Let me be clear: I don't doubt for a moment that Barack Obama genuinely believes that he can calm the roils that trouble the United States in its relationship with the Muslim world and the Arab orbit within it. The problem is, alas, that he hasn't a clue. Moreover, he hasn't had the chance to learn. And maybe--just maybe--he is not inclined to learn because in his generation wisdom doesn't come from study but from ideological narrative. George W. Bush had his own favorite narrative. It was hewn in Texas and polished, if it was polished at all, just before old Yale collapsed before William Sloane Coffin, if anyone still remembers his tortured and torturing soul.
Obama's narrative is assumedly third world, maybe just by dint of his skin complexion. But, frankly, there weren't many dreams from his father in Dreams From My Father. In fact, there were at least as many from his hippie white mother. So here is a very contemporary person. The two lines, though, do connect in his chosen life as it is retold and projected into the future. Here, his prominence in the deeply left-wing "community organizing" universe meets the do-not-ask-questions rules of the Chicago Democratic machine.
So, much as George Bush did not doubt, so President Obama does not doubt. He doesn't doubt himself and he doesn't doubt what he says. I made the comment the other day in another Spine with reference to Obama: narcissism is the most dangerous of sins...because it doesn't let the sinner recognize it in himself.
I believe that all the evidence--yes, all--points to the ossification of Muslim thought and Muslim behavior in the world. Dan Diner has written a book called Lost in the Sacred: Why the Muslim World Stood Still, published by Princeton University Press, which makes the point clearly and convincingly. Just this morning, I read an article by Norimitsu Onishi in the Times: "Extremism Spreads Across Indonesian Penal Code." Now, maybe we can blame this on Israel. But I doubt it.
Most of Indonesia still lives up to its reputation for a moderate, easygoing style of Islam, and Islamist parties suffered heavy losses in this year's annual elections. But how Aceh went from basic Islamic law to endorsing stoning in a few short years shows how a small, radical minority has successfully pushed its agenda, locally and nationally, by cowing political and religious moderates.
Though extreme, Aceh is not an isolated case. In recent years, as part of a decentralization of power away from Jakarta, at least 50 local governments have used their new authority to to pass Shariah-based regulations regarding conduct and dress, though none have gone as far as Aceh to deal with criminal matters.
Or, to sum it up, a radical minority pushes stoning as basic Islamic law.
I've blogged about Obama and the face veil before. Speaking in an Olympian tone at least twice he endorsed it or, rather, supported its wearing as a civil right. He did it at the White House Ramadan dinner and, with more hauteur, in Cairo on June 4. He not only intruded on an intra-Egyptian dispute and on an intra-Islamic dispute. He took the occasion to slap down--it is true, without actually mentioning them--our French and British allies who had understandably less sympathetic feelings toward the hijab. I myself think (and have thought for a long time) that the American "live and let live" attitude to these cultural matters is preferable to any coercion in dress. But I don't live in Manchester.
Anyway, in yesterday's Financial Times, there's a dispatch from Cairo by Heba Saleh, "Egypt moves to curb wearing of face veil." This is a conflict within a civilization and doubtless much is at stake. The true progressives do not want the face veil and they not want the niqab or, for that matter, the burqha against which American and European soldiers are actually fighting in Afghanistan. If the Taliban wins, God pity the country's women.
Why is it Obama's business to render his ex cathedra judgements on matters such as these. Or maybe he's against the burqha but for the niqab. But he is president of the United States, which has an interest in a scientific and liberal enlightenment. Not in savagery or barbarism.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (46)
Marty, what is going on here? I am able to surmise that you do not care for Obama or his policies in the middle east, other than that, I am not so sure. Is there a specific policy you want changed, other than not supporting Israel in whatever counterproductive activity it sees fit?
Marty, what is going on here? I am able to surmise that you do not care for Obama or his policies in the middle east, other than that, I am not so sure. Is there a specific policy you want changed, other than not supporting Israel in whatever counterproductive activity it sees fit?
Veilure is not an option!
Veilure is not an option!
Come on, Marty, you know damn well that authoratarian Truth-Tellers like you wear a veil from head to toe---even when they are buck naked.
Or, perhaps, worse, you don't know it at all?
You observe the world through your ideological veil no less than those who demand that Muslim women observe it through a literal veil.
You hector, you taunt, you bully Obama for not joining you behind it. You accuse him, instead, of hunkering behind the skirt of his hippie white mother.
