According to Linda Belanger, all that is required for peace to blossom between Israel and the Palestinians is for Israel, as “the big brother, more powerful and more “civilized”" to step up to the plate and make some concessions. She suggests that a hasty retreat from some Palestinian land along something called “the green line” would probably do the trick.

I wish I could be as optimistic as Ms. Belanger. Alas, I have see what happens when Israel proffers its hand in peace, as Yitchak Rabin did to Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, and as Ehud Barak did again in the hopes of signing the Oslo Peace Accord. The result is that the prospect of impending peace throws the Palestinian leader into a tizzy, and he sees no alternative but to run from the peace table and launch an intifada.

In some quarters, an intifada is seen as an example of “asymmetrical warfare”, the sole recourse of weaker people against a nation with a large and powerful military. Ms. Belanger may wonder why Israel requires “the fifth-largest army in the world”. All she has to do it pull back a bit from “big” Israel and “little” Palestine, and she would get a glimpse of the larger picture: a tiny Jewish nation on a wisp of land surrounded by huge Arab nations which, since Israel’s inception in 1948, have actively and passively sought its destruction. The more “active” efforts have included launching several unprovoked wars aimed at eliminating “the Zionist Entity” (for you see, Ms. Belanger, the Arabs hold Israel in such contempt that they even refuse to dignify it by calling it by its proper name). When these efforts failed, one nation, Egypt, signed a peace treaty while the others merely ceased overt military operations. By this point some of the “passive” efforts had kicked in. In a brilliant marketing strategy, the Arab nations stepped back from the fray in order to reposition the Palestinians as the weak Davids against the Israeli Goliaths. The strategy worked (and, as evidenced by Ms. Belanger’s letter, continues to work) beautifully. Now the Palestinians were seen as having a reason to resort to uncivilized methods such as blowing up Israeli civilians; how else could an aggrieved and weaker people take on a much stronger enemy? And how about putting bomb factories and tunnels through which weapons are smuggled from Egypt in the midst of civilian Palestinian dwellings, so that any Israel effort to root them out will likely result in Palestinian casualties? Such scenes are bound to play to great effect on al Jazeera TV, where they help solidify Arab hatred toward Israel and deflect attention away from Arab problems, and allow the observers to shed copious amounts of crocodile tears for people who have been designated the Arab world’s cannon fodder.

In a rational world, Israel and the Palestinians would be able to resolve their differences in a civilized manner. They would be able to sit at a peace table and hash out the precise formula that would satisfy both parties sufficiently for hostilities to cease. Unfortunately, in the real world, the Arabs have never come to terms with--and have refused to countenance—the existence of a sovereign Jewish presence in their midst, and the Palestinian Authority has no agenda beyond fulfilling the larger Arab aim of obliterating Israel, even if it means martyring the entire Palestinian population. If Ms. Belanger or anyone else can see a way around this horrible impasse, I and every other supporter of Israel are longing to hear it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:38 | link | comments

Dhimmi watch: Robert Spencer posted the story from the New York Times I sent him yesterday, along with my comment.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:41 | link | comments

Good idea; bad execution: In an effort to roll back the growing tide of anti-Semitism in France, some dim bulbs (who, unfortunately, happen to be Jewish) were set to launch an anti-hate campaign. The centrepiece was a poster of Jesus Christ defaced by the words "Dirty Jew". The message seemed to be "if you hate Jews, you hate Jesus", but it's hard to see how that addresses the crux (so to speak) of the problem, which is largely Muslim in origin. But I guess they didn't want to stir up that other Semitic population which has been doing all the shul-burning and Jew-beating; it's already pretty restive. In any case, the campaign was pulled for being potentially offensive to Christians and instead of coming up with a new effort that actually addressed the issue, they've decided to scrap the whole shebang.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:50 | link | comments

The deadly (and dead) fruit of hatred: A few weeks ago, the family of a young man from Vancouver who was killed while fighting alongside Chechen rebels in an ambush with Russian military, professed astonishment that their spawn was caught in this deadly melee. "He's a peace-loving model who likes soccer," they claimed. Maybe so, but it turns out the sensitive metrosexual was also susceptible to the words of the local Abu Hamza, who, though hookless and fully-sighted, preached the same brand of genocide and jihad.

My queries: why was this "spiritual leader" allowed to get away with this unlawful behaviour for so long; and how many other impressionable young men has he sent down the dead end road to holy war?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:58 | link | comments

Unleavened analogy: In an amusing piece in today's New York Times Book Review, Woody Allen recalls how he was inspired to become a playwright by the example of George S. Kaufman. An acclaimed wit who dominated comedy writing in the 1930s and 40s, Kaufman, in Allen's words, "seemed to have a hand in every important comedy, whether as writer, director or play doctor". Allen says he was captivated both by Kaufman's drollery and his peerless ability to structure a successful play, a talent which Allen admits is a lot more difficult than it seems.

At one point in the reminiscence, Allen writes that as a youngster he identified with Kaufman because he, too, "was homely but sharp as a matzo".

Sharp as a matzo? I don't know what kind of Manischewitz Allen has (or hasn't) been consuming over the years, but I've never had any that could be described as "sharp". Bland, tasteless and binding, perhaps, but nothing that could be used as a Ninja weapon: Jewish parents would never permit kinderlach to play with such potentially hazardous food. (That's why fugu is Japanese.)

Maybe Woody could incorporate this idea into his next picture: The Matzo that Menaced Manhattan.

Double-edged swordsman: Woody Allen neglected to mention that Kaufman was one of the period's most notorious swordsmen, and I don't mean the fincing variety (unlike, say, Errol Flynn, who mastered both kinds of swordsmanship). I sent this letter to the NYT Book Review:

Mr. Allen’s fond reminiscence of playwright George S. Kaufman mentions his wit and remarkable ability to structure a successful Broadway comedy, but there was another aspect of his personality that an impressionable young man may well have admired: Kaufman’s well known amatory career. While married to his long-suffering but endlessly tolerant wife, Kaufman carried on a series of affairs with some of the period’s best-known beauties. Among the most infamous: his relationship with Mary Astor that resulted in her torrid and highly descriptive diary accounts of Kaufman’s priapic expertise being read into the court record at her divorce hearing. I’m sure Woody Allen and other less than Cary Grant-ish young men must have found Kaufman’s erotic curriculum vitae most encouraging

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

Fish flu: Hopes were raised briefly that Yasser Arafish was about to shuffle off this mortal coil, but, alas, it seems to be a case of the flu. When he finally buys the farm (kicks the camel, descends to the old Falafel stand in Azazel, etc.), I hope he finds his own personal version of hell: A recording of Naomi Shemer's Yerushalayim Shel Zahav on an endless loop, and an eternity of trying (but failing) to meet Hanan Ashrawi's insatiable sexual demands.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:51 | link | comments

Al-Guardian solicits an assassin: Bush Derangement Syndrome (coined by Charles Krauthammer, the columninst who was trained in psychiatry) has taken a new and ominious twist. A writer in The Guardian is looking for one good man (or woman) to step up to the plate and murder an American president.

The writer might want to someone from Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah. I'm sure they could locate a grude-holding, virgin-loving recruit to strap on a bomb and blow up that Jew-lover, Bush.

And now for something completely different: Thank heaven there are a few Brits around to help counterbalance the lunacy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:49 | link | comments

Is it Time to Retire “The Banality of Evil”? In an essay in the October 17^th New York Times Book Review, Michael Massing re-examines Hannah Arendt’s book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in light of what, if anything, it has to say to us about evil today. The book, which devoted comparatively little space to the trial of the man who was the Holocaust’s Project Manager, tended to downplay his role in the mass murder of Europe’s Jews. At the same time, it emphasized the supposed complicity of Jewish German leaders in convincing their people to comply willingly with Nazi orders.

But Arendt went even further. In an astonishing display of “blaming the victim”, she asserted that it was Jewish complicity, and not Nazi murder, which formed the most shameful chapter of the story. Then, as now, the charge seems outrageous, and Messing, for one, cannot figure out why an intellectual of Arendt’s stature could have made it. However, Messing has failed to consider a crucial aspect of Arendt’s life: her lifelong devotion to German Philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger, who had been Arendt’s teacher, mentor and lover, was also a vocal anti-Semite and a card-carrying member of the Nazi party. Before and during the war, his views were in step with his society’s, and he voiced them freely. After the war, however, there was no longer any cachet in being seen as a Nazi, and Heidegger solicited Arendt’s assistance to help him rehabilitate his image among the intelligentsia. And even though she was a Jew who had been forced to flee Germany before the war and was no longer involved with him romantically, she worked tirelessly on his behalf.  She was successful in convincing academe that Heidegger was not the thorough-going Nazi he was purported to be.

Arendt’s desire to excuse Heidegger seems to have affected her interpretation of Eichmann. That she downplayed the role of the man who, after all, was integral to the Holocaust, and kept it running like a well-oiled machine, seems to have been a function of her need to assimilate the fact that Martin Heidegger had been a Nazi. To that end, she invented the phrase that still resonates today: the banality of evil.

