Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
An Exemplary Appreciation of God and Life
Yesterday, the American Thinker blog published some commentary of mine regarding Rachel Maddow and her defense of late-term abortions. In the comment section, a poor woman who has apparently endured a late-term abortion for medical reasons scolded my article and applauded Maddow for supporting late-term abortions, which she claims are "never made callously or flippantly."
When writing social commentary, one has a tendency to use broad brushstrokes, and in some cases generalizations come across as all-or-nothing statements. I never meant to imply that late-term abortions should never be permissible in situations where the mother's life might be jeopardized or when the child might endure prolonged suffering. She is right- many late-term abortions are done for medical reasons, and in those situations a late-term abortion would, and should be, permissible by law. And in those cases, a late-term abortion would not be morally abhorrent.
But then, I read the response of a commenter by the handle of Tomstiles69. I do not believe I have ever read anything more touching or more exemplary of the wonder that is the human spirit. Please read the comments below.
kcmb 17 hours ago
"But where early-term abortions might allow for a moral gray area, it is clear that anyone with a conscience would abhor the practice of late-term abortions, not just Christian theocrats."
I have to disagree with this. I think there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about the vast majority of what some call "late term abortions." The truth is that a large number of these later abortions are done for medical reasons--either due to serious complications with the mother's health or due to serious fetal anomalies. Walk a mile in the shoes of a parent who has just been told their baby will die shortly after birth. The decision to abort in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is never an easy one, and it is never one made callously or flippantly. It's a decision made to prevent needless suffering. I applaud Rachel Maddow for going to bat for those of us who've had to endure a "late term abortion."
tomstine69 11 hours ago
It is NOT true that "a large number of these abortions are done for medical reasons. The vast majority of late term abortions are elective - social reasons. Our Natalia died 4 weeks after birth - blind, one nostril, couldn't eat without a tube, and basically no brain. We were told early on of her condition and fate but when abortion was suggested it did not even occur to us to consider it. That time in our lives was difficult with many questions and sadness. We went from resenting this imperfect damaged life that God had allowed into our lives to knowing at her graveside funeral 4 weeks after she was born that God had given us his best. That statement might seems preposterous to someone who hasn't walked a mile in the shoes of a parent who has just been told their baby will die shortly after birth and still choose to love and protect that precious life for the short time that they are priveleged to have the that honor.
Whether or not you believe in God, what Tom describes here exemplifies the very best of humanity- the very best that we can ever be. A love and understanding that these words fall miles short of conveying.
William Sullivan
When writing social commentary, one has a tendency to use broad brushstrokes, and in some cases generalizations come across as all-or-nothing statements. I never meant to imply that late-term abortions should never be permissible in situations where the mother's life might be jeopardized or when the child might endure prolonged suffering. She is right- many late-term abortions are done for medical reasons, and in those situations a late-term abortion would, and should be, permissible by law. And in those cases, a late-term abortion would not be morally abhorrent.
But then, I read the response of a commenter by the handle of Tomstiles69. I do not believe I have ever read anything more touching or more exemplary of the wonder that is the human spirit. Please read the comments below.
kcmb 17 hours ago
"But where early-term abortions might allow for a moral gray area, it is clear that anyone with a conscience would abhor the practice of late-term abortions, not just Christian theocrats."
I have to disagree with this. I think there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about the vast majority of what some call "late term abortions." The truth is that a large number of these later abortions are done for medical reasons--either due to serious complications with the mother's health or due to serious fetal anomalies. Walk a mile in the shoes of a parent who has just been told their baby will die shortly after birth. The decision to abort in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is never an easy one, and it is never one made callously or flippantly. It's a decision made to prevent needless suffering. I applaud Rachel Maddow for going to bat for those of us who've had to endure a "late term abortion."
tomstine69 11 hours ago
It is NOT true that "a large number of these abortions are done for medical reasons. The vast majority of late term abortions are elective - social reasons. Our Natalia died 4 weeks after birth - blind, one nostril, couldn't eat without a tube, and basically no brain. We were told early on of her condition and fate but when abortion was suggested it did not even occur to us to consider it. That time in our lives was difficult with many questions and sadness. We went from resenting this imperfect damaged life that God had allowed into our lives to knowing at her graveside funeral 4 weeks after she was born that God had given us his best. That statement might seems preposterous to someone who hasn't walked a mile in the shoes of a parent who has just been told their baby will die shortly after birth and still choose to love and protect that precious life for the short time that they are priveleged to have the that honor.
