Find Deborah Fink or BDS 'activists' disrupted Israel Philharmonic Orchestra proms concert

Here is a five minutes clip proudly presented by a gang of thugs that call themselves "London BDS". They titled this clip quite pompously:

BDS activists disrupted Israel Philharmonic Orchestra Proms Concert 5 times

Notice the reaction of the audience to their thuggish behavior.

Now your mission is to find Deborah Fink among the BDS gang.



Answer: no, you can't see her actually, but you can hear several times a sound akin to that of a big heavy door not oiled for quite some time or, possibly, that of a duck that is being slowly strangled by a boa-constrictor while being bitten from time to time by a dog. Check a sampler here.

More witness-produced details on the disturbance of the concert here and here.

The Larry Derfner issue

For some reason I have passed over the scandal caused by Larry Derfner publishing a vile and imbecilic post* justifying murder of Israelis by terrorists. In his later posted retraction cum stumbling and mumbling attempt at apology or, rather, explanation and self-justification, Mr Derfner has dug himself even a deeper hole.

Regarding the scandal, I warmly recommend the article Justifying murder – an abomination
by Isi Leibler, who does an excellent job of deconstruction.

Of course, being Jewish, I have to disagree with something in the article, so here is the sentence I wholeheartedly disagree with:

His obscene and callously insensitive remarks are likely to haunt him for the rest of his life.

I am afraid that Derfner's article, obscene and callous as it may be, will not haunt him. I am even more afraid that the effect Derfner's article obtained was precisely what it was supposed to get. Let's call a spade a spade: Derfner behaves exactly as it is expected from him, raising his obscenity level another notch and thus increasing the potential scandal value of his articles in JP. And thus being completely satisfactory to his bosses in this esteemed media organ.

Too bad...

Update: Apparently the scandal value was a bit more than JP was able or willing to bear and Derfner was fired. His own post about this event shows (thanks to Pisa), though, that he still doesn't understand what's wrong with him.

(*) Since then, Mr Derfner has (unwisely) decided to remove the offending post, so I've linked to a copy, which contains some comments.

Riding a bike while wearing a skirt - nope, not in NYC

First they came for smokers. Then for burger munchers and trans fats maniacs. Then it was the turn of salt licking fiends. After that, the donut-eaters-in-forbidden-ares got their due.

You would guess that by now a man like Bloomberg could relax in his office chair, comforter or whatever, sip his alcohol-, cholesterol- and trans fats- free vegetable cocktail with imitation salt and enjoy the scalps of all the above mentioned criminals gracing his office walls. And you would be wrong.

Because evil comes in myriad different forms and should be confronted, subdued and fined, no matter the dangers associated with acts of utmost bravery. Here is one unexpected evildoer:

Jasmijn Rickman, who ironically enough is a bike company general manager in Holland, was subjected to some cop harassment while in town for the New Amsterdam Bike Show last month. Riding her bike one day around the city, a police officer pulled her over and said that her exposed legs were "distracting the cars."

Yeah. If she is distracting even the NYC cars, imagine what does she do to the drivers...

Understandably, Rijcken didn't at first believe the police officer, . "I thought he was joking around but he got angry and asked me for my ID," she confessed to the Daily News.

No, dear Ms Rijcken, the cop wasn't joking. There is another city regulation says cops joking on duty is verboten, because it may interfere with their mayor's acid level. And then he may want to forbid some acid-causing foods, like pumpernickel* or ziti**. Or ice cream***...

(*) (**) (***) All these are random foodstuffs examples that are in no way associated with stomach acid percentages. The NYC managers are asked not to get their knickers twisted.

Yes, I've had sex with Rick Perry! And so have you - try to remember...

This is a public service, offered free of charge by this here blog and should be regarded as such.

Rumors about an interesting experiment in applied sociology reached yours truly today.

Robert Morrow, a conspiracy theorist who believes that George H.W. Bush was involved in the Kennedy assassination, bought a full-page ad in the Austin Chronicle (editor’s note: not related to the Houston Chronicle) this week inviting anyone to step forward to “publicize your direct dealings with a Christian-buzzwords-spouting, ‘family values’ hypocrite and fraud.”

Morrow is a Princeton-educated, self-employed investor in Austin who, as you might suspect, takes a dim view of the Texas governor’s presidential campaign.