What she meant by this apparent oxymoron was that while Adolf Hitler’s malign vision may have sparked the genocide, it was the bland functionaries and colourless milquetoasts, like Eichmann, who, by surrendering  their capacity for critical thought in the service of the larger cause of killing, facilitated the unspeakable horror. This banality of evil was specific to the Nazi’s modus operendi: how, inspired by Henry Ford’s assembly-line production of automobiles, they mechanized the process of murder; how they attempted to sanitize it by pretending that mass murder was as innocuous as making mattresses; how they erected a huge bureaucracy devoted exclusively to creating (and disposing of) a single “product”—the corpses of Jews and other undesirables; and, finally, how they ensured that the entire apparatus was kept humming along in good working order by a bunch of unprepossessing bean counters and paper shufflers.

Ironically, while Arendt’s purpose in coining the phrase may have been to soft-peddle the role of Adolf Eichmann, and by extension, her former lover, she ended up showing that it was the banality of evil that made the genocide of Europe’s Jews a unique and qualitatively different historical event. Yet the phrase and concept seem to be so compelling that, over the years, people have been tempted to apply it more widely. Thus, in his Times essay, Mr. Messing cites the genocide in Rwanda as a recent example of the banality of evil; he might also have included a soon-to-be tried Iraqi dictator with a penchant for feeding his enemies feet first through a plastic shredder; or gunmen who tormented and murdered schoolchildren in Beslan. But are these examples of the banality of evil? Or are they instances of plain old evil, pure and simple? Barbaric, brutal, atavistic: yes. Banally evil? Sorry, there is nothing remotely banal about a genocidal jihadist wielding a machete.

Perhaps it is time to retire Arendt’s phrase. It provided insight into a particular historical event, but, at this stage, its time has past and it has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, it may even be impeding our ability to discern and label out-and-out evil for what it is. For that reason, it is time to concede that “banality of evil has itself become banal.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:15 | link | comments

Answering Hillel's queries: President Bush has earned the Jewish vote:

One might think 9/11 should have been a turning point for the 1.5 million Jews in New York City, along with the rest of American Jews, even if they hadn't noticed that Israel has been on the front lines of the war against terror for a lot longer than they have. Now that America and Israel more clearly face a common enemy, American Jews might feel less guilt-ridden about the other element of Hillel's admonition: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

In a world in which the future of freedom-loving little guys everywhere depends on whether America understands the fight against terrorism to be a global war, violent Islamic fundamentalism and a nuclear Iran to be global threats, and winning European and U.N. friends by serving up Israel to be pouring fuel on the fire, one presidential candidate has a courageous and principled record. The other scores debating points.

So the question for American Jews deciding whether to vote for a Republican president, in Hillel's words, is, "If not now when?" If the answer for most American Jews is never, then make no mistake about it: No Democratic president will ever feel that protecting the state of Israel is necessary to win Jewish votes — and no future Republican president will ever take the heat as President Bush has done.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments

A tale of two women: In an interview yesterday, Teresa Heinz Kerry dissed Laura Bush for lacking the wherewithal to be gainfully employed outside the home. She was forced to retract her statement and issue an apology upon discovering that Mrs. Bush had worked for nine years as a teacher and librarian before marrying and raising her twin daughters.

In Mrs. Heinz Kerry's mind, Laura Bush's employment history negated the criticism, but I was thinking, what if Laura hadn't worked prior to marriage? What if she had married and promptly become a mother without ever being employed outside the home? Would that have justified Teresa's criticism and obviated the need for an apology? Would that have made Laura Bush less of a person?

 I am often amused but more often appalled by the ways in which women discount, dismiss and demean the choices made by other women. Teresa had no right to question Laura's choice to work for a time and stay at home thereafter, any more that Laura would have the right to chide Teresa for marrying two stinkingly rich blokes and presiding over their estates, as if to suggest that one life is any less worthy than the other. Teresa's comment reminded me of one made by another First Lady wannabe in another Presidential campaign--Hillary Clinton's equally offensive remark about how she wasn't going to waste her life "staying home and baking cookies." It's difficult to say which was worse: Teresa's, which was aimed at a specific woman or Hillary's, which was aimed at a specific group of women. Both were particularly graceless, and, if nothing else, demonstrate that smart women can sometimes make stupid utterances.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:32 | link | comments

By hook or by crook: The British taxpayer will be footing the bill for the jihad-preachin' people hater's new hand, er, hook. I'm not sure why they can't get him to eschew the cutlery in favour of something that actually resembles a human hand, but I guess the old Jew-hater has grown attached to his menacing appendage. Actually, I don't much care how he chooses to adorn his limb, as long as he is locked up behind metal bars for the remainder of his appalling life:

Why behind metal bars? I feel a limmerick coming on:

Abu Hamza, a cleric splenetic,

Was in need of a brand new prosthetic.

So let's give the old crook a shiny new hook

But this time--let's make it magnetic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:30 | link | comments

The most dangerous nation in the world: Iran announced today that it has successfully tested new missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv. The press release used different words--something about the missiles acting as a "deterrent" to Iran's enemies--but everyone knows what that the only thing they plan to "deter" are incoming missiles intended to destroy their nukes. So now we have the spectre of a nuclear Iran with weapons capable of protecting that status, and a world that can't figure out what to do about it. Some say bribe 'em; some say take 'em out. We all better pray that someone does something before the mullahs incinerate Tel Aviv.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:40 | link | comments

The Kerry paradox: According to the good senator, the bifurcation of the American military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq has weakened America but not Al Qaeda, a paradox he has yet to explain.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments

What I learned in school today: If you were a Palestinian child, here are few of the lessons you might learn from the newly-revised Palestinian textbooks--the ones paid for by Western democracies, including Canda's CIDA; the ones that were supposed to revise the falsehoods, fabrications and Jew-hatred of previous textbooks.

1. The is no such entity as the State of Israel; moreover, the 5.5 million Jews who live there do not exist.

2. Jerusalem is a holy, wholly Arab city--then, now and forever.

3. The Jews have no historical claim to the the land. The Palestinians, on the other hand, do.

4. The Zionist entity is the result of subterfuge between the British and Jews to implant a colonial state on Arab land.

5. The Jews are wicked and untrustworthy from way, way back.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:15 | link | comments

Human wrongs: On Monday, Human Rights Watch released a report on Rafah, and Israel's effort to shut down tunnels through which weapons were being smuggled from Egypt to the Palestinians. While the report acknowledged Israel's valid military objectives--apparently, a first--it is couched it in the bland moral equivalence that usually pervades reports of this kind. As a result, the democracy is slammed while the terrorists, and the Arab states, like Egypt, that support them, are not subject to the same focus or level of criticism. In seeking to be even-steven, HRW misperceives and distorts the issues, and instead of being a postive force to motivate change in the region, it ends up being one more in the seemingly endless series of reports bashing Israel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments

Dayenu: A former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times chides the American Congress for passing its anti-anti-Semitism bill because other minorities are being subjected to the same kind of hate as Jews. And besides, why single out the Jews for such legislation when, year after year, they dredge up an anctient hatred against Egyptians? He calls for a re-examination of the holiday of Passover in light of how it perpetuates hostility toward modern Egypt:

Alas! To this day during the Passover Holy Jewish Feast, many impressionable Jewish children sit around their Passover dinner tables listening to elders recounting to them how Egypt and Egyptians persecuted Jews forcing them to cross the Red Sea into the Sinai desert thousands of years ago.

Shouldn't that ritual be re-examined with the view that it promotes unnecessary lasting hatred against all Egyptians for an act that may have taken place many thousands of years ago?

I guess we'll have to rewrite the Torah as well, take out all those naughty bits about slavery and opression at the hands of Pharoah. They seem to be impeding our ability to see eye-to-eye with a modern brutal dictatorship--one which has nada to do with the ancient Egyptians--that deflects criticism away from its own shortcomings by fomenting hatred against Israel and Jews.

I have a proposal for Mr. Ibrahim: Jews will rewrite their holy book when Muslims rewrite theirs to remove the parts where Mohammed is slaughtering the Jews of Medina. Of course, that could never happen because the Koran is the final, perfect revelation and cannot be criticised, including the parts that encourage crazed literalists to conquer the world through violent jihad. But let's all focus on the real threat to world peace--the annual event during which Jews eat a binding carbohydrate and sing Dayenu.

Mr. Ibrahim seems baffled as to why the Jews, of all people, deserve special consideration. I can clear up his confusion in two words: the Holocaust. It wasn't too long ago, Mr. Ibrahim, that most of the Jews of Europe were slaughtered because of a poisonous totalitarian ideology--Nazism--which posited that the Jews, though inferior beings, were secretly trying to control the world. Today, on the other hand, a poisonous totalitarian ideology--Islamism--is insisting that Jews, both at large and in their national guise as the Zionist entity, are overtly trying to control the world.

