Bydio

While Charles Krauthammer’s point of view is understandable, he’s not exactly correct when his subtitle reads, “Borat gets anti-Semitism wrong.“

In the article, Mr. Krauthammer writes:

Sacha Baron Cohen, the creator of Borat, revealed his purpose for doing that in a rare out-of-character interview he granted Rolling Stone in part to counter charges that he was promoting anti-Semitism. On the face of it, this would be odd, given that Cohen is himself a Sabbath-observing Jew. His defense is that he is using Borat’s anti-Semitism as a “tool” to expose it in others. And that his Arizona bar stunt revealed, if not anti-Semitism, then “indifference” to anti-Semitism. And that, he maintains, was the path to the Holocaust.

Whoaaaa. Does he really believe such rubbish? Can a man that smart (Cambridge, investment banker and now brilliant filmmaker) really believe that indifference to anti-Semitism and the road to the Holocaust are to be found in a country and western bar in Tucson?

Whoaaaa.  Does Charles Krauthammer really believe that systematic dehumanization of a religion or race doesn’t have an effect on the psyche?

Charles goes on to say that Islamic and European nations are far worse than the U.S. in anti-Semitic sentiment, and he’s right.  But he also claims that the anti-Semitism Sacha Baron Cohen reveals in others through his Borat character is just a joke, nothing more; that Sacha should look elsewhere to prove anti-Semitism is the path to holocaust because here in the U.S.we know better.  Krauthammer points to Presidents Truman and Nixon, who joked about Jews, and who helped Israel, to show that anti-Semitism in the United States isn’t a path to the holocaust.

Slick, but not true.

While jokes about race and religion may be in poor taste, they can still be humorous within context.  I’m sure the Rwandan Hutu joked excessively and derisively about the Tutsi before slaughtering them by the hundreds of thousands.  Then again, joking about the intelligence of a blonde won’t lead us in the same direction because we all know that there are smart blondes.  It depends on the intelligence of the one who laughs, I suppose.  If you hear only dumb blonde jokes, experience only dumb blondes on TV, and have no experience with meeting smart blondes, then where does that leave you?  Your world-view becomes “Blondes Are Dumb.”

It’s not the joke that makes the anti-Semitism, it’s the laughing chorus afterwards.

So a joke can be just a joke, and cooler heads can prevail when real matters about anti-Semitism come about, but take note of the public opinion.  After all, Michael Richards can yell “Nigger!” and everybody throws a hissy fit, but when he yelled “Dirty Jew!” in April (2006), not a peep was heard.  (There’s debate about whether Richards is Jewish or not.)

When it’s easier to laugh at a Jewish joke than it is to laugh at a Black joke, what does that say about the attitude of the society?

Is the U.S. on the verge of a holocaust?  Not likely.  Will it idly sit by if something were to happen to Jews in other countries?  That’s more and more likely.

And we should never forget the great quote from Martin Niemöller about standing idly by while others around you get slaughtered:

“In Germany they came first for the Communist, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

In an article by Newsbusters.org on the disparity in coverage between Mel Gibson’s anti-Jew statements (shitloads of) and Michael Richards’ anti-black and anti-Jew statements (lots less coverage of), they decide to blame an anti-Christian bias of the L.A. Times.

Why the disparity is coverage? It seems pretty clear that the Times saw that they could use Mel Gibson’s episode to further a personal attack against Gibson. They openly sought to connect Mel’s tirade to his Passion of the Christ film. They used the episode to baselessly tar the Christian faith that Gibson openly professes. (See this post.) In doing this, the Times advanced the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, and anti-conservative tone that pervades its paper. (We’ve posted about this in a number of places, including here and here.) The Times cannot advance any such agenda with Michael Richards, so one could readily conclude that the paper’s attitude is, “Why bother? Why make a Hollywood star look worse than he has to?”

Um… it couldn’t be because Mel Gibson is a huge star and a Hollywood mover-and-shaker, and Michael Richards is basically a D-list actor at best, with his only real claim to fame being his spot on Seinfeld, a show which ended years ago… noooo, it couldn’t be THAT… could it?

In the article ““Muslim Feminists” in NY want to start Qur’an council“, Jihad Watch quotes from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Muslim feminists from around the world vowed to create the first women’s council to interpret the Koran and overcome two stereotypes about their religion: Muslims are terrorists and Islam oppresses women.

The United States of America has a proud tradition of freedom from religious persecution as a tenet of our society.  No matter if you worship trees or fairies or imaginary men in the sky, it’s your choice, and no one can harm you on your basis of belief.

