Memailed #4: We Are the Creditors

Suketu Mehta has a great opinion piece in today's New York Times called "A Passage From India" in tribute to the E.M. Forster novel. A better title, I think, would have been "We Are the Creditors":

Read more below the jump.

There is a perverse hypocrisy about the whole jobs debate, especially in Europe. The colonial powers invaded countries like India and China, pillaged them of their treasures and commodities and made sure their industries weren't allowed to develop, so they would stay impoverished and unable to compete. Then the imperialists complained when the destitute people of the former colonies came to their shores to clean their toilets and dig their sewers; they complained when later generations came to earn high wages as doctors and engineers; and now they're complaining when their jobs are being lost to children of the empire who are working harder than they are. My grandfather was once confronted by an elderly Englishman in a London park who asked, "Why are you here?" My grandfather responded, "We are the creditors." We are here because you were there.

There was a time when arable land and minerals were the real growth sectors.
When (non-oil) natural resources made military conquest of some places profitable.
When a few thousand Englishmen could run the subcontinent.
When a nation with an elite made up of professional soldiers could effectively dominate others.
And the merchants and the people with technical knowledge were relatively less important.

But now, for a healthy economy, a country relies much more on smart, well-educated people and a relatively orderly and free society.
Not so easy to retain the value in that after you've marched in with guns.
Pretty hard to make it happen at home while privileging your majority ethnic group above people with high-value labor who want to immigrate.

The world's high school math club has grown up, and they're realizing they're in much better shape than the kids on the football team who made their lives so unpleasant.

BJJ Move #30: Rear Naked Choke (a/k/a mata leão)

This is the best move ever. Easy to learn, very effective, you put it on from a safe position, renders your opponent unconscious. I'll describe it from the back mount as well as from standing behind an opponent.

WARNING! These techniques could result in serious injury or death if practiced incorrectly or even if performed correctly. They should only be practiced with the supervision of an experienced instructor.

Rear Naked Choke (a/k/a mata leão):
-submission
-basic

1) Rear Naked Choke (a/k/a mata leão):
From back mount, slide your right hand under your opponent’s jaw, bringing your right arm under his chin, so his throat is in the crook of your elbow, not against the blade of your forearm. You want your arm to come across far enough that you can grab onto his opposite shoulder. You are going to squeeze him there using your biceps. The pressure will come from your forearm and biceps against his carotid arteries from the sides (cutting off blood supply to the brain), not against his trachea with your radius from the front (cutting off air to his lungs). Don’t try to bring your arm across his throat like you’re closing a door; instead, slide it in hand-first to go across his neck, putting a belt on.
Turn your right palm to face down and hook your right hand into your left elbow-crook / biceps.
With your left palm facing down, “comb his hair,” sliding your hand from the front of your opponent’s head down to the back of his head (not onto his neck).
Squeeze his neck by flexing both of your biceps; pulling your right hand back with your left arm; pushing his head forward over your elbow-crook with your left hand; squeezing your elbows down do your chest; and “puffing” your chest out— don’t hunch your back. Watch for the tap—you do not want to choke out or injure your training partner.
Tip: If he keeps his head tucked down to keep your arm out, press up under his nose (not allowed in tournaments). The pain should make him lift his head to relieve it.
Tip: When trying to apply this choke on an experienced opponent, use the opposite hand you usually choke with first. For example, if you usually slide your right arm underneath, instead, slide your left arm underneath. When he tries to block this, then slide your right arm underneath and continue the choke.
Tip: If you happen to have a “giftwrap” from behind, he’ll be expecting the other hand to come across and do a giftwrap-style choke. Instead, use the other hand to go for a rear naked choke. (I'll describe giftwraps in a later post)
Tip: If he’s on his belly when you’re trying to get this choke, pull up on his forehead to bring his jaw up.

2) Setup for Rear Naked Choke – wrist control:
You have the back mount.
To control your opponent’s right arm, slide your right arm underneath his and grab the top of his right wrist with your right hand, palm down, “claw grip” (thumb on same side of his forearm as your other four fingers).
Hold his arm down in his lap; it will now be easier to move your left hand across his throat for a choke—grab his opposite (right) shoulder before releasing his right wrist and finishing the choke.

