From Slate.
September 30, 2005
September 29, 2005
ROBERTS'S ICE BREAKER
We have ourselves a new chief justice and his name is John Roberts. And one of the first cases John Roberts, in the capacity of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, will hear is Gonzalez v. Oregon (October 5). That’s what I call an ice breaker.
Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide with certain restrictions, was established with the approval of Measure 16 in November of 1994. And this approval was reiterated once again in 1997, when Measure 51, designed to eliminate Measure 16, was repealed.
Meaning – twice the good people of Oregon cast their vote for the law, not against it. And even those in Congress who tried to block its implementation failed as well.
Now, the case is up for Supreme Court review – courtesy of former US Attorney General John Ashcroft (yes, the same one who use to anoint himself whenever he was sworn into public office, with cooking oil if necessary). Ashcroft is, by all accounts, a religious conservative who tried unsuccessfully to get rid of Roe v. Wade while in office.
Perhaps he thought that the Death With Dignity Act was an easier target, given that it is recent, pioneering, controversial, and limited to Oregon alone. In any case, one fine day he challenged Oregon’s courageous, history-making initiative by claiming that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical practice arising from a legitimate medical need; and that it entails improper use of medication – therefore illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Talk about agenda…
Regardless of my feelings on the issue (by the way, I do support the law because it seems only logical to me that terminally ill people should have their choice on how and if to endure their own suffering), what is at stake here is the old clash between the states’ rights and authority and the power of federal government.
To be sure, the CSA was never intended to supersede the states as primary regulators of physicians; that regulation is to be the state’s prerogative. Also, the 1997 “Funding Act” determined that no federal funds could be used for assisted suicide, and Ashcroft, back then a senator and cosponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said –
[The bill] does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide or even to provide its own funds for assisted suicide. It simply says Federal resources are not to be used to promote or conduct assisted suicides. After passage of this bill, States might choose to legalize or fund assisted suicide, but they would not be able to draw on Federal resources normally drawn upon in joint efforts between the State and the Federal Government for the provision of health services.
Does it get any clearer than that? Even without Ashcroft’s words, it is evident that the mere approval of the Funding Act means that the federal government recognized the states’ right to legalize assisted suicide on their own.
Can anyone explain to me how this case made it so far?
Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide with certain restrictions, was established with the approval of Measure 16 in November of 1994. And this approval was reiterated once again in 1997, when Measure 51, designed to eliminate Measure 16, was repealed.
Meaning – twice the good people of Oregon cast their vote for the law, not against it. And even those in Congress who tried to block its implementation failed as well.
Now, the case is up for Supreme Court review – courtesy of former US Attorney General John Ashcroft (yes, the same one who use to anoint himself whenever he was sworn into public office, with cooking oil if necessary). Ashcroft is, by all accounts, a religious conservative who tried unsuccessfully to get rid of Roe v. Wade while in office.
Perhaps he thought that the Death With Dignity Act was an easier target, given that it is recent, pioneering, controversial, and limited to Oregon alone. In any case, one fine day he challenged Oregon’s courageous, history-making initiative by claiming that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical practice arising from a legitimate medical need; and that it entails improper use of medication – therefore illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Talk about agenda…
Regardless of my feelings on the issue (by the way, I do support the law because it seems only logical to me that terminally ill people should have their choice on how and if to endure their own suffering), what is at stake here is the old clash between the states’ rights and authority and the power of federal government.
To be sure, the CSA was never intended to supersede the states as primary regulators of physicians; that regulation is to be the state’s prerogative. Also, the 1997 “Funding Act” determined that no federal funds could be used for assisted suicide, and Ashcroft, back then a senator and cosponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said –
[The bill] does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide or even to provide its own funds for assisted suicide. It simply says Federal resources are not to be used to promote or conduct assisted suicides. After passage of this bill, States might choose to legalize or fund assisted suicide, but they would not be able to draw on Federal resources normally drawn upon in joint efforts between the State and the Federal Government for the provision of health services.
Does it get any clearer than that? Even without Ashcroft’s words, it is evident that the mere approval of the Funding Act means that the federal government recognized the states’ right to legalize assisted suicide on their own.
Can anyone explain to me how this case made it so far?
NO MORE DeLAY
In the United States now, the House majority leader Tom DeLay is no more. House majority leader, that is. Apparently, this “upstanding” citizen and religious conservative family man (that is, if you discount the fact that he is estranged from most of his family) is behind a major breach of campaign laws. We, however, are not surprised because DeLay is, well… DeLay.
DeLay has always been a storm - better yet, a catastrophe in the making. I can’t think of one constructive thing he has done/said ever since I first heard of him; he just goes around applying his blind and extremely right-wing worldview to everything he does and every place he visits (to quote former Mossad chief Danny Yatom on occasion of DeLay’s trip to Israel in 2003, "The Likud is nothing compared to this guy").
And finally, I don’t trust him in the least. Call it a woman’s folly, but the man is positively mean.
DeLay has always been a storm - better yet, a catastrophe in the making. I can’t think of one constructive thing he has done/said ever since I first heard of him; he just goes around applying his blind and extremely right-wing worldview to everything he does and every place he visits (to quote former Mossad chief Danny Yatom on occasion of DeLay’s trip to Israel in 2003, "The Likud is nothing compared to this guy").
And finally, I don’t trust him in the least. Call it a woman’s folly, but the man is positively mean.
September 28, 2005
DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH
Someone sent me this one today - a recent gem from El Presidente:
When we think he's shown us everything, he outdoes himself.... Which means it is no over yet. We're doomed.
"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."
When we think he's shown us everything, he outdoes himself.... Which means it is no over yet. We're doomed.
September 27, 2005
EDUCATION CRISIS
Donald Rumsfeld is giving El Presidente his daily briefing. He concludes by saying, "And yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" Mr. Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this sudden outward display of emotion, nervously watching as El Presidente sits, head in hands, almost sobbing.
Finally, he looks up and asks, "Just how many is a brazillion, anyway?"
"OH NO!" Mr. Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!"
His staff sits stunned at this sudden outward display of emotion, nervously watching as El Presidente sits, head in hands, almost sobbing.
Finally, he looks up and asks, "Just how many is a brazillion, anyway?"
September 26, 2005
DIGESTING CRITICISM, OR PLATO - ROUND 2
My parents returned from a vacation recently and made special time to read what was happening here at the blog. And even though they are the supportive parents and all, my father at least did have a criticism or two.
According to him, I need to be less caustic in my replies to comments posted; I need to remember this is about promoting debate on a medium that is the closest thing to optimal. To my argument that some of the debate is insane, or unjustifiable waste of time, he said - "So what? Learn how to deal with that too." He is right. I hate to be acknowledging this here, but hey - let's be honest, I can be exceedingly harsh sometimes, which doesn't necessarily help to get my point across. And while that might have been cute back in my teens, now I guess I am running out of excuses...
My mother came to the phone after my father; unaware of his criticism a few minutes before (she was not by him as he spoke to me), she gently suggested I should reread Plato - in her opinion, I might have come across the Socratic dialogues when I was a little too young. She says that now, in my thirties, I'd be able to really benefit from rereading some of it.
The meaning of justice, in the sense of what it means to be just, to be fair - for as long as I remember, I have been a prisoner of this concept. I don't like it when people are oblivious to unfairness (their own included) in their daily treatment of life. I like it even less when I am one of these people.
So here I am, holding Plato's Republic in my hand... Round 2.
According to him, I need to be less caustic in my replies to comments posted; I need to remember this is about promoting debate on a medium that is the closest thing to optimal. To my argument that some of the debate is insane, or unjustifiable waste of time, he said - "So what? Learn how to deal with that too." He is right. I hate to be acknowledging this here, but hey - let's be honest, I can be exceedingly harsh sometimes, which doesn't necessarily help to get my point across. And while that might have been cute back in my teens, now I guess I am running out of excuses...
My mother came to the phone after my father; unaware of his criticism a few minutes before (she was not by him as he spoke to me), she gently suggested I should reread Plato - in her opinion, I might have come across the Socratic dialogues when I was a little too young. She says that now, in my thirties, I'd be able to really benefit from rereading some of it.
The meaning of justice, in the sense of what it means to be just, to be fair - for as long as I remember, I have been a prisoner of this concept. I don't like it when people are oblivious to unfairness (their own included) in their daily treatment of life. I like it even less when I am one of these people.
So here I am, holding Plato's Republic in my hand... Round 2.
AND HERE ON EARTH...
…we Homo sapiens are busy fighting over what came first, a protozoa or the Lord. Today a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania federal court began proceedings which will determine if intelligent design is none other than creationism dressed in new clothes. In which case it can't be part of Dover Area School District science curriculum.
As if we needed a trial for that.
It’s the yin and yang of free speech: under its beautiful, far-reaching wings, atrocities such as Holocaust denial (and revisionism) and creationism (and intelligent design) linger on.
Here is the article. And here is an opinion by a University of Washington professor.
As if we needed a trial for that.
It’s the yin and yang of free speech: under its beautiful, far-reaching wings, atrocities such as Holocaust denial (and revisionism) and creationism (and intelligent design) linger on.
Here is the article. And here is an opinion by a University of Washington professor.
September 24, 2005
PENGUINS RULE!
On a quiet Sunday afternoon in July, I watched the sweet March of the Penguins. The movie is indeed very charming; no wonder it has had so much success.
