Antisemitic, pure and not so simple

Do read the full version of Anthony Julius' and Alan Dershowitz' piece in today's Times on the boycott.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

European Parliament bans refutation of Protocols

Not much manages to shock me when it comes to European antisemitism. This has.

A month ago, Emanuele Ottolenghi, the Director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels, sent a copy of The Plot to every MEP and their staff. It exposes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for what it really is - an important task given that a version of the Protocols was published in French three months ago and was recently - briefly - on display inside the EU Parliament for sale. 
 

Yesterday, Emanuele received a letter from the Parliament's official courier saying that they would not allow it to be distributed 'due to the nature of its content'. In other words, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion itself could be available for viewing and sale, but not a refutation of it. (And of course, by knowing what was inside the envelopes sent to the MEPs, the EP officials must be censoring incoming mail.)

Emanuele asked an explanation from the clerk who wrote to him, and got conflicting excuses: they don't allow advertisements; the book had religious content; it had no relevance with the Parliament's agenda; etc. Even if they were true, none of these excuses would be relevant. As Emenuele put it to me: "Ultimately, it was clear that he was barricading himself behind excuses, but they really minded the content itself of the book".

An appeal has been lodged with the Quaestor in charge, Astrid Lulling MEP (from Luxembourg). But after 24 hours, she has not even acknowledged receipt of the appeal.

It beggars belief that this is how the supposed democratic hub of the EU behaves. It is, in the view of the authorities, clearly fine for the Protocols to be displayed, but not ok for MEPs to read a refutation of one of the most vile antisemitic libels in history. You might think it appropriate that Ms Lulling is told how wrong this decision is, and how she must overrule it. Here is her email address: astrid.lulling@europarl.europa.eu

And they claim to believe in democracy and free speech.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

An election victory of sorts

So Shimon Peres has, after 83 years, at last won an election. Sort of. It was MK's who elected him President, rather than the electorate. And the other two candidates had to pull out first. Still, Mazel Tov!

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

What is Facebook for?

I was invited by a friend to join Facebook yesterday, so I did. Try anything, I will. Now I might be one of those new-fangled blogger types, and I might be able to file via my Blackberry (although somewhat cack-handedly). But really, I have not the least idea what the point of Facebook is, other than to fritter away half the day looking at friends of friends and saying to yourself, 'oh, he knows her'.

Am I missing something? Or is that it?

UPDATE: It's clearly a Spectator thing to do at the moment.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)

Catweazle's uzi

Here's Peter Briffa's take on honour killings. And the Yazzmonster:

Is Yazza really saying that, God forbid (as it were) the noted scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins were to go into a mosque armed with a machete and in a frenzied attack loosen the limbs of a herd of mullahs leaving them to die a series of bloody, violent and painful deaths without an ambulanceman in sight, that this would somehow be more acceptable than say, Archbishop Catweazle wandering into the National Secular Society with an uzi under his cassock, and, whipping it out in a frenzied attack, thereby laying waste to some of Britain's finest freethinkers in a cocktail of carnage?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Goldbergs

I couldn't agree more with Clive about the Goldberg Variations. If I was only allowed one piece on that desert island, I think it would have to be the Goldberg (although possibly the B minor Mass or Mozart's C minor Mass).

I also agree with him about Dimitry Sitkovetsky's string trio arrangement, which grew on me, too.

(This is the perfect cue for me to reveal one of the greatest pieces of trivia I know. Stand by to be amazed. Astonished, even. Flabbergasted.

Dimitry Sitkovetsky has been to watch Chelsea play with this man.

Told you it was good.)

But if we're talking about adaptations, nothing comes close in my mind to Uri Caine's. I can't recommend it too highly - it's on Amazon here.

As for piano recorings: this Glenn Gould CD, which contains both his 1955 and 1981 recordings, is the steal of the century at £9.99, since either recording on their own would be worth ten times that. No music collection is acceptable without Gould's Goldberg!

