A parody on Canadian television highlights the divisiveness of religion

April 9, 2018 • 1:15 pm

Diana MacPherson sent these two videos, one of which is a real commercial and the other a parody. As she says:

 I hope you can view these. It’s for “This Hour Has 22 Minutes“, a political and satirical comedy show in Canada. Here they make fun of religion as divisive based on an Ancestry.ca commercial about finding out about your DNA.

The show Diana refers to appears on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a government entity.

First we have the legit commercial—the one parodied by the satire below. It’s tribalistic and way over the top, but that’s how they’re sellling ancestry tests in Canada. (I wonder, as an atheist Jew who has ancestors in Galway, if I’d be greeted so warmly!):

And here’s the “This Hour Has 22 Minutes” parody:  [JAC: be sure to watch to the end.]

Can you imagine this being shown on any television station in the U.S., much less one run by the government? Ceiling Cat bless Canada!

It reminds me of this joke related by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:

A journalist, researching for an article on the complex political situation in Northern Ireland, was in a pub in a war-torn area of Belfast. One of his potential informants leaned over his pint of Guinness and suspiciously cross-examined the journalist: “Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?” the Irishman asked.”Neither,” replied the journalist; “I’m an atheist.”

The Irishman, not content with this answer, put a further question: “Ah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”

Trump supporters try to censor a drawing of The Donald with a small penis

April 18, 2016 • 11:00 am

Well, Australian-born artist Illma Gore, until recently living in the U.S., did a drawing of Donald Trump that has him and his supporters really riled up. The 11″ X 14″  image, done in pastel pencil, depicts The Donald in the nude, and with a Very Small Organ. You’ll remember the back-and-forth between Rubio and Trump about the size of Trump’s penis (see below), with the former asserting that the member was small, and Trump asserting that his genitals were just fine, thank you.

I’ve put a picture of Gore and her drawing (called “Make American Great Again”) below, and in deference to those who don’t want to see a nude Trump—or a small wiener—I’ve put the full drawing below the fold.

According to the Guardian, the reaction was strong, forcing Gore to leave the U.S.:

The LA-based artist has received thousands of death threats and travelled to the UK to escape the frenzy, agreeing to allow Mayfair to manage the sale of the controversial painting, now priced at £1m.

Cordelia de Freitas, Maddox gallery director, said: “It only really got out of hand when Donald Trump referenced it in a debate, which sums up Trump and his ego. From there, everyone wanted to see this image.”

Gore believes her work inspired Marco Rubio’s comments about the size of Trump’s hands at a Virginia rally in late February, where he said: “And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

On 3 March, Trump responded: “[Rubio] referred to my hands, if they are small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem. I guarantee.”

The drawing was originally offered for sale on eBay, but was removed after an anonymous person filed suit for violation of the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” I’m not sure what that is, or why the painting violates copyright. The Guardian continues:

. . . The Maddox Gallery in London offered to exhibit the painting after galleries in the US refused to host the piece due to security concerns following threats of violence from Trump’s supporters. Hundreds of visitors have queued to see the work.

Gore has been offered $100,000 for her drawing, and the asking price is now ten times that (this is going to make her career, I tell you),

12974545_774478576021932_2076025885708706839_n

So Trump’s supporters have converged with the Muslims they so hate: both of them become violent when their Prophet is depicted in an unflattering way.

This got me wondering, though. Almost the worst insult you can hurl at a man is to accuse him of having a small penis. But equivalent accusations that women have small breasts aren’t seen as nearly as damning. Why the difference? (I’m looking forward to the readers’ comments!)

Click below the fold to see “Make America Great Again.”

Continue reading “Trump supporters try to censor a drawing of The Donald with a small penis”

Angela Merkel trying to suppress free speech in Germany

April 18, 2016 • 9:45 am

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has shown some moxie in trying to make Germany do the humanitarian thing by absorbing many fearful immigrants from the Middle East. Many of her constituents don’t want those immigrants, and so her approval rating has dropped strongly in the last year, particularly after the mass attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

I’ve supported her stand, but now I want to criticize her about a different matter: her handling of free speech. As many of you probably know, a German comedian, Jan Böhmermann, wrote a scatalogical poem criticizing Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and broadcasst the poem on German television. I haven’t been able to find the poem, or even a transcript, as the clip has been removed. Many, however, found it not that funny, tasteless, and offensive on the grounds of both its nature and its profanity.

Böhmermann’s poem apparently accused Erdogan of being a pedophile and of copulating with animals; Wikipedia gives a bit more detail:

Böhmermann, among other things, called the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan “the man who beats girls”, and said that Erdogan loved to “fuck goats and suppress minorities, kick Kurds, hit Christians, and watch child pornography.” Much of the rest of the poem is devoted to associating Erdogan with various less accepted forms of sexuality. Böhmermann deliberately played with the limits of satire and said several times that this form of abusive criticism was not allowed in Germany.

German law generally favors free speech, but there is a notable exception: it’s against the law to insult foreign leaders. From the BBC:

Here’s article 103 of Germany’s criminal code: Defamation of organs and representatives of foreign states

(1) Whosoever insults a foreign head of state, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine, in case of a slanderous insult to imprisonment from three months to five years.

That’s absurd, and unworthy of a democratic nation. It’s as bad as a blasphemy law prohibiting the mockery of religion.

Erdogan, offended, protested to the German government and demanded through his lawyer that Böhmermann agree to never again recite the poem. Böhmermann refused.

