June 16, 2011 - June 9, 2011
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Why Do People Hate the
Dirty little rats...
. I asked my closest Jewish friend to share the
experience of anti-semitism. He usually blows it off. No big deal. But
I said, "No. Really." He said, "Forget it." I said, "No, really." He
said, "Fuck you." And I said, "Please." Here's what he gave me:
It has been said that the history of
Jewish holidays can be summed up this way: "They wanted to kill us; we
won. Let's eat." Why has anti-Semitism been so pervasive in so many
countries, in so many time periods and for so many reasons? (One begins
to wonder. Perhaps there is something wrong with the Jews and Judaism?
After all, there is an old Yiddish saying -- "If one person calls you a
donkey, ignore him; if two people call you a donkey, buy a saddle.")
Between the years 250 bc and 1948 AD - a period of 1,700 years - Jews
have experienced more than eighty expulsions from various countries in
Europe - -an average of nearly one expulsion every 21 years. Jews were
expelled from England, France, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain,
Portugal, Bohemia, Moravia and seventy-one other countries.Historians
have classified six explanations as to why people hate the Jews:
Economic -- "We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and
Chosen People -- "We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they
are the chosen people."
Scapegoat -- "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for
Deicide -- "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus."
Outsiders, -- "We hate Jews because they are different than us." (The
dislike of the unlike.)
Racial Theory -- "We hate Jews because they are an inferior race."
As we examine the explanations, we must ask -- Are they the causes for
anti-Semitism or excuses for Anti-Semitism? The difference? If one
takes away the cause, then anti-Semitism should no longer exist. If one
can show a contradiction to the explanation, it demonstrates that the
"cause" is not a reason, it is just an excuse. Let's look at some
contradictions:Economic -- The Jews of 17th- 20th century Poland and
Russia were dirt poor, had no influence and yet they were hated.
Chosen People -- a) In the late 19th century, the Jews of Germany
denied "Chosenness." And then they worked on assimilation. Yet, the
holocaust started there. b) Christians and Moslems profess to being the
"Chosen people," yet, the world and the anti-Semites tolerate them.
Scapegoat -- Any group must already be hated to be an effective
scapegoat. The Scapegoat Theory does not then cause anti-Semitism.
Rather, anti-Semitism is what makes the Jews a convenient scapegoat
target. Hitler's ranting and ravings would not be taken seriously if he
said, "It's the bicycle riders and the midgets who are destroying our
Deicide -- a) the Christian Bible says the Romans killed Jesus, though
Jews are mentioned as accomplices (claims that Jews killed Jesus came
several hundred years later). How come the accomplices are persecuted
and there isn't an anti-Roman movement through history? b) Jesus
himself said, "Forgive them [i.e., the Jews], for they know not what
they do." The Second Vatican Council in 1963 officially exonerated the
Jews as the killers of Jesus. Neither statement of Christian belief
Outsiders -- With the Enlightenment in the late 18th century, many Jews
rushed to assimilate. Anti-Semitism should have stopped. Instead, for
example, with the Nazis came the cry, in essence: "We hate you, not
because you're different, but because you're trying to become like us!
We cannot allow you to infect the Aryan race with your inferior genes."
Racial Theory -- The overriding problem with this theory is that it is
self-contradictory: Jews are not a race. Anyone can become a Jew -- and
members of every race, creed and color in the world have done so at one
time or another.
Every other hated group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We
Jews, however, are hated in paradoxes: Jews are hated for being a lazy
and inferior race -- but also for dominating the economy and taking
over the world. We are hated for stubbornly maintaining our
separateness -- and, when we do assimilate -- for posing a threat to
racial purity through intermarriages. We are seen as pacifists and as
warmongers; as capitalist exploiters and as revolutionary communists;
possessed of a Chosen-People mentality, as well as of an inferiority
complex. It seems we just can't win. Now we know what are NOT the
reasons for anti-Semitism.
Now it's my turn. Jews aren't loyal to their host nations. They're
smarter in class. They go to law school and medical school, and they
still buy Merceds Benzes.
problem with them. And my
friend's, too, if he'd admit it. Which he does when I ask in a humble
voice. He's mad, too. He doesn't think Jews should own Mercedes Benzes.
He hates the German motherfuckers who build them. Like I do. Yes, he'll
drive one to impress a client in a business deal, but at heart he feels
like a man reciting Yeats to an Ulsterman.
But he's not comfortable with my idea, either: The Jewish-Celtic Kill the Arabs League
Dot com. I can't convince him it make sense. Irish and Scots have
nearly as much tribal history as the Jews do. And we've killed nearly a
hundred times as many people in our experience. In fact, there's
nothing we like more than killing people, notably English, Nordic, and
Sigh. Jews continue to be reasonable. Why the world keeps taking
advantage of them. As a Scot, and an American, I can't begin to
understand it. Whn I'm pissed off, I go for the throat, invariably,
unhesitatingiy, and always effectively. Ask Brizoni.