A secular government allows people to make their own choice — to self-determine — on how or who to worship, if you worship at all.  A secular government is freedom from religious persecution because it allows anyone to step away from a religion if they find it doesn’t agree with their sensibilities any more, and to not fear reprisals from others of the religion one leaves.  The force of the faithful will be met with the force of the government, set up to protect its citizens from unwarranted harm (can’t insulate people, after all; risk is part of living).

So what happens when the belief of one religion goes against the supposed norms of the society one lives in?  Here is where secular government needs to step aside; it’s that freedom of religion thing.

If a woman wants to be led by a man in Shari’a fashion, she should be allowed to determine that course herself.  If she doesn’t want it, she should be allowed to step away from the religion and go free.  The choice is hers.

Further, if that woman chooses the path of Jihad, and chooses to agress against others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, then she should expect to meet Allah sooner than she may’ve wanted to, based on the accuracy of the aim of a citizen of the secular society.

So, if you want to wear your burkha or nijab, go right ahead.  Don’t expect people to treat you with openness, though, since you’re covering yourself according to your faith.  And if you raise your children to worship the Jihadi way, expect to be heartbroken when someone kills that child — following your teachings — who doesn’t think they should be attacked because they don’t believe what you believe.

The sword is double-edged and very sharp.  While a government might equivocate, its individual citizens aren’t usually very tolerant of being attacked and killed.

**********************

Speaking of raising children in a religious manner, this has become a very tricky subject to broach in this society.  Saying or doing anything that might be construed as “harm” to a child is something that can land a person in jail.

I guess I’ll dare the wrath of the masses and try to — as best as possible — speak my mind.

Instead of diving into the sexual aspect brought up in the Jihad Watch article and the Qur’an, I’ll try to focus on more general issues.  One issue that comes to mind is the faith healing aspect that surfaced a few years ago.  If I recall, a child — or some children — died because the parents believed in faith healing and not taking medication or surgery.

Many people were troubled by this, and I can understand their frustration and shock at someone not trying to help their child the best way they know possible.  But that’s the crux of religion, and family in particular: it’s not up to you to decide what’s best for one family, or how they practice their religion.  Even if their children die, even if they kill themselves, as long as they don’t harm you or your family, then you have no say in the matter.  Their children are theirs to raise as good or as bad as they see fit.

I know, it’s harsh.  You scream and rail inside, wanting to save those poor children from a life not as good as what you think they deserve.  Doesn’t everyone have the right to life?

Sure, they have the right to life by being born.  They also have the right to death because they will die, sooner or later.  They have the right to live as they choose, or how their parents choose until they reach the age of majority.

Let’s flip the scrip and have them impose their will on your children.  You want to take your children to a doctor because they’re sick, but you will have to do it clandestinely or you will be put in jail and your children will be taken away, or you can call upon your faith — the accepted course of action — and hope things turn out okay.  Now, if your child dies on the operating table, the faith healers are vindicated in their beliefs, expounding about how dangerous such a practice can be, and not only do you lose your child by trying to help them the best way you thought you should, but you now have to go to jail for it.  If your child lives through the operation, and it’s found out that the child was indeed secretly whisked away to a doctor *gasp* for help, then your child is safe, you feel good in that you did the right thing, but you still go to jail.  Sure, your child is alive, but your family is broken because someone else didn’t like your personal course of action, and you imposed that sacreligious action upon your children (how DARE you?!).

Sure, it sounds ridiculous to most people, but if you can impose your will on someone else, but they can’t impose their will on you, then there’s something inherently wrong with your philosophy.  Sometimes, you just shouldn’t meddle.  Individual wills should not be imposed on others based on personal belief.  Try to convince them with dialogue, certainly, but using physical force on someone so they conform to your beliefs is anathema.  This philosophy should be in your heart: leave me alone.

So while we can consider how the treatment of other people’s children may be a tragedy, if you aren’t willing to have them impose their will on you and your children, then you need to leave them alone.

The only time you should get involved is when something physically affects you.  There are plenty of issues out there affecting you right now that you should be involved in, but how the Joneses — or Abdullahs — raise their children isn’t one of them.

Now go hug your kid(s) if you’re glad you have them.

Update 20061201: I may be using poor examples or analogies here… something’s eating at me about this for days and I can’t put my finger on it… will have to revisit later.