Whether or not you believe in God, what Tom describes here exemplifies the very best of humanity- the very best that we can ever be. A love and understanding that these words fall miles short of conveying.
William Sullivan
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Who's the Maximalist Here, Jay?
Last week, when asked if the president would embrace Senator McConnell’s invitation to Capitol Hill to discuss the budget impasse, White House spokesman Jay Carney was direct in giving his opinion of the Senator’s offer. “What the Senator invited the President to do was to hear Senate Republicans restate their maximalist position. We know what that position is. And he also invited him to hear… what would not pass. That's not a conversation worth having. What we need to have is a conversation about what will pass. ”
His use of the word “maximalist” immediately creates a glaring “pot and kettle” moment for the White House spokesman. Three more times during this interview, Carney applied the term “maximalist” to describe Republican opposition to the president. The suggestion of this redundant reminder, of course, is that while the president is willing to make concessions and compromise, Republicans are bullheadedly “drawing lines in the sand.” Yet what is our gracious president actually offering his opposition? He demands that Republicans defy their constituents and be willing to embrace tax hikes and trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade- and if they do not, he won’t even talk to them. He’ll just plug his ears, and run off to Pennsylvania to attend a fundraiser like he did last week.
It's hard to think of a more "maximalist" position than that. So the implication that the president’s position is conducive to compromise while Republicans are just stubborn as mules must be the result of a deceptive political campaign to vilify opposition.
And as we’ve come to expect of the Obama administration, that’s exactly what it is.
William Sullivan
His use of the word “maximalist” immediately creates a glaring “pot and kettle” moment for the White House spokesman. Three more times during this interview, Carney applied the term “maximalist” to describe Republican opposition to the president. The suggestion of this redundant reminder, of course, is that while the president is willing to make concessions and compromise, Republicans are bullheadedly “drawing lines in the sand.” Yet what is our gracious president actually offering his opposition? He demands that Republicans defy their constituents and be willing to embrace tax hikes and trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade- and if they do not, he won’t even talk to them. He’ll just plug his ears, and run off to Pennsylvania to attend a fundraiser like he did last week.
It's hard to think of a more "maximalist" position than that. So the implication that the president’s position is conducive to compromise while Republicans are just stubborn as mules must be the result of a deceptive political campaign to vilify opposition.
And as we’ve come to expect of the Obama administration, that’s exactly what it is.
William Sullivan
Monday, June 6, 2011
Because No One Died, A Crime Goes Unheralded in Houston
Last Friday evening, a Houston Police Department officer, on his way home from duty at about 6 o’clock, was hit by a 19-year old gang member who was speeding through a residential area in the northern suburb of Kingwood, traveling an estimated 70 mph when he struck the officer’s personal vehicle. The young gang member had run a stop sign when his car struck the officer’s truck on the driver side. The force of impact ejected the officer from his vehicle and he suffered severe, life threatening head trauma, including many deep gashes and nearly losing his right ear.
Here are the basic facts. The gang member, with his girlfriend as a passenger, was fleeing a domestic disturbance at his parents' home in the area. It is alleged and very likely that he was high on one or more drugs when the event took place. Controlled substances were found in his vehicle. (This even after his mother tried to clean the car of drugs before authorities got to the scene, as neighbors witnessed) This is a residential area called Sherwood Trails that I know well, and children playing and mothers walking their children in the streets are extremely common. He could have done far worse than injuring an off-duty police officer- he could have killed a family with young children driving in a minivan, or a ten-year old chasing a basketball into the street, or a mother walking an infant in a stroller.
But Houston news outlets don’t think that a drugged-up gang member nearly killing a police officer is newsworthy enough to report. Outside of passersby reporting the incident on local blogs, there is little to no coverage of the event. And any coverage I’ve seen has depicted the event as an accident rather than a crime.