Recently, I noticed a few commentaries, shamelessly anthropomorphic in nature, praising the penguin's monogamous behavior. According to people like Michael Medved and others, the penguins are a symbol of conservative family values! Others go further and declare that the penguins' life is a clear evidence of intelligent design... These people - for them, even a nice little movie about cute penguins is political fodder.
In any case, I have a few basic questions:
1. What is so conservative about penguins changing partners every year? In other words, Emperor Penguins are not really monogamous - they are serially monogamous. Once the chick is up and running and their job as a parenting couple is done, they bid their goodbyes and off they go, in search of this year's mate. And if I recall, the male penguin is the first to take off. By the way: if something happens to the egg during the male's watch and the chick dies, the male can just leave - and he does.
2. Do these conservatives know that Emperor Penguins have shown plenty of evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior? Now that is very interesting.
3. Did the intelligent designer really intend for the poor penguins to breed and tend to their eggs and feed their chicks in Antartica, probably one of the harshest environments on the planet? This intelligent designer doesn't seem very nice, let alone intelligent.
It is amazing that this French movie about birds - beautiful, incredibly interesting birds - is being turned into a new testament for the conservative right. Meanwhile, the issues that really could be taken out of the movie, such as global warming and the deterioration of their natural habitat, do not make the news.
Another thing the zealots seem to be ignoring is the fact that the penguins' marital bliss involves shared responsibilities in a not-so-conventional way: the father stays "home" with the egg; he waits, and is on the verge of starvation when the mother returns with food for the chick at the end of a little over two months. As soon as she approaches, he leaves - hey, a man needs to eat! In all, the penguin couple spends very time little together, maybe two months. It is the ultimate commuter family!!
Recently, I noticed a few commentaries, shamelessly anthropomorphic in nature, praising the penguin's monogamous behavior. According to people like Michael Medved and others, the penguins are a symbol of conservative family values! Others go further and declare that the penguins' life is a clear evidence of intelligent design... These people - for them, even a nice little movie about cute penguins is political fodder.
In any case, I have a few basic questions:
1. What is so conservative about penguins changing partners every year? In other words, Emperor Penguins are not really monogamous - they are serially monogamous. Once the chick is up and running and their job as a parenting couple is done, they bid their goodbyes and off they go, in search of this year's mate. And if I recall, the male penguin is the first to take off. By the way: if something happens to the egg during the male's watch and the chick dies, the male can just leave - and he does.
2. Do these conservatives know that Emperor Penguins have shown plenty of evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior? Now that is very interesting.
3. Did the intelligent designer really intend for the poor penguins to breed and tend to their eggs and feed their chicks in Antartica, probably one of the harshest environments on the planet? This intelligent designer doesn't seem very nice, let alone intelligent.
It is amazing that this French movie about birds - beautiful, incredibly interesting birds - is being turned into a new testament for the conservative right. Meanwhile, the issues that really could be taken out of the movie, such as global warming and the deterioration of their natural habitat, do not make the news.
Another thing the zealots seem to be ignoring is the fact that the penguins' marital bliss involves shared responsibilities in a not-so-conventional way: the father stays "home" with the egg; he waits, and is on the verge of starvation when the mother returns with food for the chick at the end of a little over two months. As soon as she approaches, he leaves - hey, a man needs to eat! In all, the penguin couple spends very time little together, maybe two months. It is the ultimate commuter family!!
September 23, 2005
THE VATICAN TODAY
Major newspapers reported today that the Vatican is very close to issuing instructions that could stop homosexuals from joining the priesthood.
The Vatican's concern is understandable, especially in light of the painfully public disclosure of sexual abuse in the Church in recent years. So at first sight, keeping gay men out of the priest ranks seems to make sense, since there are statistics claiming that homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexuals.
The problem of the Church and pedophilia – besides the obvious fact that celibacy does not seem to be working, even though married people can be pedophiles as well – is not a direct result of the presence of priests who before they took their celibacy vows had homosexual inclinations. After all, pedophilia refers to prepubescent children, not only to boys. Those abused by priests were boys and girls.
In addition, there is evidence that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are not primarily interested in children, and they are sometimes referred to as pseudo-pedophiles or situational offenders (committing crimes only when in an environment which permits or encourages those acts), whereas pedophiles primarily attracted toward children are called structured pedophiles or fixated pedophiles.
The problem seems to be of another nature – the screening process, the psychological evaluations that those seeking ordination have to undertake. Although these evaluations are required everywhere, they vary in form and content. After a brief internet research, I found a diocese that requires two meetings with a psychologist of the diocese's choice, a written evaluation and a psychiatric test. Yet another diocese says: “Candidates must show mental stability either through psychological examination or obvious stability and accomplishments in life. If there is any doubt regarding the mental stability of any Candidate he shall, at his own expense, submit to a thorough psychological evaluation by an individual licensed or registered to do psychological testing and evaluation within his or her legal psychological jurisdiction.”
Given the different approaches, I believe the Church should invest in addressing the screening process. Pedophilia is a compulsive sexual disorder, not sexual orientation, pure and simple. To deny admission into the Church to those with manifested or suspected homosexual inclinations implies the Church equals pedophilia with homosexuality, when in fact homosexuality, strictly speaking, is:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
(Merrian-Webster online dictionary)
The Church, however, is not known for addressing any issue remotely related to sex with the utmost transparency and determination. Because of that, some are complaining that the Vatican is making use of the pedophilia incidents to finally and officially refuse admission to homosexuals.
Furthermore – isn’t celibacy crucial to this situation? Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike take the vow of celibacy upon making their choice to live their lives in the service of the Church. Many do not respect that commitment, for whatever reasons, and not all those who don’t respect it are homosexuals. And even though, as I said before, I don’t think married clergy would necessary be a deterrent in pedophilia (just as I don’t think that eliminating homosexuals from the clergy would be the solution), maybe it is time for the Vatican to reconsider the virtues and the viability of celibacy in our world.
The Vatican's concern is understandable, especially in light of the painfully public disclosure of sexual abuse in the Church in recent years. So at first sight, keeping gay men out of the priest ranks seems to make sense, since there are statistics claiming that homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexuals.
The problem of the Church and pedophilia – besides the obvious fact that celibacy does not seem to be working, even though married people can be pedophiles as well – is not a direct result of the presence of priests who before they took their celibacy vows had homosexual inclinations. After all, pedophilia refers to prepubescent children, not only to boys. Those abused by priests were boys and girls.
In addition, there is evidence that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are not primarily interested in children, and they are sometimes referred to as pseudo-pedophiles or situational offenders (committing crimes only when in an environment which permits or encourages those acts), whereas pedophiles primarily attracted toward children are called structured pedophiles or fixated pedophiles.
The problem seems to be of another nature – the screening process, the psychological evaluations that those seeking ordination have to undertake. Although these evaluations are required everywhere, they vary in form and content. After a brief internet research, I found a diocese that requires two meetings with a psychologist of the diocese's choice, a written evaluation and a psychiatric test. Yet another diocese says: “Candidates must show mental stability either through psychological examination or obvious stability and accomplishments in life. If there is any doubt regarding the mental stability of any Candidate he shall, at his own expense, submit to a thorough psychological evaluation by an individual licensed or registered to do psychological testing and evaluation within his or her legal psychological jurisdiction.”
Given the different approaches, I believe the Church should invest in addressing the screening process. Pedophilia is a compulsive sexual disorder, not sexual orientation, pure and simple. To deny admission into the Church to those with manifested or suspected homosexual inclinations implies the Church equals pedophilia with homosexuality, when in fact homosexuality, strictly speaking, is:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
(Merrian-Webster online dictionary)
The Church, however, is not known for addressing any issue remotely related to sex with the utmost transparency and determination. Because of that, some are complaining that the Vatican is making use of the pedophilia incidents to finally and officially refuse admission to homosexuals.
Furthermore – isn’t celibacy crucial to this situation? Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike take the vow of celibacy upon making their choice to live their lives in the service of the Church. Many do not respect that commitment, for whatever reasons, and not all those who don’t respect it are homosexuals. And even though, as I said before, I don’t think married clergy would necessary be a deterrent in pedophilia (just as I don’t think that eliminating homosexuals from the clergy would be the solution), maybe it is time for the Vatican to reconsider the virtues and the viability of celibacy in our world.
September 22, 2005
HOLOCAUST DENIAL = ANTI-SEMITISM?!?
On recent discussion with two blog visitors, an interesting comment was made - are all Holocaust deniers a priori anti-Semites? My instinctive reply was to say, "sure." But this is a topic that warrants more than a gut reaction, so I decided to do some thinking and research.
And here is what I think - Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism. There is no way around it. It is a nice and convenient substitute/disguise for anti-semitism; but the message remains the same. In a clever twist, moderate Holocaust denial/revisionism (and this blog has encountered some of that, to be sure) generally takes the form of "wanting to hear both sides of the story," of upholding the values of free speech or questioning the extent of the Holocaust, in the spirit of not wanting to believe something on the scale of the Holocaust could happen.
Americans have a fascination with conspiracy theories and are often willing to entertain even the most absurd ones in the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing and equal time on the podium. They are often also inclined to believe "authorities" who claim to be experts on one thing or another and to take what they say as the certified truth. Such behaviors work, obviously, in the revisionists' favor. It is not surprising that Holocaust deniers are taking full advantage of most Americans' tolerance for eccentrics.
