<meta name='google-adsense-platform-account' content='ca-host-pub-1556223355139109'/> <meta name='google-adsense-platform-domain' content='blogspot.com'/> <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head><body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d27213805\x26blogName\x3dFunny+Talk\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://funny-talk.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://funny-talk.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8336332200213020408', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

DECEMBER

Sunday, December 31, 2006


. . . gets off to a troubling start , with the worsening situation in Iraq worsening faster than ever. The nation's hopes for a solution are pinned on the Iraq Study Group, a presidentially appointed blue-ribbon panel consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats and the Wizard of Oz. In accordance with longstanding Washington tradition, the panel first formally leaks its report to the New York Times, then delivers it to the president, who turns it over to White House personnel specially trained in reading things.

In essence, the study group recommends a three-pronged approach, consisting of: 1) a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, but not on a fixed timetable; 2) intensified training of Iraqi troops; and 3) the physical relocation of Iraq, including buildings, to Greenland. Republican and Democratic leaders, after considering the report for the better part of a nanosecond, commence what is expected to be a minimum of two more years of bickering.

With the Iraq situation pretty much solved, the world's attention shifts to Iran and its suspected nuclear program, which becomes the subject of renewed concern after U.S. satellites detect a glowing 400-foot-high spider striding around Tehran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists that it is "a peaceful spider" that will be used "only for mail delivery." Shortly thereafter, North Korea -- in what many observers see as a deliberate provocation -- detonates a nuclear device inside the Lincoln Memorial.

Finally responding to these new threats to international stability, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdon, Russia, China and Google -- hold an emergency meeting in Paris, where, after heated debate, they vote to have a bottle of 1959 Chateau Margaux with their entree. Unfortunately, they cannot agree on a dessert wine, causing the city, which had just reopened, to shut down completely.

In other food news, New York City, having apparently solved all of its other problems, bans "trans fats." Hours later, police surround a Burger King in Brooklyn and fire 50 bullets into a man suspected of carrying a concealed Whopper. The medical examiner's office, after a thorough investigation, concludes that the man "definitely could have developed artery problems down the road."

Speaking of health problems, rumors that Fidel Castro is ailing gain new strength when, at an official state dinner in Havana, a waiter accidentally tips over the longtime Cuban leader's urn, spilling most of him on the floor.

In other deceased-Communist news, British police rule that the mysterious death of a former Russian spy in London was a murder, caused by the radioactive element polonium-210. New York immediately bans the element, forcing the closure of 70 percent of the city's Taco Bells.

As the year, finally, nears its conclusion, Americans turn their attention to the holiday season, which they celebrate -- as generations have before them -- by frantically overbidding on eBay for the Sony PlayStation 3, of which Sony, anticipating the near-homicidal level of demand, manufactured an estimated 11 units. Millions of Americans also head "home for the holidays," making this one of the busiest air travel seasons ever. The always vigilant TSA responds by raising the Security Threat Level to "ultraviolet," which means that passengers may not board an airplane if they contain blood.
But despite the well-founded fear of terrorism, the seemingly unbreakable and escalating cycle of violence in the Middle East, the uncertain world economic future, the menace of global warming, the near-certainty that rogue states run by lunatics will soon have nuclear weapons, and the fact that America is confronting these dangers with a federal government sharply divided into two hostile parties unable to agree on anything except that the other side is scum, Americans face the new year with a remarkable lack of worry, and for a very good reason: They are busy drinking beer and watching football.

So, Happy New Year.

(Burp.)

posted by LeBlues
11:49 AM

0 comments

Put that in your stocking

Tuesday, December 19, 2006


A 'traditional Christmas' is just one part of our national identity that's in danger, cry the purists, but what do they mean? As four books suggest, 'Britishness' is about as real as Santa Claus, says Rafael Behr

Britishness is a bit like Father Christmas. So many people talk about it as though it really exists that you could almost start to believe it does

Also like Santa, Britishness has a strained relationship with Christianity. The jolly red-faced man with the beard is a hybrid of pagan winter spirits and St Nicholas. Britain's head of the state is also head of the Church. But it is as inconceivable today that non- Christians should be denied the right to be called British as it is to think that Father Christmas should refuse to fill the stockings of good little children just because they aren't baptised.

In the interests of fairness, the meanings of modern Britishness and Christmas are kept vague. But the nation's drift away from its religious mooring is a source of consternation to the devout, especially at this time of year. It is traditional for churchmen to lament how the baby Jesus gets forgotten in the orgiastic eating, drinking and shopping.

