Alyssa Milano repudiates the anti-Semitism of Women’s March founders

November 9, 2018 • 11:00 am

Alyssa Milano, the actor and activist (she was a prime mover of the #MeToo movement), has taken a principled stand that I have to admire even more, as it pits her against her fellow feminists who fall on the Control-Left. As reported by several venues, including The Independent and the left-wing Jewish site Haaretz, Milano has condemned two leaders of the Women’s March, Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory, and refused to speak at further Women’s Marches until those two leaders repudiate the anti-Semitism of their hero Louis Farrakhan. (Note that Carmen Perez, the third of four founders of the Women’s March, also admires the looney Farrakhan.)

As I’ve mentioned several times, Sarsour, Perez, and (especially) Mallory are unapologetic in their admiration of Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam (the Black Muslims) and one of the worst and most vocal anti-Semites in America (see here, here, here, and here). Farrakhan is also a homophobe.

Farrakhan on one hand vs. Jews and gays on the other: this poses a dilemma for intersectional feminists and control-Leftists. That’s because Farrakhan is black, but homophobia and anti-Semitism are not supposed to be part of the intersectionalist agenda.

Yet the resolution is always the same: Jews and gays go under the bus in favor of blacks and Muslims—presumably because they’re people of color. And when a black man demonizes Jews, well, Sarsour, Perez, and Mallory just keep extolling him.

Make no mistake about it: Farrakhan and the doctrine of the Nation of Islam exude hatred of Jews, and by proxy so do Perez, Sarsour, and Mallory, even though they sometimes make propitiating noises to the contrary, as Sarsour did after the Pittsburgh synagogue attack. But those noises ring hollow (note that Sarsour pointedly doesn’t mention Jews):

But let’s have some kudos for Milano, who, as Haaretz reports, said this:

In an interview with the Advocate published last week, Milano criticized Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour for not distancing themselves from the Nation of Islam leader, who has repeatedly made anti-Semitic, homophobic and transphobic comments.

“Any time that there is any bigotry or anti-Semitism in that respect, it needs to be called out and addressed. I’m disappointed in the leadership of the Women’s March that they haven’t done it adequately,” Milano said.

Earlier this year, Mallory was criticized for not speaking out after she attended an event during which Farrakhan said “The powerful Jews are my enemy.”

Sarsour later defended Mallory from criticism.

“I will not sit back while a strong, bold, unapologetic, committed Black woman who risks her life every day to speak truth to power and organize and mobilize movements is questioned, berated and abused,” Sarsour wrote on Facebook. “I stand with Tamika Mallory every day, with every fiber of my being because she has so much of what we need in the movement right now to win.” [JAC note: Mallory called Farrakhan the GOAT: “The greatest of all time”.]

In the Advocate interview, Milano said that she would not feel comfortable speaking at the March.

“I would say no at this point,” she said. “Unfortunate that none of them have come forward against him at this point. Or even given a really good reason why to support them.”

Indeed! And much as I applaud the goals of the Women’s March, women themselves should, like Milano, disassociate themselves from the March until the three founders Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez denounce Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Especially in these times of purity tests, women should not be led by those who cozy up to anti-Semitic loons like Farrakhan. (Sarsour, who promotes sharia law, isn’t exactly a shining light for women’s rights, either.)

Sadly, we have Islamophiles like Glenn Greenwald calling out Milano’s principled stand. Why? Because, although she’s a women, Milano is white.

{Note that Greenwald is mistaken here: Milano isn’t demanding that the Women’s March “get rid of” Sarsour or Mallory; she’s refusing to participate in their activities until the two women disassociate themselves from Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.)
As Grania wrote in yesterday’s Hili post about Greenwald’s tweet:

My respect for Alyssa Milano goes up infinitely. My feelings about Greenwald were already less than complimentary, but now they sink even lower. Or as Greenwald would put it were the proverbial boot on the other foot: “Cisgendered white male mansplains to women what they ought to be thinking, tries to shame them publicly for having Different WrongThink.”