As a person deeply uninvolved in internal US politics, I was, nevertheless, somewhat excited and even touched by this fresh approach, unrestrained by any norms of clinically acceptable behavior and, to tell the truth, looking like a source of some good clean fun.

The good Mr Morrow, though, limited his target audience:

“Are you a stripper, an escort, or just a ‘young hottie’ impressed by an arrogant, entitled governor of Texas?” the ad asks. Morrow said he’s confident that some women will step forward to discuss their alleged relationships with Perry (the fine print also invites gay men to step forward).

I have decided that we must go a step further: to apply to the sense of fair play of a much larger audience and to avoid possible lawsuits by ACLU.

To this end I have created a Facebook cause:

Fess up that you have had sex with Rick Perry

Every person, not matter what age, color, citizenship, occupation, education, culinary or sexual preferences is invited to sign up.

Let's fess up and start with a clean slate. And have some fun doing so!

Does British Labour need a new candidate for London Mayor?

And all these other rhetorical questions like the Pope pooping in the woods, Cinderella eating a pumpkin pie etc... Anyway, there is a good selection of references in that article in Engage.

The only detail I would like to draw your attention to is that quote from Red Ken:

It’s a simple choice between good and evil – I don’t think it’s been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.

This re his next year’s battle against Boris Johnson for Mayor.

I know that Red Ken isn't and will never be even a flea on the tail of Churchill's dog (if the old man had a dog - I'm not sure) and Red Ken knows it. But why does he want to imagine himself as the other one?

Beats me.

The intelligent homosexual's guide to avoiding frank discussion of a controversy

That.

Oh Roger, Roger...

I am really starting to pity the man... sorry, I meant Roger Cohen of NYT. No matter what he is writing about, he remains a man who rarely misses an opportunity to miss a point. Here comes a recent example: August 13, 2011, Mr Cohen declares in his article The Age of Outrage:

Perhaps the society dealing best with these dilemmas is Germany. It has invested in a highly educated work force. It has matched workers’ skills to jobs. It has continued to make precision machinery others can’t make. [And several more sentences starting with "It..."].

And here we are, only three days later: Germany adds to eurozone crisis. Guess what it is about?

Regular as Swiss clockwork, our Roger. Read his article, bet on the opposite of what he says and sing all the way to the bank.

Yup.

The importance of being balanced

I don't know what to say aside of: balance is important, of course, and yours truly has it (sometimes) in excess. I mean, it's considered a good policy here to bash every side of every issue. Smokers and anti-smokers, left and right, Israel and Palestine, rich and poor, Semites and anti-Semites, etc. After all, where we'll all be if we see and support only one side?

But do you know what? From time to time one gets a bit tired of the balancing act. So it's with somewhat guilty conscience that I have enjoyed (and would recommend wholeheartedly that you do so too, even if guiltily) that article with a sexy title Oh, snap! by Courtney aka GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD. Yes, the site where it's published is not hers, she was invited to that place. And for a good reason. Or, to be precise, good many reasons like this:

The most literate Arabs ever on the face of the earth (your choice — the Strip or the Ramallahopolis) pounding their AKM’s, K’Ssams, K’Tushahs and K’GRADs into laptops and stripper poles in a joyous celebration of a fully functional democracy where fun and free choice reign instead of ye olde whee tarded shame, honor, gendercide and revanchist revenge driven parasite enclaves with rocket rich rejectionists and West Bank victimisticism.

Nifty writing, one-sided or not. Good (if not easy, as usual) read too. But then, there appeared a professor (one Rex Brynen, probably this one) that chides Courtney thusly:

You've also failed to address all the pretty obvious moral, strategic, and political counter-arguments. The folks (of all political stripes) who discuss these things seriously soon get pretty tired of monochrome partisanship, and veer away from it. You could do a lot better.

Now, for the sake of balance and fairness I have to quote the good professor saying in his other comment:

Well, other than that whole ethnic cleansing/mass forced displacement thing in 1948, and that post-1967 occupation thing. I think they're a tad miffed about those.

Obviously partisanship and balance or lack of it are all in the eye of the beholder professor, and what is allowed to professor is, apparently, not allowed to Courtney.

