Lazer's Advice Is Great... If you don't actually want to solve your problems

It's time once again for "Lazer Chat!" I've culled the best of Lazer's archives for some of his... let's be nice and call them quirkiest, blogging moments. Since many of them involve women, I've invited Shiksa Girlfriend along for the ride.

SG: Glad to be here. Well, not really.

First up, Lazer gives some advice to a woman that doesn't like loaning things to a neighbor-- though, in this case, the neighbor mostly seems to be sponging food, which I don't count as "borrowing" per se, given that she can't really return them in the way that you can, say, return a book.

Fear not, gentle readers. Lazer always knows the right thing to say:

The next time your neighbor shows up, invite her for a cup of coffee, sit her down, and explain that according to religious law, one who fails to return a loan is called a wicked person. All the crying and chest-beating in synagogue on Yom Kippur can't rectify the crime of one unreturned potato.

Me: Presumably, this is the point where your neighbor starts crying and asks to borrow your headscarf to blow her nose.

SG: The compasionate thing to do would be to tell her you recognize she has money troubles, not accuse her of stealing from you. Even better, this woman could take a page from Passover and only buy what she absolutely needs before Shabbos, then sign over whatever's left to the youngest daughter (preferably one that can't talk) over Shabbos, then truthfully tell the neighbor that she can't give her those eggs because SHE doesn't have any. Or maybe she should buy uglier clothes and sheitels to let her neighbor know they're poor.

Me: You're a wicked genius, sweetie. Back to Lazer:

Also, the Zohar says that a person cannot achieve his or her rightful place in heaven unless they've repayed all outstanding debts. A person must suffer an entire reincarnation for a debt of a few pennies or more, and who says that your next go-round on this earth isn't going to be twenty times worse that this go-round?

Me: So... repay your debts or the Zohar says you'll come back as, what, misbegotten eggs that people will borrow and then forget to repay?

SG: Even worse, eggs with blood spots that are useless for cooking!

Me: No brocha there. Seriously, Lazer, pulling out the reincarnation card? Over some eggs? Don't you want to save that one up for something a little more serious? Also, crap like this is why people think that the Kabbalah Centre is real Kabbalah, because nutjobs like you are always rambling on about the "real" crazy shit in the Zohar that sounds just as bizarre as anything the Bergs can pull out of their butts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that whole Madonna thing is your fault. So thanks.

Wait, there's more!

I am a 20-year-old college sophomore in the US, and lately I have been worrying about whether or not I am on the right path in life. I know I'm still young, but I feel I am ready to be married and start a family, and I live somewhere with very few Jewish males, none of whom are particularly religious. While I've always pictured myself as finishing college, lately I am not sure if this is the right thing to do. I was always an excellent student but lately I have been having a very difficult time finishing assignments because my mind is elsewhere, and even so, the liberal arts program I'm in is not likely to lead to many career opportunities.

Me: What will the great therapist-rabbi suggest? Should she see a counselor? Have a long heart-to-heart with her parents? Take a semester off? Re-evaluate her major?

SG: I don't think so...

Also, so unbelievably many random things keep going wrong, making it more difficult to continue in school, and I don't know whether to take this as a sign from Hashem that maybe I should head in a different direction, or just as another challenge in life to overcome. I don't want to waste any more time if this is not what I should be doing with my life, and end up unmarried, having wasted what should be an exciting time in life on unfruitful studes. Should I spend at least the next two and a half years finishing my BA degree, or is it time to change directions? I would greatly appreciate any advice you might offer. Thank you so much for your time.

Me: If she's sending out emails complaining about her unfruitful studes, I think the answer is to stay in school, or at least use Spell-Check.

Lazer says:

Good girl - you've done a good job of understanding the messages that Hashem has sent you. It's definitely time for you to seriously search for the right person and to raise a family.

Me: Based on what? She's only given you the most basic sketch of her problems? Maybe she needs to get together with a study group, or start volunteering somewhere that she gets satisfaction from.

SG: Also, the second year of any liberal-arts program at most colleges involves slogging through boring core classes to get to the good stuff. Don't email a stranger on the internet, meet with your advisor and blast through it so you can take classes you actually enjoy.

The restlessness in your soul is straight from Hashem. A liberal arts program in a university is a waste of your valuable time and money. As far as a livelihood goes, you can take one of many inexpensive aptitude tests available on the web, determine a skill you like, and then pursue a six-month occupational course, such as computers, graphic design, dental tech, or whatever.

Me: And lucky you, I just happen to have one available for you via my website. New "Laz-y Tests" will get your career jump-started in no time! Incidentally, if feeling conflicted about following a path is a "message" from Hashem and indicates that he wants you to quit what you're doing, then I guess Lazer can't be pissy about the millions of frum Jews that have gone off the derech over the past few thousand years-- they were just following their souls.

I recommend that you check out of university, move to an area where there are Jewish studies for women your age, and then simultaneously strengthen your Judaism and acquire an occupational skill.

Me: Well, I like the fact that he's at least encouraging her to work.

SG: That's so her husband won't have to.

On the other hand, my blue-chip advice for you would be to come to Israel, enroll in a women's seminar for Jewish Studies such as Midreshet Beerot Bat Ayin which I'm sure you'll love, or EYHAT (Aish Hatora women's seminary) or Neve Yerushalayim as possible alternatives. That way you'll be able to strengthen your Judaism and find the exact guy you want.

Me: Sorry, at what point did she indicate she wanted a yeshiva bochur, much less someone from the very impressive niche culture known as Chavakuk?

SG: I'm just imaging the look on her parents' face when she drops out of school to take a six-week course in the exciting world of dental hygiene. Nothing like giving yourself some options.

Up next, a female executive can't sleep at night.

I can't sleep at night, thinking about whether I've made the right decisions for my clients and the best for my company. I'm afraid of sleeping pills, but I'm so tired and edgy lately. My boyfriend terminated our relationship, complaining that my career monopolizes my time and strength.

Me: Whatever will Lazer say? She could... see a doctor, take some time off, try finding a psychologist, have some quality conversation time with a close friend, or any number of other stress-relieving techniques.

Oh, wow. That's surprising. Lazer mostly suggests that she exercise, drink tea, and listen to soft music before bed time. That's not bad at all, actually.

As bedtime approaches, curl up in bed with a glass of chamomile tea and your favorite book. I suggest you read The Garden of Emuna and The Trail to Tranquility. Soon, your eyelids will feel like barbells.

Me: Two things: A- keep on plugging that book; B- I like how even Lazer recognizes that his books are more effective than sleeping pills.

Lazer adds that the note-writer shouldn't feel too bummed out about the departed boyfriend.

You've been spending the bulk of your time in the fast lane of a highly competitive, demanding, and dry men's world with little compassion, so you need to return some femininity to yourself.

Me: Oh yes, Lazer, please do tell us how women can restore their femininity!

SG: Highly skeptical minds want to know.

Commit to the mitzvah of lighting Shabbat candles every week, and immediate after lighting the candles, ask Hashem for whatever you want. Also, learn how to bake challas. If your apartment had the smell of fresh-baked challas on Friday afternoon, no man in his right mind will ever let you go. By the way, I've never seen a divorce in a family that eats home-baked challas.

Me: Wow. Just... wow. So apparently if you can make bread, all your relationship problems will be solved. That's some pretty brilliant advice there, Lazer. You should have an infomercial or something.

SG: Actually, I think he's on to something. I learned how to bake challahs after our first month of dating, and you're still here.

Me: Ah, good point. Apparently the real problem is Gentile girls stealing our baked goods recipies, and thereby, our men.