So, what was the biggest clue: being a hippie, being white or being a mother?
A clear picture begins to emerge:
A man sitting at a desk, hunched over a computer screen, glowering, seething; he is scouring dozens and dozens of news ... view full comment
Come on, Marty, you know damn well that authoratarian Truth-Tellers like you wear a veil from head to toe---even when they are buck naked.
Or, perhaps, worse, you don't know it at all?
You observe the world through your ideological veil no less than those who demand that Muslim women observe it through a literal veil.
You hector, you taunt, you bully Obama for not joining you behind it. You accuse him, instead, of hunkering behind the skirt of his hippie white mother.
So, what was the biggest clue: being a hippie, being white or being a mother?
A clear picture begins to emerge:
A man sitting at a desk, hunched over a computer screen, glowering, seething; he is scouring dozens and dozens of news sources looking for pieces to fit into his prefabricated assumptions about Obama, The Arabs, The Muslims.
Does anything else make sense by way of grasping his conclusion:
Why is it Obama's business to render his ex cathedra judgements on matters such as these. Or maybe he's against the burqha but for the niqab. But he is president of the United States, which has an interest in a scientific and liberal enlightenment. Not in savagery or barbarism.
george:
The veil = barbarism.
And he concludes this as, supposedly, a man on the side of "scientific and liberal enlightenment".
Aside to my colleagues here in The Spine:
With each passing day his posts become less and less distinguishable from JDs. Please, if you care about where this is all heading....talk to him.
george walton
I occasionally see women in burkas and niqabs at my local shopping mall in Jersey City. Those garments should be banned because they are demeaning face coverings and interfere with women's employment opportunities. It is questionable that all women wearing them are doing so voluntarily. It is how conservative Muslims bully women in Muslim communities all over the world. If a Muslim woman resists, she is deemed a whore and punished severely. Not only Muslim women, but also non-Muslim women, in countries with religiously mixed populations. It is part of how Islam invades the public space in hitherto non-Muslim countries: religiously required clothing, loudspeakers in mosques to broadcast calls ... view full comment
I occasionally see women in burkas and niqabs at my local shopping mall in Jersey City. Those garments should be banned because they are demeaning face coverings and interfere with women's employment opportunities. It is questionable that all women wearing them are doing so voluntarily. It is how conservative Muslims bully women in Muslim communities all over the world. If a Muslim woman resists, she is deemed a whore and punished severely. Not only Muslim women, but also non-Muslim women, in countries with religiously mixed populations. It is part of how Islam invades the public space in hitherto non-Muslim countries: religiously required clothing, loudspeakers in mosques to broadcast calls to prayer, shariah courts, "no-go" (to the police) areas in western European cities, attacks on other religions, etc.
Perhaps if Obama stopped listening to himself long enough to listen to others...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/09/...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxNzr-7_T-3s3sxIVBAk8...
Perhaps if Obama stopped listening to himself long enough to listen to others...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/09/...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxNzr-7_T-3s3sxIVBAk8...
Irony, "Veilure is not an option!"
...very punny!
Irony, "Veilure is not an option!"
...very punny!
As Edmund Burqa said . . .
As Edmund Burqa said . . .
Obsessed authoritarian george walton:
"Come on, Marty, you know damn well that authoratarian (sic) Truth-Tellers like you wear a veil from head to toe---even when they are buck naked."
This is bizarre. Truth tellers don't need veils, authoritarian or not.
Liars like George do.
His pretense to ambiguity is his veil and defense mechanism.
This vacuous post is another one of Walton’s “I post therefore I am” comments.
Obsessed authoritarian george walton:
"Come on, Marty, you know damn well that authoratarian (sic) Truth-Tellers like you wear a veil from head to toe---even when they are buck naked."
This is bizarre. Truth tellers don't need veils, authoritarian or not.
Liars like George do.
His pretense to ambiguity is his veil and defense mechanism.
This vacuous post is another one of Walton’s “I post therefore I am” comments.
jnordlander "Marty, what is going on here?"
Why do you assume that Marty doesn't care about the freedom of women in the Muslim world. Why do you think that his support for Israel and his Jewishness confines him to tackle only issues dealing with Jews.
Your view is a throwback to the antisemitism of the past, nordlander.
jnordlander "Marty, what is going on here?"
Why do you assume that Marty doesn't care about the freedom of women in the Muslim world. Why do you think that his support for Israel and his Jewishness confines him to tackle only issues dealing with Jews.