I would disagree with them, however. You see, that officer is my younger brother.
Officer Gordon Sullivan was tended to by the finest doctors and surgeons in the world at Memorial Hermann Hospital, and I and my family feel incredibly blessed that my brother survived a situation that ninety-nine times of a hundred he probably would not have. We feel it to be nothing short of Providence. But what bothers me is that the young man who hit him is enjoying the anonymity of his crime.
Had he killed my brother or killed a child or pedestrian, the very possible outcomes of his actions, the news would report the incident as a crime, resulting in the appropriate public outrage for the travesty, and justice would be demanded. Instead, this crime is unheralded as just another traffic accident, and the young man may receive nothing more than a possession charge, traffic ticket, and perhaps a DUI. Effectively, the same result as if he’d been pulled over; not reflecting the fact that he nearly killed my brother because of his reckless choices.
Not just the media is treating this as “just an accident.” Most aggravating and unbelievable, a female Kingwood-based HPD officer who watched over the young gangbanger at the hospital during the night came to visit my brother the next morning as he recovered. Her first words to my brother as he lay recovering from the plastic surgery that took place was, “Bet you wear your seat belt next time, huh?” Yes, he should have worn his seat belt by law, but in retrospect I’m glad he did not. Over the course of the night, I heard varying opinions of the over 30 cops and firefighters who came to bring my brother good wishes, and many of them recounted stories of similar accidents where the driver was wearing a seatbelt and the force of impact upon a static occupant left the driver with a broken neck or contorted the body so much that it caused tears in the heart. Given that my brother’s injuries were preferable to another possible outcome, I am infuriated at this woman’s audacity to chide my brother in his condition.
My brother works the Fifth Ward, Acreage Homes, Alief; some of the most dangerous beats in not just the Houston area, but in the country. He does not ride a desk in the upper-middle class suburb of Kingwood like this woman. He explained to her that when on patrol, he often doesn’t wear a belt because he needs to be able to quickly exit his vehicle to chase suspects, and sometimes he does forget to wear it. Of course, the “desk” officer had missed the point entirely, as his wearing a belt is not the issue. If a drugged-up gangbanger hadn’t been driving 70 in a 30, run a stop sign and plowed into his truck, he wouldn’t be in the hospital at all.
She then explained that she had told the young gangbanger to not feel so bad about what happened. She apparently shares the local news outlets’ opinion: since my brother didn’t die, it was just another accident. It’s hard to think of a comment more devoid of common sense, though. By her logic, a drunk driver hitting a car or a crack-head stabbing a passerby would be an “accident” since neither could control his actions in an inebriated state. She completely overlooks the conscious decision it takes to imbibe the drugs that cause the lack of control to begin with.
Cops who work the area explained to me that they knew very well who this young gang member was. For over three years, one officer described, he had known the kid was doing bad things and was going to hurt someone. Well, now he has. But now that his drug use and disrespect for the rules of decent society have caused him to almost kill my brother, what will happen to him?
I don’t want this event to slip under the radar of public awareness. I don’t want his crime to live in anonymity so that it makes it easier to for him to escape justice for what he has done, allowing him to be free to sooner do it again. He almost killed my brother, and scarred him for life. Officer Gordon Mitchell Sullivan is a former soldier of the 82nd Airborne Division. A decorated veteran who survived two tours in the Iraq War. A devoted officer who bravely works to keep the peace in the city of Houston. A beloved son, brother, uncle, and friend of many whose humor, kindness, and generosity is well-known and cherished by all who know him. A honorable, good man whose life was almost extinguished by a drugged up, vile gangbanger who, by the grace of God, was not able to cause as much damage as he could have because my brother happened to cross his path on the way home. And also by the grace of God, my son, who is named after my brother, will continue to grow up and know his uncle.
It is in our best interest that the public is made aware of this crime, and that we invest effort to see that this young man receives the penalty he deserves. To any who may read this, I ask that you help by relaying the story through any available channels.
Thank you.