3) Setup for Rear Naked Choke – trap arm with leg:
You have the back mount. You have wrist control as in the last move.
Push his right hand down toward his crotch, straightening his arm, then wrap your right foot around the outside / top of his right forearm, trapping it to his side.
Your right hook is now gone, so roll onto to your right side to finish, further trapping his right arm under your body weight from the top, and your right leg and the floor from the bottom.
Put the choke on with your right arm.


4) Standing Rear Naked Choke (hadaka jime):
You are standing behind your opponent and want to apply a rear naked choke. He will get away unless your “get a hook in” on his lower leg/knee using the foot on the same side as your choking arm.
From a rear clinch, turn your face to the right and press your right cheek against your opponent’s upper back; wrap your left arm over his neck and clasp your hands together; and hop up and wrap your left leg around the outside of his left leg (“put in the left hook”).
Move your left foot across his waist and figure four your right knee over it.
Apply the rear naked choke with your left hand.
Note that it is safer to take your opponent down before applying this, as it minimizes the risk of being slammed between your opponent and the ground.
If at all possible, it is also better to clip his knee from behind or drag him backwards instead of hopping up onto his back, but be sure he can’t get his feet under him or he could throw you over his shoulder.

BJJ Move # 29: Back Mount

I don't know why I waited until move #29 for this. It's a very basic position-- ideally, it's where you end a fight. Take an opponent's back and choke him out. From this position, you're almost completely safe from your opponent. You can strangle him from behind, and he can't do much but try to escape.

WARNING! These techniques could result in serious injury or death if practiced incorrectly or even if performed correctly. They should only be practiced with the supervision of an experienced instructor.

Back Mount:
-position
-basic

This is the most advantageous position. There are two basic variations.
In the first variation, your opponent is sitting on the ground and you are sitting behind him. Your body is against his back and you are wrapping your legs around his waist from behind and hooking your insteps inside his legs behind his knees / lower thighs. Your legs are called “hooks” because they secure you to him. Do not cross your feet, or you will be vulnerable to an anklelock.
With your hands, at least initially, a good way to secure yourself to your opponent and hold him in the position is to put one hand underneath an armpit and the other around his neck. Then clasp your hands together across his chest (the “seatbelt” grip).
In this position, you may both be sitting up, but you are also in a strong position if you roll back onto your back or side.
In the second variation on the position, you have an even more dominating advantage—your opponent is on his stomach, and you are on his back with your hooks in. This may happen if you have an inexperienced opponent in a front mount and he rolls over onto his stomach. He was better off where he was before.
If he starts on all fours instead of flat on his belly, you want to “break him down” by (for instance) by holding his right wrist from underneath with your right hand and pressing your hips forward while driving your legs back against his legs.
Keep your hips close to his, keep your hooks in, and control his wrists while you try to strangle him from behind.

BJJ Move #28: Arm In Guillotine (several variations)

Here is a standard, go-to submission that can be done standing or on the ground.
It's called an "arm in" guillotine because one of your opponent's arms is inside your arms, pressing against his own throat.

WARNING! These techniques could result in serious injury or death if practiced incorrectly or even if performed correctly. They should only be practiced with the supervision of an experienced instructor.

Arm In Guillotine (several variations):
-submission
-basic

Standing Variations: (I'll describe ground setups in a later post)

1) Front Headlock to Arm-in Guillotine:

Setup 1: Secure a front headlock (here, with your right arm around his head, trapping his right arm into your armpit—his head and arm have to be on the same side of your body).
Setup 2: Your opponent hooks your left leg with his right arm, trying to take you down.
Trap his head into your right armpit with your right arm.
Trap his right arm with your left arm, hooking your right wrist with your left hand to secure a front headlock.
Kick your left leg back to release his grip.
Post your left leg, then drive your right knee in behind his right triceps to clear it out of the way to your right and block it.

Step 2: Now switch your grip so your left hand hooks and pulls up on your right wrist; make sure you pull your right arm all the way across, tightly trapping opponent's head and arm together; your right side/ribs are going to be tight against the back of your opponent’s right arm

Step 3:
Post on your left leg and sit through with your right leg, clearing his left arm with your right knee as you slide your right shin across his waist; fall to your right side, not flat on your back. Throw your left leg over his back so he can’t escape. Or:
Drop to guard and slide your feet, clasped together, out to the right (to the top of his left hip).

