|
Post by timothylane on Jan 5, 2020 15:44:01 GMT -8
As I recall, Max von Sydow played Jesus in The Greatest Story Ever Told, which I saw on the Sunday before Christmas on TBS. I didn't recognize him at all, but then I haven't seen too many of his movies. They also had King of Kings earlier, but those are long movies and I wasn't going to watch both on the same day, so I watched the one I didn't recall having seen before.
I assume the point of the cartoon KFZ linked to (which I had seen) is that the sort of people going to Comic Con to cosplay as a superhero probably are still virgins. Sort of like the comic Full Frontal Nerdity by Aaron Williams (who also did the PS238 comics about a school for super-powered children), though that was role-playing gamers rather than comics fans.
Isaac Asimov, in his Treasury of Humor, had a whole chapter on Jewish jokes. Naturally, most of them dealt with standard Jewish stereotypes (which are always a fertile source of humor, and a safe one for someone of Jewish descent). But a few dealt with Israel, including the Six-Day War. (Why did Israel only need 6 days to defeat Egypt, Jordan, and Syria? He had 2 possible answers. One was that they rented their equipment by the day. The other was "On the seventh day they rested.") Although himself mostly a pacifist (especially when the possible foes were Communists -- or some reason, he was much less when facing the Nazis), he did enjoy the Jews finally not being victims.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 5, 2020 15:56:57 GMT -8
Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s I worked with a Sabra who was in our NYC office. I guess he was between 30-35 years old and had been an officer in the IDF. Maybe he still was, but he worked in New York. He was a nice, soft spoken guy who did not get overly excited about much. I remember others in the office, who were almost all Jews from the northeastern part of the USA, were somewhat in awe of him, even older guys. Now that I think about it, one guy told me that the Sabra had fought in the Yom Kippur War.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 5, 2020 18:14:47 GMT -8
How about: Moses should have walked the tribes another 40 years and found a place with oil
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,014
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 5, 2020 18:28:15 GMT -8
I actually wasn’t flinching all that much as Avi dispatched the yute whose terrorist father had killed his father (or mother…I forget). You can’t judge these things (even fictional cases) without understanding the violent zealots on the other side of the wall that they are defending against.
The forces around Israel do not want to live in peace. That this quite obvious fact is overlooked by all the libtard peaceniks makes them facilitators of evil, not compassionate.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 5, 2020 18:53:40 GMT -8
"Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Protestants hate the Catholics. And the Hindus hate the Muslims, and everybody hates the Jews." So sang Tom Lehrer in "National Brotherhood Week", and it's still true today. Those who hate the Jews will also hate Israel -- and while it's possible to hate (or at least oppose) Israel without being an anti-Semite, that's where it usually leads even if it doesn't start there.
In other words, Israelis are disliked (regardless of how dislikeable they may or may not be) because they are Jews. (I find myself thinking of Shylock's "Because I am a Jew" speech in The Merchant of Venice. I sympathized very strongly with Shylock's desire for revenge. Evidently so did Edward Lionheart in Theater of Blood, and he was a distinguished Shakespearean actor, with Vincent Price in the role.) They don't have to be Sabras, or IDF, or Shin Bet, or Mossad. They don't even have to be Israelis.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,014
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 5, 2020 19:17:32 GMT -8
I’ve been reading a bit of Margalit Fox’s Conan Doyle for the Defense. The anti-immigrant angle is so overplayed, it’s hard to read and I doubt I’ll finish it. Plus, she quotes some truly ludicrous stuff about Conan Doyle’s inspiration for the Sherlock Holmes stories. She quotes a critic named Frank D. McConnell: What a bunch of complete rubbish. It ignores the clear fact that people (including people in this day, as further proof) enjoyed the stories for the sake of the characters and the stories. The nitwit Margalit also goes on about how so many of the villains in his stories were foreigners. And if this critic had any brains at all, he’d know his last name was Conan Doyle. It is at least included by the author in some of the information about Conan Doyle that he and a sister were given this compound last name in honor of an uncle (Conan) who had no children. This case involves around Jew who was the victim of extremely and willfully shoddy police work. And the author puts it all down to anti-Semitism and the fear of the foreigner. And I don’t dispute that such things were true then as they are today. And some of the shady Jews such as Slater perhaps should have been kept out of England just as the Islamic “refugees” should be kept out. But, yes, I will admit it’s likely there was a fair amount of irrational fear of the foreigner, including a fair amount of anti-Semitism. But this ex-New York Times writer has laid it on so thick, the clear premise is that if you object to anyone entering your country, you are bad person. And it is simply a principle (as Conan Doyle noted) that as soon as the police have a suspect, they tend to concentrate on him to the exclusion of all else. And in this case, they didn’t go looking for a Jew. Someone (a pawnbroker, I believe) mentioned to the police about someone pawning a necklace similar to the one that was stolen from the murder victim's home. And to be lectured by anyone who has worked (or still works) at the New York Times about anti-Semitism is clearly ludicrous. Still, what comes through is that Conan Doyle was an exceptional person. And in this case, he used his Holmesian skills (which he really had, at least to some extent) to eventually free Slater. But I don’t know if I can survive reading much more of this dumb broad. Sorry, but I take my Sherlock Holmes seriously.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 5, 2020 19:19:53 GMT -8
This is the way I heard it;
A Catholic priest and Jewish Rabbi were talking about the great men of their respective religions.
