Welcome to The Cruelest Day: Tuesday, April 29, 2025, so tomorrow is the last day of the month. It’s National Zipper Day. Here’s a good short explanation of how zippers work, and I swear, I didn’t know until I saw this! Modern zippers were patented in the U.S. by Whitcomb L. Judson, a Chicago inventor, in 1892.
It’s also National Shrimp Scampi Day and National Rugelach Day, celebrating one of the few contributions of Jewish culture to world food cuisine. Here are rugelach cut open to show the filling of these crescent-shaped pastries:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the April 29 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*The Goose Won.
— Andy Craig (@andycraig.bsky.social) 2025-04-29T03:29:06.050Z
Mark Carney’s Liberal party won the Canadian elections, a consequential result that barely gets space in the NYT.
Prime Minister Mark Carney led his Liberal Party to a narrow victory in Canada’s pivotal election on Monday, securing a fourth term in power for the party and a renewed mandate to lead the fight against President Trump over trade and the nation’s sovereignty.
Mr. Carney, a former central banker who was running for office for the first time, struck a combative tone toward the United States during his acceptance speech in the early hours of Tuesday at a Liberal Party event in Ottawa.
It was unclear whether the Liberals would win a majority of seats in the next House of Commons, which would allow Mr. Carney to govern relatively unimpeded, or if his government would need to rely on smaller parties to support his legislative agenda.
Mr. Carney has not met Mr. Trump in person since becoming Liberal Party leader and prime minister last month. But he made Mr. Trump’s menacing comments about making Canada the 51st state and the tariffs he has imposed on Canadian goods the center of his campaign.
The two men held what was described as a professional call before the election, though Mr. Carney said during the campaign that Mr. Trump had brought up the 51st state threat during that conversation.
Mr. Carney has said that he will maintain Canada’s retaliatory tariffs against the United States. But he has cautioned that expanding them would harm Canadians more than they would pressure Americans.
. . . . . Mr. Carney’s victory was an extraordinary political comeback for the Liberals. Just a few months ago, they trailed the opposition Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre by nearly 30 percentage points according to opinion polls, and it was widely expected that the Liberals faced a near-death experience.
But that was before Mr. Trump began talking about annexing Canada and imposing potentially crippling tariffs on the country.
It was also before Justin Trudeau, who many voters had soured on after nearly a decade in office, stepped down as prime minister.
Early in the campaign, polls started to suggest that the Conservatives’ sizable lead had evaporated and that the Liberals under Mr. Carney might be headed for a decisive win.
The Conservatives were leading by over points a few months ago, but fear of Trump, and greater confidence that Carney would deal with the American President better than would Poilievre. We are losing our trasitional friendship and alliance with Canada, and it’s Trump’s fault. And it’s sad.
Here are the election results from the NYT:
It's really hard to overstate how hugely favored conservatives were up until two months ago.Here's the graph of Canadian polling between March 2023 and March 2025. (Reminder: blue is conservative.)Those are months and months of 20+ point leads for Tories.
*Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker seems to be stepping onto the road of being the next Democratic candidate for President. Yesterday he spoke in New Hampshire, and certainly made pre-candidate noises with an excoriating attack on Trump:
Pritzker was most searing in his condemnation of what he cast as the Trump administration’s infringement on the rights enshrined in the Constitution, stating that it should be easy for Democrats to say, “It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law.”
“Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now,” Pritzker said to a standing ovation accompanied by whistles and cheers from the audience. “These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box and then punish them at the ballot box.”
. . . .Turning to his own party, Pritzker argued that Democrats have spent too long listening to voices who “would tell you that the house is not on fire, even as they feel the flames licking their face,” and called out politicians “whose simpering timidity served as a kindle for the arsonists.”
. . . In a 2028 field that is likely to be dominated by governors, Pritzker has positioned himself as one of the most forceful and consistent critics of Trump’s actions while pointing to his record in Illinois as a template for improving the lives of working-class voters.
Pritzker has been a good governor, and attacked Trump early on. What is lacking in the speech above is a program for Democrats; all he says is that Democrats haven’t been sufficiently aware of Trump’s dangers. But that alone won’t win elections. It’s too early for Pritzker to start touting his accomplishments in our state, which are substantial and admirable, but up to now I thought he wasn’t interested in the Presidency. Now I’m not so sure, and I, for one, would be in favor of his candidacy.
*Reader Debra sent me the tweet below, and I was puzzled. It must have been a fake ad, right?