William Sullivan
Update: Yourhoustonnews.com has issued an update today. This update suggests that the gang member is 20, did not appear under the influence, and that the injuries were "non-life threatening." Given the other facts of the case (involved in domestic disturbance, driving with extreme recklessness, and found to be in possession of crack, not exactly a gateway drug) it takes a stretch of the imagination to believe that he was clean and sober. I will update as needed, and hopefully the investigation, which is ongoing at this point, reveals the truth so a proper punishment can be considered.
Here are the basic facts. The gang member, with his girlfriend as a passenger, was fleeing a domestic disturbance at his parents' home in the area. It is alleged and very likely that he was high on one or more drugs when the event took place. Controlled substances were found in his vehicle. (This even after his mother tried to clean the car of drugs before authorities got to the scene, as neighbors witnessed) This is a residential area called Sherwood Trails that I know well, and children playing and mothers walking their children in the streets are extremely common. He could have done far worse than injuring an off-duty police officer- he could have killed a family with young children driving in a minivan, or a ten-year old chasing a basketball into the street, or a mother walking an infant in a stroller.
But Houston news outlets don’t think that a drugged-up gang member nearly killing a police officer is newsworthy enough to report. Outside of passersby reporting the incident on local blogs, there is little to no coverage of the event. And any coverage I’ve seen has depicted the event as an accident rather than a crime.
I would disagree with them, however. You see, that officer is my younger brother.
Officer Gordon Sullivan was tended to by the finest doctors and surgeons in the world at Memorial Hermann Hospital, and I and my family feel incredibly blessed that my brother survived a situation that ninety-nine times of a hundred he probably would not have. We feel it to be nothing short of Providence. But what bothers me is that the young man who hit him is enjoying the anonymity of his crime.
Had he killed my brother or killed a child or pedestrian, the very possible outcomes of his actions, the news would report the incident as a crime, resulting in the appropriate public outrage for the travesty, and justice would be demanded. Instead, this crime is unheralded as just another traffic accident, and the young man may receive nothing more than a possession charge, traffic ticket, and perhaps a DUI. Effectively, the same result as if he’d been pulled over; not reflecting the fact that he nearly killed my brother because of his reckless choices.
Not just the media is treating this as “just an accident.” Most aggravating and unbelievable, a female Kingwood-based HPD officer who watched over the young gangbanger at the hospital during the night came to visit my brother the next morning as he recovered. Her first words to my brother as he lay recovering from the plastic surgery that took place was, “Bet you wear your seat belt next time, huh?” Yes, he should have worn his seat belt by law, but in retrospect I’m glad he did not. Over the course of the night, I heard varying opinions of the over 30 cops and firefighters who came to bring my brother good wishes, and many of them recounted stories of similar accidents where the driver was wearing a seatbelt and the force of impact upon a static occupant left the driver with a broken neck or contorted the body so much that it caused tears in the heart. Given that my brother’s injuries were preferable to another possible outcome, I am infuriated at this woman’s audacity to chide my brother in his condition.
My brother works the Fifth Ward, Acreage Homes, Alief; some of the most dangerous beats in not just the Houston area, but in the country. He does not ride a desk in the upper-middle class suburb of Kingwood like this woman. He explained to her that when on patrol, he often doesn’t wear a belt because he needs to be able to quickly exit his vehicle to chase suspects, and sometimes he does forget to wear it. Of course, the “desk” officer had missed the point entirely, as his wearing a belt is not the issue. If a drugged-up gangbanger hadn’t been driving 70 in a 30, run a stop sign and plowed into his truck, he wouldn’t be in the hospital at all.
She then explained that she had told the young gangbanger to not feel so bad about what happened. She apparently shares the local news outlets’ opinion: since my brother didn’t die, it was just another accident. It’s hard to think of a comment more devoid of common sense, though. By her logic, a drunk driver hitting a car or a crack-head stabbing a passerby would be an “accident” since neither could control his actions in an inebriated state. She completely overlooks the conscious decision it takes to imbibe the drugs that cause the lack of control to begin with.
Cops who work the area explained to me that they knew very well who this young gang member was. For over three years, one officer described, he had known the kid was doing bad things and was going to hurt someone. Well, now he has. But now that his drug use and disrespect for the rules of decent society have caused him to almost kill my brother, what will happen to him?
