intercede with Chavez, and last January the self-described “Bolivarian” leader agreed to meet with CAIV following a request by Nestor Kirchner, then president of Argentina.

Through it all, Benshimol and others have stressed that there has been no instance of physical violence against Jews in the country. And they have, on occasion, defended Chavez against accusations of antisemitism aired by such American Jewish groups as the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

But the atmosphere has worsened lately, first and foremost because of Chavez’s increasingly inflammatory talk about Israel and its supporters. A television program called “The Razor,” broadcast on a state-owned channel, has featured lengthy rants about the presence of Mossad agents allegedly in the country working to unseat the Chavez regime with the support of the United States and opposition forces in Venezuela. The host of the show has also questioned the loyalty of leading Jewish figures to their home country. Despite repeated complaints by CAIV, the authorities have taken no action.

In March 2007, there were no government officials in attendance at the 40th-anniversary celebration of CAIV. Benshimol said that the government has had no official ties with his organization for the past year.

The deteriorating atmosphere has prompted a sizable exodus of Jews from Venezuela. While precise numbers are hard to come by, the number of children attending the school at the Hebraica center has dropped some 37% in the past decade, while membership at the club has slipped 30%.

Kind of scary, but at least there's been no substantial violence... yet.

Mona Charen wonders why the world Jewish community isn't speaking up about this more.

You might expect an outcry from other Jews around the world -- and there has been some. But within the U.S., many of the leaders of large Jewish organizations are seeking to stifle those, like Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, who are urging members of Congress to hold hearings on the matter. Weiss reports that Rep. Elliott Engel (D., NY) was willing to call a hearing but was dissuaded by the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations.

Dina Siegel Vann, speaking of behalf of the American Jewish Congress, published an op-ed in the Miami Herald scolding those who want to make as public a protest as possible. "Shouting and screaming from the safety of the United States may feel good to some," she wrote, "but the goal of the exercise is not to satisfy their needs; rather it's to ensure the safety and well-being of thousands of Venezuelan Jews . . ." Her title: "Let's use diplomacy, not public protests."

Well, diplomacy has its place, but this isn't it. When the Soviet Union was denying exit visas to Jews wishing to emigrate and persecuting those who sought to leave, only the loud and persistent protests of Jews in the United States and elsewhere (combined with congressional action) caused the Soviets to relent. Bill Buckley quipped at the time that he hoped the Soviets would release every Jew who wanted to emigrate except one -- to keep alive the Jewish pressure that was so helpful in the larger Cold War. The Venezuelan Jews themselves have asked for such international pressure. They believe Chavez is very sensitive about international opinion. It would be naive to place faith in diplomacy alone.

Charen is correct that diplomacy can only go so far, but you do need to strike a balance when you're dealing with a very vulnerable population whose fate can rise or fall at the whim of a totalitarian government (or in this case, dictator). Calling Chavez out to treat his country's Jews better does no good if it makes their lives even worse.

On the plus side, the Forward says that Venezuela's Jews are getting sick of Hugo's crap and are starting to stand up for themselves.

When two dozen heavily armed policemen came to search the Hebraica community center in the Venezuelan capital one night last month, the Jewish community here finally snapped.

The government officers who entered the sprawling, country club-like complex were ostensibly looking for a stash of weapons and for evidence of “subversive activity.” They found neither. In the subsequent days, the Venezuelan Jewish community’s umbrella organization, the Confederation of Israelite Associations of Venezuela, fired off a statement denouncing the raid as an “unjustifiable act” aimed at creating tensions between the community and the government of socialist President Hugo Chavez.

This would not be remarkable in the United States, where Jewish groups routinely state their views with little trepidation. But their counterparts abroad have tended to be less confrontational, especially in countries with small communities and a volatile political environment. In Venezuela this has been the case until recently, despite a long series of problems that includes an earlier raid on the Hebraica center, antisemitism on state-controlled media and anti-Israel pronouncements by Chavez. The calculated quiet ended with last year’s December 1 raid.

“We’re facing the first anti-Jewish government in our history,” Simon Sultan, president of Hebraica, told the Forward in an interview in his office, located in a tony Caracas neighborhood.

The December operation took place on the night preceding a crucial referendum on proposed constitutional reform that would have granted Chavez broad powers and the possibility to run indefinitely. The reform was rejected by a thin margin.

“It seems that the only interpretation is that this was an intimidation by the government,” Abraham Levy Benshimol, president of CAIV, told the Forward.

...In the end, though, it was not the immigration but the raid that convinced the community to speak up. The operation was led by the equivalent of the FBI, whereas the more recent raid was done by officers from a police force under the control of the Interior Ministry and, as such, closely tied to the presidency. While there is no evidence that Chavez himself ordered the latest raid, the all-powerful Interior Ministry is one of his strongest levers.

...Jewish communal leaders also believe that another element might be at work. Sultan noted that Tarek al Assaimi, a former far-left student leader whose father was the representative of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party in Venezuela, is the deputy Interior and Justice minister in charge of internal security and, as such, could have been involved in initiating the raid.

A few days after the raid, Sultan and Benshimol went to the interior and justice ministries to meet with a prosecutor who opened a probe into possible irregularities surrounding the police operation, which was ordered by another prosecutor. A previous probe into the 2004 incident never produced any official outcome — and neither leader expressed much optimism that the outcome would be different this time.

I know biting our tongues and letting other people take the reins isn't really the forte of American Jews, but maybe the American Jewish community would do better to ask the Jews in Venezuela how we can help them HELP THEMSELVES rather than try to take everything onto our shoulders, regardless of what result it will bring.

Gandhi's Grandson Gone

I almost feel sorry for the guy- he's resigned (entirely voluntarily, I'm sure) of the peace center he helped found more than 15 years ago. Guess there's a lesson there- if you're not big on the Jews, might want to avoid talking about them. Or at least have some sounding board people before you write screeds against them in the Washington Post. The sad thing is that some of Gandhi's points- that Jewish identity must go beyond historical persecution, for instance, are legitimate. Of course, they also aren't anything new, and at this point, nothing that anyone in the Jewish community would really contest.