Why do you keep failing, @Nike? pic.twitter.com/AjEbj8WqWI
— The Mossad: Satirical and Awesome (@TheMossadIL) April 28, 2025
But no! A Spectator piece by Jonathan Sacardoti, “Nike’s ‘never again’ slogan is a disgrace,” reveals that, while it may be unwitting and hamhanded, it’s an “insulting and profoundly distasteful” reference to the Holocaust. (The “never again” slogan is well known referece to the mass slaughter of Jews during WWII.)
Fifty-six thousand runners completing the London Marathon yesterday may well have gasped the words ‘never again’ as they staggered across the finish line. I have never been a runner, but I imagine that even those who willingly endure the 26.2-mile ordeal must feel not only a profound sense of accomplishment but also, at the very least, a fleeting pang of regret.
Yet when I saw the Nike advertisement – hoisted from a crane like an executed Iranian dissident, swaying precariously in front of that modern-day emblem of our capital city, the London Eye – bearing the slogan “Never again. Until next year,” my mind immediately traveled to darker places. What, I wondered, has a running race to do with the Holocaust?
Only last week, my essay commemorating Yom HaShoah, the Jewish Holocaust memorial day, was published in these pages. It focused entirely on the solemn imperative embodied in the promise of “never again,” especially at a moment when Jews worldwide feel increasingly imperilled by a new, unashamed surge of hatred and discrimination. I argued that “never again” cannot simply be reduced to a catchphrase; that remembering the Holocaust is not itself sufficient to fulfil the pledge; that to honour it fully, we must recognise and confront contemporary manifestations of Jew-hatred.
. . .For a moment, I questioned myself. Perhaps I was overreacting. After all, can any single historical catastrophe – or any one persecuted group – claim exclusive ownership over a phrase? Perhaps Nike’s marketing team didn’t even think of the Shoah. Perhaps the creatives who conceived the idea – seated high in their glass towers – simply did not think along those lines. Never. Again. Just two simple words. What else might a runner exclaim upon crossing the finish line to collect a medal and a time slip? Perhaps their managers, toasting another advertising triumph over boozy lunches, were equally oblivious. Perhaps the technician who programmed the screen, and the team that hoisted it skyward for all to see, were simply unaware of the phrase’s gravest historical weight.
But then I remembered how upset it made people when anyone veered too close to ‘black lives matter’ or other popular slogans of our day. My anger only deepened. How could they? How could a giant like Nike – and all the many people involved between conception and execution – fail to recognise the most solemn and famous usage of those words? Or worse, perhaps they did, and decided it did not matter.
It is difficult to extend them the benefit of the doubt. It would have taken just one set of discerning eyes, one solitary voice, one ‘sensitivity reader’ to raise a gentle objection. Did not a single Jew suggest that it might be inappropriate? Did not a single non-Jew, with a grasp of history or an awareness of today’s climate, flag it? If not, why not? Was this ignorance, carelessness, or a chilling indifference?
Well, I will extend them the benefit of the doubt, simply because I cannot believe that they would appropriate a Holocaust trope to advertise a marathon. Perhaps Nike will issue a statement.
*Somewhat frustrated in his attempt to deport people, Trump is, according to the WSJ, preparing a list of “sanctuary cities and states” that don’t cooperate with the Administration in deportations. This is done, of course, so he can promulgate more deportations as well as punish those who try to protect undocumented immigrants.
President Trump plans to sign an executive order on Monday escalating his battle against Democratic-led states and cities that don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, a key barrier to the mass deportations he has promised.
The order, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, directs the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to identify within a month cities and states that aren’t complying with federal immigration laws, designating them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
The cities and states on the list could face a cutoff in federal funding and possible criminal and civil suits if they refuse to change their laws or practices.
“It’s quite simple: obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law-enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday at a briefing alongside Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar.
Trump will also direct the Justice Department to pursue civil-rights cases against cities or states that, in its view, favor immigrants in the country illegally over U.S. citizens. The order cites policies that treat immigrants more leniently in criminal cases or sentencing and state laws that provide immigrants in-state tuition rates at public universities but deny the lower rates to out-of-state U.S. citizens. At least 25 states have adopted such laws in some fashion.
Sanctuary cities and states have become a major obstacle for Trump as he has sought to drive up deportations in line with his campaign pledge. Most immigrants in the country tend to cluster in large cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and the administration has a tougher time arresting those here illegally if local police refuse to assist.