Now we move on to a high school student with a swearing problem. Lazer opines:

The soul is surrounded by three garments - thoughts, speech, and deeds. When you use foul language, you surround your soul in stench, kind of like walking around with completely dirty underwear. Sounds gross? Foul words make your soul feel gross, and they chase away Hashem's Divine Presence, which means that a person who uses filthy language loses Divine guidance and protection. That's when real trouble in your life starts.

So, cursing is like wearing stinky drawers. All right, I guess I can understand that... but don't you think you could elevate the tone here a little, Lazer?

Remember also, a person with a cheap tongue is a cheap person. You certainly don't want people calling you "cheap" behind your back, especially since you're a quality young lady.

Yeah, you don't want people applying this random aphorism I just made up to you, do you?

People who use foul language are basically no better than pigs. Even if you dress them in in fancy clothes, pigs remain pigs. A person's speech is the showcase of a person's soul.

So, what about people that curse up a storm but do incredibly important and selfless things, like firefighters, police officers, etc.? Are they bad people? Pigs? I don't know about you, Lazer, but that sounds like some bull to me.

Here we have a Baalas Teshuvah (female "returnee" to Ortho Judaism) used to sleep around, then she had masectomies and became religious. She's totally happy and satisfied with her life now, except... well...

Ever since I did teshuva, I've been doing everything possible to cleanse myself of the old sins, including saying Tikkun Klali every day, being super meticulous in the modesty of my appearance and head covering, exacting about every detail of kedusha (holiness - LB) above and beyond the basic laws of family purity, even guarding my eyes from looking at other men. Yet recently, I've been getting nasty flashbacks of the past during my most intimate time with my husband. You can't imagine my anguish and sorrow. I've been begging to Hashem every day to wipe the images of other men and my old sinning self off of my heart.

Me: Hmm, I can't imagine why you'd be associating sexy time with your husband with past sexual expereiences! It's not like there's any emotional or mental connection between sex you used to have and sex you're having right now!

...nothing has helped. Am I so far from Hashem and teshuva that these flashbacks have returned to torment me? Why all of a sudden after a full two or three years that I didn't think about them?

Me: Having orgy flashbacks while having sex with your husband is not a sign that you are "far from God," lady, it's a sign that you haven't had a total memory wipe. Maybe you should spend your time trying to spice up your marital bed instead of endlessly fretting about your flashbacks.

I am really touched by your letter. Don't fret, everything is for the very best as you'll soon see. Not only does Hashem love you, but I guarantee you that you are one of His favorite daughters.

Me: Nice unsubstantiated pablum there.

SG: Yeah, I don't know you, but trust me, God likes you.

First, you ask about the nasty flashbacks, "Why all of a sudden after a full two or three years that I didn't think about them?" Rebbe Nachman of Breslev explains this clearly in Likutei Moharan (Part 1, Torah 25), namely, that when a person ascends to a higher spiritual level, he is bombarded with lusts and/or fantasies that he thought he had already overcome.

Me: How convenient!

SG: And... nonsensical?

True, at your previous spiritual level, you had overcome the old garbage and had properly done teshuva. But, at your new spiritual level, you have to do more hard work to further cleanse the tiny blemishes that are still on your soul. In simple terms, you're now playing in a higher, more demanding league. You think you have digressed, but the opposite is true. You have made and are making fabulous spiritual progress.

Me: This "God Tests you because He Loves you" stuff really rubs me the wrong way. Isn't this sort of like saying, "You worked hard your whole life to overcome the adversity you faced by being born with only one foot. Now you're middle-aged and have cancer. Wow, we sure can tell God loves you!"

SG: Theodicy isn't supposed to make sense. You know that.

Second, you anguish in seeing these nasty flashbacks is in itself a lofty form of teshuva. When they actually happened, you wantonly enjoyed every minute of what was going on. Now, when you see the same images, you are deeply disgusted and embarrassed. Rest assured that your anguish and embarrassment are better than a beautiful sin offering in the altar of our Holy Temple, may it be rebuilt soon, amen.

Me: Um, yeah... High five?

SG: Better than a Temple offering? Really? Based on what? That seems like a really obscure comparison to make.

Me: Last one. Here we have Lazer speaking to a new mother-in-law about minding her own business. I like the general spirit of the response, but somehow Lazer always manages to throw some random commentary in there that makes no sense:

From my experience, the only emotional ordeal more difficult than one's first year in the army is one's first year in marriage. Marriage demands that two totally opposite beings - a man and a woman - mesh together in harmony. That's not an easy task, and every single couple on earth has problems.

Me: Uh, Lazer, this just in: men and women are not totally opposite. In fact they share a lot of things in common, both in terms of biology (let's hear it for being able to perpetuate the species, unlike say, a monkey and a duck) and psychology or personality. In fact, many people have told SG and I that we are so alike it's creepy.

SG: Yeah Lazer, you're making it sound like every relationship is an Odd Couple rip-off involving Nessie and Sasquatch.

Me: How do they make it work?

Fun email

Received today:

Subject: Please add to "Morons" list

Hi,

I wanted to drop you a line and see if we might be able to obtain a link on your links area to our website called Rapture Forums?

We noticed you had listed on your links area ministries that are similar to ours and we thought we'd be a good addition to your list.

Thank you and God bless.

Chris

Rapture Forums

Dear Chris:

Wow, just how desperate do you guys have to be for readers to email someone like me, with a loyal fanbase that is seriously three former classmates from college, my girlfriend, and occasionally a trained monkey from the zoo? I mean, asking to be put under the "Morons" section? I guess I have to admire your ability to bend over and spread the other cheeks like a champ. I bet they made you guys take a course in e-hazing over at Internet Missionary Prep School, didn't they?

Still, since you asked nicely, I suppose I'll be happy to add you to the list-- though I have to say, Chris, unless you're asking the Holy Spirit to beam chocolate through people's screens to influence their decisions to accept Hay-Zeus as their savior and all, that any traffic you get through me is going to be, shall we say, less than disposed towards your perspective. I don't suppose you'd be interested in placing a link to my blog, would you?

Yours in Antichrist,

The Friar

More from Dennis

I know, it's a lot, but don't worry, we're in the home stretch! Dennis' latest turd bomb has arrived, and it makes very little sense. In the not-at-all provocatively titled, "Do leftists really love America?" Dennis asks, as only he can, in the smuggest of "innocent" questions, "Aren't you all really just a bunch of Commie scum? What, I'm just asking." Let's take a look.

If you met a man who said he would like to "transform" or "remake" his wife, would you conclude that he: a) thought very highly of his wife and loved her, or b) held his wife in rather low esteem and therefore found living with her rather difficult?

The answer is obvious: Those who wish to remake anything (or anyone) do not think highly of the person or thing they wish to remake.

Except, of course, that using this (idiotic) argument you would never paint your house, wash your car, or politely suggest to your wife or kids that they might need haircuts, new clothes, or, say, a bath. Basic upkeep does not mean you hate yourself, your property, or your family.

Little is as revealing of Barack Obama's and the left's view of America than their use of the words "transform" and "remake" when applied to what they most want to do to America.

I among others pointed this out during the presidential campaign when Obama frequently promised he would "transform America." That is why those of us attuned to the importance of words and who hold America in high esteem were so worried about an Obama election.

That's right, I almost forgot about Dennis' honorary doctorate in linguistics from BS-U. (Or was that Bullcrap State?) BTW, Dennis, if you love words so much, why do you spend so much time savaging the English language through absurd strawmen arguments and inane blanket statements?

Americans on the left frequently attack critics for labeling them "unpatriotic" and/or accusing them of not loving America. The first charge is false to the best of my knowledge. I have searched in vain for an instance of a normative conservative or Republican spokesman calling Democrats or liberals "unpatriotic."