"My intention was to generate a healthy discussion on the proliferation of violence," Gandhi said on Friday, a day after the board of the MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester accepted his resignation. "Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment. I deeply regret these consequences."

...Gandhi's resignation "was appropriate," because his remarks "did not reflect the core values" of either the university or the institute, University of Rochester president Joel Seligman said in a statement.

The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman said it was "shameful that a peace institute would be headed up by a bigot. One would hope that the grandson of such an illustrious human being would be more sensitive to Jewish history."

God dammit, Abe, go read a freaking book and stop sucking up to people who only know about Gandhi from that Ben Kingsley movie. Jesus.

More background and news coverage here, including some very interesting snippets of how the media in India is receiving the news. (Spoiler: it's not helping their views of Jews.)

America’s omnipotent Jewish community has forced Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Arun Gandhi, to resign from the institute he founded in the US 17 years ago to spread the message of the Father of the Nation.

New Delhi cannot afford to even tangentially annoy the American Jewish community because successive Indian governments have relied on this community for at least 15 years to bring Indo-US relations to its present health. The nuclear deal between India and the US would not have got to its present phase of implementation without the active involvement of the American Jewish community in its favour.

Arun’s offer to resign follows several days of grovelling apologies by him, by the moderators of the online discussion on the Post website and defensive statements by University of Rochester president Joel Seligman for having associated with the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-violence.

Hundreds of messages assailing Arun and The Washington Post were posted on the website, most of them clearly by Jews. The powerful American Jewish Committee’s executive director David A. Harris pre-empted any Indian reaction by hinting in a statement that India was being ungrateful for all that his organisation did for New Delhi.

Wow. And India's going to be one of the new superpowers. That should be fun.

Fishman Goes Swimming

In the deep end. Of a drained pool. Head-first.

I'm not a fan of Israel's overzealous incitement laws that result in honest folks like R. Nati at Mystical Paths being hauled in for questioning, or lovable nutso Tzvi Fishman getting arrested at a protest rally for HOLDING A SIGN. I don't agree with much these two guys say, but police harassment is always disturbing and it's another reason Israel consistently gets on my nerves (to say nothing of my prospects of making aliyah anytime... well, ever.)

On the other hand, Tzvi's time in the lockup seems to have done wonders for his writing. Just look at this hilarious post.

I am declaring myself a national leader. To this end, I am establishing a new political party that will be constituted, at the very beginning, by Americans who have come on aliyah. The Jews who came to Israel from Europe, and the Israeli generation that followed, have made a mess of things. Today, the country needs the idealism of the Jews who gave up the comforts of America to take a part in the building of Israel. A little good old fashion “American know how” can go a long way in cleaning up the mess that the Zionists, Pseudo Zionists, and Post Zionists have made.

Yes, apparently Tzvi is finally putting his money where his mouth is, and throwing himself beard first into the rough-and-tumble world of politics.

Check out his platform:

*All Arabs must leave the Land of Israel.
*Any Israeli politician who voted in favor of Oslo or the Hitnatkut [Disengagement], or who promotes the Road Map Plan, will be brought to trial as a national traitor.
*Relations with the United States shall be suspended until Jonathan Pollard is freed.
*All atomic facilities in Iran will be immediately destroyed.
*Any missile launching on Israel will be met with a devastating retaliatory attack.
*Anyone who propagates leftist propaganda will be deported from the country.
*All missionaries will be tried in court for kidnapping and murder, and crucified on the Mount of Olives.
*The judges of the Supreme Court will be replaced by rabbis who will judge all cases according to Torah law.
*TV and radio will be shut down on Shabbat. Driving on Shabbat will result in license suspension.
*Women who dress immodestly will be fined. Repeated offenders will be imprisoned.
*All non-medical abortions will be forbidden.
*No woman will serve in the army.
*All secular newspapers will be shut down.
*Israeli television will be run by a board of rabbis, and Arutz7 will be the only authorized Internet news service.
*All computers will be equipped with anti-pornography filters.
*Teacher’s salaries will be doubled.
*Massive funds will be allotted to promote aliyah, and all Jews who refuse to immigrate to Israel within three years will forever forfeit their right of return.
*Haredim will donate the funds to rebuild Gush Katif, and they will do all of the hard labor or face imprisonment.

Wow. Some good stuff here, and I'm glad Tzvi had the presence of mind in the midst of such important issues like creating Haredi chain gangs to work the Gaza strip to remember that the root of all evil is digital boobies.

I really liked the comments to Tzvi's list, particularly from RW-activist Daniel Pinner, who thinks Tzvi's gone off his nut:

There are many legal, ethical, and halachic problems with your platform:

1) "Anyone who propagates leftist propaganda will be deported from the country." Define "leftist": if someone promotes social welfare, socialized medicine, or the environment, will he be deported?

2) "All missionaries will be tried in court for kidnapping and murder, and crucified on the Mount of Olives." Without a Sanhedrin there is no death penalty; Halacha never uses crucifixion as a death penalty; and unless someone has kidnapped or murdered, he cannot be executed for these crimes.

3) "Driving on Shabbat will result in license suspension." And if someone has to drive to hospital/police in a life-threatening emergency? And if the driver is not Jewish, but a ger toshav?

4) "Women who dress immodestly will be fined. Repeated offenders will be imprisoned." Define "immodestly" - showing their wrists? Displaying their hair? Both eyes? If a woman's hair is uncovered, will she have to show proof that she is unmarried? And where oh where in halachah do you find a source for imprisoning a scantily-clad woman?!