I wonder if the American people, seeing the kind of deportations that have occurred, will change their stand from the opposition to illegal immigration (a stand that helped Trump win) to an anti-Trumpism reflecting disgust with how he’s carrying out his campaign promises. There’s no doubt that the man is on a tear, and doesn’t have much to lose (save what reputation he has). I do agree with many who thought the “border problem” needed fixing during the Biden administration, but I can’t imagine a worse way of doing that fix.
*Here is a passionate 10-minute speech by Natasha Hausdorff on overcoming the international hatred of Israel. And it looks as if it was extemperaneous, since she’s not using or looking at notes. I always feel heartened that a person that I am on the side of a person this learned, smart, and eloquent.
The YouTube notes explain a bit: “Natasha Hausdorff, UKLFI Charitable Trust Legal Director, addresses the inaugural International Policy Summit of the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Jerusalem on Sunday, 27 April 2025, on ‘The UN and International Courts: Law, Legitimacy and Bias’.” (There’s a 12-minute interview with her at the same conference here.)
And, click on the screenshot below to see Fareed Zakaria’s take at CNN on how Trump’s assault on science, including discouraging immigrants who want to do science, is damaging America. Reader Pat, who sent me the link, describes it:
For his opening essay (take) on Sunday on CNN, Fareed Zakaria discussed the rise of science in the USA after WWII, the importance of immigrants to those efforts, the current dismantling by the Trump administration and the fact that those actions may have more long-term negative consequences for the country than things garnering all the attention, like tariffs. The video is 5:41 long.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is pensive. Malgorzata explains, “Just that some decisions have unintended consequences and it would be better without them. They were not neededas they made the problem worse instead of better.”
Hili: We have to make a few important decisions.A; Sometimes important decisions lead to unnecessary changes.
In Polish:
Hili: Musimy podjąć kilka ważnych decyzji.Ja: Czasami ważne decyzje prowadzą do zbędnych zmian.
*******************
From Duck Lovers:
From America’s Cultural Decline Into Idiocy: Look at that bill!
From Now That’s Wild. This cannot be real!
Masih is still quiet, but here’s JKR responding to a video interview, but actually she pens a long tweet in defense of classical feminism:
Women fought for years, not to pretend they weren’t women, but to seek to redress the wrongs done to their sex class because of their biology.
Women and girls are coerced, persecuted and controlled all over the world by the larger, stronger male. Even in our most liberal… https://t.co/5qkbZR8mRX
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) April 28, 2025
From Enrico: identity-based publication in the Harvard Law Review:
There really is no way to sugarcoat how illiberal and harmful these practices at the Harvard Law Review are. Similar practices have been in place at other elite law schools, alas. https://t.co/FAbkDidUia
— Nicholas A. Christakis (@NAChristakis) April 26, 2025
A funny one from reader Simon.
— George Conway 👊🇺🇸🔥 (@gtconway.bsky.social) 2025-04-25T18:30:19.432Z
From Malcolm. It’s very sad if true, but I always wonder if cats really express sorrow this way:
This cat’s best friend dies, & his human follows him leaving home & finds out he visits his grave. Every living being has a soul & knows love. pic.twitter.com/yB4pQwqSmh
— Hakan Kapucu (@1hakankapucu) April 18, 2025
From my feed. It’s 100 seconds long but listen to the whole thing—it’s amazing!
Imagine being lost in the woods hearing this pic.twitter.com/Q93t4RpJYe
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) April 27, 2025
From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that i reposted:
A Dutch Jewish girl, gassed to death upon arriving at Auschwitz. She was ten.
— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-04-29T11:53:37.082Z
Matthew’s getting some feline help with finishing up his biography of Francis Crick:
Pepper helping me with the last stages of proof-reading.
— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-04-27T11:40:01.876Z
A thread of store names with puns. I like this one:
This is my favourite, the bar is very close to where I live.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
This world is divided roughly into three kinds of nations: those that spend lots of money to keep their weight down; those whose people eat to live; and those whose people don’t know where their next meal is coming from. -David S. Landes, author, professor of economics and history (29 Apr 1924-2013)
So I figure the guy can afford it. It’s not his last six grand and the handsome service charge goes to working staff. But the real crime seems to me to be all that dosh yet only one bottle of wine for a party of six?! Jeebus. And a mediocre vin dore gold duster at that. At least as I read it.
Oh, and speaking of wine I do like “Brigette Bordeaux”
My question is, Who photographed as posted the receipt? Was someone proud of spending that much?
