Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite?

Rep. Ron Paul has been accused so it needs to be cleared up. (Some accusations: from John Podhoretz at Commentary, some guy at the NY Sun, and another random guy at the right-wing Pajamas Media).

Most of the accusers are neo-con wannabes who assume that anyone against the Iraq War (or their desired Iran War) are against Israel and thus anti-Semitic. Note, these wannabes also assume that when someone criticizes any "neo-con" or even uses the term then they are anti-Semitic. For the record, when the neo-cons start keeping Shabbas, then I'll listen to them about what is Jewish.

The two main arguments that he's an anti-Semite are that (1) racist and quasi-Antisemitic comments were made in a newsletter under his name, and (2) he has voted against American aid to Israel.

According to this July 2007 NYTimes story both accusations can be explained away via Paul's inveterate idiosyncrasies:

In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

As far as I can tell, Paul is ideologically simplistic but his backing of Israel's right to defend itself is the most important aspect of his practical philosophy. I believe that he didn't say the racist stuff because many people have come forward and 'testified' that he doesn't talk like that. His support for Israel is limited by his even greater support for Libertarian Ayn-Randism.

His biggest problem as it relates to 21st Century Identity Politics is that his libertarianism is quite attractive to fringe groups, wackos, neo-Nazis, and the like. The fact that someone ghost wrote racist comments under his name is proof of this... that Paul attracts, and seems to hire, Klan type wackos who think he holds their views. Note, I don't think he does. But can he be held accountable for being passive about the wackos he attracts?

Well, the GOP has those same Klan wackos as part of their voting bloc (the whole immigrant bashing path demonstrates this). The GOP does more than Paul does in courting those people. Paul seems passive about the wackos; he doesn't pander to them like the GOP has done with the "southern strategy" racism and Tancredo anti-immigration-ism. Now *that* stuff is racist.

I'd say that Paul is too small time to be held accountable for the wackos he attracts but if he starts getting into a national office, he needs to be explicit in his anti-anti-Semitism and anti-racism.

And, note to the Republicans crying "anti-Semite" about Ron Paul: (1) clean your own house, (2) I thought you didn't like identity politics?, (3) you guys say vicious things about Muslims and anyone who makes unsubstantiated blanket statements about an ethnicity should be under suspicion for racism, so your claims of anti-Semitism are disingenuous (a.k.a. you're a bunch of slimeball liars).

{2009 Update: Ron Paul as Che T-Shirt pic from here.}

Great Ike Quote

From Scott Horton's must-read Harper's blog, a quote from Pres. Eisenhower about military spending:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

–Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.

Ike is considered a moderate Republican although I put him more in the Bloomberg school of the GOP - i.e. a Republican because that would get him the best shot at the office he wanted, not because he was ideologically committed to the party.

Does Edwards Hate Hillary?

I can imagine he does. Why? For ideological and personal reasons:

Ideological

1. He is against the politicians who are captives of the big corporations and their lobbies. What he did professionally as a trial lawyer was go after pharmaceutical companies, and other soulless little-people-crushers... and these are the people who give Hillary money. In fact, while it may have been a fatal error, his decision to go for public funding was to demonstrate you could run for president while not being in the Lobbyists' pockets.
   
   
2. Hillary is a bad and constant liar. Edwards seems to be a true goody-two-shoes and he's against her style of politics.
   
   

Personal

1. She's a mean person who has a good chance to lose in the general election. What's to like?
   
   
2. She claims to be a feminist and a representative of all that's best in the roaring modern woman when she is clearly an anti-feminist figure. Edwards resents that (his wife talks about this).
   
   
3. And now I find that there's bad blood in the past. See this story from a 2003 Newsweek: "When she wanted prime time [on CSPAN] -- and lots of it -- to explain in a lengthy floor speech why she was backing Bush on Iraq, [Hillary] Clinton asked [Senator] Byrd to give her a chunk of his time. He happily agreed. When the hard-charging and Hollywood-handsome Sen. John Edwards rushed to the floor at the last minute and asked to speak, Democratic leaders had no time left to give him. Clinton couldn't restrain a triumphant grin at the plight of a clear rival--in fact, one who is seeking the 2004 nomination. She spoke to him in a near shout--loud enough for the galleries to hear. "Just stand there and look pretty, John," she said. He smiled wanly, and rushed from the chamber." (Emphasis mine)

"Just stand there and look pretty, John"?! Even if I wasn't supporting the man, I'd be angry at that idiocy. She needs taking down (and she's dropping more now and just wait until tomorrow night's debate!)

Dummies Update

OK. Here is the worst title of them all:

Depression for Dummies.

It'd be funny except I've known a few people who've attempted suicide in my time as a professional...

For Dummies

I really can't stand the title conceit for the "_ for Dummies" book. I guess it was cute for the first 15 minutes, and maybe it still helps give people a good shot of modesty. But, yeah, really? It's just insulting. And there have been some good authors who write these books and yet who can read a book that says "Judaism for Dummies/Complete Idiots."

An example of the absurdity of the Dummies books is this one: "Endometriosis For Dummies" Let's be serious here: how many people are not, uh, "dummies" when it comes to this topic? I have no idea what it is, and I'll be damned if I'll let an arrogant yellow book call me stupid.

Update: It can also lead to some VERY insulting titles, like this here "Alzheimer's for Dummies" or "Baby Names for Dummies" (e.g. my favorite? Moron P. Mouthbreather III) or its followup "Infertility for Dummies" (doesn't that just break the ice for a crushing emotional burden? "Here ya go dummies... kinda glad you can't breed!")

About Time! Beggars Banned from Kotel Plaza

According to the Jerusalem Post ("Praying, yes - begging, no", the Jerusalem police are finally cracking down on this odious practice:

Praying, yes - but begging, no.

That's the state's decision after years of mounting complaints of aggressive - and often violent - behavior by scores of beggars at the Western Wall.

The long-delayed decision to enforce the ruling starting Thursday was taken after groups of beggars disregarded warnings from Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch over the last year not to harass visitors.

A year and a half ago, Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz instructed Rabinovitch and police to act against the beggars in accordance with the law. The haredi rabbi first tried to persuade the charity-seekers to change their violent ways, assuring them that if they asked for money in a respectful fashion he would not distance them from the holy site.

His pleas fell on deaf ears, and organized groups of beggars continued to come from the central region and violently harass visitors.