5) "All secular newspapers will be shut down." Including Time, Newsweek, Economist? Including "Ha-Shavua bi-Yerushalayim"? Including "Eretz" magazine? What about an honest, right-wing, nationalist nespaper? What about a viciously anti-Israel religious newspaper (one put out by Neturei Kharta, for instance?) Who defines "religious"?

6) "Arutz7 will be the only authorized Internet news service." How do you propose to enforce this? Why do you want to ban Steven Shamrak, Rotternet, etc?

7) "All Jews who refuse to immigrate to Israel within three years will forever forfeit their right of return." The most outrageous of all. For a Jew to live in Israel is a Torah-ordained mitzvah, and no Jew has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to prevent another Jew from making Aliyah. This is equivalent to saying that any Jew who has not kept Shabbat and kashrut for three years will be forever forbiden to keep them. How do you feel about that one, Tzvi?

8) "Haredim will donate the funds to rebuild Gush Katif, and they will do all of the hard labor or face imprisonment." Why only Haredim? All Haredim? And how do you define "Haredim"? Do you include Habad? National religious who wear black kippot? Those who wear black hats on Shabbat and t-shirts the rest of the week? Yourself?

One final point, Tzvi: If merely spending a few hours under arrest qualifies you to be a ntional leader, then there are thousands of people more qualified than yourself - Rabbi Arye Deri, for example, or Omri Sharon.

Daniel's right. Al Capone for Prime Minister!

I personally like the idea of an American olim party. Tzvi said he wants ideas for a name, and I'm always happy to oblige:

- United Jews of Israel

- Israel the Beautiful

- The Star Spangled Tallis Party

- The Benei Liberty Party

- The Yesha-Crats

- The Nativists

- The W(h)igs

- Uncle Shlomo Wants You!

And my personal favorite...

- The Yankel Doodles.

Add your suggestions here. I'll be sure Tzvi gets them.

Tom Cruise's Narishkeit

It was a surprising moment of pseudo-activism in my family. Tom Cruise had just had his "psychiatrists are the Devil" spat with Matt Lauer while pimping War of the Worlds. In response, Mother Superior Yid, who possesses a doctorate in Nursing and has worked in Mental Health for her entire career, said that no one in the family was to see his "stupid movie." Despite me no longer living in her house, I still felt slightly guilty enough to abide by her orders.

Cut to last week, where the Tom Cruise Youtube video made its appearance. Though some celebs are mad, saying Tom is still a human being (I guess), I still got a kick out of it- mostly because of the Mission Impossible music going on in the background.

But there have also been some interesting parody movies. Jerry O'Connell did one I couldn't be bothered to watch. A better one was posted on Jewcy. Go on, guess what it's about. Even if you haven't seen the Cruise movie, the Jewcy one is still worth watching. Besides, at a merciful 3 minutes, it's already 3 times better than Tom's.

What?

Peggy Noonan on the O'Reilly Factor talking about the great watershed moments in the 70s/80s (paraphrased because I was barely paying attention):

"Suddenly you had people standing up to government, taking back their country, protesting X in California, Y, in New York, busing in Boston."

Wait a minute. Did you just praise people protesting busing in Boston? As in, busing in black children to desegregate the school system? And the tactics? My father was living in Boston back then, and people were throwing bricks at these buses and threatening to blow up tunnels to stop them. Threatening children? Stuff as vile and racist as anything in the South in the 60s.

And these are Noonan's heroes? Wow.

Election Stuff

I am a Liberal Jew and I am Pissed has a great post that articulates most of the reasons why I will be voting for Obama when the primaries swing out West.

I will vote for Barack Obama because I like him more. His speeches make me proud to be an American. His ideas energize me. I like to listen to him because he sounds presidental. I truly believe either Clinton or Obama would be a great president, I just don't have any passion for Clinton. That said, I will vote for who I want in the primary and who I need in the general election.

This has been an interesting question with some of my family and friends. One man, who has known me for forever, asked me several months ago if I planned on voting for Kucinich. I was confused. "Why would think that?"

"Well, your politics seem to match up pretty well."

Not quite. Kucinich is in the same boat for me as Ralph Nader, only less contemptible. Not only did he never have a snowball's chance in hell in the first place, he has built all of his campaigns around the fact that he can say whatever he wants because he will never in a position where he has to implement his ideas. Which is sort of brilliant, if also brain-hurty. Not unlike Ron Paul (no offense to Sholom, who is apparently much more conservative than I realized- not that that's a bad thing!- but I just don't see it happening), Kucinich's impact comes from him being able to be as honest and direct as possible without any danger of being held accountable for his views when it comes time to put them to work.

So then the question came to who would I actually vote for. I pretty much side with Abbot Yid as far as understanding that in a general election one is often forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, though his constant chant of "electibility" is getting somewhat annoying, only slightly less so than the now-regular, "I just don't think America's ready for a black President. *shrug*" speech, as if his choice of vote doesn't have any impact on that supposed readiness.

It's also a tad odd to hear from my father (who frankly, while being quite smart doesn't always bother doing much reading to substantiate his opinions) that he thinks that Hillary Clinton, who the right wing has spent more then ten years pillorizing in every media outlet available, is more electable than a relatively unknown newly minted Senator who happens to be black. I think it's far more likely more people will vote against Obama because of his lack of experience than his skin color or (and on this, I really am asking a favor from all-mighty Sweet-Buddha-Vishnu-Christ, not for me, but for my faith in my fellow Americans), the ongoing BS rumors that he is a closet Muslim.

Maybe it's because I watch too much Fox News (though not as much as I used to- these days, O'Reilly just seems like a crankier and less funny rip-off of Stephen Colbert), or because the "Washington Insider" label (combined with the inanity of the election cycle) is making me want to have someone as least tainted by Washington as possible. Maybe I'm even a little bit subliminally sexist and am holding Hillary up to an unfair likability standard. But I don't really like her. I don't feel inspired by her. And after her spending so much time trying to move herself as centrist-ward as possible, I don't really trust her. She seems very calculating, more so than Obama. Part of that is image, admittedly, but in terms of who actually gets me EXCITED, it's no contest.

