fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

June 17, 2015

Letter to UC Regents from the Simon Wiesenthal Center

Leave a Comment / Press Releases /

In a letter today to UC Regents, Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, urging them to recognize anti-Semitism as a serious 21st century threat. 

The letter read, in part: 

“Too many Jewish families with a spouse, daughter, son, or grandchild at a major university in California or outside have heard from a loved one who has experienced or witnessed the bullying, intimidation, and even hate crimes spawned by classic Jew-hatred or by campaigns to demonize and erase the state of Israel. Campus life is supposed to provide an open and safe environment for learning and debate on controversial issues. It has often failed to provide such an environment for young people who proudly and outwardly display their pride in being Jewish and voice their love for Israel.  The Regents serve in a public capacity on a Board that under the law has the same rights as other government entities to express their opinions on moral issues such as the right of members of the university community to be free from intimidation or attempts to stifle their viewpoints. Without infringing on free speech rights under the First Amendment, the Regents can and should exercise their own right to accept a definition of anti-Semitism that meets the challenge of our times. Against this backdrop Gov. Janet Napolitano, president of the respected University of California system, has made an important decision that would help administrators, students, and other members of the community to better understand and oppose anti-Semitism: She has expressed her personal support for the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm) which includes ‘using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis’ or ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’  The Regents should respond to the current environment on campus by adopting a definition, which recognizes such odious speech and expression for what they are: anti-Semitism. By following President Napolitano and adopting the State Department definition, the Regents will provide UC administrators with moral guidance they sorely need in protecting the rights and identities of all students,” Hier concluded.

Letter to UC Regents from the Simon Wiesenthal Center Read More »

The Bashevis Singer exchange, part 2: The Yiddish author’s attitude toward English

Leave a Comment / Domain's Guest, Rosner's Domain, Rosners Domain-mobile, Worldwide /

Asaf Galay has directed and written a number of award-winning documentaries for Israeli television. These include series on Israeli humor (In the Jewish Land, 2005); the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2007); the life and influence of the Zionist hero Joseph Trumpeldor (When the Lion Asked Twice, 2008); and the Israeli national poet Natan Alterman (Sentimentality Allowed, 2012). Also premiering in 2015 is a documentary film he directed and produced on how comics reflect Israeli life, entitled The Israeli Superheroes.

Shaul Betser is a well-known director of series and documentaries for the Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and Israel's Channel 2. He was also the founder of Nana-NetVision's popular video website. Betser has a BFA from the department of film and television at Tel Aviv University.

This exchange focuses on Galay and Betser’s new documentary film, The Muses of Isaac Bashevis Singer. You can find a trailer here and part 1 here.

***

Dear Mr. Betser and Mr. Galay,

Part of what makes your film so intriguing is that the idea that a Nobel prize winning author, arguably the most prominent Yiddish writer of his generation, would use the translation of his oeuvre as an opportunity to meet women is so different from what one might expect from ‘a great artist’ to act like.

Translating great works of fiction is serious business, and It seems mind-boggling that the author that represented Yiddish culture to post-WW2 America chose his co-translators based on hotness rather than on competence. While you do show in the movie that he and his 'muses' worked very hard, it still almost doesn’t make sense that he wasn’t more particular about the people he chose for this important endeavour.

In the film you raise the idea that he may have viewed his English translations as a vehicle for fame and success, and you even present a scholar who claims that their quality pales in comparison to the original Yiddish. Do you think that Singer's translation ‘method’ shows that he didn’t treat his English readership as seriously as he treated his Yiddish creations? Is it a matter of him being an author who is more focused on storytelling than on poetic nuances? What does this whole affair tell us about his attitude toward Yiddish, English, and himself?

Yours,

Shmuel.

***

Dear Shmuel,

You ask some tough questions. We'll do our best to answer them. The first thing to say is that Singer was very serious about the language used in the English translations of his works, just as he was in the Yiddish versions. He was anything but careless about translation.  He'd been a translator himself – from German into Yiddish – and thought of them as indispensable, the 'very spirit of civilization'.

Singer believed good translators were crucial because of how difficult, impossible even, it was to convincingly render Yiddish writing into English. Yiddish was to him the richest of all languages with its biblical and talmudic references, its nuances, it aphorisms and folk wisdom. How could English, which he considered precise and ill-equipped to deal with ambiguity, describe such a foreign world?