For me, people’s attitude toward Linda Sarsour is a touchstone of whether they’re truly progressive. If they admire her, they are admiring an anti-Semitic woman who favors the oppression of sharia law, all because she is supposedly an oppressed woman of color. Well, Sarsour is neither oppressed (she’s widely admired), nor is she a woman of color (she’s a light-skinned woman of Palestinian descent). Anyone who marches with or admires Sarsour is rubbing elbows with bigotry and hatred.

h/t: Orli

Two meals in Paris

November 9, 2018 • 9:30 am

Wednesday lunch was at a rare venue for me: a Moroccan restaurant. Le Sirocco, near the Gobelins Métro stop, was highly rated, but I haven’t been to a non-French restaurant in Paris since 1990. Feeling a jones for tagine and perhaps a break from heavy French food, this was the place to go. It turned out, of course, that the food wasn’t that light, but it was excellent.

The outside:

The cozy interior:

At the end of a three-hour lunch, the place—full shortly before I took this photo—was almost empty. But most of the diners, who appeared to be French businessmen, has spent at least two hours there. I don’t know how people can go back to work after a lengthy and copious repast!

Entrées: A Moroccan salad and a chicken bastilla, described as “Morocco’s famous chicken pie. A light, crispy warqa pastry shell conceals savory saffron chicken, spicy omelet stuffing and a crunchy topping of fried almonds sweetened with orange flower water. A garnish of powdered sugar and cinnamon adds to the fabulous blend of flavors.”

This “entrée” (in France an “entrée is an appetizer, not a main course, which here are called “plats”) was substantial enough to be a plat:

Lamb couscous (the two big pieces of lamb on the bone arrived separately):

Lamb tagine with almonds and prunes (the two white hemispheres are halves of a boiled egg). All was washed down with a bottle of Moroccan red wine

This is a good place, but service was slow as there was only one guy to take care of at least a dozen tables. Dessert was skipped in favor of excellent mint tea—a great digestif.

Lunch yesterday was at one of my perennial favorites: a superb restaurant which, at least at lunch, seems to get little business. Yet it’s one of the best reasonably-prices bistros in Paris, and the food is terrific and copious.

It’s the Auberge Pyrénées Cévennes, near the Place Republique, and I’d advise you to go there if you’re lucky enough to be in Paris. If you’re really hungry, get the cassoulet, but I bet you can’t finish it, no matter how hungry you are. This time I gave it a pass, much as I wanted to have it; but I also didn’t want to go into a food coma. A food coma ensued anyway.

The outside, on a drab and unpromising street, gives little hint of the gastronomic treasures within:

Entrées: A plate of charcuterie (the paté with pistachios, and the dried and undried hams, were particularly good), and a “light” Caesar salad with chicken and shaved cheese:

Main courses: A classic French dish (as seen in Anthony Bourdain’s trip to Chez Denise), blanquette de veau (veal stew), and pour moi the magret de canard, served with a side of whipped squash and potatoes. All of this was washed down with a pot (60 cl) of Beaujolais, the traditional small bottle served in Lyonnaise bouchons (bistros). This restaurant specializes in the cuisine of Lyon.

En dessert: chocolat pots de creme: very thick chocolate mousse/pudding, and Tarte Tatin (a tarte with caramelized apples), both served with a huge side dish of crème fraîche:

This all induced a serious food coma and a two-hour nap.

Friday: Hili dialogue

November 9, 2018 • 6:30 am

by Grania

Good morning! Welcome to the end of the week, I hope the weather is better where you are than here in Ireland where the the skies are black with rain, alas.

 

Today’s birthday candidates hail from all over the world.