Holocaust denial also plays on conscious and unconscious anti-semitic belief structures. Anti-Jewish sentiment and social prejudice has been a consistent presence in the US and other parts of the world, fostered by negative images of Jews in popular culture. In that sense, then, Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy, placing Jews behind an international movement to promote the Holocaust deceit for monetary gain.
Besides the random manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of the "Holohoax" (as they call it), they also engage in pseudoscience to try and prove their theories (as an example, one can always resort to the absurd - but somewhat comical - Leuchter report). These efforts, however, have not made any real impression on Holocaust historiography and reputable scholarship.
I maintain my position - the reality of the Holocaust is not up for debate. To question its occurrence is not only futile (frankly, even Germany has a Jewish museum with a large Holocaust section) but morally wrong.
And here is what I think - Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism. There is no way around it. It is a nice and convenient substitute/disguise for anti-semitism; but the message remains the same. In a clever twist, moderate Holocaust denial/revisionism (and this blog has encountered some of that, to be sure) generally takes the form of "wanting to hear both sides of the story," of upholding the values of free speech or questioning the extent of the Holocaust, in the spirit of not wanting to believe something on the scale of the Holocaust could happen.
Americans have a fascination with conspiracy theories and are often willing to entertain even the most absurd ones in the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing and equal time on the podium. They are often also inclined to believe "authorities" who claim to be experts on one thing or another and to take what they say as the certified truth. Such behaviors work, obviously, in the revisionists' favor. It is not surprising that Holocaust deniers are taking full advantage of most Americans' tolerance for eccentrics.
Holocaust denial also plays on conscious and unconscious anti-semitic belief structures. Anti-Jewish sentiment and social prejudice has been a consistent presence in the US and other parts of the world, fostered by negative images of Jews in popular culture. In that sense, then, Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy, placing Jews behind an international movement to promote the Holocaust deceit for monetary gain.
Besides the random manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of the "Holohoax" (as they call it), they also engage in pseudoscience to try and prove their theories (as an example, one can always resort to the absurd - but somewhat comical - Leuchter report). These efforts, however, have not made any real impression on Holocaust historiography and reputable scholarship.
I maintain my position - the reality of the Holocaust is not up for debate. To question its occurrence is not only futile (frankly, even Germany has a Jewish museum with a large Holocaust section) but morally wrong.
September 20, 2005
KADISH TIME
Simon Wiesenthal died. Many say with him died the conscience of the Holocaust.
He was an amazing man. One might not agree with his life choice; it doesn’t change the fact that he was one of a kind. Anyone who survived the horror of the concentration camps needs to be admired, if nothing else for his sheer determination to live.
He not only survived his ordeal - he found purpose, dignity and honor in the aftermath of his own suffering. And he decided he would not sit quietly by the sidelines of history while the perpetrators of such horrible, unspeakable crimes slowly slipped away into oblivion, taking with them the truth about their deeds.
A life such as Wiesenthal’s is not easy to grasp. But I don’t need to fully understand him. I don’t. I do see clearly that someone needed to do what he did. And only some, very few, actually could have done what he did. I am grateful to him for his work. I am proud of him. I hope he can now rest.
He was an amazing man. One might not agree with his life choice; it doesn’t change the fact that he was one of a kind. Anyone who survived the horror of the concentration camps needs to be admired, if nothing else for his sheer determination to live.
He not only survived his ordeal - he found purpose, dignity and honor in the aftermath of his own suffering. And he decided he would not sit quietly by the sidelines of history while the perpetrators of such horrible, unspeakable crimes slowly slipped away into oblivion, taking with them the truth about their deeds.
A life such as Wiesenthal’s is not easy to grasp. But I don’t need to fully understand him. I don’t. I do see clearly that someone needed to do what he did. And only some, very few, actually could have done what he did. I am grateful to him for his work. I am proud of him. I hope he can now rest.
September 17, 2005
LIPSTADT/IRVING TALK
Luca, a Brazilian visitor to the blog, has made some comments on Irving, Lipstadt and Holocaust in general. This is my latest, and it is about his comments on Irving and Lipstadt in reply to my own previous comments:
"Gisela, no I didn't know about her acknowledgement and I haven't read Prof. Lipstadt's book. To be perfectly honest with you I would not waste my time or my money on her stuff. I have read books by far more competent people, like Hillberg and Browning."
Of course you did not know about her acknowledgment on page 72 and of course you did not read her book. The time, money and energy you saved by not reading her work goes straight into your proselitist activities… Also, that is not very original, Luca. I have never encountered a denier and/or revisionist who has actually read her books and the trial transcripts.
Great, Luca, you read Hilberg and Browning. So? And out of respect for your infatuation with labels (most Brazilian pseudo-intellectuals are this way), they are both functionalist Holocaust historians. Let's assume you know what that means. Have you read anyone else? Let’s say Davidowicz, Bauer, Goldhagen, Kershaw? It must be easy to form opinions if you only resort to the same source... In any case, they would not be of any help to you - as a denier, what difference does it make to you, functionalist vs. intentionalist vs. synthesis of both? Just stick to denying the gas chambers and you'll be fine. And whatever number of victims is proposed to you, extract the square root and you’ll have your "real" number… for a "real" history... Isn't that what you guys call it?
And by the way - Hilberg has only one “L”.
"David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. "
Ok - have you read his work? What do you know about him?
His Hitler’s War, for one, underwent significant changes between the first edition in 1977 and subsequent ones. His conversion to Holocaust denial is clear when he omits references to Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. Did you know he did that? He did write about the Holocaust - he denied it, just like you do.
"Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself."
He was indeed fairly well known and published until his little "debacle". He was not always the dog he is today. But after he came into contact with Ernst Zündel in 1988, his conversion was complete. Sure, he had achieved a certain recognition, but most fellow historians (and I am being respectful to Irving here by using the word “fellow” so do not abuse it) have always kept a fair distance from him. I mean, it’s always been obvious the man loves the sound of his own voice…
"In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to playthe victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract... "
Of course he handled the situation poorly. He was idiotic to sue her for her assertion that he is a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite - he is a denier indeed and therefore she did not falsely claim he is. Luca, are you denying he is a denier?
She did not play the victim either - she got sued by that lunatic, and she managed to put together a first-rate defense team through several donations from foundations and people all over the world. Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Tough luck, Luca.
He could have sued his publisher, you say? With what money? With what credibility? Too late, Luca.
"He could have easily shown that Lipstadt did not check any soures when she called him a fellow-traveller with terrorists and Hamas in her book..."
At least she admits when she is wrong, dear. It is much more mature, much smarter anyway.
As to your claim he is not a revisionist - what do you get that from? The man’s website is full of IHR references and visitors, and he has spoken in numerous of their gatherings and so forth. True - Irving is not a complete idiot, and he has tried to keep a low profile since the disastrous outcome of his stupid lawsuit. But to say he is not a revisionist - what are you referring to? Unless you mean he does not pay a yearly membership to the IHR and is not a proud card-carrying member…
"They played Irving like a fiddle though..."
Irving got played like a fiddle, as you said, because he is a racist, anti-semitic, fascist madman. I daresay he is moving into senility already, and if not, he will do so shortly. And who cares if he cost Prof. Lipstadt and her team a considerable amount of money? What matters is, the man is ridiculed around the world, he is constantly denied entry into several countries, he has been condemned of denigration of the dead in Germany, his publishing contracts have been revoked and he is penniless. Do you really think he has had any sort of victory?
Being a Brazilian, I am certain you’ll recognize this one - voce fez a cama, agora deita. Pathetic.
"Gisela, no I didn't know about her acknowledgement and I haven't read Prof. Lipstadt's book. To be perfectly honest with you I would not waste my time or my money on her stuff. I have read books by far more competent people, like Hillberg and Browning."
Of course you did not know about her acknowledgment on page 72 and of course you did not read her book. The time, money and energy you saved by not reading her work goes straight into your proselitist activities… Also, that is not very original, Luca. I have never encountered a denier and/or revisionist who has actually read her books and the trial transcripts.
Great, Luca, you read Hilberg and Browning. So? And out of respect for your infatuation with labels (most Brazilian pseudo-intellectuals are this way), they are both functionalist Holocaust historians. Let's assume you know what that means. Have you read anyone else? Let’s say Davidowicz, Bauer, Goldhagen, Kershaw? It must be easy to form opinions if you only resort to the same source... In any case, they would not be of any help to you - as a denier, what difference does it make to you, functionalist vs. intentionalist vs. synthesis of both? Just stick to denying the gas chambers and you'll be fine. And whatever number of victims is proposed to you, extract the square root and you’ll have your "real" number… for a "real" history... Isn't that what you guys call it?
And by the way - Hilberg has only one “L”.
"David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. "
Ok - have you read his work? What do you know about him?
His Hitler’s War, for one, underwent significant changes between the first edition in 1977 and subsequent ones. His conversion to Holocaust denial is clear when he omits references to Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. Did you know he did that? He did write about the Holocaust - he denied it, just like you do.
"Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself."
