25 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo murders and three paragons of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.
One of the side effects of the recent Paris events was showing the gap (or a chasm by now) between the supporters of freedom and what Salman Rushdie perceptively called "But Brigade" in a sharper contrast.
The author said there should be no conditions placed on free speech; anyone who does, he referred to as the “but brigade.” "The minute I hear someone say, 'Yes, I believe in free speech, but...' I stop listening," Rushdie said...
To present some of the “but brigade” mental shenanigans, I have chosen (arbitrarily, I know) three outstanding representatives of the clan.

1. Noam Chomsky, the Mastermind of the (last) Century.

The distinguished professor of linguistics who considers himself to be an expert on life, the universe and everything, is one of the foremost upholders of absolute and untouchable freedom of speech. Including freedom of speech of Holocaust deniers[1], with some of whom he seems to be on the best terms.

Our subject appears to be also a master of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocritical variety. How else would you explain this staunch supporter of freedom of speech brown-nosing the chieftains of Hizballah (in the picture above) - people for whom freedom of speech is as alien a concept as pickled pig's knuckles?

Of course, one could mention[2] that the famous fighter against capitalism, the valiant anarcho-syndicalist is not only a wealthy man but also accepts money from the capitalist institutions he so despises and invests money in corporations he reviles.

So this is the man CNN has chosen to pen an article on the subject of hypocrisy (yeah, no kidding): Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage. And what is the main thrust of the piece? Not only it is a great representation of the "but brigade" stance, it uses for the "but" part the NATO "missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters" in 1999. Just a reminder: Chomsky, while knowing practically nothing about the case, remains an unrepentant denier of Bosnian Genocide. This is the man that complains about Western hypocrisy.

The principle of using the "but" logic was brilliantly debunked by Howard Jacobson in his article Try ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ and.... I would say that the headline itself conveys very well the Jacobson's main point, but do not deny yourself another example of his prose. Especially since Chomsky is debunked there as well.

2. Norman Finkelstein, "world renowned political science professor"

The "world renowned" part will remain on the conscience of the interviewer and his editor, of course. If the Fink is world renown, it is not exactly because of his prowess in the dense forest of political science. His "fame" is stemming from his preoccupation with the so called "Holocaust industry" - the phenomenon of Jews profiting from Holocaust - that he himself "christened", described and continues to profit from as long as he is able to. If this is not a prime example of hypocrisy, show me a better one.

Not to be outdone by prof Chomsky (his hero), prof Finkelstein has also made the pilgrimage to Lebanon (see the picture above), to prove his loyalty to the values of Mr Nasrallah. But no, he is no hypocrite, of course.

And, returning back to the interview, prof Finkelstein was much cruder than prof Chomsky. He considers the cartoons by Charlie Hebdo to be "political pornography no different than Der Stürmer".
I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.
Smashing, that, but then prof Finkelstein is in a much tougher (financially speaking) situation than prof Chomsky. He has to work for his daily bread and, being found not exactly suitable for a job in US (I wonder why, after all even professors that share his political views haven't lend a hand to their stricken comrade, as the comrade himself testifies), he teaches something in Turkey (Sakarya University, whatever it means). So he must make himself likeable to his hosts, I assume. But no, no hypocrisy in that, not at all...

And of course, he found his "but" point too, not to worry:
The characterization by the French of Muslims as being barbaric is hypocritical considering the killings of thousands of people during France’s colonial occupation of Algeria.
Why didn't he add the burning of Jeanne d'Arc and Napoleonic wars will remain forever unknown, I'm afraid, but this is the nature of Poli Sci professors.

The subject of this post is on the left.

3. Hon. George Galloway, MP: tyrants brown-nosed, straw men slayed.

Being a politician, on top of his other gainful employments, Mr Galloway easily tops the list as far as his range of activities is concerned. Many a tyrant on this planet experienced the restorative effects of our subject's tongue on his posterior. Many a radio/TV transmitter blushed of shame, being forced to transmit the insufferable crapola spewing from this character's mouth.

This time was no exception. The bounder has outdone even the previous subject, prof Finkelstein, in his rabid speech:
George Galloway boldly declared “Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo” during a damning address at a freedom of speech rally in Bradford on Saturday.