Right, accusing someone of treason or suggesting that they "love" terrorists or America-hating dictators isn't the same thing as calling them unpatriotic. Not at all.

It is not an attack on the left to say that their own rhetoric suggests that they love a vision of America considerably more than they love the reality of America; that they love what America could be rather than what it is. Otherwise, how would one explain this liberal vocabulary of "remaking" and "transforming" America? You don't yearn to transform or remake that which you love.

Wrong, dipshit. If you really care about something or someone, you want to help make it, or them, as good as they can be. Ever seen this show? These people are there because they see their loved ones making terrible mistakes and want to help them become better. What happened to self-improvement? I would think a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps kind of guy like you would be encouraging us all to be all that we can be, and bugging our families and friends to follow suit. The mark of a good teacher is someone that cares about their students but also encourages and helps them grow into their potential. Only a whiny child would claim that a teacher that pushes you to do better hates you.

Many years ago, the prominent Jewish writer, my friend since childhood, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, helped to clarify – in a nonpartisan way – a major difference between liberals and conservatives. "Conservatives," he said, "romanticize the past; liberals romanticize the future."

A decent assessment. I wonder what Dennis will do with this.

The romanticizing of the future has been a distinguishing characteristic of the left since Karl Marx. Leftist ideologies have secular eschatologies.

Funny, wasn't it Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who said the Iraqis would be greeting us as liberators and that by toppling Saddam we would be ushering in a new age of global democracy? Doesn't get much more secular pipe-dream than that, Dennis.

The further left one goes the greater the belief in revolution, the need to overthrow the contemporary order.

Really, so the Founding Fathers were what, Commie Anarchists?

The problem is that compared with such a future utopia, no actual society could possibly compete. Certainly not racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, unequal America.

There's utopianism on both sides of the aisle, Dennis. See abolishing the IRS, building a wall to keep all immigrants out, and Reganomics.

In light of those frequently made criticisms of America, I have often asked representatives of the left why they criticize America so much if they love it so much. "Precisely because we love America, we criticize it. You criticize that which you love," is the nearly universal response.

But, of course, it isn't true. If you constantly criticize your spouse, for example, it is difficult to imagine that you really do love him or her. And perhaps more important, it is very unlikely that your spouse feels loved. That is why after being routinely described as racist, sexist, imperialist, etc., it is difficult to be able to tell that America is loved by the left.

So the claim is that because the left sees so many things wrong with America, we are hurting the country's feelings? Really? That's the best you can come up with? You're suggesting that if you really love someone you should let them be as mediocre, flawed or unhealthy as they want to be. If my girlfriend likes drinking and then going joyriding through school zones, I shouldn't tell her maybe that's a bad idea? If I see my grandmother throwing away her heart medication because she thinks its quack medecine, I should give her a high five rather than some good advice? Should I let my obese friend eat himself to death? I should go buy cigarettes for a cancer patient, just to prove how much I love them?

Get real, Dennis. The "your country is like a wife and you wouldn't ask your wife to change at all if you really loved her" is a horrible argument, especially coming from someone twice divorced. Ask any Israeli if they think their country is perfect, and then just try suggesting that if they really liked it they'd sit back complacently and ignore the problems they see. The reality is that you have to care about your country to want to change it. It's far easier to not care, make excuses, and watch as things go to hell.

You don't have to agree with the left's assessment of America or its goals, but most people living here today, from all parties, think that we have a lot of problems and need to start working on fixing them. Pointing out flaws in your country is no sin, and if it is, the left is far from alone in making it. The real question you should be asking is what's wrong with the people that think everything's going FINE the way it is.

Dennis Prager, Master of a Thousand Strawmans

Due to my long absence, it has come to my attention that there have been many stupid things said on the Internet that I have been unable to comment on. Hopefully I will be able to whip up a smorgasbord of stupidity soon. In the meantime, please enjoy this "What the Hell are you talking about, Dennis?" crap-stravaganza.

First up in the innanely titled "Is God just a a Big Toe Giant Air Conditioner?"Dennis wanks on about how awesome the English-speaking world is, thanks to a single, magical word:

One of the reasons for the ascendance of the English-speaking world has been that the English language is almost alone among major languages in having the word "earn."

Those of us whose native language is English assume that the phrase "to earn a living" is universal. It isn't. It is almost unique to English. Few languages have the ability to say this.

We're also the only people who say "don't hold your breath." Linguistic anthropology is a fascinating area of study, Dennis, but I think you're overdoing it here.

In the Romance languages, for example – a list that includes such major languages as Spanish, French and Italian – the word used when saying someone "earns" money, is "ganar" in Spanish, "gagner" in French. The word literally means "to win." In Hebrew the word "marveach" means "profits." In German, the word "verdient" means "deserves."

Obviously, it is very different to "win" or to "deserve" or to "profit" than to "earn."

True, but in many of those same languages the idea of earning money or making a living is closely related to the idea of "work," terms and concepts which certainly exist in those linguistic cultures. By narrowing your scope to a single phrase, you're majorly skewing your data. Not that I'm surprised.

Another increasingly widespread concept that undermines the notion of earning is "unconditional love." The term, which was barely used prior to the 1960s, is now ubiquitous. It is a prominent goal, a human ideal to strive for. The idea of having to earn love is more than unheard of today; it would strike most moderns as morally suspect.

Not necessarily; it's an issue of context. I would think that many people would say whether or not they apply or believe in unconditional love is dependent on the situation-- and the fact that one can simultaneously love someone for their closeness to you (say, a mother's love for her son) while also holding them responsible for their actions (crashing the car, stealing money, eating a baby). The concept of unconditional love seems to be connected with the question of how do you juggle issues of close emotional bonds that may then be tested by different behavior, such as an adult man struggling over whether to "love" his formerly abusive father. He has been told that he should honor and love his parents, yet feels that he was wronged, even betrayed by his father. The result is a big emotional, guilty mess, not at all a clean-cut scenario of "unconditional love or earned love" like Dennis would portray it. Then again, Dennis is the king of superficial blanket statements.

We expect God to show unconditional love to all people, again no matter how they act. According to the doctrine of divine unconditional love, God loves sadists as much as He loves the kindest individuals. No one earns God's love; we receive it, like sports trophies, for breathing. Many fine people believe this about God, but I think it is religio-cultural-specific, and non-biblical. In 15 years of study in a yeshiva I had never heard the phrase, and it would have struck me, as it still does, as quite odd. It depicts God as a love machine who, like an air-conditioner that emits the same amount of cold air no matter how the inhabitants of a house act, emits the same amount of love no matter how we act. It means that we in no way influence God's love for us. I don't find that comforting. And it is certainly no more likely to induce decent behavior in human beings than a God who does show conditional love based on human decency.

More blanket statements: who is this "we?" And isn't part of the problem of figuring out who God loves the issue of many of us not feeling like we can know WHAT God loves or approves of? (Particularly the modern and post-modern among us.) I certainly feel this as a non-Orthodox and unaffiliated Jew. The Orthodox claim that God's approval is entirely dependent on mitzvot observance; I'd like to think that he also takes less tangible elements into account as well. So there's a debate, an ultimately unsolvable one. Does God love everybody? That would depend on your starting definition of God's attributes, for instance, how you define the "Is God Good?" guestion? Some people might say that a God that is perfectly good cannot hate, though he does judge. Again, we have the question of whether love negates judgment or punishment. Also, it seems that Dennis is mixing up the idea of love and approval; perhaps the concept is that because we are all children of God we are all unconditionally loved by God, however it is possible to do things that please and displease him. By the way, this whole question seems rather moot anyway, given the old traditional argument that we are so small and God is so big that we have no way of knowing what the hell he thinks about anything anyway.