Grab a pencil, Mr. Ibrahim, and if you could spare a few moments from defaming a Jewish holiday, perhaps you could connect a few hateful yet obvious dots.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:03 | link | comments

Time's Man of the Year, 1938: For those (like me), who tut-tut the mainstream media's inability to discern and confront the true threat of world-wide jihad, it is instructive to read how media evaluated the fascist threat of a previous era. Here, for example, is Time Magazine's mostly fawning piece on Adolf Hitler, its nominee for Man of the Year the year before all hell broke loose in Europe. While it is probably unfair to blame Time in retrospect for what turned out to be such egregious lack of insight--at that time, who could possibly have foreseen what Hitler and his crew were capable of?--it does show a willingness to downplay murderous intentions that had been clearly set out in Mein Kampf, Hitler's blueprint for murder.

It may be helpful to bear this article in mind the next time you read about the jihadist "rebels", "insurgents", "fighters"--i.e., anything but terrorists--in the mainstream media.

The New Nazis: Hitler used Jew-hatred to help unify and inspire the German people. Today's Nazis are Muslim Clerics like Abu Hamza who use Jew-hatred to rally the faithful to Islam. In both instances, the aim was the same: to subjugate and dominate the world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments (1)

Face-off: Doctors in Louisville, Kentucky are moving ahead with plans to perform the world's first face transplant. If successful, the procedure will be an option for those with severe facial disfigurements. I have the perfect candidate for the operation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments

Ancient Arik: Is it just me, or is Sharon looking downright Methusalan these days?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:18 | link | comments

Vienna Jews: My sister-in-law's 92-year-old father is from Vienna. He managed to evade the Nazis' murderous grip by leaving before the war. Eventually, he came to Canada, where he spent some time in the same lock-up for German/Austrian Jewish luminaries as Emil Fackenheim. Despite the Holocaust, he retained his love for his city of birth, spoke German at home, and took his wife (a German Jew who had escaped to Ireland before the war) and daughter back to Vienna on many, many occasions. He is a nice man, very old and very sentimental, and when he so much as hears the word "Vienna" his eyes well up as he is gripped for a moment by a blissful reverie.

I harbour no such fondness for the city. To me, it is a place that is outwardly beautiful, but that has been forever stained by the history of Jew-hatred and murder that lurks at its core.

My brother and sister-in-law live with her father and come to my mother's for the family Shabbat dinner every Friday evening. Last night he brought a large book of photographs with him. It turned out to be the catalogue from an exhibit about the contemporary Jews of Vienna that had been featured at the Jewish Museum of Vienna in 1996. "See," he said proudly, as he showed me the pictures, "this is Vienna. This is my city."

The pictures, by a photographer named Harry Weber, were quite interesting. They showed the variety of Jewish life in Vienna today; much of it seems of the black-hatted, ultra-frum variety and probably doesn't much resemble the pre-War community of largely assimilated Jews. What stopped me cold was a photo of a wall with some German graftti that said "Jews out of Europe". Underneath that phrase was another word: "Islam".

To me, it was the most telling picture in the collection. In the shorthand of one hateful scrawl, it captured the past and future of the Jews of Europe. Of course, my sister-in-law's father, who spent his entire adult life oblivious to the truth about his city, was oblivious to the picture as well.

He also failed to notice something odd about the lengthy essay at the back of the cataloge about the Jews of Vienna before and after the Holocaust. It wasn't called the Holocaust; it was called "the catastrophe". Lower-case "c". When I asked my sister-in-law why they used that word, widely recognized today as the one the Palestinians use to refer to the founding of the state of Israel, she explained that the museum was trying to get away from mentioning the Holocaust and all its unpleasant associations. "Right." I thought. "Wouldn't want to remind the Viennese of their part in all that messy, uncivilized bloodshed. That would be in such bad taste. Best to use that Palestinian word instead. Any unpleasant associations it has pertains to the Jews."

The whole experience left me feeling sad and disheartened. This exhibit was held before 9/11, before the second intifada, and even then showed evidence of the Jew-hatred that has since metastasized in Europe and the Arab/Muslim world--and the Jews' disinclination to look it squarely in the face.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments

Carborific! I love carbs in every form, from mashed potatoes to mushroom fried rice, from crusty Portuguese bread to mundane mac and cheese. So to me the Atkins fad that has gripped society is madness, madness, I say. There's an amusing piece in the November Toronto Life by Sacha Chapman (sadly, unavailable online) that details the low-carb craze as it's being played out in Toronto, where entire food emporiums are now devoted to bad, overpriced foods whose sole rationale is a paucity of carbs.

I was so tickled, I sent Toronto Life the following letter:

I can imagine no more joyless an existence than toting up carbs on a carb-calculator in the low-carb grocery store before tucking into a soggy, tasteless, Styrofoam-textured, low-carb meal. If my choice is between eating delicious food prepared with real ingedients--including such culinary pariahs as pasta, bread and potatoes--then thanks, I'll keep my extra padding.

Sasha Chapman's droll take on the low-carb lunacy reminded me of an old line from the book (and film), Auntie Mame: "Life is a banquet, and some poor suckers are starving to death."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

Pandering for Islam: It's official--the CBC has become a shill for Islam.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:27 | link | comments

No UNRWA for Sudan: For more than 50 years, the UN, in the guise of UNRWA, has been assisting Palestinian "refugees". Yet, in the past few months an estimated 70,000 people--70,000 people--have died in a refugee camp in Darfur. Tell me, Mr. Annan, what are you doing for those refugees? Where's their UNRWA?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:49 | link | comments

"He was a one-eyed, one-hooked, jihad-preaching people hater...": The BBC reports that "controversial Muslim cleric" Abu Hamza, late of the Finsbury Park Mosque and a jail cell in Chelsea (or wherever it is), won't be extradited to face charges in the U.S.. Instead, he will be tried in the U.K.. And just in case you were wondering, "controversial" is Beeb-speak for any Muslim religious leader bold enough to incite jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:59 | link | comments (1)

The Jewish apartheid state: In an interview with Der Spiegel, former UN mucky-muck, the redundantly-named Boutros Boutros Whatever, says Israel's recent actions in Gaza prove it is on the way to becoming like a South African-style apartheid state:

What's happening in Gaza is madness. Israel's prime minister Sharon still believes that the Palestinians can be subjugated for ever (sic) by means of military force. In Gaza, he missed a key opportunity to take a major step towards peace. That has now moved into the remote distance again, perhaps for many years. ...Even before that, the insight will catch on that true peace is better for the future of both peoples. If Israel's government prevents it with its eyes open, the Jewish state will in the long run become a copy of the South African Apartheid regime. In that case, terrorism won't stop until an Israeli de Klerk takes appropriate historical steps. But I know that tough and intense discussions are already taking place on both sides. Peace will come, with or without Sharon. There is no other solution.

"Appropriate historical steps"--like ceding all power to the Palestinians? Can't wait for that Truth and Reconcilliation Committee: It's sure to be explosive.

As for B.B.W's insistance that peace is the only solution, I believe Iran is currently working on another kind of long-term (but within close-range) solution.

More on apartheid: B.B.G's words point to a distubing trend in Eurabia and elsewhere: tarring Israel with the brush of apartheid. A report just released in Israel says that if, as expected, the EU extends its influence on world events and perceptions, Israel will continue to be unfairly compared to South Africa, and will be sidelined by the world community as a "pariah state".

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:04 | link | comments

A disgusting example of CBC bias: A news story on CBC radio on the start of Ramadan just described Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque as Islam's "third holiest site". The mosque, said the newsreader is "built on top of the ruins of a biblical Jewish temple".

So Al Aqusa is really super-duper holy, and seems to have been built on the site of some random Jewish religious building mentioned in the bible, meaning it may or may not have existed. The Ceeb fails to mention that the mosque is built on the Temple Mount, on the remnants of the Jewish Temple, and that along with the Temple's Western Wall, it ranks as the holiest Jewish site in world. (The omission is understandable: the Ceeb seems to have a policy of mentioning the Temple Mount only in stories about how Sharon's visit there sparked the second intifada.) The clear implication is that the site holds far more meaning for Muslims than for Jews.

Sickening.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:14 | link | comments

Say it ain't so: The International Jewish Conspiracy seems to have gone Democrat. What can the Elders be thinking? Don't they know that their shot at world dominance hinges on Bush's re-election?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:54 | link | comments

Out of synch: Every so often I am still startled to discover how far out of synch I am with the political perceptions of mainstream culture. For example, I just bought the October issue of Uncut, a glossy British music magazine, both because it came with a free CD of appealing tunes, and had a cover story on the 25th anniversary of the release of The Clash's London Calling. (Curiously, the magazine does not have a website.) The first song on the CD is The Revolution Starts..., by angry American dude, Steve Earle. The blurb in the magazine describes it like this:

Ever since he got out of jail in the early 90s, Earle has been attempting to prompt, prod or otherwise provoke his fellow artists into joining his stand against the reactionary forces threatening to egulf modern America. Now those forces are running amok, and in the wake of an unpopular war and the terrifying prospect of another four years of a Bush presidency, it seems his call is belatedly being heeded. Is it too late? Earle remains defiantly optimistic and "The Revolution Starts..." is a typical manifesto of hope in desperate times...

