Soccer Dad

Council speak 09/30/2007

The council has spoken, this week's council winner was Bookworm Room's fascinating Cosmic Ironies, the history of her father's escape from his fate at the hand of the Nazis. The winning non-council post was Rafael Medoff: Columbia “Invites Hitler to Campus” --As it Did in 1933, which showed that when a Columbia professor said that he wouldn't have hesitated to give Hitler a platform as the school gave Ahmadinejad, he wasn't lying. Demerits for brazenness but at least give him points for honesty. (Though honesty like this may not be a virtue.)

The Council runner up was Big Lizards' The Human Touch, which argued for the use of human judgment in determining which immigrants ought to be allowed to stay and which ought to be rejected. It was particularly interesting as there was a news report this week that the TSA is considering using human observation of suspicious behavior at airports. Civil libertarians, of course, are scandalized. (Give Big Lizards credit for being ahead of the curve here. Here's a 60 Minutes report on Israeli airline security.) The non council runner up was Dr. Sanity's Islam and Marxism - A marriage made in Allah's socialist Paradise.

If you're a blogger and would like to participate in next week's competition, why not follow the rules here and submit an entry to Mr. Watcher?

watcher's council.

Thoughts about 25 years of season tickets

From the Baltimore Orioles mailing list ... (reprinted with permission)

This is kind of a long ramble, but hey...its about the O's :)

I went to this game last night....My family has had season tickets since
'82. 20+ rows back from the O's On Deck circle. Back then we had 4. A few
years into Camden Yards we increased it to 6. A few years after the
tailspin began, we lowered it back to 4. 2 years ago we lowered it to 2
seats. My family is now thinking we'll give up our seats next season. We
can't find anyone who wants to split them anymore and at $97 a game
($45/ticket, $7 parking) to watch this crap, its just not worth it.

So I figured I'd take my nephew and go to one last game in the family seats.
We rushed to make it in time for the first pitch--which Zambrano promptly
used to nail the first hitter in the side.

It only got worse...and it just seemed as if he had no control other than to
lay it in there. Any time he tried to actually PITCH, they took it for a
ball. Only things getting over the plate were medium speed meatballs.

Finally they pulled him after it was 5-0, bases loaded 2 outs. Birkins then
completed Zambrano's night by allowing all 3 inherited runners to score.

8-0. Zambrano's line? 2/3 inning, 8 runs. I kept repeating that in my
head. 7...8...9 years ago, that would have been all the sports stations
were talking about the next day. Yet today I know that if I turn on 1300 or
1570, it'll be mostly Ravens chatter about their game in Cleveland (I'm a
huge Raven's fan, so that doesn't bother me that much).

On the drive home (we left after the 6th inning since it was a bit sticky
out and a school night and I had to get my nephew home), I called my Dad and
chatted a bit. He lamented about giving up the tickets, but knew deep down
the only reason he'd kept them these last couple years was for my nephew
who's a huge Orioles fan. Prior to that, we'd kept them because my mother
and I were crazy Orioles fans and loved going to the games. My dad was
always a tag-along and would bring the Wall Street Journal or a sailing
magazine and read while my Mom and I would follow the finer points of the
game.

Every Opening Day was like a holiday for my family. I would have an excuse
written to get out of school to go see my dentist. What the administration
didn't realize was my Dentist was my Dad and I'd be seeing him sitting next
to be at the ballgame! (side-bar, I submitted this many years ago to ESPN
the Magazine for best excuse used to get out of something for opening day
and they printed it in issue #2).

Anyway, so I talked with my dad and just said "Angelos has killed my love of
the Orioles. Can you believe it? A diehard fan like me and he has left me
just not caring." And its true. I used to attend or watch well over 140
games a year when I was younger. I knew the O's TV schedule by heart and
looked forward to watching each game. As the losing continued, I would
watch less and less. I'd check the box scores less and less. Every Spring
I would get so excited. I had to watch the first televised spring training
game, even though I knew I would only see the real players for the first
inning or two. Didn't matter. It was the O's.

And here I am now. I'm 32 years old and I feel like I'm in mourning. I sat
in the old seats and it looked and felt different. I couldn't see the
Bromo-Seltzer Tower because of the monstrosity of a hotel they're building
which blocks out 1/2 the view of the outfield (not really Angelos' fault,
but still. The players are mostly mailing it in, other than Markakis. Even
BRob looked a little slow and uncaring on some plays/at-bats. There were
maybe 5 thousand people in the stands. There are far less employees around
(nobody directing traffic in the parking lots, most concessions only had 1
cashier working).

And in that phone conversation with my Dad I realized it didn't matter if he
gave up the tickets; honestly, what exactly would I be missing? It didn't
FEEL like a fun place to come. It felt like a Shiva house (a Jewish house
in mourning). I've gone to maybe a dozen Frederick Keys games over the last
decade and I can get more enjoyment out of those games. It feels like a
place people want to come! My boss has season tix to the Nationals so I'll
probably got a few of their games next year. Not that their record is much
better, but they show more promise and don't have the weight of 10 losing
years hanging on them.

I'll have positive memories of games I've attended in my family seats...

'83 playoffs and world series in Memorial Stadium (we had practically the
same seats/sections before the move)
Last game at Memorial
First game at Camden
Ripken's 2131 game with my mom
Playoff runs in '96 and '97
Ripken's last hit from game1 on 10/05/01

I'll always remember last night...but for much different reasons. With all
apologies to Don McLean, for me, it was the day the Orioles died.

Kevin

_______________________
Kevin Gandel
IT Manager
Lemek LLC dba Panera Bread

baltimore orioles

Blockbuster move

We noticed that the Blockbuster on Reisterstown Road near Old Court has shut its doors. There's no sign saying "We moved."

It's disappointing as I figured that when Goldberg's Bagels moved to that shopping center, it would become quite the happening Saturday Night place. I figured that many Orthodox families would head to the shopping center for post Shabbos bagels and movies. Apparently the first part will happen, but not the second.

I couldn't find any news stories about Blockbuster closing down stores in Maryland. While I can certainly understand that Netflix and Blockbuster on demand are reducing the need to staff stores, this closing seemed rather sudden. (It's not just closed, the whole store is stripped.)

I tried the phone number and there's no answer (and no message saying that the number has been disconnected.)

What happened?

(Here's a bit that suggests that things should be looking up for Blockbuster. I guess just not this one.)

blockbuster video.

Mahmoud the bold

h / t Elder of Ziyon

Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post - daughter of the late Katherine Graham - interviewed Mahmoud Abbas for the paper. The interview is here.

Elder of Ziyon is certainly correct that there's nothing "moderate" in the positions he espouses.