Step 4: Bring your right forearm from under him to the side, around to the exposed part of his throat (on his left carotid artery, opposite where his upper arm is pressed against his own throat—on his right carotid artery) and lean back, applying the guillotine choke by pulling your right forearm across his neck, pressing his own right arm against his neck on the other side with your body, and pushing his head down with your right biceps.


2) Front Headlock to Flying Arm-in Guillotine:

From a front headlock (controlling his right arm), tighten the grip by pulling your right hand toward your opponent’s trapped right armpit.
Bring your hands up toward your sternum.
Place your left leg up on his back and jump up lightly, locking your legs around his back. He'll bend at the waist, but may not lose his balance and fall forward.
Arch your back, squeeze tightly and keep your head bent down close to your opponent’s head.
You can finish with your opponent standing or on the ground. This move often feels more like a neck crank than a strangle.

1000 Hits: Litvak Officially Opinionmaker

If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll see a hit counter, which passed 1000 hits this weekend.
As numerous as the stars in the (hazy Brooklyn) firmament are the legions of those who visit these pages.
I admit, loyal readers, this accomplishment is as much yours as mine.
The Litvak is now officially an Opinionmaker.

Read more below the jump.


[clears throat]
I hope to use my recently acquired power to cow tyrants, to defend those who are cruelly oppressed, and to rail against injustice, not to line my own pockets with the filthy lucre of those interests who would become irresistible when backed with the force of my pen.

What, too much? I just paraphrased the NYT editorial statement.
Also, everyone, thanks for reading.

Canoeing in the GOWANUS CANAL!

Friedman Chides Islamic World: Be More Like Me

It's way too "aw, shucks" for my aesthetic, but Thos. Friedman's piece in today's NYT is interesting.

More below the jump...

Nutshell paraphrase:

It'll be bad if Western nations have to respond to domestic Muslim terrorists without the help of Muslim communities, 'cause the governments will be less effective and pleasant with their guns and dogs and racial profiling than the Muslim communities would be with rejecting, ostracizing, and condemning extremists.

I think it'd be a wonderful boon for Muslims if their religious leaders loudly and unambiguously rejected all terrorism as contrary to their religion. Most people (myself included) are largely ignorant of Islam, and would, I think, be greatly set at ease if they heard clear words that Islam, whose history with Christianity has been fraught with mutual hostility, did not wink at terrorism. Otherwise, people are liable to form their opinion of Muslims by the most spectacular things they see that are associated with the religion, which, unfortunately, aren't so uplifting these days.

The most notorious Jewish terrorist in recent memory, a nut named Baruch Goldstein, killed 29 people in a Hebron mosque in 1994. If the rabbinate hadn't universally condemned his actions, and loudly, I know I'd've un-Jewed myself.

BJJ Move #27: Front Headlock (Clinch)

Here's a very common way to control someone whom you've bent over or who's just tried to tackle or shoot in on you from the front.
It offers a great deal of control, opportunities to strike or submit your opponent while standing, tires him out, and is easy and intuitive to apply.

WARNING! These techniques could result in serious injury or death if practiced incorrectly or even if performed correctly. They should only be practiced with the supervision of an experienced instructor.

Front Headlock (Clinch):
-standing clinch
-basic

Your opponent is bent over at the waist (I'll describe setups in later posts)-—your right arm locks around the back of your opponent’s head and under his throat around his left ear; your left arm traps his right arm against his head by going underneath his right armpit.
Clasp your hands together, left hand palm up, and drive your left forearm across to your left so your opponent’s right arm crosses your stomach and is glued tightly to his neck.
Keep your weight over your opponent’s head / neck to control him and wear him down, and your hips and legs back to keep him from picking you up.
From this position you can deliver knee strikes to the top of your opponent’s completely immobilized head.

When I Eat (Some) Crow

Well, in my last post I wrote (among other things, and not all that clearly) that our first response to terrorist attacks should be to treat them as crimes-- by comforting the victims and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

That we shouldn't really consider that terrorists do things for acceptable reasons and try to figure out why the terrorists felt justified in murdering people.

