A friend of mine writes about David Irving, a British historian that was sent to jail in Austria 3 years for denying the Holocaust:
"In many European countries it is illegal to deny the Holocaust (click on the title to learn which) and you can go to jail if you do. In the meantime, apparently you can say whatever you want about the Arabs or the Muslims. Personally I think the law is a farce. Freedom of expression should not be selective. And then those idiots can become martyrs if they go to jail".
If any Jews reading this are about to have a conniption, let me point out that the writer of these sentiments is Jewish.
I agree that the law is stupid. But it is not surprising that most of the European countries that have this law also have lots of neonazis and don't know what to do with them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I agree that freedom of expression should be equal for all, whether we like it or not.
It seems to me that this very unsavory character David Irving is using this trial to sell books. He got himself pictured in newspapers across the world with a copy of his book "Hitler's War" prominently displayed for everyone to see. He's gonna cry all the way to the bank. It's the James Frey school of self-promotion.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Biting the hand that feeds me
The other day, one of my (three) faithful readers asked me why oh why I never write about the industry that feeds me; that is, advertising. The simple answer is because I would like to continue being fed. However, my reader's curiosity inspired me, so from now on I will run the risk of utter destitution and I will start kvetching about the hand that feeds me. Should be fun.
Having said this, I believe marketing is evil. Focus groups are superduper evil. It gives me the heebie jeebies to go to research meetings and hear the Orwellian way that research people have of talking about "the consumer", as if "the consumer" was not quite a fully human entity but just a creature of enormous unsatisfied wants. People are categorized as "scent seekers" (I'm one of those: I sniff everything), "early adapters", "young urban males" (that's Black to you) and who knows what else. To me, frankly, the most apt descriptor would be "mongoloids", to judge from the people present at my focus groups, ready to disembowel our hard work in one fell swoop, for the sum of fifty dollars, the promise of tepid free soda and an inflated ego.
I respect research that attempts to understand how people use and perceive a certain brand. That kind of research actually helps marketers and agencies create better ads. But I have never fathomed why storyboards are shown to ten strangers who sit around a conference room table (something that gives most human beings a very distorted sense of their own power) and are asked to criticize commercial ideas rendered in little drawings.
Despite the fact that it is well documented that there are professional focus group goers, and that people tend to talk out of their ass, and that the dynamics of focus groups do not even remotely resemble reality, marketers listen to these morons as if they were the Delphic oracle.
Do you usually watch TV with ten strangers sitting around your kitchen table? I doubt it. So why are we supposed to believe that this is how people will react when they see an ad at home? In almost every focus group I've ever been to, there is always one nefarious wiseass who likes to intimidate the rest of the group. Or then you get people who say what they think you want to hear. If you don't have a moderator that knows what they're doing, people like that can hijack the proceedings. Therefore, as science, focus groups are totally bogus. Every single person who sits behind that mirrored window for twelve hours eating m&m's, farting quietly and taking "notes", will interpret and spin what the murgatroids say according to his or her agenda. So the clients hear one thing, and the agencies another and the moderator will chime in, too, hoping to get hired again. It is an utter waste of time, money and effort.
One academic study came to the conclusion that the only reason focus groups exist is to save corporate ass. Nobody wants to trust their instincts and make a decision. Brand managers are afraid, so they pay the murgatroids to do it for them. Agencies agree to focus groups because if their ads tank, they can blame "the consumers" who picked them out of a lineup.
Consensus is highly overrated. Experts are paid big bucks to make decisions and stand by them. Focus groups and consensus have become ways in which upper management deflects their responsibility unto their subordinates, which range from the assistant assistant account executive to the janitor. Have some backbone and defend what you believe in. Put your MBA to good use. That's why they pay you the big bucks for, no?
Having said this, I believe marketing is evil. Focus groups are superduper evil. It gives me the heebie jeebies to go to research meetings and hear the Orwellian way that research people have of talking about "the consumer", as if "the consumer" was not quite a fully human entity but just a creature of enormous unsatisfied wants. People are categorized as "scent seekers" (I'm one of those: I sniff everything), "early adapters", "young urban males" (that's Black to you) and who knows what else. To me, frankly, the most apt descriptor would be "mongoloids", to judge from the people present at my focus groups, ready to disembowel our hard work in one fell swoop, for the sum of fifty dollars, the promise of tepid free soda and an inflated ego.
I respect research that attempts to understand how people use and perceive a certain brand. That kind of research actually helps marketers and agencies create better ads. But I have never fathomed why storyboards are shown to ten strangers who sit around a conference room table (something that gives most human beings a very distorted sense of their own power) and are asked to criticize commercial ideas rendered in little drawings.