There any other number of fine recordings - Andras Schiff, Murray Perahia et al. But the one I find myself listening to repeatedly is Angela Hewitt. In the days when I reviewed CDs, I came home with a batch of new CDs after a long evening out and put on Hewitt's recording to hear the first few variations. Eighty minutes later I took the CD out, having been held in total wonderment at her recording. It really is as fine as any recording of anything I've ever heard.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

It's Giuliani v Thompson, then v Clinton. Maybe.

Michael Barone's columns and blog are essential for anyone interested in American elections. Take his latest post, in which he compares the polls for the Democrat and Republican contests:

We've been seeing a lot more movement in the polls in the Republican race for president than in the Democratic. Stark evidence for that proposition comes from the Rasmussen Report's weekly updates. On Monday came Rasmussen's numbers in the Democratic race: Clinton 37 percent, Obama 25, Edwards 11. That's Edwards's lowest number since the poll reported February 19, but all three candidates have been running within a narrow range starting February 26: Clinton between 32 and 38, Obama between 25 and 33, Edwards between 11 and 18. Rasmussen showed Obama tied with Clinton on April 23 and 2 points ahead on April 30.

The numbers Rasmussen released Tuesday are a shocker: Giuliani 24 percent, Thompson 24, McCain 11, Romney 11. Thompson is running significantly ahead of where he has been in Rasmussen's surveys since his name was first included (in the results reported April 3). Giuliani is running significantly below the 33-37 percent level he had during most of February and March. McCain's 11 percent is his lowest number yet, and Romney's 11 percent must be disappointing to him after the 15-16 percent he was registering in the preceding three weeks.

Some Democratic columnists have noted, with just a bit of glee, that Democratic primary voters are more satisfied with their party's candidates than Republican primary voters are with theirs. That's an accurate observation, I think, and it's underscored by the apparent greater fluidity of Republican voters (or the greater viscosity of Democratic voters).

...It's not clear whether Thompson will hold up and prove to be what some significant number of voters think he is. It's not clear either that he's as strong a general election candidate as Giuliani and, to a lesser extent, McCain have been in general election polls. The generic Republican brand right now is a loser. Giuliani and, to a lesser extent, McCain sell better than the generic Republican brand. Thompson doesn't, which may only mean that he is not as well known.

It really is the most wide open race in memory. Neither party's candidate is remotely certain. Hillary looks more so, but there's still the Gore factor to, well, factor. And Obama may yet take wing. As for the Republicans: your guess is as good as mine.

But even assuming the current leaders win, and its Clinton v Giuliani: who'd care to call that one? Hillary with her 'anyone but Hillary' tag, and Giuliani with his 'anyone but Rudy' tag.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

A proper boycott

The estimable Jonathan Hoffman has come up with an appropriate response to the UCU's boycott vote - this memo to Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the University and College Union.

 

Dear Ms Hunt

 

Please forward this email to the 158 members of your union who voted for the boycott motion on Thursday 30th May. They are clearly highly principled people -- so they will want to be consistent. They will therefore wish to boycott all Israeli products, including those in the field of medical technology. You may wish to suggest to the 158 that they print off this email and sign and date the declaration below, giving a copy to their GP, providing one to their next of kin and keeping one about their person, in case of a medical emergency. Where about their person they might wish to secrete it is up to them, but suggestions can be provided.

 

*****************

 

"I [insert name here] declare that if admitted to hospital I do not want to receive any Zionist medical treatment developed in Israel or by Israelis, wherever in the world they may reside. This includes in particular the miniaturised, self-propelling, self-navigating and disposable colonoscopic camera called the Aer-O-Scope.