Shiska Girlfriend's father, Habakkuk, made an interesting comment when he came to visit with my parents. He referred to himself as a "Yellow Dog" Democrat (not to be confused with Blue Dog Democrats), which means he would rather vote for a Yellow Dog than a Republican. It made me smile and a little sad at the same time. (More interesting stuff on the Yellow Dog history and phenomenon here.)

I like to think I'm open-minded. And intellectually, and even socially, I think I am. Compared to my peers at college, I didn't seem to be quite as angry or personal about "Republican SOBs." I don't think, as some dillholes insist on bleating, that conservatives are evil. I just seriously disagree with them.

But in terms of who I would personally vote for? None of the Republicans on the ticket, or any in my lifetime, come anywhere close to where my personal values lie. I am not negotiable on Roe v. Wade. I believe that there is, in fact, a social contract between the government and the citizens of its country, and that it has a responsibility to assist those who need it. (I don't know enough about economics to have much of a position other than that the idea of a truly "Free" Market seems about as Utopian as a truly Marxist society, and that in any event, Bush was about as fiscally conservative as a dog turd.) I want the religious right to keep its faith confined to Churches and private schools. I like that Mike Huckabee is the first non-bitchy evangelical politician I've seen in ages but it's not enough to make me vote for him. I hear them talking and it's like we're on different planets or speaking different languages. And though I believe the War against Jihadist Nutjobs is important, I'm unconvinced that either Republicans or Democrats have all the answers. Frankly, even if the Republicans DID have all the answers, their tactics for smearing their opponents as pansies or traitors is enough to make me not want to have anything to do with them (and if Guiliani says 9/11 one more time, I'm going to make him eat his glasses).

So that's where I stand. Feel free to sound off.

Oh, and I visited my parents over MLK weekend and was highly amused by one of the Propositions on the SF ballot. Apparently some group of bozos wants the city to purchase Alcatraz from the Parks Service, tear it down, and replace it with a Global Peace Center, consisting of a conflict resolution room (we'll just shlepp the Israelis and Palestinians over there from now on instead of Camp David), a Medicine Wheel, a labyrinth (???) a "Harmonium," and, not to be overlooked, a series of something called "Artainment" multimedia centers. In my house, usually the second you make up a new word you lose the argument, but if that wasn't enough, one of the very left-wing papers in the city also panned the idea. Best line: "People don't have to support everything with peace in the title."

Though my family often feels uncomfortable siding with the SF Republican Party (in this case they were the only ones who bothered to write anything against it on the ballot packet), this time I don't think there will be too many qualms. These guys look and sound like nutjobs, and besides, Alcatraz is a major tourist attraction precisely because of its checkered history. Plus, old prisons are cool.

But apparently things are more complicated than I realized. Just observe this exchange of letters in the SF Chronicle:

'Negative' landmark?

Editor - San Francisco's Proposition C - The city acquisition of Alcatraz in order to tear it down and replace it with a so-called "peace center" ("Park bond, police pension measures await city voters," Jan. 22) certainly ranks among some of the idiotic issues brought before San Francisco voters in recent years.

I'm not sure what "negative energy" proposition backer Da Vid feels Alcatraz generates, and it's beyond me how the mere presence of Alcatraz, as Vid claims, "is negatively affecting the psychology of the entire Bay Area." When I view Alcatraz, I see a historical landmark that is part of the rich history of San Francisco. Also, I have certainly not felt any negative energy as the result of touring the former federal penitentiary.

Perhaps Mr. Vid and his Mill Valley followers would better serve San Francisco by focusing their energy on resolving more pressing issues such as graffiti, homelessness, gangs and the Municipal Railway.

Proposition C tells me that Da Vid and his followers want a location with million-dollar views to conduct business but want San Francisco taxpayers to foot the bill. Vote no on this measure.

RIC EWING

San Francisco

---

Editor - I was astounded at your editorial ("A vision for Alcatraz?" Jan. 23) writing off a global peace center in favor of ... an old funky prison? Duh. No local people ever go to this place called Alcatraz. It is a tourist place and a certain kind of tourist place. What social merit does it have? What cultural merit does it serve? What artistic merit does it share? None.

Please, liberate yourself and your readers from this old way of thinking. To move forward into a new and better world is noble. Do we need an old, falling-down prison to show "our history is rarely uplifting"?

We could use some peace, though. The proposed center sounds wonderful. Give peace a chance.

DONNA O'SAMMON

Novato

Wow, you stupid, stupid moron. You know, no New Yorkers ever go to Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty either. What should we turn those into, a 20-story Dunkin' Doughnuts? You know what's also depressing? The Alamo. Oh, and don't forget concentration camps. Let's turn them all into global peace centers. Or at least Harmoniums. Wait, didn't they already do that in one place?

And again, notice how the people supporting this idea are NOT residents of the city! Fascinating, ain't it?

Frankly, the only people involved in this weird venture I have any respect or sympathy for are the Native Americans, who seem like they're getting conned.

"My bottom line is getting the actual prison off the island," [Native American spiritual leader Marshall "Golden Eagle"] Jack explains. "There's a lot of crystal energy, spiritually wise, on the island. It's an icon for a lot of tribes around the Bay Area who were here way before the Europeans. A Global Peace Center idea is just an option, but if it doesn't manifest that way, if it becomes an ecological center, fine."

Must... resist... smart-assery... Has... valid right to... weirdo... crystal theology...

Oh wait, more white people. I can ridicule them guilt-free.

Jack serves as assistant director of the Global Peace Foundation, a branch of the nonprofit San Francisco Medical Research Foundation, which Mill Valley resident Da Vid founded in the late 1970s — about the time he first had a vision of domes on Alcatraz.