And that we should do step one (comfort, apprehend) before we worry about whether our response will treat the perpetrators' co-religionists unfairly.

Before. Not instead of. This Legal Times piece, clearly exists to make me look stupid.

Read more below the jump.

The federal prosecutors accused Ali Al-Timimi, an American citizen and a Muslim, of providing support to terrorists.
That's not the problem. I can't give money to hitmen, he can't give money to terror groups. So says the law.

The problem is that the prosecutor argued in summation:

If you're a kafir [a non-Muslim], Timimi believes in time of war he's supposed to lie to you. Don't fall for it.

Evidently (according to the article), the prosecution's case was liberally seasoned with religious terms from Islam that the jury was hearing for the first time.
Uh, dude, you can't argue that a defendant is a liar because Muslims think they're allowed to lie.

As an aside, I'll note that the defense lawyer also complained about how the prosecutor made reference to the the testimony of a witness for the prosecution:

The witness testified that Timimi never told followers that Muslims had an obligation to wage war against the United States. In his closing, Kromberg told jurors not to believe the witness because he had also testified that he considered Shiite Muslims nonbelievers who should have their heads lopped off.

That one doesn't bother me, but provides a good contrast for the "kafir" comment. The defendant says two things that sound inconsistent. The prosecutor points that out. It's completely different from attributing generalizations about a defendant's supposed religious beliefs to argue that he's lying.

I don't know exactly where the law should draw the line here (and I'm working for a judge). There's First Amendment caselaw and the federal rules of evidence, so the correct legal answer may not necessarily be the same as what I think is appropriate intuitively.
But the prosecutors are supposed to be wearing the white hats. They should consider themselves bound by more than just the law-- even if they can get away with using this kind of evidence, they should only be using evidence that shows this defendant did these actions-- and not arguing that Muslims, or even just some Muslims, are violent liars 'cause they believe God told them it's okay.
Sheesh.

Condolences to the U.K.

I was going to post something funny today, but instead I'll post about the bus and subway bombings in London.

Read more below the jump.

First, and really, last, I'd like to send my sympathy out to the Brits, who, despite the paranoid blather of the "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe," have done absolutely nothing to deserve being murdered. I'm not just saying this to preface some political point about how we should then do something else. Really, I just think that our primary response to this is should be to comfort and aid the Brits.

Through its actions and its words, SOAQE reveals itself as a bunch of ignorant, vicious conspiracy nuts.
Who else could call the Tories the "Zionist crusader government?"
Who else could believe an ideology that justifies blowing up buses and trains full of commuters?

I moved to NYC from SF in the summer of 2001.
A lot of my circle of friends in SF were liberal, or, more accurately, leftist.
When the planes hit on 9/11, one of them ("S") wrote to the group, on the 11th, the first e-mail to our listserve:

These tragic plane crashes, were in a lot of ways, bound to happen. Yes, that's the pessimistic view, but the American government needs to wake up and realize what it has done to other countries. People are pissed off at America and have the right to be. It's just sad that so many people die at the hands of World Leaders who are just little boys playing games.

The message included a link to an article called "America's Terrorist Roots."

Was I alive or dead? S hadn't asked. And she hadn't expressed horror at the terrorists' acts, or sympathy for the victims.
First on her mind was smugness. Such was her concern for the evils our own country had allegedly perpetrated.

I responded (also to the group):

I can't believe you sent this-- it is in such poor taste. There are ten thousand people dead here in NYC, and you're telling us that their murder was the
inevitable consequence of American bullying?

What are you thinking?

In retrospect, I was wrong about the casualty figure, but right about her.

I was hoping for an e-mail from another member of the group to the effect of "Are you okay?"
Instead, another member of the group, K, responded with some prefatory remarks that sounded like a bad politician's speech:

I think we're all shocked and sadden by what happened today in ny. I was in disbelief when i woke up this morning to the news coming from the alarm clock and thought it was a sick joke at first until learning that it's not a movie trailer or a joke. we are all sending our prayers to those who worked in the towers, in the financial district, and the families of those lost in this trajedy.