Dennis blathers on a little longer, concluding by saying the lack of earning also means we think we should all get automatic forgiveness without earning them, and lastly leads to a mass welfare state. What country does Dennis use as his poster-child of "A world without Earning?" Read on if you dare...

America became a great civilization thanks to a culture based on the value of having to earn almost everything an American got in life.

Especially people that inherited their wealth or got it from being slave-owners, right?

As it abandons this value, it will become a mediocre civilization. And eventually it will not be America. It will be a large Sweden, and just as influential as the smaller one.

Sweden? Oh God, the humanity! Better to be hit by a giant meteor and incinerated!

Moving on, Dennis has presented us with "9 Questions on Torture the Left Needs to Answer," another list column, which is what he does when he can't be bothered to think of an actual narrative to connect his thoughts together.

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did – all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

Strawman. The left did not oppose removing Saddam because they liked torture, and I'd love to see any quotes to that effect. The issue was the administration fluffing up their case and misleading us into a war by scaring the pants off of us with skewed information. Also, I don't recall "Saddam's a torturing bastard" being high on the administration's list of reasons for us going in. Finally, Dennis, the fact that one act of torture is more painful or horrible than another does not make the first one ok. That would be like suggesting that we should start branding the faces of thieves again because, after all, it's a lot better than chopping off their hands.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

I acknowledge gradations in most things, so sure. But again, the fact that some torture is more painful than others does not mean that less-painful torture is ok or NOT morally objectionable. To use your example, a first degree burn might be preferable to a third-degree one, but I'm pretty sure you don't want me applying either to your face.

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time – even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents' lives – wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect, and he can provide information on al-Qaida – for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama bin Laden himself were captured – could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

I might even support behavior that I would normally consider morally questionable depending on the circumstances and the likelihood that it would actually be effective. However, one of the more irritating things about the entire torture debate has been that it has radicalized the left and the right to the point that neither is willing to realize and concede that A-limited torture under very specific conditions (while still morally ambiguous) can have useful effects, but also B- other interrogation techniques, like actually TALKING to the suspects, can sometimes get even better information! Do what works but use it as a last resort, not a first crack, and understand that as soon as we start permitting torture in the open, we are exposing ourselves to a very tricky and very ugly moral dilemma. We cannot be the nation of torture, and if the right is getting pissy about the left crying foul over every mistreatment of terror suspects, let me tell you, I'm getting pretty disgusted with the right trying to sidestep the entire issue by claiming that nothing we've done qualifies as torture. (Best idiot moment courtesy of Karl Rove.)

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

Who's "you?" Last I checked I wasn't the President. However, let's think about this, Dennis. You're saying that torture is fine but releasing reports admitting we tortured is irresponsible. News flash, shmuckles: if acknowledging doing something morally questionable and highly controversible is bad, then the original act must be a lot worse! And everyone already knew we were torturing, except that the administration wanted to keep up their 1984-speak and call it "coerced interrogation," as opposed to the other, voluntary kind that apparently involves hookers and cotton candy. At least by owning up to it and committing to changing it and having a national discussion about it, we're undermining our enemies who claim that we all love torture and do it in secret.

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer (Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground... If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

The intelligence community has a job to do and if they have a problem doing it for the new administration they should step down. Maybe now that we have a President that doesn't care if our translators are gay we can even get some new recruits in.

9. You say that America's treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America's far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan's treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

America can help itself internationally by improving its image and standing in the world as much as possible. Our moral treatment of prisoners can help us win over moderates or people doubting the terrorists' promise to our side (ex: Sunni Awakening in Iraq), and it can also potentially help us, as it did with Abu Zubaydah, in actual interrogations when suspects that have been told how horrible we are see that we are actually treating them like human beings, despite having the tactical upper hand.

Nice try, Dennis. But you're still wrong. Even worse, you're still stupid.

Conservative Hyperbole

Life has once again intruded its ugly face. Alas. On the plus side, my blogging may now become more concentrated, instead of long and rambling. (We'll see.)

Anyway, it's been a while, so I hope readers will forgive me if some of the links in this fisking digest are a tad dated.

First up we have Kevin McCullough. Loyal blog readers will remember Kevin as the crackhead that says liberals hate "real" men and Christianity, want kids to have as much sex and abortions as possible (sounds like a fun weekend there), and actually compared being pro-choice to applauding the massacre at Virginia Tech. For some reason, no one has yet to get as righteously pissed off about Kevin's bullcrap as Michael Savage's or Glenn Beck's. I can't say I'm all too broken up about that, as it suggests that, A- no one is really listening to him, and B- that once again I am on the cutting edge of finding asshats on the internet.

Anyway, here's some of Kevin's best recent moments of opening his pie-hole and letting the sweet pressurized bullcrap spew all over people's screens.

- Kevin talking about Obama's "gaffes":

When 84% of the American people, according to the AOL Hot Seat weekend poll, think a joke you cracked on late night television was either tone-deaf/insensitive or worse yet flat-out offensive then you might think you have problems. (Heh who are we kidding? You do! You do!) Just because Britain's largest daily newspaper has a top ten gaffe reel assembled, and online before your presidency is barely 60 days old, you might believe that you're the laughingstock of serious members of the world community of leaders. (Again, likely, you're right.) And when you take the time to address an Islamic Republic via YouTube (after they had been burning you in effigy for weeks) with a plea to come to the table of intellects and have a philosophical wine and cheese night about how the world looks in your unicorn-excretion of utopia, but can still hear the ripple of laughter from Tehran five days later, you might even wonder if you deserve it. (Again, batting a thousand on this one champ!)

Now if these elements composed the entire universe of faux pas committed in your time in office then you might even be able to withstand them.

Kevin seems to be willfully ignoring Bush's many, many, years of making a complete ass out of himself, not to mention all of us, to the world. If the worst thing Obama does in his administration is make a stupid (and yes, it was quite stupid) throwaway comment about special needs children, I think we will all be able to count ourselves lucky. You're grasping at straws and you know it, Kev.

But if these embarrassments followed things like giving the Prime Minister of Britain twenty-five DVD's that were not even compatible with European media players, or accepting priceless gifts from fellow heads of state that were made out of the very historical relics that loosed the chains holding freedom from people like you from being able to achieve your dreams, then it just begin to looks tacky.

Hang on, how do you manage to blame Obama for accepting a gift offered by another country's head of state? If you object to Brown giving him a pencil holder carved from an anti-slavery ship, it seems like your beef should be with Brown and the Brits who decided a historical monument should be made into chochkies. Should he have sent it back and caused a diplomatic incident with the UK instead? Why do I get the impression you wouldn't have been too fond of that, either? To say nothing of the not-too-subtle implications that Obama should have been extra happy (or mad? I can't tell) to get a piece of the Gannet since he's black?

But the truth is Mr. President you're not tacky.
You're cheap. Selfish. You bathe in arrogance. And your words sans teleprompter are cruel, cutting, and more times than not confusing.
I personally have received e-mail, tweets, and MySpace/facebook messages from hundreds of parents in the past 48 hours since you ridiculed retarded kids, some of whom could easily whoop you in any number of sports. For you to do it only the day before World Down's Syndrome Day is an even nicer touch. I've heard from families who have down syndrome children, one family that had three, a number of messages from families that just identified their children as challenged or disabled, and some who told me that their child's diagnosis--like my own son--was one of mental or physical retardation

Again, no denial that the joke was in poor taste-- as have been plenty of comments from plenty of other politicians on both sides of the aisle. I can't put it better than this mother.