His conclusion was to think of the original Yiddish and the English translation as two separate bodies of work with different audiences and intended impact. The English translation was vital in its own right. He sat for hours with his translators, discussing every word because, as he put it, 'no much how much I love them, all translators must be closely watched.' He demanded control over such an important process but the closeness with his translators came also from need. His English was not perfect and he needed help to understand his new audience, the new culture he was so determined to conquer. 

Singer used a lot of different translators but he was, in his own way, careful how he chose them. Most did not have fluent Yiddish because he was not looking for a 'literal' translation which he characteristically compared to a woman, 'true and faithful but still miserable'. Rather, he wanted smart, young American Jews, each one providing new insights into how his stories could speak to people like themselves. He called them his 'best critics', the editors who revealed the 'nakedness' of his stories. He had to convince them before he could convince the large non-Yiddish readership he so wanted.

So Singer did not choose his translators just because they were 'hot'. But our film certainly is about the way that Singer's ideas about translation were intertwined with his ideas about sex (and what we might call his sexism). He remarked that when he was young he dreamed of a harem full of women. When he was older, he dreamed of a harem full of translators. But what he most wanted, and what he achieved, was 'heaven on earth', a harem full of female translators.

For Singer, creativity and sexuality were bound together. Indeed, Singer's relationships with his translators mirrored a pattern you find in his stories. Many Singer stories revolve around sex and secrets, around a male protagonist who moves obsessively between three women (or three 'types' of women): a woman of loyalty; a sensuous, unruly lover; and 'muses' he talks to, collaborates with in intellectual matters.  The same was true about Singer and his translators. His wife, Alma translated a Singer story, as did his long-term lover, as in turn did many talented young women. He worked closely with these young women, he talked with them about literature and sex, and he often tried to seduce them. Both in his life and his translations, Singer alternated between this triangle of women. The result was a lot of turmoil but also some terrific writing.

The Bashevis Singer exchange, part 2: The Yiddish author’s attitude toward English Read More »

Guess For Whom the Bell Tolls

Leave a Comment / Blogs /

Christopher Lee at 93 years old just joined his late lamented buddy Peter Cushing among the honored shades occupying Hollywood’s Vampire Hades. His heart gave out. Why? Perhaps because he could not swallow the prospect of Donald Trump entering the 2016 GOP presidential race.

As an historian, I want to find an appropriate historical precedent for Trump. Senator Joe McCarthy comes to mind, who treated communists with the same civility that The Donald reserves for hapless Mexicans whom he plans to shanghai into construction gangs to build another Great Wall—this time on our Southern Border. The question is—to achieve this goal grander than that of TR and the Panama Canal—will he bend his Sinophobia a bit and allow the Chinese to finance the Wall’s construction the way they underwrite every other American debt?

A better choice than Joe McCarthy—who, compared to The Donald, was “an Old Roman” and man of principle—is William Randolph Hearst, immortalized by Orson Welles as “Citizen Kane.” Does anybody remember that Hearst actually served a term in Congress, elected with the help of East Side Jews, and even flirted with the idea of becoming the Democratic presidential standard bearer succeeding William Jennings Bryan?

Hearst and Trump both were men of boundless egos as well as bank accounts, unbounded national egotism, and nary a scruple in their natures. Of course, Jews won’t be voting for The Donald, but they should be concerned that such an abomination, who couldn’t be invented if he didn’t exist, is getting media attention like hot cakes just off the griddle.

Compared to The Donald, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont ranks up there with Washington and Lincoln (and Eugene Debs) even if his defense policies amount to an update of Norman Mailer’s account in Armies of the Night of how antiwar demonstrators in 1969 planned to levitate the Pentagon. The American political scene is such that we need to revive Orson Welles to do cinematic justice to The Donald, and H. L. Mencken to handicap the madness of our presidential race to the bottom. What does a terminally ill political culture surviving only on social media intravenous look like? Don’t ask.

Dont fire Trump. Fire us Americans for tolerating his presence in our politics,

Guess For Whom the Bell Tolls Read More »

Virtual phone systems remains a hot topic at UTC Telecom and Technology 2015

Leave a Comment / Blogs, Food, Recipes /

Atlanta, Georgia; – Weeks after the conclusion of the UTC” target=”_blank”>virtually hosted PBX, provides a listing of PBX service providers whose abilities seems limitless and pricings that seem to match business demands at every stage of commercial development.