Your view is a throwback to the antisemitism of the past, nordlander.
Some chador Burqa, others would like to hijab him.
Some chador Burqa, others would like to hijab him.
Here is a German lingerie commercial involving the niqab. Apparently it is considered provocative and offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOSjKAvyCR8
Here is a German lingerie commercial involving the niqab. Apparently it is considered provocative and offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOSjKAvyCR8
Because it is offensive.
Because it is offensive.
"Because it is offensive."
Not to the woman in the commercial.
"Because it is offensive."
Not to the woman in the commercial.
molly:
Because it is offensive.
george:
As opposed to what?
Do not women in Orthodox Jewish communities also seek to cover much of their body in accordance with customs that embrace modesty in women?
Would not any number of modern feminists pick apart the roles women play in Judaic traditions over the centuries?
What Marty seeks to do [as always] is reduce the veil down TO savagery and barbarism. In other words, just another embodiment of Them. The great unwashed Arabs.
That's bigotry in my book.
And that is rather far removed from the enlightened point of view often associated with the liberal and scientific frame of mind.
george
molly:
Because it is offensive.
george:
As opposed to what?
Do not women in Orthodox Jewish communities also seek to cover much of their body in accordance with customs that embrace modesty in women?
Would not any number of modern feminists pick apart the roles women play in Judaic traditions over the centuries?
What Marty seeks to do [as always] is reduce the veil down TO savagery and barbarism. In other words, just another embodiment of Them. The great unwashed Arabs.
That's bigotry in my book.
And that is rather far removed from the enlightened point of view often associated with the liberal and scientific frame of mind.
george
Not to be confused with Burqa and Hair.
Not to be confused with Burqa and Hair.
b1462, that last one was for you . . .
b1462, that last one was for you . . .
To be enjoyed with a good niqabernet.
To be enjoyed with a good niqabernet.
Here is George again showing his ignorance and bigotry:
He says:
"And that is rather far removed from the enlightened point of view often associated with the liberal and scientific frame of mind."
As if "the scientific frame of mind" and liberalism were one and the same. He never heard of all those scientists who embraced fascism and communism and didn't have a liberal bone in their bodies.
And neither does George Walton.
Moreover, to be enlightened one must know something about reald history, and not pretend ambiguous history. And what does the autodidact know about science? How much experimentation did he do in the one man classroom of his mind?
George is neither enlightened nor scientific.
... view full comment
Here is George again showing his ignorance and bigotry:
He says:
"And that is rather far removed from the enlightened point of view often associated with the liberal and scientific frame of mind."
As if "the scientific frame of mind" and liberalism were one and the same. He never heard of all those scientists who embraced fascism and communism and didn't have a liberal bone in their bodies.
And neither does George Walton.
Moreover, to be enlightened one must know something about reald history, and not pretend ambiguous history. And what does the autodidact know about science? How much experimentation did he do in the one man classroom of his mind?
George is neither enlightened nor scientific.
Ambiguous people never are.
george derives his supreme confidence from his deep ignorance which he must preserve intact at all cost. He achieves this blissful state of hermetic insulation from facts and verifiable knowledge by bypassing language. He would be an interesting specimen to examine if he weren't so tedious and dull.
george derives his supreme confidence from his deep ignorance which he must preserve intact at all cost. He achieves this blissful state of hermetic insulation from facts and verifiable knowledge by bypassing language. He would be an interesting specimen to examine if he weren't so tedious and dull.
I'm surprised Marty isn't more fond of the Turks. If I recall correctly, not only do they ban veils, they have perpetual crises revolving around the right of women to wear headscarves in public. And, in what might be the most anti-religious law in any country that grants its citizens the freedom of organized religion, they ban all public displays of clerical garb. The Wikipedia entry for Ayatollah Khomeini has a photo of him during one of his earlier exiles in Turkey without a turban.
I'm surprised Marty isn't more fond of the Turks. If I recall correctly, not only do they ban veils, they have perpetual crises revolving around the right of women to wear headscarves in public. And, in what might be the most anti-religious law in any country that grants its citizens the freedom of organized religion, they ban all public displays of clerical garb. The Wikipedia entry for Ayatollah Khomeini has a photo of him during one of his earlier exiles in Turkey without a turban.
Jackson: It's offensive because it mocks Muslim customs. Did they really need to show a mostly naked woman who appears to be of Arab decent to make their point? They knew damn well they'd piss off muslims and yet they chose to do it anyway. Not to make a political point but to make money. It was unnecessary.
