Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Eight Crazy Clicks
In honor of Hanukkah I give you, dear readers, my 8 greatest clicks of the week (and it is only Wednesday!):
J Street Israel-office vs. Zionism/Oppression – Rosner’s Domain @ the JPost
Rosner does a glorified re-post of Omri Ceren’s entry @ Mere Rhetoric on a discovery circling the blogosphere—the head of the Israeli J Street office, Drew Cohen, is the same “Drew C.” who published a series of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist blog entries at jewschool.com under the name “Last Trumpet”.
This is yet more damning evidence against the claim that J-Street, co-founded by Daniel “there is no such thing as progressive Zionism because the re-establishment of Israel was ‘wrong’” Levy, is a “pro-Israel” organization—wording already removed from their on-campus promotions “to avoid alienating students”.
What’s the Hebrew word for “sticking your foot in your mouth”? Repeat after me: J Street.
Deadly Fictions – Lee Smith @ Tablet Magazine
The usually leftist Tablet printed the most thoughtful analysis of the infamous WikiLeaks scandal of the week. Smith compared the dissemination of State Department docs to the infamous Pentagon Papers leak of the 70s, noting, “The difference is that while the Pentagon Papers substantially vindicated the American left, the WikiLeaks cable dump vindicates the right.” The conclusion: What the media is printing isn’t always the truth and America has a blind electorate as the result.
Every single conservative pundit was quick to admit that the WikiLeaks story simply echoed what the right wing has been talking about for years; the Red Crescent is nothing more than a tool to transport terrorists; China has been working to supply Iran with nukes; the Arab world wants America to do their dirty work. The big deal? Finally, at least one leftist source is acknowledging that the MSM isn’t as “main stream” as it wants you to believe and that maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right: America and Israel do have some serious enemies in the world and we’re not going to sing them away with endless choruses of Kum-Bay-Ya.
Fair press for peace – Jerusalem Post
Distrust of the MSM continues with this scathing look at what the press isn’t talking about when it comes to Israel’s Palestinian peace partners. The Fifth Fatah Revolutionary Council honored Amin al-Hindi, one of the masterminds behind the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. Nothing says “we want peace” more than honoring a guy who planned and executed the murder of your fellow citizens. During the course of its meetings, the Council rejected the definition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” rejected the concept of “land for peace,” and rejected the idea of any compromise with the Zionist entity.
To be fair, Fatah did approve of a few measures including the Palestinian “right of return” for the purpose of wiping out Israel’s Jewish majority, and the ridding of large Jewish settlement blocs that take up 5% of the West Bank, because while they don’t believe in land for peace and they do want to move back into Israel proper, they still want all of Judea and Samaria for…a really big golf course to be named in honor of the late Yassir Arafat: A-Hole in One.
All of this along with a recent survey by the Israel Project that revealed growing militancy among the Palestinian population (56% in the West Bank & Gaza believe they will have to “resort to armed struggle again”) has gone unreported in the MSM. The results of this gross lack of reporting? A skewed press means a skewed public view, in this case one that is skewed against Israel.
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin
Former Jewish Exponent Editor Benyamin Korn has been busy since his tenure expired at the Philadelphia weekly last year. With more press coverage than you can shake a stick at, Korn has promoted this union of “academic, religious and political leaders, dedicated to promoting consideration of Gov. Sarah Palin’s political positions in the wider American Jewish community.” Perhaps the message behind Palin’s ever-present Israeli & American flags lapel pin is making its way through the Jewish community, one mystified viewer at a time.
The best part: Korn refers to his page (and his radio show on Philly’s WNTP) as “Independent”. Kudos to Korn for standing on conservative principals without playing into party politics.
Chelm-On-The-Med – Daniella Ashkenazy
For some brain candy, check out these translations of human interest and even some fluff from the pages of the Israeli press. The goal of translator Daniella Ashkenazy: To show the lighter side of Israeli life to Diaspora readers overwhelmed with endless stories of terror attacks and… not much else.
I found the link through Ashkenazy’s recent article in ZEEK that asks, What’s Wrong With Israel Education in the Diaspora? She remarks, “American Jewry needs to be weaned away from its addiction to Israeli victimology.” And she’s right. Israel needs a return to the victory ideology of ’67 as badly as America needs to revisit the patriotism of ’76. Our best bet in both cases: On the ground education from people who’ve lived and know the difference. And websites like Ashkenazy’s do their part to bring that much-needed perspective to the table.
Latma TV
According to its Wikipedia entry, “Latma is an Israeli group that produces political satire in Hebrew and occasionally in English for Internet broadcast. Latma was created to mock what the members view as Israel's leftist media. Caroline Glick, who is one of the web site's editors, told the Jerusalem Post that the group was founded with the intention of using comedy to critique the ‘egregious leftist slant of news coverage in this country.’ According to the New York Times, Latma ‘is an initiative of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank’.”
Although it is funded by American sources, Latma’s satire is 99% Hebrew (subtitled in English) so my recommendation to American audiences is to check out their clips via the excellent Caroline Glick’s personal web site. While you’re there, avail yourself of her commentary on the latest in Israeli politics and Israeli-American relations, also published in The Jerusalem Post.
Smithsonian to Remove Ant-Covered Jesus on Cross Video From Exhibit – Fox News
A 4-minute video depicting a bloody Jesus on a crucifix covered with ants, A Fire in my Belly is a part of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery’s exhibit titled, Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture -- or, at least it was until yesterday. The exhibit, intended to showcase gay and lesbian art, was so offensive that the museum actually-shock-took it down. Perhaps that’s because Republican lawmakers in Congress have now decided to look into the Smithsonian’s funding. After all, money talks.
So, why include this report in a Hanukkah post? Simply put, I wouldn’t appreciate a Torah scroll, Star of David, or Hanukkiah being immersed in ants, fecal matter, or any other substance in the name of art. Moreover, a Danish cartoonist does one sketch of Mohammed and the Muslim world explodes (all puns intended) – it is about time Christians learn to stand up for themselves and their beliefs. Finally we have a Congress who, in some regard, is willing to hit back at the system where it hurts—their pockets. Hopefully they’ll continue that trend over the next two years. In the meantime, the many religions and cultures of this nation need to stop hiding behind perversions of “Freedom of Speech” and start standing firm on the principle of mutual respect. Where better to start than through taxpayer funded art?