"I saw them during a Celestial Healing Festival on Mt. Tam in 1978, seven years after the Indian occupation ended," says Da Vid, who says he is a medical doctor and artist — and currently serves as treasurer of the Alcatraz Conversion Project, a political action committee whose coffers contain $30,000 from Da Vid's mother, Miriam Ornstein.

GPF assistant director Kevin Ohnsman told the Guardian, "We feel that the Republican Party's opposition to Prop. C is our best endorsement."

I wouldn't bet on it, bobo.

Equal Opportunity Mobs

For all those who think the Haredi world has a sexism problem, this bit of recent news should make all you slandering anti-Orthodox naysayers quake with embarrassment.

So there! Now go and repent.

Give me back your oxygen

The world is full of idiots today.

First, Britain, where an attempt to be culturally sensitive just makes everyone look stupid.

Fearing Muslims would be offended, a story based on "The Three Little Pigs" was rejected by a government-funded British agency from consideration for an annual award...

But there was no complaint prompting the decision, and Sheik Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain called it "bizarre."

"The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the 'Three Little Pigs,'" he told the London Daily Mail at the time. "It's always been the traditional way of telling the story, and I don't see why that should be changed."

Mogra acknowledged Muslims are forbidden to eat pork, "but there is no prohibition about reading stories about pigs. This is an unnecessary step."

Mogra asked how far society would go.

"Are we going to change the seven dwarves because it's discriminatory towards people who are physically less able? Where do you draw the line?" he asked.

I'm pretty sure the crazy-line gets drawn about three miles back before you start banning books with offensive animals in the title. Next thing you know I won't be able to read any books about Eli the Magical Eel (and his Fantastic Trip to the Sushi Bar) at my local JCC library. A shande!

Then of course, as nature and WND often do, we have an example of the exact opposite problem: people are fed up with political correctness, so they act like giant douchebags to even things out.

A new, cutting-edge, political TV show will challenge Islam with biting humor tomorrow night, placing the face of the prophet Muhammad onto a cookie and then having it eaten on camera.

"We're going to take a stand and say Muhammad's face is delicious," said Molotov Mitchell, the 28-year-old incendiary creator and host of "Flamethrower," a program described as a low-budget, gritty cross between the "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," and "The View" if Ann Coulter were the producer. "This is religious and culinary history in the making."

The theme of this week's episode is "All Things Islam," as panelists take on the faith of Muslims in a no-holds-barred fashion.

Ok, first of all, there are no recorded pictures of Mohammed, so how Muslims can be offended by his necessarily approximate representation has never been quite clear to me. Then again, there are no pictures of Moses, but Jews know damn well that he didn't have no horns.

Anyway, these guys seem like shmucks, as evidenced by the next line.

Islam is not even a religion," Mitchell told WND from a location somewhere in Eastern North Carolina. "It's an ideology of 'might makes right' disguised as a religion. We're going to show that Allah was with us when we baked this cookie and ate it. Deal with it!"

What the hell does that even mean? Is there some cleverness here I'm just missing?

Mitchell and his fellow panelists – all of whom are Christians in their 20s and whom he calls the next generation of conservatism – are trying to make the point that America is still a free country, and there's no need to cower in fear from Islamo-fascism. He laments the frequency of Islamic suicide bombings, giving a new twist to a famous line from "It's a Wonderful Life," by stating, "Every time a bell rings, a Muhammad gets his wives."

See above. Huh?

"What we're doing is exercising our freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the fullest in order to challenge a tyrannical, oppressive system that has doomed the cultures and countries of the Middle East for centuries," Mitchell told WND. "Now it's trying to invade our borders, and somebody has to speak up about it."

That's right, nothing sticks it to Osama like eating butter cookies. Incidentally, someone should tell Mitchell's craft services department to brush up on their frosting turbans. That's not Mohammed, it's a freaking snake charmer.

In it, cast members dress in traditional Muslim clothing and deliver "totally atrocious" real news items, recounting, says Mitchell, "what some jerk named Muhammad did this week. "I'm not going to be hurt and insulted. I'm going to ask people to ignore this," said Iftekhar Hai, president of United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance in South San Francisco. "They would dare not do it to any Jewish person, saying 'the Jews killed Jesus.' The Jewish lobby would slaughter the Christians if they did that."

Hey now, let's be careful about using "Jews killed Jesus" and "Jews would slaughter the Christians" in the same sentence.

Mitchell says politics is the driving force of his show, saying, "The [Christian] church really doesn't seem to get it when it comes to politics. The church likes to ask, 'What would Jesus do?' But it often suggests Jesus would hug somebody for every situation, and that's not what Jesus would do. I'd rather ask, 'What would George Washington do?'"

Lose his teeth cracking walnuts? Provoke a war while cowering in a mud fort, then surrender to the French? Be a Deist? No, wait... deforestation? Man, history is tricky.

"Muhammad murdered people and he married a 9-year-old. That makes him a murdering pedophile," said Mitchell. "I don't think that we should burn the Quran. I'm a Christian environmentalist. We should put that thing to use. I mean, at least get some toilet paper out of it."

As opposed to the highly ethical murdering adulter known as King David. Gotcha.

Let's hear it for the land of the free... even for morons.

Edit: WND has an update. Prepare to be outraged.

A national television network has decided to censor an episode of a new political show featuring self-described Christian "infidels" eating a cookie emblazoned with an image of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Faith TV made the decision in the wake of WND news coverage about "Flamethrower," a cutting-edge program whose latest episode originally scheduled for this week deals with "All Things Islam."

"We're not going to air it," said Jim West, president of the Florida-based, Christian network. "We feel this program just goes beyond the bounds of good taste."

"We appreciate the producer's attempt at parody and drawing attention to controversial subjects, and we embrace his right under the First Amendment to express his views," he added. "But it does violate one of our programming philosophy tenets which is not to disparage any world religions."