'Young people know more about the plotlines of EastEnders than about the story of the nativity,' writes Ian Bradley in Believing in Britain, a new treatise on God and national identity. Bradley, a theologian, Church of Scotland minister, and biographer of Gilbert and Sullivan, fears that Britain is losing its sense of collective endeavour. He worries (it is quite the fashionable anxiety in politics these days) that we are being pulled apart by forces of difference: nationalism on the Celtic fringe, a new English nationalism rising in reaction, the cultural autonomy of immigrant communities.


That's the bad news. The good news, according to Bradley, is that, if we read history creatively, we can construct an idea of Britishness that embraces diversity and nourishes the spirit of the nation. Take a bit of Anglo-Saxon liberty from Magna Carta, some law and roads from the Romans, a pinch of Celtic romance from Wales and Ireland, stiffen with moral fibre from Scotland, season with carnivals from the Caribbean and bake under the glory of God: behold 21st-century Britain.

The thesis is founded on serious scholarship, but the cement holding it together is a jauntily optimistic faith. The same cannot be said of The English National Character, a study of Englishness by Cambridge historian Peter Mandler who mines much of the same raw material as Bradley, but without the missionary zeal. Mandler's history of the Englishman's sense of himself 'from Edmund Burke' is often dryly encyclopædic. It comes to life mainly in the Victorian era when the business of fabricating first Englishness, and then Britishness, turned industrial. With the spread of the franchise to plebian voters and the rise of empire there were a lot more people who, for political expediency, had to be included in the national identity. But the Victorians were a bit snooty about European nationalism (which reeked of peasants, pitchforks and revolutionaries in grubby breeches). They didn't want to be just a nation, so they promoted themselves to the status of 'civilisation'. The advantage of this was that anyone could join. Britishness became a bounty that could, and indeed really ought to be spread to benighted peoples around the world.

As a consequence of this canny national rebranding many of the characteristics people think of as primordially 'British' are actually Victorian: austere, eccentric, industrious, beloved of fair play, liking a good pageant, respectful of the monarch, obsessed with decency and propriety, redoubtable, stoical, in possession of a stiff upper lip. There are those who like to bemoan the changing complexion and ill behaviour of modern Britain, imagining themselves to be guardians of some immutable national identity. In fact, they are just nostalgic for the 19th century.

Students of this nobody's-got-any-respect-anymore school of hand-wringing should read City of Laughter, Vic Gatrell's study of humour in the 18th century. The primary subject of Gatrell's prodigious research is the trade in satirical prints that circulated in Georgian London. But City of Laughter is also an intimate portrait of what was then the biggest, noisiest, smelliest and most exuberant city in the world. The print industry fed a hearty public appetite for scandal, grotesque caricature, gossip and smut, from which we get a pretty good sense of what sort of place the capital was: not unlike the noisy, smelly, exuberant, smutty place it is today.

Gatrell doesn't draw explicit parallels, but they leap off the page anyway. The obsession with sex and celebrity, the love of drunkenness for its own sake, the libertinage, the traffic jams, the ribaldry and all the indiscretion that is the cultural stamp of 21st-century Britain - they aren't a deviation from some more discreet and serious-minded course of historic Britishness, they are themselves antique. They are vintage Regency fun. Modern Britain even has, in Harry Windsor, its own equivalent of the Prince Regent, the simple-minded toffee-nosed oaf with the taste for pleasure and the habit of getting his picture in scurrilous papers. If anything, today's tabloid paparazzi are kinder to our royals than the 18th-century satirical cartoonists were to theirs.

This Georgian spirit, captivatingly documented by Gatrell, vanished some time in the early 19th century. Irreverence and aristocratic indolence fell out of fashion, the rising Victorian bourgeoisie preferred industry and respectability. Their values prevailed until the Sixties; when at last the empire expired, deference went into decline and decadence made a comeback. Beyond the Fringe and the Rolling Stones were the start of a neo-Georgian revival. Bitter conservatives chart the decline of the nation from the same point. The Sixties, they say, is when the corset of dignity that kept the nation upright was undone, and Britannia got a pox of disrespect. The blame for this tends to land quite fairly on liberal permissiveness. Most unfairly, some also lands on immigration, which by unlucky coincidence happened to be going through the roof at around the same time that the country was, according to the pessimists, going to the dogs.