The Great Princeton Hummus Debate will decide the Future of Israel, More or Less (Probably Less) - Jeff Edelstein @ The Trentonian
The Global BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) Movement strikes again, this time on the campus of Princeton University. The Princeton Committee for Palestine, led by Jewish Israel-hater Yoel Bitran, has demanded a University-wide referendum on the inclusion of alternative brands of hummus, claiming that The Strauss Group, the company that produces Sabra hummus, supports the IDF’s elite Golani brigade and, therefore, human rights violations against the Palestinians.
One could easily argue against buying any products produced by the Arab world, citing the human rights violations against women and non-Muslims in general, but that wouldn’t help to further the PCP’s true objective to “… start a conversation on Israeli human rights violations.”
Here’s a thought: Every supporter of Israel, from political conservatives to the members of CUFI, should friend Sabra on Facebook and be sure to include some Sabra hummus on their table this holiday season. The chickpea-tahini combo goes great as part of any hors-d’oeurves spread and by buying Sabra, you’d be doing your part to support the hardworking men and women of the Israeli military who were drafted by law to protect the last bastion of true democracy in the middle east and America’s only hope of a true ally in the region.
J Street Israel-office vs. Zionism/Oppression – Rosner’s Domain @ the JPost
Rosner does a glorified re-post of Omri Ceren’s entry @ Mere Rhetoric on a discovery circling the blogosphere—the head of the Israeli J Street office, Drew Cohen, is the same “Drew C.” who published a series of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist blog entries at jewschool.com under the name “Last Trumpet”.
This is yet more damning evidence against the claim that J-Street, co-founded by Daniel “there is no such thing as progressive Zionism because the re-establishment of Israel was ‘wrong’” Levy, is a “pro-Israel” organization—wording already removed from their on-campus promotions “to avoid alienating students”.
What’s the Hebrew word for “sticking your foot in your mouth”? Repeat after me: J Street.
Deadly Fictions – Lee Smith @ Tablet Magazine
The usually leftist Tablet printed the most thoughtful analysis of the infamous WikiLeaks scandal of the week. Smith compared the dissemination of State Department docs to the infamous Pentagon Papers leak of the 70s, noting, “The difference is that while the Pentagon Papers substantially vindicated the American left, the WikiLeaks cable dump vindicates the right.” The conclusion: What the media is printing isn’t always the truth and America has a blind electorate as the result.
Every single conservative pundit was quick to admit that the WikiLeaks story simply echoed what the right wing has been talking about for years; the Red Crescent is nothing more than a tool to transport terrorists; China has been working to supply Iran with nukes; the Arab world wants America to do their dirty work. The big deal? Finally, at least one leftist source is acknowledging that the MSM isn’t as “main stream” as it wants you to believe and that maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right: America and Israel do have some serious enemies in the world and we’re not going to sing them away with endless choruses of Kum-Bay-Ya.
Fair press for peace – Jerusalem Post
Distrust of the MSM continues with this scathing look at what the press isn’t talking about when it comes to Israel’s Palestinian peace partners. The Fifth Fatah Revolutionary Council honored Amin al-Hindi, one of the masterminds behind the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. Nothing says “we want peace” more than honoring a guy who planned and executed the murder of your fellow citizens. During the course of its meetings, the Council rejected the definition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” rejected the concept of “land for peace,” and rejected the idea of any compromise with the Zionist entity.
To be fair, Fatah did approve of a few measures including the Palestinian “right of return” for the purpose of wiping out Israel’s Jewish majority, and the ridding of large Jewish settlement blocs that take up 5% of the West Bank, because while they don’t believe in land for peace and they do want to move back into Israel proper, they still want all of Judea and Samaria for…a really big golf course to be named in honor of the late Yassir Arafat: A-Hole in One.
All of this along with a recent survey by the Israel Project that revealed growing militancy among the Palestinian population (56% in the West Bank & Gaza believe they will have to “resort to armed struggle again”) has gone unreported in the MSM. The results of this gross lack of reporting? A skewed press means a skewed public view, in this case one that is skewed against Israel.
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin
Former Jewish Exponent Editor Benyamin Korn has been busy since his tenure expired at the Philadelphia weekly last year. With more press coverage than you can shake a stick at, Korn has promoted this union of “academic, religious and political leaders, dedicated to promoting consideration of Gov. Sarah Palin’s political positions in the wider American Jewish community.” Perhaps the message behind Palin’s ever-present Israeli & American flags lapel pin is making its way through the Jewish community, one mystified viewer at a time.
The best part: Korn refers to his page (and his radio show on Philly’s WNTP) as “Independent”. Kudos to Korn for standing on conservative principals without playing into party politics.
Chelm-On-The-Med – Daniella Ashkenazy
For some brain candy, check out these translations of human interest and even some fluff from the pages of the Israeli press. The goal of translator Daniella Ashkenazy: To show the lighter side of Israeli life to Diaspora readers overwhelmed with endless stories of terror attacks and… not much else.
I found the link through Ashkenazy’s recent article in ZEEK that asks, What’s Wrong With Israel Education in the Diaspora? She remarks, “American Jewry needs to be weaned away from its addiction to Israeli victimology.” And she’s right. Israel needs a return to the victory ideology of ’67 as badly as America needs to revisit the patriotism of ’76. Our best bet in both cases: On the ground education from people who’ve lived and know the difference. And websites like Ashkenazy’s do their part to bring that much-needed perspective to the table.
Latma TV
According to its Wikipedia entry, “Latma is an Israeli group that produces political satire in Hebrew and occasionally in English for Internet broadcast. Latma was created to mock what the members view as Israel's leftist media. Caroline Glick, who is one of the web site's editors, told the Jerusalem Post that the group was founded with the intention of using comedy to critique the ‘egregious leftist slant of news coverage in this country.’ According to the New York Times, Latma ‘is an initiative of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank’.”
Although it is funded by American sources, Latma’s satire is 99% Hebrew (subtitled in English) so my recommendation to American audiences is to check out their clips via the excellent Caroline Glick’s personal web site. While you’re there, avail yourself of her commentary on the latest in Israeli politics and Israeli-American relations, also published in The Jerusalem Post.
Smithsonian to Remove Ant-Covered Jesus on Cross Video From Exhibit – Fox News
A 4-minute video depicting a bloody Jesus on a crucifix covered with ants, A Fire in my Belly is a part of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery’s exhibit titled, Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture -- or, at least it was until yesterday. The exhibit, intended to showcase gay and lesbian art, was so offensive that the museum actually-shock-took it down. Perhaps that’s because Republican lawmakers in Congress have now decided to look into the Smithsonian’s funding. After all, money talks.