..."If Faith TV pulls our show, I guess it was Allah's will. Peace be upon them," Mitchell clowned. "I'd say the real winner in all this is Muhammad."

West made it clear his network was not dousing "Flamethrower" entirely, only the episode with the edible prophet.

"We have a responsibility to our affiliates who have FCC licenses," said West. "We have a programming philosophy we have to live by whether we personally agree with their content or not."

When asked what specifically bothered him, West said, "Painting Islam with a very broad brush rather than focusing on radical Islamic extremists. I think the other problem was although much was presented in the form of a parody, it was done in a condescending, spiteful manner."

..."With all respect to Faith TV, I think this decision reflects a fundamental problem in the way Christians address pagan religions. The questions Christians should ask themselves are: 'Is what Molotov and the "Flamethrower" panelists are saying true?' If so, should we stifle it? And secondly, and I believe most American Christians need to think about this one is: 'Does Jesus hate Islam?'"

I love this. Exactly what information about Islam as a religious system was being displayed here? Saying Mohammed was a child molesting murderer? That has about as much relevance to the theological underpinnings (or sociological problems with) contemporary Islam as an entire episode castigating Judaism for the patriarchs' polygamy several thousand years ago. And incidentally, dopey, I don't think Jesus had an opinion about Islam given that, you know, he died about 700 years before it started. Sorry to ruin your fun with, you know, math.

Mitchell says the entire program will soon be posted on the "Flamethrower" website, and, by popular demand, the Muhammad cookies will be made available there as well.

"One fan said if we all told an Islamic joke and ate one cookie a day, Islam would go away forever," he said.

This tells you something about the kind of brilliant minds we're dealing with. Luckily, WND has no such qualms about supporting idiots, and has made the whole segment available on its website. Also, this brave stand for free speech should come as no surprise to anyone that has followed WND's long history against censorship.

Keeping Me on My Toes

Antigonos, legion commenter of the Jblogosphere, helps educate me regarding my last post on the Haredi bus situation.

