fbpx

October 13, 2008

Britney repents for Rosh Hashanah [VIDEO]

What a great way to start the Jewish New Year!

Britney’s new video has premiered and as one of her longtime fans, I definitely believe that Britney is beginning to do teshuva (repentance). Actually, her teshuva has already been reported by the press, who quote an interview to be aired on MTV a few days before the release of her next album.

“I sit there and I look back and I’m like, ‘I’m a smart person. What the hell was I thinking?” Britney says.

Yes, Britney has been beating her chest—and not only to get the men to heave.

Now for her post-Kippur reinvention: her video for “Womanizer”—a surefire hit. First of all, the song is hot and filled with attitude. The arrangement is filter and synth heavy, but extremely danceable. It has that get-up-out-of-your-seat, seductive girl-power vibe we can only truly get from the Brit.

The choreography is not as complex as her classics like “I’m a Slave 4 U” and “Stronger”,  but she no longer looks as glassy-eyed as she did in “Piece of Me.” She’s fierce again, and apparently back in shape (any airbrushing aside).

I first prayed for her after her flop on the MTV VMA’s last year. I’m glad at least some of my prayers have been answered. May the Jewish people take inspiration because sometimes I also wonder “We’re a smart people. What the hell were we Jews thinking?”

May you go from strength to strength, Britney!

Womanizer—the video.  [ADULT CONTENT]

Britney repents for Rosh Hashanah [VIDEO] Read More »

Where have I been?

My friends, I want to apologize for my negligent behavior these past days, my friends. You see, my friends, I lost myself observing the Day of Atonement, and then writing about what it was like to be an actual synagogue-going sort-of Jew. And then, my friends, I spent all weekend writing a cover story for this week’s paper on the presidential election. It was a real bear, my friends, and now I’ve got to finish digging up a pretty interesting story I stumbled across last week. But, my friends, rest assured that I’ll be active on the blog.

(Did everyone else find those two words, repeated over and over, as nauseating as I did?)

Where have I been? Read More »

Akko riots expose Israel’s Arab-Jewish tinderbox

JERUSALEM (JTA)—The rioting in the mixed Jewish-Arab city of Akko, which erupted after an Arab man drove through a Jewish neighborhood on Yom Kippur, shows just how combustible Arab-Jewish relations in Israel are.

Yet after four successive nights of clashes, in which rampaging Arabs stoned Jewish-owned shops and cars as Jewish mobs torched Arab homes, there was no sign of the violence spreading to other mixed-ethnic cities such as Haifa, Jaffa, Nazareth or Lod.

Nor did the current Jewish-Arab tensions appear likely to reach the proportions they did following October 2000, when Israeli police shot dead 12 Israeli Arabs and a visitor from the West Bank in clashes across northern Israel that coincided with the launching of the second Palestinian intifada.

But the rioting in Akko is more than an isolated violent episode in need of containment. Even if the rioting abates, it is sounding warning bells for the Israeli government. Jewish-Arab tensions in Akko and in the country as a whole have been simmering under the surface for years. The rioting was an expression of Arab frustration and Jewish mistrust.

The latest trouble started on the eve of Yom Kippur, Oct. 8. On this holiest day of the Jewish calendar, everything in Israel comes to a halt. For the duration of the 25-hour fast, businesses and places of entertainment are shuttered, and the roads are virtually free of cars. Even completely secular Jews and non-Jewish Israelis refrain from driving in Jewish neighborhoods.

So when an Akko Arab drove his car into a Jewish neighborhood that night, reportedly blaring loud music, the act seemed like a deliberate provocation.

Angry Jews forced the car to stop, pulled out the driver and beat him. News of the beating quickly spread across the city, and from the mosques Arabs were called upon to avenge what by then had been exaggerated to “two Arabs murdered by Jews.”