George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actually read Peretz's posts.
The problem with banning these veils is that it really isn't going to do much to help the women. Firstly because I'm sure many want to be covered up. Secondly because it's not about the veil and being bul ... view full comment
Jackson: It's offensive because it mocks Muslim customs. Did they really need to show a mostly naked woman who appears to be of Arab decent to make their point? They knew damn well they'd piss off muslims and yet they chose to do it anyway. Not to make a political point but to make money. It was unnecessary.
George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actually read Peretz's posts.
The problem with banning these veils is that it really isn't going to do much to help the women. Firstly because I'm sure many want to be covered up. Secondly because it's not about the veil and being bullied into it--it's about the culture. Veil or no veil, most women in the middle East are oppressed. Whether or not they are veiled. But women's rights is not Egypt's concern. They're terrified of extremism. And to them, women burkhas equals Islamic revolution.
molly:
George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actually read Peretz's posts.
gw:
In the business that's called CYA.
Of course he is going to throw stuff like that in occasionally between the harrangues.
Think of it as you would, say, Alan Grayson speaking of "my distinguished colleagues in the Republican Party" on the House floor.
Yes, the veil is always a complex intertwining of the personal and the political. And lots and lots of cultures over the centuries have oppressed women. Most still do in any number of ways.
Now, maybe Marty is genuinely, passionaitely committed to ending this---all ... view full comment
molly:
George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actually read Peretz's posts.
gw:
In the business that's called CYA.
Of course he is going to throw stuff like that in occasionally between the harrangues.
Think of it as you would, say, Alan Grayson speaking of "my distinguished colleagues in the Republican Party" on the House floor.
Yes, the veil is always a complex intertwining of the personal and the political. And lots and lots of cultures over the centuries have oppressed women. Most still do in any number of ways.
Now, maybe Marty is genuinely, passionaitely committed to ending this---all over the world. Maybe that was the motivation behind the blog. All I can do here, however, is react to his post by asking myself, "Is it Muslim women he is concerned about first and foremost, or using the controversy of the veil to pummel the brutal savagery of Them."
In other words, let's be honest about this, okay?
george
" If I recall correctly, not only do they ban veils, they have perpetual crises revolving around the right of women to wear headscarves in public. And, in what might be the most anti-religious law in any country that grants its citizens the freedom of organized religion, they ban all public displays of clerical garb. The Wikipedia entry for Ayatollah Khomeini has a photo of him during one of his earlier exiles in Turkey without a turban."
You view of Turkey is not up to date.
Turkey has been slowly veering towards Islamicism.
"IRAN: Ahmadinejad, Turkish premier find common ground on nuclear issue"
October 28, 2009 | 10:26 am
view full comment
" If I recall correctly, not only do they ban veils, they have perpetual crises revolving around the right of women to wear headscarves in public. And, in what might be the most anti-religious law in any country that grants its citizens the freedom of organized religion, they ban all public displays of clerical garb. The Wikipedia entry for Ayatollah Khomeini has a photo of him during one of his earlier exiles in Turkey without a turban."
You view of Turkey is not up to date.
Turkey has been slowly veering towards Islamicism.
"IRAN: Ahmadinejad, Turkish premier find common ground on nuclear issue"
October 28, 2009 | 10:26 am
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/10/iran-ahmedinejad-f...
MOLLYSIMON
"Jackson: It's offensive because it mocks Muslim customs. Did they really need to show a mostly naked woman who appears to be of Arab decent to make their point? They knew damn well they'd piss off muslims and yet they chose to do it anyway. Not to make a political point but to make money. It was unnecessary."
So? Many shows mock Jewish customs and are offensive to me. Doesn't mean they should be banned or that the people who make them should be attacked.
Is it possible that some "Muslim women" appreciated the commercial?
"George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actuall ... view full comment
MOLLYSIMON
"Jackson: It's offensive because it mocks Muslim customs. Did they really need to show a mostly naked woman who appears to be of Arab decent to make their point? They knew damn well they'd piss off muslims and yet they chose to do it anyway. Not to make a political point but to make money. It was unnecessary."
So? Many shows mock Jewish customs and are offensive to me. Doesn't mean they should be banned or that the people who make them should be attacked.
Is it possible that some "Muslim women" appreciated the commercial?
"George: Marty specifically said a few posts back that he finds the covering up of Orthodox women equally offensive. It makes me wonder whether you actually read Peretz's posts."