A comment at the site cites IMRA catching Abbas in a lie. (Or if you prefer to be polite an embellishment.) Abbas boasted that his security forces had captured two rockets aimed at Israel. IMRA thought cited an e-mail from Khaled abu Toameh that those weren't rockets but empty pipes.

So far the only other commenter on the article is Yaacov Lozowick who observes

So according to the Palestinian president, the 2nd Intifada was launched in response to an unprecedented offer by Israel's prime minister. It would have been legitimate to continue negotiating so as to achieve more - but that was not what happened.

Reading the interview it is impossible to get the feeling that Abbas is capable of much independent thought. He comes across as spoiled. (The world must support our demands, Israel must agree to our terms, Hamas must make nice to us.) He also is living in unreality. These Q & A's are precious:

Are there any concessions that you're willing to make in order to reach a deal with the Israelis? Are there any concessions you demand?

We will be flexible, but before 1947, we had 95 percent of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan -- we rejected this, so we lost.

You should have taken it?

Yes, at that time, of course. But it gave us 46 percent of Palestine. . . . Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders].

So in other words, it is a concession that the PA is willing to forgo the 1947 partition plan. That ship sailed 60 years ago. There's no sense of shame, that since the Arab world rejected compromise 60 years they missed their chance.

The other part of the problem is "we had 95 percent of Palestine." Who is "we?" The areas now considered to be part of Palestine were sections of Jordan and Egypt at the time. Yes the untenable 1947 partition divided what was then Palestine into Jewish and Arab enclaves. But Gaza was part of Egypt and Judea and Samaria were parts of (Trans)Jordan - which itself was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. (And was Ben Gurion happy with the partition plan? Or was he willing to tolerate it in order to get a state?) "We" clearly does not refer to what Abbas (and the world) would now call "Palestinians."

And then there is this:

The Israelis thought they were doing a good thing when they withdrew from Gaza [in July 2005], but now they have been forced to evacuate a town near Gaza [because it has been repeatedly shelled by rockets from Hamas].

They did it unilaterally. They didn't do it bilaterally with us. We asked them many times to make [the Gaza withdrawal] the result of an agreement between us. But [former Israeli prime minister Ariel] Sharon refused. He didn't want to talk to us. . . .

OK, so what happened when Israel ceded territory under the terms of of a bilateral agreement? That happened in late 1995, when Israel ceded Tulkarem, Shechem (Nablus), Ramallah, Kalkilya, Bethlehem and Jenin to the Palestinian Authority. Starting in February 1996 Israel was struck with a series of suicide bombings that killed over 60 people and injured hundreds more. This violence didn't occur because Israel killed Yihye Ayyash or because Hamas was trying to "kill the peace process." It happened because Israel trusted its security to the PA. The PA, then under Arafat's leadership, had no interest in preventing terror or Hamas from developing a terror infrastructure. So Hamas took advantage of the opportunity, built its infrastructure while being protected by Arafat and struck at Israel when it could. What happened in Gaza is a repeat of that and of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, which afforded Hezbollah a better platform from which to attack Israel.

The lesson isn't that unilateral won't work. The lesson is that giving territory to terrorists (or those committed to your destruction) strengthens them.

Finally there's this:

Your popularity has increased since you declared yourself independent of Hamas and set up a government in the West Bank. Does this show that when you make a bold move, people like it?

Yes, but if I make concessions which are unacceptable to the people, I think that I will not be popular anymore. But it is not a matter of popularity -- it's a matter of fairness.

"Bold?!" Read the whole interview. "Bold" doesn't describe Abbas. He has chutzpah no doubt. But the best description of him is "passive aggressive." This is not a man that any sane person would trust to ensure his interests.

And note, even here, he refuses to make "concessions which are unacceptable to the people." Has he even thought of using his position as leader to persuade the people of the necessity of making concessions? Instead he just pretends that not demanding the 1947 partition plan is a concession.

Abbas is weak. And I'm not just talking about his political position.

Israel Matzav has more thoughts:

I want you to try to understand Abu Mazen's basic argument, because it's not something western minds are used to confronting. When we used to play football in the schoolyard and one team scored a touchdown, the ruled always was "suckers walk." The team that gave up the touchdown had to retreat to the other end of the schoolyard to receive the ensuing kickoff. In Abu Mazen's world, the winner has to give up all its gains in order to appease the loser.

Crossposted on Yourish.com.

mahmoud abbas.

Strudel eating surrender monkeys

Despite Don Surber's sensible quote of Angela Merkel
Germany, rather than France has been the European country working against any sort of sanctions against Iran. As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required / h/t Daled Amos, the Shalem Center)

Business opportunities in Iran were the theme of a German government-sponsored conference last week in Darmstadt, Germany. "Iran is accustomed to crises," the conference invitation delicately noted, "but somehow always keeps going forward." In fact, Iran's resilience is made possible in no small measure by Germany itself, which remains one of Iran's largest trading partners. Now Berlin is balking at international attempts to intensify economic sanctions against the Tehran regime for its nuclear program.

Why would that be?

Still, however substantial, business interests alone can't explain Germany's refusal to seriously confront the Iranian threat. The men and women I met in Berlin are obviously concerned about the stability of the Middle East and the safety of the Jewish state, and recognize that a nuclear-armed and expansionist Shiite regime is a danger, ultimately, to Europe as well.

Perhaps another reason for German blindness on Iran is a misplaced sense of contrition. In insisting on engagement rather than confrontation with Tehran, Germans seem to believe they are keeping faith with the lessons of their history. All problems should be peacefully resolved; no aggressor is irredeemable. That was the message offered last week by German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger, who, even as he insisted that Germany was ready "if necessary" to confront Iran, quickly added that Berlin was prepared to give the Ahmadinejad regime "a chance to recover the international community's lost confidence in its nuclear program. If Iran is ready to do this . . . then I think we can spare ourselves future sanctions debates."

Gee I never thought that France would be tougher than Germany but that seems to be what's happening.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, 2 years ago Daniel Pipes wrote Weak Brits, Tough French. Maybe the French shouldn't be underestimated.

iran, europe.

The white butterfly

Michelle Malkin and others have posted about Shiri Negari, the terror victim who was featured in a sign protesting Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's invitation to speak at Columbia.

The name brought back memories. While the terror war against Israel was going strong, I kept on reading new names of those killed, but there was something about her story that stuck with me: the white butterfly.

The emergency physician who treated her, Dr. Avraham Rivkind wrote

Several weeks ago, I kneeled over a beautiful young woman named Shiri Nagari in the hospital parking lot. I asked her how she was feeling, and she answered that she was okay. But I felt that something was wrong.

What was wrong was

... her chest X-ray confirmed my hunch: a white butterfly on the black background.

Shiri's lungs had exploded.