Now, I don't expect rock musicians to be wised up about the threat of Mililant Islam, or to side with their governnments when it comes to military intervention. Rockers have always positioned themselves against "the establishment" (whatever that is) and memories of Vietnam and the counter culture still act as powerful drugs--both as stimulants and narcotics. But I find it alarming that Steve is more terrified at the prospect of four more years of Bush than of the threat WWJ. (Incidentally, Steve, in the dictionary I consulted, a "reactionary" is someone who wants to maintain the status quo. These days, that seems to define the left more than it does the right.)

In the same issue, Michael Stipe, lead singer of R.E.M., and an interviewer engage in some enjoyable (for them, anyway) Bush-bashing:

A few years back, you said, "George Bush is not my president." More recently, Morissey declared on stage that he wished Bush had died instead of Reagan. Whas that going too far? I'm not even going to comment on that. I'd sooner not go there. What I will say is that a great opportunity for my country was squandered in the aftermath of 9/11. There was a great power being felt there, and not in a hating, vengeful way. That power, along with the feelings of grief and vulnerability, the loss of innocence...these things were twisted in such a callous way. The potential in the country at that time was not only squandered but wilfully tossed out of the window towards someone else's land, and I truly resent the way that the country's shell-shocked emotions were manipulated. Because that was a time when we needed a period of mourning, when the last thing we needed was to be dragged off to war.

Michael Moore was asked what he hoped to achieve with Fahrenheit 9/11, and he said, "My ambition is to bring down the Bush administration." Isn't that something to admire? It takes a lot of courage to have that kind of far-reaching ambition, and, of course, I admire it. It's a real David and Goliath situation, and, for me, it goes to the heart of what the media should be about--which is to question and challenge. Because, in respect of Bush and the war he took us into, the media have clearly not done their job in the wider sense.

Got that? America squandered all the good will it elicited for being attacked, and the proper thing to do would have been to wallow in grief and bask in the pity-party for as long as possible. Instead, they had to go exact revenge and make everyone hate them again. Good thing that "David" (or is it "Goliath"?--I get confused) Michael Moore had the goods to challenge "the media" and their gung-ho support for Genghis W. Bush.

I hope that nice John Kerry is elected so everyone can love the U.S. again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

The lure of WWJ: How did a Canadian kid from Vancouver who liked soccer and hip-hop end up joining "rebels" in Chechnya and being killed in a skirmish with Russian military in Azerbaijan? His parents, who say he had never demonstrated the least bit of interest in matters political, profess to being baffled. I suspect the appeal of World Wide Jihad might have something to do with it--the novelty of frolicking with weapons and zealots in exotic foreign lands, all in the name of the Big Kahuna upstairs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

The Globe and Mail does the old soft-shoe: An editorial in the Globe and Mail questions the selection of Nigerian tree-planter and crackpot conspiracy buff, Wangari Maathi, as this year's recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, the Globe pays lip service to political correctness by tippy-toeing around the Maathi's racially-charged views about AIDS, and her belief that it was created by white scientists to unleash a genocide on black Africans. The culture of p.c. holds that members of minorities are incapable of ignorant racism themselves, as if being a target of prejudice somehow innoculates you against perpetrating it; as well, prejudice directed at the majority isn't seen as prejudice but as a legitimate grievance.

The only minority for whom this rule doesn't apply is (drumroll please): "the Jews". Though persecuted, victimized and murdered, Jews are a demonically powerful minority who are secretly plotting to control the world.

I sent the following blunt (perhaps too blunt?) letter to the editor of the Globe:

While I agree that Wangari Maathai’s comments about “Western bioweapons labs” being implicated in the creation of HIV-AIDS should have been considered before awarding her the Nobel Peace Prize, I think you downplayed the virulence of her remarks. Dr. Maathi doesn’t blame faceless, impersonal laboratories for the virus; she specifically blames “white” scientists for conspiring to kill “black” Africans.

In other words, this year the world’s highest accolade for furthering the cause of peace was awarded to a racist.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:47 | link | comments

The execrable Dyer: Gwynne Dyer, (a.k.a. Grim Dire) the rumpled, sartorially-challenged left-leaning journalist, can always be counted on for a good Israel-bashing in the Chomsky vein. His editorial in today's Toronto Star is a case in point. Fulminations aplenty about accursed Israel and those infernally powerful Jews along with lots of boo-hooing about the weak, powerless Palestinians. Like many of his ilk, Dyer is disinclined to pull back a bit in order to see the reality: a tiny nation surrounded by massive Arab enemies who support and sustain the Palestinians. I came upon the article too late (thanks, WriterMom) to have a letter to the editor be considered for publication, but I sent one anyway. Here it is:

In reading Gwynne Dyer’s editorial on Israel’s powerful influence on America and the upcoming election, I was struck by its similarity to anti-Semitic canards of previous eras.

In the Czarist fabrication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, “the Jews”, though small in number, conspire to manipulate events behind the scenes in an effort to control the world. In Dyer’s editorial, Israel, a tiny nation the size of New Jersey, exercises undue influence—and has an unshakeable hold over—America, the most powerful nation in the world.

Dyer attributes the power of American Jews to their unwavering support for Israel. This is a ridiculous assertion. In the first place, American Jews are split in their support; some, like Dyer, decrying Sharon’s tactics against the Palestinians; some apt to support him. In the second place, any influence of this supposed monolith is offset and dwarfed by the much larger block of Muslim voters. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Muslim voters are more likely to support John Kerry.

According to Dyer, however, it won’t matter who is elected. Israel is so inexplicably--one might even say supernaturally-- powerful that its stranglehold will continue should Bush be defeated.

May I suggest to Mr. Dyer that what he is witnessing is not “the Israeli tail wagging the American dog”, but rather two nations, one small, one large, that share the same values and have the same devotion to freedom. Unfortunately, they also share the same avowed enemies who seek to destroy them.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:23 | link | comments (1)

More egregious stereotypes: This time, sadly, by Jews trying to convince other Jews to vote for the Democrats. This vile piece of animation was made for the National Jewish Democratic Committee (NJDC) and is available on their website. It features a coven of evil Christians wearing red cassocks--George and the gang--whose Last Supperish-looking meeting is broken up by an angry bubbie with a Yiddish accent.

The film hits all the usual Democratic talking points as featured in that movie (you know the one I mean), but with a Jewish twist. Scary fundamentalist Christians: check. Vacant-brained President secretly controlled by his ruthless Veep: check. Bush's close personal ties to the Saudis: check. The Jewish spin comes with a guest spot by Jew-hating James Baker hurling an anti-Semitic remark; some insults for Wolfowitz and other Jewish neo-Cons in the Bush camp (they are called an embarrassment to the Jewish people); and the idea that Bush's relationship with the Saudis is directly responsible for terrorism in Israel.

Conventiently, no mention is made of the fact that Bill Clinton (as well as previous presidents) were just as cozy with the Saudis, and that the toxic "friendship" is fueled by American gluttony for oil. The film also implies--falsely--that fundamentalist Christianity is the religion of which Jews should be the most wary. In reality, fundamentalist Christians are among Israel's most ardent supporters; would that some Jews evinced as much love for the Jewish State as these Christians do.

Still, the film provides a good reality check: Jews, that is, individual Jews, can be as stupid, short-sighted and prone to ignorant stereotyping as anyone else.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:29 | link | comments

Gentling Iran: Can't figure this one out: America led an invasion of Iraq because, among other reasons, Saddam was believed to have weapons of mass destruction. The best information currently available suggests that, at most, he had possessed these weapons in the past and planned to build some more, but didn't have any at the time.

We do know that Iran, another member of the unholy trinity (a.k.a. the A of E), does possess fissionable material, fully intends to build nukes, and has missiles capable of reaching targets as far away as Europe. In response to this real and present danger, the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, the EU and the U.S. have been pleading ineffectually with the mullahs to drop the program. "No way, Mo El B," say the mullahs, who are as fond of their yellowcake as Olympic athletes are of steroids, and for the same reason--because it artificially pumps them up.

Now comes word that the U.S. is spearheading a move to--get this--reward the mullahs for giving up their nukes. Gee, like the UN rewarded Saddam Hussein with that Oil-For-Food program? That worked really well. (I know they were supposed to be punishing him with sanctions, but in the crazy mixed-up world of the UN, a punishment is actually a reward.)

And everyone knows you can count on crazed theocrats to keep their word once they've signed a paper because, well, they signed a paper. They promised; they shook hands; they double, triple, quardruple swore, stampsies no rub outs. The fact that they believe that they have a God-given right to deceive infidels (it's called taqiyah--"the better to defeat you with, my dears") seems not to have occurred to the State Department dumkopfs who devised this brilliant plan.

Problem is, there's an election coming up, and the President wants to show that he's not just an American hardass but can play the international game as well as his Democatic opponent. "Look, everyone," he seems to be saying, somewhat pathetically, "I can negotiate with Muslims; I can be multilateral."

