After several years of various civil wars, revolutions, coups in Arab states somebody decided that Israel needed another fabricated controversy attached to it. The initial attempt to blame the “Arab Spring” on Israel failed miserably as soon as it all started. Something had to be done.
I am disappointed to see that this month’s wedge issue is about a beverage company.
American actress Scarlett Johansson did an advertisement for an Israeli beverage company. Clearly she was looking for trouble.
In the interest of full disclosure I will point out that I am not much of a Scarlett Johansson fan and I think that SodaStream sucks. I thought she was better before she became an action star. Something happens to them after they do action movies. Remember when Liam Neeson was a real actor?
The whole SodaStream concept is queer to me, though I do appreciate the environmental aspects of their organisation. If you want a carbonated beverage then you should buy a Pepsi. Making your own is like making your own helicopter. It might seem a good idea at the time but it won’t fly.
After Johansson started filming adverts, her friends at Oxfam complained. They did not have the balls to drop her but they were more than willing to complain about her despite all the work she did for them. Apparently they hold firmly to their convictions up to the point of not trying to upset celebrities too much. So Johansson dropped them.
Up to this point I do not particularly care. What any celebrity advertises is none of my concern. What got my attention were the calls to boycott SodaStream and close down its factory.
The narrative is pretty simple. SodaStream is an Israeli company. Therefore it is evil. It has a factory in Ma’ale Adumim. Therefore it is evil. Ma’ale Adumim was part of the British Mandate land handed over to Israel. Therefore it is the new historic ancient Palestinian homeland. If that does not make any sense, ask people who want to return to the 1967 borders why they refuse to even consider the 1948 borders. I know the answer to that one but sometimes it is amusing to see how they rationalise Jordan’s invasion and occupation of land whilst decrying Israel’s control of land it owned before Jordan invaded the first time.
What all the liberal peace activists who love human rights and favour brutal Arab dictatorships over a liberal democracy with human rights fail to realise, or more likely fail to care about, is that closing the Ma’ale Adumim factory would put about 1000 Arabs out of work. SodaStream may be an Israeli, ie evil, company but it pays those Arab employees Israeli wages and gives them Israeli benefits. No Arab company in Judea and Samaria pays anything close or provides evil socialist health cover.
Israeli companies are also forbidden by law and common decency to murder homosexuals and treat women as property. Closing the factory would be bad news for any homosexuals or women working there who do not want to be murdered property. Can anybody tell me why none of the liberal peace activists who love human rights ever comment on how the Palestinian Authority treats homosexuals and women? I have never heard any plausible explanation for this. Or even an implausible explanation. They simply ignore how much their heroes ignore peace and human rights.
Closing the factory would also cause unnecessary unemployment in a time and place that would not benefit from even more unemployment. And even if a few of those thousand people could find other jobs they would likely make far less money and work in Arab working conditions. If you think that all Arabs are oil millionaires driving their racing cars up sand dunes then you should join the liberal peace activists who love human rights and are equally as clueless.
And closing that factory would virtually guarantee a UN resolution condemning Israel for closing a factory and putting 1000 Arabs out of work. There would be a separate resolution against Israel after any former factory employees are murdered by their Arab dictators for being women or homosexuals. Or any former employees for being “traitors”. The Palestinian Authority loves to execute “traitors”. I would think that liberal peace activists who love human rights would be against that. But I would be wrong.
Why do human rights advocates hate the Arabs of Judea and Samaria so much? I cannot say. Perhaps for the same reasons that other Arabs seem to hate them so. I can understand hating the Arabs of Israel. After all, they live with a bunch of Jews. But is their hatred of Israel truly strong enough to condemn all Levant Arabs? Time will tell.
Anybody who wants to boycott Israel either knows that damaging Israel’s economy is very dangerous for Yosh Arabs or is too caught up in their academic indignation to see how much Israel provides to Judea and Samaria. Or they simply have no idea what is going on here.
And if you want to boycott Israel then I sincerely hope that you also want to boycott China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, Bangladesh, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt and a few dozen other countries. Or is there some way in which Israel is different from those countries?