1914 – Hedy Lamarr, Austrian-American actress and inventor of a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes that used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology (d. 2000)

1918 – Spiro Agnew, 39th Vice President of the United States (d. 1996)

1922 – Imre Lakatos, Hungarian mathematician, philosopher, and academic (d. 1974)

1934 – Carl Sagan, American astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist (d. 1996)

1950 – Parekura Horomia, New Zealand politician, 40th Minister of Māori Affairs (d. 2013)

 

Here’s a strange note from On-This-Day history, the first one managing to be Islamophobic and antisemitic at the same time.

694 – At the Seventeenth Council of Toledo, Egica, a king of the Visigoths of Hispania, accuses Jews of aiding Muslims, sentencing all Jews to slavery.

1620 – Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower sight land at Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

1861 – The first documented football match in Canada is played at University College, Toronto.

1872 – The Great Boston Fire of 1872.

1965 – A Catholic Worker Movement member, Roger Allen LaPorte, protesting against the Vietnam War, sets himself on fire in front of the United Nations building.

1967 – Apollo program: NASA launches the unmanned Apollo 4 test spacecraft atop the first Saturn V rocket from Cape Kennedy, Florida.

1985 – Garry Kasparov, 22, of the Soviet Union becomes the youngest World Chess Champion by beating fellow Soviet Anatoly Karpov.

 

2016 – Donald Trump is declared the winner of the US Presidential Election

 

Hili appears to be very enthusiastic about all the work ahead. Perhaps it is because the work is not ahead of her.

Hili: I’m looking at the schedule of tasks.
A: And?
Hili: There is plenty to do.
In Polish:
Hili: Czuwam nad kalendarzem robót.
Ja: I co?
Hili: Jest wiele do zrobienia.
Finally, on to the goings on of Twitter.
Christmas carols are different here in the EU

An heroic attempt to piss off the entire internet without mentioning politics even once.

Canid Twitter
Dogs can jump at least as well as cats

From the Aww, shucks section

From the lovers of the natural world

Felid Twitter

https://twitter.com/FluffSociety/status/1060607897401548800

It can only be, “Fly, you fools!”

Cartoon Twitter:

Catman!, although Jerry adds:  “This is an IMPOSTER! I am the Catman–the Angry Catman!”

A thread on an old Peanuts strip

Optical illusion

Interspecies love Twitter:

Political satire Twitter

Mark Hamill strikes back at this tweet from you-know-who.

When you literally have a frog in your throat

 

 

Hat-tip: Matthew

 

Paris: Random photos

November 8, 2018 • 11:30 am

I’ve had two big feeds that I haven’t reported on, but stay tuned. Here are some photos of things that got my attention in Paris:

The church of Sacré-Coeur, sitting atop a hill in Paris, affords a great view of the city. It was finished in 1914:

Among; the touristy streets at its base is a very weird shop: it sells coffee and access to restrooms. “Coffee, Peepee, and Me”!

The Eiffel Tower; this is the first time I’ve ever gone to the base (but I didn’t ascend):

View from right underneath. You can’t see all the way up because of the restaurant Le Jules Verne on the first of the three levels. The restaurant’s supposed to be not too bad.

There’s lovely landscaping at the base, and two ponds, both of which had MALLARDS! Can you spot the mallard here?

The Conciergerie is the former royal palace in Paris, and was used during the Revolution to house prisoners, including those who were decapitated in what is now the Place de la Concorde. But back then it was known as the Place de La Révolution, and among those who got the close shave there were King Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette, as well as Princess Élisabeth of France, Charlotte Corday, Madame du Barry, Georges Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Antoine Lavoisier, Maximilien Robespierre, Louis de Saint-Just, and Olympe de Gouges.