Hundreds took to the streets, mostly young, masked men who marched into the main Jewish neighborhood smashing shop windows, shattering car windows, slashing tires and torching vehicles. In retaliation, Jewish mobs set fire to several Arab homes in the predominantly Jewish neighborhood. Police appeared to be overwhelmed by the rioters.

The pattern repeated itself for the next three days and nights. Gradually the police ramped up their response, and by Monday hundreds of police officers were deployed in the city backed up by the Israeli army’s border police. More than 60 arrests were made.

To help defuse the tension, Akko Mayor Shimon Lankri postponed Akko’s annual Fringe Theater festival, explaining that the political content of some of the plays could further aggravate tensions. In any case, he said, audiences would stay away given the new of the riots.

“This is not a time for celebrations,” he declared.

But some saw in Lankri’s announcement an attempt to punish the city’s Arabs, saying Arab businesses benefit most from the business the festival brings to the city.

Meanwhile, right-wing Jewish extremist groups and radical Arab agitators tried to fan the flames while Israel’s political leaders—including some Arab leaders—struggled to restore calm.

Some Jewish extremists called for a boycott of Arab businesses, while Hamas leaders urged Israeli Arabs to start a “third intifada.”

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accused extremists on both sides of “holding the city ransom.”

Mostly, however, leaders on both sides issued appeals for calm and a quick return to coexistence. After meeting Monday with Jewish and Arab religious and community leaders in Akko, President Shimon Peres said he was optimistic and “surprised at the degree of willingness for dialogue on both sides.”

Earlier, Arab community leaders had issued an apology for the desecration of the Jewish holy day. The Arab driver went to a televised meeting in Jerusalem of the Knesset’s Interior Committee, where he said he had not intended any provocation but had made a terrible error of judgment: He said he thought that because it was very late at night, no one would notice his car driving into the mostly Jewish neighborhood where he lived.

In a square outside city hall in Akko, members of the Mapam-affiliated Shomer Hatzair youth movement built a sukkah and invited both Arabs and Jews to visit in a spirit of reconciliation.

One of the first guests was Arab Knesset member Abbas Zakoor, an Akko resident and a member of the radical Raam-Taal party. Arab Knesset members, who often resort to inflammatory language as they compete for an increasingly radicalized Arab constituency, have played a remarkably conciliatory role in the current unrest.

Paradoxically, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which were meant to resolve the Israeli-Arab predicament, have sharpened tensions between Israeli Arabs and Jews.

Israeli Arabs see their Palestinian cousins, once sworn enemies of the Jews, being offered full statehood, while they, citizens of the Israeli state, are ignored. They still recall with anger the October 2000 clashes in which Israeli police opened fire on Arab rioters. The Arabs point to the harsh police response—Israeli police don’t use live fire against Jewish demonstrators—as evidence of the double standard often applied to Israeli Arab citizens.

Similarly, some Israeli Jews point to the riots of eight years ago as a reminder that Israel’s Arab citizens cannot be trusted: When the Palestinians launched their intifada that month, Israel’s Arabs rioted in solidarity with the Palestinians.

The Orr Commission set up to investigate the 2000 clashes found “years of discrimination” against Israeli Arabs and urged the government to do more to promote Jewish-Arab equality and provide Arab and Jewish municipalities with proportionately equal budgets. This has not happened.

In 2006, Israeli Arab leaders moved to a more publicly critical stance on the Jewish state, producing a document seeking virtual autonomy for the Arab minority and calling for an end to the Jewish character of the state. Titled the “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” the paper demanded veto rights and autonomy in domestic affairs, rejected Jewish symbols of state and provided a narrative of colonial conquest by Jews, naming Israeli Arabs as the land’s only indigenous people.

With the background of the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict and day-to-day tensions between Israeli Arabs and Jews, particularly in mixed cities like Akko, the rioting there really should have come as no surprise. All that’s needed is something incendiary to set the two sides aflame.