Back to Kev.

You do not rule a center-left nation Mr. President, and that's why you're feeling the pain and discomfort at present. In fact you don't "rule" anything at all. We the American people have lent you the authority and the responsibility of administrating our nation's concerns for a brief period of time. We rule you. You work for us.
In order to improve the situation one of two things must change.
You must move center right, or be prepared to lose in 2012 by a margin larger than your win in 2008.
There are more of us than there are of you. So I'd take the hint, and the sooner the better.

I'm not sure how Kevin squares the "more of us than you" with the election results. Fuzzy math? Angry evangelicals refusing to vote for "too-moderate" McCain? Who knows. Anyway, I like the fact that his argument boils down to, "There are more of us than you. Don't bother to count, just trust us. Anyway, be more like us or you'll lose the next election. Do it!"

- Kevin whining about the tea party people not being taken seriously:

Note to Rupert Murdoch: Janeane Garofalo your d-lister on "24" needs to have her mouth washed out with soap, she should be spanked, and her parents should be called to take her home early today. She has slandered your broadcast network, doesn't seem to understand the difference between your news operation and the entertainment company that writes her paycheck, and is perhaps one of the more vile human beings to ever call herself an American.

The angry and ignorant woman slandered the more than 1 million plus people who took part in the planning of, the carrying out of, and the participation of the Tea Parties that have sent the message with clarity and boldness to Washington DC that the taxation and spending will stop. In addition to that she lies a lot.
Garofalo continued with the sort of inexplicable obsessive commentary carried exclusively on MSNBC that continually referred to the sexual act of dipping testicles into one's mouth. The act, known as tea-bagging, was banter for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow--who seems to prefer women, as well as the femininely challenged Garofalo among others.

Damn those liberals with their personal attacks. Bastards!

So what has Democratic party leaders, the President of the United States, liberal congressional power brokers, two failed Air-America man hating talk show hosts, and the national liberal media so bent out of shape?

Maybe that disengenuous Fox News douchebags claiming to just be "covering" the events were actually MC-ing them? The fact that the Tea Party supporters keep claiming bipartisanship while skewing heavily right (who are the media personalities spreading the word about it, who are the speakers at the events, who are the organizations putting out press and trying to rally the "bipartisan" crowd)? Or how about the fact that pro-TPers are trying to act like several hundred thousand people (the most generous estimate is half a million) coming together to protest... something?... on a single day qualifies as a second American Revolution, while the same "alternative media" has continually done everything in their power to minimize and ignore sizeable anti-war protests taking place since 2002, and which in the 4 months leading up to the actual war included an estimated 36 million participant around the world. Maybe little stuff like that.

Americans began taking their nation back from bad policies in both political parties this last week. How were they rewarded for it? With veiled threats and intimidations from Janet Napolitano and the armed goons she now commands! Accusing, then not apologizing, and then accusing again gun owners, pro-life people of faith, the 80% of Americans that believe marriage should not be redefined, and even our returning service men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan as "potential terrorists", the party in power wishes to silence the opposition.

Best part about this: that conservatives are ignoring that the DHS also put out a study about left-wing crazies in January (strangely enough, no one heard about it, possibly because no mainstream liberals decided to go on the warpath about being slandered in it). Darn, there goes another anti-govt. talking point.

Keep at it America. We are not slaves to their leftist vision of what America would become.
Just keep in mind that the more we win on substance the more they will scream like stuck pigs.
Then again some pulled pork on July 4th does sound mighty tasty!

So... this super-patriotic Christian bozo wants to kill his political opponents and... eat us? WWJD, indeed.
- Kevin on Obama removing job protections for physicians refusing to provide abortions:

This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler.
President Obama wants [doctors] performing abortions, whether they believe it to be an immoral thing or not. And while the comparisons to Hitler are made either on eugenist or racist grounds--but you cannot escape the impact.
In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.
In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

Back up. I know somewhere in here you're trying to make a point about not considering a fetus to be a human being equivalent to the lack of rights and status for black people, but what does beating and raping slaves have to do with anything? Do you actually spend time thinking these lines up, or do you just sniff some paint until visions appear in your head and you scribble it down on a napkin?

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.
The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.
As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

So, hang on, pro-life people are only like Hitler if they're in a position of power over physicians? Does that mean that the people that challenged Bush's protections in federal court were "potential" Hitlers, depending on if they won or not?

- Kevin continuing the Hitler theme:

Anyone who spends time reading message boards related to online news articles today can see things that are readily self evident. One of these self evident truths is that today's political and theological left still very much represent the racism they did when they initiated a secret society named the Ku Klux Klan. They do so in the policies they argue for and more importantly in the criticism they level against those who are brave enough to take action.
Their anti-war extremism is one of the most telling signs.

Really? Help me out here, can you explain the similarities between the Confederate veterans who founded the KKK and today's political and theological left, especially the anti-war "extremists" as you call them? I'm a tad stumped.
Kevin's best evidence? Some cherry-picked talkbacks to the Jerusalem Post from people angry about Israel bombing Gaza. For some reason Kevin lumps them all together as liberals, even though one of them identifies himself as a libertarian. Maybe he's just looking at the prefix?
Back to the KKK.

When the party of left-wing America founded the Ku Klux Klan they did so because they wished to seize the rights of an entire people group, intimidate them into voting for the candidates they decided, and for anyone so messy as to get in the way they became people who did not deserve to live. One of the sitting members of the Unites States Senate who participated in Klan activity still sits seated by the same party that founded the Klan. His name is Robert Byrd. Power--even if gained through ruthless means--was the absolute objective to the Klan, and the Democrats who founded it.

Of course, Byrd's also apologized for his KKK activity numerous times. Incidentally, how many other Democratic Congresspeople are past or present KKK members? What's that you say? Sorry Kev, my hood must be stuck in my ear... how many zs are in zero?
Ok, so there are no other Grand Kyklopses in Congress that Kevin can point huge, 50-year out of date fingers at, but not to worry! He can always go back to the "sins of the father." It's biblical and everything!

The same historical parallel could be made by the ruthless rise of Adolph Hitler and his hatred based upon a person's race, skin color, or disability... It should be pointed out that assisting him towards that goal was the patriarch of the newly revived (with granddaughter Caroline's Senate bid) Kennedy legacy. Joe Kennedy the father of Robert, John, and Edward sought to convince those at the end of World War I and through the duration of World War II that U.S. involvement by force was wasted effort, a task we could not make impact in, and ultimately the morally wrong thing to do.

Yup, damn those pro-Nazi Kennedys. Thank God they were the only prominent Americans associated with those wackos, right? And as long as we're blaming politicians for what their fathers did in WWII...
Kevin claims that liberals "like" racist killers because they protest war without protesting all the bastards in the world, for instance, condemning Israel for attacking Gaza without criticizing the Palestinians for killing Israelis. Kevin, all I can say is I strongly suggest you read some left-wing Israeli blogs. Believe me, these people are keenly aware of Palestinian failings, they just don't think that bombing the crap out of them is necessarily the way to fix them. I know it might be hard to hear but shockingly, liberals, just like conservatives, are indeed capable of being opposed to more than one thing at a time.

Birthright Issues

Garnel Ironheart has a post about Birthright Israel's success or lack thereof. A new study shows that almost half of B.I. participants (44%) don't engage in any Jewish activities after they come back. Garnel is even more pessimistic, saying he doubts that even the most committed members of the study (5% participate in 5 Jewish activities or more after coming back) are engaging in religious activities (the example he gives is morning minyan).

