Eliezer Segal, a brilliant scholar from Canada, has many timely and well-researched articles on the Jewish holidays and modern issues. Considering that I am overdoing the Passion Response, here is an article about The Purim-Shpiel and the Passion Play.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Purim and Passion
Eliezer Segal, a brilliant scholar from Canada, has many timely and well-researched articles on the Jewish holidays and modern issues. Considering that I am overdoing the Passion Response, here is an article about The Purim-Shpiel and the Passion Play.
Onion piece to lighten the mood
At least *my* religion has a sense of humor (Mistranslated Myths Of Nomadic Desert Shepherd Tribe Taken At Face Value)
Do Not Give Him Money
Do not pay money to see The Passion - don't fuel his egoistic blood libel. If you must see it, download.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Cardinal Lustiger
There’s a chance that I will meet Cardinal Lustiger and 12 Fresh bishops tomorrow. Naturally, the one thing on every Jew’s mind when faced with high-ranking Church officials is about the movie the Passion. But, when I reflected as to what the interaction will be like tomorrow – and I ask that question – I recognized that I don’t think the movie’s target is the Jews. Oh, sure, if a few Jews get killed it’ll be just gravy, but the real target is the current Catholic leadership.
Ya see, Gibson’s a wacko. He’s part of a fringe group of reactionary Catholics who think that the current Church are a bunch of “bloody Protestants” (to quote an Opus Dei cleric who insulted my roommate in college). As such, Gibson (and his loony-tune father) want to force the Catholic Hierarchy to make a choice: either accept the movie as faithful and thus anger the rest of the world and upset years of amity; or to deny the film and anger the Catholic base who naturally think that the movie is accurate, albeit over-the-top.
I compare it to Kach (Meir Kahane’s group) who bawl out how the Talmud and tradition has nasty things to say about non-Jews. Either I can accept what they say and ruin my rapprochement with the Secular world or I can deny what they say and show myself to be a religious hypocrite.
The Catholics can try to maneuver out of it in the way I would maneuver, but that’s immaterial. Kach and Gibson engage in fractious thuggery and the civilized majority often find themselves at their mercy.
Ya see, Gibson’s a wacko. He’s part of a fringe group of reactionary Catholics who think that the current Church are a bunch of “bloody Protestants” (to quote an Opus Dei cleric who insulted my roommate in college). As such, Gibson (and his loony-tune father) want to force the Catholic Hierarchy to make a choice: either accept the movie as faithful and thus anger the rest of the world and upset years of amity; or to deny the film and anger the Catholic base who naturally think that the movie is accurate, albeit over-the-top.
I compare it to Kach (Meir Kahane’s group) who bawl out how the Talmud and tradition has nasty things to say about non-Jews. Either I can accept what they say and ruin my rapprochement with the Secular world or I can deny what they say and show myself to be a religious hypocrite.
The Catholics can try to maneuver out of it in the way I would maneuver, but that’s immaterial. Kach and Gibson engage in fractious thuggery and the civilized majority often find themselves at their mercy.
There must be more
TVland, a required location for any Gen-Xer wannabe, has the lyrics to instrumental theme songs (e.g. Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, etc.). And Tenacious D has found the lyrics for "Land of the Lost." It is truly a wondrous age we live in.
P.S. By the way, I find "I Dream of Jeannie" one of the most disturbing shows on television. Lord! Is this what they got away with back in the early 60s?!
P.S. By the way, I find "I Dream of Jeannie" one of the most disturbing shows on television. Lord! Is this what they got away with back in the early 60s?!
Friday, February 20, 2004
Primaries 2004
Naturally, I am following the Primaries with an avid eye. Now that my favorite candidate has dropped out (Lieberman) and the fantasy-candidate fizzled out (Clark) and the Scary Wacko Dude has left (Dean) we are left with two viable candidates, Kerrey and Edwards.
Note, I am not considering Sharpton and Kucinich. Kucinich is in this to make his voice heard while Sharpton is trying to recast himself as a respectable power-broker. Sharpton is a long-term danger; Kucinich is a statistical inevitability.
Anyhoo, Kerrey and Edwards. According to the current political analysts, primaries have a fascinating echo effect. A candidate is given high numbers in the polls based largely on the quality of "electability." This is especially so in this current election where the Democrats are so angry at the Bush regime that all they want is to replace him. As such, the voters are trying to gauge not how they feel about the candidate but how they perceive *everyone else* feels about the candidates.