Outside of that, even a simple search outside of such directories can yield market leaders such as Grasshopper, Ring Central, Vonage, and Nextiva.

So while some are still wondering why Virtual communication systems have dominated the interest of those attending the UTC Telecom and Technology 2015 conference, others who understands what this technology can do, knows every reason why.

The event which was held at the Cobb Galleria Center in Atlanta, from the 5 to 8 May, 2015, had attracted several thousand visitors and business executives, who were all seemingly keen on the various developments in the ICT sector.

Virtual phone systems remains a hot topic at UTC Telecom and Technology 2015 Read More »

Shilling for Iran is unworthy of Senator Dianne Feinstein

Leave a Comment / Opinion /
The basis of any democracy is trust between the people and their representatives. When that trust is violated not only are the violators seen as lacking legitimacy but so too are the very institutions they represent.
 
Like many concerned Americans, I wrote to my elected representative about the Iran nuclear framework. My representative is California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the powerful Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
 
If anyone should be both concerned about and knowledgeable of the potential Iranian nuclear deal, it should be someone who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, unless of course allegiance to the administration transcends allegiance to the nation.
 
Senator Feinstein’s email response begins with the usual bromide about the US being the leader (no leading from behind here) in the negotiations and how the Iranian nuclear program has been frozen in place. Ironically, the email arrived after the New York Times revealed that over the period of negotiation Iran’s supply of enriched uranium had grown by more than twenty percent.
 
Feinstein despite her access to the intelligence community and the New York Times was either ignorant of this piece of public information or thinks her constituents are all lemmings who are more willing to walk off the ideological precipice than deal with reality.
 
Counter to the administration’s palliative assurance of a frozen nuclear program, the numbers published by the International Atomic Energy Agency—no member of the vast rightwing conspiracy—show that Iran not only failed to convert its existing stockpile into reactor rods, it has also continued to enrich uranium aggressively.
 
The ever-sycophantic New York Times suggested that, perhaps, we need not worry about this since it might be simply a bargaining chip for the Iranians. And the ever-bumbling state department spokesperson, Marie Harf, told us not to worry because Iran still has until the end of June to meet the goal of reducing its supply of enriched uranium. If this is possible, the laws of physics no longer apply, at least not in Iran.
 
Feinstein also assures me that the IAEA has access to all (emphasis mine) of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The problem with that assertion is its contradiction by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word for his country on the negotiations.
 
 In case Feinstein thinks there is some ambiguity about Iran’s position, here is the supreme leader in his own words, “The impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk [sic] to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement, but no such permission will be allowed. No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.”
 
The military site in question is the one looming out of the desert at Fordow. The surreptitious site that was discovered by American intelligence is a critical part of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
 
Under the proposed agreement, Fordow would be permitted to keep 1,000 centrifuges running, and the type is unspecified, meaning the Iranians could use high yield centrifuges that would reduce the breakout time for a nuclear weapon to three months, hardly long enough for any decision on a military strike. Feinstein assures me that there is strict limitation on activity at Fordow. If 1000 high yield centrifuges comprise a strict limitation, I hesitate to discover with a lenient one is.
 
Feinstein reassures me that if Iran breaks the rules, sanctions can be re-imposed, but we are all aware that with Europe in an economic crisis and major oil companies chomping at the bit to do business with Iran, there is no way the sanctions genie can be put back into the bottle.
 
Like the ungainly Ms. Harf, Feinstein represents the administration’s deceptive shilling for Iran. In the age of the Internet, elected representatives no longer have a monopoly on the nuanced information related to negotiated agreements.
 
Responses like Feinstein’s only increase the credibility gap between her and her constituents. They do not reinforce the vital structures that legitimize our democracy.
 
 
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a senior fellow with the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought. Follow @salomoncenter

 

Shilling for Iran is unworthy of Senator Dianne Feinstein Read More »

Palestinian unity government resigns

Leave a Comment / Israel /

The Palestinian unity government between Hamas and Fatah has resigned and the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister has been asked to form a new government.