Elie Rekhess, the director of the Konrad Adenauer Program for Jewish-Arab Cooperation at Tel Aviv University, says Arab-Jewish relations in Israel are a powder keg waiting to explode. If Akko is not the trigger, something else will be, Rekhess says—unless the government finds a way to give Israeli Arabs a sense of truly shared citizenship.

Akko riots expose Israel’s Arab-Jewish tinderbox Read More »

Newsweek on ‘the fight for the Jewish vote’

My editor right now is working over my cover story for this week on Jews and the presidential election. It’s certainly been a wild ride. This is always a time of the week when I surf the net and look for bloggable stories, and I just happened to come across a piece in this week’s issue of Newsweek titled “The Fight for the Jewish Vote.” The article deals specifically with the perceived effect of Sarah Palin:

Like many Jews in south Florida, Todd and Jamie Ehrenreich are registered Democrats who have faithfully cast ballots for their party’s presidential nominees as long as they can remember. But this year, they’d decided to back Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate. “We are over the $250,000 tax bracket, and we didn’t want to lose our money,” Jamie says. “We wanted to benefit from our own American dream.”

Then McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate—and “lost us in one fell swoop,” says Jamie, who lives with her husband and two kids in Miami. She finds so much about Palin objectionable that she almost doesn’t know where to begin. There’s the abortion issue, for one. Palin “wouldn’t want anyone to have an abortion even for rape or incest,” says Jamie. “Who is she to judge by telling me how to live my life and overturning the things women have worked so hard for?” Equally disconcerting is Palin’s seeming shallowness on some of the most pressing matters facing the country. “She doesn’t know what she is talking about and makes it up as she goes along,” says Jamie. “The fact that she had to be coached for two weeks [to prepare for the vice presidential debate] tells me she doesn’t know anything. She just talks in circles.”

The Ehrenreichs’ reaction is hardly isolated. Many Florida Jews who had previously been open to McCain appear to share the couple’s aversion to Palin, according to political scientists, polling data and anecdotal reporting. “She stands for all the wrong things in the eyes of the Jewish community,” says Kenneth Wald, a professor at the University of Florida. Among the examples he cites: Palin seems to disdain intellectualism, she’s a vociferous opponent of gun control and she attended a fundamentalist church that hosted Jews for Jesus, which seeks to convert Jews to Christianity. (Palin apparently sat through a speech by a leader of the group in which he said terrorist attacks on Israel were punishment for Israelis’ failure to accept Jesus as the Messiah.) An American Jewish Committee poll taken in the weeks after Palin was picked found that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of her selection, compared to 37 percent who approved. And that was before the onslaught of withering criticism of her interviews with CBS’s Katie Couric.

Such rejection of Palin could prove decisive on November 4.

I agree with that analysis. Obama’s outreach to Jews has been extensive—a bunch of little schleppers went to Florida this weekend to sway their bubbes—and though he is still not polling well, a lot of folks who had been on the fence have been pushed back over to Obama’s side by Palin. Tune in Thursday for a lot more.

 

Newsweek on ‘the fight for the Jewish vote’ Read More »

Fisher-Price doll promotes Islam?

See that Aryan face? That’s the Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n’ Coo. And believe it or not, that doll is a Muslim emissary.

OK, I don’t believe it. I’m not sure what this doll actually is saying, but I doubt it’s “Islam is the light.” Mattel, which owns dollmaker Fisher-Price, claims the baby just coos and says mama; I don’t hear that either. But, naturally, controversy has followed:

Some shops in the US have removed the doll from shelves after complaints from customers, according to reports. It is available in Britain for £19.99.

A spokesman for Fisher-Price insisted that the doll was not pushing pro-Islamic messages, adding that the sound some parents were hearing was caused by an accidental distortion of the doll’s soundtrack.

“The Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo dolls feature realistic baby sounds including cooing, giggling, and baby babble with no real sentence structure,” a spokesman said.

“The only scripted word the doll says is ‘mama’. There is a sound that may resemble something close to the word ‘night’, ‘right’, or ‘light’.