He was indeed fairly well known and published until his little "debacle". He was not always the dog he is today. But after he came into contact with Ernst Zündel in 1988, his conversion was complete. Sure, he had achieved a certain recognition, but most fellow historians (and I am being respectful to Irving here by using the word “fellow” so do not abuse it) have always kept a fair distance from him. I mean, it’s always been obvious the man loves the sound of his own voice…
"In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to playthe victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract... "
Of course he handled the situation poorly. He was idiotic to sue her for her assertion that he is a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite - he is a denier indeed and therefore she did not falsely claim he is. Luca, are you denying he is a denier?
She did not play the victim either - she got sued by that lunatic, and she managed to put together a first-rate defense team through several donations from foundations and people all over the world. Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Tough luck, Luca.
He could have sued his publisher, you say? With what money? With what credibility? Too late, Luca.
"He could have easily shown that Lipstadt did not check any soures when she called him a fellow-traveller with terrorists and Hamas in her book..."
At least she admits when she is wrong, dear. It is much more mature, much smarter anyway.
As to your claim he is not a revisionist - what do you get that from? The man’s website is full of IHR references and visitors, and he has spoken in numerous of their gatherings and so forth. True - Irving is not a complete idiot, and he has tried to keep a low profile since the disastrous outcome of his stupid lawsuit. But to say he is not a revisionist - what are you referring to? Unless you mean he does not pay a yearly membership to the IHR and is not a proud card-carrying member…
"They played Irving like a fiddle though..."
Irving got played like a fiddle, as you said, because he is a racist, anti-semitic, fascist madman. I daresay he is moving into senility already, and if not, he will do so shortly. And who cares if he cost Prof. Lipstadt and her team a considerable amount of money? What matters is, the man is ridiculed around the world, he is constantly denied entry into several countries, he has been condemned of denigration of the dead in Germany, his publishing contracts have been revoked and he is penniless. Do you really think he has had any sort of victory?
Being a Brazilian, I am certain you’ll recognize this one - voce fez a cama, agora deita. Pathetic.
TREBLINKA TALK - TAKE 2
Luca did reply (see the previous post's comment section for Treblinka, and the comment section for the post on Israeli bill against Holocaust denial) - one of the replies was in Portuguese, and I will translate it here for you unfortunate readers who cannot follow my beautiful native language…
He says he is Brazilian, 50% Italian and 50% German - cool: what generation German exactly? How long has your German family been in Brazil? Boy, I should ask the same about your Italian side, even though Italians were for the most part bogus anti-Semites… Their drug of choice was truly fascism.
He finds my intolerance “peculiar” and claims my reply to his comment was aggressive - Luca, I understand you might have thought so; I don’t really feel the need to apologize to people like you, so let me just say that I actually classify that response to you as cynical, borderline aggressive. Flat-out aggressive will be the one I am writing now, by the way.
Then he says he is not anti-semitic, not a fascist sympathizer, not right-wing. He claims to have voted several times for leftist candidates, including Lula (why am I not surprised? What can one expect of the Lucas of this world?). He adds that Lula has been a disappointment (now why are you surprised, Luca? What can one expect of the Lulas of this world?). He says he is not an old Brazilian, full of prejudices - he says he is a little older than me and then in brackets he writes 24 years old and question mark.
Well, Luca - are you 24? Because I am 33.
He says it is silly I am appalled by deniers from my own country and claims that anyone anywhere and of any race could come to doubt the official version of the Holocaust after being exposed to revisionist arguments. (Yeah, but there is a certain degree of prejudice and lack of general knowledge, combined with a tad of inferiority feelings, that goes with becoming someone like you, Luca). He then says he could be black or “redskin” - that would be the closest translation to pardo, which by the way is a really bad choice here since it is full of racist connotations - and he would still not believe the Holocaust.
He always had reservations towards the official Holocaust version, it always seemed to him as exaggeration. He did believe the gas chambers though (Luca, are you trying to be original? Not working). But then he stopped believing about a year ago (unfortunately, he does not offer details of his final conversion, though I believe it would be most interesting in this context, no?).
He goes to say that not everyone in the revisionist movement is anti-semitic, the majority is not (that’s because there’s now a variety of branches within anti-Semitism with which people can associate themselves without being anti-semitic in form… It is all about form with this people anyway, since they are so devoid of real consistency).
He is sad that mainstream historians don’t have the courage to investigate the Holocaust using different approaches (angles, that is the word he used). He claims that if they did, there would be less neo-nazis and anti-Semites involved (and I think he meant involved in revisionism). Luca - that is because mainstream historians are not influenced by their prejudices as revisionist ones are. You actually got it wrong - the ultimate requirement for being a revisionist historian is to be prejudiced. How about some logical reasoning here?
Then he declares - the national socialists committed a great crime and a terrible injustice against the Jewish people by stripping them of their civil rights and by deporting them (so where is the argument, dear?). But he does not believe there was a real plan to exterminate them (I see) - he says there was criminal negligence at most.
Then he says that my words on the liquidation of the camp in regards to exhumed bodies etc are wrong, that I should use more reason and more emotion (if he refers to his type of reason, I stick with my emotion, thank you very much). He says that BURNING the bodies and CRUSHING the bones and mixing them with the ashes and RE-BURYING them would not completely destroy the evidence, that there would still be bones and ashes around, and also the pyres (what, they would not be able to destroy the pyres?! I guess we must have all overestimated the Nazis) etc. Luca - you missed the capitalized words in my original text, so I took the liberty of emphasizing them slightly here for you as a courtesy. Plus, there is plenty of bone splinters and ashes all around the camp perimeter…
I guess all the historians and all the scientists who since the war have been investigating Treblinka are completely wrong; or maybe they are lying. But Luca and the revisionist community would be right, I suppose.
About my request for specifics on the information of the 300 bodies found by the soviets, he says it comes from the records of the 65th Red Army. Ok - Luca, would you please be more specific as to this source? Can you tell me - did you read the translation or the original? Is it a report, a book, a transcript, a movie?
As for my description of how the villagers who came to loot what was left of the camp came across evidence of bodies etc in their search for gold, he then delivered some weird harangue about the correlation between their digging and the size and shape of mass graves - Luca, this one is a little hard to comprehend even in Portuguese. And wow - the size and shape of graves as a determinant evidence for mass murder. Or as a disavowing factor. I grant you this - revisionists/deniers have really fertile imagination.
He then says that the Poles found even less bodies than the Soviets (what difference does it make in their conclusion on the nature of Treblinka as a death camp? How many grotesque corpses, body parts, how many gold teeth, how many tons of ashes need to be found for people like you to acknowledge the Holocaust?). Whatever, Luca.
He moves on to Auschwitz: something about more than 100,000 registered prisoners died in the camp - as this is an open statement, let me finish it for you. Yeah, more than 100,000, up to about 1.1 million (and I am using here the figure accepted by renowned Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, who is known for his conservative death toll estimates) people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. No one died there, by the way - they were brutally killed, all of them (that is in reference to your word choice in Portuguese - “morreram”, which is “died” in the third person plural, is not the same as “foram mortos”, which is “were killed/murdered”.)
And Luca - I advise you to stay away from Auschwitz-Birkenau as a topic for your revisionist endeavors, since the body of evidence on it is so abundant and so detail-oriented, even more than on Treblinka. You don’t stand a chance. And also, are you referring to Auschwitz I? II (Birkenau)? III (Monowitz)?
You then say they were not gassed, these poor souls in Auschwitz. Well, some of them were beaten to death, others were hanged, others summarily shot, others starved to death, others contracted typhus or some other horrible disease, others were “operated” on by Dr. Mengele and his team…
And all this, of course, depends on which camp they were in (I, II, or III). The large majority of people arriving on the transports were gassed, though - at Birkenau. I am sure you heard that before, but as with the mass graves shape and size, you probably have another ridiculously unsound explanation for why this is a false statement from my part (and “mainstreams” like me). Then you present your conclusion - in the next sentence, right after “they were not gassed“ (the ones in Auschwitz), you say: at any rate, 300 or even more than 1000 dead in Treblinka is completely incompatible with the official version.”
Luca - what official version? Yours, the IHR, the Nazis, what? This is unbelievably poor logic anyway, Luca. You did better at the beginning of your letter.
As for being able to continue your dialogue with me in a civilized manner, why not? You can write, and I can reply. That being said, I reserve myself the right to be as cynical and as unforgiving as I choose to be. This is the only way to deal with people like you - mix of incredulity, disgust, scorn, pity… If you’re offended, you can always go somewhere else to spread your love and your gospel; you don’t specifically need to come to my blog. If you decide not to come back though, I’d appreciate it if you answered those questions I posed to you.
Now I will reply to your other comment. The one about Irving.
He says he is Brazilian, 50% Italian and 50% German - cool: what generation German exactly? How long has your German family been in Brazil? Boy, I should ask the same about your Italian side, even though Italians were for the most part bogus anti-Semites… Their drug of choice was truly fascism.
He finds my intolerance “peculiar” and claims my reply to his comment was aggressive - Luca, I understand you might have thought so; I don’t really feel the need to apologize to people like you, so let me just say that I actually classify that response to you as cynical, borderline aggressive. Flat-out aggressive will be the one I am writing now, by the way.
Then he says he is not anti-semitic, not a fascist sympathizer, not right-wing. He claims to have voted several times for leftist candidates, including Lula (why am I not surprised? What can one expect of the Lucas of this world?). He adds that Lula has been a disappointment (now why are you surprised, Luca? What can one expect of the Lulas of this world?). He says he is not an old Brazilian, full of prejudices - he says he is a little older than me and then in brackets he writes 24 years old and question mark.