I don’t want this event to slip under the radar of public awareness. I don’t want his crime to live in anonymity so that it makes it easier to for him to escape justice for what he has done, allowing him to be free to sooner do it again. He almost killed my brother, and scarred him for life. Officer Gordon Mitchell Sullivan is a former soldier of the 82nd Airborne Division. A decorated veteran who survived two tours in the Iraq War. A devoted officer who bravely works to keep the peace in the city of Houston. A beloved son, brother, uncle, and friend of many whose humor, kindness, and generosity is well-known and cherished by all who know him. A honorable, good man whose life was almost extinguished by a drugged up, vile gangbanger who, by the grace of God, was not able to cause as much damage as he could have because my brother happened to cross his path on the way home. And also by the grace of God, my son, who is named after my brother, will continue to grow up and know his uncle.
It is in our best interest that the public is made aware of this crime, and that we invest effort to see that this young man receives the penalty he deserves. To any who may read this, I ask that you help by relaying the story through any available channels.
Thank you.
William Sullivan
Update: Yourhoustonnews.com has issued an update today. This update suggests that the gang member is 20, did not appear under the influence, and that the injuries were "non-life threatening." Given the other facts of the case (involved in domestic disturbance, driving with extreme recklessness, and found to be in possession of crack, not exactly a gateway drug) it takes a stretch of the imagination to believe that he was clean and sober. I will update as needed, and hopefully the investigation, which is ongoing at this point, reveals the truth so a proper punishment can be considered.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Broken Oath: Politicians Who Ignore the Ramifications of Illegal Immigration
At 3:45 AM on May 29th, Houston Police Officer Kevin Will was killed in the line of duty when an intoxicated driver ran through a police barricade that was protecting an accident scene that Will was investigating. Will’s last act, before he was run down and dragged, was to save the life of a bystander that would have been struck as well if not for the officer’s selfless actions. The suspect fled the scene and was soon caught. Johoan Rodriguez, who is charged with the officer’s death, is a twice deported illegal immigrant.
Houston is known as a “sanctuary city” where, for decades, mayors and city council representatives have adhered to a policy that prohibits police officers from not only taking aggressive actions towards arresting illegals but forbids arrests when illegal residence is the only crime. When illegals are arrested for other crimes, very few are reported to ICE. In 2006 HPD Officer Rodney Johnson was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant. In 2009 HPD Officer Rick Salter was critically injured when he was shot by yet another illegal immigrant, Wilfredo Alfaro. Alfaro was ordered out of the U.S. by an immigration judge in March 2001, returned illegally and was arrested three times before the shooting.
The mayor at the time, Bill White, begrudgingly implemented the ICE 287(g) jailer training program to properly identify and report illegals who were jailed, but did so only after the ensuing outrage over the Salter shooting. The program was later deemed too controversial and was scrapped. In fact, illegal immigrants are responsible for five out of the last seven HPD officers to have been killed or critically injured in the line of duty. Not to mention the countless crimes against civilians committed by illegals in the city, such as the gunning down of 14 year old Shatavia Anderson in 2010 or the numerous DWI deaths caused by illegals. Current Houston mayor, Annise Parker, who was city controller under White, has shown no willingness to change the current sanctuary city policies in Houston.
Unfortunately, stories like these are not isolated to Houston, but are actually commonplace throughout the United States. Yet, just over two weeks before Officer Will’s death, President Obama stood in El Paso joking about putting moats filled with alligators on the border. The common thread between the three cop killing illegals mentioned in Houston, besides being in the country illegally of course, is the fact that they managed to get right back in after being deported. Yet, Obama insists that the borders are secure. The fact is that they have never been secure. Obama refuses to meet with Texas governor Perry to discuss adding additional manpower to the borders. He sues Arizona, who due to lack of federal action, has tried to take it upon themselves to arrest and deport people for the crime of being in this country illegally. The simple logic being, if they aren’t here, then they can’t commit the crime. One preventable death, is one death too many. He invites Felipe Calderon to speak in front of Congress who proceeds to lambaste Arizona to the applause of Democrats. No foreign head of state has ever done such a thing, and yet silence by the President.