So, why include this report in a Hanukkah post? Simply put, I wouldn’t appreciate a Torah scroll, Star of David, or Hanukkiah being immersed in ants, fecal matter, or any other substance in the name of art. Moreover, a Danish cartoonist does one sketch of Mohammed and the Muslim world explodes (all puns intended) – it is about time Christians learn to stand up for themselves and their beliefs. Finally we have a Congress who, in some regard, is willing to hit back at the system where it hurts—their pockets. Hopefully they’ll continue that trend over the next two years. In the meantime, the many religions and cultures of this nation need to stop hiding behind perversions of “Freedom of Speech” and start standing firm on the principle of mutual respect. Where better to start than through taxpayer funded art?
The Great Princeton Hummus Debate will decide the Future of Israel, More or Less (Probably Less) - Jeff Edelstein @ The Trentonian
The Global BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) Movement strikes again, this time on the campus of Princeton University. The Princeton Committee for Palestine, led by Jewish Israel-hater Yoel Bitran, has demanded a University-wide referendum on the inclusion of alternative brands of hummus, claiming that The Strauss Group, the company that produces Sabra hummus, supports the IDF’s elite Golani brigade and, therefore, human rights violations against the Palestinians.
One could easily argue against buying any products produced by the Arab world, citing the human rights violations against women and non-Muslims in general, but that wouldn’t help to further the PCP’s true objective to “… start a conversation on Israeli human rights violations.”
Here’s a thought: Every supporter of Israel, from political conservatives to the members of CUFI, should friend Sabra on Facebook and be sure to include some Sabra hummus on their table this holiday season. The chickpea-tahini combo goes great as part of any hors-d’oeurves spread and by buying Sabra, you’d be doing your part to support the hardworking men and women of the Israeli military who were drafted by law to protect the last bastion of true democracy in the middle east and America’s only hope of a true ally in the region.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Keep the Lights On @ NJN
Editor's Note: I originally submitted this as a Letter to the Editor to every NJ newspaper I could think of. As a result, I took a slew of 'confirmation calls' last week and, today, received a call from my in-laws that the first submission finally made it to print in The Trenton Times. Afterwards I learned that the letter also appeared in the Star Ledger on Thanksgiving Day.
The one question I kept being asked by every editor that called was, "Do you have any personal connection to NJN." I chose to answer honestly: "Every taxpaying citizen of New Jersey has a personal connection to NJN that stretches from their wallet to the State House." It is a fact that without NJN, New Jersey voters will have no connection to their own representatives. As I argue below, in the spirit of honest and open government (let alone good financial practice) the Governor has the responsibility to ensure that the station's transition to private ownership is a smooth one that does not allow the spotlight on his office to go out.
This New Year could usher in a new era in the relationship between New Jersey voters and their state representatives, one that would be darker and more distant than ever.
If the State moves forward with the Governor’s plan to cut all funding to NJN as of January 1, we will no longer see the happenings of the State House on television. Debates will be held, laws and budgets will be passed behind doors closed to the cameras that were once the lifeline between voters and elected representatives. In the information age, our most vital lifeline to real time information—New Jersey Network—will be cut off.
How can this possibly be in the best interests of New Jersey?
With barely a month to go before 147 workers are added to the already overburdened unemployment rolls of the state, a number of options are being thrown around. It is reported that the Governor favors holding onto the valuable FCC licenses in order to ensure that the state’s 40 year, multi-million dollar investment in NJN be used to produce Jersey-centric programming by a new entity.
Who this entity is, we have yet to find out.
The Governor seems to favor the idea of a possible takeover by WNET, a public television station that receives annual funding from New York State. Follow the money and you have to ask, how Jersey-centric could that relationship possibly be? WNET’s merger with Long Island PBS station WLIW was filled with empty promises of maintaining Long Island-centric programming. If WNET couldn’t even stay faithful to their fellow New Yorkers, what chance would Jersey stand in such a merge?
It is New Jersey money that purchased the licenses, towers, facilities, and equipment, and that helped to produce 40 years of Emmy Award winning programming. Whether by tax dollars or donations, since its inception NJN has been a station of the people, by the people of New Jersey. The Governor isn’t telling us it was a bad investment; we just don’t have the money to continue.
Now, the Governor is right; our state is in tough financial times. But when money is tight, shouldn’t cutting the lines of communication between government and her citizens be at the bottom of the list?
Assembly Speaker Oliver has said that she “will not sleep unless NJN stays on the air as of January,” and neither should her fellow representatives. Allowing NJN to go dark means putting their credibility at stake. Decisions must be made that ensure the survival of NJN as a Jersey-centric media outlet. One that, in the interest of keeping our residents in-jobs and in-state, continues to employ the talented staff that has faithfully brought this state to life over the airwaves.
After all, who will be able to stand guard if the lights go out?
The one question I kept being asked by every editor that called was, "Do you have any personal connection to NJN." I chose to answer honestly: "Every taxpaying citizen of New Jersey has a personal connection to NJN that stretches from their wallet to the State House." It is a fact that without NJN, New Jersey voters will have no connection to their own representatives. As I argue below, in the spirit of honest and open government (let alone good financial practice) the Governor has the responsibility to ensure that the station's transition to private ownership is a smooth one that does not allow the spotlight on his office to go out.
This New Year could usher in a new era in the relationship between New Jersey voters and their state representatives, one that would be darker and more distant than ever.
If the State moves forward with the Governor’s plan to cut all funding to NJN as of January 1, we will no longer see the happenings of the State House on television. Debates will be held, laws and budgets will be passed behind doors closed to the cameras that were once the lifeline between voters and elected representatives. In the information age, our most vital lifeline to real time information—New Jersey Network—will be cut off.
How can this possibly be in the best interests of New Jersey?
With barely a month to go before 147 workers are added to the already overburdened unemployment rolls of the state, a number of options are being thrown around. It is reported that the Governor favors holding onto the valuable FCC licenses in order to ensure that the state’s 40 year, multi-million dollar investment in NJN be used to produce Jersey-centric programming by a new entity.
Who this entity is, we have yet to find out.
The Governor seems to favor the idea of a possible takeover by WNET, a public television station that receives annual funding from New York State. Follow the money and you have to ask, how Jersey-centric could that relationship possibly be? WNET’s merger with Long Island PBS station WLIW was filled with empty promises of maintaining Long Island-centric programming. If WNET couldn’t even stay faithful to their fellow New Yorkers, what chance would Jersey stand in such a merge?