Well, Luca - are you 24? Because I am 33.
He says it is silly I am appalled by deniers from my own country and claims that anyone anywhere and of any race could come to doubt the official version of the Holocaust after being exposed to revisionist arguments. (Yeah, but there is a certain degree of prejudice and lack of general knowledge, combined with a tad of inferiority feelings, that goes with becoming someone like you, Luca). He then says he could be black or “redskin” - that would be the closest translation to pardo, which by the way is a really bad choice here since it is full of racist connotations - and he would still not believe the Holocaust.
He always had reservations towards the official Holocaust version, it always seemed to him as exaggeration. He did believe the gas chambers though (Luca, are you trying to be original? Not working). But then he stopped believing about a year ago (unfortunately, he does not offer details of his final conversion, though I believe it would be most interesting in this context, no?).
He goes to say that not everyone in the revisionist movement is anti-semitic, the majority is not (that’s because there’s now a variety of branches within anti-Semitism with which people can associate themselves without being anti-semitic in form… It is all about form with this people anyway, since they are so devoid of real consistency).
He is sad that mainstream historians don’t have the courage to investigate the Holocaust using different approaches (angles, that is the word he used). He claims that if they did, there would be less neo-nazis and anti-Semites involved (and I think he meant involved in revisionism). Luca - that is because mainstream historians are not influenced by their prejudices as revisionist ones are. You actually got it wrong - the ultimate requirement for being a revisionist historian is to be prejudiced. How about some logical reasoning here?
Then he declares - the national socialists committed a great crime and a terrible injustice against the Jewish people by stripping them of their civil rights and by deporting them (so where is the argument, dear?). But he does not believe there was a real plan to exterminate them (I see) - he says there was criminal negligence at most.
Then he says that my words on the liquidation of the camp in regards to exhumed bodies etc are wrong, that I should use more reason and more emotion (if he refers to his type of reason, I stick with my emotion, thank you very much). He says that BURNING the bodies and CRUSHING the bones and mixing them with the ashes and RE-BURYING them would not completely destroy the evidence, that there would still be bones and ashes around, and also the pyres (what, they would not be able to destroy the pyres?! I guess we must have all overestimated the Nazis) etc. Luca - you missed the capitalized words in my original text, so I took the liberty of emphasizing them slightly here for you as a courtesy. Plus, there is plenty of bone splinters and ashes all around the camp perimeter…
I guess all the historians and all the scientists who since the war have been investigating Treblinka are completely wrong; or maybe they are lying. But Luca and the revisionist community would be right, I suppose.
About my request for specifics on the information of the 300 bodies found by the soviets, he says it comes from the records of the 65th Red Army. Ok - Luca, would you please be more specific as to this source? Can you tell me - did you read the translation or the original? Is it a report, a book, a transcript, a movie?
As for my description of how the villagers who came to loot what was left of the camp came across evidence of bodies etc in their search for gold, he then delivered some weird harangue about the correlation between their digging and the size and shape of mass graves - Luca, this one is a little hard to comprehend even in Portuguese. And wow - the size and shape of graves as a determinant evidence for mass murder. Or as a disavowing factor. I grant you this - revisionists/deniers have really fertile imagination.
He then says that the Poles found even less bodies than the Soviets (what difference does it make in their conclusion on the nature of Treblinka as a death camp? How many grotesque corpses, body parts, how many gold teeth, how many tons of ashes need to be found for people like you to acknowledge the Holocaust?). Whatever, Luca.
He moves on to Auschwitz: something about more than 100,000 registered prisoners died in the camp - as this is an open statement, let me finish it for you. Yeah, more than 100,000, up to about 1.1 million (and I am using here the figure accepted by renowned Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, who is known for his conservative death toll estimates) people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. No one died there, by the way - they were brutally killed, all of them (that is in reference to your word choice in Portuguese - “morreram”, which is “died” in the third person plural, is not the same as “foram mortos”, which is “were killed/murdered”.)
And Luca - I advise you to stay away from Auschwitz-Birkenau as a topic for your revisionist endeavors, since the body of evidence on it is so abundant and so detail-oriented, even more than on Treblinka. You don’t stand a chance. And also, are you referring to Auschwitz I? II (Birkenau)? III (Monowitz)?
You then say they were not gassed, these poor souls in Auschwitz. Well, some of them were beaten to death, others were hanged, others summarily shot, others starved to death, others contracted typhus or some other horrible disease, others were “operated” on by Dr. Mengele and his team…
And all this, of course, depends on which camp they were in (I, II, or III). The large majority of people arriving on the transports were gassed, though - at Birkenau. I am sure you heard that before, but as with the mass graves shape and size, you probably have another ridiculously unsound explanation for why this is a false statement from my part (and “mainstreams” like me). Then you present your conclusion - in the next sentence, right after “they were not gassed“ (the ones in Auschwitz), you say: at any rate, 300 or even more than 1000 dead in Treblinka is completely incompatible with the official version.”
Luca - what official version? Yours, the IHR, the Nazis, what? This is unbelievably poor logic anyway, Luca. You did better at the beginning of your letter.
As for being able to continue your dialogue with me in a civilized manner, why not? You can write, and I can reply. That being said, I reserve myself the right to be as cynical and as unforgiving as I choose to be. This is the only way to deal with people like you - mix of incredulity, disgust, scorn, pity… If you’re offended, you can always go somewhere else to spread your love and your gospel; you don’t specifically need to come to my blog. If you decide not to come back though, I’d appreciate it if you answered those questions I posed to you.
Now I will reply to your other comment. The one about Irving.
September 16, 2005
TREBLINKA TALK
OK - I thought I'd never see the day... Here is what a certain Luca wrote in response to a comment by Sergey on my post "On Comments by Gwen and Sergey (Israel's Bill on Holocaust Denial)" in August :
Luca - is that your name? - where do you come from, I mean, besides another planet? Are you from Brazil by any chance? I am asking because I noticed an unusual number of hits coming from Brasilia, the capital, right around when you left your comments...
Well - I am Brazilian. And whenever I come across deniers from my own country, I am doubly appalled. Silly, I know, but what can one do?
Now about Treblinka:
"Only loonies will believe 800.000 to 1 million people can be destroyed in a especif area without leaving evidence aplenty."
Really? Maybe because those killed were first buried in mass graves, then exhumed, then burned in huge pyres (the “roasts”), then their bones crushed and mixed with the ashes and all that then re-buried in the mass graves. I’d say that would probably take care of all that aplenty evidence...
There is ample evidence everywhere to support the claim that Treblinka was one of the camps used to carry out Operation Reinhard. And except for the usual revisionist mumbo-jumbo, all reputable sources on Treblinka will tell you that the number of Jews who were killed at this small camp was around at least 800,000.
"The soviets investigated Treblinka I and II in August of 44."
So? That was long after Himmler - who after the debacle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43 became increasingly concerned about secrecy and with eliminating the evidence of the Nazi atrocities - ordered the dismantling of the camp and the destruction of physical evidence of the mass murders already in early 1943.
"...I must say however, the biggest problem for exterminationists is not even the engine type. It is the lack of material evidence.
Only loonies will believe 800.000 to 1 million people can be destroyed in a especif area without leaving evidence aplenty. The soviets investigated Treblinka I and II in August of 44. They found few more than 300 bodies and if I remember correctly, these had not even been burned. At the end of 45 the poles did another investigation. They too, didn't find much.Of course it didn't stop the soviets and poles to "conclude" that mass murder had been commited.There many other logistical problems I'm not even mentioning here."
Luca - is that your name? - where do you come from, I mean, besides another planet? Are you from Brazil by any chance? I am asking because I noticed an unusual number of hits coming from Brasilia, the capital, right around when you left your comments...
Well - I am Brazilian. And whenever I come across deniers from my own country, I am doubly appalled. Silly, I know, but what can one do?
Now about Treblinka:
"Only loonies will believe 800.000 to 1 million people can be destroyed in a especif area without leaving evidence aplenty."
Really? Maybe because those killed were first buried in mass graves, then exhumed, then burned in huge pyres (the “roasts”), then their bones crushed and mixed with the ashes and all that then re-buried in the mass graves. I’d say that would probably take care of all that aplenty evidence...
There is ample evidence everywhere to support the claim that Treblinka was one of the camps used to carry out Operation Reinhard. And except for the usual revisionist mumbo-jumbo, all reputable sources on Treblinka will tell you that the number of Jews who were killed at this small camp was around at least 800,000.
"The soviets investigated Treblinka I and II in August of 44."
So? That was long after Himmler - who after the debacle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43 became increasingly concerned about secrecy and with eliminating the evidence of the Nazi atrocities - ordered the dismantling of the camp and the destruction of physical evidence of the mass murders already in early 1943.
On top of the that, there was the revolt of inmates in August 2, 1943, and as a result many of the camp’s structures were ruined. The few buildings left did not survive for long - after liquidating as many prisoners as possible in reprisal for the uprising, those still alive were ordered to finalize the destruction of the camp. The remaining Sonderkommandos were forced to level the area, clear it of its mass graves, and plant pines around it. Hence, there was no immediately visible trace of mass murders at the time of liberation/investigation by the Soviets.
The last gassing in Treblinka was on August 21, 1943 (the Bialystok transport). After that, any remaining prisoners were transferred to Sobibor in late October 1943.