The same loud wave of air that smashes your eardrums can compress the air in your lungs and send it to destroy the organs in your abdominal cavity. Three concussive waves do lethal damage when a bomb explodes in an enclosed area.

We rushed Shiri to our trauma operating room, always left empty for emergencies, and opened her up: blood in her chest and abdomen, a liver torn apart. No matter how much blood we pumped in, she couldn't survive.

I'm 52, and like most Israelis I serve in the army too. I have seen my share of tank injuries, unrelenting cancers and traffic accidents.

Shiri's death was the first time I ever cried at losing a patient.

All of her internal organs were crushed by the force of the blast. There was nothing the doctors could do.

I know it's a terrible way to remember someone, but when the terrorists were striking with regularity, it's how I reacted. I could name too many of the victims of the Arab terror during the so called "Aqsa intifada."

Hopefully we've seen an end to those terrible times. But when some brilliant academic, politician, journalist or diplomat comes up with another idea how to empower the purveyors of terror they increase the risk that they could recur.

With the Holiday of Sukkos on its way, I don't want to end on such a negative note. Fortunately, Dr. Rivkind tells of some of his successes too.

Adi Hudja, only 14, had more than 40 metal objects in her legs from the suicide bombings on Ben Yehuda Street last December.

She was bleeding uncontrollably from her wounds. On the spot, we came up with the idea of trying a coagulant for hemophiliacs still not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, certainly not approved for trauma. It costs $10,000 for a small bottle, but it worked.

Six months later, she's coming for therapy three times a week in Hadassah's Mt. Scopus Rehab Center, and she's learning to walk. Next year, maybe she'll be able to go back to school too. She's the same age as one of my daughters.

and ...

In October 2000, Shimon Ohana, an 18-year-old border police officer, was declared dead in the field. But I asked the ambulance driver to bring him to the hospital. Some decisions are hard to make in the field. I uncovered him, we opened his chest cavity and began to work. He came back to life but remained in a coma for 17 days.

At last, he woke up.

Shimon is my continued reminder that we can't give up hope.

Today, he is a fully functioning young man who trains dogs and loves computers.

No we can't give up hope. Even when seemingly every defensive action inspires questions of those who rarely question Israel's enemies.

Crossposted on Yourish.com.

white butterfly, Shiri Negari.

What's to debate?

Captain Ed has added his criticism to those who fault the GOP presidential front runner from not showing up to a debate at Morgan State University.

We have scolded the African-American community for its lock-step support for Democrats. However, as the avoidance of this debate demonstrates, Republicans haven't exactly beaten down doors in an attempt to engage these voters, either. Given that these invitations went out in March, the campaigns had plenty of time to schedule one debate to address one of the largest voting blocs in the country, and one whose loyalties could help the GOP turn national elections.

Some will say that the African-American community doesn't turn out for Republican primaries, and that's mostly true. They focus on Democrats. However, the entire point of outreach is to change that voting behavior, and leading Republicans have to give them a reason to do so. Ignoring them in the primaries will not gain the Republican nominee any votes in the general election.

Back in 2002, then Congressman Bob Ehrlich agreed to an NAACP sponsored debate with then Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. There was a report that Ehrlich's running mate, Michael Steele, was pelted with Oreos. Whether or not Oreos made an appearance at the debate still seems to be debated. What is clear is the hostility of the audience to Ehrlich. According to the Baltimore Sun ( Ehrlich and Townsend exchange jabs - Gubernatorial candidates debate campaign themes, attack records, promises Sun, The (Baltimore, MD)
September 27, 2002 )

The beginning of last night's debate was marred by jeering of Ehrlich during his opening remarks, booing that became so disruptive that NAACP National President Kweisi Mfume took the podium from Townsend to admonish the crowd.

"We have to be dignified in our approach, no matter where we stand on these issues," said Mfume, who used to serve in Congress with Ehrlich. "On behalf of all the citizens of this great state, allow us to have a debate where all the issues can be heard."

Ehrlich did reach out and was heckled for his troubles. If the African American community wishes for Republicans to take them seriously, perhaps they ought to be a little less hostile when Republicans do reach out. If Republicans feel that their outreach efforts are for naught they won't waste their resources.

The difference here is that this was to be a forum only for Republican candidates. Still I can't help thinking that the treatment Ehrlich received had to be a consideration of the Republican candidates who chose not to debate.

presidential election 2008.

The tip of a desert iceberg?

via memeorandum

Jules Crittenden, Elder of Ziyon and others noted this story from Saudi Arabia.

Members of Khobar's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice were the victims of an attack by two Saudi females, Asharq Al-Awsat can reveal.

According to the head of the commission in Khobar, two girls pepper sprayed members of the commission after they had tried to offer them advice.

Head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the Eastern province Dr. Mohamed bin Marshood al-Marshood, told Asharq Al Awsat that two of the Commission's employees were verbally insulted and attacked by two inappropriately-dressed females, in the old market in Prince Bandar street, an area usually crowded with shoppers during the month of Ramadan.

"Offer them advice" is likely a euphemism for "threaten them."

But what I find especially interesting about this story is that in occurred in the Eastern Province.

Max Singer wrote a fascinating article a few years ago, "Free the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia."

Before its conquest by Ibn Saud, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (EP), which lies along the shore of the Arabian Gulf and which contains all of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, was populated mostly by two groups of Shiite Muslims who were quite different culturally and religiously from their Najdi conquerors. One group was Bedouins and settled date-growers and farmers living around two groups of oases. The other was pearlers, fishermen, and traders living in coastal villages along the Gulf.

Since the vast recent expansion of the oil industry, the population of the EP has multiplied, partly from natural growth of the original local population, but also by migration from other parts of Saudi Arabia and a much larger immigration of foreign Arabs and other Muslims and some professionals and managers from Europe and the U.S., all of whom are excluded from citizenship.

Appreciating the predicament of the people of the EP requires some information about the official religion of Saudi Arabia. It is unofficially known as Wahhabism—which is conventionally described as a form of Hanbali Islam—begun by the Najd preacher Mohammed bin Abdul-Wahhab in 1745, who spread his faith by partnership with the local Najd warlord, who became the founder of the Al Saud dynasty. (Some Muslims resentfully say that calling Wahhabism a school of Islam is like calling the Branch Davidians of Waco a school of Christianity.) Wahhabism is an austere desert belief, based more on fanatic intensity than scholarly roots in Islamic writings and teaching. In addition to objecting to any memorials to the dead, and any freedom for women, it holds that most Muslims who are not Wahhabis are “polytheists” who should be treated like infidels, and killed if they refuse to convert to Wahhabism. They specifically deny that Shia Muslims are true Muslims and therefore insist that they have no rights in Saudi Arabia, even in areas where they had been living for many centuries before Saudi Arabia existed. (A newly published book, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, by Berkeley Professor Hamid Algar calls Wahhabism “a peculiar interpretation of Islamic doctrine” that was “stigmatized as aberrant by the leading Sunni scholars” since it was first put forth.)