Anyhow, the situation (is it a situation, really? dunno) described above, gave me a jolt. You see, it's just the other day that I have read, with a growing sense of... well, a sense that I don't really want to read it, an op-ed by Mr Nicholas Donabet Kristof at that bastion of... all right, in NYT. The title is:

Seeking Balance on the Mideast

And the messages of this op-ed are:

• Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street is Da Joo and you, in Israel there, better listen up when he talks!
• There are some good Jooz in US of A (about 78% of them all, what voted for BHO) and the other ones, the ones "who vote and donate based on Israel" (whatever it means, don't ask me) and "are disproportionately conservative". (I was totally discombobulated by this lack of balance: 78% vs what? 22%? How can 22% be "disproportionately conservative"?  Maybe they are trying to compensate for being so few and restore the balance? D'you wanna bet that Nicholas Donabet Kristof missed this point?)
• To vote for Israel’s right to defend itself by a vote 390 to 5 (in the Congress, I guess), is not a good balance. 
• And, probably, more of them messages, but I got enough by now, if you see what I mean.

Yeah... I can see where the game has to improve to get a grudging approval by NYT: Congress has to be balanced in its voting about Israel. A simple random assignment of the votes that will assure that 50% vote for each side will do. Well, maybe with slight variance from time to time - to spice the game a bit. The Jooz will be split in two equal teams: one for Obama and one for the other one, when and if. The money to be split equally as well (anyway, Obama will take care of  the "equally" part before late). Jeremy B.A. will still be Da Joo, balance or no balance.

Here is Mr Kristof:

Looks to me like a man who's definitely found his balance (well, a Pulitzer on each shoulder will do it).

So why it is that each time I open the page with that article, I see the same ad:

Something is out of balance there in NYT...

Now: please do a reset and go back to read that cool article Oh, snap! by Courtney. OK?

Trying to understand Amazon

In this statement:

We are getting so immune (or just so inattentive) to in-your-face salesmanship that some inane turns of speech like the ubiquitous  "free gift" simply escape our internal censorship. Like in this case: if the delivery is free, how come it is included in the $9.78? Or is it free?

And you thought senior cops don't piss?

Think again:



The story appears to be true:

The official examination didn't reveal signs of editing in the video, which captured a police colonel urinating outside his office.

Still:

However, the head of directorate requested additional and comprehensive verification, since the reported results do not provide complete and objective picture of what happened and, besides, causes and conditions that contributed to the emergence of controversial video, which caused great public interest, have not been established.

The name of the perpetrator, who was obviously blotto, is revealed: Colonel Alexei Isakov.

I am real busy, but this is objectively and completely uber-cool, so...

BDS and the unbearable lightness of lawmaking

To avoid unnecessary explanations later: this here blog has no time for the BDS creepy-crawly activists. However, saying this, I have to add that this here blog doesn't have any time for tsunamis, bubonic plague, droughts and many other wonders of nature as well. It will be safe to guess that most of the citizens share most of the above mentioned sentiments.

But what I don't understand and even take an exception to is the steadily increasing tendency of our lawmakers (or Knesset in other words) to cope with any phenomenon that is not to their liking by promoting a law that will forbid it. Such was the fate of the infamous BDS.

The bill makes publicly calling for a boycott that could harm Israel “economically, culturally or academically” a civil violation, which may carry a fine.

Additionally, anyone who calls for a boycott can be rejected from working for the state, and an organization that boycotts the state may not be considered a public institution for purposes of receiving state funding or tax breaks.

Do you get it? BDS, a campaign upheld by all kinds of foreign folks and causing some minor economic harm and heartburn, is outlawed now. In Israel itself, of all places. Unless, of course, our Knesset, in its infinite wisdom, has found a way to fine Naomi Klein (to take one example) and/or deny her some tax breaks.

Yes, there are some local supporters of BDS, unfortunately. These ones, however, aside of some vague and vacuous noise, don't really divest and sanction - producing only noise. As do many of the esteemed MKs. Noise of that kind, let's be frank with ourselves, no matter how annoying, is usually protected in all self-respecting democratic countries. Freedom of speech they call it, and I am not going now to delve into the murky waters of legal definition of speech. Or freedom, for that matter.