"They found few more than 300 bodies and if I remember correctly, these had not even been burned."
Where did you find that specific information? In any case - the villagers, after the Nazis left, decided to sack the area of the camp in search of valuables. As they were digging, searching for gold, they did come across corpses/human remains. I believe you might be referring to that. I suppose not even the Nazis were completely, perfectly efficient and they too made mistakes…. Maybe they thought no one would care about evidence of a few hundred dead Jews anyway.
"At the end of 45 the poles did another investigation. They too, didn't find much."
Please see my reply to your previous two assertions above.
"Of course it didn't stop the soviets and poles to "conclude" that mass murder had been commited."
Well, if you as a villager came across 300 corpses/human remains disposed of in that fashion, what would you think? Not to mention the incredible pestilential smell that filled the air day and night, a horrible stench mentioned in several reports by military personnel stationed 20 kilometers from Treblinka.
Perhaps you don’t know that one of the most important confirmations of Treblinka as an Exterminatinon Camp comes from a Nazi - Jürgen Stroop, author of the Stroop Report. The report, which is an account of the Warsaw Ghetto uprisal and the Nazi response to it, includes telegrams on four different days which specifically identify Treblinka II as the destination for liquidation and destruction of the captured Warsaw Ghetto Jews. Any idea of what I am talking about? In any case, it hardly sounds as if the Jews of Warsaw Ghetto were being sent to a summer camp, or even resettlement. I’d say the word destruction leaves little room for doubt.
Also: do you just summarily dismiss the eyewitness accounts by any of the Treblinka survivors as irrelevant and/or unreliable? How about the accounts of SS guards, or any other guards? Or even Poles who lived nearby?
I am eagerly awaiting your logistical comments. Whenever you're ready. We "exterminationists" are continuously puzzled by you - negationists, is that it?
Oh well, I hope deniers will do the trick.
September 15, 2005
APPLIED LINGUISTICS
I am reasonably familiar with the phenomenon of a politician who manages to make a name for himself based for the most part on chance events, or other people’s legacies, and so forth.
In my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, Benjamin Netanyahu could very well illustrate the case in point. The death of Yonatan – his popular elder brother – during the Entebbe rescue mission had a tremendous impact on Bibi’s political career. He made sure to use his brother’s name in meaning, shape and form in order to promote himself; it was not a subtle affair (Bibi has never been accused of being subtle anyhow).
El Presidente’s era also presents parallels. Shortly after his highly disputed election victory, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 rocked his and our world and propelled him into a more prominent presidential role. The way he responded to those tragic events then helped shape the American opinion of him as a self-confident and reliable leader.
Now this accidentally constructed but carefully nurtured public image is in serious danger: the administration’s response to Katrina, the war in Iraq, gas price hikes – all this is calling into question this president’s leadership skills.
But honestly – El Presidente was never a leader, at least not in my book. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is a poor speaker and that he comes across as uncultured and harsh beyond the norms of acceptability for a country of the stature of the United States. It also has nothing to do with the fact that he takes pride in his provincial mentality and lack of international appeal.
As an American president, El Presidente falls way behind his predecessors. My political alter-ego and co-worker (J.A.S., you’re the best) is right in pointing out the blatant constrast between the speeches (and overall attitude) made by Clinton, Bush Sr. and El Presidente at Reagan’s funeral.
Perhaps this should be a linguistic argument on the meaning of leadership, first premise being that cocky and leader are not two interchangeable terms. To begin with, the first is an adjective (synonym with overconfident, boastful, arrogant - to name a few) and the second is a noun (boss, head, manager).The fact that El Presidente is cocky means, at best, that he might have been raised as a spoiled brat, or self-entitlement from his part, or it can even be perceived as a form of defense mechanism.
Being cocky does not make the head of the country a leader. Of course, in theory he could be both – but real leaders, they come in various forms. I tend to have a personal preference for the ones who are smart. Cocky is not a decisive factor in any case, and probably quite the opposite. Brains, character, personality: these are key determinants. It just so happens I never spotted any of that in El Presidente. So very sad. Tough luck, America.
In my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, Benjamin Netanyahu could very well illustrate the case in point. The death of Yonatan – his popular elder brother – during the Entebbe rescue mission had a tremendous impact on Bibi’s political career. He made sure to use his brother’s name in meaning, shape and form in order to promote himself; it was not a subtle affair (Bibi has never been accused of being subtle anyhow).
El Presidente’s era also presents parallels. Shortly after his highly disputed election victory, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 rocked his and our world and propelled him into a more prominent presidential role. The way he responded to those tragic events then helped shape the American opinion of him as a self-confident and reliable leader.
Now this accidentally constructed but carefully nurtured public image is in serious danger: the administration’s response to Katrina, the war in Iraq, gas price hikes – all this is calling into question this president’s leadership skills.
But honestly – El Presidente was never a leader, at least not in my book. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is a poor speaker and that he comes across as uncultured and harsh beyond the norms of acceptability for a country of the stature of the United States. It also has nothing to do with the fact that he takes pride in his provincial mentality and lack of international appeal.
As an American president, El Presidente falls way behind his predecessors. My political alter-ego and co-worker (J.A.S., you’re the best) is right in pointing out the blatant constrast between the speeches (and overall attitude) made by Clinton, Bush Sr. and El Presidente at Reagan’s funeral.
Perhaps this should be a linguistic argument on the meaning of leadership, first premise being that cocky and leader are not two interchangeable terms. To begin with, the first is an adjective (synonym with overconfident, boastful, arrogant - to name a few) and the second is a noun (boss, head, manager).The fact that El Presidente is cocky means, at best, that he might have been raised as a spoiled brat, or self-entitlement from his part, or it can even be perceived as a form of defense mechanism.
Being cocky does not make the head of the country a leader. Of course, in theory he could be both – but real leaders, they come in various forms. I tend to have a personal preference for the ones who are smart. Cocky is not a decisive factor in any case, and probably quite the opposite. Brains, character, personality: these are key determinants. It just so happens I never spotted any of that in El Presidente. So very sad. Tough luck, America.
BANK ORDEAL
I usually love Thursdays, but not today.
Because today I had an intense one-hour phone ordeal with Wells Fargo Bank about some unauthorized charges to my bank account. Namely Bill Pay, which I never ordered and never used.
Apparently they have been getting the money for a very long time. The online banking doesn't even specify Bill Pay in the transaction description and I always assumed it was some sort of account fee or something of the sort. Recently I started asking questions and of course no one gives me any real answers. I did however receive a credit for some $50, but the reference they used was “customer satisfaction credit.” What is that? And they issued the credit after they told me repeatedly that they could only issue me credit for two months of charges (which would be approximately $14). When I asked the customer service representative about the nature of the credit, she had no clue – so now Wells Fargo is researching it…
Let’s face it – if the bank is willing to give me a credit for $50, I daresay they probably owe me more than that.
So today I called again - at least they should tell me when my account was first charged for Bill Pay; online I can only go back three months. I was transferred to some sort of supervisor who fired the following: "So Gloria tells me that all of a sudden you decided to take an active interest in your account." Unbelievable. The conversation deteriorated considerably after that – actually on his part, since I was speechless (no exaggeration). Finally, he decided that he did not like the tone of the conversation (maybe he referred to his own tone, since when I did recover enough to be able to articulate a word here and there, he kept interrupting me) – he turned to me and announced he was hanging up. And so he did.
I took names down (maybe I am becoming American - all that's missing is the lawsuit), and I will write a letter. I doubt I will ever see the money back, but it is deplorable that as a customer I was not able to receive any answers from the very department that is supposed to help me with any issues I may have. I mean, what is this? Wells Fargo Bank has been my bank for quite a long time. I’ve had several accounts with them and I’ve used several of their services. I suppose this means nothing to them. I doubt it means anything to any bank – that is even sadder.
After that supervisor hung up on me, I called again and I asked to speak to someone who also handles complaints directed at their customer service performance. The person who helped me then was very professional and polite, and she gave me another reference number, this time for the research into the situation that had just happened. At that point, I was exhausted, drained, and incredibly numb. I just wanted to get off the phone. And it dawned on me that she was the 5th person I spoke with today at Wells Fargo. In one hour. Five people, all told the same story, and most of them responding in the same way – complete disregard.
In the end, keeping money in the mattress might be easier on my health.
Because today I had an intense one-hour phone ordeal with Wells Fargo Bank about some unauthorized charges to my bank account. Namely Bill Pay, which I never ordered and never used.
Apparently they have been getting the money for a very long time. The online banking doesn't even specify Bill Pay in the transaction description and I always assumed it was some sort of account fee or something of the sort. Recently I started asking questions and of course no one gives me any real answers. I did however receive a credit for some $50, but the reference they used was “customer satisfaction credit.” What is that? And they issued the credit after they told me repeatedly that they could only issue me credit for two months of charges (which would be approximately $14). When I asked the customer service representative about the nature of the credit, she had no clue – so now Wells Fargo is researching it…
Let’s face it – if the bank is willing to give me a credit for $50, I daresay they probably owe me more than that.
So today I called again - at least they should tell me when my account was first charged for Bill Pay; online I can only go back three months. I was transferred to some sort of supervisor who fired the following: "So Gloria tells me that all of a sudden you decided to take an active interest in your account." Unbelievable. The conversation deteriorated considerably after that – actually on his part, since I was speechless (no exaggeration). Finally, he decided that he did not like the tone of the conversation (maybe he referred to his own tone, since when I did recover enough to be able to articulate a word here and there, he kept interrupting me) – he turned to me and announced he was hanging up. And so he did.