So is this (seemingly) minor incident perhaps an indicator of deeper fault lines. Are the indigenous Shi'a of the Eastern Province starting to rebel against their Wahhabi enforcers? Or was this just an isolated incident.

Crossposted on Yourish.com.

saudi arabia, wahhabism.

Juggling carnivals 09/26/2007

Incoming Carnivals

Thanks to Dr. Sanity for including my entry (near the top!) in the latest Carnival of the Insanities.

Abolition of Man hosted the most recent Carnival of Maryland. It is extremely well done.

Jack's Shack has hosted the extraordinary Not Haveil Havalim #135. Though it's unauthorized, check it out. Even if I'm Soccer Dad and he's not.

So step right up and enjoy the carnivals!

Technorati tags: blog carnivals.

Ahmadineajd meets with U.S. Muslim leaders, calls U.S. "big prison"

Ahmadinejad's message is delivered to a more receptive audience and adapted accordingly. From Iran's PressTV:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slams Washington's domestic policy saying the US has turned into a big prison for the American nation.

He made the remarks at a meeting with the leaders of US Muslim community on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad criticized the offensive remarks made by Columbia University's President Lee Bollinger adding, "They insult the guest they've invited and echoed statements of a terrorist group in their remarks. They knew their words would not affect me and just tried to prevent the university students from listening to new words."

Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a pretext to occupy Palestine and displace millions of peoples, therefore its aspects should be studied. "They displaced
the Palestinian nation under the pretext of the massacre of the Jews; if it is revealed that the Holocaust has nothing to do with the issue of Palestine and the figures in this regard are exaggerated, they will have nothing to say."

"Resolutions are no longer of any use to counter Israel's crimes and the approved resolutions are not implemented either. I'm sure that Americans are against those crimes and consider Palestinians to be right."

He described discord between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq as a plot hatched by the enemies, which can be thwarted by unity.

Ahmadinejad called on all Muslims to strive for justice in the world adding, "We believe all religions have the same origin. Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the savior."

While in New York, Ahmadinejad met with Mugabe

Mahmoud has been very busy lately. But how could he not find time to meet with "the valiant African figure"?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe on Monday reviewed avenues to bolster all-out bilate ralrelations.

The meeting was held on the sidelines of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Underlining the need for unity of the developing states against American and British neocolonialism, he called for further activiation of various groups such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Group 15 and Group 77 in order to develop the United Nations.

The Iranian President further appreciated the active presence of Zimbabwe in the NAM Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity held in Tehran early September.

For his part, President Mugabe, criticized the unilateralist approach and misuse of the UN Security Council by the bullying powers, and urged the developing states to confront such approaches by the big powers.

The two presidents underscored the need for formation of a joint economic commission.[...]

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Submitted 09/26/2007

1. "Jena 6" Update
Colossus of Rhodey acknowledges that the sentences meted out in the Jena 6 case were disproportionate and likely racist, but he shows that the rest of the interpretation of the incident is bogus. (I'd emphasize that Al Sharpton sullies any cause he's involved with.)
2. A Big Hole in the Desert (and in the story)
Soccer Dad
My post considers the mystery target in Syria that Israel attacked.
3. What Do Wahhabis Want?
Done with Mirrors considers that while Bin Laden may have grand designs, those who support him may not have quite the same grandiose dreams.
4. Point of Inflection
The Glittering Eye looks at economic data and wonders why some rather popular economists missed a rather important phenomenon when looking at the big picture.
5. Columbia Dhimmis Get Ahmedinejad Earful! Some Applaud, Some Laugh -- We All Should Just Cry...
Okie on the Lam comments on the support shown Ahmadinejad at Columbia, the media's cluelessness in covering it and a wonderful suggestion to make the visit that much more meaningful.
6. Cosmic Ironies
Bookworm Room considers the many strands of her family's history and the irony that ultimately saved her father from the Holocaust. For some reason this family history reminded me a bit of the one that Judge Alex Kosinski wrote more than ten years ago.
7. How The Arab Lobby Works
JoshuaPundit uses the example of PLO lobbyist Edward Abington to show that there's an Arab lobby working against American interests.
8. Krugman Spews Race-Baiting Bile
Rhymes with Right takes issue with Paul Krugman's imputation of racism in the Republican politics in the refusal of the top presidential candidates to debate in front of a black audience. I'd add another reason. In 2002, gubernatorial candidate Bob Ehrlich agreed to debate Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend at Morgan State. The crowd got so rowdy (and, need I say, anti-Ehrlich) at times that moderator Kweisi Mfume had to stop the proceedings.
9. Gates' Iraq Agenda Short On Democracy
Cheat Seeking Missiles regrets the lack of commitment to post-war Iraqi democracy demonstrated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
10. The Free-Radical Approach To EduReform
The Education Wonks points to the education reform plans of the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
11. The Human Touch
Big Lizards wants to see more human involvement in screening potential immigrants, instead of relying on set procedures.
12. The World Is Still Here
Right Wing Nut House notes the hypocrisy of those in academia applauding the likes of Ahmadinejad who suppresses the academy at home (despite his boasts to the contrary.)

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council

With the mostest

I was privileged to be invited to post at Yourish.com about 2 weeks ago. That's the site of Meryl Yourish, one of the most prominent pro-Israel bloggers who was blogging before people knew what blogging was!

A few months ago she gave me permission to announce Haveil Havalim, an opportunity that I didn't always avail myself of. However now that I can crosspost, expect to see most of my Israel related blogging posted there too. And of course when you go there make sure to read the hostess who shows all us bloggers how it's done!

And Mazel Tov to Meryl on her new job and getting a bit on a BBC program!

One note: When I crosspost, I'll usually take advantage of a delay that WordPress allows, so when you follow the link to Yourish, it may tell you there's no post there yet. But don't worry, just click around and read. You'll enjoy it and be informed.

UPDATE: I also have a couple of co-bloggers here. One, Daled Amos, somehow keeps track of nearly every single Israel related blog post and finds a pithy comment to describe it. More recently I asked JudeoPundit to join me. He spends his time slogging through the Iranian media so you don't have to. Whether or not they're posting here, it's well worth your while to check them out.

meryl yourish, blogging.

Waiting for assad

Back in 1996, the New York Times had some surprisingly kind words for President Assad of Syria. In Closing Ranks against Terror the editors of the Times fretted that the senior Assad wouldn't attend the "Summit of the Peacemakers" but that he was still on the right side of history.

President Hafez al-Assad of Syria was conspicuously absent, as he was last fall at the funeral for the slain Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. But as Prime Minister Shimon Peres noted on Wednesday, at least Syria is engaged in the Middle East peace effort, unlike Iran, Israel's implacable foe.