I see that two of the items are “Salt Bae Passion” and “Golden Tomahawk”. This suggests that this is one of the restaurants owned or inspired by that Turkish pseud Nusret Gökçe, aka Salt Bae, who has made a living separating wealthy idiots from their money by serving ordinary food gussied up with gold leaf, and ordinary wines at astronomical markups. Anyone sharing their bill in order to boast of having been ripped off in this way deserves all the ridicule they will get.
Edited: written before I read Mark’s comment at #4 below.
I don’t know why Americans would change their opposition to illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants should be deported, and those who interfere in violation of the law should be prosecuted (no one is above, or below, the law, after all). The fact that the Biden Administration actively worked to flood this country with illegals, without regard to whether they could support themselves or whether they were criminals (or, indeed, had been deported before), to the tune of ten million is monstrous. Those people have no right to be here, and, as investigations have shown, use huge amounts of public resources for support. Frankly, whatever happens is Joe Biden’s fault.
I agree that illegal immigration has been an enormous problem. However, it tends to preclude rational discussions and so many other divisive issues when the facts are exaggerated. According to a report by the GOP led House Committee on Oversight and Responsibility (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ogr_icymi.pdf), the number of illegal immigrants who successfully entered the country is in the range of 1.7 million (still an enormous number), not 10 million. And really, what did Biden do to “actively work to flood the country with illegals”? Was he recruiting them? Providing free transportation?
I don’t wish to get in the middle of a brawl about immigration (legal or not), but in fact the government did indeed provide free transportation to hundreds of thousands of people who came across the Mexican/American border in the Tucson sector (Pima County, Arizona) without papers. Our local government (Pima County), in tandem with the Catholic Diocese of Tucson housed, counselled and transported (from Tucson International Airport) on the government dole. It was big business. Pima County is waiting for payments promised by the feds but suspended by the Trump administration. Money flowed freely from the feds to Pima county during the Biden administration. Pima County went so far as to purchase real estate to house the endless wave of border crossers. Search “Casa Alitas, Pima County, Catholic Social Services, Diocese of Tucson” for more information. Sorry I’m not capable of providing hyperlinks. Simple phone. Simple user.
Edit to add: Congress needs to get off X and the news shows and get to work on sensible immigration reform.
Are you scared of brown people? I am not “in favor” of illegal immigration, but at this point can you even imagine the money and effort required to deport all non documented immigrants? And the subsequent impact of that loss on our economy? Instead of acting like a bully, why don’t we set up a system whereby we officially document and welcome these people into our society, with exceptions being made only for those who are either criminal or refuse the opportunity.
As for the claim these people use huge amount of public resources, that claim has been made my many, and refuted by others. No consensus exists, as far as I can tell, so using it as justification seems disingenuous.
This comment is uncivil, particularly the first sentence. Please don’t insult other readers that way.
And I gather that you ARE in favor of illegal immigration since you say we should welcome anybody into America save criminals.
First of all, let me apologize to you and DrBrydon for my comment. It was unneeded, though the original poster sure seems hell bent on deporting every undocumented immigrant, and I just do not understand why.
I understand these undocumented immigrants cause certain burdens on society. A friend who works as a superintendent in the local school district told me that the greatest challenge faced by the district is integrating non English speaking children into the classroom. But I believe that even in the deep red state where I live, most people want to help these people, not make them go away. And the burden is deepened by the fact that our area has a large Marshallese Island population in addition to the influx of people from Mexico and Central America.
And if your criteria for deportation is using more in government services than you pay in taxes, well, we should just deport New Mexico and West Virginia.
So what do we do? I see three options. Do nothing, status quo. Deport them all. Or try to integrate them into society by documenting them. I feel the last choice is the best for everyone. Why?
It is going to cost a lot of money and time to deport them. And if we deport them, the impact on the economics of our society are certainly unknown. If these people have jobs and contribute, what will ripping them away do?
I also feel the need to push back against policies that not only do not make economic sense, but potentially will promote cruelty. And don’t hesitate to believe that if a mass deportation program is started, the cruelest people among us will be the first to sign up for the job.
If that makes me in favor of illegal immigration then I guess I am.
Your first sentence undermines the rest of your not unreasonable points.
Shouting “RAACIST” is the last refuge of scoundrels.
D.A.
NYC
IIRC (maybe I’m not), there was a significant amnesty under Reagan in 1986. I’m less certain of my recall whether there was a clearly-announced resolve to minimize illegal immigration. Over the last couple of decades apparently not.