Despite the fact that it is well documented that there are professional focus group goers, and that people tend to talk out of their ass, and that the dynamics of focus groups do not even remotely resemble reality, marketers listen to these morons as if they were the Delphic oracle.
Do you usually watch TV with ten strangers sitting around your kitchen table? I doubt it. So why are we supposed to believe that this is how people will react when they see an ad at home? In almost every focus group I've ever been to, there is always one nefarious wiseass who likes to intimidate the rest of the group. Or then you get people who say what they think you want to hear. If you don't have a moderator that knows what they're doing, people like that can hijack the proceedings. Therefore, as science, focus groups are totally bogus. Every single person who sits behind that mirrored window for twelve hours eating m&m's, farting quietly and taking "notes", will interpret and spin what the murgatroids say according to his or her agenda. So the clients hear one thing, and the agencies another and the moderator will chime in, too, hoping to get hired again. It is an utter waste of time, money and effort.
One academic study came to the conclusion that the only reason focus groups exist is to save corporate ass. Nobody wants to trust their instincts and make a decision. Brand managers are afraid, so they pay the murgatroids to do it for them. Agencies agree to focus groups because if their ads tank, they can blame "the consumers" who picked them out of a lineup.
Consensus is highly overrated. Experts are paid big bucks to make decisions and stand by them. Focus groups and consensus have become ways in which upper management deflects their responsibility unto their subordinates, which range from the assistant assistant account executive to the janitor. Have some backbone and defend what you believe in. Put your MBA to good use. That's why they pay you the big bucks for, no?
Friday, February 17, 2006
Boy, does the world suck today
A quick scan of the headlines today was enough to make me gag:
1. CNN reports that fetuses and newborns are found regularly in Zimbabwe's sewers. Sorry to rain on your parade, dear readers, but the world is crap indeed. Meanwhile, Condi Rice is too busy going after Hugo "Showman Extraordinario" Chavez, claiming he is a danger to Latin American democracies. Maybe we should stop carping about freaking democracy for two full seconds and turn our gaze to godforsaken countries like Zimbabwe, where the situation is so hellish people are literally throwing their babies down the drain. People are so poor that they can't buy soap to wash things so they do it with sand, clogging the sewers; they brush their teeth with salt. What the fuck are we doing about that, eh?
2. A Muslim cleric asshole has promised a one million dollar reward (which I bet he doesn't even have) to whoever kills the "cartoonist" that drew those stupid doodles that are going to start WWIII any minute now. He didn't even know that there was more than one Scandinavian clueless doodler. Meanwhile, the sorry, ignorant men who live in dire poverty in Islamabad are happily throwing rocks, burning and looting, whatever. Apparently these people have no concept of "old hat".
3. The NYT reports on the smug, creepy musings of Wal-Mart's CEO on his confidential webpage to employees. The guy accuses a manager of disloyalty and basically suggests he should find work elsewhere for bringing up the question of why Wal-Mart's employees can't have a less stingy medical retirement benefit package. Meanwhile this creep makes 17 million dollars a year and travels around the world in a private jet trying to dispel the popular notion that Wal-Mart is a dreadful company that abuses its employees routinely in the name of profits and low prices. They better not come to New York.
4. There was a terrible mudslide in the Philipines that covered an entire village. It looks real bad.
5. The whites in New Orleans are going ahead with Mardi Gras as planned. The blacks may not be able to reach home in time for the festivities. I quote the NYT:
"Fewer than half of the city's 465,000 residents have returned from the storm-induced diaspora — but more are coming home every day, and faster than expected. Still, many black residents are absent, suggesting a demographic and cultural shift in the offing for a city that now has more whites than blacks for the first time in decades. The city government has no money, but chic restaurants hummed for Valentine's Day. About half the city's traffic lights remain out of order, but those working along Magazine Street control the growing traffic in Uptown". Business as usual, it seems.
6. I saw a picture of the Olsen twins.
1. CNN reports that fetuses and newborns are found regularly in Zimbabwe's sewers. Sorry to rain on your parade, dear readers, but the world is crap indeed. Meanwhile, Condi Rice is too busy going after Hugo "Showman Extraordinario" Chavez, claiming he is a danger to Latin American democracies. Maybe we should stop carping about freaking democracy for two full seconds and turn our gaze to godforsaken countries like Zimbabwe, where the situation is so hellish people are literally throwing their babies down the drain. People are so poor that they can't buy soap to wash things so they do it with sand, clogging the sewers; they brush their teeth with salt. What the fuck are we doing about that, eh?