Blaming foreigners for an imagined decline in Britishness is a terrible but commonplace calumny. In fact, as a handful of the more Enlightened traditionalists have noticed, immigrants are more likely to uphold Victorian values of family self-sufficiency, modesty, reserve, piety than native-born British libertines, who never pray, can't keep their trousers on and vomit on tradition. Ian Bradley unearths a telling quote from Libby Purves writing in the Times after the 7 July 2005 London bombings: 'What Muslims want and respect is not so very unlike what the despised "Middle Britain" wants.' It isn't immediately obvious who despises Middle Britain, but candidates are 'the media' which 'would rather torment the monarchy than enjoy it' and 'public institutions' which 'are too shy of our religious heritage to defend Christmas.'

This year the lamentation that Christmas has been lost, or forgotten, or stolen by unbelievers and infidels has reached a higher pitch than ever before. The Daily Mail, house journal of bourgeois neo-Victorians, is running a campaign against political correctness and in defence of 'real Christmas'. But which festival do these revivalists have in mind? The earnest Victorian one where families gather around the hearth harking herald angels singing, or the naughty Georgian one of scoffing, drunkenness and fumbled erotic encounters in cupboards and alleyways? Both are as traditional and as British as Father Christmas.

Where the seasonal purists have gone wrong is that they are looking at the wrong sacred text. Of course the birth of Christ is narrated in the gospel. But the spirit of British Christmas - past, present and future - belongs to Charles Dickens. Every facet of our national festival is contained in A Christmas Carol, handily reprinted this year in a handsome and well annotated volume. It's all in there: snow, mulled wine, parlour games, turkeys the size of small people, fleeting allusions to the Baby Jesus, dancing, pudding, brandy, presents and charity. Dickens is the perfect mix of Georgian grotesquery and Victorian sentimentality. And with more morality than you can pack into a whole year of EastEnders plot lines.

That is what Christmas is really about: repenting of meanness and making sure that Tiny Tim has enough turkey, so that he doesn't limp to an early grave, but instead grows strong and has much occasion to repeat 'God bless us, every one!'


Labels: , ,

posted by LeBlues
2:24 PM

0 comments

You’ll Work in This Town Again

Sunday, December 17, 2006


Of course, the deity doing the blessing is less likely to be Yahweh than Gukumatz, traditional Toltec god of culture, agriculture and opening weekend grosses.

By now the miracles have been quantified. “Apocalypto,” when it opened, promptly took the top box office spot with $15 million. Plus — what are the odds? — his Joseph Campbell-meets-Mesoamerica epic has been nominated for a Golden Globe, and is now being mentioned in the same sentence as Oscar.


It’s the last thing you’d expect for a movie in Mayan — especially one made by a man whose last project was a staging of Hate Crime Theater on a Malibu police-cam. Which begs the question: How low does a human being have to sink before Hollywood shoos him away and he can’t get an Oscar?Stars have always been bent. Wallace Reid, the silent screen’s first heartthrob — and a full-on dope fiend — needed the studio to slip him morphine to keep production going. (This was the pre-rehab era; Reid died trying to kick his habit in a sanitarium.)

The celebrated Charlie Chaplin? In his 20s, he married a 16-year-old moppet; in his 30s, married another 16-year-old; in his 50s, settled down with a 17-year-old. But his penchant for child brides did not prevent him from receiving the longest standing ovation in Oscar history when he was given an honorary statue in 1972. Of course, Chaplin’s honor also marked his return from exile in Switzerland.

Once, Hollywood required scandal-ridden stars to go away for a while — a penitent hiatus before they could enjoy redemption, their second acts. So after being banished for years for her baby with Roberto Rossellini, Ingrid Bergman was, in 1956, finally welcomed back and given an Oscar.

Roman Polanski waited decades after fleeing a warrant for pedophilia before he finally snagged, in absentia, his best director statue for “The Pianist.” And even Leni Riefenstahl, the Führer’s darling, received a posthumous mention among the notable Hollywood dead at the 2003 Oscars.

But less than five months have passed between Mr. Gibson’s spouting of tequila-fueled bons mots on the dread power of the Hebrews and his basking in the glow of a No. 1 movie. His brief time in the wilderness may represent the fastest about-face since Democrats re-embraced Joseph Lieberman after he bested Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.

I know what you’re going to say: Fatty Arbuckle. The exception to the rule. Once bigger than Chaplin, he’s now remembered as the gold standard of degraded celebrity, someone who allegedly committed such unforgivable acts that he could never really come back. In 1921, the year he became the first comic actor to make $1 million a year, he was accused of raping and murdering an actress during an orgy at a San Francisco hotel.