After the U.S. fulsomely welcomes current illegal immigrants, are you agreeable to the U.S. more stringently controlling immigration into the country? You don’t say. I reasonably gather that at least a few who legally immigrated into the U.S. have a problem with those who couldn’t and can’t bother themselves to do so.
“Why?” is a good question. The shift to support for illegals is evident in the media, but, why? If one takes the “follow the money” approach, the beneficiaries to the open border policy are businesses who can take advantage of cheap labor that must be quiet and compliant or face risk of deportation (You want to unionize? Try it and I’ll call ICE on you!).
As Chomsky pointed out years ago, business manipulates the media, so as a result a large portion of the population has been influenced by media to believe that these people are not illegal but rather undocumented, and have an emotional response against deportations that has been cultivated by this messaging. Add politicians (who love both money and power) in the mix and you get to where we are today.
Regarding Nusr-et…
Please read Jay Rayner’s review of the London operation.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/oct/17/jay-rayner-restaurant-review-kebab-kid-london-take-away-as-a-cult-nusr-et-steakhouse
Interesting that Nusr-et couldn’t make it and closed in Dallas.
An excellent and enjoyable article, Mark. Thanks for the link.
ALthough I know that the evolution of language is also true, “Shrimp Scampi” will always remain redundant to my ears.
Mine, too😬
Loved the birdie noises! Anyone know what kind it is?
On the other hand, the zipper-explaining AI voice was very hard to lusten to.
My guess is a starling (Sturnus vulgaris) I met one in a car park after a gig and we all had a pleasant chat with it. It had a bit to say for itself and went home with the guitarist for a few days.
Went home with the guitarist…brazen hussy😹😹
I think the bird is a starling, which are excellent sound mimics. But what is this one mimicking? Perhaps some are distant sounds of hammers or axes, along with their echos.
So, legal immigrants living in a state, going to college in that state, are charged for in-state tuition for going to college? Well, I did not know that, but to me that is to be encouraged.
There is a large amount of misunderstanding regards what category is legal vs illegal vs green carded vs others. There are many visa classes each with different attributes.
It gets worse: many Americans assume legal category by factors such as race/accent, etc. Seeing documents/passports etc. is the only way of knowing a person’s status.
And..
Generally… illegals have no recourse to public funds.
In some places they can still get drivers licenses (we want that!).
The system is (sorta) fluid and a bit differently applied in the real world depending on where we’re talking about. (“meat” and agriculture states, red v blue states, etc.)
I’m an immigrant myself and practiced a bit of immigration law years ago as a lawyer but I’m no expert.
D.A.
NYC
“Generally… illegals have no recourse to public funds”
That’s what the law says (generally). However, the law is not enforced. This issue was actually discussed over at mint.com some time ago. A common quote was “I would be fired if I actually checked the legal status…”. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is the rule, not the exception.
The following is from Professor Borjas, America’s foremost immigration economist.
“Los Angeles and Welfare
Having lived in California for a long time, I followed the budget crisis there with some interest. Last night, I ran across this item in Instapundit: “20% in Los Angeles County receive public aid.”
I am sure that I’m not the only one who’s noticed how almost all of the discussion over California’s budget problems managed to avoid using such words as “immigrant” or “illegal”. So I decided to do a few calculations using the 2008 Current Population Survey to follow up on Instapundit’s remark. Well, here are some interesting results for your perusal–no remarks are needed:
All statistics give the fraction of households in the LA metro area that receive some type of assistance–either cash, food stamps, or Medicaid:
All households: 20.9%
Native households: 12.7%
Immigrant households: 33.2%
Immigrant households with a citizen head: 26.4%
Immigrant households with a non-citizen head: 40.1%
Just to put things in context, 40% of households in the LA metro area are immigrant households.
(For the computing geeks amongst you who want to see the documentation, here is the computer file summarizing the results. The data is the publicly available 2008 March CPS file from IPUMS. A household is defined as a native or immigrant household based on the status of the household head.)”
Natasha Hausdorff is an incredible woman. I first heard of her via a Munk debate “Be it Resolved, anti-Zionism is antisemitism” in which she and Douglas Murray debated Mehdi Hassan and Gideon Levy. She and Murray made a great pair with their intelligence and eloquence. I finally got around to finishing the video posted here last week in which she spoke to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee, and I’m more and more impressed the more I hear her speak. She mentioned uti possidetis juris as the basis for Israel’s borders, and serendipitously I had just read over the weekend “An Open Letter To Open Minded Progressives” by Mencius Moldbug and he mentioned and explained the same concept. It’s a basis of international law that indicates that Israel is not a colonizer, at least from a basis of rule of law.