"Peace effort?" Please. Assad went to his grave after rejecting 98% of the territory he demanded of Israel, when President Clinton went to Geneva in 2000. As William Safire remembered the elder Assad in "The Rejectionist.'

Wisely, Bill Clinton decided to bypass this chance at wearing his inimitable lip-biting mournful look, and won't dispatch Vice President Al Gore, his normal substitute, to Damascus.

Why? Because three months ago, at a much-touted meeting in Geneva, Clinton presented Assad with the Golan Heights on a silver platter. The Syrian then humiliated the supplicating American by refusing to take yes for an answer, making fresh demands for control of Galilee that embarrassed not only Clinton but even the most appeasement-prone doves in Jerusalem. Assad scuttled negotiations in the most dramatic way possible.

It's important to remember this bit of history as the editors of the NY Times applaud the inclusion of Syria in .... peace talks.

We welcome President Bush’s decision to include Syria on the list of countries invited to a November Middle East peace meeting. The president’s distaste for such efforts — aides still balk at the term “peace conference” — is only slightly less visceral than his distaste for Syria. We hope this means that Mr. Bush and his aides are finally ready to push all sides to make the compromises essential for moving toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

If Damascus chooses not to attend the meeting, it would again confirm its role as one of the region’s dangerous spoilers. If it chooses to come, the chances for peace may increase. The invitation will certainly make it easier for Egypt and Saudi Arabia — whose political and economic support for any Israel-Palestinian agreement is crucial — to be there. Mr. Bush will still probably have to twist the arms of the risk-averse Saudis to show up.

"...confirm its role..." How many times does reality have to smack you upside the head before you realize that it's telling you something? These games have been going on with Syria for more than a decade. It's the dream of every peace processor to make a comprehensive peace in the Middle East including Syria.

But come on, how many times has an Assad rejected importunings to make peace with Israel? How many times has an Assad launched a war against Israel via its proxies? Now that there's apparent evidence that Syria is up to some greater mischief is not the time to engage the younger Assad (can I call him Dorktator or is that copyrighted?) but to at least consider taking diplomatic action against him.

Additionally as Mere Rhetoric points out

When we were taught Israeli-Arab Peace Process 101, it was an ironclad principle that Israel pushes for bilateral talks with each individual Arab enemy and the Arabs push for multilateral talks with Israel. Why? Because when the Arab states combine their negotiating strength they can make demands in unison: "hey Israel, you want this concession from the Palestinians? Well then you're also going to have to give back the Golan to Syria." Israel has to give something to every Arab state in order to get anything that it wants. That's why the Saudis are already setting preconditions for their participation (nice to see major media outlets helping them out with that - teamwork). They understand that the State Department has maneuvered Olmert into an impossible situation, and they're ready to exploit it after three decades of Israel successfully resisting multilateral talks.

The editorial continues:

As for why this sudden flexibility from the White House? The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Bush’s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, wants to try and salvage the president’s legacy — and her own — with a peace deal that could help stabilize the region that Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq has so destructively roiled. It will take a lot more creative diplomacy to make that happen. Indeed, six trips into a too-little, too-late peace effort, Ms. Rice is having as much trouble making progress with Israel, America’s close ally, as with Palestinians.

And how successful was the non-stop peace processing of the Clinton administration? Well, not very. As the editors of the New York Times noted at the time:

Mr. Arafat, regrettably, showed no interest in this proposal, holding out for full control of all areas of the city formerly under Jordanian rule. Talks on Jerusalem cannot usefully resume until Mr. Arafat shows a greater willingness to compromise.

Mr. Arafat seems to feel he cannot do so. His rigidity reflects his failure to prepare Palestinian opinion for anything less than full sovereignty over East Jerusalem. But it also reflects the vocal opposition of Arab countries like Saudi Arabia to recognizing any Israeli sovereignty there. This Arab opposition must be defused in the weeks ahead.

It's not the lack of effort or lack of Israeli concessions. It's the unwillingness of the Palestinians (and most of the Arab world) to make peace with Israel.

The editorial continues:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is insisting that the meeting produce a full declaration on the most sensitive and difficult issues: borders, Jerusalem and when the Palestinians get the independent state that President Bush promised them five years ago. Israel, concerned that Mr. Abbas is too weak to guarantee Israel’s security but unwilling to do more to strengthen him, has made clear it is interested in much smaller steps.

Israel has ceded territory, funded, armed and granted amnesty to Fatah, what hasn't it done to "strengthen" Abbas? But that's the crux of the problem Abbas wants everything handed to him and then refuses to live up to his commitments. (Much like Arafat.) Egged on by the likes of the Times he hopes at some point America will diplomatically force Israel to give him what he wants. But that will not bring peace. It will just bring demands for more while chaos likely ensues.

America’s recent record in the Middle East is one of failure — in Iraq, in promoting genuine democracy, in stopping Iran from spreading its brand of militant Islam at odds with the West. The region doesn’t need another failure nor does America’s tattered reputation. All sides need to come away from the November meeting feeling that something concrete has changed in the Middle East — and finally for the better.

This conclusion is simply ludicrous. Do you want blame for the spreading Iranian influence? How about the blind eye turned to Hezbollah from 2000 to 2006?

And the importance of doing something concrete? Overrated. Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon and from Gaza and reaped terror in return.

Again it's not what the United States or Israel do or don't do that matters. It is if the Arab world changes its belief that Israel is illegitimate. No number of summits or peace conferences or one-sided concessions will change that.

As Dore Gold argues

When former U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross sought to understand the failure of the Oslo peace process of the 1990s, in which he was an active participant, he zeroed in on the need to bring about a "transformation" of political attitudes that the Palestinian leadership failed to encourage. Ross pointed to the education that Palestinian children received, concluding "that no negotiation is likely to succeed if there is one environment at the negotiating table and another on the street."

Actually I'd say that the environment at the negotiating table is the same as the one in the streets as the Palestinian leadership has encouraged the latter. Until those attitudes change, there's no chance for peace.

Or as Elder of Ziyon puts it:

History shows, however, that Palestinian Arabs have not the slightest interest in a state. The could declare a state in Gaza today if they wanted to; they could build all the institutions they want and make a model democratic society in a contiguous area where not a single Jew or Zionist lives. When they were offered a state in 2001 they rejected it, as they did in 1947 when they rejected partition and in 1940 when the West Bankers voluntarily chose to be annexed to Jordan and become Jordanian citizens.

Peace conferences without a change of heart are useless.

Crossposted at Yourish.com.

israel, peace process.

When the free speech denier gets a platform

Helene Cooper of the NY Times reports on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday at Columbia University.

Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president, then continued his attack. He said it was “well documented” that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused “to adhere to the international standards” of disclosure for its nuclear program.

“I doubt,” Mr. Bollinger concluded, “that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not directly answer the questions, but he did address them. Before doing so though, he said pointedly:

“In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty.”

He added, to some cheers, “Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.”

Bollinger's opening taunt came across as gratuitous and more defensive than sincere. I got the impression from Bollinger that he was trying to show that he understood the man whom he had disgraced his institution by inviting. But rather, I think, he played into his hands. He allowed Ahmadinejad to come back with his "we actually respect our students" giving him an excuse to pose as more committed to academic freedom than Bollinger.

Later on Cooper reports:

“Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel?” Mr. Coatsworth asked.

“We love all people,” Mr. Ahmadinejad dodged. “We are friends of the Jews. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran.” He went on to say that the Palestinian “nation” should be allowed a referendum to decide its own future.

Mr. Coatsworth persisted: “I think you can answer that question with a simple yes or no.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad was having none of it. “You ask the question and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it,” he shot back. “I ask you, is the Palestinian issue not a question of international importance? Please tell me yes or no.”

For that, he got a round of applause from the students, who had lined up four hours before the speech to get into the auditorium.

This would have been a perfect point for a serious reporter to add some facts about the current status of Jews in Iran. Instead, Cooper emphasizes Ahmadinejad's point and adds an approving exclamation point to it.

Well actually, Columbia provided him with a platform. Free speech doesn't demand that everyone get the same platform. As Michael Rubin wrote

they might want to enable those who don't have it, rather than celebrate the men who have taken it away.

The NY Times editorial, Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks, of course, gets it wrong. (Interesting, the NY Times editorial describes Ahmadinejad as "bobbing and weaving" and the headline of the news article uses the verb "parries.")

So we are dismayed by the behavior of some of New York’s democratically elected representatives who denounced and threatened Columbia University for inviting the Iranian leader to speak there yesterday. We can imagine no better way to give hope to opponents of Iran’s repressive state than by showcasing America’s democracy and commitment to free speech. And we can imagine no better way to lay bare the bankruptcy of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views than to have him speak, and be questioned, at a university forum.

Again, if, say, an Iranian dissident was given the same platform at Columbia as Ahmadinejad, they'd have a point. But despite the jeers of Columbia officials, Ahmadinejad was given a platform that he dominated. One that he didn't deserve and one that debases the institution that provided it.

And of course the Times finds fault with the response to the speech.

Unlike Iran’s citizens, Americans have the right to laugh at leaders, as well as protest Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visit and Columbia’s decision to schedule his speech. The threats of possible sanctions against Columbia were an insult to that freedom. In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of New York’s Assembly, Sheldon Silver, warned that legislators might now “take a different view” of capital support provided to Columbia.

Except a private institution has no right to receive public funds. If Columbia has somehow abused the public trust, why shouldn't the public be able to respond. Punishing Columbia in no way diminishes freedom.

In Playing Democrat at Columbia, Anne Applebaum, shows that she gets it.

Ahmadinejad's agenda, though, differs from that of the traditional autocrat. His goal is not merely to hold power in Iran through sheer force, or even through a standard 20th-century personality cult: His goal is to undermine the American and Western democracy rhetoric that poses an ideological threat to the Iranian regime. Last winter, when he invited a host of dubious Holocaust-deniers to discuss the Holocaust in Tehran, he claimed that it was in order to provide shelter for the West's "dissidents" -- that is, for Western thinkers "who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust." This week, he declared that his visit to New York would help the American people, who have "suffered in diverse ways and have been deprived of access to accurate information." Thus the speech at Columbia: Here he is, the allegedly undemocratic Ahmadinejad, taking questions from students! At an American university! Look who's the real democrat now!
...
All things being equal, Columbia would have done better to ignore him, instead of feeding the media circus that serves his purposes. It's not as if he is deprived of a platform in this country: Only last week, he ducked and dodged his way through a long interview on "60 Minutes," and his pronouncements regularly appear in media of all kinds.

("ducked and dodged!" Those boxing metaphors keep on coming.)

Nevertheless, it would have been wrong, once he'd been invited, to ban Ahmadinejad from speaking: To do so would have granted him far more significance than he deserves and played right into his I'm-the-real-democrat-here rhetoric. Instead, the university should have demanded genuine reciprocity. If the president and dean of Columbia truly believed in an open exchange of ideas, they should have presented a debate between Ahmadinejad and an Iranian dissident or human rights activist -- someone from his own culture who could argue with him in his own language -- instead of allowing him to be filmed on a podium with important-looking Americans. Perhaps Columbia could even have insisted on an appropriate exchange: Ahmadinejad speaks in New York; Columbia sends a leading Western atheist -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or, better still, Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- to Qom, the Shiite holy city, to debate the mullahs on their own ground.

While this suggestion is brilliant, I don't agree that Columbia had to observe any rules of etiquette with Ahmadinejad. Still demanding reciprocity in this fashion, or asking an Iranian dissident to speak at the same forum) would have undermined Ahmadinejad's pose.

UPDATE: Citing Shmuel Rozner Israel Matzav asks if Israel was hurt by Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia. If so Helene Cooper played a role in assuring that that part of the speech got across to her readers.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Ahmadinejad, columbia university.

Daily Kos: "The Conspiracy"--"Explaining Diane"

This diarist presents a letter/comment, responding to a column by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com about Diane Feinstein, "symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat." This diary will probably be removed, but as of right now . . .

I have a theory that I am finding fits this example too, Diane is, I believe, part of the much larger Zionist conspiracy to control this country and to control its political will to serve the Right wing Israeli dream of dominating the middle east . I know this is regarded as "anti-semitic" and characterized as paranoid fantasy by supporters of this dream but this is what I see. This country has been taken over by domination of the Main Stream Media (MSM), (indeed a lot of the European press is heavily influenced too) and domination of the congress by AIPAC with heavy infiltration of the security, military and other branches of government and finance to serve this dream of a bigger stronger Israel. This domination did NOT happen by accident, it has been directed and financed and supported by a group of people who are posing as Americans but acting in what they see as Israels' best interest. Of course Americans are guilty of allowing this to happen, in our complacency we have been too lazy and blind to the realities of the larger world. I doubt we are ready to wake up yet, the pain is not large enough. To accept this theory is too difficult and requires too much learning and painful looking at realities, it requires accepting that we have been duped and been suckers to a brilliant strategy of subversion and control and to admit that our much admired system of government and constitutional law has many loopholes and weaknesses. This is a bitter pill to swallow and one that will take awhile for most people to digest if they ever get the chance.