Here's what I know. If you or your opinions cause the Jews in Israel to
die, I promise I'll kill you. Even if you're a Jew. Don't forget it.
Not because I'm a Jew. Because I'm a bloody fucking asshole
Now my Jewish friend can take credit for what I said. We have a deal.
He makes the profit and I take my cut. Jews are smart. Scots are
Relentless. Remember that. As opposed to him. Who is, uh, final.
I'd never say a good word about him. Or he me. Tribes. The only thing
we have in common other than friendship. They dance around with shawls
while pretending to give us a hard time about skirts.
And if you or anyone else comes for the Jews on behalf of the
Palestinians, I promise I'll kill you all to the last man, woman, and
Friday, April 30, 2010
you believe it? Magic is, uh, deception.
Scientists in particular are quick to tell us there's no such
thing as magic, and professional magicians are fond of telling us the
same thing: what appears to be magic is only an illusion accomplished
by 'misdirection,' the ability of an illusionist to make you look at
what the right hand is doing while the left is operating in secret. The
intent, of course, is to fool your perceptions, so that you see only
what the illusionist wants you to see, which makes him godlike and you
a willing thrall.
But in this context, the word 'illusion' is really a stand-in for
'trick,' which is fine in show business but not so fine when it
pertains to matters of life and death in the real world. That's the
nature of the game being played with the new healthcare bill, and it's
encouraging that so many people sense it viscerally even if they can't
pin down exactly how the necessary misdirection is being implemented.
The good news is that we can pin down a parallel misdirection in
another area that pertains directly to real world life and death. So,
as I talk about automotive issues in the remainder of this post, think
healthcare. Precisely the same mechanisms are involved.
When it comes to cars, the federal government has been in the business
of 'magical' solutions for about 35 years now. It started with Carter
(!), who rammed Corporate
Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards through congress. Yes, the
government gets to require technological advancements (and consumer
compromises) by simply legislating they must occur. All in the public
interest (look at my right hand) while the actual result was the (don't
look at my left hand) Chevy Vega and the Ford Pinto. Both abominations
with good fuel economy ratings. The Vega was an unreliable, rust-doomed
lemon and the Pinto was a deathtrap.
Thank you, federal government. The main point of which is that the
federal government has been interfering in the automotive industry for
close to two generations while it declined and gradually, in
partnership with government, put itself out of business.
There's a big break in my personal history of the public versus the
government in American automotive history. I grew up as a South Jersey
motorhead with a bias toward sports cars as opposed to Detroit iron,
and I was therefore a devotee of a magazine called Car and Driver
, which played a
leading role in exposing the fraud behind the charges of unintended
acceleration levelled against Audi in the early eighties and was, when
I suddenly transplanted myself to Dayton, Ohio, leading the charge
against airbags -- because they weren't safe. Car and Driver
in those days
ascribed to a philosophy that automotive safety was best achieved by
skilled drivers and nimble, good handling cars. Their position on
Audi's supposed unintended acceleration problem was that there is no such thing as a car which
can't be stopped by its brakes
. Their position on airbags was
that they deployed at the exact moment when a good driver should be
engaged in maximum accident avoidance maneuvers. uh, you know.
Something about individual responsibility and the value of skill and
knowledge over government regulation.
Of course, as a motorhead in the midwest, I wound up being a consultant
for General Motors. I also learned that drivers in the midwest don't
drive. They steer. When I lived in Dayton, I was shocked by two things.
First, that weather reports for the Miami Valley were always accurate,
unlike the mercurial experiences of the Delaware Valley that
continually confound weathermen in Philadelphia. When Dayton's toupeed
weathermen said it was going to rain, it rained for days. Which makes
life predictable. And, second, that automobile accidents in the midwest
are incredibly, overwhelmingly, one
accidents. People suddenly lose control of their vehicles on
interstates because they've never learned anything about driving close
to other cars and trucks in traffic. Any
kind of closeness is too much for them. They don't know where their
fenders and bumpers are. Because their cars aren't anything but
appliances that are somehow supposed to protect them from all harm. I
remember a young Dayton lady who thought she was a hotshot
balls-to-the-wall driver in Ohio but suddenly stopped dead in the
middle of a South Philadelphia street and pronounced herself unable to
Well, I returned after a few years, as east-coasters always do, to my
home country. I picked up a copy of Car
and discovered that they had become devout exponents
of airbags. WTF. Now they were judging cars by how many
airbags they had. In the
interim, I had actually visited in my consultant role an airbag
manufacturer in Salt Lake City, whose engineers made it clear to me
just how delicate the technology was. It was an explosive device a few
inches from the driver. Nothing to be trifled with.