Please don't answer the loony directly.
Of course he doesn't read any post closely. The bigot isn’t here to learn, he is here to indoctrinate.
Jackson,
Which shows mock Jewish customs?
Jackson,
Which shows mock Jewish customs?
"Which shows mock Jewish customs?"
Lots of them, I don't have a list handy, but some of them are also very funny.
Do you know the song from Singing in the Rain?
MOSES SUPPOSES
Album : Singing In The Rain
Gene Kelly & Donald O'Connor - 1952
"Moses supposes his toses are roses.....but
Moses supposes erroneously.....
Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses......as
Moses supposes his toses to be."
"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously
"But Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses,
as Moses supposes his toses to be!"
"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
As Moses supposes his toses to be,
A Mose is a Mose,
A rose is a rose,
A toes is a toes,
Hoopdedillydilly!
"Moses suppose ... view full comment
"Which shows mock Jewish customs?"
Lots of them, I don't have a list handy, but some of them are also very funny.
Do you know the song from Singing in the Rain?
MOSES SUPPOSES
Album : Singing In The Rain
Gene Kelly & Donald O'Connor - 1952
"Moses supposes his toses are roses.....but
Moses supposes erroneously.....
Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses......as
Moses supposes his toses to be."
"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously
"But Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses,
as Moses supposes his toses to be!"
"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
As Moses supposes his toses to be,
A Mose is a Mose,
A rose is a rose,
A toes is a toes,
Hoopdedillydilly!
"Moses supposes his toses are roses,
but Moses supposes erroneously,
Moses he knowses his toses aren't roses,
as Moses supposes his toses to be!
"Moses! Moses! Moses!
As Moses supposes his toses to be!
"A rose is a rose is a rose is a roses,
A rose is what Moses supposes his toes is,
It couldn't be a Lilly or a taffy-daffy- dilly,
It's got to be a rose cause it rhymes with Mose."
Imagine the outrage if someone penned a song about Muhammad's toes or nose or tail, or what-have-you.
My point is that outrageous against religion funny or vile shouldn't be criminalized.
Here is a small victory for Muslim women:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipuO23204915pjCRtzQYSZ...
via normblog
Here is a small victory for Muslim women:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipuO23204915pjCRtzQYSZ...
via normblog
I vaguely remember many years ago some Americans suing Raquel Welch for showing off her body in a swim suit made with stars and stripes. It was demeaning to the flag, they claimed. Not so, returned the judges, Miss Welch salutes the flag with the beauty of her figure.
I found the video I linked on this blog:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/10/germany-lingerie-ad-features-n...
I vaguely remember many years ago some Americans suing Raquel Welch for showing off her body in a swim suit made with stars and stripes. It was demeaning to the flag, they claimed. Not so, returned the judges, Miss Welch salutes the flag with the beauty of her figure.
I found the video I linked on this blog:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/10/germany-lingerie-ad-features-n...
"Which shows mock Jewish customs?"
Pretty well anything by Mel Brooks, a lot of Woody Allen, the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, and as jackson says, lots of others.
Re: ".... Not to make a political point but to make money..." I agree with the latter, but I'm kinda puzzled by the former. As Germany has a large Muslim minority, when I saw the commercial, I assumed that its main target demographic audience was Muslim.
"Which shows mock Jewish customs?"
Pretty well anything by Mel Brooks, a lot of Woody Allen, the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, and as jackson says, lots of others.
Re: ".... Not to make a political point but to make money..." I agree with the latter, but I'm kinda puzzled by the former. As Germany has a large Muslim minority, when I saw the commercial, I assumed that its main target demographic audience was Muslim.
I think it was for fetishists who dig muslim women. There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves and German admen making fun of muslim customs. It's plain culturally insensitive.
I think it was for fetishists who dig muslim women. There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves and German admen making fun of muslim customs. It's plain culturally insensitive.
I have to say I thought the same as b. I assumed it was directed toward Muslim women in Germany, e.g. people judge you on your outside garments but heh heh, if only they knew the real you underneath . . . .
I have to say I thought the same as b. I assumed it was directed toward Muslim women in Germany, e.g. people judge you on your outside garments but heh heh, if only they knew the real you underneath . . . .
"...There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves ..."
That reminds me of a quote I heard a very long time ago that goes something along the lines of "I may make fun of my (family?), but if you try to make fun of my (family?), I will surely punch you in the nose". Wish I could remember the exact wording.