Bad idea, George. Really bad idea. You won't get anywhere if you don't--literally--stick to your guns.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:37 | link | comments

Go fly a kite: Remember those carefree, kite-flying moppets in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the ones Michael Moore featured so prominently in Fahrenheit 9/11, the ones whose reveries were rudely interrupted by the big, bad American invaders? Well, it seems some of them have just been found in a mass grave, along with their mothers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:30 | link | comments

Take two: Here are two versions of the same story, one from the CBC, the other from The Jerusalem Post.

In the CBC version, Israel is put in the worst possible light--callous murderers of helpless children (no better than the Beslan terrorists, in fact). The Jerusalem Post puts more meat on the story by explaining how Palestinians purposely put their own children in harm's way so that they can point to the fatalities and elicit sympathy for their cause.

What kind of people, you may ask, would imperil the lives of their own children? The kind who indoctrinate their youngsters with hate and teach them that the highest calling in life is death, encouraging them to become shahids--martyrs--and kill as many Israelis as Allah permits.

It is horrible when children are caught in the crossfire of poisonous political agendas; it is unforgivable if an Israeli officer intentionally pumped a round of bullets into a Palestinian child. We won't know what really happened until the matter is fully investigated. We should be careful, however, in assigning blame until we know all the facts.

Should the story turn out to be bogus--like the now famous one about the Palestinian boy purportedly killed by Israeli soldiers who turned out to have been murdered by Palestinians--you can be sure the Ceeb will fail to correct the version  currently being sent over the airwaves.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:38 | link | comments

Virrulent Jew-hatred in Great Britain: FrontPage Magazine has an article by Carol Gould, an American living in London, England, about the apalling anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism she has been personally subjected to. Here is just one example: (Warning: the article may induce nausea and vomitting.)

Just before leaving for the United States nineteen days ago, I went to my favorite tape duplicating shop to have copies made for the actors who had appeared in the video of my new play in London. I handed the master tape to the proprietor, whom I have known for some ten years. He seemed unusually agitated and flushed. He looked at the material and snarled, ‘Is this another one of your Jewish-Holocaust things?’ I was speechless. He scowled and continued, ‘You know, Carol, I want to get something off my chest that I’ve been dying to say to you for years. Number one, just don’t say Israel to me. Number two, you people should look at yourselves in the mirror and wonder why every so often there is a Holocaust or massacre or pogrom. You bring it on yourselves. Just look at the way you are and then figure out why the rest of the world wants to flatten you. Number three, America throwing money at Israel has to stop, and hopefully all hell will break loose. Israel is not a country. I just hear the word and I turn peuce.’ By this time his anger was so visceral that I wanted to head for the door, but I had to take a stand. ‘Let me tell you,’ I said, ‘If the USA or Israel came under threat I know many Americans who would die for either country,’ to which he replied, ‘ Israel is not a country. The Jews have no right to a country. What makes you people think you have a right to a country? ‘ Me: ‘There are over a hundred Christian countries and fifty-five Muslim countries.’ He:’ The Jews have no right to a country.’ Me:’ What, a strip of land the size of Wales?!’ He (grinding his teeth and close to hitting me) ‘ Just say Israel and I can’t be depended upon for the consequences of my actions, Carol.’ His litany of offences committed by the Jews, Americans and Israel continued for another twenty minutes or so and I came away realizing that a man who had always greeted me with genteel, cheery sweet nothings was actually a rabid Jew-hater.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments (2)

A query for Kerry: In an article published in The Sunday New York Times Magazine, U.S. Presidential hopeful, John Kerry, said there was "an acceptable level of terrorism". This chilling statement prompted me to write the following:

When they murdered Israeli athletes in Munich, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they interrupted revelers in Netanya with a suicide bomb for the bar mitzvah boy, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they strafed bullets through the backs of escaping schoolchildren in Beslan, children who had been raped and tormented for days, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they turned a Bali nightclub into a charnel house, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they sawed the heads off Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg and Ivaylo Kepov and Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and Kenneth Bigley and, and, and, and, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they lobbed a bomb at the USS Cole, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they destroyed a Jewish community centre, killing dozens in Buenos Aires, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they blew up a synagogue in Istanbul while worshippers were at prayer, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they bombed a subway in Moscow and a commuter train in Madrid, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they flattened a hotel full of holidayers in the Sinai, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they commandeered the airplanes that obliterated the World Trade Centre and thousands of innocents, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

When they aimed two of those airplanes at the very symbols of American democracy, was that "an acceptable level of terrorism"?

They have taunted us, tricked us, threatened us, mocked us, manipulated us, schemed against us, sabotaged us, abused us, debased us, dehumanized us and slaughtered us.

They have turned back the clock to a time of darkness and savagery.

Tell me, Mr. Kerry, at what point does the level of terror become unacceptable?

When is it time to say, "basta: enough is enough"?

Half a million dead? A million? More?

What's your bottom line, your tipping point, your "do not pass go"?

Tell me, Mr. Kerry, because I and millions of other potential terror victims are still dying to know.

Posted by: scaramouche at 01:29 | link | comments

Rudy gets it: Sigh. Why isn't this guy running for President?

"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

I especially liked the part where Rudy clobbers JFK for saying there's an "acceptable level of terrorism". Of all of the stupid, short-sighted things Kerry has said lately--"nuisance", "summit", "getting France onside", etc.--the statement about terrorism is the most chilling.

I wonder if he'd think it an "acceptable limit" if Teresa or one of his daughters happened to be among the victims in a terror attack.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:40 | link | comments

The "nuisance" (or should that be "nuance"?) of terrorism: John Kerry defines terrorism as a "nuisance". James Lileks sets him straight.

A nuisance? I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.” I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.” I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:05 | link | comments

We all live in a lemon submarine:

In a country far away,

They built some submarines to sell someday.

A hunk of tin, a floating crate

Got some Canuh-hu-hucks to take the bait.

Chorus: They just bought some lemon submarines, lemon submarines, some lemon submarines (repeat).

As they sailed out to their land

The sub soon foundered out there in the sea.

Nothing much that they could do--

Forgot to get a written guarantee.

Chorus: We just bought some lemon submarines, lemon submarines, some lemon submarines.

The lesson here:

Canucks are dense.

They'll scrimp and compromise for a few cents.

The problem just exacerbates

When you buy submarines at discount rates.

Chorus: We got stuck with lemon submarines, etc.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

The Frankfurt Arab Book Fair welcomes Holocaust denier: The invaluable Robert Spencer links to this disgusting story about the Dhimmi Book Fair in Frankfurt. The fair was opened this year by an overt Holocaust denier who thinks Hitler had the right idea (even though the number of his Jewish victims was grossly overestimated) and suicide bombers are swell.

If there is something more sick-making than a book fair in the land that launched the Holocaust opening its arms to an Islamist who longs to see a second Holocaust, I lack the imagination to conceive of what that might be.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:04 | link | comments

I don't like spiders and snakes: According to a recent poll, the Brits say they are more afraid of spiders than of terrorists.

Yeah, don't you just hate when those arachnids strap on the dynamite vests and blow people up? (via Drudge)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:52 | link | comments

Genocide in Africa. No, not the one in Sudan. While the world has been consumed by the Palestinian issue, it seems a jihadi-fomented genocide is taking place in Nigeria.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:43 | link | comments

Heard last night on CNN. Promo for Larry King Live show--"Mary Kay Letourneau. She slept with her student...now she takes your calls."

Um, I think they may have skipped a few steps in between.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:37 | link | comments

Durban redux? In the wake of the horrific attack in Taba, Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, is calling for a UN-sponsored conference on terrorism.

Call me cynical, but I think Hosni's concern here may be more economic than political. Israelis spend millions of dollars each year at these Egyptian resorts, or at least, they used to until al-Qaeda put the kibosh on it. I also doubt the efficacy of any terrorism conference that has the UN imprimatur, given that the organization is so thoroughly dominated by Arabs and their dhimmified enablers in the EU.

If we were to take the Durban Conference on Human Rights as an example, a terrorism conference would likely consist of plenty of Israel and America-bashing along with an endless recitation of the grievances and humiliations that spurred the rise of terrorism in the Arab/Muslim world. In other words, a complete waste of time and money, but cathartic, I suppose, for despisers of the Great and Little Satans.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

Bambiland: I admit to being well read. As someone who has plowed through many literary classics and keeps up with current literary fiction, I think I'm a fairly good judge of good writing, and can usually separate the gold from the dross. Good writing is George Eliot in Middlemarch. Dross is Bambiland, the soon-to-be-released work by this year's Nobel Prize Laureate in Literate, Austrian novelist Elfriede Jelinek. Judging from the excerpt, the book is a deranged, barely coherent look at the American-led invasion of Iraq. The writing manages to be simaltaneously florid and dry, overly formal and excessively colloquial, and, as the excerpt shows, seems consumed by the sadomasochistic goings-on at Abu-Ghraib prison, in keeping, I suppose, with the author's reported penchant for writing about sadomasochistic relationships in novels verging on the pornographic. I read the entire excerpt, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why they would award a prize to someone who writes this badly while ignoring a peerless prose stylist like Philip Roth. Here, for example, is the bizarre first sentence:

It breaks through, breaking through, the sun, first messenger of defeat, to the lord what's his name again, everybody knows what his name is, the army breaks through the city, mighty in mass the army, but not mighty enough, forcing its way, the army, through people hungering and thirsting through the menacing city full of people on its way, a force of more than moderate size, far too big, its sacrilege is matched in suffering, the city, resting familiarly on the ground, lying there in the desert, its inhabitants long since baked to an army of clay.