It is New Jersey money that purchased the licenses, towers, facilities, and equipment, and that helped to produce 40 years of Emmy Award winning programming. Whether by tax dollars or donations, since its inception NJN has been a station of the people, by the people of New Jersey. The Governor isn’t telling us it was a bad investment; we just don’t have the money to continue.
Now, the Governor is right; our state is in tough financial times. But when money is tight, shouldn’t cutting the lines of communication between government and her citizens be at the bottom of the list?
Assembly Speaker Oliver has said that she “will not sleep unless NJN stays on the air as of January,” and neither should her fellow representatives. Allowing NJN to go dark means putting their credibility at stake. Decisions must be made that ensure the survival of NJN as a Jersey-centric media outlet. One that, in the interest of keeping our residents in-jobs and in-state, continues to employ the talented staff that has faithfully brought this state to life over the airwaves.
After all, who will be able to stand guard if the lights go out?
Monday, November 1, 2010
To Care or Not to Care: That is the Question
Originally published at OurLastStand.com on Friday, October 29, 2010
Is anyone but me amused by the fact that “The Rally to Restore Sanity” is being held on Halloween weekend and “The March to Keep Fear Alive” is the opening act for Mischief Night celebrations—in our political capital, no less?
The irony of timing may be the funniest aspect of this weekend’s clash of pop culture and politics, and even that falls flat after a few laughs. After all, as any politico will tell you, an election is the kind of serious business that brings out Americans’ fear, anger, and rage likened to that of the mythical Arab Street each time an Israeli dares to breathe in the wrong direction. Listening to the conversation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe one can’t help but feel that voting booths are really incense-scented offices lined with leather couches bordered by tissue-laden end tables.
Thank God, then, for the punditry of Jon Stewart and Colbert. Without their spitball satire steering the U.S.S. Apathetic, how would we ever be able to navigate the dark, stormy seas of political emotion?
To be sure, more than one news outlet has commented on the vague blur between politics and humor that has officially been deigned “a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority.” True to their postmodern ethic, the folks behind the rally imply their inability to draw on even their own desired demographic: Our audience would come, but they’re just too busy with real life to care. As glib as it may seem, it is more than self-effacing humor; the Rally’s permit application filed in September estimated a crowd of a mere 25,000, despite the 220,000 positive RSVP’s they received up to that point on Facebook.
So, the real question is: Why bother holding a rally if you don’t even think anyone would show up?
The entire event reminds me of a pseudo-prank a friend and I pulled in college. One afternoon we sat in the middle of the Student Center, handing out fliers, encouraging people to protest the fact that we had nothing to protest. About three people stopped to give a chuckle, while most just moved on without even taking notice. What started out as a joke quickly became my own personal reality check; it was as if I put my finger on the pulse of my generation and found myself pressing really, really hard to feel any sign of life.
The summer after that semester my friend and I joined a group of college classmates for a trip to the set of The Daily Show to see our icon, Jon Stewart. Here was a man who, in less than two years, took a fledgling parody program and quickly molded it into a serious attempt at comedic news. Ratings were soaring, especially on college campuses filled with jaded students who thought Stewart, with his sharp wit and “it’s all B.S.” attitude was the real straight-shooter in the news world. This was our chance to sit practically face-to-face with the man who held the world by the cajones. This was big.
After we filed into our seats we were told by some studio lackey that Stewart would take our questions before the show began. Anxious to impress, I formulated a question in my head regarding Arafat, Sharon, and the effects of the then-fresh new Intifada on the peace process. I had one shot to show this guy I was as informed as him, and I was going to do it right. And I did.
“I—make—the—jokes?” Stewart replied with mock-nervousness.
The audience laughed, Stewart proceeded to mock one of my friends for having a strange expression on his face, and then he took another question that was more on the level of what movies he liked to watch on Saturday night than anything related to the growing political nature of the show.
Right then is when I fell out of love with Jon Stewart. It wasn’t because he turned my serious question into an opportunity to garner laughs for himself; he’s a comedian. If people don’t laugh, he doesn’t get paid. It was because he purposely avoided answering a political question off-camera while simultaneously being as political as possible when he was on air.
Later, Stewart would go on to appear on several news shows on the Big Three and cable news—he even felt political enough to openly criticize the banter on CNN’s Crossfire (maybe because the cameras were rolling). But I knew it was all an act, political or not. I’d seen behind the green curtain; the wizard was there to do nothing more than promote himself. As a result, subjects like terror in the Middle East could easily become fodder for humor before the show, but as soon as the cameras were rolling, he could be as serious as necessary about the horrors of 9-11. Jon Stewart doesn’t play to a political agenda, he plays to a crowd.
And, apparently, his managers aren’t so sure the crowd even really gives a damn. Stewart and Colbert initiated this rally to “combat” the popularity of Glenn Beck’s 8-28. Yet, no Internet hack-news agency paid for buses to take Beck and his followers to the 8-28 Rally, nor did Fox News issue a memo to all its employees to go support Beck’s event. Perhaps that’s because what Stewart is pushing isn’t about the bigger picture. This is not the rally that’s going to ask America what they can do for their country; it is the rally that’s going to ask America to take a break. The real problem is that viewers and fans have already been broken by people like Stewart who are willing to sell out principles to parody and use policy to inflate their own persona.
Perhaps that is why the managers of the Rally are anticipating that no one will care enough to show up.
Afterward our Protest to Protest the Fact that We Have Nothing to Protest, I wrote an article for the student arts & entertainment magazine called Passionate Apathy in which I begged the student body to find something—anything to care about. Even then I could see we were a cause-less generation. Today, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Arianna Huffington was blaming the President for not doing more to organize the nation and motivate Americans to work together. I laughed.
Isn’t she one of the people spending a lot of money on a rally telling Americans not to give a damn?
Is anyone but me amused by the fact that “The Rally to Restore Sanity” is being held on Halloween weekend and “The March to Keep Fear Alive” is the opening act for Mischief Night celebrations—in our political capital, no less?
The irony of timing may be the funniest aspect of this weekend’s clash of pop culture and politics, and even that falls flat after a few laughs. After all, as any politico will tell you, an election is the kind of serious business that brings out Americans’ fear, anger, and rage likened to that of the mythical Arab Street each time an Israeli dares to breathe in the wrong direction. Listening to the conversation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe one can’t help but feel that voting booths are really incense-scented offices lined with leather couches bordered by tissue-laden end tables.