"...There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves ..."
That reminds me of a quote I heard a very long time ago that goes something along the lines of "I may make fun of my (family?), but if you try to make fun of my (family?), I will surely punch you in the nose". Wish I could remember the exact wording.
MOLLYSIMON
“I think it was for fetishists who dig muslim women. There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves and German admen making fun of muslim customs. It's plain culturally insensitive.”
Oh “insensitive” how awful, let’s hang them.
It makes no difference if the artist is Jewish or not. An image ridiculing Jews is an image ridiculing Jews no matter who the author is. Religious Jews find Woody Allen’s images of Jews pretty offensive.
Muslims can object to the depiction of the women in the commercial, but they can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to stop it from being aired.
You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't, it's that simple.
MOLLYSIMON
“I think it was for fetishists who dig muslim women. There's a difference between Jews making fun of themselves and German admen making fun of muslim customs. It's plain culturally insensitive.”
Oh “insensitive” how awful, let’s hang them.
It makes no difference if the artist is Jewish or not. An image ridiculing Jews is an image ridiculing Jews no matter who the author is. Religious Jews find Woody Allen’s images of Jews pretty offensive.
Muslims can object to the depiction of the women in the commercial, but they can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to stop it from being aired.
You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't, it's that simple.
Since when do religious Jews find Woody Allen offensive? If they're really orthodox, they're probably not watching his movies. Anyway, Allen is not making fun of Jewish customs and Jewish law, he's making fun of the Jewish "condition."
Of course I believe in freedom of speech. I never said they should take it off the air, but why go out of your way to offend? Like I said, it's culturally insensitive. I'm ending my argument here. I have to get my kids ready for bed.
Since when do religious Jews find Woody Allen offensive? If they're really orthodox, they're probably not watching his movies. Anyway, Allen is not making fun of Jewish customs and Jewish law, he's making fun of the Jewish "condition."
Of course I believe in freedom of speech. I never said they should take it off the air, but why go out of your way to offend? Like I said, it's culturally insensitive. I'm ending my argument here. I have to get my kids ready for bed.
I watched the Coen Brothers the other day on Charlie Rose talking about their new film "Serious Man" in which for the first time in their career they made a movie dealing directly with a Jewish family. Charlie asked them if they were not worried that the explicit stereotypes they employ in this film would offend some Jews. They did not seem too worried. Nor did he.
In "Miller's Crossing" they had some Jews, a cowardly gangster and his sister, a hooker.
When antisemites mock Jews, they are much more serious about it, as in the case of the French stand-up comic Dieudonne:
view full comment
I watched the Coen Brothers the other day on Charlie Rose talking about their new film "Serious Man" in which for the first time in their career they made a movie dealing directly with a Jewish family. Charlie asked them if they were not worried that the explicit stereotypes they employ in this film would offend some Jews. They did not seem too worried. Nor did he.
In "Miller's Crossing" they had some Jews, a cowardly gangster and his sister, a hooker.
When antisemites mock Jews, they are much more serious about it, as in the case of the French stand-up comic Dieudonne:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/19/071119fa_fact_reiss/?print...
And in Barton Fink it gets more complicated, with the New York Jewish configuration melting in the LA sun. There Fink is the open-hearted Jewish socialist-humanist and John Goodman as the solid hardworking down-to earth midwestern Protestant American -- and also the psychopathic serial killer, of course.
And in Barton Fink it gets more complicated, with the New York Jewish configuration melting in the LA sun. There Fink is the open-hearted Jewish socialist-humanist and John Goodman as the solid hardworking down-to earth midwestern Protestant American -- and also the psychopathic serial killer, of course.
MOLLYSIMON "Since when do religious Jews find Woody Allen offensive? If they're really orthodox, they're probably not watching his movies. Anyway, Allen is not making fun of Jewish customs and Jewish law, he's making fun of the Jewish "condition.""
The same applies to Salafi Muslims. They wouldn't be watching tv commercials.
As for Woody Allen, he has made so many bad films that he is not worth talking about.
There is only one movie of his I thought superior and that was "The Purple Rose of Cairo." Some early films were funny, but nothing special.
Otherwise his imitation Bergman got a little old.
MOLLYSIMON "Since when do religious Jews find Woody Allen offensive? If they're really orthodox, they're probably not watching his movies. Anyway, Allen is not making fun of Jewish customs and Jewish law, he's making fun of the Jewish "condition.""