Resignation letters were given to P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday, the French news agency AFP reported. The possible collapse of the 14-month-old-government was signaled on Tuesday, despite P.A. denials.

Abbas received the resignations from the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, then asked Hamdallah to form a new government, AFP reported, citing Nimr Hammad, a close aide to Abbas.

The Palestinian unity agreement was signed in April 2014.

Hammad reportedly said that Hamas would be included in consultations to form a new government. Hamas reportedly had been against the dissolution of the government and said it was not consulted by Fatah, Abbas’ party, before the resignation were submitted.

The announcement of the resignation comes amid reports of indirect talks between Hamas and Israel in order to reach a long-term truce in the wake of last summer’s Gaza conflict. Arab and European countries reportedly have mediated the talks.

Palestinian unity government resigns Read More »

Israel says prepared for possible Syrian refugee throngs on Golan

Leave a Comment / Israel /

Israel signaled readiness on Tuesday to intervene if Syrian refugees were to throng to its armistice line on the Golan Heights, after Israel's Druze Arab minority stepped up a public campaign to help brethren caught up in the civil war next door.

Israel has sought to keep out of the four-year-old crisis in Syria, an old foe from which it captured the strategic Golan in a 1967 conflict and where it fears more belligerent Islamist militants could take over should President Bashar al-Assad fall.

So far, Israeli forces have limited themselves to returning fire into Syria when shooting hit their side of the Golan, and admitting hundreds of refugees for medical treatment.

But with no end in sight to the fighting that has sent some 4 million Syrians fleeing to neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, Israel's top military officer told parliament on Tuesday that preparations were under way to respond to any massing of refugees on the Golan.

“If a large number of refugees comes to the border from the combat zones, we will do what is needed to prevent a massacre,” Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizenkot said, according to a person who was present at the parliamentary briefing.

Eizenkot, who was invoking a scenario of refugees being targeted by Islamist insurgents or Assad loyalists on the Syrian-held side of the Golan, did not elaborate on Israel's planned actions.

On Sunday, the Israeli news site Walla reported Israel was examining the possibility of enforcing a “humanitarian aid zone” on the other side of the Golan separation fence — specifically for any influx of Syrian Druze fleeing Islamist insurgents.

Walla did not detail how such a zone might be set up or defended. Israeli officials declined comment on the report.

But Israel is mindful of calls for intervention by its own Druze, some of whose members have reached senior posts in the armed forces or government, and by Druze on its side of the Golan who have been demonstrating at the fence.

Military spokesman Brigadier-General Moti Almoz said the top brass held a special Golan assessment on Tuesday “as part of the common cause and blood-alliance between us and our Druze brothers in the State of Israel”.

But Almoz, in a statement posted on Facebook, said the Israeli side of the Golan was “calm, without irregular events” and that Eizenkot had ordered no change to current deployments.

Israel says prepared for possible Syrian refugee throngs on Golan Read More »

Syrian rebels say launch offensive in southern Syria

Leave a Comment / Worldwide /

Rebels in southern Syria announced a major offensive on Wednesday to capture remaining positions held by the Syrian military in Quneitra province, near the Israeli Golan Heights, where bombardments could be seen a short distance away.

Quneitra sits in a sensitive region around 70 kilometers (40 miles) southwest of the capital Damascus and has been the scene of frequent fighting between insurgent groups opposed to President Bashar al-Assad and the army backed by allied militia.

A Syrian army source told Reuters the army had beat back an insurgent assault to take over several hilltops and the government-controlled villages of Tel Shaar and Tel Bazaq, north of the deserted provincial capital of Quneitra.

“Army units have foiled efforts by the terrorist groups against these villages in the Quneitra countryside,” the army source said, adding at least 200 insurgents were killed or wounded in the army operations.

State television footage showed several tanks and dozens of ground troops moving reinforcements through army-held villages in the lush agricultural border province, where rebels have made gains in the last two years.

Rebel spokesman Issam al-Rayes wrote on Twitter that an alliance of insurgent groups, which did not include al Qaeda's Syria wing Nusra Front, were taking part in the offensive under the banner of the rebel Free Syrian Army.

Nusra has fought in southern Syria but is not thought to be the main insurgent force there, unlike in other parts of the country.