Thank God, then, for the punditry of Jon Stewart and Colbert. Without their spitball satire steering the U.S.S. Apathetic, how would we ever be able to navigate the dark, stormy seas of political emotion?
To be sure, more than one news outlet has commented on the vague blur between politics and humor that has officially been deigned “a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority.” True to their postmodern ethic, the folks behind the rally imply their inability to draw on even their own desired demographic: Our audience would come, but they’re just too busy with real life to care. As glib as it may seem, it is more than self-effacing humor; the Rally’s permit application filed in September estimated a crowd of a mere 25,000, despite the 220,000 positive RSVP’s they received up to that point on Facebook.
So, the real question is: Why bother holding a rally if you don’t even think anyone would show up?
The entire event reminds me of a pseudo-prank a friend and I pulled in college. One afternoon we sat in the middle of the Student Center, handing out fliers, encouraging people to protest the fact that we had nothing to protest. About three people stopped to give a chuckle, while most just moved on without even taking notice. What started out as a joke quickly became my own personal reality check; it was as if I put my finger on the pulse of my generation and found myself pressing really, really hard to feel any sign of life.
The summer after that semester my friend and I joined a group of college classmates for a trip to the set of The Daily Show to see our icon, Jon Stewart. Here was a man who, in less than two years, took a fledgling parody program and quickly molded it into a serious attempt at comedic news. Ratings were soaring, especially on college campuses filled with jaded students who thought Stewart, with his sharp wit and “it’s all B.S.” attitude was the real straight-shooter in the news world. This was our chance to sit practically face-to-face with the man who held the world by the cajones. This was big.
After we filed into our seats we were told by some studio lackey that Stewart would take our questions before the show began. Anxious to impress, I formulated a question in my head regarding Arafat, Sharon, and the effects of the then-fresh new Intifada on the peace process. I had one shot to show this guy I was as informed as him, and I was going to do it right. And I did.
“I—make—the—jokes?” Stewart replied with mock-nervousness.
The audience laughed, Stewart proceeded to mock one of my friends for having a strange expression on his face, and then he took another question that was more on the level of what movies he liked to watch on Saturday night than anything related to the growing political nature of the show.
Right then is when I fell out of love with Jon Stewart. It wasn’t because he turned my serious question into an opportunity to garner laughs for himself; he’s a comedian. If people don’t laugh, he doesn’t get paid. It was because he purposely avoided answering a political question off-camera while simultaneously being as political as possible when he was on air.
Later, Stewart would go on to appear on several news shows on the Big Three and cable news—he even felt political enough to openly criticize the banter on CNN’s Crossfire (maybe because the cameras were rolling). But I knew it was all an act, political or not. I’d seen behind the green curtain; the wizard was there to do nothing more than promote himself. As a result, subjects like terror in the Middle East could easily become fodder for humor before the show, but as soon as the cameras were rolling, he could be as serious as necessary about the horrors of 9-11. Jon Stewart doesn’t play to a political agenda, he plays to a crowd.
And, apparently, his managers aren’t so sure the crowd even really gives a damn. Stewart and Colbert initiated this rally to “combat” the popularity of Glenn Beck’s 8-28. Yet, no Internet hack-news agency paid for buses to take Beck and his followers to the 8-28 Rally, nor did Fox News issue a memo to all its employees to go support Beck’s event. Perhaps that’s because what Stewart is pushing isn’t about the bigger picture. This is not the rally that’s going to ask America what they can do for their country; it is the rally that’s going to ask America to take a break. The real problem is that viewers and fans have already been broken by people like Stewart who are willing to sell out principles to parody and use policy to inflate their own persona.
Perhaps that is why the managers of the Rally are anticipating that no one will care enough to show up.
Afterward our Protest to Protest the Fact that We Have Nothing to Protest, I wrote an article for the student arts & entertainment magazine called Passionate Apathy in which I begged the student body to find something—anything to care about. Even then I could see we were a cause-less generation. Today, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Arianna Huffington was blaming the President for not doing more to organize the nation and motivate Americans to work together. I laughed.
Isn’t she one of the people spending a lot of money on a rally telling Americans not to give a damn?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Freedom of Newspeak
Author's Note: A version of this post appears at OpinionEditorials.com.
When I began traversing the blog world in 2004 it was commonly argued that the Internet was the last bastion of free speech. If my arugment regarding mainstream media "bias" holds true, then it makes sense that the blogosphere plays home to the last vestiges of communication liberty. After all, it isn't like most of us bloggers are actually pulling in a salary and benefits for typing about what we believe, so we don't have to worry about what our bosses will think when they read our blogs or listen to our podcasts. Oh, if only freedom paid the bills, then we could all say what we really thought without fear.
Isn't that right, Juan Williams?
When I read in the news this morning that NPR fired one of their Senior News Analysts, Juan Williams I didn't need to eat breakfast; I was too busy scraping my jaw off the floor. I've listened to this guy for years; he's calm and collected, incredibly professional and well informed. He is not Rick Sanchez. What the hell could Juan Williams have done to get fired from NPR?
Oh, that's simple: He admitted to being nervous around traditionally-garbed Muslims in airports. According to the NPR story on Williams's demise, his exact words were, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
The official NPR stance is that Williams' "...remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." The "editorial standards and practices" NPR is talking about refer to their policy that News Analysts like Williams are not permitted to express opinions on the stories they cover.
Okay, so NPR doesn't want their "Analysts" expressing their opinions on air. Williams must have known this when he was hired and accepted that unwavering objectivity was part of the job. Nina Totenberg must have as well when she wished AIDS upon Jesse Helms on the air in 1995 and proceeded to be-- oh, wait, Nina Totenberg was never fired for proclaiming that if there was "'retributive justice' in the world... Jesse Helms would 'get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.'" Over a decade later, in fact, Nina Totenberg is NPR's Correspondent for Legal Affairs in DC.
Maybe she can refer Williams to a good First Amendement lawyer.
It is one thing to claim Fox News leans right and MSNBC leans left. It is quite another for a national radio network that operates on taxpayer dollars to fire one of their employees for expressing an opinion they obviously didn't like. But it was about more than just one slip of the tongue for Juan Williams. Apparently, NPR has been building a case against their former employee since he signed on as a contributor to Fox News in 1997. The NPR story on Williams' firing states blatantly that, "Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives."