The same applies to Salafi Muslims. They wouldn't be watching tv commercials.
As for Woody Allen, he has made so many bad films that he is not worth talking about.
There is only one movie of his I thought superior and that was "The Purple Rose of Cairo." Some early films were funny, but nothing special.
Otherwise his imitation Bergman got a little old.
Come on, Woody Allen?
Allen was a fierce and forlorn atheist. And I suspect lots of faithful Jews will never forgive him for that.
Two scenes leap to mind regarding Allen and "being a Jew".
One, that caustic scene [for both sides] in Crimes and Misdemeaners when Judah, escaping the tortures of the damned he endures in the present [having sanctioned and then paid for a murder], visits his childhood home and recreates a Sedar in which the faithful and the not so faithful go at it over God.
The second, a far more entertaining confrontation between himself and his mother in Hannah and Her Sisters:
MOTHER(crying):
Why? Oh, my God!
MICKEY
I don't understand.
I thought that you would be happy.
F ... view full comment
Come on, Woody Allen?
Allen was a fierce and forlorn atheist. And I suspect lots of faithful Jews will never forgive him for that.
Two scenes leap to mind regarding Allen and "being a Jew".
One, that caustic scene [for both sides] in Crimes and Misdemeaners when Judah, escaping the tortures of the damned he endures in the present [having sanctioned and then paid for a murder], visits his childhood home and recreates a Sedar in which the faithful and the not so faithful go at it over God.
The second, a far more entertaining confrontation between himself and his mother in Hannah and Her Sisters:
MOTHER(crying):
Why? Oh, my God!
MICKEY
I don't understand.
I thought that you would be happy.
FATHER
How can we be happy?
MICKEY
Well, because I never thought of
God in my life. Now I'm giving it
serious thought.
FATHER
But Catholicism? Why not your own
people?
MICKEY
Because I got off to a wrong foot
with my own thing, you know. B-b-
b-but I need a dramatic change in
my life.
.
FATHER
You're gonna believe in Jesus Christ?
MICKEY
I know it sounds funny, but I'm
gonna try.
FATHER
But why? We raised you as a Jew.
MICKEY
So, just 'cause I was born that
way... You know, I'm old enough to
make a mature decision.
FATHER
But why Jesus Christ? Why, for
instance, shouldn't you become a
Buddhist?
MICKEY
A Bud--? That's totally alien to
me. Look, you're getting on in
years, right? Aren't you afraid of
dying?
FATHER
Why should I be afraid?
MICKEY
Oh! 'Cause you won't exist!
FATHER
So?
MICKEY
That thought doesn't terrify you?
FATHER
Who thinks about such nonsense?
Now I'm alive. When I'm dead, I'll
be dead.
MICKEY
I don't understand. Aren't you
frightened?
FATHER
Of what? I'll be unconscious.
MICKEY
Yeah, I know. But never to exist
again!
FATHER
How do you know?
MICKEY
Well, it certainly doesn't look
promising.
FATHER
Who knows what'll be?
I'll either be unconscious or I
won't. If not, I'll deal with it
then. I'm not gonna worry now
about what's gonna be when I'm
unconscious.
MICKEY
Mom, come out!
MOTHER
Of course there's a God, you idiot!
You don't believe in God?
MICKEY
But if there's a God, then wh-why
is there so much evil in the world?
What-- Just on a simplistic level.
Why-why were there Nazis?
MOTHER
Tell him, Max.
FATHER
How the hell do I know why there
were Nazis? I don't know how the
can opener works.
Or perpaps Professor Levy summed it all up best:
We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. it is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.
george:
And we all live happily ever after, right?
Except, of course, for Them.
george
another high sounding post by George Walton that gets it all wrong, but then he often gets it wrong.
He says:
"Allen was a fierce and forlorn atheist. And I suspect lots of faithful Jews will never forgive him for that."
I am not a faithful Jew (notice his use of Christian concepts in speaking about other faiths) and I couldn't care less about his aetheism. (Though doctrainare aetheists are true believers in the real meaning of the term.)
Allen as movie director is another matter: he is not original and he can be pretty repetitious and boring.
The particular film obsessed George sites is not anti-Jewish and can be read in more than one way. That is one of its problems. Films don't have single me ... view full comment
another high sounding post by George Walton that gets it all wrong, but then he often gets it wrong.
He says:
"Allen was a fierce and forlorn atheist. And I suspect lots of faithful Jews will never forgive him for that."
