Jacoby is right, of course, in refusing to panic over this weird goyeshe stuff, but you know something, it still creeps me out that a bunch of cult heathen would lay their hands – even as an idea which packs no halachic offense at all. Lay off my zeide, go baptize yo mama, is how I react.
I’m an angry, angry man.
Incidentally, while working on this piece, this new item came in from Boston.com:
Mormons baptized slain reporter Daniel Pearl.
Helen Radkey, the excommunicated Mormon who’s been combing through the church’s archives, said that records indicate Pearl, who was Jewish, was baptized by proxy on June 1, 2011 at a Mormon temple in Twin Falls, Idaho. That’s Daniel Pearl the Wall Street Journal reporter who was captured and killed by terrorists in Pakistan.
Now would Jacoby feel like he has to take a shower?
ALBERT BROOKS? TRY ALBERT SPEER!
Jews without a sense of proportion should be a category all by itself, or, possibly, a sub category of Jews with no sense of humor. But you know something? You be the judge.
Lawsuit alleges movie ‘Drive’ is anti-Semitic
Pontiac, Michigan, resident Sarah Deming sued CH Novi, Emagine Novi and FilmDistrict Distribution, after the September, 2011 release of the movie “Drive,” starring Ryan Gosling and Albert Brooks. It has so far made more than $35 million, and Sarah says it did it in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
She believes it was misrepresented in a movie trailer as a “race action film similar to ‘Fast and Furious.'” But instead of “high speed action, race driving or chase driving” she was offended by “predominately Nazi style anti-Semitic propaganda.”
Deming alleges “Drive” portrayed only Jewish characters as evil, murderous, dishonest and scheming.
But wait, Michigan readers, here’s your chance to make some change on the side: Deming’s complaint has been amended and now seeks to be certified as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who has ever bought a ticket for or purchased a copy of “Drive,” because the film advances “content that urges the consumer to murder Jewish civilians through overt, subtle and subliminal content.”
I don’t know – Albert Brooks an anti-Semite? Seriously? I don’t see this doggie catching no rabbit any time soon, but let’s keep on watching, and, like I said, if you’re in Michigan, check out the DVD, just in case you’ll be offended (now that we told you how), and make a buck.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH GUY GETS WATCHED BACK
Bill Van Esveld, a member of Human Rights Watch, was forced to defend his statements at a heated forum on Tuesday, after several members of his audience accused him of taking a biased approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arizona daily Wildcat (Damn, why didn’t we think of that name first?) reports in Rights advocate accused of bias, that Van Esveld, although stressing that both he and his organization are nonpartisan and concerned with prosecuting those who abuse human rights law regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion or otherwise, nevertheless clearly took the Arabs’ side Operation “Cast Lead,” the December, 2008 Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip that killed about 1,400 Palestinians.
Ken Miller, a graduate student in the Judaic Studies department , told Van Esveld: “A couple thousand rockets, mortars and missiles were launched from the populated areas in Gaza against the residents in Southern Israel. You’re not mentioning that at all in context with why Israel would go in to retaliate against Hamas in Gaza.”
As he continued, two pro-Palestine men spoke up. Soon, the three men were shouting over each other and Van Esveld was struggling to regain control of the discussion.
Finally, Van Esveld announced: “We do not try to say, ‘Yes, Hamas launched rockets for years, therefore everything Israel did was justified.’ We would say, ‘Hamas launched rockets for years, Israel is justified in launching a military campaign to stop rocket fire against civilians, but that doesn’t justify everything.’ You have to fall within the laws of war.”
Yada yada yada – the fact that a slew of international investigators gave Israel a fairy clean bill of rightfulness, and the one great detractor (Justice Goldstein) took it back with an apology – all of that did not change the essential stance of Human Rights Watch, which is, essentially, proportionate response. As in: if one robber is holding up a bank, Police must send only one cop to try and stop him.