NPR seems to be developing a track record for taking aim at employees who do business with Fox News. Back in December, Politico reported that NPR political correspondent Mara Liasson was asked "...to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias." According to the report, "NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s Special Report and Fox News Sunday came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party."
Isn't the idea of the White House "controlling" the media supposed to be the stuff of fiction? Didn't the days of yellow journalism die with William Randolph Hearst?
Last week I was concerned because one host walked away from another. Now we have a publicly funded news network firing employees who dare to "talk to the other side". Bernard Goldberg is right, media bias is rampant. Perhaps the blogosphere is the last, true bastion of free speech after all.
Speaking of which, Fox News reportedly offered Juan Williams "...a new and more lucrative contract" that "...would be worth “nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary.”
Maybe it still does pay to speak your mind in the mainstream media after all.
When I began traversing the blog world in 2004 it was commonly argued that the Internet was the last bastion of free speech. If my arugment regarding mainstream media "bias" holds true, then it makes sense that the blogosphere plays home to the last vestiges of communication liberty. After all, it isn't like most of us bloggers are actually pulling in a salary and benefits for typing about what we believe, so we don't have to worry about what our bosses will think when they read our blogs or listen to our podcasts. Oh, if only freedom paid the bills, then we could all say what we really thought without fear.
Isn't that right, Juan Williams?
When I read in the news this morning that NPR fired one of their Senior News Analysts, Juan Williams I didn't need to eat breakfast; I was too busy scraping my jaw off the floor. I've listened to this guy for years; he's calm and collected, incredibly professional and well informed. He is not Rick Sanchez. What the hell could Juan Williams have done to get fired from NPR?
Oh, that's simple: He admitted to being nervous around traditionally-garbed Muslims in airports. According to the NPR story on Williams's demise, his exact words were, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
The official NPR stance is that Williams' "...remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." The "editorial standards and practices" NPR is talking about refer to their policy that News Analysts like Williams are not permitted to express opinions on the stories they cover.
Okay, so NPR doesn't want their "Analysts" expressing their opinions on air. Williams must have known this when he was hired and accepted that unwavering objectivity was part of the job. Nina Totenberg must have as well when she wished AIDS upon Jesse Helms on the air in 1995 and proceeded to be-- oh, wait, Nina Totenberg was never fired for proclaiming that if there was "'retributive justice' in the world... Jesse Helms would 'get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.'" Over a decade later, in fact, Nina Totenberg is NPR's Correspondent for Legal Affairs in DC.
Maybe she can refer Williams to a good First Amendement lawyer.
It is one thing to claim Fox News leans right and MSNBC leans left. It is quite another for a national radio network that operates on taxpayer dollars to fire one of their employees for expressing an opinion they obviously didn't like. But it was about more than just one slip of the tongue for Juan Williams. Apparently, NPR has been building a case against their former employee since he signed on as a contributor to Fox News in 1997. The NPR story on Williams' firing states blatantly that, "Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives."
NPR seems to be developing a track record for taking aim at employees who do business with Fox News. Back in December, Politico reported that NPR political correspondent Mara Liasson was asked "...to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias." According to the report, "NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s Special Report and Fox News Sunday came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party."
Isn't the idea of the White House "controlling" the media supposed to be the stuff of fiction? Didn't the days of yellow journalism die with William Randolph Hearst?
Last week I was concerned because one host walked away from another. Now we have a publicly funded news network firing employees who dare to "talk to the other side". Bernard Goldberg is right, media bias is rampant. Perhaps the blogosphere is the last, true bastion of free speech after all.
Speaking of which, Fox News reportedly offered Juan Williams "...a new and more lucrative contract" that "...would be worth “nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary.”
Maybe it still does pay to speak your mind in the mainstream media after all.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A Shanda fur de Bill O'Reilly
So, Bill O'Reilly was on the purile morning pap known as The View this morning.
Anyone who watches The View has no doubt of the political persuasions of the majority of its hostesses. If you're like most thinking Americans and you don't watch The View (except when a particularly humorous excerpt shows up on The Soup) compare the treatments of 2008 Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama and the political views of Walters' women reveal themselves fairly quickly.
Hey, they never claimed to be journalists.
Well, in any case, they never claimed to be unbiased.
On The View, the problem has never been having a particular view (unless you're Elisabeth Hasselbeck) so much as it has been having to encounter guests whose views aren't in line with your own.
Usually, this problem can be handled fairly easily through tactics like playfully mocking you if you're an elderly man, or shouting over you if you're a young blonde woman. But when you encounter a middle-aged white male (demographic alert! demographic alert!) with a pair of big clanging balls who could care less if he strikes a few sour notes in your ear...
...you walk off-set.
Seriously?
To summarize the clip, Bill O'Reilly argues that Americans are "seeing a widening gulf between the President and them, personally," and when questioned on that, he goes on to cite a CNN poll that indicates nearly 70% of Americans do not approve of the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, in comparison to President Obama's refusal to "comment on the wisdom" of building a mosque in that location.
Immediately, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar become so offended that Bill O'Reilly agrees with the 70% of Americans cited in CNN's poll and not the two of them (as they shout, "But I'm an American! I'm an American!") that they literally get up and walk off the set.
What? Shouting and witty repartee weren't good enough this time around?
I am Jewish, which means that I know a good argument when I get into one. There is a reason we need ten men to say a prayer and 70 to make a decision; to say we are opinionated is an understatement. So, needless to say, when I see the Jewish woman in the room get up and walk away from an argument, something in my kishkes makes me squirm.
Whoopi I can understand; after all, she's just a poser anyway.1 But, Joy Behar, how could you? Shanda fur de goyim! Seriously, what kind of Jewess are you that you can't have a good argument? Agreeing to disagree is the fourth pillar of our faith!
The situation brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend (who also happened to be Jewish) a few years ago about television news networks. For some reason, Fox News came up and she immediately remarked, "They're SO biased!"
I replied that I thought all news networks were biased, one way or the other. The first thing any good media professor will tell you is that television is a business. The entire point of television is to appeal to a demographic in order to make money through advertising. Therefore, most television programming is geared towards the particular age/gender/race Neilsen says will be watching at that particular time of the day. Hence, Saturday morning cartoons are on at 9 am on Saturday morning and not 9 pm on Tuesday night. So, if Fox News is biased, they are only biased inasmuch as they are seeking to appeal to a demographic previously underserved by their peers (in this case, the political right wing) in order to win ratings and, in turn, increase advertising revenue.