 

This Zionist technology was developed by Ben Goldwasser who founded the Israeli startup company GI-View in 2003. The Aer-O-Scope uses a balloon and air pressure to carry a miniature camera though the bowel. The camera boasts a feature called Omnivision - which enables 360 degree viewing of the colon, including inside hard-to-see folds where polyps tend to grow. A study, published as the cover story in the March 2006 issue of the medical journal Gastroentology, reported that in trials conducted in , the device made it through the entire length of the colon in 10 of 12 people. According to Professor Nadir Arber, head of the Department for Cancer Prevention at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and president of GI View's scientific advisory board, the Aer-O-Scope provides images comparable with those of a standard colonoscopy, but with virtually none of the discomfort. The idea of using a camera in a device that moves through the colon is not new, according to Goldwasser, who trained at Duke and the Mayo Clinic before becoming professor and chairman of the department of urology at Tel Hashomer Medical Center in the 1980s. "The reason others failed is because they tried to think of motion in a classical sense - as motion created by traction - whether it's traction on the ground when you're walking or traction on the road," he explained. "The colon is covered with mucous - which makes it slippery, much like ice. And like walking on ice, you have to glide. So the idea of the motion balloon came to us.

 

If you have a balloon that can change its shape and diameter according to the changing shape of a colon, it could work like a piston inside an engine's cylinder. Just like a cylinder is driven by the air pressure, if you take a balloon that accommodates to the size and shape of the area it's in, it can be driven forward." The device consists of a disposal unit with a rectal introducer, supply cable and scope contained within a scanning balloon, plus an automated console that directs the action under the guidance of a technician. The operator introduces the device into the rectum, and presses the forward button on the control panel. First the rectal balloon is inflated and then the scanner balloon with the embedded electro optical capsule is inflated. Pressure sensors within the workstation continuously measure the pressure inside, in front of and behind the scanner balloon. The console computer automatically controls the pressure in all three compartments and ensures that the balloon moves forward at the lowest possible pressure.

 

At any time during the forward or reverse motion of the scanner balloon, the operator may press the pause or stop buttons. Pause can be used to gain a better look with the camera or to change the direction of balloon motion. Stop can be used to instantly deflate all compartments, for instance if the patient requests a rest.

 

Should I need a colonoscopy, I wish it to be known that on no account should this Zionist procedure be used for me, painless though it is. I would like instead to have the former procedure used on me, namely a cold, large (2 feet long) and painful (made of steel) anal probe shoved up my rectum. If the pain gets too much, just give me some painkillers - provided they were not made or developed by Zionists ..........

 

Yours sincerely

 

(signature + date)"

 

 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)

Legal idiots

Libby Purves rips to shreds the Law Commission's idiotic proposal to give co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples:

Some couples – I know and love many – jointly decide not to marry. Good luck to them. They don’t whimper for new laws; if they are wise they make legal arrangements about property ownership (like becoming tenants-in-common with appropriate shares) and ensure joint responsibility for children. If they are not wise, then by definition they are fools. You cannot frame every law to suit fools, even fools for love.

As Daniel Finkesletin puts it:

A couple decide not to get married because they don't wish to make a commitment with each other in law. Now the state decides that they can't do this. They don't need to have guests, a reception and a cake with white icing, but the rest of marriage - the rights, the responsibilities, the legal bond - that they must accept. Whether they want to or not.

I prefer the old fashioned way, in which people decide for themselves when they should get hitched. Under the new proposals, a legal precedent will eventually be established which determines the exact moment when leaving your toothbrush at your boyfriend's flat established his right to a share of your income.

Brilliant, eh?

Establishing a legal link between a couple is what getting married is for. Why can't they just leave it alone?Establishing a legal link between a couple is what getting married is for. Why can't they just leave it alone?

I'm getting married in a few months. I've never been more excited about anything in my life (even, would you believe it, the thought of Major Miller's comeback race). But according to these dolts, my fiancee and I might as well not bother. 

It's easy to sound like some old fart when writing about marriage, but the Law Commission's proposals have nothing to do with righting a wrong or correcting an unfairness in the system, and everything to do with unthinking change for changes sake. Sheer genius: a law with no benefit. 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

Genius

David Aaronovitch has an interesting piece today on educating children. It reminds me of one of my favourite anecdotes.

The remarkably accomplished Ron Cass told me how, when he was 10, his father yelled at him in exasperation at something he had done: "How did you turn out to be so stupid?".

Without a  moment's hesitation, the ten year old Ron replied: "Inheritance or upbringing; you decide."

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)