10 February 2014
06 February 2014
Touched By Jesus
I have not read the UN’s report about the Catholic priest sex issue and have no intention of doing so. The UN is intellectually dishonest and their reports and condemnations are a joke more often than not. The UN telling countries how to live are as impotent as people arguing politics online. But I am surprised that they found the time to criticise somebody besides Israel. It is not as though Israel and the Vatican have historically been best friends.
I realise that “Vatican” and “Holy See” are not interchangeable but I call it the Vatican anyway. Deal with it.
From what I gather the UN is opposed to priests raping children. Mazel tov. I know of no person or organisation that supports priests raping children. Even a few popes have spoken out against it. I have never come across anybody in favour of it. Though to be fair I rarely associate with sociopaths.
How long did it take the UN to arrive at this groundbreaking decision? Why did this report come out now and not 20 or 100 years ago?
Apparently the UN thinks that the Vatican is legally responsible for the actions of priests all over the world. My first thought was that yes, of course they are. There is a hierarchy in the Catholic church with Vatican leaders and the pope at the top of the ladder. But is that true? Is a priest living in Indonesia bound by Vatican law or Indonesian law? Obviously he should follow his church’s rules, which likely do not include raping children, but if he ignores the laws of where he lives in favour of the laws of his religion then he can find himself in an uncomfortable position. Raping children is often acceptable in places like Saudi Arabia. Does that mean a priest in Saudi Arabia is free to practice local customs?
Obviously I know the answer to that last question but I sincerely have no idea about the others. My religion has no such international hierarchy. Rabbanim are hired and fired by the community and answer to their shul, not to any committee in Israel or anywhere else. A rabbi in Saudi Arabia could theoretically eat at KFC every day and tattoo a giant swastika on his forehead. That is if being Jewish in Saudi Arabia was not punishable by death.
How does the Catholic church deal with local laws that contradict their own rules? Staying with Saudi Arabia as an example, since it is a such a fun loving country, how do priests ignore their mission to proselytise in a country that will happily kill them for proselytising? I would assume that Vatican leaders have already thought about such issues but has the UN? If the UN is saying that all priests are under the direct supervision of the Vatican then have they considered the international differences in cultures and customs? Somehow I think the Vatican has whilst the UN, ironically, has not.
The UN report demands that the Vatican do things their way. This is common practice for the UN. It is their version of the American policy of spreading democracy to weaker countries whether they want it or not. I even think the UN is genuinely surprised when countries choose not to do things their way.
The one part of the report that I read calls on the Vatican to change its teachings to bring them closer to the 20th century. While I do agree that some Catholic rules are painfully out of date, as are some rules of Judaism and Islam, I find it laughably appalling that the UN is telling any church how to be a church. I thought the UN was supposed to favour freedom of religion. Does that only apply to religious teachings of which they approve? Is it not exceptionally dangerous for the UN to be the arbiters of religious dogma?
If the UN decided that all Jews should pray a certain way, which they more or less already do from time to time, then there would be a large collection of middle fingers rising in the air.
Some people say keep your religion out of my bedroom. I agree with that. I would also add to keep the UN out of religion.
I realise that “Vatican” and “Holy See” are not interchangeable but I call it the Vatican anyway. Deal with it.
From what I gather the UN is opposed to priests raping children. Mazel tov. I know of no person or organisation that supports priests raping children. Even a few popes have spoken out against it. I have never come across anybody in favour of it. Though to be fair I rarely associate with sociopaths.
How long did it take the UN to arrive at this groundbreaking decision? Why did this report come out now and not 20 or 100 years ago?
Apparently the UN thinks that the Vatican is legally responsible for the actions of priests all over the world. My first thought was that yes, of course they are. There is a hierarchy in the Catholic church with Vatican leaders and the pope at the top of the ladder. But is that true? Is a priest living in Indonesia bound by Vatican law or Indonesian law? Obviously he should follow his church’s rules, which likely do not include raping children, but if he ignores the laws of where he lives in favour of the laws of his religion then he can find himself in an uncomfortable position. Raping children is often acceptable in places like Saudi Arabia. Does that mean a priest in Saudi Arabia is free to practice local customs?