2. A Muslim cleric asshole has promised a one million dollar reward (which I bet he doesn't even have) to whoever kills the "cartoonist" that drew those stupid doodles that are going to start WWIII any minute now. He didn't even know that there was more than one Scandinavian clueless doodler. Meanwhile, the sorry, ignorant men who live in dire poverty in Islamabad are happily throwing rocks, burning and looting, whatever. Apparently these people have no concept of "old hat".
3. The NYT reports on the smug, creepy musings of Wal-Mart's CEO on his confidential webpage to employees. The guy accuses a manager of disloyalty and basically suggests he should find work elsewhere for bringing up the question of why Wal-Mart's employees can't have a less stingy medical retirement benefit package. Meanwhile this creep makes 17 million dollars a year and travels around the world in a private jet trying to dispel the popular notion that Wal-Mart is a dreadful company that abuses its employees routinely in the name of profits and low prices. They better not come to New York.
4. There was a terrible mudslide in the Philipines that covered an entire village. It looks real bad.
5. The whites in New Orleans are going ahead with Mardi Gras as planned. The blacks may not be able to reach home in time for the festivities. I quote the NYT:
"Fewer than half of the city's 465,000 residents have returned from the storm-induced diaspora — but more are coming home every day, and faster than expected. Still, many black residents are absent, suggesting a demographic and cultural shift in the offing for a city that now has more whites than blacks for the first time in decades. The city government has no money, but chic restaurants hummed for Valentine's Day. About half the city's traffic lights remain out of order, but those working along Magazine Street control the growing traffic in Uptown". Business as usual, it seems.
6. I saw a picture of the Olsen twins.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
No pity for hunters
Before I get letters of complaint about how dare I call that poor schmo that got shot in the face an old fart, let me tell you something. I have no pity for hunters. That pastime is for idiots. They dress like idiots and they behave like idiots.
Don't get me wrong: I'm no animal lover either. I hate pets and the people who have them. I hate the people who have pets more than I hate the pets. I hate the dog owners in NYC that think that the biggest snowfall in memory is a reason not to pick their dog turds off the snow. Dudes, if you can pick it off the thoroughly disgusting NYC asphalt, why can't you scoop it off the formerly pristine snow? Too cold?
In fact, in this respect, I do PETA one better (I loathe them as well):
I think that all people who have pets are animal abusers. Human beings should leave animals alone.
It is the apex of arrogance to leave a poor dog slumped at home all day and then feel like a hero when you deign to come back a trillion hours later and take the poor schmo for a pee and a dump. What gives you the right? Dogs can't read, watch TV, have a beer, or call their friends. Neither can cats, or guppies or tarantulas or hamsters. You are boring them to death. Think about it: maybe there are other ways that can make you feel that you are the center of the universe.
And before all my friends who have pets stop talking to me, you know I adore you. But I do hate pets.
None of my friends are hunters.
Don't get me wrong: I'm no animal lover either. I hate pets and the people who have them. I hate the people who have pets more than I hate the pets. I hate the dog owners in NYC that think that the biggest snowfall in memory is a reason not to pick their dog turds off the snow. Dudes, if you can pick it off the thoroughly disgusting NYC asphalt, why can't you scoop it off the formerly pristine snow? Too cold?
In fact, in this respect, I do PETA one better (I loathe them as well):
I think that all people who have pets are animal abusers. Human beings should leave animals alone.
It is the apex of arrogance to leave a poor dog slumped at home all day and then feel like a hero when you deign to come back a trillion hours later and take the poor schmo for a pee and a dump. What gives you the right? Dogs can't read, watch TV, have a beer, or call their friends. Neither can cats, or guppies or tarantulas or hamsters. You are boring them to death. Think about it: maybe there are other ways that can make you feel that you are the center of the universe.
And before all my friends who have pets stop talking to me, you know I adore you. But I do hate pets.
None of my friends are hunters.
The Times is funny about Dick
What's in a headline? This one is so perfect, you'd think it belongs to The Onion. From the New York Times:
"Silence broken as Cheney points only to himself". BADABING!
Phew! I'm glad he ain't pointing at nobody else! And if he were, wouldn't it be nice for him to point at Bush? If you can confuse a 78 year-old old fart with a bird, you can certainly confuse a birdbrain with a bird. No?
Wouldn't it be nice, in fact, if Dick had indeed pointed only to himself. He'd done this nation a great favor.
Alas, it's only a figure of speech...