I think this question (for most people) needs to be examined carefully. I know I will be attacked for bringing this up, I will be called all kinds of names and accused of all kinds of things. I still think it is an issue that needs to be examined carefully, thoughtfully and sensitively. Most of the people perpetrating this conspiracy believe wholeheartedly that they are doing a good thing, something that needs to be done. They believe that they know better than other people in the world, that they are hated or misunderstood by the world and have to resort to trickery in order to survive . . .

Related: "The interview I wanted to hear"

Nuttiness from Iran: a mini-review

Now that Ahmadinejad is making the rounds in New York, it might be useful to review some of the conspiracist statements frequently uttered by either Ahmadinejad or the "Supreme leader," Ayatollah Khamenei.

The Ayatollah on the Samarra bombings (US, Zionist plot)

The Ayatollah on the prophet cartoons (Israel conspiracy)

Ahmadinejad on Shia-Sunni infighting. (US, Zionist conspiracy)

Ahmadinejad on the reason for establishing Israel (". . . to halt the process of all other countries' scientific and economic development and advancement, on the pretext of ensuring that regimes's security" and "so that the regional nations would not taste a day's length of peace and stability.")

Interviewers should bring up some of these claims. Scott Pelley's interview with Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes supposedly involved some tough questioning, but I'm not that impressed. I'm sure "Mr. President" came expecting to deliver some nuclear denials and to do some damage-control on the Holocaust issue. Why not try to draw Ahmadinejad out on some of the above-mentioned conspiracist fantasies?

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Rotten to ...

In "The Mideast Core" The editors of the Washington Post argue

Ms. Rice should also discourage Israel from intensifying the ongoing conflict with Hamas-ruled Gaza by shutting off its electricity and fuel supplies. It's hardly possible that Mr. Olmert will be able to negotiate peace with one set of Palestinians while waging war against another. Instead, Israel should be open to striking a cease-fire with Hamas and opening peace talks with Syria.

The logic here is, in a word, rotten.

At the beginning of the editorial the editors were joyfully proclaiming "serious" talks between PM Olmert and President Abbas, then they show exactly how "serious" they truly are.

A country's first priority is to defend its citizens. If "highly inaccurate" Qassams are continually fired into Israeli territory, Israel ought to be defending itself regardless of who it's negotiating peace with. After all wouldn't it be a measure of the seriousness of the peace if Abbas would say, "We understand why you are doing this you must defend your people." That, of course, is the rub. The Post knows how unserious these talks are. They aren't about peace but about what Israel can do for the Palestinians - and get nothing in return. And they know that the moderate Abbas will never countenance Israel defending itself - even against Hamas who was throwing Fatah people off tall buildings a few months ago. But if Abbas can't accept the how serious can the peace be?

If the Post were serious about peace, it would be encouraging a real Palestinian (and Arab) change of heart. Instead, it just continually asks for Israel to do more and more with ever lessening (positive) returns.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel, peace process.

Moveon already

Richard Cohen - What she ducked

Certain Republicans, particularly Rudy Giuliani, have attempted to exploit the MoveOn.org ad for their own political purposes, even wondering whether the Times violated election law by selling the page at a (standard) discount. This is silly.

Clark Hoyt - Betraying its own best interests

Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

Unfortunately, Hoyt can't resist editorializing a bit

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”

The Times is, like MoveOn.org an opponent of the war.
It's editors assign stories colored by their perceptions and beliefs.
Don't belittle this by calling it "fresh ammunition." It's what many of us call "confirmation."

And of course many of those questions about the war arise from the way your editors and reporters choose to portray the war. If the Times were as balanced as you're assuming, I don't think that the war would be as unpopular as it is now. That's not to say that the administration hasn't made mistakes or that it has communicated the importance of the war particularly well. But given the almost almost universal opposition of the media, it would be very difficult for the war to be popular even if it were run perfectly.

This was also interesting

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken.

Well let's say for the moment that a member of the administration had bungled something. Would the editors say that it was acceptable that no disciplinary action be taken? Well glad you asked.

Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so — even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing.

Well someone clearly mis-informed the public even if he or she didn't lie. Will the Times demonstrate the same of level of accountability that it demands from its government?

Confederate Yankee deserves a lot of credit for breaking this story!

new york times, media bias.

Musical monday #13

The rules are figure out the songs. Figure out the theme. No fair Googling even if I did it to make sure I got the lyrics right! Next week's scheduled host - Elie's Expositions who also hosted last week, as we alternate weeks.

Like Elie's last week, the grouping is significant.

1) Just 'bout five feet four, From her head to the ground
2) I try to get in, But I can't find the door
3) I think you're headed for a breakdown, so be careful not to show it

4) Said you'd give me light, But you never told be about the fire
5) Danger in the game when the stakes are high
6) When the children were babies and played on the beach.

7) Throw down your hat, kick off your shoes
8) Cupid by the hour sends valentines

9) I play it cool when its slow and jump it when its fast
10) My grandpa, he's 95, And he keeps on dancin'

11) The past is gone, It goes by, like dusk to dawn
12) Lay your head down on my shoulder

13) A little girl asked me what am I gonna' do, When I get old and blue and worn clear through?
14) Oh, how you tried to cut me down to size

15) Say it right now, baby (say you will)
16) In violent times, You shouldn’t have to sell your soul

Don't yell at me over these last two sets as the don't quite match the others. You may supply the details!
17) And comin' apart at the seams
18) Doesn't take much to make me happy and make me smile

19) Lonely sailors pass the time away
20) Shadows of a man A face through a window

(There's a trick in that last set.)

And now the belated answers to our last outing

Thanks to Elie's Expositions - who identified the theme "dance", Fiery Spirited Zionist, Jack's Shack, Judeopundit and SerAndEz for playing. If you like these, check them out and tell your friends! The more the merrier.

No, Dance the night away (I can't believe I forgot it, wasn't among them.)
But here's one that I meant to include and one that I realized way after the fact that I should have included. (That's right two bonus lyrics!)