Obviously I know the answer to that last question but I sincerely have no idea about the others. My religion has no such international hierarchy. Rabbanim are hired and fired by the community and answer to their shul, not to any committee in Israel or anywhere else. A rabbi in Saudi Arabia could theoretically eat at KFC every day and tattoo a giant swastika on his forehead. That is if being Jewish in Saudi Arabia was not punishable by death.
How does the Catholic church deal with local laws that contradict their own rules? Staying with Saudi Arabia as an example, since it is a such a fun loving country, how do priests ignore their mission to proselytise in a country that will happily kill them for proselytising? I would assume that Vatican leaders have already thought about such issues but has the UN? If the UN is saying that all priests are under the direct supervision of the Vatican then have they considered the international differences in cultures and customs? Somehow I think the Vatican has whilst the UN, ironically, has not.
The UN report demands that the Vatican do things their way. This is common practice for the UN. It is their version of the American policy of spreading democracy to weaker countries whether they want it or not. I even think the UN is genuinely surprised when countries choose not to do things their way.
The one part of the report that I read calls on the Vatican to change its teachings to bring them closer to the 20th century. While I do agree that some Catholic rules are painfully out of date, as are some rules of Judaism and Islam, I find it laughably appalling that the UN is telling any church how to be a church. I thought the UN was supposed to favour freedom of religion. Does that only apply to religious teachings of which they approve? Is it not exceptionally dangerous for the UN to be the arbiters of religious dogma?
If the UN decided that all Jews should pray a certain way, which they more or less already do from time to time, then there would be a large collection of middle fingers rising in the air.
Some people say keep your religion out of my bedroom. I agree with that. I would also add to keep the UN out of religion.
05 February 2014
Crimes and Misdemeanors
The only thing we love to do more than put celebrities up on pedestals is tear them down. When a celebrity is accused of anything, they are automatically guilty. Sometimes their careers can survive. Richard Gere never suffered professionally from all those gerbil rumours that some people still believe. If the accusation is especially bad then they are probably finished. You can ask Fatty Arbuckle all about that.
Actually, this applies to the rest of us as well. The court of public opinion never renders an acquittal. And now with the internet we can all express our completely uninformed opinions on all the evil things that other people do whilst making ourselves feel superior. The world wide web is the greatest ego inflater ever invented.
In 1992 Mia Farrow found out about Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. She was upset by all accounts. Mia and Woody had dated off and on for about 12 years. I can call them Mia and Woody because I have seen their movies and read about them, therefore I know them intimately enough to be on such a familiar level. Right?
Mia Farrow immediately sought sole custody of their three children, Satchel, Moses and Dylan. Andre Previn has always been the father of her older children. Woody refused to annul his adoption of Moses and Dylan. Then things got ugly.
According to Mia Farrow, Woody visited the Farrow summer home in the middle of this bitter custody battle, took 7-year-old Dylan up to the attic and molested her. Mia then videotaped an interview with Dylan over the course of two or three days and then alerted the authorities.
The public immediately went apeshit. And this was long before Twitter. Woody was now a monster. Never mind the fact that there had not been a trial or any form of investigation at this point. He was merely accused of doing something monstrous. That is enough.
This is when the public decided that Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter, that Woody and Mia were married, that Soon-Yi was a child when she and Woody started dating. So it was rumoured and so it shall always be. What is wholly irrelevant is that Woody Allen has married three times in his life. His first marriage ended badly but provided a good deal of stand up comedy material. This was back when Woody was a stand up comedian. His marriage to Louise Lasser ended amicably and they worked together several times afterward. His third marriage was to Soon-Yi. They are still married.
Woody and Mia adopted two children together, Moses and Dylan. Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia and Andre Previn before Woody and Mia ever met each other. And Soon-Yi was born in either 1970 or 1972. She was young when she started dating Woody in 1992 but not a child.