The priest mentioned St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, St. Francis of Assisi and John Paul VI.
The rabbi, nodded and mentioned, Abraham, Joseph, Elijah, Samuel, David and Solomon.
The priest then said, "I am surprised you did not mention the Law-Giver Moses."
To which the rabbi responded, "Moses schmoses, if he had turned right instead of left when he led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, the oil would now be ours."
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 5, 2020 19:23:53 GMT -8
It has been my personal experience that journalists don't let the facts get in the way of a good story or a narrative which they wish to promote.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 5, 2020 20:26:29 GMT -8
Arthur Conan Doyle had a compound name like the Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith. Thus, they could be referred to as Conan Doyle and Kirby Smith, and often are. (The Confederate Transmississippi Department, commanded by EKS for the last couple of years of the war, was sometimes called Kirby-Smithdom and a history of the department was titled Kirby Smith's Confederacy.) But they can also be, and often are, referred to by their last names, as Doyle and Smith.
Thus, the group we used to attend yearly was the Holmes-Doyle Symposium, and Freeman in Lee's Lieutenants refers to Joe Johnston's senior division commanders in the fall of 1861 as the Smiths (the other being G. W. Smith). So that wasn't an error on her part.
As for what she has to say about Holmes's creation, I doubt it has much merit. One of the inspirations for Holmes, or at least a certain aspect of his character, was University of Edinburgh professor Joseph Bell, one of Doyle's (or Conan Doyle's) teachers. The habit of looking for the deductions to be found when meeting ordinary people came from Bell -- and others of his students immediately recognized him.
Basically, ACD was a doctor with a very limited practice. (When he sent his income tax to the Inland Revenue one year, they told him, "Most unsatisfactory." He replied, "I entirely agree.") He took up writing in his free time (of which he obviously had plenty) to help pay the bills. Eventually he got the idea of doing a detective novel, which became A Study in Scarlet. He thought of fictional detectives he liked (such as Dupin and Lecoq -- both trashed by Holmes), his old teacher Bell, and came up with Holmes. Naturally, a good bit of his own personality was mixed in.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 5, 2020 21:08:05 GMT -8
Ok one good joke for the hell of it
A Jewish boy falls in love with a Catholic girl and they want to marry. She insists they marry in the church and after much soul searching he agrees to convert.
He starts lessons into the mysteries of the Church of Rome and; as these things do the marriage is called off. Needless to say, he is upset and throws himself into his conversion classes.
One day as he is about to take his first communion he asks the priest if he should become a priest. The priest responds, "if you feel you have a calling". He asks what kind of future does a priest have?
You could become a pastor in a local church what else? You could be a Monsignor supervising a school or even a parish what else? You could become a Bishop overseeing several parish and you are authorized to anoint new priests what else? You could become an arch bishop with regional responsibilities what else? You could become a Cardinal what else? By this time the priest is getting angry and asks the boy, "What do you want to be--God?" The boy says, "Well one of our guys made it"
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 5, 2020 22:02:59 GMT -8
That's a good one. There are a lot of jokes dealing with the Jewish background of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 5, 2020 22:07:53 GMT -8
I heard this as well, but it was a conversation between the same Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi I mentioned before.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 5, 2020 22:12:37 GMT -8
I saw "The Greatest Story Ever Told" before Christmas. I always preferred "King of Kings," but it has so long since I have seen it, that I would need to watch it again to see if this still holds true. I suspect it does, because I am a Jeffery Hunter fan.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 6, 2020 6:59:51 GMT -8
As it happens, I saw Fiddler on the Roof on TCM yesterday, and had a few observations. Perchik, the girls' tutor, is a Marxist who dislikes traditions. At one point, Hodel notices that one tradition he seems to dislike is treating women with respect. It's a very good point. Reflexive approval of tradition prevents changes that may be necessary. But reflexive rejection of tradition is even riskier, since there's usually a good reason why something became a tradition. (Of course, Hodel ends up going with Perchik into internal exile in Siberia, but that's a different question.)