Therefore, if a candidate does well in an earlier primary, then he'll seem electable and be given higher numbers in the next primary, and so on. Dean was considered the front-runner before the primaries because he was popular. But, his popularity was only in young long-haired freaky-people and wild-eyed yelpers. Kerrey was able to establish his credentials, by his age and (overwhelmingly so) on his war record.
Given all this analysis, it would seem that any presidential candidate needs to put all of their resources in Iowa. Clark and Lieberman forwent (forgoed?) Iowa and they were quickly eliminated.
Because Wisconsin showed that Edwards has legs, he will actually do a lot better in subsequent primaries. Which is good. Kerrey will be eaten alive by Bush & Rove. His wishy-washy, pandering, sleepy Northern liberalism (even the most moderate of Democrats becomes a Liberal in Massachusetts) will be unelectable in November.
Edwards, who is young, Southern and hired straight from central casting will, I believe, be a better candidate. His main downsides are his age and his former profession.
Let's see how this goes.
Note, I am not considering Sharpton and Kucinich. Kucinich is in this to make his voice heard while Sharpton is trying to recast himself as a respectable power-broker. Sharpton is a long-term danger; Kucinich is a statistical inevitability.
Anyhoo, Kerrey and Edwards. According to the current political analysts, primaries have a fascinating echo effect. A candidate is given high numbers in the polls based largely on the quality of "electability." This is especially so in this current election where the Democrats are so angry at the Bush regime that all they want is to replace him. As such, the voters are trying to gauge not how they feel about the candidate but how they perceive *everyone else* feels about the candidates.
Therefore, if a candidate does well in an earlier primary, then he'll seem electable and be given higher numbers in the next primary, and so on. Dean was considered the front-runner before the primaries because he was popular. But, his popularity was only in young long-haired freaky-people and wild-eyed yelpers. Kerrey was able to establish his credentials, by his age and (overwhelmingly so) on his war record.
Given all this analysis, it would seem that any presidential candidate needs to put all of their resources in Iowa. Clark and Lieberman forwent (forgoed?) Iowa and they were quickly eliminated.
Because Wisconsin showed that Edwards has legs, he will actually do a lot better in subsequent primaries. Which is good. Kerrey will be eaten alive by Bush & Rove. His wishy-washy, pandering, sleepy Northern liberalism (even the most moderate of Democrats becomes a Liberal in Massachusetts) will be unelectable in November.
Edwards, who is young, Southern and hired straight from central casting will, I believe, be a better candidate. His main downsides are his age and his former profession.
Let's see how this goes.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
One Reason Down
As you know, I have still not heard a satisfactory reason why the Eastern Seaboard was laid to waste by the Blackout of Aught-Three. One suggestion now is a software glitch.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
The New York Times Leads the Way
When it comes to outing the gay penguins (Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name)
Friday, February 06, 2004
Ahooga! Ahooga! The SOY Seforim Sale
Clear the aisles, I'm a-comin'! (SOY Seforim Sale - Online Catalog)
Death Penalty
The case of Carlie Brucia, whose kidnapping was caught on security camera, and whose body has just been found (Body of Missing 11-Year-Old Florida Girl Is Found), is a good one to discuss for the pros and cons of the death penalty.
It's hard to dismiss the video evidence (as well as the other clues that will doubtless show up; the alleged killer doesn't sound like a genius, as the whole camera thing shows). It's one of the nastier crimes in our civilized imagination.
Kill or not kill?
It's hard to dismiss the video evidence (as well as the other clues that will doubtless show up; the alleged killer doesn't sound like a genius, as the whole camera thing shows). It's one of the nastier crimes in our civilized imagination.
Kill or not kill?
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Cuban Refugees Drive to Florida
Belive me, and Steve Harvey, we have proof positive that Cuba sucks: Cubans converting a Chevy into a boat and driving to Florida.
I ask again; do we, Modern Orthodox Jews, who have pride in our knowledge of history, and who do not shy away from confronting the surrounding culture - do we actively support the Cuban refugee plight? Aren't these Cubans just 'refusniks?'
True, they only want political freedom/asylum while the Jews of the Soviet Union wanted religious freedom as well, but freedom - like infinity - may not be cumulative.