Hell, I didn't even want to get into the Cheney free for all. Too easy, too many commentators. And none better than the original segment on The Daily Show. But I could not resist. I detect a conspiracy, you see:
1. Chinese skating couple falls on their ass -- they get a silver medal.
2. US Vicepresident shoots a 78 year old man in the face APPARENTLY WITHOUT A WEAPONS PERMIT -- judge in Texas says he won't be charged.
Apparently, Evil lurks everywhere. The axis of weasel, indeed.
Memo to everybody:
Please stop using the word "covey". It makes me sick. All of a sudden, everybody pretends like it's a household word they use every day. Like they PEPPER their language with it every now and then, to use another suddenly fashionable verb. Like they SPRAY it around with utter nonchalance every other sentence as if they always knew what the hell it meant. We were all perfectly fine without the word "covey" in our lives up to this moment. I beg you to stop.
"Silence broken as Cheney points only to himself". BADABING!
Phew! I'm glad he ain't pointing at nobody else! And if he were, wouldn't it be nice for him to point at Bush? If you can confuse a 78 year-old old fart with a bird, you can certainly confuse a birdbrain with a bird. No?
Wouldn't it be nice, in fact, if Dick had indeed pointed only to himself. He'd done this nation a great favor.
Alas, it's only a figure of speech...
Hell, I didn't even want to get into the Cheney free for all. Too easy, too many commentators. And none better than the original segment on The Daily Show. But I could not resist. I detect a conspiracy, you see:
1. Chinese skating couple falls on their ass -- they get a silver medal.
2. US Vicepresident shoots a 78 year old man in the face APPARENTLY WITHOUT A WEAPONS PERMIT -- judge in Texas says he won't be charged.
Apparently, Evil lurks everywhere. The axis of weasel, indeed.
Memo to everybody:
Please stop using the word "covey". It makes me sick. All of a sudden, everybody pretends like it's a household word they use every day. Like they PEPPER their language with it every now and then, to use another suddenly fashionable verb. Like they SPRAY it around with utter nonchalance every other sentence as if they always knew what the hell it meant. We were all perfectly fine without the word "covey" in our lives up to this moment. I beg you to stop.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
A Cheeky Nice Guy
Alright, so in order to lift our spirits today, here's the story of an Olympian who is not only thinking of endorsements, and if he is, he's smarter about it than anybody else. Joey Cheek, whose name sounds like he belongs in The Sopranos, is donating his $25,000 bonus for the poor people of Darfur in the Sudan because he won a gold medal. He's also going to ask his sponsors to donate too. Nice! Way to go, dude. I have nothing but praise for you. It makes your teammates look like solipsistic greedpots.
And since we're talking Winter Olympics, may I just say how much I hate the NBC sappy, overwrought coverage of both the Winter and the Summer games? Have they ever heard of other countries? They have to fashion inspiring stories out of where there aren't any, like that speedskater who had an epiphany while playing blackjack in Las Vegas and decided to switch from rollerblades to iceskates. Ooooh! I'm melting with inspiration.
And just to be an evil, bitter contrarian: if you throw your partner into the air, she attempts to do 4 impossible spins but crashes into the ice instead and takes 5 minutes recovering instead of the allowed 2, and you bravely continue your routine, to the understandable adoration of the crowd, that still is not a reason to win a silver medal. You fell, you took longer than the rules to recover. Why the medal? The skating judges are incomprehensible, whether the rules are new or old.
And since we're talking Winter Olympics, may I just say how much I hate the NBC sappy, overwrought coverage of both the Winter and the Summer games? Have they ever heard of other countries? They have to fashion inspiring stories out of where there aren't any, like that speedskater who had an epiphany while playing blackjack in Las Vegas and decided to switch from rollerblades to iceskates. Ooooh! I'm melting with inspiration.
And just to be an evil, bitter contrarian: if you throw your partner into the air, she attempts to do 4 impossible spins but crashes into the ice instead and takes 5 minutes recovering instead of the allowed 2, and you bravely continue your routine, to the understandable adoration of the crowd, that still is not a reason to win a silver medal. You fell, you took longer than the rules to recover. Why the medal? The skating judges are incomprehensible, whether the rules are new or old.
It's The War vs Valentine's Day
Bill O'Reilly can hyperventilate about Xmas. I hate Valentine's Day. And always have. With or without a boyfriend, husband, lover or significant other, it's a pain in the ass. Yeah, so I'm a verbissener hater of completely manufactured holidays cynically designed to make you part with your hard earned cash for no discernible reason. So what?