"They really went overboard and became brutal," Rabinovitch said, adding that he had received thousands of complaints from visitors, some of whom were even deceived into paying admission to enter the site. "It pains me that we have come to this."

Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said police were helping to remove violent beggars. But many of the panhandlers vowed not to leave.

For years, it has been almost impossible to reach the Western Wall without being accosted by a platoon of beggars rattling change or dangling ribbons for sale.

Visitors have been physically assaulted for giving "too little," while a donation - especially a sizable one - to one beggar often results in a swarm of others eager to get their share.

On Thursday, the beggars had been distanced from the Wall itself, but were still stopping visitors in the adjacent plaza, with their calls for a dollar or a euro in exchange for a red ribbon or a skullcap.

The Jerusalem Municipality has said the beggars usually do not accept assistance offered by city social workers.

And you add this to the awesome teshuva given by my new favorite Gadol Ha-Dor, Rav Shlomo Aviner:

24 Marcheshvan 5768
Prepared by Rabbi Mordechai Friedfertig

Question: When I visit the Kotel, there are so many people asking for money, should I give money to the beggars? What about people on the street? What about people who knock on my door and ask for money?

Answer:
A. Most Beggars are Swindlers

The Halachah is that we do not give money to beggars until we clarify that they are truly poor. This is a "Takanat Chazal" (Ruling of our Sages) since most beggars are swindlers. This ruling is found in the Gemara in Baba Batra (9a) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 251:10) and it applies to this day. Ninety percent of people who ask for money today are swindlers. If someone asks for money we do not give it until he provides verification from a reliable Rabbi. If someone asks for food, however, we give him immediately. What if he is being deceptive? It is a potentially life-threatening situation and we therefore provide food without delay. Today, most beggars in Israel do not ask for food because there are many soup kitchens, and if you offer them food, they say that they prefer money.

B. Is Giving Tzedakah to Someone who is not Poor a Mitzvah?

The halachic authorities discuss if one fulfills the mitzvah of giving tzedakah if the recipient is in fact not poor. They point to the Gemara in Baba Batra (8b) and explain that not only does one not fulfill the mitzvah, but he also loses out on the mitzvah to give that money to truly poor people. Perhaps you will say that giving tzedakah is still worthwhile even if the person is not poor since it strengthens one's personal character trats (tikkun midot), as the Rambam explains in his introduction to Pirkei Avot, that by performing an act over and over, one will achieve proper characteristic traits. This, however, does not occur when one is performing an act which is not beneficial. A person is cruel if he does not give to the poor, but he is not kind if he gives to the wealthy. We have to give to truly poor people. A person should not buckle under emotional pressure from a beggar: I have many children and a husband who is sick, you have a kippah but you are not really observant, you give a shekel and they throw it down, etc… If a person was poor before he asked for money at the Kotel, after a day he would no long be considered poor: They collect 1000 shekels a day!

C. Rabbinic Verification Even to provide rabbinic verification is problematic today.

Anyone can print a Rabbi's letter or signature off the internet in thirty seconds. One time some people from a tzedakah organization in Ashdod came and asked for my signature. I did not know them and asked if they had other Rabbis' signatures. They told me that they had the support of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I said: If so, I will blindly support it. Please send me the letter. When I received it, I saw that in the signature there was an extra "alef" in the last name "Schneersohn" and instead of being signed by the last Rebbe – Ha-Rav Menachem Mendel, it was signed by the previous Rebbe – Ha-Rav Yosef Yitzchak, who died almost sixty years ago! It was a forgery! Often times there are people who request money for yeshivot or organizations which do not exist, never existed and will never exist. One time I signed a letter in support of giving money to the poor. I found out that they were giving $1000 to anyone about to be drafted into "Nachal Ha-Charedi" (Ultra-Orthodox unit in the army) to convince them not to join. They claimed they were poor: They were in great spiritual poverty if they were about to join Tzahal. I called and requested my name be removed from the letter, but they did not. I called again, no response. I called again, no response. I sent a letter, no response. I sent a letter from a lawyer and they called: "Why not talk like a mensch? Come on, let's talk," etc… We have to be extremely careful about where we give our money.

In sum: We only give tzedakah to people who we can verify are poor or to trustworthy organizations. Give to one, two, three trustworthy organizations. It is not possible to provide for every poor person in any event. Most beggars are not evil people, they are mentally and emotionally unstable. We do not judge them, but we only give tzedakah to actual poor people.

I've been saying what Rav Aviner said for YEARS but have not been able to get a Gadol to back me up. Finally.

{2009 Update: Lego beggar pic from this fun site.}

Rabbi Akiva and his students

Recently, I commented on this this fellow's blog; his entry was:

Posted by Larry Lennhoff at 9:15 AM, Tuesday, July 31, 2007 A quick thought about Rabbi Akiva. It is out of season I know, but it occurred to me that 1000 pairs (couples?) of students died for each additional year Rabbi Akiva stayed away after from Rachel after he became a Talmid Chacham.

My response:

Hi Larry,

Just floated to your blog after seeing a comment you made on Hirhurim.

I gave a drasha on this topic. I think the answer to your question is seen in the Aggadata (TB Nedarim 50a) - when Rabbi Akiva returned after 14 years with his 24000 students, they repudiated Akiva's wife: "So she went to see him, but the disciples wished to repulse her. ‘Make way for her,’ he told them, ‘for my [learning] and yours are hers.’"(translation Soncino)

Hence I think the Gemara is telling us that the nature of the students' sin was related to Akiva's absence from his wife.

See this article for some more sources. Just to expand on the point I made in the Drasha: the fact that the original students - i.e. the ones who died - didn't get to see their Rosh Yeshiva in a human, loving, normal family relationship, they grew to believe that their Torah knowledge was more important than human relations. The fact that they would brush a woman aside - to treat her with disrespect - can be extrapolated to how they must have treated each other.

{2009 Update: Pic of Hadrian and Rabbi Akiva from here.}

Hillary the Bully

Seems that others echo my point about Hillary's attack on Edwards. According to the New Republic's Noam Schreiber and Mike Crowley:

the Clinton campaign relies heavily on what game theorists like to call “retaliatory escalation”—a.k.a. “club[bing] would-be attackers over the head with their own words.”