This is the “woman’s yard” of the prison where female prisoners were allowed to get some air during the day. I’m told it’s very close to the original appearance, and is on the original spot. Right off this garden, Marie Antoinette had her hair shaved to allow the blade a sharper bite:

The Louvre. Don’t go here for more than two hours at a time; there are 35,000 objects and paintings on display, and it will kill you to try to see even a fraction of them. Make several visits:

Don’t expect to see the famous masterpieces in solitude, either:

Many people go to the Musée d’Orsay for the wonderful Impressionist collection, but I also go for the fantastic Art Nouveau furniture. Here’s a couch and a bed:

Manet’s Olympia, first exhibited in 1865, caused a huge scandal because it was a painting of a prostitute, and one looking frankly at the viewer. This picture is from Wikipedia, and you can spot a cat to the right on Olympia’s bed. The cat close-up below is my own photo, proving once again that even a painter as talented as Manet couldn’t paint cats!

Le chat noir de Manet:

Two mallards: a small detail from a larger painting in the “Orientalism” rooms:

Some food for sale at the Bastille market (open Sundays and Thursdays), one of the best weekly or biweekly markets in Paris:

And the two buildings (completed 1910) that formerly housed the Samaritaine department store, an Art Deco/Art Nouveau masterpiece. The store closed in 2005 because of safety considerations, but reports say it will reopen this year (I don’t think so!) with a hotel, housing units, and stores.

Is age a social construct?

November 8, 2018 • 9:30 am

Race is now a social construct, gender is a social construct, and even species is a social construct (remember the “otherkins“, who identify as members of a nonhuman species?). Well, this is the logical result, as reported by the Guardian:

And why not? Mr. Rateband feels he’s being discriminated against because of his age and, more important, he feels as if he’s 49. And so he went to court:

A 69-year-old Dutch “positivity guru” who says he does not feel his age has started a battle to make himself legally 20 years younger on the grounds that he is being discriminated against on a dating app.

Emile Ratelband told a court in Arnhem in the Netherlands that he did not feel “comfortable” with his date of birth, and compared his wish to alter it to people who identified as transgender.

Ratelband said that due to having an official age that did not reflect his emotional state he was struggling to find both work and love. He has asked for his date of birth to be changed from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car,” he said. “I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.”

Doctors had told him his body was that of a 45-year-old man, Ratelband argued. He described himself as a “young god”.

LOL!

Indeed, the judge made an analogy between those who change gender because their their biological sex doesn’t match their self-image, but then the judge punted for no good reason that I can see:

The judge conceded that the ability to change gender was a development in the law. “I agree with you: a lot of years ago we thought that was impossible,” he said. But he asked the applicant how his parents would feel about 20 years of Ratelband’s life being wiped off the records.

“For whom did your parents care? Who was that little boy then?” the judge asked.

Ratelband, a motivational speaker and trainer in neurolinguistic programming, said his parents were dead.

He also said he was willing to renounce his right to a pension to ensure there were no unforeseen consequences of his age change.

But then Ratelband punted, too!

At the end of a 45-minute court session, Ratelband said: “It is really a question of free will.”

Here he is; he doesn’t really look 49, but some age-reassignment surgery could help:

I’m not sure what he means by it being a matter of free will, but if it’s libertarian free will, he’s wrong. Still, that’s of no consequence. Why shouldn’t someone be able to declare their ethnicity or gender or even species based on how they feel (Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who declared herself black, was the only person I know who couldn’t get away with it, but not for any good reason)—but not their age?

I’m only half kidding. Of course I don’t think Ratelband should get away with it (even though I’m nearly his age but don’t feel 68), but I’m not sure why. This is an era in which people are supposed to be able to declare that they are what they feel, and Ratelband’s demand is the logical consequence.

I’ll leave this to the philosophers, but remember that when Rachel Dolezal declared herself black (and I really do feel she identified as a black woman), it was the philosophers who said she couldn’t do that (see here, here, here, and also here).