Yet we have been trifling with it for decades now, all in the name of
safety. Even before I went to Dayton, I'd been through the first safety
misdirection of the government, which had to do with a technology
an early attempt to save us from our own stupidity:
By the mid-1970s, auto manufacturers
modified the system so that a
warning buzzer would sound for several seconds before turning off (with
the warning light), regardless of whether the car was started. However,
if the driver was buckled up, the light would appear, but with no
buzzer. New cars sold in the United
States in 1974 and the first part
of the 1975 model year were sold with a special "ignition interlock",
whereby the driver could not start the car until the seat belt was
fastened; however, this system was short-lived.
Short-lived because people figured out they could either get the system
dismantled at obliging dealerships or defeat it for nothing by
permanently fastening seatbelts under their butts. If you didn't mind a
buckle lodged permanently under your ass, you had no problem.
Back in the old days, Car and Driver
thought "interlock" was pretty funny. They were libertarian
rapscallions who thought driving was the best thing in life. That's why
I was so disturbed to discover that they had become so pro-airbag. A
generational thing? Kids coming along who no longer understood the
danger the government posed? But I don't think it's that, really. I
think they're so intoxicated with advancing technology that they just,
er, forget that not everyone who's out there driving is a
twenty-something balls-to-the-wall type who knows the risks he is
taking and wants a last-gasp defense against the worst possible road
decision. They're still enthusiasts. Which is why they probably don't
AIRBAG INJURIES TO SHORT WOMEN DRIVERS
Short adult drivers, especially women, have been severely and fatally
injured by the explosive force of a driver’s airbag… even in low to
moderate speed crashes. Because of their short stature, from perhaps
4’10’’ to around 5’4”, shorter drivers need to adjust their seat
virtually to its full forward position. This places their chest and
head in close proximity to the steering wheel. And in the center hub of
that steering wheel is the stored airbag,
ready to explosively inflate in a frontal impact. The explosive
inflation can move the unfolding airbag toward you at 120 to 200 miles
per hour, and generate a force of 2,000 pounds.
Some of the initial accident case examples concerned shorter women
drivers, sitting very close to the steering wheel, who were fatally
injured when the explosive force of the airbag fractured their
ribs, which punctured and tore their aorta. The crashes were moderate
in nature, and the airbag was the needless cause of death in what would
have easily been a survivable collision. Some of the women were
shorter, older, and more frail… making them more susceptible to the
airbag inflation forces breaking their ribs, tearing their aorta, and
causing fatal injuries.
HOW AND WHY AIRBAG HAZARDS OCCURRED
How could such a prominent safety technology as airbags been
compromised, leading to needless deaths and injuries ? Airbags are not
a new development, despite the general public perception that airbags
are a technology of the ‘90’s. In fact, the development of airbags goes
back to the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, when the earliest dynamic: sled tests and
car crash tests by GM and Ford showed their great promise to reduce
traumatic injuries in collision accidents. There was anticipation in
the early-‘70’s that airbags would soon be installed. NHTSA had
rule-making, and the car companies in the U.S., Europe, and Japan were
all developing airbag systems for their vehicles. But top officials
from Ford and GM and Chrysler went to the White House in 1971, and
urged President Nixon to delay the then-pending auto safety standards,
including the requirement for airbags. The game plan was to delay,
delay, delay. A delay that lasted almost 20 years.
Thus, the pending 1970’s requirement for airbags was politically
shelved, and languished in limbo into the mid-1980’s. There was nothing
preventing car companies from installing airbags on their own. After a
Supreme Court decision in 1983 forced NHTSA to re-examine their latest
cancellation, the rulemaking process began again. NHTSA and DOT
responded with a 1984 plan to link mandatory buckle-up laws to a
decision about requiring airbags.
But without waiting for a NHTSA mandate, Mercedes introduced airbags in
some models in 1984, and Ford offered a driver airbag option in the
1985 Tempo. Then in 1988, Chrysler began to promote airbags as a
standard feature in most of their cars. This was a stunning turn-around
by Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca, who had railed against airbags for years…
including his criticisms made in 1971 in the Oval Office to President
Richard Nixon, who was thus encouraged to cancel an impending airbags
regulation to be phased in during the mid-1970’s.
No, I'm not
government wants to kill small, short, old women. I'm saying they are
killing small, short, old
women. In the name of SAFETY. And in the name of increased control of
our private decisions. Why have all parents become chauffeurs of their
own children, who sit in the back of the car like the "Little Emperors"
of China? Because airbags kill people, especially children, who now
have to be trussed up like little sacks of potatoes whenever we
transport them somewhere. Freedom. Get them used to being trussed up at
the earliest possible age because trussed up is their inevitable fate
in the new normal.