Are we afraid to fight the Cuban government because there are Jews still living there and we want to protect them? Or do we say that the tyranny of Cuba is the political equivalent of terrorism and we can't let them dictate our rules. The Jews in Cuba have it bad - because of the evil overlords - our fighting for the freedom of all Cubans is a moral fight that can't be compromised by muddled maneuverings (i.e. that our silence will make it better for the Cuban Jews; I have a feeling that by putting the pressure on Cuba, we will actually make it better for all the people because the Cuban tyrants will then be fighting against our strength instead of our capitulation).
Another reason to repudiate the idea that being quiet will help the Cubans is that moral wrongs never succeed in creating moral rights.
Of course - given the recent "news" that the Bushistas invented all the "evidence" about WMDs in Iraq - if the only reason we went into Iraq was to depose a dictator, then why don't we invoke the Monroe Doctrine and kick Castro out once and for all?
I ask again; do we, Modern Orthodox Jews, who have pride in our knowledge of history, and who do not shy away from confronting the surrounding culture - do we actively support the Cuban refugee plight? Aren't these Cubans just 'refusniks?'
True, they only want political freedom/asylum while the Jews of the Soviet Union wanted religious freedom as well, but freedom - like infinity - may not be cumulative.
Are we afraid to fight the Cuban government because there are Jews still living there and we want to protect them? Or do we say that the tyranny of Cuba is the political equivalent of terrorism and we can't let them dictate our rules. The Jews in Cuba have it bad - because of the evil overlords - our fighting for the freedom of all Cubans is a moral fight that can't be compromised by muddled maneuverings (i.e. that our silence will make it better for the Cuban Jews; I have a feeling that by putting the pressure on Cuba, we will actually make it better for all the people because the Cuban tyrants will then be fighting against our strength instead of our capitulation).
Another reason to repudiate the idea that being quiet will help the Cubans is that moral wrongs never succeed in creating moral rights.
Of course - given the recent "news" that the Bushistas invented all the "evidence" about WMDs in Iraq - if the only reason we went into Iraq was to depose a dictator, then why don't we invoke the Monroe Doctrine and kick Castro out once and for all?
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
John Edwards
I'm now taking a closer look at John Edwards. He's someone to watch. I'd vote for a yellow-dog rather than see Bush and his gang of thugs in the White House; maybe Edwards can do it.
Joe Drops Out
My man Joe dropped out of the Democratic primaries. Good. I say good because (a) he is the politician I most admire, a hero whom I can honestly say is a role-model for Americans, Jews, the world; (b) he would get his pasty white rump whipped into applesauce by Herr Bush; (c) running a losing race takes time and money away from what he does best - the hero stuff.
Let's hope the Democrats choose wisely.
Let's hope the Democrats choose wisely.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Movie Blurb
Saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The (2003). Not bad. Cheezy ending. The director managed to convey the feel of a different era - a hard thing to do for most directors (cf. "The Planet of the Apes" remake; if Burton can't do it, we know it's hard).
My man Sean was true to form. 4 out of 5 units of merit.
My man Sean was true to form. 4 out of 5 units of merit.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Your friendly neighborhood sociopath
Princetonians, far and near, read the Times account of the very first sociopath that I've ever met. Journalists, lazy as they are, didn't investigate further into Dan's past. As far as I know, he is the nephew of Robert Rubin and he did buy the thesis. Journalists are lazy, welcome to America.
[2008 postscript; he is not the nephew of Rubin, but who actually is the bigger crook?]
[2008 postscript; he is not the nephew of Rubin, but who actually is the bigger crook?]
Friday, January 30, 2004
Let Me Get This Straight
Evidently, Richard Perle (a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board) gave a speech to beneit a charity that is a front organization supported by Saddam Hussein.
Considering that Perle and cronies were the ones to manufacture Saddam's threat to the U.S., you'd think he'd know which organizations were still loyal to him.
Whatever.
Considering that Perle and cronies were the ones to manufacture Saddam's threat to the U.S., you'd think he'd know which organizations were still loyal to him.
Whatever.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
The Dime?
The Reaganistas are at it again; this time to replace the face of the dime from FDR to Reagan. I'm not sure what the thinking is: the most obvious reason is that Reagan is the anti-FDR and/or Reagan's legacy is reflected by a cheap coin.