The Respect MP told a crowd of protestors gathered outside Bradford City Hall that the French government should be ashamed of themselves for standing by the “racist, Islamophobic, hypocritical rag” in the wake of the attacks in Paris that killed 17 people last week.

These are not cartoons, these are not depictions of the Prophet, these are pornographic, obscene insults to the Prophet and by extension, 1.7billion human beings on this earth and there are limits.

There are limits. There limits to free speech and free expression especially in France.
As you can see, this time Hon. George Galloway has succeeded to perform an ass-licking maneuver on a whole religion - no mean trick, I have to add. But then, years and years of practice lead to this shameful exhibition.

To conclude: the three protagonists of this post come from different backgrounds. All three are deeply damaged by some irreversible process or event in their lives, but this is a matter for a psychiatrist. It is easy, though, to find common symptoms: each one has visited Lebanon and served in his own lowly way this murderous terrorist outfit; each one is a liar and a hypocrite; all three hate Israel; etc. Given time and opportunity, I guess we'll see the three gracing the fledgling Islamic State capital, explaining to the world how just and awesome it is and how it should be understood in its true glory.

And we should fully expect each one of them explaining to us how hypocritical it is to object.


P.S. For the sake of fairness: Israel has its own set of blasphemy laws, preserving some remnants of a British rule.
In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code.[38][39]

Insult to religion

170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.

Injury to religious sentiment

173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
Fortunately, the 173.1 and 173.2 are not enforced too eagerly, if at all. The fact is that the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo could be obtained quite easily and freely here - albeit only as an Internet order.

Still shameful.


24 January 2015

The Council Has Spoken!

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

23 January 2015

Down with Sitzpinklers! A man must do what a man must do!

A small but significant victory for true multiculturalism:
A court in Germany has ruled in favour of a man's right to urinate while standing up after his landlord demanded money for damage to the bathroom floor.
Of course, this is only a single battle in the war, judging by this clarifying statement:
But the Duesseldorf judge ruled that the man's method was within cultural norms, saying "urinating standing up is still common practice".
I believe you've noticed that ominous "still" in the quote. No, the war is not won yet.


22 January 2015

Our Weasel Of The Week!!

Once again, It's time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all particularly slimy and despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner...the envelope please...


Racialist Grievance Monger, Anti-Semite and Huffington Post Columnist Ferrari Sheppard!!

21 January 2015

Oops, says IDF: we thought he is a colonel...

Mistakes happen. In this case, when you are going for a possum and bag a bear, it is hard to complain, though.

'We did not expect the outcome in terms of the stature of those killed - certainly not the Iranian general,' security source says'.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Mohammed Allahdadi was killed with a Hezbollah commander and the son of the group's late military leader, Imad Moughniyeh, in Sunday's attack on a Hezbollah convoy near the Israeli Golan Heights border.
The part that remained off the record is published now for the first time here:
Our drone has counted the stars on the general's shoulder, and since it appears that the number of the stars is the same as on a colonel's insignia, the computer decided to let the missile go. The camera resolution on that drone was not up to scratch. The sergeant responsible for the lens cleaning lost his weekend leave, which will learn him.

As a result of this regrettable mistake, IDF General Staff has decided to send the Iranian army a free discount coupon that will grant immunity to three Iranian colonels. The coupon is valid until January 2016 (inclusive).

No other discounts apply.

Watcher’s Council Nominations : When The Going Gets Weird, The Weird Turn Pro Edition

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

20 January 2015

Our Weasel Of The Week Nominees!


It's time once again for the Watcher's Council's 'Weasel Of The Week' nominations, where we pick our choices to compete for the award of the famed Golden Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations!

Here are this weeks' Nominees!

נשים לשלטון!