Kevin Will took an oath to protect the citizens of Houston and he did so in the most honorable way. Mayor Annise Parker and President Barack Obama also took an oath. As did countless other city, county, state and national leaders who either have ignored or have facilitated illegal immigrants. Their oath is to protect the citizens of their respective jurisdictions. They break that oath daily. For them and those who support them, there is no honor.
Houston is known as a “sanctuary city” where, for decades, mayors and city council representatives have adhered to a policy that prohibits police officers from not only taking aggressive actions towards arresting illegals but forbids arrests when illegal residence is the only crime. When illegals are arrested for other crimes, very few are reported to ICE. In 2006 HPD Officer Rodney Johnson was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant. In 2009 HPD Officer Rick Salter was critically injured when he was shot by yet another illegal immigrant, Wilfredo Alfaro. Alfaro was ordered out of the U.S. by an immigration judge in March 2001, returned illegally and was arrested three times before the shooting.
The mayor at the time, Bill White, begrudgingly implemented the ICE 287(g) jailer training program to properly identify and report illegals who were jailed, but did so only after the ensuing outrage over the Salter shooting. The program was later deemed too controversial and was scrapped. In fact, illegal immigrants are responsible for five out of the last seven HPD officers to have been killed or critically injured in the line of duty. Not to mention the countless crimes against civilians committed by illegals in the city, such as the gunning down of 14 year old Shatavia Anderson in 2010 or the numerous DWI deaths caused by illegals. Current Houston mayor, Annise Parker, who was city controller under White, has shown no willingness to change the current sanctuary city policies in Houston.
Unfortunately, stories like these are not isolated to Houston, but are actually commonplace throughout the United States. Yet, just over two weeks before Officer Will’s death, President Obama stood in El Paso joking about putting moats filled with alligators on the border. The common thread between the three cop killing illegals mentioned in Houston, besides being in the country illegally of course, is the fact that they managed to get right back in after being deported. Yet, Obama insists that the borders are secure. The fact is that they have never been secure. Obama refuses to meet with Texas governor Perry to discuss adding additional manpower to the borders. He sues Arizona, who due to lack of federal action, has tried to take it upon themselves to arrest and deport people for the crime of being in this country illegally. The simple logic being, if they aren’t here, then they can’t commit the crime. One preventable death, is one death too many. He invites Felipe Calderon to speak in front of Congress who proceeds to lambaste Arizona to the applause of Democrats. No foreign head of state has ever done such a thing, and yet silence by the President.
Kevin Will took an oath to protect the citizens of Houston and he did so in the most honorable way. Mayor Annise Parker and President Barack Obama also took an oath. As did countless other city, county, state and national leaders who either have ignored or have facilitated illegal immigrants. Their oath is to protect the citizens of their respective jurisdictions. They break that oath daily. For them and those who support them, there is no honor.
Tiki't Easy, America... Former Football Star Not an Anti-Semite
Tiki Barber has come under media fire for recent comments he made. Apparently, not wanting to deal with the media or his ex-wife after their separation, he holed up in his Jewish friend and agent's attic for nearly a week to avoid being seen. He told Sports Illustrated that the event was sort of like a "reverse Anne Frank thing."
Anne Frank, of course, was the poor Jewish girl who hid in an attic to avoid Nazi detection, and penned her journal of the horrifying events that has now become an integral part of Western culture. So the Anti-Defamation League and others are going nuts over this comment, alleging that his comments were “perverse,” and that "the Frank family’s experiences, as recorded in Anne’s diary, are a unique testimonial to the horrors of the Holocaust, and her life should never be debased or degraded by insensitive and offensive analogies."
Rabbi Jason Miller takes it a step further in the Huffington Post, and wonders if this "PR nightmare will mark the end of his television career."