Apparently our MKs, when they are annoyed, tend to forget the little and inconsequential detail which is that word "democratic". Zealots tend to do it from time to time. I only hope that, as it inevitably happens with such idiotic attempts of gutsy lawmaking, this law will be stricken by the High Court of Justice as well. And that with passage of time we'll be able to forget the embarrassing situation.

Now about the wonders of nature to outlaw: what is your opinion about mosquitoes? This year the freaking monsters are really ruining my life, encroaching on many of my civil rights. So why not...

P.S. To give you  a sense of proportion: some of the lawmakers behind the bill consider Glenn Beck to be a softie and leftie. So there.

With drummers leading the way - or the march of the putzes

You can't make stuff like this up indeed.

Chomsky vs Chavez and/or Chomsky vs Guardian

Mastermind of the Century (the last one) decided to spice the current century. The story is simply delicious. It starts with an article by Rory Carroll where Chomsky criticizes Comical Hugo for his inhuman treatment of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, for his dictatorship, including hardly believable (for Chomsky) sentences like "Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy."

One might want to ask the Mastermind where has he been for the last twelve years, when Caudillo stripped Venezuela of its democratic institutions, building up his ersatz socialism. Weren't Chavez' intentions clear from the day one?

But let's go back to the story. Guardian, you see, was very excited for some reason about the rift opening between the hitherto best buddies: Noam and Hugo. So excited that the headline they've chosen says Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy. Which is a bit of exaggeration indeed: whatever Mastermind said is not such a scalding denunciation of Comical Hugo, rather a liver-spotted finger shaken in his general direction. Of course, our Mastermind, hilariously egged on by a blogger, blames the hapless Guardian in "extreme dishonesty". A classic case of pot calling kettle.

Well, the next act of the drama follows: The Guardian, hurt to its bone marrow by the accusations of the Mastermind (but also mindful of their previous clash with the latter) produces a transcript of Rory Carroll's interview. It's quite a boring reading and, to be frank, still doesn't support the headline that so riled the Mastermind.

So, we have here not only a rift opening between Chaves and Chomsky but also one opening between two important disinformation sources of the free world. Two birds and no stone wasted. Cool.

And, of course, as a bonus, the priceless correspondence between the Mastermind and Alek Boyd - the blogger mentioned already. Here is the second part of it. There are quite a few interesting passages in both parts, but I shall quote only a sentence:

The world needs to understand just how unhinged you, those you admire, and those who admire you, are, and these exchanges are just the perfect way to do it.

Indeed. I would suggest adding " and those who admire those who admire you" for completeness, but it's excellent as it is.

P.S. Still, I tend to disagree with Alek on Manning. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the man took the POTUS' dime.

This is a liberal nowadays?

I don't want to spoil the Independence Day for any of my American friends, but it so happened that I stumbled on two clips at the same time, and they must be seen to be believed. In the first one the current voice of what is considered "liberal" left, Janeane Garofalo, dispenses her wisdom to another guru, Keith Olbermann. Janeane has for a long time claimed that anyone who objects to the current administration in general and president Obama in particular is racist. Now she took it another step forward.



I hope you noticed the part where she rips into Clarence Thomas. If not, here is the essence of it:

...she goes on to accuse Clarence Thomas of "Stockholm Syndrome" because he is married to a white woman who is involved with the Tea Party movement and she questions why Clarence Thomas isn't insulted by her activities with this inherently racist group. You know, because Thomas, a black man, is supposed to think a certain way because he is a black man.

Now, please explain to us how that isn't racism?

I fully expected her to use the Uncle you know who at some stage. Hideously stupid and self-important creature is our Janean, isn't she?

The second episode doesn't require any explanation:



I remember times when Bill Maher was funny (ain't I ancient?) These days, in fact quite some time ago, he turned into some shriveled, creepy and poisonous parody of himself. What he considers a joke now could be found on the walls of public restrooms, where janitors are too squeamish even to erase some especially virulent texts.

Anyway,  these are two (or two and a half, Olbermann included)  shining examples of what is called "liberal" nowadays. I have always cringed at the liberal use of the term "liberal" by my right-wing friends. Most of the Americans today either forgot the true definition of the word or, in fact, adopted the wrong meaning from day one, without consulting a dictionary.