Trans-ageism: the new frontier! As of December 30, I’ll be 49!

h/r: Grania

More insanity from the White House: Acosta’s White House access suspended, Jeff Sessions out

November 8, 2018 • 7:30 am

UPDATE: Apparently the video showing Acosta touching the aide was DOCTORED by the White House to make it look as if he gave the woman a hand chop. Here are the data; judge for yourself:

https://twitter.com/DanaSchwartzzz/status/1060400848474263552

and

_______________

 

I watched “President” Trump’s press conference last night, and was appalled at his hostility, evasiveness, and narcissism. It was beneath even the bottom-of-the-barrel expectations I had of the man.

One of the “highlights” of that conference—if you can call it a highlight—was Trump’s confrontation with CNN’s Jim Acosta, who was reasonable but challenging, as a White House reporter should be. You surely know about this heated exchange, in which Trump treats a respected reporter as if the President was a grumpy father and the reporter a spoiled kid:

I thought Acosta’s behavior was proper for a reporter who wanted his questions answered, and his refusal to sit down courageous but also necessary. Trump piled invective on the hapless reporter, calling him a “rude, terrible person”. That was completely uncalled-for, and, as far as I know, completely untrue as well.

In response to Acosta’s persistent questioning, as CNN reports, Acosta’s press pass to the White House has been suspended. The reason? When a White House aide tried to remove the microphone from Acosta’s hands, he wouldn’t give it up. That enraged Trump, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of “putting his hands on a young woman.” This, as you can see, shows that’s not true (he does touch her, but it wasn’t a hostile gesture [ADDENDUM by JAC: the video was apparently doctored by the White House; see the update at the top.]

 

From CNN:

“President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration,” she said. “We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern. This conduct is absolutely unacceptable.”

CNN producer Allie Malloy responded to Sanders via Twitter: “This is a complete lie. The woman grabbed Jim’s arm repeatedly. He never once touched her. In fact at one point @Acosta tells her politely ‘pardon me, mam’ as she’s yanking on his arm.”

Acosta also tweeted that Sanders’ description of the incident was a “lie.”

Here are two tweets from Acosta, one showing the Secret Service removing his press pass:

and:

And some reactions:

Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, said on Twitter: “This is something I’ve never seen since I started covering the White House in 1996. Other presidents did not fear tough questioning.”

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), which advocates for the press corps, issued a statement soon after Acosta was denied entry, calling the revocation of his access “unacceptable.”

“Journalists may use a range of approaches to carry out their jobs and the WHCA does not police the tone or frequency of the questions its members ask of powerful senior government officials, including the President,” the association said. “Such interactions, however uncomfortable they may appear to be, help define the strength of our national institutions. We urge the White House to immediately reverse this weak and misguided action.”

Elisabeth Bumiller, the Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, said that “the president should not pick and choose who covers him, and he should certainly not force out a representative of one of the country’s leading news organizations, one that tens of millions of Americans depend on for their news.”

The rude and terrible person here happens to be the President of the United States, yet I suspect that many of his supporters will see his behavior with respect to Acosta as a stern response to a bullying press that purveys fake news. Much of the Right hates the press, as does Trump.

In other news that I haven’t yet absorbed, attorney general Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from supervising the Mueller investigation, was forced out and replaced by a “loyalist”, Sessions’ chief of staff, Matthew G. Whitaker, who has been critical of Mueller’s “Russia investigation” and will now supervise it. Whitaker could stop the investigation in its tracks or prevent Mueller from delivering a report to Congress. That, I think, would be Trump’s final undoing, for even Republicans have objected to Sessions’ firing.

From the NYT (click on screenshot):

This is eerily reminiscent of the 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” under Nixon, when Nixon had to ditch two officials whom he had asked to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, himself in charge of the Watergate investigation. Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus both refused to fire Cox, until Nixon got Robert Bork to do the dirty deed.

That wasn’t good “optics” for the President and helped bring him down. Likewise, this firing and its implications is terrible for Trump.  If Trump uses this to try to dump Mueller, we truly will face a Constitutional crisis. And I can’t see how even those Trump-ites who supported his execrable treatment of Acosta could excuse that.

So it goes. I’m going to clear my head in Paris and forget about politics until this evening.