I am not a faithful Jew (notice his use of Christian concepts in speaking about other faiths) and I couldn't care less about his aetheism. (Though doctrainare aetheists are true believers in the real meaning of the term.)
Allen as movie director is another matter: he is not original and he can be pretty repetitious and boring.
The particular film obsessed George sites is not anti-Jewish and can be read in more than one way. That is one of its problems. Films don't have single messages as the ignorant George thinks.
"There Fink is the open-hearted Jewish socialist-humanist and John Goodman as the solid hardworking down-to earth midwestern Protestant American -- and also the psychopathic serial killer, of course."
I forgot about Fink. Don't forget the character of the crazy Jewish film producer. I thought when I watched him in disbelief: Here is a Jew constructed out of material in Marlon Brando's strange mind.
Woody Allen has been doing what he likes to do most and best, make films, all the time. His more recent ones, like Scoop, Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona, are very entertaining and highly watchable. And they also contain thought provoking moments. george's misunderstanding Allen is so typic ... view full comment
"There Fink is the open-hearted Jewish socialist-humanist and John Goodman as the solid hardworking down-to earth midwestern Protestant American -- and also the psychopathic serial killer, of course."
I forgot about Fink. Don't forget the character of the crazy Jewish film producer. I thought when I watched him in disbelief: Here is a Jew constructed out of material in Marlon Brando's strange mind.
Woody Allen has been doing what he likes to do most and best, make films, all the time. His more recent ones, like Scoop, Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona, are very entertaining and highly watchable. And they also contain thought provoking moments. george's misunderstanding Allen is so typical of the overreaching mediocre intellect of an undeconstructed antisemite.
Here is a second from "Scoop" that more than anything exemplifies his by-no-meansl ambiguous attitude to fellow Jews:
“Oh, I play the Bruce Harp.
-The Bruce Harp? I've never heard of it.
- Oh they used to call it a Jew’s harp, but you know how those Jews are! The slightest whiff of antisemitism and they write letters!"
Jackson,
So funny you should bring up Allen and Ingmar. I just happened to watch Another Woman last night and it was almost like a parody of Bergman. Yes, I agree, some of his stuff is awfully trite. Apparently Philip Roth can't stand him--says he's a sentimentalist. I personally think even his bad movies are at least entertaining. And I loved Match Point.
Jackson,
So funny you should bring up Allen and Ingmar. I just happened to watch Another Woman last night and it was almost like a parody of Bergman. Yes, I agree, some of his stuff is awfully trite. Apparently Philip Roth can't stand him--says he's a sentimentalist. I personally think even his bad movies are at least entertaining. And I loved Match Point.
" Apparently Philip Roth can't stand him--says he's a sentimentalist. I personally think even his bad movies are at least entertaining. And I loved Match Point."
Hated Match Point.
In any case, Philip Roth hasn't been that good lately either. he needs to slow down and stop writing the same long-short story again and again.
" Apparently Philip Roth can't stand him--says he's a sentimentalist. I personally think even his bad movies are at least entertaining. And I loved Match Point."
Hated Match Point.
In any case, Philip Roth hasn't been that good lately either. he needs to slow down and stop writing the same long-short story again and again.
My favorite Roth novel is Sabbath's Theater. Haven't read the past couple.
My favorite Roth novel is Sabbath's Theater. Haven't read the past couple.
molly:
I just happened to watch Another Woman last night and it was almost like a parody of Bergman.
george:
Jackson should love Another Woman. I suspect he only watches the earlier, funnier movies. He loves September too, I'll bet.
A parody of Bergman?
I can't help but hope that you will explain this to us.
It might even be funnier than Interiors. ; o )
gw
molly:
I just happened to watch Another Woman last night and it was almost like a parody of Bergman.
george:
Jackson should love Another Woman. I suspect he only watches the earlier, funnier movies. He loves September too, I'll bet.
A parody of Bergman?
I can't help but hope that you will explain this to us.
It might even be funnier than Interiors. ; o )
gw
"My favorite Roth novel is Sabbath's Theater. Haven't read the past couple."
It's a great work, Molly, perhaps his greatest. I also loved "My Life As a Man," an early novel.
"My favorite Roth novel is Sabbath's Theater. Haven't read the past couple."
It's a great work, Molly, perhaps his greatest. I also loved "My Life As a Man," an early novel.
A veil experiment
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/10/helsingin-sanomat-journalist-d...
A veil experiment
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/10/helsingin-sanomat-journalist-d...