The Connecticut police launched a full investigation into Mia Farrow’s accusations against Woody. Connecticut is one of those states that is not at all impressed by celebrity and will nail you to the wall if they think you are guilty. They get none of that California and New York movie money. Their investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Woody and that Dylan’s story changed too many times to be credible. They also took into account the complete lack of medical evidence and the testimony of one of the nannies that Dylan was with her the entire time Woody was at the house. Another nanny said that she was pressured by Mia to say terrible things about Woody.
Less significant are the facts that everybody who has ever met Woody Allen can tell you that he would not do such a thing. Even his son Moses, who grew up in Mia’s anti-Woody house, has said that he did not do it. That is not evidence but people who know him obviously know him more than the rest of us. Woody has always famously been a breast man. Watch any of his early movies. Men who are attracted to full figured adult women are rarely inclined to molest 7-year-olds in a house full of people.
Woody and Soon-Yi went on to adopt two girls. There is a thorough investigation process to adopt children in the United States. Even more so when a man who has been accused of molesting a girl is trying to adopt a girl. The people who approved of both adoptions knew that they would be crucified if anything happened to either child. Both girls are now teenagers and their only complaint about their father is that he knows as much about Justin Bieber as they do about macroscopic quantum phenomena.
There is also the issue of Mia’s questionable moral choices but that does not prove guilt either.
Custody of all three children was given to Mia but Woody’s adoption was not annulled. Satchel changed his name to Ronan and Dylan became Malone. Moses remained Moses. The whole sordid affair died away, save for the rumours that Woody married his own daughter. That will live forever.
Then Ronan got a job on a TV programme. Suddenly Mia wanted to work tirelessly to warn people about how evil Woody is. Dylan, who had always publicly been unsure about what happened, declared that it was all true. Mia announced that Ronan is probably Frank Sinatra’s son and that she and Frank had never stopped knocking boots. Ronan became a household name just in time for his TV debut.
Call me a cynic but if I were Mia and I truly believed that my boyfriend molested my daughter I would never stop telling people about how horrible he is. I would not wait 20 years until my son had a new TV deal to start it all up again. I would also not Twitter about how horrible Woody is and then praise my good friend Roman Polanski on the same day. That is simply bad form.
For the record, I am a Woody Allen fan and not at all a Mia Farrow fan. Other than her work in Rosemary’s Baby, The Purple Rose of Cairo and Broadway Danny Rose, I think she is overrated. I was relieved when they broke up since it meant Woody would be working with other actors. Some of his movies with her, especially September, Another Woman, Alice, would have been better with a different lead.
I was also not present during the crime for which Woody was never charged. Neither was anybody else who is talking about it. The only person who truly knows what happened is Woody Allen. He probably never reads all the blog and Twitter posts about him. He probably does not know what a blog is.
Obviously I hope that this horrible rumour is untrue. I say obviously because it seems to me that no reasonable person would want any of this to be true. The damage to Dylan/Malone has already been done. She has been told for most of her life that something horrible happened to her. Whether she was molested or not makes little difference to her psyche at this point. But there is still time to save Woody. If he did it then he should be castrated. But if he did not then he should be allowed to live his life and make great movies. Being accused of something should not be enough to ruin somebody’s life.
It would be nice if people could be innocent until proved guilty. Too bad that never happens.
Actually, this applies to the rest of us as well. The court of public opinion never renders an acquittal. And now with the internet we can all express our completely uninformed opinions on all the evil things that other people do whilst making ourselves feel superior. The world wide web is the greatest ego inflater ever invented.
In 1992 Mia Farrow found out about Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. She was upset by all accounts. Mia and Woody had dated off and on for about 12 years. I can call them Mia and Woody because I have seen their movies and read about them, therefore I know them intimately enough to be on such a familiar level. Right?
Mia Farrow immediately sought sole custody of their three children, Satchel, Moses and Dylan. Andre Previn has always been the father of her older children. Woody refused to annul his adoption of Moses and Dylan. Then things got ugly.
According to Mia Farrow, Woody visited the Farrow summer home in the middle of this bitter custody battle, took 7-year-old Dylan up to the attic and molested her. Mia then videotaped an interview with Dylan over the course of two or three days and then alerted the authorities.