K then blamed U.S. policy on Israel, of course, and warned us not to become bigots:

we can all express our grief, but we should also be aware and not deny the reasons for why this happen. it does not occur in a vaccum. there are reasons for this. this is shocking and horrifying to us, but imagine all those who live in war torn areas who are regularly bombed by missiles with much more force. it's their daily existence. the us contributes to this. violence begets violence. we (U.S) imagine ourselves as an all powerful invulnerable nation where we don't answer to anyone and do as we wish without taking any responsibility. this attack shatters that image of the untouchable nation. i hope that this forces the US as a nation to be more responsible in its actions internationally, not just for the sake of innocent civilians (and even non-civilians) who suffer from our (US)contribution to the political instability in their areas (military arms, etc), but also for the sake of all the innocent people here in the US and other US citizens worldwide who pay the price of retribution. though i am fearful that in the meantime only more violence and death will follow as we seek retribution on WHO EVER it is that is responsible, and as people take it in their own hands to seek out justice by attacking and threatening arab americans and muslims who they speculate to be the perpetrators.

I did not agree that deserving terrorist retribution, supporting Israel, and bigotry were connected in any way.

S, slightly chastened, then had this to say:

It's not that I am not saddened by this horrifying act and don't feel sympathy towards the people who died, were injured and had to watch the display of the twin towers crumbling to the ground. It's not that I don't feel the horror of the magnitude of this act. The reason I sent out that article was because I know that these acts aren't created in a vacuum and that a lot of historical events created by the US have created something in the minds of many people in this country and others that feed a feeling of retribution that I don't in any way condone, but can see and know is real.

It's a wake up call in a lot of ways for America to look at what we have done and what we can do to insure the people that live in this country are safe as well as people who live in other countries who get trapped between political lines.

Sorry to make some of you all feel uncomfortable with this article. If you have any beefs about it, please let me know. It's good to hear all sides.

I hope any of you who have friends or family in DC or NY are okay and safe right now.

Not good enough. And the "feeling of retribution" she didn't "condone" but saw and knew "is real" just set me off.

On 9/12, K then sent a copy of the following piece by Robert Kagan from the Washington Post, with the message "it has started already.":

September 11, 2001 -- the date that will live in infamy, the day the post-Cold War era ended, the day the world for Americans changed utterly. In the coming days, as rescuers pick through the rubble in New York, in Washington, in Pittsburgh and who knows where else across the besieged United States, as the bodies of thousands of dead Americans are uncovered and as the rest of us weep over the destruction of innocent human life, our friends and loved ones, we may begin to hear analyses as to why this "tragedy" has befallen us. There will no doubt be questions raised, sins of omission and commission in the Middle East alluded to. Even today, the BBC opined that the attacks came because the United States had failed to get a "grip" on the
Middle East. Nothing strange or odd in that. After Pearl Harbor, almost exactly 60 years ago, there were those who argued, with perhaps even more persuasiveness, that then, too, the United States had somehow invited the Japanese attack. After all, had we not embargoed Japan's vital oil supply?

One can only hope that America can respond to today's monstrous attack on American soil -- an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor -- with the same moral clarity and courage as our grandfathers did. Not by asking what we have done to bring on the wrath of inhuman murderers. Not by figuring out ways to reason with, or try to appease those who have spilled our blood. Not by engaging in an extended legal effort to find the killers and bring them to justice. But by doing the only thing we now can do: go to war. Over the past few years there has been a nostalgic celebration of "The Greatest Generation" -- the generation that fought for America and for humanity in the Second World War. There's no need for nostalgia now. That challenge is before us again. The question today is whether this generation of Americans is made of the same stuff.

Please let us make no mistake this time: We are at war now. We have suffered the first, devastating strike. Certainly, it is not the last. The only question is whether we will now take this war seriously, as seriously as any war we have ever fought. Let's not be daunted by the mysterious and partially hidden identity of our attackers. It will soon become obvious that there are only a few terrorist organizations capable of carrying out such a massive and coordinated strike. We should pour the resources necessary into a global effort to hunt them down and capture or kill them. It will become apparent that those organizations could not have operated without the assistance of some governments, governments with a long record of hostility to the United States and an equally long record of support for terrorism. We should now immediately begin building up our conventional military forces to prepare for what will inevitably and rapidly escalate into confrontation and quite possibly war with one or more of those powers. Congress, in fact, should
immediately declare war. It does not have to name a country. It can declare war against those who have carried out today's attack and against any nations that may have lent their support. A declaration of war would not be pure symbolism. It would be a sign of will and determination to see this conflict through to a satisfactory conclusion no matter how long it takes or how difficult the challenge.