It wasn’t Hollywood that finally barred the door to Arbuckle — friends like Buster Keaton helped him scrape together directing gigs under a pseudonym — his audience left him. Back then, the Christian reform movement blamed movies for an epidemic of teenage degeneracy, but these proto-Don Wildmons loved Arbuckle, who radiated less sex than a lawn chair.

So when the comedian was exposed as a sweaty, waif-crushing love-manatee, it wasn’t just a revolting crime — it was a core betrayal of his conservative fans. A jury found him innocent, but it was too late. In this industry, Arbuckle’s sin was worse than Mr. Gibson’s: he wasn’t bankable anymore.

That’s what it comes down to. If you’re going to offend your peers, parade unforgivable behavior and find all-new ways to turn your life into a nonstop shame-fest, you’d better also deliver big box office.
Speaking strictly as a paranoid Jew, I want my celebrity anti-Semites to be loaded mega-stars screaming into the night by the side of a road. How much more disturbing would it be to hear, say, Wilfred Brimley making the same racist claims over a bowl of groats, sober as a judge?

Mr. Gibson’s anti-Semitism is in fact the least interesting thing about him. Maybe he was simply craving that next level of public humiliation; maybe his espousing of such heinous opinions and subsequent talk show tortures are valuable research for his violent onscreen debasements.


The point to remember is that every award won by “Apocalypto,” every ticket sold, doesn’t mean that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” will start inching upward on Amazon. Mr. Gibson’s anti-Semitism may be as American as canned ham (that’s the dark truth of why he’s not been completely shunned), but his film will win accolades in spite of who he is — not because of it.

What do I know? I’m in this business because somebody made a movie about my life as a drug-addled loser in Hollywood. If lifelong integrity were required for gainful employment in the entertainment industry, then I’d still be sweating through my McDonald’s poly-blend, serving Happy Meals alongside other showbiz reprobates.

You simply can’t vet the moral worth — or at least, the absence of obvious, deep-seated depravity — of every potential Oscar nominee. If they only gave work, let alone awards, to non-sickos, non-egomaniacs and non-hypocrites, there would be nobody left to make movies but Tom Hanks.


Labels:

posted by LeBlues
9:40 AM

0 comments

World's tallest man saves dolphin

Thursday, December 14, 2006



The world's tallest man has saved two dolphins by using his long arms to reach into their stomachs and pull out dangerous plastic shards.


Mongolian herdsman Bao Xishun was called in after the dolphins swallowed plastic used around their pool at an aquarium in Fushun, north-east China.


Attempts to use instruments failed as the dolphins contracted their stomachs.
Guinness World Records list Mr Bao, 54, as the world's tallest living man at 2m 36.1cm (7ft 8.95in).


Recovering


Veterinarians turned to Mr Bao after attempts to extract the plastic shards at the aquarium in Fushun, Liaoning Province, had failed.


The mammals had lost their appetite and were suffering depression, aquarium officials said.
The heads of the dolphins were held back and towels wrapped around their teeth so Mr Bao could not be bitten.


He then extended his 1.06m-long arm into the mammals' stomachs.
Chen Lujun, manager of Royal Jidi Ocean World, said Mr Bao was successful and the dolphins were "in very good condition now".


Local doctor Zhu Xiaoling told the state media agency Xinhua: "Some very small plastic pieces are still left in the dolphins' stomachs.


"However the dolphins will be able to digest these and are expected to recover soon."
Mr Bao was confirmed as the world's tallest living man by Guinness World Records last year.
He overtook the previous holder, Radhouane Charbib of Tunisia, by just 2mm.


Guinness World Records say Mr Bao was of normal height until 16 but then put on a spurt that doctors were unable to explain, reaching his full height in seven years.

posted by LeBlues
1:13 PM

0 comments

Russian sex symbols & fake tan

The author Dmitry Bykov wrote an article in Ogonyok last week arguing that there aren't any Russian sex symbols, only Hollywood ones. This was a touch harsh, I think, especially since the writer and his shorts recently starred in a Moskovsky Komsomolets gossip column.

Bykov just won the Big Book literary prize for his biography of Boris Pasternak, but he's also a populist figure who appears on television and radio shows, and probably isn't above flicking through Seven Days magazine. So I can only blame the months spent on Pasternak for his shocking ignorance about Scarlett Johansson's love life: Jared Leto was so 2005.

By "sex symbols," Bykov means actors, and he goes through the possible candidates, discarding them one by one. He says Konstantin Khabensky wastes his talent in the "Night Watch" films -- not even mentioning the ears -- while Oleg Menshikov just looks tired all the time, and tough-guy Vladimir Mashkov was far hotter back in the early 1990s.