Her grand reply was, "Well, I don't agree with them, so they are biased."
Wait, is that how we justify who we do and don't talk to, by whether or not they agree with what we have to say? Where's the Jewish in that?
One scholar, Deborah Schiffrin, wrote an article stating that "Jewish Argument" is a social tool used to "display solidarity." In other words, getting up and walking away from someone because they disagree with you is about as Jewish as eating pork at the Passover seder. It is antithetical to the Jewish neshama to turn your back on someone who disagrees with you. If anything, it is your responsibility to make them dinner during the discussion!
Why is it that Jewish Americans like Joy Behar have lost their ability to argue peacefully, and to disagree and remain on friendly terms? While her "talk or walk" opinions may promote political comraderie, they do nothing to unite the Jewish American community at large, of which roughly 1/2 do not currently approve of the President's performance, let alone the American Jewish community's relationship with their fellow Americans, of which roughly 1/2 do not currently approve of the President's performance. Even more importantly, in losing our ability to interrelate with people who hold different opinions, we are losing a key element of our Jewishness that has ensured our survival for thousands of years: The ability to see another person's point of view while holding onto our own.
Stated simply: What do you think gives a person their character, their ability to echo an opinion, or their ability to express one?
If Netanyahu threatened to walk out of this latest round of proposed peace talks as often as Abbas did, Jewish Americans of Joy Behar's political persuasion would be in an uproar. How will we ever achieve peace, they would argue, if we can't at least sit at a table together and talk things out?!
There is nothing Jewish about walking away from an argument. Disagree with Bill O'Reilly and you certainly won't be the first. But, if you really want to make a statement, invite him to lunch after the show.
After all, what good Irish Catholic boy would say no to a lox and whitefish buffet?
****
1. "Born Caryn Elaine Johnson... Goldberg also adopted her stage name, which began as Whoopi Cushion, but later adopted the "Goldberg" surname because her mother felt the original was not "Jewish enough" to make her a star." For more on this offensive idea, see last week's entry regarding "Joos Controlling the Media".
Anyone who watches The View has no doubt of the political persuasions of the majority of its hostesses. If you're like most thinking Americans and you don't watch The View (except when a particularly humorous excerpt shows up on The Soup) compare the treatments of 2008 Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama and the political views of Walters' women reveal themselves fairly quickly.
Hey, they never claimed to be journalists.
Well, in any case, they never claimed to be unbiased.
On The View, the problem has never been having a particular view (unless you're Elisabeth Hasselbeck) so much as it has been having to encounter guests whose views aren't in line with your own.
Usually, this problem can be handled fairly easily through tactics like playfully mocking you if you're an elderly man, or shouting over you if you're a young blonde woman. But when you encounter a middle-aged white male (demographic alert! demographic alert!) with a pair of big clanging balls who could care less if he strikes a few sour notes in your ear...
...you walk off-set.
Seriously?
To summarize the clip, Bill O'Reilly argues that Americans are "seeing a widening gulf between the President and them, personally," and when questioned on that, he goes on to cite a CNN poll that indicates nearly 70% of Americans do not approve of the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, in comparison to President Obama's refusal to "comment on the wisdom" of building a mosque in that location.
Immediately, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar become so offended that Bill O'Reilly agrees with the 70% of Americans cited in CNN's poll and not the two of them (as they shout, "But I'm an American! I'm an American!") that they literally get up and walk off the set.
What? Shouting and witty repartee weren't good enough this time around?
I am Jewish, which means that I know a good argument when I get into one. There is a reason we need ten men to say a prayer and 70 to make a decision; to say we are opinionated is an understatement. So, needless to say, when I see the Jewish woman in the room get up and walk away from an argument, something in my kishkes makes me squirm.
Whoopi I can understand; after all, she's just a poser anyway.1 But, Joy Behar, how could you? Shanda fur de goyim! Seriously, what kind of Jewess are you that you can't have a good argument? Agreeing to disagree is the fourth pillar of our faith!
The situation brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend (who also happened to be Jewish) a few years ago about television news networks. For some reason, Fox News came up and she immediately remarked, "They're SO biased!"
I replied that I thought all news networks were biased, one way or the other. The first thing any good media professor will tell you is that television is a business. The entire point of television is to appeal to a demographic in order to make money through advertising. Therefore, most television programming is geared towards the particular age/gender/race Neilsen says will be watching at that particular time of the day. Hence, Saturday morning cartoons are on at 9 am on Saturday morning and not 9 pm on Tuesday night. So, if Fox News is biased, they are only biased inasmuch as they are seeking to appeal to a demographic previously underserved by their peers (in this case, the political right wing) in order to win ratings and, in turn, increase advertising revenue.
Her grand reply was, "Well, I don't agree with them, so they are biased."
Wait, is that how we justify who we do and don't talk to, by whether or not they agree with what we have to say? Where's the Jewish in that?
One scholar, Deborah Schiffrin, wrote an article stating that "Jewish Argument" is a social tool used to "display solidarity." In other words, getting up and walking away from someone because they disagree with you is about as Jewish as eating pork at the Passover seder. It is antithetical to the Jewish neshama to turn your back on someone who disagrees with you. If anything, it is your responsibility to make them dinner during the discussion!
Why is it that Jewish Americans like Joy Behar have lost their ability to argue peacefully, and to disagree and remain on friendly terms? While her "talk or walk" opinions may promote political comraderie, they do nothing to unite the Jewish American community at large, of which roughly 1/2 do not currently approve of the President's performance, let alone the American Jewish community's relationship with their fellow Americans, of which roughly 1/2 do not currently approve of the President's performance. Even more importantly, in losing our ability to interrelate with people who hold different opinions, we are losing a key element of our Jewishness that has ensured our survival for thousands of years: The ability to see another person's point of view while holding onto our own.
Stated simply: What do you think gives a person their character, their ability to echo an opinion, or their ability to express one?
If Netanyahu threatened to walk out of this latest round of proposed peace talks as often as Abbas did, Jewish Americans of Joy Behar's political persuasion would be in an uproar. How will we ever achieve peace, they would argue, if we can't at least sit at a table together and talk things out?!
There is nothing Jewish about walking away from an argument. Disagree with Bill O'Reilly and you certainly won't be the first. But, if you really want to make a statement, invite him to lunch after the show.
After all, what good Irish Catholic boy would say no to a lox and whitefish buffet?