Were his comments insensitive? Well, yeah, they would be to someone who's desperately looking to see it as offensive. But I can assure you, Tiki did not mean to liken his plight to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. Even his agent suggests the inanity of any such claim, and reminds us that Tiki was a guest of Shimon Peres five years ago in Israel. The truth is, he just wanted to make a witty observation about an unusual scenario. And if you don't focus on the offensive undertones, you might say that he succeeded. I mean, it is sort of an ironic reversal of a common perception. Rather than a Jew being allowed to hide in an attic for protection, an image we have come to know well from twentieth century history, Tiki's Jewish friend was protecting him by allowing him to hide in the attic from the media and his ex-wife, whom he apparently feels were as adamant pursuers as Nazis.
Now, is that an exaggeration? Certainly. But what comedy does not rely on a bit of hyperbole? Go to a boardwalk and have a caricature drawn of your likeness, and the artist may draw your nose, ears, or teeth as much larger than they are for comic effect. Or consider that stand-up comics exaggerate nearly every situation they describe on stage for the same reason.
And Tiki is far from the first to use Anne Frank as a source of comedy. In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin is shown in Anne Frank’s attic, loudly eating potato chips and clueing the Nazi’s to their presence, leading to their capture. In the show South Park, Eric Cartman is shown in one episode to corral cats into his attic to avoid their slaughter at the hands of townspeople, the irony of course being that the character is a fervent anti-Semite.
The fact that Tiki is being crucified for this is rather interesting, though, and exposes how misplaced American sensitivities are. Tiki's not being targeted by the media because he said something that could be construed as anti-Semitic- he is being targeted because he is a celebrity that has said something unexpected and controversial, and in our culture that is overloaded with gossip media, that sort of thing draws viewers and hits as honey draws flies.
Think about it. Tiki Barber simply made a bad joke involving Anne Frank and he receives an incredible amount of focus for his insensitivity. Yet when true anti-Semites and hatemongers spew their venom in this country, they are invited to speak at universities as honored guests. Mahmoud Ahmedinjad, for example, denies the Holocaust altogether, which is not only the least academic thing one could suggest but also the most insensitive. He has called for the genocide of the Jews in Israel. Yet when he visited America, how did our prestigious institutions like Columbia University greet him? He was invited to speak and given the opportunity to slather his anti-Semitic rhetoric upon impressionable youths.
Anti-Semitism is only a story when there’s a celebrity involved. And that is the sad state of affairs we have come to in this country. When a sports figure tells a joke in poor taste, people are aghast and offended. Yet when a genocidal madman spouts anti-Semitism in it's purest form and suggests genocide before their very eyes, they couldn't be less interested and just chalk it up to free speech.
I think the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Miller need to just lighten up- they have much bigger fish to fry. So you'll be alright, Tiki. When the next celebrity spirals down a Sheen-esque vortex, your flubbed joke will be forgotten by most Americans. And if we have an NFL season, I hope to see you there.
William Sullivan
Anne Frank, of course, was the poor Jewish girl who hid in an attic to avoid Nazi detection, and penned her journal of the horrifying events that has now become an integral part of Western culture. So the Anti-Defamation League and others are going nuts over this comment, alleging that his comments were “perverse,” and that "the Frank family’s experiences, as recorded in Anne’s diary, are a unique testimonial to the horrors of the Holocaust, and her life should never be debased or degraded by insensitive and offensive analogies."
Rabbi Jason Miller takes it a step further in the Huffington Post, and wonders if this "PR nightmare will mark the end of his television career."
Were his comments insensitive? Well, yeah, they would be to someone who's desperately looking to see it as offensive. But I can assure you, Tiki did not mean to liken his plight to that of the Jews in the Holocaust. Even his agent suggests the inanity of any such claim, and reminds us that Tiki was a guest of Shimon Peres five years ago in Israel. The truth is, he just wanted to make a witty observation about an unusual scenario. And if you don't focus on the offensive undertones, you might say that he succeeded. I mean, it is sort of an ironic reversal of a common perception. Rather than a Jew being allowed to hide in an attic for protection, an image we have come to know well from twentieth century history, Tiki's Jewish friend was protecting him by allowing him to hide in the attic from the media and his ex-wife, whom he apparently feels were as adamant pursuers as Nazis.