Rayes later told Reuters the attempt to seize remaining army strongholds in the province, following several failed efforts, also targeted the army's main Liwa 90 base. “This is an attempt to end the presence of the regime in the province,” he said.

The insurgents were eyeing the city of Baath, the province's main administrative center and the town of Khan Arnba, the two main urban centers still in the hands of the government.

Dislodging the army from Quneitra would open a supply route to rebels south of Damascus in the opposition-controlled western Ghouta, from where they could target Assad's seat of power.

“We are aiming to destroy the first line of defense of the army around Damascus in this area,” Rayes said.

A Reuters photographer watching from the Israeli Golan said there had been heavy shelling since early Wednesday in the Quneitra area. At one point he saw smoke rising from 13 bombardments. Shooting could also be heard in the distance.

It was not clear which groups were taking part.

Later, rocket alarms sounded in the Golan Heights. Tanks on the Syrian side could be seen firing and there was the sound of helicopters overhead.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group reported clashes between the Syrian military and insurgents including Islamist factions in northern Quneitra.

The Observatory's head Rami Abdulrahman said a handful of combatants were killed on both sides since Tuesday.

Insurgents fighting in Sweida province further east had failed during recent fighting to capture a main road to Damascus, and it was not clear whether they could secure a route to the capital in this latest offensive, he said.

Different groups, including the hardline Islamic State and Nusra Front, have been putting Assad under heavy pressure in various parts of the country in the past two months.

Another insurgent alliance including Nusra Front has taken hold of the northwestern Idlib province, edging closer to Assad's coastal stronghold, while Islamic State fighters overran the central city of Palmyra last month.

The government says it can defend important stretches of territory in Syria's populous west and the deputy foreign minister told Reuters last week that Damascus was safer than towards the start of the conflict, which grew out of protests against Assad in 2011.

Syrian rebels say launch offensive in southern Syria Read More »

Reading Yesterday’s News

Leave a Comment / Blogs, Food, Recipes /

My house has been hit by another avalanche — several actually — of piles of newspapers. We Leafs are members of the idiosyncratic minority who still harbor affection for printed matter of the tactile variety. In addition to our collections of books — shelved, stacked and otherwise — we appear to be undergoing an assault of newsprint as never before.

Don't get me wrong; I love reading the papers . . . with my morning coffee and at breaks throughout the day. I used to subscribe to the Sunday Times whose myriad magazines, Book Review and lifestyle supplements provided more than enough intelligent reading matter for the week. But when their subscription department refused to renew, yet again, my never-ending 50% off  “trial” subscription, I gave up the practice (figuring there were still plenty of old sections to be gotten to).

And then along came an offer to redeem “about to expire” mileage points for free publications. The New York Times was not among them, so I chose an annual subscription to The Wall Street Journal. Not because I'm particularly business oriented, but hey! It was free. And now that I've been reading it for a while, I must admit that after Rupert Murdoch's acquisition, the paper includes far more items of general interest, all expertly written. The only problem is that except for a dual Saturday/Sunday edition, the Journal lands in my driveway every single day.

Hence the avalanche of newsprint. There are piles of “to be read” papers stacked up in the kitty corner of the settee of our kitchen nook . . . taking over our actual kitty's favorite, food-begging spot. She now approaches her usual leap from the back counter with utmost caution, but often as not, still manages to disturb the oddly balanced hill of print. I don't think she enjoys her ride on this ad-hoc, feline slip 'n' slide, and neither do we, as her descent sends sheets flying in all directions. Lately she's taken to sitting and staring, doglike, at my feet when anticipating treats.

Greywinkle (the cat) is also not amused by the piles of newspapers that have suddenly taken up residence on the couch beneath her favorite sun-perch by the window. I know this for a fact as she's been known to expresses her displeasure by doing her business right on those papers — then attempting to cover up the evidence by shredding the fouled papers with her claws. What disdain from a12-year-old persnickety lady who's used her litter box exclusively ever since her arrival from the shelter at the well-trained age of three months! Shall I gripe about how now I can no longer read these particular saved sections? Or just be happy that at least some of my excess newsprint is making it out the door. At least she's made cleanup easy — I just roll up papers and poop and dump the whole business in the garbage bin. Perhaps I should feel grateful that Greywinkle hasn't expressed similar disgust for the mountains of papers (for nighttime reading) that line the side of my bed.