אמש התבשרנו כי בחמישיה של נבחרי מפלגת מרץ עומדות 3 נשים! ואם נסתכל על השביעייה - אזי נראה 4 נשים!
כל הכבוד למפלגה הקטנטנה הזו שבראשה אשה, שמעמידה בנבחרת החלומות שלה יותר נשים מגברים.
גם מפלגת העבודה הגדילה הפעם את מספר הנשים ברשימתם לכנסת : 3 נשים בחמישייה הפותחת, 4 נשים בעשירייה פותחת, 7 נשים ברשימת העשרים.
איזה עולם נפלא יכול להיות אם מספר הנשים בכנסת יתקרב ל-50%!!!!
מעניין שהפעם מפלגות השמאל מביאות איתן לא רק מחשבה ליברלית בנושאי כלכלה וזכויות אדם, אלא גם מבטאות הלכה למעשה את נושא השיוויון בין המינים.
ומפלגות הימין? ובכן ליברמן גם הוא מציב מספר ראוי של נשים : שתי נשים בחמישייה ו-4 בעשירייה. אבל נראה כי שפוט לא נשארו לו אנשים....
והבית היהודי? אשה אחת בחמישייה, שתיים בעשירייה ו-4 ברשימת העשרים.
והגדיל לעשות הליכוד. לאחר הבלגן שלא נפסק יש אשה אחת (מירי רגב האינטיליגנטית, הרהוטה, הליברלית......) בחמישייה, אשה אחת בעשירייה (אותה מירי רגב כמובן) ו-3 נשים ברשימת העשרים.
מיותר לאמר שבמפלגות החרדיות אין כלל נשים.
אז גבירותי ורבותי!
נא לכלול בשיקולי ההצבעה שלכם גם את נושא הייצוג הנשי!!!!

19 January 2015

Forum: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

18 January 2015

Apologies to our readers and to John Kerry

I don't really know how to go about it and even how to start this post. You see, apologies is not our shtick. "Fuck it, let's move on" is the usual thing we all say when some bloke gets hurt by that or another post.

But this case is special. What happened was beyond the pale. When this blog misses a clear and obvious point that simply glares in our faces... oh well, it's better to show than to keep carping. Here it comes: in the post about a distinguished CNN anchor (ex-anchor by now) who went into a mental meltdown I've compared him with a certain bird:

While there is some remote resemblance, the real doppelganger of that bird was hiding in plain view, invalidating the above comparison by the mere fact of his existence. So here he is:

That was inexcusable. Only time, sacrifice and patience will help in removing the stain of dishonor from this here blog.


16 January 2015

Jim Clancy out of CNN: homebound or not?

So far the best headline on the subject I've seen was:

‘Wonder if Al-Jazeera is hiring': Jim Clancy out at CNN after nutty anti-Israel tweets

And the best tweet:

Yep, that tinfoil hat need some cleaning and mending, definitely.

Another point is that tomorrow we shall see the usual crowd revving up the engines to start the "Zionists fired poor Jim Clancy" or some such crap.

When the truth is so simple and could be summarized in four words: don't drink and tweet.

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr.: Mr. President, you are a disgrace. Oh, and Mr Stewart: you are a bigger one

I can understand the logic of calling retired military people and politicians by their past titles. I can also see one serious problem with that: what if a person in question was a failure while doing that job that went with the title once? The title is still here, but how many remember the failures?

Especially a failure like this one that keeps coming up in the news with distressing regularity. Since this old dog doesn't learn any new tricks and, besides*, since he is rather a one trick pony than a dog anyway, Mr Carter repeats his complaint about the Zionist entity being at the root of all world problems at any opportunity.

This time the opportunity was courteously provided by Jon Stewart. Here is a recording of the meeting of these two exceptional minds:

(Or go to this link if any problems with the embedded clip. Or via this Youtube version.)
“Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem,” Carter replied. “And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now — what’s being done to them. So I think that’s part of it.”
Yes, sure: two deranged terrorists kill a bunch of newspaper employees, innocent bystanders and policemen because of imaginary offense, then another terrorist kills four French Jews and all this is because of Zionist injustices in West Bank and Gaza? Of course, this part of the discussion incensed many people, and by rights. Because most people have seen only a short (about 1 minute) part of the conversation, like the one in this article.

But - and there is a big BUT: I can't really blame the old man. He, after all, repeated his mantra automatically upon being triggered. And notice who has done the triggering. Much earlier than the quote above was uttered, Stewart mentioned the Paris bloodbath and started the subject of Obama's non-appearance on the streets of Paris with other world leaders. After eliciting an explanation about the heavy load of work  the POTUS is subjected to, it was Jon Stewart who, quite unsubtly, lead the old man into the subject of Camp David, Oslo and whatnot. Notice his lead starting about 3'10''. 