Case in point: Yesterday, John Edwards slammed Clinton for coaching audience members at a Q&A, calling the tactic “what George Bush does.” The Clinton team responded, “What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country … Sen. Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

And it worked! The exchange didn’t get much play in the papers, but CNN ran the headline, “Clinton camp accuses Edwards of acting like Bush.” Coaching the audience? Below the fold.

I really really hate Hillary.

What's the Matter with Iowa/New Hampshire

While I may still be a defender of the Electoral College system (more on that later), I am pretty pissed off over the primary system. The current system, or so I've been told, was introduced by the Democrats by Senator Loser McGovern following the 'disaster' of 1968 - when the Democratic nominee was not the winner of the primaries. Hubert Horatio Humbert Hubert Humphrey was the choice of the party bosses and not the rank-and-file Democrats. So in 1972 the rank-and-file got to choose their champion - and who woulda guessed it was Loser McGovern - and we've gotten horrible populist liberals for pretty much every cycle (except for the glorious anomaly of 1992).

Note, HHHH Humphrey could have won in 1968 if it weren't for Wallace. So why did we need to improve our system?

And the Wiki confirms the McGovern idiocy:

McGovern had led a commission to redesign the Democratic nomination system after the messy and confused nomination struggle and convention of 1968. The fundamental principle of the McGovern Commission—that the Democratic primaries should determine the winner of the Democratic nomination—lasted throughout every subsequent nomination contest.

The current season's primary weirdness (with many states jockeying to be 'first' or at least much earlier) seems to be tied all the way back to this McGovern Disaster.

As it stands, we have two states which disproportionately determine the candidates: Iowa and New Hampshire. I can't find statistics yet to prove this, but it's pretty common knowledge that the first primaries create a snowball affect, such that if you win Iowa and New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent South Carolina, the #3), then you got yourself the nomination. This, in recent history, is how we got reamed with John Freakin' Kerry as the nominee in 2004. [Barfing sounds]

It's bad enough that two states dominate the fate of our nation. And they're not bad, considering that both are "purple" states and represent two important regions (Midwest, Northeast). The problem is that they are freaky elections.

Iowa is not even a primary, it's a caucus. And it's crazy. Read this good Washington Post piece to get an idea of how crazy it is. Basically instead of a vote, the Iowaians have to go to a meeting - which lasts for hours - and argue out loud about the candidates and then - again after a bunch of hours - 'vote with their feet.' How dandy.

This 'caucus' naturally is better for the candidates that appeal to people who have WAY TOO MUCH FREAKING TIME ON THEIR HANDS. The counts out the young people, parents with young kids, parents in general, the employed. And yet this freaky state gave us Kerry - and the whole devastating loss of 2004.

New Hampshire is a straight out, good ol' meat and potatoes vote-in-a-booth primary. Except, get ready for more dandy-ness, it is not a "closed primary" - which means that independents can vote in the Democratic primary. On one side, I like that because independents are usually more moderate. On the other side, why are non-Democrats choosing my freakin' nominee.

The primary system is quite broken. My suggestion is to have a rotating lottery of primary states - the order set by the RNC & DNC together - and that way each region can get their turn to mess us all up.

Either choose a few states to go first or be nice to the candidates and split the U.S. into 8-10 regions, and pair them into opposite types (e.g. Southwest and California or New England and Texas) and choose randomly from the pairs.

{2009 Update: Many pics from this guy's website - he has a lot about the primaries through history. And it's either in Spanish or whatever the Basque speak.}

Fear of a Female President?

Yet another column from the New Republic by Michelle Cottle, about how people just don't like Hillary because it's ingrained in the American psyche to assume that any high-ranking woman is automatically a Bit-h (or is it b-tch? or bi-ch?). Anyway, because we think powerful women are mean and unfeminine, Hillary is seen that way. And, using a hidden syllogism technique unknown to Socrates, that's why Hillary is unliked.

So, by the numbers:

1. I hated Hillary when she was Bill's wife. First ladies have no power.
   


2. I don't hate all first ladies. Yeah, I didn't like Nancy, but I am indifferent to Barabara & Laura Bush.
   


3. I have no problem with these women who are (currently) in power: Barbara Boxer, or Dianne Feinstein, or Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Mikulski, or Amy Klobuchar, or Blanche Lincoln, or Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins, or Claire McCaskill, and Nancy Pelosi.
   
   These are the current Senators from California (2), North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Arkansas, Maine (2), Missouri and the Speaker of the House. I am bipartisan in my 'no-problem-ness' (except that I have an instinctive dislike for Kay Bailey Hutchison but just because she's a Texan and a Republican... I can only be so charitable).
   

Note, that Nancy Pelosi is the freakin' Speaker of the House. And I'm happy and proud that she's a decent, talented, Democrat. The only reason I may think she's unpleasant is that (a) she's from San Francisco and is probably more liberal than I could stand, and (b) her facial features seem pinched in public. But I have no negative feelings towards her and she's seriously in power.

I have no problem with Elizabeth Dole, even. Maybe because she's Southern and they've always been good at softening a politician's image.

But I hate Hillary!

I have hated her ever since the first Clinton term because she was a king-hell gonzo biyatch back then. She caused every single self-inflicted wound his administration: specifically the way she would attack the press, or anybody who she felt disagreed with her. Bill doesn't do that; he's truly a lover not a fighter. If Bill were married to any woman on earth, he would have been president because he is immensely talented. Hillary would never be near the Senate or now the White House if she hadn't married the big-horndog-teddy bear Bill.

So, sorry, Michelle and your brain-dead "pundit" ilk. Hillary is considered a b-tch by me and most of Creation not because she's a "powerful woman" but because she is a mean, nasty, woman.

{2009 Update: Weird Bill-Hillary mashup pic from here.}

Mukasey

I read all over the news and the liberal blogs that the Democrats surrendered again by allowing Mukasey to be Attorney General. See Sunday's Frank Rich, and the NYTimes editorials. Schumer, especially, is criticized for capitulating and blah blah blah.

Alas, this is another case of poor analysis and poor priorities. Read Schumer's op-ed on why he voted for Mukasey. Everything he says is plausible and reasonable. Here's the summary:

1. Chuck Schumer (CS) sympathizes with those who want to reject Mukasey over his bad answers.

2. But Bush has threatened that if Mukasey is rejected, there won't be another nominee. Rather a low-level staffer, who has not gone though Senate review, would be acting attorney general until Bush leaves office:

Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment.