21b) She was a be-bop baby on a hard day's night
22b) You know there's no excuse, You know you're gonna lose you never win

1) Molotov cocktail-the local drink.
All she wants to do is dance - Don Henley

2) I hit the radio dial and turn it up all the way.
Dance, Dance, Dance - Beach Boys

3) Can't you see the music is just starting?
Dance with me - Orleans

4) We could dance under the moonlight ...
Do you want to dance - Bette Midler and others

5) Whenever one door closes, I hope one more opens
I hope you dance - Lee Ann Womack

6) To hold me, to scold me ...
Last dance - Donna Summers

7) put on your red shoes and dance the blues...
Let's dance - David Bowie

8) I feel summer creepin’ in and I’m tired of this town again.
Mary Jane's Last Dance - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers

9) And all the leaves on the trees are falling
Moondance - Van Morrison

10) And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet
Safety Dance - Men without Hats

11) But don't forget who's takin' you home
Save the last dance for me - Drifters, Sam Cooke and others

12) The two heart two-step baby, that's me and you
Sweetheart Dance - Pam Tilles

13) I'm glad I didn't know, the way it all would end, the way it all would go
The Dance - Garth Brooks

14) He's silent and quick just like Oliver Twist
Vanz kant danz - John Fogerty

15) You keep your mind on the money
Private Dancer - Tina Turner

16) Blue jean baby, L.A. lady
Tiny Dancer - Elton John

17) That’s where the big bands used to come and play.
Come Dancing - The Kinks

18) But your empty eyes seem to pass me by...
Dancing with myself - Billy Idol

19) One of my legs is shorter than the other
Dancing Fool - Frank Zappa

20) Philadelphia, PA, Baltimore and D.C. now
Dancing in the streets - Martha Reeves and the Vandellas

21) It's a supernatural delight
Dancing in the Moonlight - King Harvest (love that song, whatever happened to them?)

22) Friday night and the lights are low
Dancing Queen - Abba

23) With just the music on the radio
(Slow Dancing) Swaying to the Music - Johnny Rivers

24) You've got a cute way of talking
You make me feel like dancing - Leo Sayers

Previous editions:

Musical Monday 12
Musical Monday 11
Musical Monday 10
Musical Monday 9
Musical Monday 8
Musical Monday 7
Musical Monday 6
Musical Monday 5
Musical Monday 4
Musical Monday 3
Musical Monday 2
Musical Monday 1

musical monday.

Is scott adams antisemitic?

In a word, "no."

I received an e-mail from a reader asking me to respond to a recent item in Scott Adams' blog. (I have to admit that the foul language of the item is very offputting. Adams has talent, why he can't express himself without an excess of 4 letter words is beyond me.)

It appears that this is the offending sentence:

Aren't there any Iranian words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present?

I'm sorry but I didn't read this the way my correspondent did. Here was the previous sentence:

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language except for using the English word "myth"?

Adams' complaint wasn't about the Holocaust. It was about Ahmadinejad's use of the term "myth" to describe the Holocaust. Adams was noting that is was convenient for Ahmadinejad to use the English word myth, but not very convincing. So he mocked him, in the next sentence with his "historical facts" line. (I'm not sure when Ahmadinejad actually said "myth" in English, asAdams said.) But that's Adams's point, Ahmadinejad says myth; Adams, in his rant, says "historical fact" and then uses the phrase "unhealthy level of influence" to describe Ahmadinejad's beliefs, not his own.

The construction is awkward, but I can't make the inference that my correspondent made.

In a follow-up post Adams - mercifully free of expletives - wrote

With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

The tone is snarky and non-apologetic, and the politics are muddled. There's a lot to disagree with. But I just don't see him providing the comics version of Walt and Mearsheimer?

Am I being too generous? Let me know in the comments and if you blog and wish to comment on it, e-mail me and hopefully, I'll link to you.

I see a couple of bloggers (at least) have registered their views what Adams wrote. Ranting to /dev/null seems to agree with me. Dossy's blog OTOH, agrees with my correspondent, but unlike my corresponent, finds those views admirable.

UPDATE: via memeorandum
Daimnation reads Adams the same way my correspondent (Balashon - see below) does:

Yeah, Syria would be the new Singapore if it wasn't for these pesky Zionists keeping them poor. And Israel's need to control as much territory as possible explains why they gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. Reverse psychology, you see.

As for a Palestinian "Gandhi," I'd like to think Adams is saying he's come under fire from Hamas or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. But I have my doubts.

UPDATE II: Treppenwitz weighs in with his own thumbs down.

The post is such a well written bit of irony / sarcasm, and so disarmingly charming (despite the gratuitous swearing) in its mock rage, that one doesn't immediately 'get' that his deadly serious intent is to criticize Israel and Jews.

Reading the piece through the first time was like being a lone American at a dinner party amidst a bunch of Brits... grinning along with the well-bred banter for ten or fifteen minutes before realizing with dawning horror that the 'colonial' they've been making jokes about all evening is you.

Crossposted on Yourish.

scott adams.

N or c?

The Times of London purports to report on the details of the Israeli raid into Syria including a new "detail" that Israel seized some nuclear material.
But as Hot Air and Israel Matzav point out, the reporter has been known for flights of fancy. (via memeorandum)

I wrote on Friday that there seemed to be more evidence to suggest that the target was chemical not nuclear weaponry and news reports are ignoring that angle.

The New York Times does suggest that the suggestion of nuclear material comes from Israel.

Even though the Israelis are whispering that there was a nuclear connection to the Sept. 6 attack, so far there has been no hard evidence that the North has ever tried to sell elements of its two nuclear programs. One of those programs, involving plutonium, is quite advanced, enough to produce six to a dozen nuclear weapons. But selling that fuel would be enormously risky, and perhaps easily detectable.

I guess, that "whispering" might mean off the record. I still haven't seen a report that explicitly tied the nuclear charge to Israel. The Times does provide some interesting background though.

American officials are also studying at least two technology trade agreements between Syria and North Korea that were signed over the summer, trying to determine whether the arrangements may be designed for nascent nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

“One has to balance the skepticism that the Syrians can build an indigenous nuclear program with the very sobering assessment that North Korea is the world’s No. 1 proliferator and a country willing to sell whatever it possesses,” said a former senior Bush administration official who once had full access to the intelligence about both countries, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing intelligence assessments.

Though it has long sold its missile technology — to Syria, Iran, Pakistan and other customers — North Korea has never been known to export nuclear technology or material. Last Oct. 9, hours after the North tested its first nuclear device, Mr. Bush went in front of cameras in the White House to issue the North a specific warning that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or nonstate entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of such action.”

The problem with this story is that there are a lot of dogs not barking. And the one dog who did bark, was Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu spoke up to credit the government and (cynically) grab some of the credit himself. But why would he speak up if the raid wasn't significant? Or was the significance simply that Israel was demonstrating its capabilities regarding Syria to forestall any more mischief to the north? Given the seeming complexity of the operation, I'd have to think that this was more than just a show of force. Which is why I have to believe that there was something more than missile parts involved.

Blue Crab Boulevard has a nice summary:

So, is it true? I have no idea. Neither, I suspect, do the reporters. What we do know is this: the Israeli government is not saying much of anything. In a country where leaking to the press is considered an art form - nothing. What is even more important: Syria, after a brief bit of whining, has shut up completely. They are silent about this whole incident. If they were innocent, they would be screaming from the rooftops. But, no, they are quiet.

Logically, the conclusion then is that something very, very important was hit by the Israelis. Syria does NOT want the world to hear about what exactly got pounded. So this could be the real deal. Maybe ye