I took names down (maybe I am becoming American - all that's missing is the lawsuit), and I will write a letter. I doubt I will ever see the money back, but it is deplorable that as a customer I was not able to receive any answers from the very department that is supposed to help me with any issues I may have. I mean, what is this? Wells Fargo Bank has been my bank for quite a long time. I’ve had several accounts with them and I’ve used several of their services. I suppose this means nothing to them. I doubt it means anything to any bank – that is even sadder.
After that supervisor hung up on me, I called again and I asked to speak to someone who also handles complaints directed at their customer service performance. The person who helped me then was very professional and polite, and she gave me another reference number, this time for the research into the situation that had just happened. At that point, I was exhausted, drained, and incredibly numb. I just wanted to get off the phone. And it dawned on me that she was the 5th person I spoke with today at Wells Fargo. In one hour. Five people, all told the same story, and most of them responding in the same way – complete disregard.
In the end, keeping money in the mattress might be easier on my health.
September 14, 2005
MY BRAZIL
In my home country, Mexico is known as the land of Corona beer and cheesy soap operas (Brazilians have a somewhat refined and protectionist taste when it comes to the soaps). The food, the scenery, most of it is lost on the majority of the population.
Still, there is another side to Mexico - it is an easy crossover point for many Brazilians seeking to enter the United States without proper documentation.
Recently, the Mexican government decided to do something about it and announced that the visa waiver program with Brazil would be terminated. From now on, Brazilians will be required to apply for a tourist visa to enter Mexico.
The interesting part: over a million people were detained in the U.S.-Mexico border in the last 12 months, but the percentage of Brazilians is nowhere near the 95% of Mexicans in the group...
The change in visa policy came in the form of a statement issued by Mexican officials citing, among other things, security concerns (the Mexican government believes there are Hamas and Hezbollah cells in Brazil)... Because of that, and considering El Presidente's well known fixation with terrorism (motives behind the fixation are, of course, open to interpretation), critics claim that the U.S. government is behind this initiative.
Fact: the U.S.-Mexico border needs regulation, and security concerns are definitely more than justified in this day and age. But as for terrorists trying to enter Mexico (and ultimately the U.S.) through the Brazil/Mexico visa waiver program - it is not impossible; still, I tend to believe these people are, unfortunately, more sophisticated and better funded than that. The truth is, most Brazilians resorting to this type of border crossing are people who do not have much back home. Their motivation to come to the United States is - as in the case of so many other immigrants - to have a better life, or at least a chance at a better life.
Which brings us back to a question that gained additional relevance after the federal government's response to the Katrina disaster: where would El Presidente's administration be without terrorism? Nothing else seems to affect it anyway.
Still, there is another side to Mexico - it is an easy crossover point for many Brazilians seeking to enter the United States without proper documentation.
Recently, the Mexican government decided to do something about it and announced that the visa waiver program with Brazil would be terminated. From now on, Brazilians will be required to apply for a tourist visa to enter Mexico.
The interesting part: over a million people were detained in the U.S.-Mexico border in the last 12 months, but the percentage of Brazilians is nowhere near the 95% of Mexicans in the group...
The change in visa policy came in the form of a statement issued by Mexican officials citing, among other things, security concerns (the Mexican government believes there are Hamas and Hezbollah cells in Brazil)... Because of that, and considering El Presidente's well known fixation with terrorism (motives behind the fixation are, of course, open to interpretation), critics claim that the U.S. government is behind this initiative.
Fact: the U.S.-Mexico border needs regulation, and security concerns are definitely more than justified in this day and age. But as for terrorists trying to enter Mexico (and ultimately the U.S.) through the Brazil/Mexico visa waiver program - it is not impossible; still, I tend to believe these people are, unfortunately, more sophisticated and better funded than that. The truth is, most Brazilians resorting to this type of border crossing are people who do not have much back home. Their motivation to come to the United States is - as in the case of so many other immigrants - to have a better life, or at least a chance at a better life.
Which brings us back to a question that gained additional relevance after the federal government's response to the Katrina disaster: where would El Presidente's administration be without terrorism? Nothing else seems to affect it anyway.
September 12, 2005
ON THE RELEVANCE OF DEEDS
During a visit today to New Orleans, El Presidente said that the unprecedented slowness of his administration’s response to the Katrina disaster was not racially motivated.
Gee, thanks. I am relieved, and rejoiced.
But for the sake of argument – would he have actually said otherwise? “Folks, I just thought you should know that we at the White House took our time indeed. We just could not bring ourselves to sweat in order to help these poor, black people of New Orleans. I mean, what for? You help them once, and then they go downhill all over again. Hell, they even caused the whole damn tragedy to happen! It is their fault anyway!!”
Yeah, right. And by the way, I also have serious doubts about whoever posed the question to him.
And now, to be perfectly honest – this administration would respond in the same ineffective fashion if Katrina had stricken all-white Christian rural Kansas instead. My take is: they simply don’t care. Or even if they do, they are so far removed from the reality of this country that they can of no actual help.
True: the white, more affluent people of New Orleans did not suffer as much – they left the city on their own because they, for the most part, had the means to do so. The fact that the black, poor part of town was so tragically affected by Katrina was not so much a consequence of this administration’s interpretation of equality (which is shady, no doubt) but more so a reflection of the currently widening socio-economic disparities across the United States population. Sadly, Americans can, through Katrina and its horrific aftermath, catch a glimpse of the Third World on their own soil.
But then again, if the dark side of New Orleans was laid bare by the catastrophe, so was El Presidente's dark side. I wonder what he will do next; between not reading the papers (or anything else for that matter), not watching the news, and not taking any really significant action (unless one considers getting rid of FEMA's Michael Brown significant and not only predictable) - if he actually does anything at all, I guess it could be seen as an improvement of sorts. I'll sit and wait.
Gee, thanks. I am relieved, and rejoiced.
But for the sake of argument – would he have actually said otherwise? “Folks, I just thought you should know that we at the White House took our time indeed. We just could not bring ourselves to sweat in order to help these poor, black people of New Orleans. I mean, what for? You help them once, and then they go downhill all over again. Hell, they even caused the whole damn tragedy to happen! It is their fault anyway!!”
Yeah, right. And by the way, I also have serious doubts about whoever posed the question to him.
And now, to be perfectly honest – this administration would respond in the same ineffective fashion if Katrina had stricken all-white Christian rural Kansas instead. My take is: they simply don’t care. Or even if they do, they are so far removed from the reality of this country that they can of no actual help.
True: the white, more affluent people of New Orleans did not suffer as much – they left the city on their own because they, for the most part, had the means to do so. The fact that the black, poor part of town was so tragically affected by Katrina was not so much a consequence of this administration’s interpretation of equality (which is shady, no doubt) but more so a reflection of the currently widening socio-economic disparities across the United States population. Sadly, Americans can, through Katrina and its horrific aftermath, catch a glimpse of the Third World on their own soil.
But then again, if the dark side of New Orleans was laid bare by the catastrophe, so was El Presidente's dark side. I wonder what he will do next; between not reading the papers (or anything else for that matter), not watching the news, and not taking any really significant action (unless one considers getting rid of FEMA's Michael Brown significant and not only predictable) - if he actually does anything at all, I guess it could be seen as an improvement of sorts. I'll sit and wait.
CURRENTLY SHOWING AT A THEATER NEAR YOU
Because everything else has faded in comparison with the Katrina disaster and Roberts’s confirmation hearings, I am struggling here. It seems the entire country is on hold. I am in no way trying to take away from the importance those two events have, but I for one would really like to know what the status is on the morning-after pill and the FDA absurd delay on deciding the issue (as I see it, the need for an FDA decision is more than disputable - it is condemnable).
No one is talking about it anymore. The confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts are all absorbing now, even though I feel they are merely a show. After all, nobody – jurist, academic, government official, you name it - seriously entertains the possibility of Roberts not being confirmed. The man has practically turned into a Supreme Court Justice ever since he was first nominated by El Presidente.
Some argue that given his little nomination “upgrade” from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, the hearings should probe deeper into his character, beliefs and so forth. They claim that Roberts's judiciary track record is not strong/long enough to provide a reliable glimpse into the mind of the man who is poised to preside over the highest court of the nation for what could be several administrations to come.
But I say – spare your energy. Not only it is very likely Roberts will be confirmed as Chief Justice, but he also seems to have been fashioned in the same mold that presented us with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. There is little room left for the imagination here: Rehnquist was not only Roberts’s mentor, but he was his creator as well.
The real question is rather, what happens next? Who will fill the other empty seat – Justice O’Connor’s seat - at the court? Will El Presidente try appeasing some of us who don’t really sympathize with his choices so far (and please note, I am being nice)? Or will he go all out? And let’s not forget: at 85, Justice Stevens is the oldest member of the court. Who knows - he might also be ready for retirement soon.
No one is talking about it anymore. The confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts are all absorbing now, even though I feel they are merely a show. After all, nobody – jurist, academic, government official, you name it - seriously entertains the possibility of Roberts not being confirmed. The man has practically turned into a Supreme Court Justice ever since he was first nominated by El Presidente.