Fortunately, with the Cold War over, there are no immediate threats around the world to prevent us from concentrating our energies and resources on fighting this war on international terrorism as we have never fought it before.

I don't know--it seemed like good advice to me, and didn't urge hate crimes, either.
Well, now my dudgeon was up, and I was annoyed no one was asking after me and my family (these were friends of mine!). I wrote back to the group:

Why mention that "events created by the US … feed a feeling of retribution" if you don't condone that feeling of retribution? Millions of people who have been victims of violence somehow managed to feed an unjustified feeling of retribution; how is the US different?

Your [S's] letter and [K]'s suggest that the attacks were payback, our just desserts for failing to "answer to anyone and do[ing] as we wish without taking any responsibility." It may be that "the US contributes" to the circumstances of "all those who live in war torn areas who are regularly bombed by missiles with
much more force" than we are. Is the lesson we're supposed to learn -really- that "violence begets violence?"

Of course these attacks shatter our notions of safety, but they shouldn't lead us to any conclusions about our innocence OR guilt in international affairs. The
suggestion that victims of terrorism and other violence should reflect on what they did to deserve it is horrible. Using a massive act of violence as an "I-told-you-so" in criticism of U.S. foreign policy is unpersuasive and repellent. If half as many people had been murdered, would your argument have been only half as strong? Certainly that's what the terrorists were thinking. When [K] writes that she "hope[s] that this forces the US as a nation to be more responsible in its actions internationally … for the sake of all the innocent people here in the US and other US citizens worldwide who pay the price of retribution," she could be acting as a spokesperson for those responsible.

Just because someone else feels justified in murdering us doesn't mean we should try to see things his way.

Furthermore, I don't understand why we shouldn't seek retribution against those responsible. We are perfectly capable of distinguishing terrorists from innocent Arabs and Muslims, and there is no reason to refrain from seeking justice and "escalat[ing] this into an all out war and bomb[ing] the hell out of WHO EVER it is;" rather, no "escalation" is necessary- ten thousand people are already dead.

The author of the article [K] mentioned, Donald Kagan, wrote a great book, "On the Origin of War and the Preservation of Peace." [Ed.: I confused Robert Kagan, who wrote the article, with Donald Kagan, who wrote the book.] One of the book's arguments is that many wars start when the major powers fail to assert their power over little states with an incentive to initiate aggression. This failing, and not a foreign policy of insufficient benevolence, is probably more the cause of yesterday's attacks.

I still think I'm correct about the Kagan point. If we'd cleaned up Afghanistan earlier instead of letting it fester, we might have prevented the transformation of Al Qaeda from a bulwak against the Soviet invasion into a pan-Sunni terrorist group.

The exchange went on from there. People in the group who were closer friends of mine were more sympathetic to the victims, but no one really wanted to acknowledge that S and K's messages were insensitive, tasteless, and ignorant, let alone agree with my views of international relations.

Anyway. That's context. So.

I don't want to hear anyone talking about how Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to anger that is "understandable."
I don't want to hear hysterical objections to the inevitable increased scrutiny Muslim immigrants in Europe will receive at train stations.
The only appropriate response now is to comfort the victims of the attacks and hunt down those responsible.

So, you know, for the dozen or so people who read my blog, that's how I feel.

The Greatest Game Ever

Today I'm singing the praises of the game Jew-not-a-Jew (JNAJ).
Not as good as Texas Hold 'Em or Scrabble, but it has its advantages...

Read more below the jump.

First, there are obvious reasons it's more challenging than Chinese-not-Chinese or Black-not-Black.