"The lord what's his name again"? How trenchant. How witty. What utter crap.

Maybe Elfriede is a much better writer that this, but she is saddled with a tin-eared translator.

Or maybe not.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:28 | link | comments

An egregious stereotype: These days, I seem to stumble upon creeping anti-Semitism in the unlikeliest places--like in a book about poets Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. I've been reading Her Husband, Diane Middleton's exploration of the Plath/Hughes marriage. Although it lasted a scant six years, (at which point, Hughes left her and their two young children for another woman) and although his departure led to the despair that prompted Plath's sucide, their partnership was crucial to their development as poets. Ironically, the period between Hughes' departure and her suicide proved to be the most creatively productive of her life, resulting in the poems which, after death, made her famous and established her reputation as a poet of enduring importance. Ironically, too, it was Hughes'--reviled by the nascent feminist movement as the beastly cad who abandonned our saintly Syliva--who became the architect of his wife's posthumous fame; he was the one who decided which poems to release and which portions of her journals to publish. And even though Hughes was to outlive Sylvia by thirty years, she continued to exert an influence over him. Indeed, his greatest acclaim in later life came from the release of The Birthday Poems, a compelling portrait of their marriage. The book became a bestseller and demonstrated that, far from being the insensitive two-dimensional, love-'em-and-leave-'em lout that the Women's Moment had long depicted, he was still wracked by guilt over Sylvia's loss and the horror of her death, and her shadow had hung heavy over him throughout his life.

To return to my original point: early on in Middleton's book, she describes Plath and Hughes' fateful and now famous first meeting at a raucous party at Cambridge University in 1956. Plath was an anomoly at Cambridge both because of her gender and nationality--there weren't too many brash American girls around at the time--and she tended to rub some people the wrong way. As Middleton explains:

To the British, Plath was a caricature of an American girl, loud, overdressed and gushy...She had thick, juicy lips that she emphasized with brilliant red lipstick. She had an unsettling way of gazing with a scowl as she listened. Plath's Cambridge tutor remembered the first time she caught sight of Plath in the lecture hall. Not knowing anything about Sylvia Plath, the tutor was struck by "the concentrated intensity of her scrutiny, which gave her face an ugly, almost coarse expression, accentuated bythe extreme redness of her heavily painted mouth and its downward turn at the corners." Accustomed to the reserved deportment of English girls, the tutor added, "I distincly remember wondering whether she was Jewish."

And there you have it--loud, coarse, garish, overdressed: what else could she be but Jewish?

What immediately popped into my head was the scene in the movie Cabaret in which Joel Grey as the fey/toxic M.C. is maneuvering a female ape around the stage while singing her a sweet love song. Sweet, that is, until he hisses the second part of the punchline: If you could see her through my eyes...she wouldn't look Jewish at all."

Perhaps Plath might have enjoyed more social success at Cambridge had she toned down the dress and put on an ape suit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

Letter to the National Post: I just sent the following letter to the editor:

It was instructive to read Sir Brian Urquart’s piece on empowering the United Nations and then turn to Robert Fulford’s column of UNRWA, the UN body responsible for Palestinian refugees.

Sir Brian insists that the UN’s problems are largely operational and organizational, that with some judicious tinkering here and there the whole apparatus could be made to run more efficiently—sort of like the family station wagon after its annual lube job. Mr. Fulford proves that this is wishful—and dangerous—thinking; that, when provided unlimited funds and no specific deadline, the UN erects an immense bureaucracy to exacerbate the problems it was supposed to address.

And UNRWA isn’t the UN’s only black mark. Space is insufficient to list the entire range of malign projects, but mention should be made of two high—that is, low—lights:

- The United Nations Human Rights Commission, the body responsible for increasing the rights of individuals around the world, is incapable of meeting its mandate because it is presided over by some of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet. The notion that countries like Syria, Libya and Sudan should be the arbiters of human rights doesn’t just border on the lunatic, it defines it. The Commission’s defining moment may have come in Durban, South Africa, in the months leading up to 9/11, when its conference on human rights quickly degenerated into a fiesta of UN-sanctioned anti-Semitism.

- The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA), which is supposed to protect us from the nightmare of a rogue regime with nuclear weapons, is currently standing by as Iran stockpiles and enriches yellowcake uranium. Mohammed ElBaradai, the IAEA’s toothless nuclear Chihuahua, is waggling his finger in impotent rage while Iran moves closer and closer to nuclear capacity. Of course, the Mullahs claim they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, as an alternate energy source should they exhaust their supply of oil. Since that is unlikely to happen any time in this century—or even the next—the Mullahs are either A) really good long-range planners or B) out and out liars. At this stage even ElBaradai is leaning toward the latter and, should Iran refuse to comply with IAEA’s request to cease and desist, it has threatened to–-gasp—pass a resolution or even—have mercy—enact a sanction.

You all remember sanctions, don’t you? They worked so well in that Oil-For-Food-Program in Iraq, lining Saddam Hussein’s pockets with enough lucre to erect colossal eponymous mosques, and, not co-incidentally, padding the pay packets of scoundrels in France, Russia and parts beyond, and even enriching some of the good folks over at the UN, including Kofi Annan’s son. Although Mr. Annan has assigned Paul Volker, former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, to investigate the matter, the true scale of this massive fraud may never be known. At the moment, however, it makes scams like ENRON look like petite pommes de terres. In any case, the Duelfer Report released this week shows definitively that, far from punishing Saddam’s iniquity, it rewarded it, and would be rewarding it still had the U.S. and its allies not halted the gravy train by invading Iraq.

If the above were aberrations of an organization that was fundamentally sound, then I, like Sir Brian, might suggest it was simply a matter of working out a few kinks. But, clearly, such is not the case. The United Nations is endemically, systemically, irredeemably corrupt. It is in thrall to the thugs and despots who comprise the bulk of its membership and, no matter how many times Sir Brian invokes the hallowed name of Dag Hammarskjold—the saintly UN Secretary General killed in the line of duty investigating some ruckus in the Congo back in 1961—the UN, as currently constituted, is incapable of being a force for truth, morality or freedom in the world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments

Holiday horror: Not much simcha on this Simchat Torah. The news from Taba has cast a pall on the festivities. The death toll in the hotel bombings stands at 31, 23 of them Israelis, and now comes word that al-Qaeda is suspected to be behind it. You may recall that al-Q is something of an Abdul-come-lately in the Israel-bashing-shame-of-Palestine sweepstakes that has long gripped the Arab world. Initially at least, Osama declared war on the Great Satan for defiling sacred Saudi Arabian soil with their infidel soldiers. It was much later, and more as an afterthought, that Osama realized the Palestinians could be used to rally the faithful (in the same way that Adolf Hitler used Jew-hatred to rally the Germans).

So now, along with the in-house jihadists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Israel must contend with international jihadists like al-Qaeda. And Jews and non-Muslims in every corner of the civilized world are targets for the Islamic Nazis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:39 | link | comments

The Frankfurt Arab Book Fair: This year's Frankfurt Book Fair, the largest annual event of its kind in the world, is featuring the work of Arab writers. The intent is to dispel Western misperceptions about Arab society that may have arisen in the wake of the American-led invasion of Iraq. Ironically, organizers had a tricky time rounding up enough Arab writers brave enough to attend, as many writers don't want to arouse the ire of governments that see literature and free expression as a challenge to their authority.

Nonetheless, several intrepid souls braved the wrath of their governments to appear at the fair. Among them, a woman writer from Oman who thinks we in the West are excessively consumed by freedom of expression:

She accused European authors and the western public of being strangely obsessed with the issues of censorship, sexual taboos and the "repression" of women in Arab society.

"Arab women authors who write about how they have been repressed by men get a hero's welcome in the west," she said tartly. Al-Farsi says she is not hemmed in by any taboos in her writing.

"Only God and the Prophet can't be touched," she said.

Notice the scare quotes around the word "repression", as if to suggest that it exists not in fact but solely in the minds of Western critcs of Arab society. (Guten Morgen, Stockholm syndrome.) And that stuff about not dissing Allah and the big M--well, Salman Rushdie found out pretty quickly how that could backfire, didn't he?

I'm sure the Book Fair will help put the "repression" in context--as not necessarily a bad thing, but as people of a different culture devoted to following their religious precepts. And isn't that what multicultural amity is all about--the countenancing of other cultures, no matter how brutal and intolerent they may be?