Now, is that an exaggeration? Certainly. But what comedy does not rely on a bit of hyperbole? Go to a boardwalk and have a caricature drawn of your likeness, and the artist may draw your nose, ears, or teeth as much larger than they are for comic effect. Or consider that stand-up comics exaggerate nearly every situation they describe on stage for the same reason.
And Tiki is far from the first to use Anne Frank as a source of comedy. In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin is shown in Anne Frank’s attic, loudly eating potato chips and clueing the Nazi’s to their presence, leading to their capture. In the show South Park, Eric Cartman is shown in one episode to corral cats into his attic to avoid their slaughter at the hands of townspeople, the irony of course being that the character is a fervent anti-Semite.
The fact that Tiki is being crucified for this is rather interesting, though, and exposes how misplaced American sensitivities are. Tiki's not being targeted by the media because he said something that could be construed as anti-Semitic- he is being targeted because he is a celebrity that has said something unexpected and controversial, and in our culture that is overloaded with gossip media, that sort of thing draws viewers and hits as honey draws flies.
Think about it. Tiki Barber simply made a bad joke involving Anne Frank and he receives an incredible amount of focus for his insensitivity. Yet when true anti-Semites and hatemongers spew their venom in this country, they are invited to speak at universities as honored guests. Mahmoud Ahmedinjad, for example, denies the Holocaust altogether, which is not only the least academic thing one could suggest but also the most insensitive. He has called for the genocide of the Jews in Israel. Yet when he visited America, how did our prestigious institutions like Columbia University greet him? He was invited to speak and given the opportunity to slather his anti-Semitic rhetoric upon impressionable youths.
Anti-Semitism is only a story when there’s a celebrity involved. And that is the sad state of affairs we have come to in this country. When a sports figure tells a joke in poor taste, people are aghast and offended. Yet when a genocidal madman spouts anti-Semitism in it's purest form and suggests genocide before their very eyes, they couldn't be less interested and just chalk it up to free speech.
I think the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Miller need to just lighten up- they have much bigger fish to fry. So you'll be alright, Tiki. When the next celebrity spirals down a Sheen-esque vortex, your flubbed joke will be forgotten by most Americans. And if we have an NFL season, I hope to see you there.
William Sullivan
Friday, May 27, 2011
This Week at Congressional U.- Netanyahu Gives Lesson on History and American Values
Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress this week. To say the speech was epic is a brash understatement. I will limit my accolades to a brilliant Netanyahu- but suffice it to say that I lament that we Americans cannot have so strong and respectable a leader.
I would suggest that all read this transcript or watch the video, whatever your pleasure. But in a speech full of gems and pearls, here are a few that stand out.
--"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different."
Yes, it is nice to be reminded what liberty is all about, and to be reminded that Israel is the beacon of such liberty in the Middle East.
--"Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
Now, there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence.
It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America.
You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America."
I hope you are right, Mr. Netanyahu.
--"Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem."
Seriously, need any more be said than this?
And finally, Netanyahu explains what the conflict is all about to our lawyers in Congress who could benefit from knowing a thing or two about history.
Enjoy.
William Sullivan
"So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?
Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.
In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.
And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end."
-Benjamin Netanyahu
I would suggest that all read this transcript or watch the video, whatever your pleasure. But in a speech full of gems and pearls, here are a few that stand out.
--"This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It’s paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different."
Yes, it is nice to be reminded what liberty is all about, and to be reminded that Israel is the beacon of such liberty in the Middle East.
--"Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.
Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.
Now, there’s something that makes the outrage even greater. And you know what that is? It’s the lack of outrage. Because in much of the international community the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence.
It’s even worse, because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.
Not you. Not America.
You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran.
History will salute you, America."
I hope you are right, Mr. Netanyahu.
--"Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem."
Seriously, need any more be said than this?
And finally, Netanyahu explains what the conflict is all about to our lawyers in Congress who could benefit from knowing a thing or two about history.
Enjoy.
William Sullivan
"So now here’s the question -- you’ve got to ask it -- If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us?
Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?
Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.
In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said “Yes.” The Palestinians said “No.”
In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.
They were simply unwilling to end the conflict.
And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And, worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy the Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
My friends, this must come to an end."
-Benjamin Netanyahu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