From Victor Davis Hanson’s site, “Politics and War, Then and Now“:

Carter reminds me of the timid parent who spanks hard the good son for the rare misdemeanor because he takes it with silence while giving a pass to the wayward son for the daily felony because he would throw a public fit if corrected.

Just like what I said about North Korea.

In a bile-inducing “diary” entry called “Iran: Why and How Iranians Must Be Attacked - NOT!“, a history-rewriting apologist called LondonYank touches on every wishful-thinking Middle East talking point that has ever been vomited into the ether.

• Iran is peaceful and good
• Israel wants war
• Saddam Hussein was good for Iraq
• Lebanon was a shining star before Israel attacked it in July 2006
• The U.S. pulls the puppet strings of Israel for its own world-dominating agenda

Seriously, people honestly think this stuff! I really don’t know where they get it, because you have to have an agenda in order to believe any of it.  There has to be a soul-deep hatred of Israel and the U.S. to really believe any of this is true.  It’s just not rational.

Now the above points are from merely the first few paragraphs of this revisionist screed; there’re plenty more jaw-dropping myths touted as facts further on, but let’s start with what I’ve extrapolated above.

• Iran is peaceful and good

The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was “heading toward annihilation,” just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
Apr 14 12:34 PM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy, it sits on massive oil fields.  Iran does, however, need a nuclear bomb so it can threaten others and try to prevent being attacked.  Iran threatens Israel with annihilation and then simpers to the UN when Israel says the last resort before Iran gets nukes is to bomb Iraninan nuclear facilities. And, as usual, Iran belittles the death of millions of Jews (and by proxy, the tens of millions of other horrific murders committed by Nazi Germany) which happened less than 70 years ago. Monumental amounts of evidence be damned, it’s still a question mark to Iran.

Iran has proved by its own words it is neither peaceful nor good, in word or deed.

• Israel wants war

Let alone the fact that Israel has been invaded by its Arab neighbors many times (1948, 1967, 1973, and hundreds — if not thousands — of terrorist attacks), making military defense a necessity, the people who claim Israel is always “attacking” someone always miss the reason for the attack.  Israel is always provoked, and they fight back in defense of the country, as they should.

The occupied territories are occupied for a reason.  Israel was attacked from those territories before, and will be attacked from those territories again if they pull out, so that land will remain occupied — the spoils of a war they didn’t start, but they did win — and hopefully assimilated into Israel proper, thereby negating any threat from those territories again.

• Saddam Hussein was good for Iraq

Yeah, about as good as Ceausescu was for Romania.  Here are the Top Five crimes Saddam Hussein committed in Iraq:

1. Reprisal Against Dujail - 140+ men apprehended and disappeared, 1,500 townspeople (including children) sent to prison
2. Anfal Campaign - it is estimated that up to 182,000 [Kurds] were killed
3. Chemical Weapons Against Kurds - Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks
4. Invasion of Kuwait - induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait
5. Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs - killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq

Swell guy, invite him to your next party.

• Lebanon was a shining star before Israel attacked it in July 2006

From Michaeltotten.com:

I kept my eye on the country, even so, because potential medium-term trouble was quietly brewing. Many Lebanese Christians, Sunnis, and Druze were getting so impatient with the impasse over Hezbollah’s weapons they threatened to reconstitute their own armed militias that were disbanded after the war. Peaceful and diplomatic negotiation over Hezbollah’s role in a sovereign rather than schismatic Lebanon was not going to last very much longer. Once the rest of Lebanon armed itself against Hezbollah, a balance of terror would reign that could explode into war without any warning. That was the danger. That was the nightmare. That’s why Hezbollah had not been disarmed.

Lebanon in its entirety wasn’t exactly the Gaza slums, but it was far from stable, and mostly because an Iranian-funded Islamic terrorist group was breaking the government from within.  Nope, no utopia to see here… move along… move along….

• The U.S. pulls the puppet strings of Israel for its own world-dominating agenda

The U.S. gives billions of dollars to Israel, and Israel tries to play nice with the U.S. because it’s a major benefactor, but while Israel usually does what the U.S. wants, there are times when it defies the U.S., and in my opinion they should do it more often.  I also don’t think the U.S. should give money to Israel or any other country on this planet, but that’s neither here nor there.

The idea that the U.S. wants to dominate the world is like saying Israel wants war.  On the face of it you see the actions of each country, and one can simplistically conclude that they are trying to dominate others.  However, like Israel, the U.S. is often provoked and dragged into conflict.  Now I can’t say the U.S. foreign policy is saintly — far from it — but it is not the warmongering country it is often made out to be.