But do I hate V-day more than Cinco de Mayo? Don't get me started. Or freaking St Patrick's day with the green beer and pasty drunks wearing vomit-green sweaters? I love it how gringos get plastered on 2 x1 frozen margaritas and eat unspeakably terrible "Mexican" food for a holiday that no one in Mexico gives a shit about. Well, okay, it's when we Mexicans celebrate the only battle we ever won against foreign invaders (the French, which actually makes it qualify as an international holiday). Let me disabuse you of this notion: Cinco de Mayo was created by some gringo to make people buy more nachos and salsas and beer and bad tequila that gives you evil hangovers. The actual Mexican version of the 4th of July happens September 15 and it's Independence Day. Get plastered on that day instead and confound the marketers. It's more fun that way.
The US is really good at exporting stupid, ugly holidays (Halloween, anyone?) to the rest of the world and then, as in Japan, they make the local version even worse (click on the dots).
But do I hate V-day more than Cinco de Mayo? Don't get me started. Or freaking St Patrick's day with the green beer and pasty drunks wearing vomit-green sweaters? I love it how gringos get plastered on 2 x1 frozen margaritas and eat unspeakably terrible "Mexican" food for a holiday that no one in Mexico gives a shit about. Well, okay, it's when we Mexicans celebrate the only battle we ever won against foreign invaders (the French, which actually makes it qualify as an international holiday). Let me disabuse you of this notion: Cinco de Mayo was created by some gringo to make people buy more nachos and salsas and beer and bad tequila that gives you evil hangovers. The actual Mexican version of the 4th of July happens September 15 and it's Independence Day. Get plastered on that day instead and confound the marketers. It's more fun that way.
The US is really good at exporting stupid, ugly holidays (Halloween, anyone?) to the rest of the world and then, as in Japan, they make the local version even worse (click on the dots).
Monday, February 13, 2006
Paradise when?
Yesterday I saw the movie Paradise Now, a Palestinian film which is the first to be nominated for an Oscar in the foreign film category. The movie is not as great as the reviews and the nominations make it out to be, but it is an interesting approach to a thorny subject. Its point of view reminded me of Munich, the Spielberg film he calls his "prayer for peace". Both films question the moral validity and ultimately the effectiveness of answering violence with violence.
After watching the movie with friends who are most dear to me, we had a bitter argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't really want to go into the who said what. My dear readers will have to trust me that what started as an attempt to explain the historical context, soon developed into a heated, personal discussion. I must confess I got very defensive and took it personally. I said things that were certainly not valid arguments to defend any posture, right or wrong. And for that I'm deeply sorry. But what kept me awake all night was that I couldn't shake my deep frustration, and even deeper sense of failure at trying to make my non-Jewish friends understand why their being hostile to Israel triggered such a deeply personal reaction in me.
Yesterday it was said that the establishment of the State of Israel was unjust. It was unjust to the Arabs who lived in the region and had nothing to do with the Holocaust, which left hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees, many of whom had just survived hell on Earth. Yesterday I heard things like "Jews go about like they're always victims", or "why didn't they go back to their countries after the Holocaust?", or "Israel has killed as many Arabs as there were Jewish deaths in the Holocaust", which is as unacceptable as saying that Hugo Chavez is like Hitler. Once the argument got out of hand, we were saying stupid things on both sides.
So I, who pride myself in being a cosmopolitan who chooses to share my life not only with Jews but with the world at large, who has always opposed the Occupation on the principle that historically the Jews are the last people on Earth who should oppress others, tried to explain that the reason for picking that arid sliver of land between the desert and the ocean was not an arbitrary whim but a historical, geographical attachment to the place where Jews originated. This argument was found to be unconvincing. Last night, as I reflected at home, I found myself thinking of the possibility that perhaps having a Jewish state was indeed unfair, that perhaps it was a mistake.
I always joke, half seriously, that instead they should have established the Jewish state in a remote, deserted island in the Pacific, surrounded only by the ocean, away from everybody, so we'd stop annoying the hell out of the world. The Jewish people dreamed of having their own country, of returning to their roots, because the logic was that in their own state persecution and violence would finally come to an end. This was what Zionism was about. Unfortunately, the ideal of a free nation living in peace with its neighbors has not come to pass yet for reasons in which both Israel and its enemies bear responsibility. Me, I'm convinced that Jews and Arabs can live side by side in peace. It seems impossible, but having lived in Jerusalem, I think it is possible. Hopefully sooner rather than later, both sides will tire of the useless bloodshed and agree to accept each other and let each other live.