Look. We have these presidents on these coins:
- PENNY = Lincoln (Republican)
- NICKEL = Jefferson (Democrat-Republican)
- DIME = FDR (Democrat)
- QUARTER = Washington (Federalist)
- HALF-DOLLAR = JFK (Democrat)
- DOLLAR = Eisenhower (Republican)
- Democrats: 2.5
- Republicans: 2.5
- Federalists: 1
FDR should have the dime because he is associated with that currency, more than any other of the current hosts are associated with theirs and, to be honest, any other president can be associated with any of the currencies. The dime is associated with FDR because he began, in 1938, "The March of Dimes" to combat polio (from which he suffered). They don't like this whole thing one bit.
Polio crippled FDR but rose above that to become the most popular president since, well, since his other currency predecessors (Mr. Penny, Nickel, and Quarter). Polio is part of the FDR biography and the disease is almost wiped out.
Maybe if the "March of Nickels" were started to eradicate Alzheimer's - of which Regan is as much of a poster child as FDR is for polio - then we can kick ol' Jeffy out.
Moreover, Ike is on the dollar. Why?! Even then, Ike is a thinking man's Reagan (both genial grandpas; Ike was president in the 50s, Regan thought it still was the 50s; both conservative icons) - Ike was President of Columbia University after he left being Supreme Commander of the Entire Planet. I don't see Reagan filling the 'college president' mold (or supreme commander, now that we mention it).
If the Reaganistas want RR to be on a coin, replace Ike.
P.S. After looking at the mint page, I see that Ike is no longer on the Dollar (he was 'til 1978 when Carter got weirded-up and put Susan B. Anthony on there; now the only dollar in circulation is the Sacagawea golden-dollar. So put RR on the dollar; be my guest).
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
An Obituary (official!) for Mikey
Obituary: Frank Michael Butler: "Battle against cystic fibrosis was an inspiration"
Barukh Dayan ha-Emet: Mikey Butler a'h
Mikey Butler, Refael Michael Yitzchok ben Nechama Sarah, 1979-2004
Mikey died Monday morning. He was one of the bravest men I have ever met. He was a tzadik; one of my role models for what a tzadik should be. His knowledge that he was dying - in front of your eyes, even - never reduced his overwhelming simcha and love for others. He was, is, a hero of mine and his death is shattering.
Mikey died Monday morning. He was one of the bravest men I have ever met. He was a tzadik; one of my role models for what a tzadik should be. His knowledge that he was dying - in front of your eyes, even - never reduced his overwhelming simcha and love for others. He was, is, a hero of mine and his death is shattering.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Fear and Loathing 2004
One of the best books on modern U.S. politics is by my man, Hunter Thompson; Fear and Loathing : On the Campaign Trail 72.
Just looking at the current primary season, (for value reporting, check out Dave), we are in 1972 all over again.
First of all, Bush II is actually Nixon II. The same ideological nihilism, the same craven greed, the same smallness of humanity. Nixon managed to bully and cheat out the best Democrats in '72. Bush (and DeLay) are doing the same thing. But while Nixon actually had intelligence and talent, as well as a Democratic congress to harry him, Bush is a mental midget with both houses of Congress and, de-facto, the Supreme Court.
I think the current situation will make more sense for everybody when we realize that Bush is Nixon and this is 1972 and that we need to be very vigilant that Bush doesn't tricky-dicky the country straight out.
Just looking at the current primary season, (for value reporting, check out Dave), we are in 1972 all over again.
First of all, Bush II is actually Nixon II. The same ideological nihilism, the same craven greed, the same smallness of humanity. Nixon managed to bully and cheat out the best Democrats in '72. Bush (and DeLay) are doing the same thing. But while Nixon actually had intelligence and talent, as well as a Democratic congress to harry him, Bush is a mental midget with both houses of Congress and, de-facto, the Supreme Court.
I think the current situation will make more sense for everybody when we realize that Bush is Nixon and this is 1972 and that we need to be very vigilant that Bush doesn't tricky-dicky the country straight out.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Vacation Ends
We was on vacation for a few days and, now that I'm back, I have a mound of things that has expanded to fill my desk. In that light, I want to recommend one of my favorite games *EVER* Kingmaker: Home of the Underdogs - Entry: Kingmaker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