3. Mukasey has said that if the Senate passes a law to clarify the waterboarding issue, Makesey will abide by it, even against the Unitary Executive horse-manure shoveled by Bush & Co.:

On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.

4. Schumer felt that rebuilding the Justice department was far more of a serious issue than the ambiguity about waterboarding, especially given the Senate's ability to clarify issues with an actual law.

Yes, it's terribly disturbing that Mukasey isn't up-front about waterboarding as torture, but is the Senate's job to (a) prevent an otherwise important cabinet officer over that issue or (b) to actually make a law saying that waterboarding is torture. Just to remind you viewers at home, the Senate is part of Congress which - until the GOP took both houses over - is the body that makes the laws that govern the executive branch.

Schumer's points are correct: while torture needs to be rejected (and it's unbelievable that we're even talking about it as ambiguous - thank you Bush voters!) it's WAAAAAAY more important to actually clean up the Justice Department. Why? Because of (a) warrant-less wiretaps and (b) the vote-suppression tactics perpetrated by Karl Christian Rove and Alberto Gonzales.

In fact, any partisan Democrat should want Mukasey over some DOJ hack because until the DOJ is cleaned up, there's no way we can trust our own US elections to be held safely... yet another think we need to thank Bush voters for.

Oh, and why was the vote done so swiftly (midnight Thursday)? According to the TPM it's because Sen. Reid made a deal with the GOP:

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And because the Times and other mush-heads don't understand what Reid did, I'll explain. Mukasey was supposed to be a cake-walk for the GOP. Because of Democratic opposition - which still wasn't enough to prevent his confirmation - Reid was able to pass a bill that funded the military WITHOUT FUNDING THE CRAZY WAR.

Reid triumphed; Schumer chose the lesser of the two evils that have been forced upon us by the scumbag Bush crew. And, yet, the Democrats are blamed for rolling over and playing dead.

Why doesn't the GOP get such bad press for all the crap they do? To be honest, because of the liberal bias in newspapers: the journalists *expect* the GOP to be scumbags.

Celebrities vs. Pundits vs. Journalists

I am cleaning up my hard-drive and I saw an old clip (at least June 2006) of a Charlie Rose interview with George Clooney. Rose spoke about how Clooney challenged Bill O'Reilly to a debate. It's a weird combination of talking heads and it reminds me of a standard Right-Wing talking point: that celebrities have no right and/or no place to be commenting on political matters.

Why should anybody care about what Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, or George Clooney have to say about politics.

On one side, I agree. I think actors are, for the most part, vain and stupid. The job requires vanity as part of it's skill set and there's no reason to believe an actor is any more intelligent than a person engaged in any other type of physical profession. I don't think athletes are presumed to be intelligent, and acting is just another form of athletics.

Comedians are generally pretty intelligent (it's a brutal business), so maybe they should be able to offer their political views. But then the second aspect of the Right Wing Point is: these people are famous for making people laugh, what expertise, experience, training, or skills do they have that would allow them to offer political positions?

Here's where I differ from my Right Wing brethren. Cuz, uh, what expertise does any specific journalist have that would allow them to offer *their* opinions about politics. When a journalist does actual journalism - ya know, find out facts and report them accurately - then I will give them credit for being a specific and separate profession. [This is holding aside the fact that journalists, by and large, seem to be unintelligent, conceited, and as a group not very good at what they are supposed to be doing; exhibit A: the lead up to Operation Iraqi SNAFU]

But what in the world is the difference between a pundit - a talking head who offers his/her opinions about politics - and an actor? Opinions are opinions. And when you recognize that the 'pundits' are themselves in the entertainment business, then you realize that the reason why the Right Wingers don't like celebrities talking about politics is because the real celebrities (e.g. Clooney) are more believeable and convincing than the Right Wing celebrities (e.g. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter).

One more thought about Yigal Amir

A recent blog entry by one of my favorite reads (The Reality-Based Community) brings up the issue of Yigal Amir and conjugal visits.

As I wrote about below, I find the entire concept that the Chief Rabbinate would allow this shkutz Mechalel Hashem to marry is unconscionable. Then, over the weekend, I read Rabbi Student's Hirhurim article that says the "Gadol Hador" has claimed that a conversion done by a rabbi who believes the world is more than 5768 years old is invalid.

Combine this naarashkeit with the concerted program of the Chief Rabbinate to up-end and devalue the American Orthodox Rabbinate - to ruin our conversions, to challenge our identity as Torah-True Jews, and then add onto it the Chief Rabbinate's denigration of their predecessors' Heter Mechira... and then realize that these are the same people that allowed a marriage for Yigal Amir.

I say that Yigal Amir should be in cherem. Instead, the Chief Rabbinate says he's fine to marry but people from my conversions can't.

2009 Update: A video of the interrogation of Amir. The video and the pic from here.

One Mean Lady

So it's come out that Hillary Clinton has been planting people in her crowds to ask her soft-friendly questions. Pretty scummy and precisely what Bush & Co. has been doing. And who has the guts to bring Hillary to task? My man Edwards. And what's Hillary's response? A smear:

Clinton Aides Prompted Queries at Events - New York Times: "One of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic presidential race, Mr. Edwards, used the incident to chide her, telling reporters yesterday that voters at campaign events “expect you to stand in front of them and answer their hard questions, and they expect it to be an honest process.”

“What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don’t think that’s what Democrats want to see,” Mr. Edwards said in Iowa.

In response, Mr. Elleithee said: "Senator Clinton has taken hundreds of questions here in Iowa and across the country from voters and reporters, and she will continue to. What George Bush does is attack the Democrats and divide the country, and John Edwards’s campaign is resembling that more and more every day.”"

To review: Hillary does something scummy, Edwards tells people it's scummy and Hillary responds by claiming Edwards is the bad guy.

And yet she's the front-runner. Stop her, you Iowa freaks! Stop her now!

{2009 Update: Pic from here.}

If All Else Failes, Edwards v. Dole

There's a good website out there called "Campaign Diaries" that is bringing up a lot of details about the races in all 50 states. In his post-October set of Senate race rankings, he places North Carolina at #11.