First, I think that he's cherry-picking his example-- morning minyan is an activity that Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do not really emphasize. Even for Conservative Jews, who do have more of an emphasis on morning prayers, depending on your circumstances-- location from shul, school requirements, etc., morning minyan may simply be impossible. A better religious ritual to look at for a simple baseline would be one that is a little less arduous to fulfill-- making it more about personal choice and the person deciding, from their own motivation, that it's something they want to do. Say, lighting Shabbos candles, hosting a seder, or going to Friday night or morning services on Shabbat.

Also, I think it's a mistake to only consider the religious component of Jewish life in whether we determine Birthright to be successful-- as I understand it, the original goal was simply to have young Jews connect more to their Jewish identity, and, presumably, to Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people in general, none of which can necessarily be measured through religious activities (or "activities" generally). I also think there's a legitimate argument in claiming that Jewish identity is more complex than merely one's religious behavior-- i.e., more religious Jews are not de facto "better" or "more serious" Jews. (I do not expect Orthodox Jews to agree with this perspective, but the beauty of my perspective is that that's ok.)

Moving on to Birthright, I have a few thoughts.

Part of the problem with Birthright is that this generation (people around my age, twentysomethings, and younger) has the capacity to be incredibly materialistic and superficial-- a behavior that is reinforced everyday through media, technology, and everything being shoved at them under the general rubric of "youth culture." This can then be exacerbated by absentee parents who are clueless about how to communicate with, or show affection to, their kids, aside from buying them ever-more-stuff or giving them free rein over their behavior and activities, regardless of whether they are making smart or particularly good decisions.

I wouldn't mind a free trip to Israel, but frankly I'm not interested in going with a bunch of strangers I'm likely to have nothing in common with aside from Jewish parents. In my early teens I went on a student tour to Australia and New Zealand. I was interested in sightseeing and learning more about the local culture; most of my "peers" were interested in getting drunk, buying drugs, and having sex with anyone that seemed the remotest bit interested. (One kid got offended when I told him I would never try heroin and accused me of being "closed-minded.") Needless to say, I did not have the best time.

The real issue is that Birthright is trying to justify itself to the parents of the kids who go on its trips, as its their goodwill that help the organization sustain itself-- but it's the kids who are actually going. I suspect Birthright does quite a bit of tightrope walking and doublespeaking when it gives its pitch to different audiences-- they might tell the parents they'll get to see a kibbutz and go the Wailing wall, experience a Shabbos, etc--not only are these fairly unidimensional experiences, which you would not EXPECT to appeal to everyone, they are also nostalgic, superficial representations of what Judaism in Israel has to offer. It's a postcard pitch. At the same time, to hook the kids, they chat up how awesome the bars are, how hot army girls are, etc. More postcards.

In both cases, they're giving very superficial pitches-- we can all agree that Israel is more than just Tel Aviv night clubs or Jerusalem cholent. The size of the organization means they have to try to attract everyone, which also means their standards-- for activities, for staff, and for participants-- suffer. No one is holding them to a higher standard and demanding more.

A much more productive and worthwhile way of doing this would be to try to find different ways of experiencing Israeli and Jewish life, thought and culture (because no, I don't think that merely taking them to Mea Shearim or Mercaz Harav is going to get them a lot of takers) that are actually appealing to young people on an intellectual and personal level, rather than trying to get them to associate Israel with a vapid "good times" tourist experience. If you offer substance and look for people that are serious about it, you get serious takers.

Of course, that's also a lot more work, and wouldn't guarantee the massive turnouts or media presence that Birthright uses to tout its "success."

Swing and a Miss

I was never good at baseball. Not only couldn't I hit the ball, occaisonally I also forgot to hang on to the bat. This culminated in one memorable PE when I accidentally let go of the aforementioned ball-hitting instrument and amazingly managed to brain the gym teacher. (Silver lining: I got to sit out the rest of the game.)

I happened to catch the O'Reilly Factor this afternoon, and it sort of reminded me of my baseball skills. Except Bill's mistakes seemed to be closer to hanging onto the bat too long and smacking yourself in the face.

First, Bill wasted some air (and air time) mumbling about Craigslist being the "top internet conduit for child prostitution." Nothing specific (that would be too much work), but Mr. Bill was very insistent in letting people know that some Sheriff is going after Craigslist to try and take them down.

Whoops. Either Bill's got some bone to pick with Craigslist or his researchers dropped the ball. Just saying, you'd think in a 30-second swipe claiming Craigslist is essentially an e-pimp that you might want to mention the fact that they are now apparently working hard to eliminate it-- and succeeding.

Wait, it gets better. Now Bill's talking to a Venezuelan actress talking about how crazy Hugo Chavez is. Among other things, she mentioned his antisemitism. Bill, for some bizarre reason, seems to be playing devil's advocate on this one. "Why do you say he's antisemitic? Can we have some examples?" The woman seems to stumble slightly- "He doesn't like Israel, he's friends with Iran... Two synagogues have been trashed lately, etc..." Wow, thanks, lady. Thanks to your well-meaning but tongue-tied commentary, people that haven't heard about Chavez's antisemitism are going to think you're exaggerating.

Hey, Bill. Let me help your interns out. Hugo. Chavez. Giant. Douchebag.

No thanks necessary, Bill. Just start sending me my researcher checks.

Oh Israel, you are so hilarious.

First, Shimon Peres confirmed suspicions that he is, in fact, everyone's senile old Jewish great-uncle in a spectacular two-fer: Not only did he totally miscount how many US Presidents were around between 1948 and 2008 (hint- there is a world of difference between 7 and 11), he also managed to simultaneously bore and horrify onlookers with a rambling, incoherent anecdote about how Abraham Lincoln supposedly was "totally pro-Israel."

That's right, despite the fact that Zionism did not exist in the 1860s and that Lincoln died 80 years before the state was founded, Peres is trying to count him as "one of ours."

Haaretz has more:

In his speech, Peres also said that president Abraham Lincoln once promised his Jewish "doctor," Isachar Zacharie, to support the establishment of a Jewish state. Peres did not invent Zacharie, but- how shall we put this gently- there are several versions of this story. It seems that one of Lincoln's acquaintances did indeed tell him about an idea to establish a state for the Jews in the Land of Israel, and Lincoln replied that the option was worthy of consideration. He added incidentally that he had respect for the Jews, since his podiatrist was Jewish.

In actuality, Zacharie was not a medical doctor. In England and the U.S. you can treat foot problems without being a physician, and Zacharie was in fact an English Jew.

Let me get this straight: the big claim to fame here is that Lincoln supposedly made a noncommittal (and totally unfulfillable) promise to his Jewish podiatrist?. His unlicensed, Jewish podiatrist, no less. I told this story at someone's Shabbos dinner and the guy across from me seriously did a spit-take, which was impressive given that he was eating tuna salad at the time.

Not only does Haaretz point out that the story is unprovable apocrypha, I feel someone must also ask the all-important "so what?" question- unless the point here is to demonstrate that even antebellum US Presidents had Jewish physicians who bugged them about Israel and who got patronizing pats on the head to get them to shut up about it. This is like when your alter kocker relatives start twisting your ear about how many Jewish Nobel Prize winners there were, or claiming, without any justification, that other famous people were Jewish, half-Jewish, had Jewish friends, liked Jewish foods, or maybe just had an affinity for beards. When the task at hand is playing psuedo-historical Jewish geography, any connection, no matter how dubious, is fair game.