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 6, 2020 7:27:07 GMT -8
Here is an interesting question:
Obama had a list of people approved for killing called the "disposition matrix" were any of the recent troglodytes taken out by Trump on it? My gut says no.
What say you?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 6, 2020 7:59:14 GMT -8
You may be right but I suspect there might have been a couple of them on a theoretical list, but Obama did not seem to wish to take out any "terrorists" except "Americans" like Al-Awlaki. Other names kept moving to the bottom of the list.
I read recently, I believe on the Jerusalem Post, that Obama stopped Netanyahu from eliminating Soleimani several years back. I can well believe it.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 6, 2020 8:08:04 GMT -8
I read recently, I believe on the Jerusalem Post, that Obama stopped Netanyahu from eliminating Soleimani several years back. I can well believe it. My son told me several years ago that Obama offered to move the US embassy to Jerusalem if Israel gave up the Golan. Even the most liberal PM would have said no. Bebi told him to shove it! I want my grandchildren to live in peace, but I fear all we will leave them is more war. But bowing to evil will never achieve peace.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,014
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 6, 2020 8:38:51 GMT -8
A strange scene in “Messiah” is when the white male (perhaps not so strange) father tells tells the mother of their child that he’s through with her. How dare she take their daughter off of chemotherapy and seek a desperate chance at healing from Jesus 2.0.
There’s nothing in the episodes to suggest that the mother was unhinged, unreasonable, or not doing everything she could for her child. But the husband just up and announces that her behavior has crossed the line and now he will take legal action to get custody of the daughter. Huh?
It’s not strange if it’s just yet another reason to dump on white males. White males are the new Jews, and Jews themselves haven’t benefited from this. It’s not like we’ve replaced them as an object for scorn. We’ve just joined the club.
Regarding anything liberal, it is always full of unintended consequences which is why I’m usually perplexed as to whether a theme is intentional or an accident. In the case of the FBI guy surveilling Jesus 2.0 who walks off his job because of a firsthand look at the apparent decency of the guy, we see a theme playing out that seems both intentional and unintentional. Surely no one in the land of Netflix (the rotten, soul-dulled, secular egotists) could possible have consciously meant to so vitally illustrate the theme of: Decent people will automatically make indecent people uncomfortable. But then there is that scene. Were they just throwing out drama points (as such series will) and, like a blind chicken will tend to do, get a grain anyway?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,014
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 6, 2020 8:56:35 GMT -8
It’s hard to argue with that, Mr. Kung. And she damns Conan Doyle on frivolous grounds. But not for saying or doing anything regarding the practice of slavery. But in his lamenting that such foul things, at the present, had to be tolerated. Conan Doyle lived quite an adventurous life, including signing on as a doctor on a whaling ship. Somehow proving he is of a dark character, this mentally flatulent New York Times writer writes: That does not sound like much of an endorsement of the people carrying on the slave trade. He should have virtue-signaled much louder to satisfy this New York Times writer nitwit. “Demi-monde.” I admit to not being familiar with that word. Oh, you mean like New York Times writers.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,014
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 6, 2020 9:18:37 GMT -8
Exactly. And to her credit, she mentions this and (I think) includes Conan Doyle’s own thoughts on the matter. But I can assure you, he wasn’t engaged in the creation of any kind of “survival myth for the modern era.” Jesus, I really do hate Leftists.
What he was doing was wondering if you could apply more scientific and reason-based means to the solution of crime.
It’s worth noting that Conan Doyle himself went to university and lost his faith. Conan Doyle was raised a Catholic. He writes:
He was therefore a man on the cutting edge of the times. He was a technologist if anything, not a philosopher. That Conan Doyle later was interested in spiritualism seems contradictory. Maybe it’s not if one considers that he was a very inquisitive person. Catholicism takes for granted a whole assortment of mystical things: saints, angels, demons, demon possession, miracles, and such. It’s hardly a leap to say that if such things are true, there might be a more systematized way of looking at it.
Or he was just emotionally chasing ghosts and taken in by charlatans. But the point is (including his defense of Slater), he was a singular man who was not afraid to stand up to the crowd. I don’t think it would have occurred to him to write a “survival myth for the modern era” or even understand what is meant by that. What he did was apply the emerging fine-tuned principles of science and reason to the investigation of crime.
I wonder if Louis Pasteur was trying to find a “survival myth for the modern era.” What kind of assholes can write that with a straight face?
|
|