11. North Carolina (Incumbent: Elizabeth Dole; Last Ranking: 12)

North Carolina has turned out to be quite a frustrating race for Democrats. They are convinced that Dole is vulnerable, and polls have shown she would be an underdog if Governor Easley ran against her. But he is not, and neither are any of the state's (numerous) Democratic heavyweights. After many more developments in October, Democrats now have two candidates: state Senator Kay Hagan and investment banker Jim Neal. Neither makes the race automatically competitive, but Dole consistently polls under 50% and this could get tight if the DSCC commits to the race.

My feelings is that if Dole is vulnerable and if Edwards can't get the nomination, maybe he'll go back to being a senator.

{2009 Update: It's sad to see all my enthusiasm over Edwards, the slime-bucket. Anyway, the pic is a map of Hawaii from 1937 drawn by Parker Edwards for the Dole Company; hence it is the Edwards-Dole map. No kidding.}

Who Loves Lucy?

All this talk of Obama and his mixed-race heritage, and listening to all the novelty songs - specifically Weird Al Yankovic's "Ricky" made me wonder - were Lucy and Desi Arnez the first inter-racial couple on TV?

If so, and a quick google search turned up nuthin', then its a pretty impressive milestone, even before the Civil Rights Act! The show ran from 1951-1960, and, according to the Wiki:

"I Love Lucy was the most-watched show in the United States in four of its six seasons, and was the first to end its run at the top of the ratings (to be matched only by The Andy Griffith Show and Seinfeld)"

This seems big... even though I find the show unwatchable, it had a big effect on the country. A blow for redheads' rights (and/or Cubans; maybe this shows that Cubans weren't really considered Latinos?)

Pic from the Wiki. Backpost finished on 2009-11-26.

More About Hillary's Anti-Feminism

From this article on Politico.com "Feminists split on HRC sexism defense" by Ben Smith and David Paul Kuhn.

One prominent feminist who was critical of Clinton, former NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, has endorsed John Edwards. In tandem, Smeal’s comments suggested that the reaction of female activists may be driven more by their candidate preferences than their feminist sensibility.

“Any serious candidate for president should make their views clear and let the American people know where they stand on issues,” Michelman said in a statement released by the Edwards campaign.

“And any serious candidate for president should be held to the same standard — whether man or woman. Have we have come a long way? Well, far enough to know better than to use our gender as a shield when the questions get too hot.”

Michelman says the exact things I've been saying and, naturally, she's an Edwards supporter as well.

Pakistan Problems

Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister of Pakistan, declared "emergency rule" on Saturday. He dissolved the Supreme Court, and has been arresting people he doesn't like. According to the AP-Wire:

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup and is also head of Pakistan's army, suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. He ousted seven independent-minded Supreme Court judges, put a stranglehold on independent media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent.

Here's my cynical take on the situation, based on my earlier analysis of Turkey.

While Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the so-called neo-cons could be considered non-"realists" in foreign policy (a nice way of calling them morons), I've always felt that Cheney was a realist. Mainly because Cheney, like Nixon and his ilk, couldn't give a good goddam about liberty and freedom. Realists know that the best foreign government isn't a free Democracy; it's a dictatorship that's loyal to US interests.

Allied dictatorships, while being oppressive and against human rights and all that, have the wonderful tendency to do what we want them to do. And I can imagine that Musharraf - seeing the writing on the wall with Bhutto returning - felt that it was time to tighten his reign on power... and asked Cheney for his blessing. And got it.

What's the downside? Pakistan becomes even more able to crush the Islamicist threat, hunt down Osama, and all it takes is for the US to wink at 'em. The only people who lose are Pakistani lawyers. And human rights, yeah, but all kidding aside I'm not sure how well Pakistan was doing before the current power-grab.

In any case, the silver lining to Musharraf's gambit is that we get a better ally in the region. And all due to the realist school of foreign policy. Messy business, this.

Election and Guy Fawkes

Fascinating! Scott Horton, the stunningly erudite blogger for Harper's Magazine, is one of my daily must-reads. In today's entry, he writes about November 5th - Guy Fawkes Day (or, as it may now be known, V-for-Vendetta-Day). This is a big day/night in England what I know of the day from my life, the V movie, and from Horton, it's a day mixed up with English history, torture, terrorism, and freedom.

Horton points out that in 1775 George Washington, while he was the true Commander in Chief, forbade the army from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night with the traditional minhag of burning the Pope in effigy. GW felt it was insulting to our allies, the Canadians, and just an odious practice in general. Horton quotes the "Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775":

As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.

Gotta love the real George W.

The extra fascinating thing is that Horton suggests that Washington purposefully replaced Guy Fawkes Day with a better, American, custom: Election Day! I will do more research to see if there's proof for this (the Wiki denies it, but if Horton's right, I'll fix the page).

Update: This webpage supports it. It quotes from: Election Day in New York, by Ernest Ingersoll: pp. 3-16, p. 81 in The Century; a popular quarterly. Volume 53, Issue 1 (The Century Company Nov 1896 New York):

The moment the polls close the liquor-sa-loons open,....The streets overflow with boys who hardly wait for the earliest dark-ness to institute their picturesque part of the day’s doings. The New York citizen be-gins to break election-day laws as soon as he can toddle about the block. Bonfires are strictly prohibited, yet thousands of them redden the air and set all the windows aglow before seven o’clock. Antiquarians inform us that this custom is nothing but a survival in America of the old English celebration of burning Guy Fawkes on the 5th of November, in recollec-tion of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, which the children have transferred to the mov-able feast of our election day.

(emphasis mine)

Mircosoft and Norton

I switched from a Macintosh to a PC four years ago. I was forced to do it - against my very fibre of warps and woofs - for two reasons: (1) my mac up and died, (2) all the decent Torah software (e.g. the Bar-Ilan CD-ROM, Dagesh) were written exclusively for the PC. So I switched. And I have hated my (computer) life ever since.

Macintosh has largely been free from the evil influence of Bill the Gates and all of the ancillary problems; in fact, while I think Microsoft makes and markets barely disguised trash, it's the fact that it's the most popular platform that attracts the greatest threats: spam and viruses. Your run-of-the-mill mamzer anarchist writes viruses and spyware for Microsoft software first and then decides to zombie up Macs later. As such, to use a PC, I need to use powerful virus and spyware protectors. Which leads to my second horrific purchase: Norton Anti-Virus.

It's taken a few years of abuse till I finally realized that most of my problems with Microsoft - and the main program I use, Internet Explorer - have been caused (probably) by Norton Anti-Virus. I have purchased a new AV program - Kaspersky Lab Security - and we'll see if I can un-install Norton and if my maddening problems cease.