Some argue that given his little nomination “upgrade” from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, the hearings should probe deeper into his character, beliefs and so forth. They claim that Roberts's judiciary track record is not strong/long enough to provide a reliable glimpse into the mind of the man who is poised to preside over the highest court of the nation for what could be several administrations to come.
But I say – spare your energy. Not only it is very likely Roberts will be confirmed as Chief Justice, but he also seems to have been fashioned in the same mold that presented us with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. There is little room left for the imagination here: Rehnquist was not only Roberts’s mentor, but he was his creator as well.
The real question is rather, what happens next? Who will fill the other empty seat – Justice O’Connor’s seat - at the court? Will El Presidente try appeasing some of us who don’t really sympathize with his choices so far (and please note, I am being nice)? Or will he go all out? And let’s not forget: at 85, Justice Stevens is the oldest member of the court. Who knows - he might also be ready for retirement soon.
THE GOLDEN RULE, OR TRUE AMERICA ON THE BUS
I am one of the few people in Los Angeles who take public transportation to work. I am a proud patron of what is called the Commuter Express system, and my bus is a nice one with padded seats, a/c and friendly faces; we all know each other, we all work in the same area downtown.
I love the bus. For starters, it saves me money (gas, parking and the like), time (carpool lane) and the headache of driving in rush hour traffic; and it allows me to believe, as I am riding with my fellow commuters, that LA is a real city after all... But I also cannot deny that one of the greatest benefits of riding the bus to work is that I get to sleep on the way in and on the way out.
And when I say sleep, I mean deep sleep. It is heaven: 50 extra minutes in the morning, and 50 more in the evening. What else can a sleep-deprived, night bird like me ask for? Obviously, I am not the only one in the bus who takes advantage of the ride time to doze off. That being said, you hardly see any of my fellow commuters on the phone, and it makes perfect sense - after all, it is not the most comfortable place to engage in phone conversations. Call it our golden rule, if you will.
Recently, however, my rides have been disturbed by this youngling who gets on a little after me. It just so happens that I usually sit after the rear door, by the window, and he likes to sit right by me. And he talks with his girlfriend on the phone every morning, and his cell phone is loud and I can hear her breathe, let alone talk.
For as I long as I could (over a month already), I sat still and pretended it wasn't bothering me that much. But after a particularly long night, I just had it: "Do you mind?", I said to him this morning as he was flipping his cell phone open. He was in shock. Literally. Red as a beet, and I started worrying that he had swallowed his phone by mistake.
He was able then to say that this was a public place blah blah. I replied: "Exactly my point. You should remember that this is not your private car or office or whatever. Look around - do you see anyone else on the phone? You're always the only one. The least you could do is lower the volume, since by now I feel like I am intimate with you and your girlfriend. And I am not very fond of ménages a trois." And I went back to sleep.
A few minutes later, he dropped the bomb: "And you, where are you from?" Little did he know... Suddenly completely awake, I sat very straight and asked him what exactly he meant by that remark. "Oh I detect an accent." So? I told him I failed to see how my accent would have anything to do with the fact that his cell phone usage was beyond the norms of polite consideration for others. His answer: "Oh I wonder, because a true American would not make an issue out of me talking to my girl every morning on the bus."
By then, I was irate. There is no point in relaying here all that I told him. Suffice it to say that very slowly and quietly (after all, others were trying to sleep) I told him that the bus was full of people who were not Americans, but that also that the other "true" Americans on the bus were not behaving the way he did. I also told him that if he wanted to live in "true" America, he should join his girlfriend back home in Appalachia because here in Los Angeles he was clearly in the minority.
And last but not least, I told him that was enough. Then I turned to the window to catch a few more minutes of sleep before the bus got to my stop.
I love the bus. For starters, it saves me money (gas, parking and the like), time (carpool lane) and the headache of driving in rush hour traffic; and it allows me to believe, as I am riding with my fellow commuters, that LA is a real city after all... But I also cannot deny that one of the greatest benefits of riding the bus to work is that I get to sleep on the way in and on the way out.
And when I say sleep, I mean deep sleep. It is heaven: 50 extra minutes in the morning, and 50 more in the evening. What else can a sleep-deprived, night bird like me ask for? Obviously, I am not the only one in the bus who takes advantage of the ride time to doze off. That being said, you hardly see any of my fellow commuters on the phone, and it makes perfect sense - after all, it is not the most comfortable place to engage in phone conversations. Call it our golden rule, if you will.
Recently, however, my rides have been disturbed by this youngling who gets on a little after me. It just so happens that I usually sit after the rear door, by the window, and he likes to sit right by me. And he talks with his girlfriend on the phone every morning, and his cell phone is loud and I can hear her breathe, let alone talk.
For as I long as I could (over a month already), I sat still and pretended it wasn't bothering me that much. But after a particularly long night, I just had it: "Do you mind?", I said to him this morning as he was flipping his cell phone open. He was in shock. Literally. Red as a beet, and I started worrying that he had swallowed his phone by mistake.
He was able then to say that this was a public place blah blah. I replied: "Exactly my point. You should remember that this is not your private car or office or whatever. Look around - do you see anyone else on the phone? You're always the only one. The least you could do is lower the volume, since by now I feel like I am intimate with you and your girlfriend. And I am not very fond of ménages a trois." And I went back to sleep.
A few minutes later, he dropped the bomb: "And you, where are you from?" Little did he know... Suddenly completely awake, I sat very straight and asked him what exactly he meant by that remark. "Oh I detect an accent." So? I told him I failed to see how my accent would have anything to do with the fact that his cell phone usage was beyond the norms of polite consideration for others. His answer: "Oh I wonder, because a true American would not make an issue out of me talking to my girl every morning on the bus."
By then, I was irate. There is no point in relaying here all that I told him. Suffice it to say that very slowly and quietly (after all, others were trying to sleep) I told him that the bus was full of people who were not Americans, but that also that the other "true" Americans on the bus were not behaving the way he did. I also told him that if he wanted to live in "true" America, he should join his girlfriend back home in Appalachia because here in Los Angeles he was clearly in the minority.
And last but not least, I told him that was enough. Then I turned to the window to catch a few more minutes of sleep before the bus got to my stop.
September 6, 2005
BARENBOIM UNDER FIRE
World-renowned pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim is under fire again - this time, for refusing to be interviewed by an Israeli reporter wearing her military uniform. According to the Education Minister Limor Livnat, Barenboim's refusal is a reflection of his anti-semitism. She called him a Jew-hater as well.
It seems Ms. Livnat is oblivious to the fact that not only Barenboim is Jewish, but also an Israeli national.
It is well known that Barenboim is against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. His close friendship with late Palestinian-American music critic and activist Edward Said resulted in their book Parallels and Paradoxes and also in the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. Barenboim has been committed to the cause for peace in the Middle East through cultural and social integration, and his behavior last week is therefore no surprise. Unfortunately, neither is the response from Ms. Livnat and other Israelis who seem to think that anything contrary of their interpretation of true allegiance to Israel is in fact anti-semitic.
After all, one should not forget that not only Holocaust survivors but the Israeli government as well opposed Barenboim's decision to perform Wagner at the Israeli Festival in Jerusalem in 2001. There were even those who called him a fascist.
To be sure, Barenboim probably knew what he was getting into when he refused to speak with Army Radio reporter Dafna Arad. But Ms. Livnat and others who agree with her should realize that the Israeli landscape is changing, and dramatically. Back in 2001, no one was giving the Gaza strip back to the Palestinians. This might be the dawn of a new era, one in which Wagner, Israelis and Palestinians can coexist – peacefully.
It seems Ms. Livnat is oblivious to the fact that not only Barenboim is Jewish, but also an Israeli national.
It is well known that Barenboim is against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. His close friendship with late Palestinian-American music critic and activist Edward Said resulted in their book Parallels and Paradoxes and also in the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. Barenboim has been committed to the cause for peace in the Middle East through cultural and social integration, and his behavior last week is therefore no surprise. Unfortunately, neither is the response from Ms. Livnat and other Israelis who seem to think that anything contrary of their interpretation of true allegiance to Israel is in fact anti-semitic.
After all, one should not forget that not only Holocaust survivors but the Israeli government as well opposed Barenboim's decision to perform Wagner at the Israeli Festival in Jerusalem in 2001. There were even those who called him a fascist.
To be sure, Barenboim probably knew what he was getting into when he refused to speak with Army Radio reporter Dafna Arad. But Ms. Livnat and others who agree with her should realize that the Israeli landscape is changing, and dramatically. Back in 2001, no one was giving the Gaza strip back to the Palestinians. This might be the dawn of a new era, one in which Wagner, Israelis and Palestinians can coexist – peacefully.
IT HAS BEEN HARD
This last week has been a blur. Between Katrina, the morning-after pill, Justice Rehnquist's death and the Netanyahu-Sharon showdown, I confess I have been at a loss for words. Or maybe I have just too many words.
Even though I am taking a step back, it is still hard. In the meantime - and as if I needed any additional commotion - I watched Der Untergang (Downfall), The Constant Gardener and finished reading Night by Elie Wiesel.
I think I did push my limits this time.
Even though I am taking a step back, it is still hard. In the meantime - and as if I needed any additional commotion - I watched Der Untergang (Downfall), The Constant Gardener and finished reading Night by Elie Wiesel.
I think I did push my limits this time.