It occurred to me that Jews have only had their own state in two occasions in their millenial history. The first one was when the Hebrew tribes consolidated themselves into a nation after their exodus from Egypt and in time Israel became a kingdom. It wasn't peaceful either. There were always wars, invasions, expulsions. The second is right now. In between the destruction of the second temple by the Romans and 1948, give or take 2000 years, Jews lived, meek and fearful, in foreign lands, always depending on the whims of the rulers, on the discriminatory laws that kept them from fully participating in society, always expecting relentless violence, abuse and persecution, punctuated here and there by periods of relative stability and peace. They protected themselves from harm by stubbornly sticking to each other and their ancient books. Is this what bothers people? It would have been easier to just drop it, no? Convert to Christianity, blend into the population and forget all the pain. Many did. It could be very easy for me to do the same. I don't need to convert to anything in this day and age where religion is irrelevant. I could pretend the state of Israel and being Jewish mean nothing to me, I could deny my origins, who could care less? That would certainly save me lots of grief, yet I can't do that. I am a self-described atheist, a thoroughly non-religious, even anti-religious person, and yet I am a Jew and will be to the end of my days. And it is hard for me to explain to my non-Jewish friends how this feels and what it means to me.
My family was very fortunate that most of it left Europe way before the rise of Hitler. But I have always considered what it must have taken for generations of my ancestors to get me to be born Jewish, free and into peace in sunny, welcoming Mexico. It must have been a heroic, monumental effort. If only to honor their memory, I cannot pretend it's nothing to me.
Jewishness is not just a religion. I'm the perfect case in point. Jewishness is not a nationality either. I lived in Israel for four years, gave it a shot, and did not feel quite at home. Luckily, today we live in a world where Jews can live uneventful lives in other places, places that don't require endless sacrifice and lives of strife and conflict. But if the day ever comes when the tide turns, I can tell you, we're all going to go running back to Israel to save our ass. Because that's what it's there for.
I'm not one of those Jews who loves Israel no matter what. But because I believe it is just and necessary that it exist, I hold it accountable for its mistakes. It pains me that the untenable reality of the Occupation undermines everything that Jewish history and ethics stand for. But sometimes I feel that no matter how much one tries to assuage the righteous indignation against Israel, it's never enough. I know I'm not responsible for the Occupation or the intifada or the suicide bombers, but the fact that Israel is generally regarded as the villain of the story pains me. I take it personal.
Some people think Jews insist on being different as a way to rub in some sense of superiority or victimhood; that "chosen people" slogan has cost us much misunderstanding. I don't feel like I'm a victim and I don't feel I'm superior either. I just feel different because I know I am. Being Jewish is in my past, in my history, in my own wanderings, in my dreams at night. I take it personal.
After watching the movie with friends who are most dear to me, we had a bitter argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't really want to go into the who said what. My dear readers will have to trust me that what started as an attempt to explain the historical context, soon developed into a heated, personal discussion. I must confess I got very defensive and took it personally. I said things that were certainly not valid arguments to defend any posture, right or wrong. And for that I'm deeply sorry. But what kept me awake all night was that I couldn't shake my deep frustration, and even deeper sense of failure at trying to make my non-Jewish friends understand why their being hostile to Israel triggered such a deeply personal reaction in me.
Yesterday it was said that the establishment of the State of Israel was unjust. It was unjust to the Arabs who lived in the region and had nothing to do with the Holocaust, which left hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees, many of whom had just survived hell on Earth. Yesterday I heard things like "Jews go about like they're always victims", or "why didn't they go back to their countries after the Holocaust?", or "Israel has killed as many Arabs as there were Jewish deaths in the Holocaust", which is as unacceptable as saying that Hugo Chavez is like Hitler. Once the argument got out of hand, we were saying stupid things on both sides.
So I, who pride myself in being a cosmopolitan who chooses to share my life not only with Jews but with the world at large, who has always opposed the Occupation on the principle that historically the Jews are the last people on Earth who should oppress others, tried to explain that the reason for picking that arid sliver of land between the desert and the ocean was not an arbitrary whim but a historical, geographical attachment to the place where Jews originated. This argument was found to be unconvincing. Last night, as I reflected at home, I found myself thinking of the possibility that perhaps having a Jewish state was indeed unfair, that perhaps it was a mistake.
I always joke, half seriously, that instead they should have established the Jewish state in a remote, deserted island in the Pacific, surrounded only by the ocean, away from everybody, so we'd stop annoying the hell out of the world. The Jewish people dreamed of having their own country, of returning to their roots, because the logic was that in their own state persecution and violence would finally come to an end. This was what Zionism was about. Unfortunately, the ideal of a free nation living in peace with its neighbors has not come to pass yet for reasons in which both Israel and its enemies bear responsibility. Me, I'm convinced that Jews and Arabs can live side by side in peace. It seems impossible, but having lived in Jerusalem, I think it is possible. Hopefully sooner rather than later, both sides will tire of the useless bloodshed and agree to accept each other and let each other live.