What problems you ask? (Note, I've seen people complain about the same things, so I assume my irritations are from Norton):

1. EVERYthing runs slow - opening programs, documents, sending/receiving mail; I compare it to our post-9/11 immigration inanities (which my wife just went though, needing a frick-frackin passport to go to CANADA!);
   
2. my system freezes and crashes from having "ccApp" balloon in size, taking all my RAM, restricting use for other programs
   
3. Internet Explorer becomes impossible to use - and this is what prompted me to finally dump Norton - I was at first restricted from seeing videos from Youtube (and I can no longer download them - at all - using my favorite devices). Originally I thought this was a IE cruelty and so I tried to (finally) switch to Mozilla... but I was prevented from downloading it! I thought this was a vicious MephistoBillgatesian trick to preserve IE's monopoly. But the more I investigated, I realized it was instead a Norton cruelty.
   
4. The Youtube/Mozilla indignity was the last straw. While Gates would be mean enough to prevent a download of another web browser, Norton was just being a shoddy project... and I should have realized that this fit the pattern of over a year whereupon Norton has "protected" my homepage from being hijacked (a decent idea) by making Norton's homepage my permanent - never can switch it - homepage. Yes, they hijacked me in the name of my security. And they have eliminated cookies so I need to sign into every website each time and I can't use scripted windows in blogger, blah blah blah

Note, all these problems could still be caused by Gates and IE, but I'll know which way is up soon.

Chilul Hashem Alert: Yigal Amir Edition

What are the odds... that the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin would: (a) still be alive, (b) would be allowed to marry, (c) would be allowed to have children with his wife, (d) would have a son, (e) whose birth would be 8 days before the (secular) anniversary of his father's despicable act. Put another way: Yigal Amir's is celebrating a bris on Rabin's (secular) yahrzeit.

I may puke.

Just to remind people: Yigal Amir committed an act of cold-blooded murder in a manner that has created a chilul Hashem that will last for centuries. The murder has been cited by any number of self-hating Jews for their anti-Orthodox animus (cf. Noah Feldman, Ariel Toaff, etc.)

I've said many times: Amir should be considered in cherem, a "dead man walking." The fact that the Chief Rabbinate has allowed him to marry is yet another sign of their bankruptcy.

{2009 Update: Image of the bris from here.}

One More Hillary Comment

As I've mentioned before, one reason why I don't like Hillary is from a feminist perspective. Yeah, she may be the first female US president but she won't be the first US woman to be elected to fill her husbands old political post. There's a long list (which I can't find right now) and it's not impressive. The whole idea that a woman can (only) become powerful if she's married/related to an even MORE powerful man is disturbing.

Now she plays the second anti-feminist card. After the most recent debate - where she became the target of the other candidates - her PR team came out with this message: "What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?” Hillary comes out on top... One strong woman."

Ya see, she's trying to depict herself as a big strong woman, yet still a woman who cannot be attacked. She's trying to play the victim - which would NEVER be attempted if she were a man - and hope that the female Democratic base will rise up in anger at Obama/Edwards for being mean to a lady.

And, ya know, this tactic may work. Women may instinctively support Hillary even more because she's being treated badly by the old-boy club. And sure, playing the victim just enrages the menfolk who really don't want to ever see that tactic played. It enrages me because it's anti-feminist.

There's a Dilbert comic with Alice and Tina about the glass ceiling which I'm trying to find to illustrate this...

Update: There's a story in the Times right now about this.

Why I Still Like Edwards

I'll get into a longer discussion of the Democratic field soon, but you readers know that I really don't like Hillary and I've been supporting Edwards as the next president since 2003. I'm not rabid behind him - I actually like Obama as a full package because he's the smartest and most thoughtful out there - but Edwards is the model of a modern major general, uh, president.

As 1964, 1976, 1992 showed, Democrats are equally able to be elected president as long as they come from the South and are White (with good hair).

But the reason why I'm still supporting Edwards in the coming primaries is because he has been first, and best, in a lot of issues I care about. He is the best about Labor, the class/economic inequality, about Israel, and about Health Care. And he got the right answer on these issues earlier than the others. The GOP hates him because they fear him - as I showed in an earlier post. The GOP would love for Hillary to be the nominee because she is defeatable.

The most recent Edwards "first" is that he is making the best, most effective attacks against Hillary.

It's always dangerous to be negative in the primaries because if you're unsuccessful in toppling the front-runner, then you've crippled your party's chance to win. If you're a small-timer and you launch against the big-guy (e.g. Jerry Brown vs. Clinton or Bradley vs. Gore) then it's folly to go negative.

However, despite the early numbers, we're not stuck with Hillary yet. If Edwards weakens her enough then either he or Obama could be our next president. So Edwards' attacks against Hillary are important. Let's see if it works.

Here's what Edwards put out today:

Turkey, Israel and American Power

Whenever I worry about the fiasco in Iraq and what it means for the standing of America in the world, I need to remember things like the current situation between Turkey and Kurdistan. Kurdish terrorists have attacked and killed a number of Turkish troops. And the U.S. has asked Turkey not to move their army into Kurdistan (a.k.a. North Iraq)... and Turkey is complying! Whoa. Even though Turkey could tell the U.S. to take a flying leap, they ain't, probably because it's not worth it to get on the wrong side of America in an armed conflict, no matter who you are. And even if we won't go after Turkey militarily, we're still mighty enough that a country will think twice about defending itself when America asks them to.

It reminds me of Israel in the first Gulf War. Israel was getting shot at and America asked them not to respond... and Israel complied. And, to some extent, the Second Lebanon War was the same thing (except that Dick Cheney - high on paint thinner - told Israel to just go ahead and pound Lebanon).

The Ultimate Showdown Of Ultimate Destiny

My new favorite song is "The Ultimate Showdown Of Ultimate Destiny" by Lemon Demon. To see why I believe that, check out it's mad music page - especially for the lyrics. And, to get the full effect, see the official flash video.

Ironically, I heard the song *before* I saw the webpage about Chuck Norris... and the song-writers incorporated the cult about Chuck (as well as Batman, Indiana Jones and other favorites).

One reason why I love the song is that it's based on a concept I wrote about a few years ago: a screenplay/comic book idea to pit one hero vs. another. It seems that every male between 20-40 has had the same idea.