“Because the original soundtrack is compressed into a file that can be played through an inexpensive toy speaker, actual sounds may be imprecise or distorted.”

Earlier, Mattel released a statement saying that “the power of suggestion” was the reason why parents were mis-hearing the doll.

“It’s not what you would expect out of a sweet little doll,” said Martina Hollermann of Ramsey, Minnesota, who bought the toy for her children. “Everyone was kind of creeped out.”

A video report from the AP is after the jump:

Fisher-Price doll promotes Islam? Read More »

Rosner: Politicians should leave Israel alone

I’m tired of all the political pandering to religious voters. Jeffrey Goldberg, surprisingly, is sick of the non-stop mentioning of Israel on the campaign trail. Last week in Slate, Shmuel Rosner explained why it would be better for Israel is American politicians stopped name-dropping the small sliver of the Levant every time they wanted some Jewish support. A snippet:

Loving Israel, and making it known time and again, is still a litmus test for any American politician. Barely can a presidential debate go by without the mentioning of this tiny country in a distant region. Last week in the vice-presidential debate, Israel’s name was mentioned 17 times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn’t come up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan—the countries in which U.S. forces are fighting wars.

And the Biden-Palin debate was not the exception but the rule. A week earlier, in the first McCain-Obama debate, Israel was mentioned seven times, fewer than Russia but still more than China or Japan or any country in Europe, Latin America, or Africa. In the second presidential debate, on Tuesday, Israel was on the table again. “Would you commit U.S. troops to defend Israel if Iran attacks it?” they were asked. In the first two televised debates of the primary season, one could see the same trend: Republican candidates mentioned Israel 18 times, as compared with only one mention for Russia and three for China. Democrats, more modestly, mentioned Israel only three times—still more than Great Britain, Egypt, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, or Canada and almost the same as those of neighboring Mexico.

(skip)

But if they really care for Israel, they should at least try to resist the temptation. The constant mentions, the high visibility in every election cycle, the overwhelming attention—all do little to serve Israel’s interest. They create the impression that Israel’s problems, and especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, should be the highest priority for an American administration. They make Americans think that important and costly governmental actions, like the war in Iraq, were done for the sake of Israel, thus turning Israel into a nuisance rather than an asset. They mislead voters to think that dilemmas facing the next president—Iran is the most notorious example—would disappear had it not been for Israel.

You can read the rest here.

Rosner: Politicians should leave Israel alone Read More »

From the recent ‘SNL’ archives: anti-Semitic jokes get edited out

The “Saturday Night Live” sketch a week ago that skewered all the morons who got us into this financial mess—if you’re keeping score at home, that’s President Bush, Congress, Wall Street and greedy folks who bought homes they couldn’t afford—caused a lot of handwringing and worrying about whether Jews were going to be the biggest victims of the economic collapse. Not because they had more to lose, but because, with history as our witness, they make an easy scapegoat.

The sketch was taken down from NBC.com shortly after the blowback began. It’s returned now, in edited form. And it’s still hilarious. (I particularly like Bill Hader and Anne Hathaway’s characters.) I think too much was made of the anti-Semitic nature of this bit. In it, no one is identified as Jewish. It’s just that Rep. Barney Frank and the Sandlers and George Soros are Jewish. Jewlicious thinks someone screwed up at the last Elders of Zion meeting and explains what’s now missing:

The original version of the video, which appears here, shows that NBC deleted information related to the appearance of actors portraying Herbert and Marion Sandler. The original video had a caption that described the couple as “People who should be shot.” Furthermore, the actor portraying Herbert Sandler stated “And thank you Congressman Frank as well as many Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activity.” That part was edited out of the current version of the video.

You can watch the sketch after the jump:

From the recent ‘SNL’ archives: anti-Semitic jokes get edited out Read More »

Alan shrugged

What went wrong?