Sigh. Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

Nobel Lit-Chick: The Nobel Prize for literature has been awarded to Austrian novelist and poet, Elfriede Jelinek. The name is new to me, and all I know about her is that she beat out such better known candidates as Margaret Atwood, Doris Lessing and Philip Roth.

Her books are supposedly very dark and verging on the pornographic--not exactly Jane Austen territory--and don't sound terribly appealing. If I want to read one, though, I will have to buy it: while the Toronto Public Library lists nine titles--four in English translation--they are all in the Reference Library and cannot be borrowed.

Maybe her new status as a Nobel Prize winner will prompt the library to put a few of her books into circulation.

'Fraidy-cat Elfriede: Apparently the new Laureate is not so thrilled about her prize. She fears it will destroy her privacy and turn her into a "celebrity". The 57-year-old author says she will not be able to pick up her prize in person because of her great fear of crowds. Currently, Ms. Jelinek, who is widely known as a scourge of Europe's far right-wing parties, is completing her new book about Iraq.

I don't think there's much chance of Elfriede becoming the new Paris Hilton--tabloids and other glamour-obsessed media being generally uninterested in aging Austrian women writers. But I have a feeling that her political views probably gibe with Europe's chattering classes, and she is likely to get some play--wanted or unwanted--in some of their more popular media outlets.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:12 | link | comments

Nuclear nitwit: The U.N.'s toothless Nuclear Chiuaua, Mohammed ElBaradei (or, as he is known in the hip hop world, Mo El B) is once again issuing all kinds of dire warnings as Iran prepares to go ballistic. "If you don't promise to fullfil your promise to fullfil your promises," says the faux-ferocious watchdog, "we may have to to waggle our fingers some more and maybe even--quelle horreur!--issue a sanction. (The U.N. definition of sanction: a program designed to give the appearance of imposing a punishment while actually lining the pockets of the dictator(s) so he (they) can solidify his hold on power and secretly divert funds into the construction of colossal eponymous mosques. See: Saddam Hussein.)

The Mullahs, understandably, are barely quaking in their Birkenstocks. They have a nice pile of yellowcake now, which makes them feel even more powerful than Saddam with his phantom WMDs.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments

So-called Desperate Housewives: I don't watch much TV these days. The reality/makeover/decorating shows that seem to comprise the bulk of the schedule don't much interest me, and I prefer to read a meaty and challenging book. However, last night I did watch one of the most highly touted shows of the season--ABC's Desperate Housewives. The show centers around a group of four friends in a suburban enclave a la Knots landing; a fifth friend has committed suicide for mysterious reasons that will no doubt become clearer as the series goes on. Like those old war movies in which the platoon invariably seems to consists of one of each type of character--the redneck, the Jew, the philosopher, the wiseass, etc--the desperate housewives run the gamut of female stereotypes. There's the icy, Martha Stewartesque perfectionist who impresses everyone but her own family; the young, Hispanic, ex-model trophy wife whose husband ignores needs that are satisfied by her studly, 17-year-old gardener; the mother of four young children, including an infant, who gave up her successful career and hates the choices she's made; and the sweet divorcee, looking for love a year after her husband ditched her for his secretary; she illustrates children's books and has a bantering Gilmore Girls kind of relationship with a wise-beyond-her-years daughter. There's also another woman who isn't part of the group, a predatory divorcee who is the neighbourhood slut.

So what did I think? Terrific acting, especially by Felicity Huffman as the kid-hating ex-career mom and Terry Hatcher (fondly remembered from the Seinfeld episode where she proudly proclaimed about her reputedly fake breasts, "they're real, and they're spectacular") as the sweet kiddy-book illustrator. Sharp writing, especially between the sweet divorcee and her daughter; I also liked how, in a nod to Sunset Boulevard, the show was narrated by a dead person--the friend who had committed suicide.

And yet, there was a lot about it that irked me. For one, the premise itself--the old Betty Friedan trope of the existential despair of the suburban homemaker--a perenial pop culture favorite. I know that life "is just a little Peyton Place and we're all Harper Valley hypocrites", but just once I'd like to see a housewife who actually enjoys domesticity and isn't wracked by guilt and regret because she's made the wrong choice. Also, I resent characters who, well, seem so stupid, like the faux-Martha Stewart who spends three hours preparing osso bucco for her philistine family who would prefer canned pork and beans. If my family were so sullen and dismissive of my culinary oevres, I would hire myself out as a caterer to families who would appreciate--and compensate me very well for--my efforts. At the same time, the program tried to showcase the absurd lengths faux-Martha goes to by having her bake two different batches of muffins--"from scratch"--for the suicide victim's bereaved family. I know that in chick-lit, baking muffins is seen as horrifically labour-intensive--the acid test that separates the stay-at-home moms from the harassed out-in-the-workforce moms--but really people, it's not like designing a solar-powered vehicle. At most it's a matter of measuring and mixing, and even a child could do it (in fact, my six-year-old son often helps with the preparation--but then, he is a Lego genius).

As for the overburdened, overwhelmed Felicity Huffman character I have three words: Hire A Nanny. Actually, I have nine more words: Get Your Tubes Tied and Go Back To Work.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:08 | link | comments

Magazine musings: I started subscribing to The Atlantic Monthly--now called The Atlantic--when Michael Kelly was the editor. Kelly has a scathing wit and A probing intelligence, and I liked the direction in which he was taking a magazine that had long had a reputation for being bland and rather colourless. Suddenly, The Atlantic had brisk articles by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and P.J. O'Rourke, along with Kelly's montly reflections, all of which helped the magazine shed its bland persona. Sadly, it wasn't to last. Kelly was killed while covering the early days of the American invasion of Iraq, and, while Hitchens and O'Rourke remain on board, Kelly's imprint has faded and finally disappeared. These days the magazine is often indistinguishable from Harper's or other left-leaning publications that are dedicated to bashing the Bushies and probing the infamies of Haliburton.

In the November issue, for example, there's a piece by Jonathan Taylor on Faisal al-Kasim. Unless you watch al-Jazeera, you're unlikely to have heard of him or his talk show, but he's apparently all the rage among raging Arabs. They love how he deflates the pretentions of Arab leaders and highlights the endemic corruption of their regimes. Taylor rightly points out how unusual this is in the Arab world, where state-run television keeps a tight reign on its airwaves and brooks no criticism of its political leaders.

So, yes, bravo to Mr. al-Kasim for daring to filet some of the Arab world's sacred (and savage) beasts. It's too bad that, at the same time, he isn't clear-sighted enough to renounce conspiracy theories like "the 'Zionification' of Iraq under the U.S. occupation", or see the absurdity of hailing Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal as "the consciences of the United States".

This morning I emailed the editor of The Atlantic the following letter:

I suppose it is progress of sorts when a talk show host on Arab television has the gumption to criticise Arab regimes. In too many of the nations where his program is broadcast, such bracing honesty might result in torture, a lengthy prison term or even death.

Unfortunately, Mr. al-Kasim seems to be packing a lot of excess cultural baggage that is weighing him down. It would be helpful, for example, if he could divest himself of the crackpot conspiracy theories so beloved in the region, and resist blaming Israel for “’Zionification’ of Iraq under the U.S. occupation”—whatever that means. Since I don’t see anyone in Baghdad singing Hava Naglilah or dancing the hora, I assume it has something to do with Israel manipulating events behind the scenes.

I would also be more impressed if, instead of citing Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky—those morose scolds whose age has not diminished but only enhanced their disdain for America—as “the consciences of the U.S.”, he had mentioned, say, Christopher Hitchens. But I guess that is expecting too much. After all, Mr. al-Kasim's viewers may be jolted by his comments about Abu Grahib and the appalling state of Arab prisons, but they would likely find the Vidal/Chomsky vision more than congenial. Conversely, Mr. Hitchens’ brand of intellectual honesty is still largely unknown—and probably far too incendiary—to be broadcast on “the Arab CNN”.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:59 | link | comments

A diamond in the rough: An old Borscht Belt chestnut goes something like this: Two women meet and the first one admires the second one's diamond ring. A huge, flawless gem, it glitters and sparkles and emits a powerful, almost blinding light.

"That's an extraordiary ring you have there," says the first woman.

"Thanks," says the second, "It's a very famous ring called "the Plotnick diamond". I know it looks nice but you wouldn’t think so if you knew about the horrible curse that went with it."

"Oh, I'm sure you're exaggerating. What’s the horrible curse?"

"Mr. Plotnick."

Ba dum pum.

Why dredge up a hoary old groaner whose best-before date expired long before Milton Berle? To make this point: for Jews, being chosen is a lot like the Plotnick diamond. It is beautiful, valuable, and admirable and emits a powerful light. But alas, it comes with a horrible curse. In this case, the curse is not Mr. Plotnick, (whom I picture as being like Stanley Walker, Karen's late, reputedly rotund, never-seen husband on TV’s Will and Grace). No, in this case the curse is Jew-hatred.