"There is a legitimate point to be made that these buses are pre-designated as "Mehadrin," or gender-separated, and that it's not like this is happening on every bus."

~~~No, it's not a legitimate point. Egged has the contract to provide PUBLIC transport to ALL the public. I pay my fare, I sit where I want. And in any case, it's not MY problem, sitting next to a man, it's HIS problem if he's haredi, and he can get up and move elsewhere. If the haredim want segregated buses, let them hire a private bus firm.

My mistake; I was under the impression that the Mehadrin buses were semi-private entities created to cater specifically to the Haredi community; i.e., operate as "Haredi buses." Egged should not be able to operate as both a public service and a private organization with its own miniature codes of conduct varying from bus to bus. (Though I have to say that unfortunately, I see no way to force Egged to make this decision on their own, as it's against their economic interests.)

Antigonos also added that in practice, Mehadrin buses are not so much divided in "two" as they are into, say, quarters- three for the men, one for the women. Cute. What a nice way to put the "we do TOO value women" slogan I've heard from Orthodox acquaintances into practice.

I also can't help but think of a comment I read on a Jewish blog this week (unfortunately I can't recall which one) from a Haredi man in NY who said, something to the effect of, "I feel bad that I don't care enough about these sorts of issues- but if I get a seat on the train, I'm whipping out my New York Times or falling asleep, and I'm oblivious to whoever's sitting next to me." Interestingly, he added, "but I understand why they can/should be more strict in Israel."

Sultan Knish and my old friend Sam added their respective shekels as well, noting that the reason the public policing keeps going on is because no one is willing to rein the Haredim in, and because Olmert is too busy kissing their kaftaned tucheses to care much about the rule of law (and the recent departure of his coalition by Yisrael Beiteinu will probably make him even more desperate to keep them happy). Sam goes so far as to compare it to desegregation. It's a sorry fact, but from where I'm sitting the truth seems to be that the bizarre super-frum mentality presently at work among the Haredi majority is more hostile to THEIR OWN WOMEN- mothers, sisters, and daughters, than American whites' views of blacks were in the 19th and 20th centuries. The ironic thing is that this view isn't just, to my liberal elitist values, a tad, shall we say, odd, it's also what science-fiction nerds like to call a RETCON, or a false or "invented" history. Just check out Harry Maryles, far from a liberal heretic like myself. First Harry opines about the Hasidic custom (particularly prevalent among the Ger sect in Israel) of wives walking MULTIPLE STEPS behind their husbands for modesty purposes. What say thee, Harry?

"I’m sorry this is not normal."

Hmmm.

There's more.

Whether it is the manner of dress of Yeshiva students, or the color, size and style of their Kipot, or whether it is in the total rejection of mixed seating as the norm for events such as weddings, bar Mitzvos, or banquets, this chumraization [increased strictures] has cast a pall on those of us who were brought up in a world where even the Gedolei HaDor [Great Rabbis of the Generation] went to mixed seating events and sat with their wives. The Talmidim [students] of today have become Kanaim (zealots) for their mentors in certain areas of Judaism. In past generations that was not the case. One of my Rebbeim at HTC, HaGoan R. Mordechai Rogov, ZTL, said that in Lithuania they did not consider such things important. I recently saw some archival footage of Yeshiva student of pre-war Ponovezh. The students were all wearing light colored suits and hats, and they were all clean shaven with no Peyos (Side curls). Can you imagine walking into Lakewood today and seeing even one student wearing a light colored suit?

Case in point: an old picture of a student most people only know as an ancient beard-man. Still more from Harry:

This phenomenon is part of the over-all ‘move to the right’, that has been taking place over the last 60 years. After the holocaust when Chasidim immigrated to the United States in huge numbers, they brought all their Chumros with them. Chumros not practiced in the United States and not common in the Lithuanian Yeshivos of Europe. That is how the slide to the right began. Many Kulos that were standard practice even pre holocaust were abandoned in the US when the Chasidim who never used these Kulos immigrated and widely practiced them. The Yeshiva world saw it and copied it.

There are two very clear instances of this.

In one area it was actually a Tikun. It restored a Halacha that was all but abandoned even in pre-holocaust Lithuania: that of married woman covering their hair. Chasidim never abandoned that Halacha. When the rabbinic leaders of the Yeshiva world saw that, they were somehow able to convince their wives to cover their hair too. And they made sure this Halacha was instilled into their students. Since that time hair covering has come back with a vengeance. Where it was virtually unknown in the United States pre-holocaust, the vast majority of observant women today cover their hair. The younger they are, the more likely they are to do so even among the modern orthodox.

The other area which is not a Halachic requirement is in the area of separate seating of the sexes. The biggest Lithuanian type Gedolim of the last century sat with their wives at at weddings. There are photos that prove that. And they proudly introduced their wives to everyone. This was not only the case here it was the case in Europe.

When asked about it by a Talmid who back in the late sixties was faced with pressure to have separate seating at his wedding: Rav Mordechai Rogov told him, “In Der Lita, Zennen Mir Nit Given Makpid”. In Lithuania weddings had mixed seating.

But, when the Lithuanian Torah world saw that all the Chasidic wedding had separate seating, they instituted it for themselves. Telshe banquets in Chicago started out with mixed seating. After a few years of observing the Chasidic world, they made a conscious decision to not be out-Frummed by the Chasidim.

Now they actually bully people into having separate seating at weddings. Case in point: Back in the early nineties the daughter of a close friend of mine got engaged to a Telzer. My friend intended to have mixed seating at his daughter’s wedding. When Telshe found out about it, one of the Roshei Yeshiva paid a visit to my friend. And he used extreme pressure on him to have separate seating. ‘How would it look’ he said, ‘if one of their Bachurim had a mixed seating wedding?!’

...It’s about image. It’s about ‘Frumkeit. Who can look ‘Frummer’ …who can sound ‘Frummer’…and who can act Frummer.

Indeed. And what's particularly sad is that this group-think mentality is superficial, stupid, and, to my understanding, rather incongruous with a lot of the message we're supposed to get from most of Jewish history. Not only has there historically been quite a bit of diversity in customs and practices among Jews, a major component of Judaism has always been that there is legitimacy and dignity in not mindlessly following group trends, be they harmless (designer jeans) or more problematic (Crusades). If our predecessors had been as easily coerced by peer pressure as today's Haredim seem to be, the world, both Jewish and otherwise, would have been all the poorer for it.

And to conclude, an old Jonathan Rosenblum post on the subject which refreshingly throws some cold water on the Haredi hotheads who beat a grandmother for the sake of their "modesty." (Did they wear gloves?)

If BaGaTz [The Israeli Supreme Court] eventually bans Mehadrin public buses, those who were so insistent that Mrs. Shear vacate her seat will have made a significant contribution to the final decision. Certainly they have already helped make Torah Judaism appear as something ugly and fanatical in the eyes of hundreds of thousands around the world.

...There is a growing tendency in our community to attempt to impose our halachic standards, even chumrot, whenever we have a momentary majority, such as on the early morning bus to the Kotel. Even leaving aside the consequences of such a strategy on the attitude of traditional and secular Jews towards the chareidi community and Torah itself, I fear it is a dangerous approach.

Democracy may not be the Torah’s ideal form of government, but in recent history it has generally proven to be the best protector of the rights of Jews and of our ability to flourish as Torah Jews. Therefore Torah Jews have an interest in playing by the rules of a democratic society. If we want the majority of Israeli society to respect the rights of the chareidi minority, then we have to also respect the rights of the majority.

To argue that the rules of the game followed by Torah Jews in America do not apply to the chareidi community in Israel is, in my mind, a perverse form of Zionism.

Adopting violence as a tool would be a disastrous mistake, even from the most narrow and short-range perspective. As Yossi Sarid and other secular politicians have been only too happy to remind us over the years, at the end of the day, the secular public is much larger and has lots more guns.

Separate seating on buses may be a very positive thing. And if it is important enough to the chareidi community, then the community will support our own separate bus lines (though hopefully not by throwing stones at competing public lines, as has happened in Ramat Beit Shemesh).

But separate seating is not the only Torah value at stake. Yereim v’shleimim [pious folks, I think] in New York regularly ride the New York City subways, on which the crowding is far greater than anything experienced on Egged buses in Jerusalem. And the late posek hador, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, long-ago ruled that it is permitted to ride New York City subways.

Damn straight. Suck it up, guys, or get your own damn bus lines. Hell, the way Olmert is headed, you'll probably be able to make him pay for it.

The Haredim on the Bus go...

"Quack Quack Quack!"

Well, actually, not so much.

There have been a few well-publicized cases of women being harassed or attacked on Jerusalem buses in the past few years. Now author Naomi Ragen and a few other women, tired of seeing Jim Crow rules play themselves out in Israel are taking their case to the Supreme Court.

The state argues that the segregation - with men sitting in front and women in back - is voluntary and that the companies operating the mehadrin lines "are prohibited from forcing the voluntary arrangement on the rest of the passengers who are not interested in it.

"There is no reason for the Transportation Ministry to get involved, as long as each person maintains a right to use those lines without being coerced by these arrangements," the state said. "A suitable arrangement is based on the assumption that there should not be a coerced segregation arrangement in public transit, but there is no obstacle to allowing the passengers to have voluntary separation between the sexes."

I feel (almost) conflicted. There is a legitimate point to be made that these buses are pre-designated as "Mehadrin," or gender-separated, and that it's not like this is happening on every bus. So the very fact of the buses existing may not be the actual problem as much as the really crappy attitudes that are occurring in conjunction with these bus lines when women don't follow the rules (the Israeli Reform movement, all five of them, disagree). Also, as Orthomom said back in 2006, if you're actually doing your job as a Haredi man and using your spare time for studying, it shouldn't make much of a difference if a woman is sitting next to you or across from you.

Incidentally, I've seen buses in New York that have women and men sitting ACROSS from each other throughout the whole length of the bus, using a curtain to keep things separate. It seems that part of this is also a desire from certain groups of Haredim to keep things as rigid, inflexible, and generally unpleasant, as they can possibly be. It's one thing to have a socially repressive (or, to be polite, "highly regulated") society, it's another thing to impose it on other folks, ESPECIALLY with the threat of violence. Gil Student put it quite well:

The problem with the arrangement in Israel is simply that the community there is incapable of controlling its hooligans. This should come as no surprise and has been a growing problem for decades.

Damn skippy. Gil also does a good job of demonstrating how the more attention this issue gets, the more ridiculous the whole thing starts to look to outside observers- especially when Orthodox women try to defend the practice as "empowering." Yeah, empowering the same way the May Laws were.

Still, some people are not convinced that Ragen and co's hearts are actually in the right place.

Reform Jews do not consider themselves bound by Torah mandates such as those relating to separation of the genders, but there are many observant Jews who have difficulty with these issues as well. Many, however, feel more comfortable in such an environment.

“There are lines all over the country, traveling to the same places, in which anyone can sit anywhere they like,” one regular rider on the mehadrin line told IsraelNationalNews. “There is no reason for a woman to sit in a men’s section on a bus clearly intended to cater to those who observe Torah law,” he said, “other than for the purpose of deliberate provocation."

The rider, who requested anonymity, likened the situation to that of a woman insisting on using the men’s public restroom. “It’s not illegal for a woman to force her way into a men’s bathroom,” he said. “But it would be unusual and bad-mannered, to say the least.”

The state argues that the seating arrangement is voluntary and that the bus operators do not force passengers to sit in any particular area, but that the restrictions are set by the community served by the line.

The standard Israeli public bus system, in which there is no gender separation on the buses, includes routes traveling to every destination served by the “mehadrin” line.

The separate, “mehadrin” system was created in 2001 in response to a growing demand by hareidi religious Jews for a bus line that would enable men and women to travel separately without being forced into uncomfortably close proximity, especially on crowded buses.

The “mehadrin” line provides for separate seating and offers direct bus service between cities with large hareidi religious populations.

Hmm. Sort of makes me think back to the old question of whether Jerusalem (or the buses going to and from it) should belong to all Jews or just the religious. Let's just hope they don't take their cues from the Klausenberger rebbe on this one.

Edit: Well that's a little surprising.

Suspicious haredi leaders and activists were pleasantly surprised to discover Monday that the Supreme Court can be an ally and that liberal, democratic values such as human rights and freedom of religious expression can sometimes serve haredi interests.

"Today the Supreme Court gave legitimacy to our claims and backed them up with values such as human dignity," said Shlomo Rosenstein, a member of the Jerusalem Municipality and Transportation Coordinator for the Haredi Public in the capital.

Yeah. Maybe next year they'll support your freedom of speech as applied through bleach-spraying.

On Monday, a panel of judges chaired by the modern Orthodox Elyakim Rubinstein seemed to show empathy and understanding for the haredi community's desire to strictly separate the sexes on public buses, according to haredim who were present at the discussions.

"The questions they asked and their comments seemed to show that they understood our needs and sensibilities," said a haredi PR man who works with one of the large bus companies that runs "Mehadrin" lines that seat men at the front and women at the back.

"The judges failed to understand what Naomi Ragen was so upset about. Why should a woman care if she sits in the front of the bus or in the back of the bus?" asked rhetorically the anonymous PR man.

Isn't that sort of like the all-white court deciding that "separate but equal" was a perfectly fine legal precedent? Maybe the court needs some women on it.

The first major development in haredi influence was the community's discovery of its buying power. As the haredi population grew they became aware of their formidable consumer buying power.

They could put pressure on the cellular phone operators to offer handsets that do not have Internet access, SMS or access to other services that offend haredi sensibilities.

They could demand that supermarkets carry products with more stringent kosher supervision. They could put pressure on El Al, the national carrier, to stop flying on Shabbat and they could demand that building contractors build haredi-only neighborhoods.

Now, haredim may have entered a new stage of influence: using the Supreme Court, that bastion of liberalism and equality, to support haredi religious freedoms as long as they do not hurt the freedom of others too much.

Ow. My poor head.

One of these things does not match the other

I'm reading a book of stories about Hasidic rebbes. It has some interesting reincarnation tidbits.

The Apter Rebbe once said he had been the High Priest in ancient Jerusalem. The Berdichever was the reincarnation of Rabbi Akiva. Israel of Stolin claimed to have Rashi's soul, which was convenient, since his father, Asher of Stolin was said to have been the reincarnation of none other than King David.

Ok, so far it's pretty standard. But apparently the Yismach Moshe, the first Moshe Teitelbaum, had some really interesting reincarnation claims.

In reverse order, he claimed to have been:

1- the prophet Jeremiah.

2- A member of the original group of Israelites in the Exodus (he wouldn't answer if he supported Moses or Korah)

3- and the last, and original soul... well, that's where things get weird.

Apparently Rabbi Teitelbaum was one of the sheep in Jacob's flock when he worked for Laban. I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn from this, other than that souls can move between species. Also, I'm disappointed that there's no further commentary in the book about this. Are we supposed to infer that being a sheep of a patriarch is just as high-prestige as being the prophet Jeremiah? Did the rabbi take certain insights away from his time as a sheep? Like vegetarianism, or the importance of treating animals humanely? Making sure to shear them on time?

Hey, wait a minute! Israel of Rizhin was also one of Jacob's sheep! I wonder if they were friends. You know what some Jewish studies grad student should do is research whether any of the rebbes or rabbis claiming to be reincarnations ever overlapped with each other... like, at any given point, were there multiple claimants to be King David? It would be pretty impressive if there weren't.