Crude but effective and in this case unbeatable. From there the bridge to the rant quoted above was already impossible to miss, and of course, Carter didn't miss it. That specific pony knows the trick once it is shown the way to it, no question whatsoever.

And notice that Stewart doesn't have any objections to that "simple and straightforward" explanation of root causes given by Carter, no matter how far from reality or how offensive it is. He is just nodding sagely...

Jamie Weinstein in his The Daily Caller article asks a good question or two:
Carter didn’t explain how solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue would in any way resolve the violent conflicts currently engulfing the Arab world, including the Syrian civil war, the Islamic State’s takeover of part of Iraq and its brutal implementation of Islamic law, and the conflict between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood, just to name a few. Nor did he detail how the “Palestinian problem” helps explain why three French Muslims murdered innocent French Jews buying groceries for the coming Sabbath and cartoonists preparing the next issue of their paper.
Good points all. The explanation consists of two points:
  1. Jimmy Carter doesn't have any answers to that, aside of blaming the Z. Entity, of course. He is simply not geared for it.
  2. Jon Stewart wasn't looking for any answers - all he needed was a familiar soundbite. In spite of his assurances to the opposite, he is geared to bash the Zionists.
I wish Jon Stewart could restrict himself to discussion of guinea worm - he is much better at that  than in politics, notwithstanding what he thinks about his political acumen. 

For shame.

(*) To make some people mad by mixing metaphors,

Thanks to Francine Robin for the picture of the protagonist.

The Council Has Spoken!

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

15 January 2015

Deborah Maccoby to Jews of Europe: denounce Israel and live happily thereafter

Deborah Maccoby... yeah, I know, my American friends will question my preoccupation with such minor and generally obscure elements of British society. And I don't think that next picture will change their opinion significantly:

Deborah Maccoby bills herself on some occasions* as "Executive, Jews for Justice for Palestinians". Alternatively she presents herself as "a member of the Executive Committee of Just Peace UK, the Israeli-Palestinian peace group and the UK branch of ICAHD (the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions)". At the same time she is gainfully employed "at the BBC World Service as a Production Assistant and has written book reviews for the Arabic Service". Which is a significant point, showing a person with access to one of the heaviest propaganda juggernauts out there.

So, if after looking at the pictures, you have conjured in your mind an image of one of these slightly demented aunts that are very good in making their own preserves or jams, overcook the roast and are afraid of spiders - perish the thought. Deborah Maccoby is a very strong anti-Zionist presence on many fronts and, as a prominent member of the British "AssaJew" community, has quite a few ideas to offer on many subjects.

One of such subjects is a solution for antisemitism, which Ms Maccoby hinted about as early as 2009. In this letter that starts with predictable "Sir: I am a member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and have participated in every one of the national demonstrations against Israel’s brutal onslaught against Gaza", she offers the magic recipe in the last sentence:
If Jews really want to reduce anti-Semitism, they should speak out to change Israel’s destructive and self-destructive policies.
Jews, being a stubborn and intractable group of people, did not heed this prophetic warning in sufficient numbers, and the results, if you follow Ms Maccoby's theory, inevitably followed: a Muslim activist Amedi Coulibaly, possibly one of the more outspoken objectors of Zionism, decided to demonstrate his unhappiness with the Zionist atrocities, killing four Jews in a Paris supermarket.

Now, my dear reader, you may be surprised by the logic of this act. After all, you may not see how a Jew, whose main fault is to go shopping in a kosher supermarket, is responsible for some Zionist entity somewhere far away. If, for instance, you are a Christian from, say, Argentine, traveling in Japan and get beaten up in a pub in Osaka, you could hardly expect that other Christians, like ones in Netherlands, for instance, will seek and beat up Japanese folks in their vicinity.