It occurred to me that Jews have only had their own state in two occasions in their millenial history. The first one was when the Hebrew tribes consolidated themselves into a nation after their exodus from Egypt and in time Israel became a kingdom. It wasn't peaceful either. There were always wars, invasions, expulsions. The second is right now. In between the destruction of the second temple by the Romans and 1948, give or take 2000 years, Jews lived, meek and fearful, in foreign lands, always depending on the whims of the rulers, on the discriminatory laws that kept them from fully participating in society, always expecting relentless violence, abuse and persecution, punctuated here and there by periods of relative stability and peace. They protected themselves from harm by stubbornly sticking to each other and their ancient books. Is this what bothers people? It would have been easier to just drop it, no? Convert to Christianity, blend into the population and forget all the pain. Many did. It could be very easy for me to do the same. I don't need to convert to anything in this day and age where religion is irrelevant. I could pretend the state of Israel and being Jewish mean nothing to me, I could deny my origins, who could care less? That would certainly save me lots of grief, yet I can't do that. I am a self-described atheist, a thoroughly non-religious, even anti-religious person, and yet I am a Jew and will be to the end of my days. And it is hard for me to explain to my non-Jewish friends how this feels and what it means to me.
My family was very fortunate that most of it left Europe way before the rise of Hitler. But I have always considered what it must have taken for generations of my ancestors to get me to be born Jewish, free and into peace in sunny, welcoming Mexico. It must have been a heroic, monumental effort. If only to honor their memory, I cannot pretend it's nothing to me.
Jewishness is not just a religion. I'm the perfect case in point. Jewishness is not a nationality either. I lived in Israel for four years, gave it a shot, and did not feel quite at home. Luckily, today we live in a world where Jews can live uneventful lives in other places, places that don't require endless sacrifice and lives of strife and conflict. But if the day ever comes when the tide turns, I can tell you, we're all going to go running back to Israel to save our ass. Because that's what it's there for.
I'm not one of those Jews who loves Israel no matter what. But because I believe it is just and necessary that it exist, I hold it accountable for its mistakes. It pains me that the untenable reality of the Occupation undermines everything that Jewish history and ethics stand for. But sometimes I feel that no matter how much one tries to assuage the righteous indignation against Israel, it's never enough. I know I'm not responsible for the Occupation or the intifada or the suicide bombers, but the fact that Israel is generally regarded as the villain of the story pains me. I take it personal.
Some people think Jews insist on being different as a way to rub in some sense of superiority or victimhood; that "chosen people" slogan has cost us much misunderstanding. I don't feel like I'm a victim and I don't feel I'm superior either. I just feel different because I know I am. Being Jewish is in my past, in my history, in my own wanderings, in my dreams at night. I take it personal.
Friday, February 10, 2006
The US is mas macho!
As a supersmart friend points out in a note written in Spanish, which I take the liberty of very loosely paraphrasing for the enlightenment of my dear readers, the pathetic, inexcusable Mexican lefties have no qualms about taking away the jobs of 500 hardworking Mexican employees of the Sheraton, in order to demonstrate their hysterical, shrill, absurd, infantile attachment to the Old Bearded One and their contempt for the US, (which, as is worth reminding them, is where many, many Mexicans prefer to live anyway, since here they can actually make a decent living).
Have the revolting, anachronistic, Mexican reds, who continue to behave as if the Berlin Wall is still standing, ever done anything to improve the lives of their own countrymen? Hell no, they're too busy worshipping the dictatorial asshole that is Fidel and doing their voodoo dances against the United States. That's all they do, all the time.
To wit, quoted from AP:
"Mexico City officials had said earlier the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton in Mexico City might be closed because an inspection purportedly unrelated to the Cuban incident revealed some obscure code violations, including THE ALLEGED LACK OF BRAILLE MENUS AT A HOTEL RESTAURANT...."
Peeps, this is Mexico in a nutshell for you. This is the surreal nightmare that the average Mexican citizen has to deal with every day. This is how Mexican politicians treat their own people. With nothing but contempt.