Re HLR: isn’t discrimination on the basis of race illegal?
If one is interested in uti possidetis juris with specific regard to Israel, I don’t think there is a better analysis than this one by Bell and Kontorovich, published in the peer-reviewed Arizona Law Review. Definitely worth the effort, imho:
https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/58-3/58arizlrev633.pdf
There is also a large amount of lecture content on the topic by Eugene Kontorovich available on YouTube.
The idea that the phrase “never again” is reserved for references to the Holocaust seems rather absurd.
I get really annoyed by these holier-than-thou fanatics who parade their righteousness by taking common words or phrases out of context to impute beliefs in other peoples’ minds.
Nicholas A. Christakis has some familiarity with this issue. He was attacked by a racist student (Alexandra Zina Barlowe). Yale actually gave her an award (the Nakanishi Prize) for attacking NAC.
My guess is that Pritzker will lose. He is too closely tied to the trans issue. My guess is that AOC will also lose. She is too closely tied to illegal immigration issue and the trans issue.
I agree about Pritzker. AOC does not inspire confidence nor does Bernie. I don’t want a firebrand or a Socialist or a cracker looking for a bar fight; I want a sane, moderate, grown-up and I won’t care if it’s a man or a woman, a Republican or a Democrat, I just want sanity.
The starling(?) reminds me of Attenborough’s lyrebird footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSB71jNq-yQ
Never again til next year by an athletic footwear company has to refer to what people say after completing a grueling marathon. What my dentist said after a bicycle hill climb race up Equinox mountain in Vermont, elevation gain over 3000 feet in three miles, I believe. I used to hike it, no way I was going to bike it.
Agreed. It’s what my friends and I usually say after doing one. “I’m never doing THAT again. Well, until next year anyway” or something akin to that. I’m pretty sensitive to a lot of anti-Jew sentiment and this doesn’t seem intentional, nor does it seem offensive in this context.
I’m unconvinced the Nike ad was antisemitic really, given context. (and I despise Nike as a corp). A case of barking up the wrong tree.
If you want to hear real, toe curling hatred towards Jews and Israel just about any mosque on earth (particularly in the UK) will provide a heap of hate. Or any Palestine march. Or Arab media generally.
Don’t over-react to non problems or coincidences when real problems are much graver. Pick legit battles.
D.A.
NYC
I agree with your points. I am no fan of Nike (to put it mildly). However, it has been 80 years (roughly) since the Holocaust. Folks under a certain age just don’t know what happened. My favorite example of this has nothing to do with politics, religion, or the Holocaust. My kids have never heard of a company called ‘IBM’.
Re “obey the law, respect the law”, the staggering hypocrisy and/or dumb-assedness is… is…. †
OTOH, maybe “the law” here is the law of the jungle, or maybe Roman lex regia, or lex talionis, or vendetta.
† My vocabulary and thesaurus both fail me on this one.
Regarding Canada-US relations, I doubt anything at all changed in how Canadians view our US neighbours. Look at it this way. A neighbour’s son comes to our place and breaks a window. Does it mean we begin to hate our neighbour? No, but we need to talk, and he needs to bring his son back under parental control.
I very rarely comment but you have dramatically underestimated what Canadians think.
Further your metaphor is miles off. It’s more like the neighbouring householder has shown intention of claiming our house and will do it by force beginning with economic force and then … Many Canadians are really really pissed. Not a single person that we associate with (family, friends, neighbours, club members etc) holds anything but anger and distain towards your country. Most will not travel to your country or purchase your goods although like others have pointed out I won’t refuse US lettuce if no other source is available. However given the choice the US produce will stay on the shelves until thrown out!
This is much much worse than negotiating a broken window mistakenly made that way during play and will take a very long time to resolve, certainly not within the next 4 years.
While I don’t think that most of the good folks attending this venue regularly are any part of the problem, and I highly enjoy the commentary as much as our hosts writing, your country has a huge number of people that are happy, some even thrilled, with the situation. Perhaps they just can’t see that it may actually hurt them more than us.
Thanks to Jerry and everyone here for the wonderful hour or so each morning!
The video of Natasha Hausdorff, a most impressive person, was spoilt for me by something that is increasingly common: intrusive and non-optional subtitles. No doubt the intention is good, presumably to help people with impaired hearing. Well, my hearing is pretty poor, but I have ways to manage this, and I can always turn on subtitles if I feel the need.
Isn’t Pritzker an oligarch?