Second, Jews have lived in all sorts of places since the Babylonian exile around 587 B.C.E. (and subsequent exiles), so we have a huge variety of surnames.
That makes it harder to remember all the Jewish names than to remember, say, all the Korean surnames--where about half the people have one of five popular surnames, or even Scots, where (in 1901, anyway) 15% of the people had one of twenty popular surnames.
Yes, fascinating, I know.
Plus, many traditionally Jewish names (Zimmerman, Schwartz) are only sometimes Jewish.

Some are odd permutations of others it's fun to recognize them (Safire, Sapphire, Safir, Shapiro, Sapperstein).
Others represent particularly Jewish trades (Sapphire, Diamond, Ruby) or have Hebrew roots (Frum, Mikva, Malamud), or are the name of a place Jews lived (Litvak, Tarnipol, Berlin) or otherwise have clues to Jewishness (Cohen, Levi, Jewison, Katz (means "cat" in German, but selected by Jews supposedly as an acronym for "Cohen Tzadik," or "righteous Cohen" (Cohen is the priest tribe from way back), Baron (short for "Ben Aharon," or "son of Aaron")).
Check some neat origins out here.

Third, lots of Jews intentionally changed their names to assimilate or avoid persecution, so spotting them is a particular challenge-- and fun.

Jewhoo has profiles of famous Jews from fields like entertainment and sports, many of whom have changed their names.
It's stopped covering other prominent people, because nutjobs believe every prominent Jew is evidence that ZOG (the Zionist Occupying Government-- it's like CLAW but with bagels) controls the government, media, U.N., etc.
By the way, ZOG High Command-- my check for being part of the tiny ethnic group responsible world domination seems to be held up in the mail or something. What gives?

Fourth, lots of people look or seem a little bit Jewish (and aren't, like Alan Alda), or have some Jewish ancestry but aren't Jewish (like John Kerry or Harrison Ford), or don't look Jewish or have Jewish-sounding names but are Jewish, after all (like Sammy Davis, Jr.).


Recognizing who's Jewish can be a kind of lightweight intellectual challenge.
And, if you're Jewish, you get a small and ill-deserved jolt of pride when you discover some admirable person is Jewish, too.

But with the joy of identifying admirable Jews comes the inevitable shame of identifying jerks.

It's not like being, say, of German ancestry and meeting a jerk named Schmidt.
Who cares? People don't meet some schmuck named Toby Schmidt (or whoever) and think,
"Hey, I don't meet too many Americans with German surnames. But now I have, and they are losers."

But, you know, if you're part of a smaller ethnic group (about 13 million worldwide), these jerks are a real shanda (shame, embarrassment).

Better yet, they are a "shanda fur die goy"-- something embarrassing in front of Gentiles. Please note that the use of the term "goy"--Hebrew for "nation" and Yiddish for "non-Jew"-- is unavoidable in that phrase. Even though it's sometimes used as a sort of slur for Gentiles, it's the only Yiddish word for y'all I've heard.

A funny thing, if you think about it-- to have a sterotype about the other six billion people on the planet.
(Anyway, I hear they're not like you and me, the other six billion; their hearts are on the right side of their chests, or something)

Well, sometimes it happens. I admit that some obnoxious people (often famous) are Jewish.
And, of course, they're going to be offensive in a way that stings.
If people think we're short and oversexed, he'll be Ron Jeremy.
If people believe Jews talk too much and aren't really funny, he'll be Pauly Shore.
If we're all amazing, uh, swimmers, it'll be Mark Spitz. Damn you, Spitz!

And that's how I conceived of the Magic Power I'd like.
The power to un-Jew.

With this power, I could instantly make embarrassing Jewish people instantly gentile.
I've discussed this with friends, and we've decided it would be too much power for a mortal to wield if I got to decide which religion someone would become when I zapped him, so he'll just randomly become Lutheran, or Bahai, or a Baal worshipper or something.

I like to plan whom I'd un-Jew when I get my wand and jet pack.

I can always dream, can't I?

Well, I think that's all I've got to say on this subject.

Play JNAJ, and enjoy it in good health!

Office View Again

Office view again.

View from my office.

That voice. _And_ she donated to the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

Isn't the Gowanus romantic?

Soooo industrial

Well I been done seen about ev'rything, when I seen a elephant fly...

A tree _grew_ in Brooklyn.

NO CAR PARKING.

UWS church