Greed is only part of it. Yes, the people who sold subprime loans to unqualified buyers were concerned about their cut, not about ARMs spiking and home prices falling. Yes, the Wall Street wizards who sliced and diced collateralized debt obligations were greedy for big paydays and living large.

But invoking greed actually explains little, no more than invoking lust or envy or any other human urge. The mystery isn’t why people are greedy; it’s how greed gets the better of them.

At a private fundraiser in Houston, when he thought there was no risk of being recorded, George W. Bush offered this explanation for our troubles: “There’s no question about it, Wall Street got drunk—that’s one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras—it got drunk and now it’s got a hangover. The question is how long will it [take to] sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments.”

There is no reason to question President Bush’s credentials for knowing a drunk when he sees one. But Bush, though he says he can’t remember a day from prep school to his 40th birthday when he didn’t have a drink, also insists that he has never been an alcoholic. He just drank “too much.” When he stopped, he didn’t acknowledge that he had a disease; what was wrong, it seems, was just typical youthful irresponsibility and a too-protracted youth.

So Wall Street’s problem, in the president’s mind, is not a systemic pathology, not an illness that comes on the same chromosome as the profit motive. Instead, it’s the behavior of a frat boy on a bender, the reckless phase of a good-time Charlie rather than the symptom of profound disease.

Bros will be bros; greed, like stuff, just happens.

A quite different explanation comes from a man to whom Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and who is the intellectual parent of this collapse: “>speech at Georgetown University earlier this month, he attributed it to “lack of trust in the validity of accounting records of banks and other financial institutions” in the past year. Trust! Who knew?

So it’s not competitive markets and “Atlas Shrugged”-style enlightened self-interest that makes economies work. It’s “reputation and the trust it fosters.” Wealth creation, Greenspan says, requires trusting the people with whom we trade. The better your reputation, the more I trust you, the more able I am to take risks and accumulate more capital. When people “let concerns for reputation slip” the way they have in recent years, when counterparties are “not always truthful,” lenders are hesitant to lend, and credit freezes up.

But even an apostle of free markets like Ronald Reagan said, though in a different context, “Trust, but verify.” For years, credit-rating agencies like“>words of Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz, “performed the alchemy that converted securities from F-rated to A-rated” with no apparent damage to their reputations.

For years, the sterling reputations of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch served as a substitute for transparency. For years, federal efforts to monitor the trustworthiness of big banks were fought tooth and nail by the same Alan Greenspan who nevertheless says that trust is everything.

James Madison warned us in Federalist No. 51 that men are not angels. Lincoln, while appealing to “the better angels of our nature,” nevertheless acknowledged our darker inclinations.

Anyone who’s been anywhere near a big investment bank knows that the gentlemen who run them have more in common with Hollywood buccaneers and Washington barracudas than they do with the Marquess of Queensbury. Maybe on Planet Fountainhead the economy runs on trust, but on this one, reputations aren’t warrants of integrity, they’re commodities marketed by the branding industry and burnished by the business journalism business.

Bill Moyers, Alan shrugged Read More »

Debate rages over attack on Jewish soldier at Ft. Benning

NEW YORK (JTA)—All sides agree that a beating last month left a Jewish U.S. Army trainee, Pvt. Michael Handman, with facial wounds, severe oral injuries and a concussion. What’s in dispute is whether the assault—at the base in Fort Benning, Ga.—was carried out by multiple attackers, and if it was the product of an anti-Semitic campaign waged by Handman’s superiors.

The military has charged just one person, a fellow trainee, and insists that he was not motivated by anti-Semitism. Handman’s supporters, on the other hand, believe multiple attackers were involved and feel the incident was connected to anti-Jewish slurs dished out to Handman by two company drill sergeants.

Military officials declined to make Handman available for comment, and separate efforts to reach him were unsuccessful. His mother, Randi Handman, told JTA that her son only remembers being called into the laundry room to retrieve clothing, was struck and spun on his back while sorting through a pile, then covering his head to shield it from blows before drifting into the blackness of a concussion. He says several recruits were in the room before the beating commenced, his mother added.