The U.S., more than any other country in the world, is called upon to resolve conflicts throughout the globe (ineffectually, I might add).  We are called upon because the U.S. is the biggest kid on the block and can put the most pressure on others.  The problem is police work.  The U.S. military is not a police force, it’s a hard strike force, a superbly trained “Hammer of Thor” that can crush any foe.  In three weeks — with a little help from Britain and some other countries — Iraq’s military was put to shame.  But put that same U.S. military into a staying action and you get the same problems every other military force would encounter: quagmire.

Update 20061128: Sergeant Christopher Whitaker, Camp Striker, Iraq, sees things as I do (in his letter to the New York Times via Atlas Shrugs):

“The author also states that Secretary Rumsfeld was opposed to the “…Clintonian notion of using the United States military to secure and rebuild broken states.” Apparently the author is not aware of the purpose of a military. It is not a kind of gigantic Peace Corps that is sent in to fix broken states. The purpose of the military is to defend the nation’s interests and it does that by obliterating the enemy’s ability to threaten those interests.”

So the mighty, world-conquering United States of America is not so evil as you may wish to think, and while it’s politically expedient for Israel to listen to Washington D.C., Israel doesn’t always do what it’s asked to do.  This imaginary Alliance of Evil the hatemongers like to conjure is just global politics in action, and is not a sinister plot. 

So please, people of the Daily Kos, open your eyes and your minds because your hateful agenda is transparent and easily debunked.

For all you assholes who think Israel and the Jews are controlling the media, there’s nothing like tipping over the rock to expose the blatant ANTI-Israel bent of many in the US Mainstream Media:

The anti-Israel bias of mainstream media has never been revealed more nakedly; the editors [of Time Magazine] who selected this photograph deliberately changed the caption to convey an anti-Israel message, throwing the truth right out the window to do it.

Time Magazine deliberately changed their photographer’s (Bruno Stevens) photo caption, the one he reported to them when he was right there, and substituted a pro-Hezb’allah caption!

Fucking outrageous!

From an article about Israel trying to miniaturize weapons systems:

The 34-day war in Lebanon ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in mid-August. The war killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

The above comment seems to be in place because it’s talking about Israel and weapons systems… however, the way the statistics are thrown in is a blatant insult, and when it mentions “mostly civilian” in the deaths of Lebanese, Reuters forgets to mention that Hezb’allah doesn’t wear uniforms, so deaths of Hezb’allah fighters are identical to civilian-looking deaths.

Reuters: Frenchmen with agendas.

Update 20061120: Even Solomonia sees what I saw (though he’s nicer about it than I am).

The Protocols of the Daily Kos

Personally, I don’t like the Daily Kos.  The blog is too left-wing fringe for me to take it seriously.  Their agenda in this post that LGF is commenting on is not something I agree with at all.  I think Israel is the only sane power in the region, and to not help them is to seriously hurt ourselves.  So when dKos talks about:

“But to me the biggest issue now is pressing for an open discussion on the State of Israel, and how the Israel lobby influences our elected representatives.”

I’m thinking he’s a complete moron.

*So you’re agreeing with LGF?*

Yes and no.

While LGF is against dKos on this policy, I’m with them.  However, saying dKos is antisemitic because he thinks Israeli politics have too much influence on our government isn’t really correct.  While dKos may be antisemitic, anti-jew and/or anti-Israel, he’s only commenting on policy.  I’m sure his opinion is heavily influenced by the disgusting misreporting from all over the Middle East, but he’s talking about policy, and just because it’s against Israel doesn’t mean he’s antisemitic.

Semitic is all arabs, anyway, and dKos seems to be pro-palestinian, so it’s incorrect.

I know, picky picky.  I’m just saying, accusing someone of antisemetism when it’s not technically true (a conservative ploy) is just as bad as accusing someone of racism when it’s not necessarily true (a liberal ploy).

That’s just the way I see it.

Update 20061118: From the article “Am I anti-semitic?“:

“When I read about the horrors perpetrated upon the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere by Israel, I thank them for defining themselves as a race apart(heid) from myself, for making me Proud To Be A Gentile! Their abject cruelty towards and disregard for the non-Jews of the world is so far removed from my definition of spirituality that I don’t even wish to be in the same species classification as them. (Is the new classification of ‘homo rapiens’ in order?)”

My bad, total anti-semites.