But wait, last week was a really great one for weird Israel news. We all remember the trials and tribulations Jerusalem has suffered the past few years as its gay residents, shameless heretics as they are, have tried to organize pride parades through the capital of the Jewish people (which they apparently lost their citizenship to when they decided to head off the hetero-derech). The Orthodox have not been happy about and have continually voiced this dissent in that most timeless form of political discourse, burning neighborhood trash cans. A while ago a delightful irony (which, IMO, made it all-but-certain that God was secretly rooting for the gays) came up: it turns out the plastic bins release carcinogenic smoke when ignited. The haredi mobs were in fact poisoning their own families and neighborhoods in their mad dash to let their gay bretheren know just how much ahavat yisrael they felt for them.

Now, the police and government have repeatedly made tough statements like "mob rule will not be tolerated" and the like. However this story shows the truth of the matter. Pride is coming up again and as the gays prepare to unleash the rainbow hordes on the city of gold, how has the local government chosen to respond? Will they be reaching out to the haredi community to urge leaders to rein in their hothead activists? Will they put more cops on the streets to enforce order? Just how will they solve this ongoing dilemma?

The answer is stunning in its simplicity. Or is that... stupidity?

The Jerusalem Municipality has replaced dozens of plastic garbage bins with noncombustible metal ones, this after recurring ultra-Orthodox riots in protest of the annual Gay Pride Parade have cost the city more than a million shekels over the past five years.

Yeah, replace their trash cans. Way to show them who's boss. They'll think twice before they disturb the peace again. (And such a sturdy material, too! I know if there's a riot going on, one thing I want to make sure of is that the mob has plenty of lightweight, hard, weapons to throw and smash things with.) Who paid for those replacement cans, by the way? I'm guessing it's not the bozos who necessitated the "switch."

The Jerusalem Municipality. Run by idiots, sucking up to idiots.

Apologies to some, face smacks to others

It seems I owe an apology to Argentina. Long associated with providing a relaxing Club-Med style vacation spot to former Nazis from Eichmann to the recently-discovered Heim, the country took a small step towards redeeming itself last week when its government gave Bishop "too busy to fact-check the Holocaust" Williamson ten days to leave its grassy plains or be unceremoniously deported. Williamson departed for his native shores of England (if he's smart, he'll stay clear of Germany, which seems to be just itching to make an example of him).

Pathetically, right as Argentina was trying to clean up its image, the Vatican continued to shoot itself in the foot, formally re-admitting the Society of St. Pius, Williamson's schismatic order, even as Haaretz and a Jewish newspaper in Antwerp were releasing antisemitic quotes posted on the Order's website in five different languages (because even though they're hate-mongers, they like to encourage diversity). As reporters were rushing to save copies of such gems as "heads of Jewry have for centuries conspired methodically and out of an undying hatred against the Catholic name" and calling Jews "the enemy of man, whose secret weapon is the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy," the Society was doing what cowards and two-faced weasels have always done when confronted with their own bull- purging their site to sanitize it ahead of any investigation and to pave the way for their official Papal OK.

For those keeping score at home, this means that the Society of Pius is too antisemitic for Argentina, former stomping groups of Eichmann, Alois Brunner, and Klaus Barbie, but apparently just antisemitic enough for the Vatican. Good to know.

But wait! The Pope has now said that he is not "satisfied" with Williamson's lame pseudo-apology (which apparently has driven him into the arms of David Irving- brilliant move there, Dick. That'll totally convince everyone of the fairmindedness with which you're willing to consider the evidence). According to Vatican sources, not only does Williamson not go far enough in recanting his denial, his statement was also lacking that personal touch:

A Vatican spokesman pointed out that the apology, which was posted on a Catholic Web site, was not addressed to Pope Benedict XVI.

Yeah, doesn't it just totally suck when someone pretends to apologize without even bothering to address the offended parties?

The real problem with the whole Williamson scandal is that the Vatican is trying to hang the Bishop out to dry as the sacrificial lamb for the Holocaust denial stuff while letting the rest of the Lackies of Pius pass under the radar. Infuriatingly, the media seems to be falling for it. Williamson isn't some lone nut, and the problems with Friends of Pius goes much deeper-- they number an estimated 600,000 followers. People should be asking questions about how off the wall their theology is-- and what lame justifications Benedict is claiming to support his bone-headed decision to let them rejoin the Church. (For the record, letting Williamson back in and then threatening to not let him work as a "full Bishop" unless he accepts the Shoah as historical isn't just ass-backward, it's also ridiculously stupid. So in the interim he'll be what, a only-quasi-ostracized bishop on vacation?)

Note to Pope Benny- healing rifts in the church at everyone else's expense-- and your own supposed moral authority-- certainly isn't winning you any points with me.

But then again, I'm just a hypocritical Pharisee. Why would you care what I think?

Edit: It keeps getting better:

Williamson, who belongs to a traditionalist Catholic sect called the Society of St. Pius X, was excommunicated after he was ordained in an unauthorized ceremony 20 years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong, oh infallible Benedict, but under Church rules, doesn't this mean that even if Williamson recanted his BS views that he is not even qualified to serve as a PRIEST, much less a Bishop? Whatever happened to God's Rottweiler? You wouldn't let Sinead O'Connor be a Bishop just because she called herself one, why does this fool get special treatment?

There's something very weird going on here.

PSA on Backlinks

It has come to my attention that there are quite a few backlinks directing readers to posts of mine on other Jblogger's sites. I can assure these perplexed readers and writers that do not know how to use backlinks so it certainly wasn't me who put them there. If someone who understands the ways of blogger far better than I can help me figure out how to delete these links, or better yet, keep them from spontaneously happening without my control, please do drop me a line.

Thanks,

Management.

Progress (?)

I guess Bishop Williamson has gotten tired of his ears burning. After a solid week of getting smacked around on TV, radio, print and the Internet, he made another important announcement. Will he recant his Holocaust denial? Will he apologize to the people that actually deserve an apology?

Wait for it...

"Since I see that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must look again at the historical evidence," the British bishop was quoted as saying.

"It is about historical evidence, not about emotions," he added, according to the report. "And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time."

That's right, he'll look into it! Well, as long as we know it's in his to-do pile, I guess all can be forgiven and we can move on to being cheerfully damned again at Easter. What a guy. I guess it just goes to show that if you have faith, everything will work out.

And there's more:

"I was convinced that my comments were right on the basis of my research in the '80s," Der Spiegel quoted Williamson as saying. "I must now examine everything again and look at the evidence."

That explains it- it was the 80s! Yes, that most intellectually stagnant period of Western history, in which absolutely zero scholarship or public discussion of the Holocaust occurred. Be honest, I bet you can't even name a single Holocaust film that came out in the 80s. But at least we know now-- after most of the perpetrators and victims are dead or extremely elderly-- he's willing to give the evidence another look. Hey, since we're apparently on a CSI-kick, why don't we go to the source and examine some of the physical locations where the Holocaust happened?

The magazine suggested that he could make a personal visit to the former Auschwitz death camp. Williamson replied: "I will not go to Auschwitz," it said.

Oh. Well, that's ok. He must be really busy packing to head back to the Vatican. And there's the bi-annual Society of Pius church picnic coming up next month, he's supposed to be in charge of the sack races and egg toss... In fact, guys, he might need a few years to sift through all this evidence before he's ready to really come out for either side. Maybe everyone can just focus on something else for a while until Dick here makes his decision? Here, I know-- talk about this guy, instead. That's still Holocaust-related, and only tangentially involves the Church. Go team.

Fun fact: Williamson presently lives in Argentina, which has a very colorful history when it comes to Nazi enthusiasts.

When life gives you apples, spew random crap

It was fun dissecting Dennis Prager's view of womenhood with an actual woman, so I thought I'd invite Shiksa Girlfriend back for another round of stupidity. This week's contestant is Rabbi Lazer Brody, who wants to share some good news with us about apples in honor of Tu B'Shevat.