Still, the sheer volume of papers is getting out of hand and something must be done. Perhaps you have an idea that can help? Every time I begin to weed, I discover yet another interesting article that simply must be read . . . and then leave it for my husband to read as well. And until he gets to it . . . .  But you know, there really is something to be said for enjoying old news. Just last night, as I was dipping into a mint section of the paper by my night table, I came across a panicky feature about a major market downturn. Then I looked at the date, about two weeks ago, and smiled. Because just earlier in the morning, in today's paper, I'd read about how world markets were enjoying great upticks in prosperity and that the trend is expected to continue through the coming year.

It's always good to be reminded not to go crazy over bad news . . . nor put one's faith in journalists who are as likely to create “newsworthy” copy as to report on actual events. Consider the pressure they're under to come up with new, eye-catching headlines daily. No one runs to read: “The world's economies continue today, like yesterday, at the status quo.” Yawn. Reading yesterday's news is always a lovely reminder of how yesterday's panic didn't pan out and how tentative corrections did, at times, actually bear fruit.

There's another reason I've come to enjoy The Wall Street Journal in particular. As a Democrat who hitherto subscribed to what is commonly referred to as “liberal media,” it's been an eye-opening experience to get a view from the other side. My favorite sections are the daily “Opinion” pages and weekly “Review” where most (but not all) staunch Republican arguments are made. Then there are those thick WSJ “magazines” that are really fat advertising supplements for exclusive international real estate (in the market for a castle anyone?) and garish 50-diamond necklaces where any single stone would make an outstanding engagement ring. There's nothing like it to get a multifaceted picture of the mind-set and spending practices of the “one percent.”

To the paper's credit, it often features stories about the Israel's ongoing, extensive charitable and intellectual contributions to humanity. They tend to be the first first-responders at natural disaster zones, offering free state-of-the-art medical and technical manpower and expertise. Their advanced scientific, agricultural and medical research has helped save and enrich untold numbers of lives throughout the world. (These sorts of stories are rarely covered by any of the other major media outlets who appear committed to condemning the State of Israel at every turn, despite the fact that this small, isolated nation remains the only safe, westernized, even liberal democracy in the Middle East.)

But then there are the Journal's daily arguments against Obamacare and just about any Democratic platform, many by learned scholars with statistics, so that I am reminded, yet again, of how easily facts can be rejiggered to prove most any point. I also realize the danger inherent in our country's growing tunnel vision when it comes to news consumption.  When the average person only looks at issues through a lens set to agree with his preexisting opinion, is it any wonder we've become such a divisive nation represented by an oppositional Congress?

But I've saved the best for last, which is actually my very first stop in the reading of any day's paper . . . and why I refuse to simply chuck old copies out. I find the daily quirky item of human interest at the bottom of the Front Page to be the Journal's most endearing (and enduring) feature. Always fresh and wittily presented by, what I presume are, talented freelancers, these story gems span every sort of subject and location on the planet — generally, the more obscure and out-the-way, the better. They will at times relate, if only tangentially, to subjects of topical or timely interest; but that's really not the point. The point, it seems, is simply: Wow! Look at what's happening here! Isn't that interesting. Just because. For example, here are a few “quirky news” headlines chosen at random from my December 2014 collection. Please be forewarned. They may get you hooked too.

“In Canada, Some Old Soldiers Refuse to Fade Away: Rangers Patrol the North With No Mandatory Retirement; Hoodies, Caps”

“Today is National Noodle Ring Day, So If You've Got a Bundt Pan, Use It: Odd Dishes Fight for Spots on Calendar; Celebrations for Melba Toast and Horseradish”

And with a nod to the season past: “Nothing Says Happy Holidays Like a Ferret in a Santa Hat: Small Pets Included in Festivities; Stoles for Guinea Pigs, Wreaths for Bunnies.”

By George, I think I've got it! If push (or paper avalanche) comes to shove, I can always just tear off each and every Page One! To be read whenever, forever. Just like the weird practices of human nature on which they're based, these oddball items of yesterday's news never grow old.

© 2015 Mindy Leaf

Follow Mindy's essays of biting social commentary at: “>https://askmamaglass.wordpress.com

Reading Yesterday’s News Read More »