The public immediately went apeshit. And this was long before Twitter. Woody was now a monster. Never mind the fact that there had not been a trial or any form of investigation at this point. He was merely accused of doing something monstrous. That is enough.
This is when the public decided that Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter, that Woody and Mia were married, that Soon-Yi was a child when she and Woody started dating. So it was rumoured and so it shall always be. What is wholly irrelevant is that Woody Allen has married three times in his life. His first marriage ended badly but provided a good deal of stand up comedy material. This was back when Woody was a stand up comedian. His marriage to Louise Lasser ended amicably and they worked together several times afterward. His third marriage was to Soon-Yi. They are still married.
Woody and Mia adopted two children together, Moses and Dylan. Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia and Andre Previn before Woody and Mia ever met each other. And Soon-Yi was born in either 1970 or 1972. She was young when she started dating Woody in 1992 but not a child.
The Connecticut police launched a full investigation into Mia Farrow’s accusations against Woody. Connecticut is one of those states that is not at all impressed by celebrity and will nail you to the wall if they think you are guilty. They get none of that California and New York movie money. Their investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Woody and that Dylan’s story changed too many times to be credible. They also took into account the complete lack of medical evidence and the testimony of one of the nannies that Dylan was with her the entire time Woody was at the house. Another nanny said that she was pressured by Mia to say terrible things about Woody.
Less significant are the facts that everybody who has ever met Woody Allen can tell you that he would not do such a thing. Even his son Moses, who grew up in Mia’s anti-Woody house, has said that he did not do it. That is not evidence but people who know him obviously know him more than the rest of us. Woody has always famously been a breast man. Watch any of his early movies. Men who are attracted to full figured adult women are rarely inclined to molest 7-year-olds in a house full of people.
Woody and Soon-Yi went on to adopt two girls. There is a thorough investigation process to adopt children in the United States. Even more so when a man who has been accused of molesting a girl is trying to adopt a girl. The people who approved of both adoptions knew that they would be crucified if anything happened to either child. Both girls are now teenagers and their only complaint about their father is that he knows as much about Justin Bieber as they do about macroscopic quantum phenomena.
There is also the issue of Mia’s questionable moral choices but that does not prove guilt either.
Custody of all three children was given to Mia but Woody’s adoption was not annulled. Satchel changed his name to Ronan and Dylan became Malone. Moses remained Moses. The whole sordid affair died away, save for the rumours that Woody married his own daughter. That will live forever.
Then Ronan got a job on a TV programme. Suddenly Mia wanted to work tirelessly to warn people about how evil Woody is. Dylan, who had always publicly been unsure about what happened, declared that it was all true. Mia announced that Ronan is probably Frank Sinatra’s son and that she and Frank had never stopped knocking boots. Ronan became a household name just in time for his TV debut.
Call me a cynic but if I were Mia and I truly believed that my boyfriend molested my daughter I would never stop telling people about how horrible he is. I would not wait 20 years until my son had a new TV deal to start it all up again. I would also not Twitter about how horrible Woody is and then praise my good friend Roman Polanski on the same day. That is simply bad form.
For the record, I am a Woody Allen fan and not at all a Mia Farrow fan. Other than her work in Rosemary’s Baby, The Purple Rose of Cairo and Broadway Danny Rose, I think she is overrated. I was relieved when they broke up since it meant Woody would be working with other actors. Some of his movies with her, especially September, Another Woman, Alice, would have been better with a different lead.
I was also not present during the crime for which Woody was never charged. Neither was anybody else who is talking about it. The only person who truly knows what happened is Woody Allen. He probably never reads all the blog and Twitter posts about him. He probably does not know what a blog is.
Obviously I hope that this horrible rumour is untrue. I say obviously because it seems to me that no reasonable person would want any of this to be true. The damage to Dylan/Malone has already been done. She has been told for most of her life that something horrible happened to her. Whether she was molested or not makes little difference to her psyche at this point. But there is still time to save Woody. If he did it then he should be castrated. But if he did not then he should be allowed to live his life and make great movies. Being accused of something should not be enough to ruin somebody’s life.
It would be nice if people could be innocent until proved guilty. Too bad that never happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