To use an example, Janeane Garofalo and Bill Maher are to liberal thought what Benito Mussolini was to communism. More or less. If these two are liberals, consider me a staunch Republican. Where do I sign up for a membership card?

Oh Joshua, Joshua...

This could yet become one of the famous court quotes:

I didn't know it was a water supply, I thought it was a sewage plant.

You can say it again, Guardian

Please take a look at the snapshot below and take a guess: what could make The Guardian so happy that they've decided to put up the same article twice on the page, albeit under slightly different headlines?

No prizes, sorry.

Ticketed for Eating Doughnuts? Oi...

This tragic story is another illustration of another draconian regulation out of the deluge descending on the good citizens of New York City.

2 women in Brooklyn receive citations for sitting on playground bench to snack

Watch that clip if you want, but the quote tells the story. My heart goes out to New Yorkers who are being smothered by the Big Brother.

I even consider to have a pastrami sandwich with beer, followed by a cigarette at one of these playgrounds. See what develops. Riot police with dogs? Helicopters?

Now there is another idea for a playground activity:



What would be the response to this one? Bloomberg in person with a machine gun?

Do lesbians exist?

Or are they just a rumor, like Yeti or Bigfoot, supported by a few ardent believers and writers of erotic fiction?

Just asking.

The Real Paula Brooks.

Hat Tip: Theo.

Dagan, Cole and gaps

In his latest piece Dagan, Ofer and Israel’s Growing Iran Credibility Gap Juan Cole, the notorious interpreter of Ayatollahs and the top authority on translation of various sticky Farsi sentences, boasts about the position on Iran he shares with Meir Dagan, our retired chief of Mossad:

In other words, ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s positions on Israel and Iran and the flakiness of Netanyahu in these regards are the same as those of Juan Cole, who has been pilloried by the American Likud for taking them.

In the same article, he says:

Iran probably wants what is called ‘nuclear latency,’ the ability to build a bomb in short order, as deterrence against attack, but probably does not want an actual bomb, which it considers contrary to Islamic law

I am not going into the list of fallacies in this quote (such as short order nuke), but still one question remains: does professor Cole share this opinion with Dagan too?

And, since we are on the subject of Iran, nukes and Juan Cole, I must mention this news (from The Guardian, to avoid accusation of using Zionist sources):

Any mention of an Iranian nuclear weapon is taboo in the Islamic Republic, which insists that its nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful, civil purposes. So it is remarkable, to say the least, that an article has appeared on the Gerdab website, run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, anticipating the day after Iran's first test of a nuclear warhead.

The valiant Revolutionary Guards gleefully anticipate responses of all major MSM outfits. That is, almost all, forgetting their cheerleader, Mr. Cole. Do you want to guess how will professor Cole re-interpret a sentence like: "Iran detonated nuclear bomb".

If not, your curiosity index is at its rock bottom...

Interview with the neighbors

I was expecting to find this article on OBL after a while. In this case the while was a bit longer than usual. But the expected inanity is there:

I found him gently spoken, humble -- even shy -- and extremely polite. It is difficult to reconcile these personal memories of the man with the fact that he presided over so much terror and destruction.

And:

At the age of 10, Osama's life was turned upside down when Muhammad Awad's private plane crashed and all on board were killed. The pilot who made the fatal error of judgement was American. It is possible that Osama's later antipathy towards the U.S. was compounded by this tragedy.

Mmm... delicious. Such depth of psychoanalysis given out for free in an Internet edition for all to enjoy!
And right now, to complement the picture, I've received an e-mail with a cartoon that just hits the spot:

OK. Two (or more) can play this game, I think. So here:

Adolf Hitler: he was a quiet, shy man, always drawing - and such beautiful pictures - and never drunk more than two or three beers during his dinner. Liked cats (or was it dogs, I misremember) and never passed a street beggar without an encouraging word or two.  I don't believe this person could...

Pol Pot: He was so cute with this scarf. And kept it always clean, even when eating rice noodles. I don't believe this person...

Benito Mussolini: He was a devout husband, loved his children and grandchildren. Always greeted his neighbors when meeting them on the way to his office. I don't believe this person...

Now that you got the principle, you can continue the list on your own. Good luck. And take a better look at your neighbors, please. Just in case you'll have to appear on TV.