But then, the reds are not alone in their utter pointlessness. For all the chest-beating of the Mexican Foreign Ministry, it turns out that the Mexican government may close and fine the hotel, but they are not going to send an official diplomatic hissy fit to Washington bitching about the US intromission in Mexico's national affairs and initiate WWIV against the US. That will not be necessary. Easier to mess with Sheraton than to mess with the State Department, isn't it?
Not only are they cowards but they are stupid cowards.
Have the revolting, anachronistic, Mexican reds, who continue to behave as if the Berlin Wall is still standing, ever done anything to improve the lives of their own countrymen? Hell no, they're too busy worshipping the dictatorial asshole that is Fidel and doing their voodoo dances against the United States. That's all they do, all the time.
To wit, quoted from AP:
"Mexico City officials had said earlier the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton in Mexico City might be closed because an inspection purportedly unrelated to the Cuban incident revealed some obscure code violations, including THE ALLEGED LACK OF BRAILLE MENUS AT A HOTEL RESTAURANT...."
Peeps, this is Mexico in a nutshell for you. This is the surreal nightmare that the average Mexican citizen has to deal with every day. This is how Mexican politicians treat their own people. With nothing but contempt.
But then, the reds are not alone in their utter pointlessness. For all the chest-beating of the Mexican Foreign Ministry, it turns out that the Mexican government may close and fine the hotel, but they are not going to send an official diplomatic hissy fit to Washington bitching about the US intromission in Mexico's national affairs and initiate WWIV against the US. That will not be necessary. Easier to mess with Sheraton than to mess with the State Department, isn't it?
Not only are they cowards but they are stupid cowards.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
USA vs MEX or Quien Es Mas Macho part II
As Cubans would say, coñooo! The Mexican government is in a tizzy because some Cubans who were participating in a suspicious energy conference organized by the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association (huh?), were expelled from the Sheraton in Mexico City over instructions from the US State Department, which bars any American interests from even tangentially intersecting with anything connected to the Old Bearded One, including his chomped cigar covered in rancid drool.
So out went the Cubans on the street and next thing you know, the Mexican government is ordering the Sheraton closed.
A veritable international incident of epic proportions.
What I love about the story, what makes it quintessentially Mexican, is that at first the hotel was closed allegedly because of building violations:
"Municipal inspectors who carried out a check of the hotel after the Cubans' expulsion found it had infringed local safety and licensing laws, district council head Virginia Jaramillo said on Wednesday. "I expect imminent closure of the hotel," said Jaramillo, of the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution... Jaramillo... said the hotel had carried out construction without permission and has two bars that were not licensed.."
All of Mexico City is a freaking safety and licensing violation, for crying out loud! The Foreign Ministry must have realized how rinky dink they looked letting the pathetic pinkos have their little revenge on behalf of La Revolución, and actually made it into a diplomatic tiff worthy of Remember the Alamo, by using the word sovereignity, and the phrase "foreign interference on Mexican soil". That, I agree, sounds much better than "the bars have no license".
I believe in this case the question is not who is más macho, but who is más estúpido. The idiots at the State Department for butting their nose where they are not invited or the Mexicans for being so ridiculous. As is traditional, also in hand were the classic idiots, (always the same idiots) burning the American flag and chanting commie slogans in front of the Sheraton, which is right next to the US Embassy, where they usually hold court, so they only had to transfer their lazy asses for half a city block.
So out went the Cubans on the street and next thing you know, the Mexican government is ordering the Sheraton closed.
A veritable international incident of epic proportions.
What I love about the story, what makes it quintessentially Mexican, is that at first the hotel was closed allegedly because of building violations:
"Municipal inspectors who carried out a check of the hotel after the Cubans' expulsion found it had infringed local safety and licensing laws, district council head Virginia Jaramillo said on Wednesday. "I expect imminent closure of the hotel," said Jaramillo, of the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution... Jaramillo... said the hotel had carried out construction without permission and has two bars that were not licensed.."
All of Mexico City is a freaking safety and licensing violation, for crying out loud! The Foreign Ministry must have realized how rinky dink they looked letting the pathetic pinkos have their little revenge on behalf of La Revolución, and actually made it into a diplomatic tiff worthy of Remember the Alamo, by using the word sovereignity, and the phrase "foreign interference on Mexican soil". That, I agree, sounds much better than "the bars have no license".
I believe in this case the question is not who is más macho, but who is más estúpido. The idiots at the State Department for butting their nose where they are not invited or the Mexicans for being so ridiculous. As is traditional, also in hand were the classic idiots, (always the same idiots) burning the American flag and chanting commie slogans in front of the Sheraton, which is right next to the US Embassy, where they usually hold court, so they only had to transfer their lazy asses for half a city block.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