So, I have to admit, I gave Car and
the benefit of another look on the matter of Toyota's
unintended acceleration problem. By golly, here's what I found
Our tests were conducted at highway
speeds, as the incident with the
Lexus ES350 happened on an expressway, and in the lowest possible gear,
as that's the worst-case scenario. Here is how to deal with a runaway
Hit the Brakes
Certainly the most natural
reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal,
possibly with both feet. And despite
dramatic horsepower increases
since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an
brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring
under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70
mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against
them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the
performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and
just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100
mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be
sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a
feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph,
and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the
brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any
further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get
a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a
low-speed and relatively minor event.
The old defiance and technological arrogance are gone, but the
conclusion is still the same. Brakes stop cars. Hmmm.
Yet here's what the NHTSA has just released
All new cars would have to be equipped
with "black boxes" that record performance data and federal safety
regulators would be granted the authority to order immediate recalls
under newly proposed auto-safety legislation being considered by
The draft of a bill was released Thursday by one of the House
committees investigating Toyota's massive recalls for unintended
acceleration in its vehicles. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman
of the House commerce committee, and Sen. John D. Rockefeller
(D-W.Va.), chair of the Senate commerce committee, have said they
intend to collaborate on automobile safety legislation this year.
The draft contains a wide array of provisions. Some require new safety
features, such as the black boxes -- called event data recorders -- and
brake override systems that allow a driver to stop a car even when the
throttle is stuck open.
Other elements of the bill give the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration more power to crack down on automakers that break the
"Our initial thoughts on this are that Congress have given us a
legislative vehicle that has come fully loaded with all the options,"
said Gloria Bergquist, a vice president at Auto Alliance, the industry
trade association. "We are going to look at each one of these and ask:
Where are we going to get the safety enhancements?"
Love the black boxes concept. Our cars can report on us continuously to
keep us safe, so that the feds can intervene when we screw up by trying
to drive ourselves.
MEANWHILE. Gosh, the government loves us, don't they? Except that
cap-and-trade and new CAFE regulations are designed to force us into
smaller and smaller cars with higher and higher fuel mileage because
they love "the planet" a little bit more than they do us.
Which means, in the end, that they're asking us to make ourselves more
vulnerable to other traffic on the road. If you look at this Brit road
test of the diminutive, highly efficient "Smart Car," you won't get the
bottom line until the final 20 seconds of the video. Go ahead. Watch
it. It takes 5 full minutes of reassurance to get to the very
un-reassuring bottom line that the car might survive but the passengers
Worse, collisions on the highway tend not to be with concrete
walls that are no higher than the hood of the offending car. They tend
to be with taller obstacles like tractor trailers and buses. Which cause things like, uh,
decapitations. Especially when great big vehicles are contending for
the same space on the road as very small vehicles, which tend to be
invisible to drivers of llimos, trucks, and SUVs. (Don't tell me you've
never bluffed or muscled or IGNORED a smaller car out of the
way in your minivan. You do it without even thinking. The way you do
motorcycles. And I've been there
Pretty much, they
crap about the common man. It's a good bet that government officials
will still be able to buy the fantastically athletic BMWs. Audis,
Mercedes, and Cadillacs that will survive the death of capitalism, free
choice, and prosperity because they can avoid accidents rather than
survive them. Cadillacs are likely to be the first to go. As
the government strives to keep them in business as a source of
employment, GM luxocars are likely to begin resembling the automotive
products of that
other great government controlled economy, China. Which means they'll
look like and act like this (because we can't diss the need for full
Which, I guess, is why I can still give houseroom to this
kind of protest. (aside
from the fact that I know the man in the box pictured.) He doesn't,
can't, remember when driving was fun and a manifestation of American
freedom like no other. I have to feel for his naive feeling
that it might be something like freedom. It was.
Lotus 7. An open-wheeled, 1200 pound sports
car anyone could buy.
And here's a hint from the days when you were still allowed to love
cars because you could pilot them as if you were directing your own
But nobody's directing his own automotive life anymore. You're just a
rolling suspect. Are you protecting your kids from the airbags we force
you to buy? Is your carbon footprint bigger than what Al Gore or
Harrison Ford would approve of? So you actually love screaming
down the back roads under your own
Then what do you expect us to do with you when you are no longer
contributing to our
society? You carbon pig you.
They SAY they care about us with the right hand. With the left hand,
they do everything they can to put us in a drab, uniform tissue box. I just
wish the "man in the box" had had some experience of the joy they're
taking away before he ever got to feel it. I guess that's what martyrs
are really made of. Not the ones who know what they've lost but the
ones who know it only secondhand. God bless you, Peter.
Now think about your healthcare. With the government at the wheel. Are they going to save you from all pain and suffering? Sure. It's called magic.