****
1. "Born Caryn Elaine Johnson... Goldberg also adopted her stage name, which began as Whoopi Cushion, but later adopted the "Goldberg" surname because her mother felt the original was not "Jewish enough" to make her a star." For more on this offensive idea, see last week's entry regarding "Joos Controlling the Media".
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The World's Oldest Profession
Pardon me while I dump the vomit out of my yarmulke.
I didn't need Rick Sanchez to throw accusations of a Jewish-controlled media in my face to make me realize that some people still think we own the world. All I needed was to sit in the backseat of a beat up Ford (oh, the irony ) and get eyed up through the rear-view mirror by a lanky, brainless grad student and his Turkish gal-pal.
"Why are there so many of you in the media?" His beady eyes betrayed him; his girlfriend already told him the answer, he was just testing me. WASPs can be so sneaky sometimes.
"What?" You see, not knowing I was a twin--let alone multiples in any amount--I was grammatically confused and decided to play it from that angle. Jews can be so gracious sometimes.
"Why are there so many Jews in the media?" This time he asked point-blank.
Silly me, I answered like a reasonable, educated individual, explaining why this was a popular assumption based on a period of time when us "Joos" weren't allowed to be doctors, lawyers, or any number of other accredited "professionals" so we resorted to owning our own businesses--one of which happened to be, at first, movie theaters and then, movie studios. But, since that era is long gone, there is a virtual panoply of ethnicities, genders, sexual-orientations, and creeds (we're talking "United Colors of Benetton" here) "in the media".
The Turkish exchange student gave her protoge a sideways glance that said, "Told you she'd say that."
The two shared a knowing grin.
And I left the car.
The first thing I did when I got in the door was call the President of my campus chapter of Hillel. I told him the whole story. His grand response was a half-hearted, "Yeah, well, that's a shame, isn't it?"
Then I got the lowdown on the annual Kosher Chili Cookoff.
Today, Entertainment Weekly asked, "So, should Jon Stewart accept Rick Sanchez's apology?" after detailing Stewart's on-screen response in which he mocked Sanchez but, quite honestly, couldn't really give a damn about his accusations.
Sanchez's official statement is as pathetic as any other media persona's "official statement" about their verbal faux pas. Reading that was like listening to a nine-year old forced to say they're sorry to the kid they tortured on the playground so their guidance counselor can close the case file and get home for dinner. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, at least he actually apologized to "the Jewish community" and not just "anyone else" he "might have offended."
Jon Stewart's response is equally as pathetic. He's the kid on the playground who got punched, and he's willing to play nice in front of the guidance counselor as much as he has to, in the hopes that the bully won't follow him home and try to beat him up again. Only, this time, Sanchez was really disciplined--he got fired-- and Jon Stewart still played nice.
In the end, nothing was ever done about the two grad students who eyed me up in the backseat of their car. Nor, in a related note, was anything done about the other grad student (this time a Pakistani from Dubai) who cornered me alone in the grad student lounge and confronted me with the now-disproven "evil actions of my bretheren in Jenin".
And, in the end, Rick Sanchez's antiSemitic outburst will be lost in history's database of old information, something for our kids to find one day as they browse through the Wayback Machine.
All the while, the stereotype lives on to surface another day. Let's see; it was about two months between Oliver Stone and Rick Sanchez's matching accusations. What'll be our Hanukkah present from Hollywood this year?
Wait a minute...I thought we were in charge?
Well, then again, I guess we are as long as we keep imitating Jonny and taking it like a man.
I didn't need Rick Sanchez to throw accusations of a Jewish-controlled media in my face to make me realize that some people still think we own the world. All I needed was to sit in the backseat of a beat up Ford (oh, the irony ) and get eyed up through the rear-view mirror by a lanky, brainless grad student and his Turkish gal-pal.
"Why are there so many of you in the media?" His beady eyes betrayed him; his girlfriend already told him the answer, he was just testing me. WASPs can be so sneaky sometimes.
"What?" You see, not knowing I was a twin--let alone multiples in any amount--I was grammatically confused and decided to play it from that angle. Jews can be so gracious sometimes.
"Why are there so many Jews in the media?" This time he asked point-blank.
Silly me, I answered like a reasonable, educated individual, explaining why this was a popular assumption based on a period of time when us "Joos" weren't allowed to be doctors, lawyers, or any number of other accredited "professionals" so we resorted to owning our own businesses--one of which happened to be, at first, movie theaters and then, movie studios. But, since that era is long gone, there is a virtual panoply of ethnicities, genders, sexual-orientations, and creeds (we're talking "United Colors of Benetton" here) "in the media".
The Turkish exchange student gave her protoge a sideways glance that said, "Told you she'd say that."
The two shared a knowing grin.
And I left the car.
The first thing I did when I got in the door was call the President of my campus chapter of Hillel. I told him the whole story. His grand response was a half-hearted, "Yeah, well, that's a shame, isn't it?"
Then I got the lowdown on the annual Kosher Chili Cookoff.
Today, Entertainment Weekly asked, "So, should Jon Stewart accept Rick Sanchez's apology?" after detailing Stewart's on-screen response in which he mocked Sanchez but, quite honestly, couldn't really give a damn about his accusations.
Sanchez's official statement is as pathetic as any other media persona's "official statement" about their verbal faux pas. Reading that was like listening to a nine-year old forced to say they're sorry to the kid they tortured on the playground so their guidance counselor can close the case file and get home for dinner. Say what you will about Mel Gibson, at least he actually apologized to "the Jewish community" and not just "anyone else" he "might have offended."
Jon Stewart's response is equally as pathetic. He's the kid on the playground who got punched, and he's willing to play nice in front of the guidance counselor as much as he has to, in the hopes that the bully won't follow him home and try to beat him up again. Only, this time, Sanchez was really disciplined--he got fired-- and Jon Stewart still played nice.
In the end, nothing was ever done about the two grad students who eyed me up in the backseat of their car. Nor, in a related note, was anything done about the other grad student (this time a Pakistani from Dubai) who cornered me alone in the grad student lounge and confronted me with the now-disproven "evil actions of my bretheren in Jenin".
And, in the end, Rick Sanchez's antiSemitic outburst will be lost in history's database of old information, something for our kids to find one day as they browse through the Wayback Machine.
All the while, the stereotype lives on to surface another day. Let's see; it was about two months between Oliver Stone and Rick Sanchez's matching accusations. What'll be our Hanukkah present from Hollywood this year?
Wait a minute...I thought we were in charge?
Well, then again, I guess we are as long as we keep imitating Jonny and taking it like a man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)