Just days before the Sept. 24 assault, the two drill sergeants were issued letters of reprimand, in which they were accused by the military of addressing Handman with anti-Jewish slurs, including “Juden.” In the base’s mess hall, one of the drill sergeants also demanded that he remove his yarmulke, which he had begun to wear in the few weeks following his induction.

Though army regulation allows for individuals to wear a yarmulke, praying while on guard duty—which Handman was rebuked for—is against regulation, because soldiers must limit their focus to guarding weapons. According to his mother, Handman says that he was not praying, but merely reading Jewish canon—three feet from where another guard had been reading the New Testament undisturbed.

She also said that prior to the assault, she received a foreboding letter from her son, warning her that he would be attacked.

“I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion,” he wrote, adding: “I just feel like I’m always looking over my shoulder. Like my battle buddy heard some of the guys in my platoon talking about how they wanted to beat the shit out of me tonight when I’m sleeping. It just sucks. And the only justification they have is [because] I’m Jewish. Maybe your dad was right…The Army is not the place for a Jew.”

The case has attracted the attention of Mikey Weinstein, leader of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an outfit that fights alleged religious bias in the U.S. military. Weinstein, whose foundation has launched its own investigation of the beating, says that the drill sergeants referred to Handman as “fucking Jew” and kike. According to Weinstein, platoon members attempted to dispirit Handman by ejaculating in his pillow.

Handman’s father, Jonathan, contacted U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in the hopes that he would take an interest in the investigation, and urge the military to switch his son to a less hostile company. In response to the senator’s inquiries, Fort Benning’s Deputy Chief of Staff Samuel Selby Rollinson wrote that he does not condone the actions of the non-commissioned officers in slurring Handman, and denying him the right to wear a yarmulke or attend Jewish prayer services. But, Rollinson added, their actions were “not meant to be malicious, and were done out of ignorance for regulations and cultural awareness.”

Military police have concluded that Handman was attacked by a lone assailant, a fellow trainee that they refuse to identify, citing army regulations. The suspect has been charged by military police with assault, and is subject to yet-to-be determined penalties, including 45 days of restricted movement, extra duty, reduction in grade and forfeiture of pay. Military officials denied JTA requests to speak with the private who was charged in the assault.

Handman has been moved out of his original platoon to a rehabilitation platoon to recuperate from his injuries, and is now in a different battalion.

When asked through what method of investigation it was determined that the non-commissioned officers “inadvertently” violated the private’s religious rights, a spokeswoman for Rollinson, Monica Manganaro, said that they acted “out of character,” are experienced drill sergeants and had a superb record of performance up until this incident.

Weinstein said that the military frequently attempts to portray such incidents as one-time occurrences. He criticized the army’s choice of Lt. Dan Kim to lead the investigation of the motives behind the assault, saying that he would ultimately be the one accountable for prevalent misconduct.

According to army officials, Kim spent days gathering 100 sworn testimonies from every member of Handman’s company, all of whom denied that religious prejudice was pervasive, or that it provoked the beating.

Fort Benning’s spokeswoman was unaware of the “battle buddy” who Handman said had warned him of a pending assault fueled by anti-Semitism. According to the spokeswoman, Kim and military police officials say they have uncovered another motive during the investigation, but military privacy regulations prohibit her from sharing that information.

Weinstein argued that the sworn testimony of the privates is unreliable, since it was solicited by a lieutenant who ranks above them.

Claims that a conflict of interest exists were dismissed by an army spokeswoman, who pointed out that Kim answers to his superior, the battalion commander, and is obligated to render a truthful investigation.

Weinstein criticized the penalty, saying it was an outrage that the assailant was not even given the lowest form of a court martial. Handman’s father called the punishment “cute” and merely a slap on the wrist.

Debate rages over attack on Jewish soldier at Ft. Benning Read More »