Update: Lyrics:

Old Godzilla was hopping around
Tokyo City like a big playground
when suddenly Batman burst from the shade
and hit Godzilla with a Batgrenade
Godzilla got pissed and began to attack
but didn't expect to be blocked by Shaq
who proceeded to open up a can of Shaq Fu
when Aaron Carter came out of the blue

and he started beating up Shaquille O'Neal
then they both got flattened by the Batmobile
but before it could make it back to the Batcave
Abraham Lincoln popped out of his grave
and took an AK47 out from under his hat
and blew Batman away with a rat-a-tat-tat
but he ran out of bullets and he ran away
because Optimus Prime came to save the day

this is the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny
good guys, bad guys, and explosions as far as the eye can see
and only one will survive, I wonder who it will be
this is the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

Godzilla took a bite out of Optimus Prime
like Scruff McGruff took a bite out of crime
and then Shaq came back covered in a tire track
but Jackie Chan jumped out and landed on his back
and Batman was injured, and trying to get steady
when Abraham Lincoln came back with a machete
but suddenly something caught his leg and he tripped
Indiana Jones took him out with his whip

then he saw Godzilla sneaking up from behind
and he reached for his gun which he just couldn't find
'cause Batman stole it and he shot and he missed
and Jackie Chan deflected it with his fist
then he jumped in the air and did a somersault
while Abraham Lincoln tried to pole vault
onto Optimus Prime, but they collided in the air
then they both got hit by a Care Bear stare, oooh

this is the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny
good guys, bad guys, and explosions as far as the eye can see
and only one will survive, I wonder who it will be
this is the Ultimate Showdown...

Angels sang out in immaculate chorus
down from the heavens descended Chuck Norris
who deliver a kick which could shatter bones
into the crotch of Indiana Jones
who fell over on the ground, writhing in pain
as Batman changed back into Bruce Wayne
but Chuck saw through his clever disguise
and he crushed Batman's head in between his thighs

then Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White and
Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight and
Benito Mussolini and The Blue Meanie and
Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie
RoboCop, the Terminator, Captain Kirk, and Darth Vader
Lo-Pan, Superman, every single Power Ranger,
Bill S. Preston and Theodore Logan,
Spock, The Rock, Doc Ock, and Hulk Hogan
all came out of no where lightning fast
and they kicked Chuck Norris in his cowboy ***
it was the bloodiest battle the world ever saw
with civilians looking on total awe

and the fight raged on for a century
many lives were claimed, but eventually
the champion stood, the rest saw their better:
Mr. Rogers in a bloodstained sweater

this is the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny
good guys, bad guys, and explosions as far as the eye can see
and only one will survive, I wonder who it will be
this is the Ultimate Showdown...
this is the Ultimate Showdown...
this is the Ultimate Showdown...
of Ultimate Destiny

A Mishaberach for the Rockies (and Red Sox)

From here.

Rabbi prays for the Rockies
By BRUCE DOLLIN Special to the IJN

As I am constantly asked to say a misheberach for our sports teams, I have searched the Jewish world over to find one and I found this one from Elaine Braun, sister of one of my colleagues back East who is a Red Sox (who?) fan. With her permission, I adapted it for the Rockies. I didn’t adapt it for the Broncos because even G-d can’t help them.

So . . .

For the starting pitchers

May he who blessed our ancestors, Walker, Bichette, Castilla and Gallaraga, rest and heal Francis, Jimenez and Morales who have been called to the mound upon reaching the World Series. May the Holy One protect and sustain them, helping them to be wholehearted in their game, to study diligently the signals from their catcher (Yorvit something), and to walk in G-d’s ways, but not to walk anyone else.

For the hitters

May he who blessed our ancestors, Walker, Bichette, Castilla and Gallaraga, bless Helton, Holliday and Matsui who have been called to the plate upon reaching the World Series. May the Holy One protect and sustain them, helping them to be wholehearted in their game, diligent in their swing, avoiding bad pitches and water bottles thrown onto the field. May they hit the long balls and may the umpires be just in ruling them home runs.

For the bullpen

May he who blessed our ancestors, Walker, Bichette, Castilla and Gallaraga, rest and heal Fuentes, Herges and Corpas, who may be called to the mound upon reaching the World Series. May they lead us back from destruction by our enemies, be they cheese steak (treif), rattlesnake (very treif) or . . . uh . . . footwear? (inedible, and therefore kosher even for Pesach). May G-d save them from all enemy, pestilence, sword, famine and grand slam. May the Holy One not abandon our starting pitchers in any case and let us say, Amen.

For the Team

Colorado Rockies

May he who blessed our ancestors, Walker, Bichette, Castilla and Gallaraga, bless the Rockies and all who loiter on Blake Street, them, their sons and the sons of their sons, along with those who establish and sustain the stands that provide hot dogs and peanuts to the wayfarer. May the Holy One continue to bless them with many pennants and even a world championship. May they not rest in peace until they win the big one. And let us say, Amen.

I don't understand the references, but I appreciate the sentiment.

P.S.

Fun: Chuck Norris Facts

I am not in the cult of Chuck Norris - the man has let me down too many times. His movies have the greatest titles (e.g. Good Guys Wear Black, A Force of One, The Octagon, An Eye for an Eye) but they all suck. Immense suckitude. A hallmark of a Norris film, besides the vicious title, is to sport one three second scene that looks totally awesome.... and that is it. That scene will be proudly displayed in the trailers (probably more than once in different exposures) but you will be required to wait 90 minutes of rotten acting to see those good three seconds.

As such, Norris does not rate. A good contrast is Steven Seagal; his movies have decent bloodthirsty "Norris-esque" titles (e.g. Above the Law, Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, Out for Justice) but there's constant vicious violence in every onscreen minute. Seagal - in his early movies, the last one I've allowed myself to see is "Glimmer Man" - breaks people in half better than anybody before or since. Hands down. One scene in "Out for Justice" in particular where he slays an entire bar using a cue-ball in a hankerchief. It gives me a headache just thinking of it.

However, the cult *about* Norris is great. As opposed to the cult *of*, the cult *about* is to consider Norris the most absurdly ferocious human alive. It's based, I believe, on how cheezy his movies/TV shows are and how clumsily he attacks people. Maybe. At least that's how I appreciate the cult. This is seen in Conan O'Brian's weird Chuck Norris sketches.