Being designated as God’s chosen is not the only reason why people hate the Jews—historians list at least seven reasons, and anthropologists, sociologists and psychiatrists would probably add a few more--but a good argument could be made that it is the seminal reason. After all, Jews are the original monotheists, the ones singled out by the angry dude in the sky to assume the onerous task of being an example to the world. “I gave you laws, commandments and rules,” he said. “Everything you need to lead a virtuous and meaningful life. Now, go show the people how it’s done.”

Unfortunately, other people didn’t want to know how it was done, and thought it outrageously arrogant of the Jews to A) suggest that they were somehow better than everyone else and B) imply that other people couldn’t figure things out for themselves.

Bad enough when there were only pagans around, worshipping idols, consulting oracles and engaging in orgies. The real problem arose with the succeeding monontheists, first the Christians and then the Muslims.

You can understand why Christians would bristle at the notion that the Jews were God’s choice. They thought their guy, J.C., was God, and, according to him, the Jews were corrupt and irreverent—their priests defiled the Holy Temple and their political leaders were Pharisees who sent Jesus to his death. Oh, the Romans did the actual deed, but they were absolved of the crime because they were merely implementing the Jews’ designs. Besides, the Roman Empire was replete with potential recruits to the new faith, and it made good sense from a marketing standpoint for Christians to position themselves as the new and improved chosen people—the low-carb alternative that did away with all those complicated dietary laws. Forget the matzoh; eschew the challah. You want shrimp? Lobster? How about a nice rack of ribs? Suddenly, people could see unlimited vistas of barbecue, and for the first time cheeseburgers and surf ‘n’ turf became a real possibility.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:38 | link | comments

The most popular Jew in Holland: Several years ago in a fascinating and brilliant essay, novelist and critic Cynthia Ozick explored the cult of Anne Frank. She challenged the version of Anne that was spoon-fed to audiences in the play and later the film of her diary--the Anne Frank who, after all the deprivation and persecution believed nonetheless in the innate goodness of man. Ozick suggested that this spin was unworthy of the real Anne Frank, the living, breathing girl who was not a plaster saint but was often angry and contrary and enmeshed in the painful conflicts of adolescence that were immeasurably warped by the intolerable situation in which she and her family found themselves. To Ozick, this was not a story of hope, but of despair; not one of triumph, but one of defeat. Anne died for no good reason--for the sickening reason that she possessed Jewish DNA--and there was something unseemly, even creepy, about people finding inspiration in her awful story.

Still, Anne represents the kind of Jew that Europe loves: poignant, helpless and dead. If only the Jews of Israel--those fascist no-necks with the guns and tanks--could embody some of Anne's saintly qualities. In other words, if only they could be powerless like her, Europe could love them, too.

Now, the keepers of Anne Frank's legacy, the Dutch, have nominated her as the most important Dutch person in history. This strikes me as excedingly odd, given that Anne was never a Dutch citizen and lived there for a relatively brief time before being shipped off to Bergen-Belsen. Clearly, this nomination says more about how the Dutch perceive themselves than about the real Anne Frank and her contribution to Dutch society. Perhaps holding aloft an everlasting torch for Anne helps them feel better about complying so eagerly with the Nazis and sending an obscenely high percentage of Dutch Jews to their deaths.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:00 | link | comments

I woke up this morning to a story on CBC Radio about a Muslim protest to be held today at the CN Tower (no link on the Ceeb website). In its capacity as advocate for Muslim rights--and sob sister for Muslim persecution--in Canada, the CEEB got all sniffy on behalf of the poor local chap who, in the course of his travels, was apprehended and held in an Egyptian jail for two weeks. It seems he had been observed with a video camera taking pictures of the CN Tower. In the wake of 9/11, Toronto police and Canadian Security are understandably nervous when swarthy-looking gentlemen take copious footage of civic landmarks, and this oblivious gentlemen--who said he was taking pictures to show his son in Egypt--was mistaken for someone with a more criminal intent. He has since filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government, and in a show of support, hundreds of pissed off Muslims are expected to show up clicking their cameras at the base of the tower.

The report on Ceeb radio framed this story as an infringement of civil rights, and an official from a Canadian Muslim group said Muslims are being persecuted and local police have no right to gather this information. An article in the Globe and Mail quotes another Muslim official as saying "Canadian Muslims worry they're being singled out because of alleged ties to international terrorist groups. Many are now afraid to take certain university classes such as chemistry, or enroll in courses such as scuba diving, for fear of attracting unwanted attention by CSIS and the RCMP."

It's unfortunate when innocent people are suspected of terrorism, but if Muslims perceive themselves as being singled out and persecuted they might blame their co-religionists around the world who have toppled skyscapers, raped and murdered schoolchildren, and sawed the heads off innocent bystanders. I, for one, believe that given the situation today, it is best to err on the side of caution, even if it means a few people will be mistakenly apprehended and detained for a time. That way our towers, bridges, monuments and public buildings won't be singled out and persecuted by jihadis looking to jump the queue to Paradise.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:35 | link | comments

John Kerry's global test:

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:31 | link | comments

The plot against Canada: Philip Roth's new novel, The Plot Against America, imagines an alternate version of history in which ant-Semitism rampages across America in the wake of Charles Lindbergh's election as President in 1940. Roth insists it is just a creative exercise, and has nothing to do with the situation today, but watching recent events over the past few days, one has to wonder if his vision is so far-fetched. Consider the current turmoil in the New Democratic Party. A group of Israel-bashers within the party rain down a deluge of protest on their leader, Jack Layton. The group, which includes Maher Arar's wife, Monia Mazig, accuses Layton of being in thrall to the Canadian Jewish Congress, "lurching toward Israel", and not taking a firm enough stance against the security fence and the Israeli occupation. Instead of standing up to these bullies, Jack, displaying the spine of a baby calamari, immediately cries uncle and vows to resume the anti-Israel invective as practiced by disgraced former MP and eternal Arafat groupie, Svend "Sticky Fingers" Robinson. As CJC National President, Ed Moragan, writes in a letter in today's National Post:

"...the allegation bears a striking resemblence to Protocol 3 (Methods of Conquest) in which the Elders of Zion instruct us to represent ourselves as "saviours of the labouring classes" in infiltrating and eventually leading the socialist movement. This now infamous Russian forgery has inspired numerous far-fetched theories about Jewish power and influence in the world of politics, and its conspiratorial theme continues to reverberate and to surface in the most unexpected places."

Like in the overheated minds of 26 influential members of the NDP. As Philip Roth reimagined a past, we can now imagine a future, one in which the NDP forms the government of Canada, and hatred of Jews and Israel becomes official policy. Don't think it could happen? Consider this: Paul Martin's government can only survive on the suffrance of the NDP, a party which, like most of the Left, has been fatally compromised by Jew-hatred.

As an addendum to the above I add the following true story. Making her way to school on a Toronto subway this week, a Jewish teacher overheard a passenger engaged in a loud and heated rant about "the Jews". It was the same kind of deranged fantasies Jew-haters have long been grippped by: the Jews control the government, the media, the world, the universe. In fact, we even control the big guy upstairs, us being his designated "chosen folks" and all.

The ranter continued for some time without a peep from anyone around him. Finally, feeling angry and sickened the teacher interupted him in mid-tirade and told him his hateful views were vile, ignorant and unacceptable. He made some hateful retort, but by that time she arrived at her subway stop and had to get off. She arrived at school shaken and in tears, and it took some time until she was able to calm down.

It probably wouldn't be too hard for Jack Layton to recruit Jew-haters like the subway ranter to the NDP. All he has to do is advertise it as the Party that is holding the line against Jewish world domination and, thinking locally, derailing the devilish plot against Canada.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments

This story from The Washington Times fits in nicely with two of my obsessions--food and politics:

SAN VITO LO CAPO, Italy — An international couscous festival billed as a bridge-building event among "cooks for peace" degenerated into recriminations when Palestinian chefs accused their Israeli counterparts of using chicanery to obtain a prestigious prize.
"The Israelis stole my land and my country, now they are even stealing our recipes," Palestinian delegate Mohammed Kebal complained to reporters. "The hand of [the Israeli intelligence agency] Mossad is at work here. We will never take part in the contest again."

Good thing it wasn't a falafel making contest. It might have sparked the third Intifada.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

After reading Lileks this morning, I have nothing more to say. When he gets a good a wind under his sails, like he does today, it's thrilling to go along for the ride. Here's just a taste:

"But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I’ve been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don’t? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on. I understand; they are wise and nuanced, we are young and dumb. We’re the cowboy leaning with his back against the bar, elbows on the rail, watching the door; we need our European betters to teach us how to ape the subtle forms of Nijinsky, limbs arrayed in the exquisite form of the Dying Swan. Understood. But I don’t want to be the Dying Swan. And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don’t you think I know about France’s relations with Saddam? Surely the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don’t care. Or they don’t know – in which case their advice is useless."

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:08 | link | comments

The New Larousse Gastronomique word for today is "turtle":

"MOCK TURTLE SOUP (English Cookery). POTAGE FAUSSE TORTUE - Soup made with calf's head."

I much prefer it to the alternative- mock calf's head soup made with turtle.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments