To my Liberal Friends:
12.22.05 (12:10 pm) [edit]
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great.
Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms.
This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
[line]
NOTE: This is meant to be funny. You know? Remember? That thing when you laugh? So please don't send the ACLU to sue me for this.
CHRISTMAS IN BETHLEHEM
12.22.05 (12:06 pm) [edit]
A once-bustling neighborhood has become a ghost town. Shops are shuttered or empty, and the streets are deserted. A sign carries the name of an abandoned restaurant. "Memories," it says. Another sign near an empty shell says, "Border Cafeteria." Typical of the The Statesman's claims is the following: The flicker of optimism has been dampened by the completion of the barrier around Bethlehem and the installation of the gate, which has given a sense of permanence to the isolation and the economy's free fall. The crossing is daunting even for tourists who are searched on their coaches as they enter Bethlehem. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, each one of these points is factually incorrect: Israel is taking these steps despite the fact that "Half of the Israeli terror fatalities in 2004 came from attackers who entered Jerusalem from Bethlehem." The New Statesman also raps Israel for pushing Christians out of Bethlehem. But as FrontPage magazine points out, it is actually the Palestinians who have been forcing the city's Christian residents to leave. The Vatican, in a rare diplomatic move, called publicly on the Israelis to intervene in Bethlehem on behalf of its severely receding Christian population. Now totaling less than 12% of Bethlehem's population, Christians, who have been the targets of continual PA violence, might leave entirely. The result will be that in the place where Jesus was born there will no longer be a Christian community. And just this week, Palestinian gunmen disrupted Christmas preparations in Bethlehem taking over the municipality building across from the Church of Nativity (See Associated Press). For a detailed report on Muslim violence against Christians that is largely ignored by the media, click here. Despite the Palestinian efforts to push out Christian residents, this holiday season will see thousands of pilgrims celebrating Christmas in Bethlehem. The New Statesmen and Baltimore Sun should cover the facts and not rely on Palestinian propaganda. Comments to The New Statesman: letters@newstatesman.co.uk Letters to the Baltimore Sun: Feedback@BaltimoreSun.com At least someone liked Keating's article judging by its appearance on the white supremacist neo-Nazi website of the National Vanguard organization. Keating and The Dubliner should be proud.
The New Statesman and the Baltimore Sun paint a very grim picture of the city of Bethlehem a few weeks before Christmas. According to the Sun:
DUBLINER DIGS A DEEPER HOLE 
Following HonestReporting's critique of Justin Keating's article, The Dubliner's editor has issued his response, challenging us to publish it. So we have. Out of the some 2000 received, the magazine prints a paltry two letters in response to the original article and, instead of allowing a credible opinion writer to address Keating's diatribe, the Dubliner's editor gives Keating himself the chance to respond.
New Statesman Demolishes the Truth
12.22.05 (12:01 pm) [edit]
In 2002, the New Statesman, a British left-wing journal, gave us an infamous front cover entitled "Kosher conspiracy" featuring a Star of David standing on top of a Union Jack, for which the editor was forced to apologize following widespread condemnation.
So perhaps it is unsurprising that the New Statesman's latest edition compares Israeli actions to those of the Nazis during Kristallnacht, the destruction of mosques by Bosnian Serbs, and the eradication of entire villages by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Sudanese regime in Darfur.
Stating that the destruction of buildings is "a way of pursuing ethnic cleansing or genocide by other means, a way of rewriting history", author Robert Bevan, who has previously accused Israel of 'deliberately targeting the historic buildings of Nablus', misleadingly begins his article with a false and amoral equivalence lacking in any context:
Two weeks ago in Anata, Jerusalem, a Palestinian stood contemplating the rubble of his family home in the winter rain. "Did my house kill anyone that they should do this to me?" he asked. The Jerusalem municipality has 1.5 million shekels left in its demolition budget - enough to level 70 Palestinian homes - and it needs to spend the money before the end of the year. ... Thousands of Palestinian homes in the West Bank, in Gaza and around Jerusalem have been destroyed in the face of international condemnation. Bulldozers have become a weapon of war.
Responding to these types of politically charged accusations, a major academic study on Illegal Construction in Jerusalem by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Justus Reid Weiner concludes that:
Illegal construction has reached epidemic proportions. A senior Palestinian official boasted that they have built 6,000 homes without permits during the last 4 years, of which less than 200 were demolished by the city.
This frantic pace of illegal construction continues despite the fact that the city has authorized more than 36,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab sector, more than enough to meet the needs of Arab residents through legal construction until 2020.
In addition, the Jerusalem Municipality also explains why it is quite within its rights to ensure that legal construction codes are adhered to throughout the city limits, irrespective of the religion or nationality of the residents.
When referring to the West Bank and Gaza, it is also misleading to compare the actions of genocidal regimes with Israel's legitimate actions against Palestinian terrorism. In stark contrast to the deliberate targeting of mosques by Bosnian Serbs, Israel guarantees freedom of religion and the protection of the holy sites of all major religions under its jurisdiction. As explained by its Foreign Ministry, Israel, with the backing of international law, targets structures used by terrorists including:
Civilian buildings used to conceal openings of tunnels used to smuggle arms, explosives and terrorists;
Buildings used for manufacturing and storing rockets and other weaponry;
as well as:
Illegally constructed buildings in cases where these buildings interfere with plans for the construction of public facilities such as schools or roads; pose a safety threat to their inhabitants; or interfere with historic landmarks. It should be stressed that all demolitions are conducted in accordance with due process guarantees, after a fair hearing subject to judicial review with the right to appeal and without distinction on the basis of race or ethnic origin. Those affected by a demolition order are entitled by law to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.
So why does Robert Bevan compare this to deliberate acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, placing Israel in the same company as some of the worst regimes in history, including the Nazis?
Comments to the New Statesman: letters@newstatesman.co.uk
DYKE DEFENDS BBC MIDEAST COVERAGE
Writing in the Independent, former BBC Director General Greg Dyke defends the BBC's Mideast coverage, claiming:
We investigated many of the complaints and most of the time found our reporting had been totally fair. Of course the pro-Israeli lobby didn't accept that but then they had a different agenda.
Perhaps Mr. Dyke forgets that he, himself, was forced to resign from the BBC following the publication of the Hutton Report, which criticized the BBC's lack of impartiality regarding its treatment of the Iraq War. Or does he choose to ignore the current independent panel set up by the BBC's own board of governors to investigate the BBC's Mideast coverage?
Not to mention, HonestReporting's own evidence (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) contradicting Dyke's claims. But then again, according to him we have "a different agenda".
DUBLINER UPDATE - HR READERS PROMPT MASSIVE REACTION
Congratulations to the huge number of you who flooded the offices of The Dubliner magazine with e-mails following HonestReporting's critique of former Irish politician Justin Keating's vitriolic attack on Jewish history and Israel's right to exist.
The ensuing outcry was not lost on Dubliner editor Trevor White, or other media outlets that noted the effects of HonestReporting's communique. Manchester's Jewish Telegraph (UK) noted the furious reaction to Keating's article from Ireland's Chief Rabbi while the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and European Jewish Press commented on the huge volume of letters and e-mails received by The Dubliner.
Indeed, such was the response that Ireland's national TV broadcaster RTE featured a panel debate on its Big Bite program. Speaking to media outlets, Trevor White defended his decision to publish the article:
I deeply resent the charge that it [the article] is anti-Semitic - that is lazy and unfair. It is extraordinary that people are so ignorant and offensive.
HonestReporting and many others may care to disagree. White has agreed to publish a selection of letters on The Dubliner's website from 16 December as well as attempting to elicit Justin Keating's reaction to the furore that he has sparked.
Hooray for Finals! ... But only when they're over. ;)
12.14.05 (1:19 pm) [edit]
Finals are finally done!
Thank heaven!
Now I'm lookin' forward to Mexico. Stay tuned for more haitus info.
Over My Head
12.12.05 (10:47 am) [edit]
[b]Song: Over My Head
[i]by The Fray[/i][/b]
I never knew that everything was falling through
That everyone I knew was waiting on a cue
To turn and run when all I needed was the truth
But that's how it's got to be
It's coming down to nothing more than apathy
I'd rather run the other way than stay and see
The smoke and who's still standing when it clears
Everyone knows I'm in
Over my head
With eight seconds left in overtime
She's on your mind
Let's rearrange
I wish you were a stranger I could disengage
Say that we agree and then never change
Soften a bit until we all just get along
But that's disregard
Find another friend and you discard
As you lose the argument in a cable car
Hanging above as the canyon comes between
Everyone knows I'm in
Over my head
With eight seconds left in overtime
She's on your mind
And suddenly I become a part of your past
I'm becoming the part that don't last
I'm losing you and its effortless
Without a sound we lose sight of the ground
In the throw around
Never thought that you wanted to bring it down
I won't let it go down till we torch it ourselves
Everyone knows I'm in
Over my head
With eight seconds left in overtime
She's on your mind
The Roots of Terrorism
12.07.05 (10:47 am) [edit]
Scene of Netanya Suicide Bombing, Palestinians March in Celebration of Netanya bombing (both are Reuters) In yet another bloody Palestinian terrorist attack, five Israelis were killed outside a shopping mall in Netanya while scores of others were wounded. "ROOT CAUSES" OF TERROR? In this week's cover story investigating the phenomenon of female suicide bombers, Newsweek uses Dr. Eyad Sarraj (a discredited but frequently used media source), to make the claim that it is Israeli rule that promotes suicide bombing. (Note, the issues we are referencing came to light before the Netanya bombing and refers to the phenomenon of suicide bombing in general as opposed to specific attacks.) Years under Israeli rule have broken down the structures of Palestinian families. "The image of the strong, providing father who can protect his women and children has been badly damaged and the male role has been eroded away," says Dr. Eyad Sarraj, director of Gaza Community Mental Health. That opens the way for radical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to teach young boys that the way to be real men is to be religious and to be ready to die. However, despite official condemnation of terror attacks for "harming Palestinian interests," by providing cash for the families of suicide bombers and using its state controlled media to glorify "martyrdom," it is actually the Palestinian Authority which is the "root cause" of Palestinian terrorism. PAYMENTS TO BOMBERS FAMILIES According to the FrontPage Magazine: The Palestinian daily, al Hayat al Jadida has reported that Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, signed a new law to support the families of suicide bombers. The PA's message to its people is clear, suicide bombings are legitimate and worthy of state compensation. In a major piece on the motivation of female suicide bombers, it would have made sense for Newsweek to recognize the support their families receive from the PA. GLORIFICATION OF "MARTYRDOM" BY PA As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, the Palestinian Authority continues to run media programming that encourages suicide attacks. This has not changed since the death of Arafat, despite the PA's clear Road Map obligations to end all incitement and control terror. Here are just a few recent examples that can be accessed by the PMW link above: November 2005: PA names recently opened Rafah border crossing with Egypt after Al-Moayed Al-Agha, who killed 5 Israelis in the area last year. To make clear the honor they are bestowing on Al-Agha, the PA erects a huge sign at border depicting an armed Al-Agha and a map of the entire State of Israel. CNN, November 25, 2005 August 2005: The PA's Ministry of Culture releases "Book of the Month", a poetry collection honoring suicide terrorist Hanadi Jaradat, who murdered 21 Israelis. It was distributed as a special supplement in the daily Al-Ayyam, the official PA newspaper. July 2005: Al-Ayyam, whose editors are appointed by Abbas, endorsed terror attack on Israeli couple, granting the most elevated status to the murderers, the status of "Shahid", Martyr for Allah These examples are just a few that have appeared since the death of Arafat. Comments to Newsweek: Letters@newsweek.com
Enacting a special law to financially support terrorists will ensure that this kind of activity continues. Each shahid's family will receive a monthly stipend of at least $250. The family of a married shahid will receive an additional $50. Parents will receive an additional $25, and each additional child and/or brother or sister will get another $15.
My Old Job
12.07.05 (10:40 am) [edit]
I used to be employed at a high school dorm. It was a private school for only girls. I lived in the dormitory for the out of towners and worked as the dorm councilor. My job was to live with them, cook for them, and iron out any kinks in the household between the girls themselves. There were 13 girls ranging from 9th to 12th grade. Big job for a 21-22 year old. But I'd like to think I did just fine.
The girls weren't perfect, but then again, neither was I. I know that there were a lot of things that I handled poorly. They were messy and at times very disrespectful. Most were typical for their age. Some were not so typical and found themselves in lots of trouble more often.
Funny thing is, when I was there, I couldn't wait to leave. It was high stress but the money was good. The responsibilities as well as the students were a lot to contend with. But as things rolled on and it was towards the end of the school year, I started missing it already.
It was nice to come home to a full house. It was nice to have someone to cook for. I would make them special cheesecakes and decadent desserts for Shabbos every week. Sometimes if I didn't want to be alone in my room, someone would be around who needed to talk to me or wanted help with a homework assignment. It was like having 13 daughters.
This year, I heard through the grape vine that the current dorm councilors are quitting. They are tired of working there and can't handle the pressure, it would seem. I don't know the full story, just some of the stuff I heard.
So I started thinking to myself and wondering, would I go back again? To be honest, I probably would. If they really needed me. I would insist on a fair wage. However, I know that I wouldn't make some of the mistakes I did in the past.
Do I think it's likely I'll get asked? Prolly not. The Headmaster was calling around last week. By now he probably found someone new. It's not that I didn't do a good enough job that they wouldn't want to ask me back. I was told that I had done well. I gave that job my all.
I think I won't get asked because of rumors. Some people who don't know me anymore have issue with my Kashrus. Why? No real reason. It's not that I don't know what I'm doing. I know my stuff. Some people just like to make judgements and if someone can't get married right now but has been dating someone for a long time, too long by some people's opinions, then that must mean you're a sinner who can't be trusted. F***ed up? You betcha.
I had said that I needed a job again the following year but didn't want to be dorm councilor. I had said I was willing to do the cooking and shopping because the plan was to have that be a separate job from now on. I was even willing to take the new job at a reduced salary.
The next thing I know, the school year has started and I am still jobless. But lo' and behold, rumor mongers have that job instead.
Now, mind you, I don't know if anything was said by rumor mongers to my former employer. All I have is circumstantial evidence. I still have to give the benefit of the doubt. If other people can't be pious, at least I will. But I do find it all pretty suspicious, to say the least, that people I've had a problem with in the past of spreading rumors all of the sudden are in the mix again. Coincidence highly possible. What's probable? I know not.
And the thing is, even if it was the case, I could never substantiate it anyway because you can't prove spoken word without a recording. The only way is if the offenders confessed to my face.
When this first came to me, I thought of legal action. Slander. Loss of income. Hey, even small claims if need be just to prove a point. I can not begin to tell you how hurtful it would be to me if that truly was the case.
A religious Jew taking parnussah from another Jew on petty grounds of unsubstantiated rumor. What a tragedy for the books.
I hope for everyone's sake that my benefit of the doubt is the real scenario. I would never want to hurt someone so bad as this would hurt me if it were true. Especially considering what I do know about the conduct of others that I absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt know to be true.
A Christmas Tree By Any Other Name Wouldn't Smell Like Pinesol
12.02.05 (11:18 am) [edit]
#I have been thinking lately. Bill O'Reilly has launched an attack on those who attack Christmas. A couple of bloggers here have written about how stupid, even McCarthyist, that is. The point O'Reilly makes is that a Christmas tree is a secular symbol of Christmas. He feels there should be mangers included in holiday displays on city property. His argument is that the Jewish Menorah is a exclusively religious symbol while a Christmas tree isn't.
Now many people don't know where this custom of the Christmas tree comes from. Many don't care. For the sake of saving you the trouble, I went and researched. I did a google on =http://www.google.com/search?...+of+christmas+treeThe History of the Christmas Tree. You can feel free to check it out if you wish. One of the first sites that comes up talks about the chronological history of this tree custom.
Basically, the general consensus is that it was originally a pagan practice that Christianity absorbed through converting pagans (as many of the Christian holidays and customs are).
But that's jus it. A Christmas tree is a purely Christian custom. Think about it: Does Judaism support a Christmas tree? No. Don't be fooled by the fact that some Jews have a Chanukah bush. That's just non-religious Jewry trying hard to emulate Christianity so that they're children don't feel left out. It's really a manifestation of poor self esteem. But I digress.
Do Muslims bring home a Christmas tree? Absolutely not. That sort of thing is blasphemous and unheard of in the Muslim world. What about today's modern pagans and witches? Nope. Buddhists? No. The only people that celebrate Christmas and have Christmas trees are the Christians. This is a unique trait inherent to their culture. Nothing really wrong with that, per se. It's just the way it is.
So then, if a Christmas tree is something purely exclusive to the Christian religion, then it is a religious symbol, non the less. It doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with bible stories or baby Jesus. It's still a Christian religious symbol. Plain and simple.
Should we then ban this symbol from all public places? No. We should instead represent all peoples and religious practices that are willing to exhibit.
Does that mean that a Christmas tree is the only symbol that Christians should be allowed to display? No. If instead they wanted to have a manger in their public display, that should be allowed too. It represents the Christian holiday, it's just another religious symbol for the holiday.
The point that I make is truly equal representation. But let's call a tree a tree. Don't call it another excuse to feel slighted.
