First Looks category archive

Meet today’s Typhoid Mary of stupid:

Florida Man.

At NJ.com, Todd Clear, a criminologist and a Distinguished Professor at Rutgers Law School and School of Criminal Justice who also happens to be Jewish, identifies a misdirection play.

He makes a strong case that opposing Israel’s tactics in Gaza and being antisemitic are not the same thing (a case that a Rabbi of my acquaintance also recently made in my hearing). Here’s a bit of his article:

To conflate opposition to policies of the State of Israel with hatred of Jews is wrong on two counts. First, it is factually wrong. Many Jews (including Israelis) oppose what Netanyahu’s government is doing in Gaza – just look at the op-ed pages of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Second, and even more troubling, is the conflation of anti-Israel sentiment with anti-Jewish sentiment – which is itself antisemitic. In truth, Jews have never been of one mind on the matter of Zionism. While many see Israel as the best hope for autonomous Jewish life, others disagree.

Methinks his article is well-deserving of your attention.

Afterthought:

I concede that the situation in Gaza is, well, complicated. What Hamas did to trigger it was detestable, and Israel certainly has a right to defend itself. It’s a messy and murky situation, which is one reason why I have posted about it so infrequently. After all, I am no maven; I’m just a third-tier blogger shooting off his mouth over the inner webs.

Nevertheless, I wonder whether, in this case, the line between “defense” and “offense” has become–er–blurred.

This week, it’s David R. Hoffman who is hearing an echo.

_________________

*Mark Twain.

The Betty Boop cartoons. The animation is excellent for its time, and the stories are quite good fun.

I’m watching them on Tubi, but I think you can find them on Youtube and maybe other streaming services.

I remember seeing them on the telly vision back in the olden days, when I was a young ‘un.

Off to drink liberally.

Peter Gunn.

I liked it when it was new, the few times I got to see it when I was a young ‘un, and I like it now that it is old (as am I). It was easily one of the best noir series of early American television.

I’m watching it on Tubi.

Aside:

Noir has not gone away. We are living it today.

We probably all know someone who has fallen down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole, whether it’s from watching crackpot videos on Youtube or following fruitcakes on “social” media or through more traditional ways of believing stuff up because it fits what they want to be. I certainly do.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Loren Soeiro looks at why persons fall for adopt conspiracy theories and offers some suggestions as to how to break through to talk with them. A snippet:

Conspiracy theories seem to offer this certainty by presenting a clear and simple explanation for potentially confusing phenomena. Paradoxically, this information may come with a heightened sense of validity because it seems to be withheld by those in power. Pushing away doubts and feelings of ignorance with conspiracy-themed clarity can, therefore, make people feel better informed, whereas a lack of knowledge would only foster uncertainty.

Now it’s Michael Paul Williams who is hearing a rhyme of the past.

______________

*Mark Twain.

In my youth, I demonstrated against the Vietnamese War, the Great and Glorious Patriotic War for a lie of Lie of that time, in such small ways as I could.

Methinks the artist is onto something.

Aside:

Over at No More Mister Nice Blog, Steve M has an interesting take on this issue.

Afterthought:

The unmitigated gall of these uppity students to oppose gratuitous bloodshed!

Who’s doing the devolving here?

The stupid. It burns.

Afterthought:

The most surprising thing about this clip is that Joe Rogan is actually right about something.

Michael in Norfolk finds a straw at which to grasp.

At the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, seasoned diplomat and professor of international affairs at the Pennsylvania State University Dennis Jett looks at Republican plans to gut the Civil Service and return to the “spoils system” of the Nineteenth Century. He determines it to be a disastrous idea. Here’s a bit:

(One of the proposals) literally states that any employee of the executive branch “may be subject to any adverse personnel action (up to and including removal) for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all; and may not challenge or otherwise appeal such action.” The only exceptions are for whistleblowers and cases of discrimination where the appeals process established will ensure any complaints fall on deaf ears.

Afterthought:

I can’t but suspect the motive for this is quite simple: to exempt the (next Republican) President from the rule of law.

Aside:

I do not think it a stretch to suggest that today’s Republican Party, at the portion of it in the House of Representatives, is not interested in (small-d) democratic governance.

It is interested in dictating getting its way.