To prosecute Böhmermann for violating the law, Merkel has to give prosecutors the go-ahead to start an investigation. Sadly, bowing to the desire to keep good relationships with Turkey, a crucial country in the immigrant crisis, Merkel did. At the same, time, though, she did this (report from NPR):

Even as she allowed the case to proceed, Merkel announced Friday “that her government will draft a proposal to replace the current law that criminalizes insulting foreign heads of state, making it ‘dispensable in the future,’ ” Deutsche Welle reported.

Well, that’s good, but by allowing prosecution of Böhmermann to go forward, with possible jail time, she’s blatantly violating the freedom of speech that should be part and parcel of German law. She could, without any penalty, have prevented the present investigation.

It’s clear that Merkel holds her relationship with Erdogan—an authoritarian bully who’s in the process of dismantling free speech in his own country—more important than the principle of free and unpunished expression. It’s a severe disappointment, and makes her tenure as Chancellor look increasingly tenuous.

549676487
Jan Böhmermann

h/t: Christopher

Gentiles must cease their relentless cultural appropriation of bagels

April 4, 2016 • 11:00 am

There is much talk about cultural appropriation these days, as oppressed groups are waking up to the great harm that has been done to them by PoPs (persons of power) who simply steal aspects of minority culture. This shameless theft has involved everything from mis-prepared General Tso’s chicken in college cafeterias to Americans being allowed to try on kimonos for fun—and even to dreadlocks being worn by white people.

It’s distressing that this rampant borrowing of foods, clothing, hairstyles, and behaviors from their proper cultures isn’t merely done, but done without acknowledging the oppression that historically weighed on the offended groups. The fact that General Tso’s chicken, for instance, is not a real Chinese dish should not distract us from the fact that it’s regularly enjoyed by Westerners wholly ignorant of the atrocities committed by the Japanese on the Chinese during World War II.

But one oppressed group has been the victim of rampant cultural appropriation without the slightest acknowledgement, recognition, or opprobrium. I am referring, of course, to the Jews.

Although cultural theft from Jews is rampant (look at the Yiddish words and phrases like “oy vey,” “nosh”, and “schmuck” that regularly litter the language of oppressive Christians), I want to mention perhaps its clearest instantiation in America—the pervasive consumption of bagels.

I’ll be brief, but I need to establish three things: Jews are an oppressed minority, bagels are a Jewish food, and borrowing foodstuffs from Jews is clearly cultural appropriation. That appropriation is, by the way, defined in its most Sophisticated Form as follows:

. . . a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.

And let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about Jews not being oppressed, regardless of your take on Israel. Historically, Jews are probably the most oppressed religious group, driven from land to land—and pogrom to pogrom—by Christians who viewed them as killers of Christ. Jews were, of course, nearly exterminated in Europe by the Germans, and still experience discrimination everywhere, including the U.S. Remember that only 0.2% of the world’s population is Jewish (in contrast, 22% is Muslim and 5% is Buddhist), and even in America Jews make up only 2% of the population. (I estimate that at least 94.7% of Americans have eaten a bagel.)

Therefore, any element of Jewish culture taken over by non-Jews is cultural appropriation, pure and simple. One might call it Gentile Entitlement.

I thought of this a few weeks ago when I was in a campus coffee shop and observed several students noshing on bagels with cream cheese—students who were clearly not Jewish. And as they shoveled the snack into their maws, they were just as clearly ignorant of the history behind that donut-shaped bread. How dare they be?

Bagels are an Eastern European Jewish food, and combining them with cream cheese and lox, while a later invention, is clearly a Jewish comestible as well. In an article in the Independent on the offense commited by white people who wear dreadlocks, author Wedaeli Chibelushi notes that the real problem is not just cultural theft, but ignorance of the oppression experienced by the co-opted group:

As the black actress Amandla Stenberg says, “appropriation occurs when the appropriator is not aware of the deep significance of the culture that they are partaking in”. By wearing dreadlocks without acknowledging their symbolic resistance, Goldstein reduces cultural power to a “cool” trend.  As part of the oppressive culture, he emulates minority tradition while bypassing the discriminations that comes with it.

But as far as that criticism goes for dreadlocks, it goes ten times farther for bagels. After all, not many white people wear dreadlocks, but nearly every goy eats bagels. Not only that, but even the concept of bagels as Jewish food has been stolen by Gentiles. Take, for example, the offensively named “Einstein Bros. Bagel” chain, a name conjuring up Jews (after all, it brings to mind the world’s most famous Jew after Jesus). But it’s a name that’s wholly confected. There are no Einstein Brothers: the name was made up by the Boston Market corporation to sell bagels.

It’s time to bring this to a halt. If you find yourself craving or ordering bagels, at least be mindful of the two millennia of oppression and bigotry weighing on the people who lovingly shaped each ring of bread. And think about how the genuine article, a small chewy circle, has been completely transformed by goyim into a large circular and tasteless pillow of dough. (The use of steamed rather than fried meat in General Tso’s Chicken pales before such corruption.) If these thoughts don’t occur to you as you have your bagel, you don’t deserve to eat it.

As genuine bagel eaters might say, “Hent avek aundzunder beygelekh.” (“Hands off our bagels.”)

bagel-lox1000a
This is Jewish.

The Stanford Review manages to offend everybody (well done)

April 1, 2016 • 2:39 pm

by Grania

It’s an April Fool’s joke, but it’s also satirical and rather pointed. It’s guaranteed to offend a lot of people who will claim they are skewering sacred cows; but at least this is pretty good evidence that #NotAllStudents are Special Snowflakes.

Like all good satire, it comes uncomfortably close to being indistinguishable from the real thing, while also being clearly absurd in other places.

 

stanford

 

Give it a read.