"Culture" Mag Questions Israel's Right to Exist
12.01.05 (12:31 pm) [edit]
Why is The Dubliner, which claims to be "widely regarded as the definitive guide to Irish culture", publishing an op-ed piece that not only disputes Israel's right to exist but also denigrates Jewish history and culture at the same time? In the immediate aftermath of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to 'wipe Israel from the face of the map', this magazine's November issue publishes an opinion piece alluding to the same idea by former Irish Labor Minister Justin Keating (pictured below). While couched in less violent terms than Ahmadinejad, Keating claims: the Zionists have absolutely no right in what they call Israel, that they have built their state not beside but on top of the Palestinian people, and that there can be no peace as long as contemporary Israel retains its present form. Keating not only takes issue with Israel's right to exist but, unlike any serious historian, also questions the entire Jewish historical and religious connection to the land, asking: Did the Jews of the Old Testament come from what is now Israel? The answer is No. Quoting Israel's Declaration of Independence - "The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people" - Keating calls this a "self-serving and untruthful Zionist myth", ignoring more than 3700 years of Jewish ties to their historical homeland. Also ignoring the fact that Jews have lived there throughout this period, Keating portrays the Jews as "people who occupied some land two thousand years ago for a historically brief period, to the detriment of those who have been there since." Continuing his historical revisionism into the 20th century, Keating claims that the Balfour Declaration did not give "the Zionists the right to establish a state in Israel." This, despite the fact that the 1917 document was included as part of the British Mandate for Palestine and specifically referred to "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and to the moral validity of "reconstituting their National Home in that country." In addition, the Mandate was backed by the members of the League of Nations in 1922, the forerunner of today's UN. Keating even states that the UN Resolution of 1947 did not give Israel the right to exist as a sovereign state, claiming: they [the Zionists] have continuously and relentlessly violated that resolution for more than half a century, so that any tatters that now remain are void, by their action. This, despite the fact that the Resolution did indeed legitimately give birth to the modern State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN with the same legal rights as other member states including the Republic of Ireland, in whose government Keating once served. In addition, while the Zionist movement accepted the Resolution for partition, Keating completely ignores its rejection by the Arab states that proceeded to invade the newborn Jewish state in an attempt to annihilate its people. Referring to the Jewish contribution to civilization, Keating concludes by claiming: Zionists have betrayed all of this, and that is a tragedy not just for Jews, but for all of us. Does Keating's vitriolic attack on Jewish history and Israel's right to exist have any place in the pages of an Irish cultural magazine? Comments to The Dubliner: editor@thedubliner.ie For more detailed historical information on the myths raised by Justin Keating, see Myths and Facts Online: Israel's Roots by Mitchell G. Bard. BBC UPHOLDS COMPLAINT AGAINST PLETT'S TEARS FOR ARAFAT At the end of October 2004, HonestReporting highlighted BBC Mideast correspondent Barbara Plett's emotional attachment to Yasser Arafat following her public revelation that: when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning. Despite a flood of complaints from HonestReporting subscribers, the BBC initially cleared Plett of any wrongdoing. Following an appeal, however, the BBC Board of Governors has upheld part of the complaint, stating that Plett's comments "breached the requirements of due impartiality". According to the BBC website, the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden has apologized for what she described as an "editorial misjudgment". She said it appeared Plett "unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause". While this begrudging apology certainly does not go far enough in addressing the BBC's Mideast coverage, which is the subject of the majority of complaints received by the corporation, congratulations to those who kept up the pressure on the BBC and also contributed to its Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review. Following the recent deadline for submissions on 25 November, HonestReporting awaits with interest the publication of the report in the spring. CHANGES TO BBC COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE Staying with the BBC, a number of HonestReporting readers inform us that complaints to the BBC are no longer accepted by direct e-mail. Instead, the complainant is now directed to a web-based procedure at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints" title="http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints" target="_blank"http://www.bbc.co.uk/complain.... We hope that you will not be discouraged from making your feelings known to the BBC in the future.
WORDS WOMEN USE
12.01.05 (12:28 pm) [edit]
This is pretty funny. Came to me in an email. Enjoy :wink:
[line]
FINE
This is the word women use to end an argument when
they are right and you need to shut up.
FIVE MINUTES
If she is getting dressed, this is half an hour. Five
minutes is only five minutes if you have just been
given 5 more minutes to watch the game before helping
around the house.
NOTHING
This is the calm before the storm. This means
"something," and you should be on your toes. Arguments
that begin with 'Nothing' usually end in "Fine"
GO AHEAD
This is a dare, not permission. Don't do it.
LOUD SIGH
This is not actually a word, but is a non-verbal
statement often misunderstood by men. A "Loud Sigh"
means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she
is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you
over "Nothing"
THAT'S OKAY
This is one of the most dangerous statements that a
woman can make to a man. "That's Okay" means that she
wants to think long and hard before deciding how and
when you will pay for your mistake.
THANKS
A woman is thanking you. Do not question it or faint.
Just say you're welcome.
WHATEVER
...it's a woman's way of saying "F" YOU!