What’s so special about trees that they get a New Year all of their own? Why isn’t there a New Year for rocks or waterfalls or red-breasted robins, or any other of Hashem’s magnificent creations? What’s so special about fruit trees, and an apple in particular?

What, you didn't get the memo about Rosh Hashanah L'Tzur? Also, I didn't realize Tu B'Shevat was so discriminatory and only focused on fruit trees. Poor little Juniper bush.

Kabbalah teaches that souls are reincarnated in fruit trees, and by making all the relevant blessings when eating fruit, a person corrects the soul that was bound up in that fruit.

Me: Ah, yes, the old "trees are reincarnated sinners" line. Ok, Lazer, but tell me, exactly how are you "correcting" that soul by eating their flesh? And isn't there something a little creepy about that? Should fruit count as fleshig, or cannibalism?

Shiksa Girlfriend: Sounds like transubstantiation to me.

Me: Touché.

Kabbala and Midrash teach that the trees have their own form of speech

Tolkein, you plagiarizing bastard! Bad enough you had to make your cowardly money-grubbing dwarves so obviously Jewish, but now this?

[and] that man is a tree in the field, and man is created in G-d’s own image, then we can say that the trees are created in G-d’s image as well. No wonder the Kabbalic imagery of The Divine Attributes, or Sefirot, is called “The Tree of Life,” or “Etz HaChaim”.

So God is a giant tree. I guess that doesn't make any less sense than Ganesh.

Song of Songs (2:3) likens “my beloved” to an apple in the field, alluding to Hashem. Did King Solomon, the wisest of all men, know something that we didn’t? Absolutely – he certainly knew that Hashem’s signature is on each apple.

Me: Or that apples, like his beloved, taste good when eaten fresh in the field.

SG: Don't be gross.

Have you ever seen The Almighty's signature? Like [an] artist who proudly signs a masterpiece, look how Hashem signs His name in one of his prize creations, the apple:

Hebrew letters of G-d's Holy Name	י	ה	ו	ה
Letter name in English	yud	hey	vav	hey
Numerical value	10	5	6	5
Corresponding parts of the apple	Exocarp points	carpels	Shape of the stem and endocarp	Vibrant seeds

Notice how the above photo of the cross-section of an apple clearly shows the ten-pointed exocarp, the five carpels, and the five seeds.

Notice how the stem together with the endocarp (center, red) forms perfect number "six", which turned upside down becomes a superb letter "vav". So, together with the carpels, seeds, and exocarp points, we get the equivalent of the Ineffable Name, yud - hey - vav - hey, which has a numerical total of 26.

Me: Actually, that's really not a very "perfect" six. Most standard sixes have a more pronounced curve, whereas the stem-endocarp shape is far too straight to be recognized by most people as the Arabic numeral in question. What it really looks like is a cherry-bomb. (Hey, what's the gematria for that?) The vav allegation, while just as ludicrous, at least seems to be a slightly better Rosarch attempt (though I certainly wouldn't call it "superb").

SG: The star in the center looks like an asterisk, as if God is trying to point you to some sort of holy footnote.

Me: Also, Michael Pollan says that in all likelihood the apple first appeared in Kazakhstan. Was there a specific reason for God to place his "signature" in its cell structure in Arabic and Hebrew script, thereby ensuring that no one would have any clue about its existence for thousands of years? Was there some plan there?

SG: Quiet, I want to hear what further divine secrets are communicated through the star anise pod.

Every apple blossom has exactly 26 stamen. What, you don't yet believe that Hashem created the apple and all the rest of us?

Me: In a word, no.

By looking at the apple, one can no longer deny the existence of The Creator. His signature is all over the place. By the way, apples are one of the most perfect nutritional foods that exist on the face of the earth. Apples have been shown effective in fighting cancer cells and efficient in improving the health of the lungs, heart, and cardiovascular system.

SG: Funnily enough, just about everything kills cancer cells. If you put water in a petri dish, the cancer cells die. Sunlight kills them. The fact that they work in a dish does not mean they work in your body. I could sprinkle chocolate or grapefruit juice on a petri dish with cancer cells and they would all die. Clearly, we should cure cancer by bathing in apple juice, right?

Me: Careful, I think Kevin Trudeau already had this idea, and you know how well that ended up.

SG: In honor of Lazer, I'd like to share a short reminiscence of Sunday school that I think matches up with his brilliant wisdom quite nicely:

My Sunday school teachers regularly tried to tell me that Dogwood trees told the story of Jesus- you see, Dogwood blossoms have four circular petals arranged around a centerpiece. The explanation was that the four petals form a cross, just like the one Our Lord Jesus was crucified on. Each one has a divet at the end with brown coloring. This can represent either blood or nails, depending on who's talking or how drunk you are that day. Also, there are some nifty red berries which can stand in for blood, too.

Me: Or they're proof that God is a Commie.

SG: Moving on...

The center has the stamen-pistil complex which, if you're off your meds, just might remind you of a certain Crown of Thorns- another clear reference to JesusYourLordandSavior. And, we got two reasons the tree looked like this. Reason One was because dogwood wood was used in the cross- unlikely, given the way they're shaped and that I don't think they grow there. Reason Two was that Judas hung himself from a dogwood tree. Also historically questionable, and very cheery to share with children. Anyway, the dogwood was sad so it decided to alter its molecular structure to punish itself/serve as a useful visual aid for Sunday school on sunny days when no one wanted to sit in the church basement and watch VeggieTales for the umpteenth time.

Me: How ecumenical, sweetheart. Thanks for sharing. Oh yeah, the best part of this theological rape of nature in honor of nature's new year is that Lazer plagiarized it from another post of his from almost four years ago (back then it was called "The Creator's Autograph- not nearly as sexy as "Hashem's Signature"). As an interesting aside, just a few weeks later Lazer shared a powerful bit of prophecy with his loyal audience, one which I'm sure will be coming true any day now.

Thursday, 30 June 2005

Gerrer Rebbe Shlit"a: "Moshiach this year, or by the end of next year."

Me: Some free advice: maybe Lazer should just stay away from posts involving numbers.

SG: Yeah, I say get back to the lurid sex talk. "Step your tznius up a notch this season by replacing your sheitel with aluminum foil or a mop-head-- preferably used, to reinforce both humility and modesty."

Me: Sounds like you should ask Lazer to let you guest-blog.

Apologizing to the wrong person

When you work with children, you learn to spot when you're being manipulated. Example: The other day I had to break up a fight between two students alternately accusing each other of name-calling. One steadfastly maintained she hadn't said anything while the other admitted he had insulted her. The girl then, reluctantly, confessed to having mumbled "something" under her breath. Busted.

So too with Bishop Williamson. The man is on tape denying the Holocaust, gets the face-slap he justly deserves, and now that he has been resurrected from the dustbin by a schizophrenic Pope and people are upset, he attempts to smooth things over by writing an apology. A good idea, except that he apologized to THE VATICAN. You know, for embarrassing them.

Uh huh. See, here's the thing, Bishop Dick. When you insult or offend someone, the FIRST thing to do is apologize to THEM, not your parents, company, or immediate circle of friends because you made them look bad. That kind of undercuts the whole exercise, particularly as it suggests that the problem with your statements was not their fact-free content or your stupidity in saying them, but that "somehow", it came back to bite the Pope in the ass.

As I tell my kids, "Let's work on this." So, Dick, I suggest you keep a journal of ways you're working on improving your dimwitedness and try not to be a twit in the future. Or, if you're really so gung-ho about Holocaust revisionism (and ditching Vatican II) that you just go form your own Church of Pius (or should that be Pious Church?)

Now if only the Pope would stop talking out of both sides of his mouth...