I have now discovered (much later than most of humanity) a website based on this cult, called "Chuck Norris Facts" - based on evil little T-Shirt slogans about Norris' prowess. I have reprinted the ones I like below (note, I have modified some of these for elegance):

The Facts

1. Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
   
2. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
   
3. There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.
   
4. Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill.
   
5. The leading causes of death in the United States are: 1. Heart Disease 2. Chuck Norris 3. Cancer
   
6. Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.
   
7. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
   
8. Hellen Keller's favorite color is Chuck Norris.
   
9. Chuck Norris once ate a whole cake before his friends could tell him there was a stripper in it.
   
10. Chuck Norris-is the preferred method of execution in 16 states.
    
11. Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
    
12. Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
    
13. A picture is worth a thousand words. A Chuck Norris is worth 1 billion words.
    
14. When Steven Seagal kills a ninja, he only takes its hide. When Chuck Norris kills a ninja, he uses every part.
    
15. Chuck Norris doesn't shave; he kicks himself in the face. The only thing that can cut Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris.
    
16. Chuck Norris invented black. In fact, he invented the entire spectrum of visible light. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.
    
17. Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
    
18. Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee. Except Chuck Norris.
    
19. Chuck Norris has 12 moons. One of those moons is the Earth.
    
20. Chuck Norris ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.
    
21. It takes Chuck Norris 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.
    
22. Chuck Norris doesn't believe in Germany.
    
23. Chuck Norris can touch MC Hammer.
    
24. It takes 14 puppeteers to make Chuck Norris smile, but only 2 to make him destroy an orphanage.
    
25. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
    
26. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.
    
27. If, Chuck Norris would ever fight himself, he'd win.
    
28. Chuck Norris did in fact, build Rome in a day.
    
29. Ultimate Fighting Championship's full name is“Ultimate Fighting Championship, Non-Chuck-Norris-Division”.
    
30. Chuck Norris was what Willis was talkin' about.
    
31. Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
    
32. Chuck Norris can judge a book by its cover.
    
33. As President Roosevelt said: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself. And Chuck Norris."
    
34. When the Hulk gets mad, he turns into Chuck Norris.
    
35. In a fight between Batman and Darth Vader, the winner would be Chuck Norris.
    
36. Everybody loves Raymond. Except Chuck Norris.
    
37. Chuck Norris sank the Titanic.
    
38. Kryptonite has been found to contain trace elements of Chuck Norris.
    
39. Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
    
40. When chuck Norris does division, there are no remainders.
    
41. Chuck Norris can be seen from outer space by the naked eye.
    
42. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. He who lives by Chuck Norris, dies by the roundhouse kick.
    
43. Staring at Chuck Norris without proper eye protection will cause blindness, and foot sized brusies on the face.
    
44. Chuck Norris can skeletize a cow in two minutes.
    
45. The only sure things are Death, Taxes and Chuck Norris.
    
46. To be or not to be? That is the question. The answer? Chuck Norris.
    
47. 182,000 Americans die from Chuck Norris-related accidents every year.
    
48. Jesus can walk on water, but Chuck Norris can walk on Jesus.
    
49. All roads lead to Chuck Norris.
    
50. In the medical community, death is referred to as "Chuck Norris Syndrome"
    
51. The First rule of Chuck Norris is: you do not talk about Chuck Norris.
    
52. Chuck Norris uses Tabasco sauce instead of Visine.
    
53. Chuck Norris sleeps with a pillow under his gun.
    
54. Only Chuck Norris can prevent forest fires.
    
55. They say curiosity killed the cat. This is false. Chuck Norris killed the cat.
    
56. Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
    
57. The air around Chuck Norris is always a balmy 78 degrees.
    
58. Chuck Norris beats the odds. With his fists.
    
59. Chuck Norris' pulse is measured on the Richter scale.
    
60. Chuck Norris once kicked a ten dollar bill into 200 nickels.
    
61. There are now five cup sizes at Starbucks: Short, Tall, Grande, Venti, and Chuck Norris.
    
62. If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one else is around, Chuck Norris hears it.
    
63. Chuck Norris can get Blackjack with just one card.
    
64. Chuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open.
    
65. Chuck Norris doesn't go at the speed of light, he goes at the speed of Norris
    
66. In an emergency, Chuck Norris can be used as a floatation device.
    
67. Chuck Norris invented the question mark.
    
68. As a child, Chuck Norris trick-or-treated as himself.
    
69. Chuck Norris has 3 knees on each leg.
    
70. Chuck Norris can cook minute rice in 30 seconds.
    
71. Chuck Norris is not only a noun, but a verb.
    
72. Chuck Norris invented the apple.
    
73. Chuck Norris can have his cake and eat it too.
    
74. Chuck Norris wrote an autobiography....it was just a list of everyone he has killed.
    
75. Bigfoot takes pictures of Chuck Norris.
    
76. Chuck Norris is allowed to talk about Fight Club.
    
77. Chuck Norris won a pissing contest against a Russian race horse.
    
78. Chuck Norris sneezes electricity.
    
79. Chuck Norris' smile once brought a puppy back to life.
    
80. Chuck Norris understands the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
    
81. Chuck Norris can in fact stop the beat.
    
82. Chuck Norris speaks in all caps.
    

Childrearing in the Old Days

I've heard from old timers, thank God not my parents, who denigrate the new rules and restrictions for child safety. These "old wives" say that in their day they would put a child to sleep on his/her stomach, or not use a child seat, or feed a child grapes/peanuts/broken glass - and it would be fine! They would emphasize that "I raised my child this way" somehow assuming that their lives, and those of their immediate circle, create the entire cohort for the law of averages.

I think it's important to remember that infant mortality rates in America have fallen precipitously in the past few decades. To quote the CDC:

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2). From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less than 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births (7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997)

As such, even though we must respect our elders when they have opinions that reflect their years of accumulated wisdom, the 'elders' often know diddly about medicine. And when an elder is clearly confusing nostalgia with knowledge, then smile politely and whistle a tune in your brain until they stop talking and then say "Thank you" and walk away...

{2009 Update: Child labor picture from here, which captions the photo thus: "[Two girls wearing banners with slogan "ABOLISH CH[ILD] SLAVERY!!” in English and Yiddish, one carrying American flag; spectators stand nearby. Probably taken during May 1, 1909 labor parade in New York City. George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress).]"}