But Deborah Maccoby thinks differently from you and I and, being an uncommonly perceptive thinker, she offered a solution for Jews only. The solution is boldly titled: What Jews can learn from Muslims. To start with, the guilty parties are identified:
But the Israeli government, with its new bill proposing to make Israel the nation-state of all the Jews in the world, and Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies, with their claim that the majority of Jews support Israel’s oppressive policies, contribute to the conflation of Jews with Israel and the subsequent rise in antisemitism and attacks on Jews.
Then follows the positive example that further attenuates the guilt of the above evildoers:
...and the swift and powerful condemnation issued by Muslim groups all over the world will help to reduce anti-Muslim feeling and deter young Muslims from joining the jihadis.
Of course, a person of weaker faith in humanity could express some doubts re that "swift and powerful condemnation", after reading, for example, this:
“The Kalashnikovs, the identity cards the [killers] supposedly left behind, it was all staged,” said Boular, as his friends nodded in agreement. “It was a conspiracy designed by the Jews to make Muslims look bad.”
Or this:
French newspapers reported that some students in these neighborhoods—as well as other heavily Muslim areas near cities like Lille—refused to participate in Thursday’s national moment of silence for the victims of the terror attacks. One teacher said up to 80 percent of his students didn’t want to observe the silence, and some said they supported the attackers. “You reap what you sow,” a student who refused the moment of silence told his teacher in reference to the terrorists’ victims, according to Le Figaro.
The (purely hypothetical, of course) person of weak faith may also inquire what the following facts have to do with Zionist atrocities:
The survey found that one in four Britons think Jewish people chase money more than others while one in six claimed that Jews thought they were better than others and had too much power in the media.

One in ten said Jews were not has honest in business and one in five said they questioned their loyalty to Britain due to their connection with Israel. Ten percent of those questioned would not be happy if a relative married a Jew.

In a separate survey carried out by the CAA, more than half of British Jews feared they had no future in the UK and a quarter said they have considered leaving the country in the last two years.
But of course, there is no accounting for people weak on faith, after all the recipe cooked up by Deborah Maccoby is so simple and accessible:
If world Jewish organisations were to learn from their Muslim counterparts and say loud and clear in response to Israeli atrocities “not in my name”, this could help to reduce antisemitism and make the recruitment of young Muslims by jihadis more difficult. Despite Freedland’s claim that Jews have “no control” over Israeli policies, such condemnation could also exert strong pressure on the Israeli government to stop its atrocities and enter into genuine peace negotiations with the Palestinian unity government.
Loud and clear - what could be simpler? Say loudly "not in my name" and you are absolved. And no Freedland could interfere anymore...

However (this Jewish habit of saying "however", what can I do about it?). However, there are a few technical details to be worked out for comprehensive and full implementation of the idea. To start with, when an activist with a Kalashnikov rifle comes to punish to express his protest to the Jews who haven't yet denounced the Zionist misdeeds, how will this activist know which ones should be passed over, being proper "not in my name" Jews? Obviously, the text "not in my name" is not sufficient and impractical. Reading problems, reading comprehension issues, language barrier and whatnot... Of course, a placard like the one carried by Deborah Maccoby in that picture will go a long way to resolve the doubt, but somehow it doesn't seem practical. So, instead of a large and unwieldy placard, the following accessory is offered (in two pieces, to be attached to the front and to the back of one's coat, t-shirt or whatever):

This simple and practical fashion accessory will admirably resolve the issue of protecting the innocent, politically correct Jews of anti-Zionist persuasion. But of course, another question should be resolved as well: how to make sure that our activist doesn't shoot some totally unrelated non-Jews? That's real easy, using the same method of visual aids:
Just make all these no good Zionist supporter Jews wear this one and voila! No ambiguity, no mistakes and, even more important - no waste of ammo.

Now that we have figured it all out, the necessary steps for implementation could be started asap.

Lead by Deborah Maccoby, we shall separate the wheat from the chaff, and no doubt!

(*) On other occasions Ms Maccoby presents her beliefs:
First of all, I wouldn't call myself an anti-Zionist, because I am in favour of a Jewish national presence in the Jewish homeland, though I do think the best way to solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict is for Israel to abandon the outdated ethnic nation-state model and find a new model, such as a binational or federated state. I suppose this would make me a post-Zionist.
These beliefs don't make her a "post-Zionist", of course, just a vapid creature who is ready to sign up for another genocide of her people. Her people, I said? Hm...

Our Weasel Of The Week!!!

Once again, It's time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all despicable, but the votes are in and we have our winner...the envelope please...

Progressive Whack Job Sally Kohn!!