Arguing about sex symbols in Russia is pretty pointless, though, as I realized this week when I read that 74 percent of Muscovites questioned by My Plyus magazine preferred Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig. Of course, it doesn't help that the title of the latest Bond film means "Casino Grand Piano" in Russian, but still, I fear for the nation's sanity.

Judging from my less scientific surveys, Russia's main sex symbols seem to be people like Andrei Malakhov and Dima Bilan, and even, God help us, Nikolai Baskov. In other words, you can never wear too much fake tan or be too blow-dried. Which I suppose explains why Brosnan goes down well.

Unfortunately, Bykov doesn't dip his toe into the Bond debate. But then again, if he doesn't know that Johansson has been going out with Josh Hartnett and they've put extra sound insulation in their bedroom, then he has got a lot of Seven Days to catch up on.

I certainly hope that Bykov saw Johansson's swimsuit scene in "Scoop," since he writes lovingly of her vital statistics. He's not so keen on Russian actresses. The only one he sees as a potential sex symbol is Chulpan Khamatova, but he says that she's unconvincing in love scenes. It's an unfair comparison, though, since her period dramas don't give the same opportunities to wear Lycra.

It seems pretty unbelievable that Bykov can't think of any other female sex symbols. I mean, have the girl groups Blestyashchiye and VIA Gra been living in vain? I used to get the two groups mixed up, but not any more, since Komsomolskaya Pravda pointed out that -- perhaps counterintuitively -- Blestyashchiye has breasts, while VIA Gra has legs.

Bykov himself isn't exactly a traditional sex symbol, but I warmed to him in September when Moskovsky Komsomolets gave him a massive dressing-down for, well, dressing down. He turned up at a film premiere wearing what was admittedly a rather eccentric outfit: fishing vest over bare torso, denim cut-offs and those sandals with T-bars that you had to wear in primary school.

True, the author isn't slim enough to throw this lot together in a Kate Moss sort of way -- he is quite a large man -- but MK went after him in the manner of a babushka on a trolleybus scolding someone with wet hair or an incorrectly tied scarf.

"The audience couldn't look at the screen or at Dmitry Bykov without tears," a society columnist wrote sniffily, zooming in on his dirty toenails. The tabloid also runs a weekly fashion-police feature, but its two arbiters refused to assess Bykov, presumably fearing that he might pollute their finely tuned palates.

In any case, they would definitely have given him two scowls, their lowest mark. But I think he would have taken that as a compliment.

posted by LeBlues
9:41 AM

0 comments

Why are Jews funny?

A friend once asked why there are so many Jews in comedy. I must confess: The question struck me as dangerous—akin to asking why so many Greeks own diners. Still, he was hardly the first to make the association. The relationship between Jews and comedy frequently has been noted by scholars, serious talk-show hosts, and pudgy AEΠ guys.

And with good reason. No one can ignore the powerful Jewish presence in American comedy: the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, George Burns, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner, Neil Simon, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Henny Youngman, Jackie Mason, Don Rickles, Buddy Hackett, Rodney Dangerfield, Lenny Bruce, Gilda Radner, Andy Kaufman, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Sarah Silverman, Noam Chomsky.

So I decided to give my friend the politically correct answer: that the Jews had been forced into comedy by the downsizing of the Zionist government and continued outsourcing of baptized-baby blood-drinking jobs.

My sarcasm flowed from many places, but I had to acknowledge part of it came from my inability to provide a more satisfying answer. I simply didn’t know why there were there so many Jews in comedy. My Hebrew school certainly didn’t offer credits in stand-up, and I was pretty sure there wasn’t an “earlier, funnier” Torah. It bothered me that I didn’t have a better answer then, and it took me a long time before I realized I was making a mistake by focusing on the Jew in isolation. If Jew plus America equaled comedy, then there had to be something funny about that combination—and there is.

In America, Jews are a white minority. Think about that: We can live comfortably, practice freely, and bowl adequately. But being a Jew in America is like using left-handed scissors: You can make it work, but it just doesn’t feel right. This is Jesusland. Always has been, always will be. So perhaps what makes Jews so funny is not Judaism, but Christianity—and the American Jew’s constant immersion in it. Don’t believe me? Who could blame you? It’s easy to accept that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and walked on water, but believing he begat the funniest fuckers on the planet would take a true leap of faith.

The Comedic Effect of Christianity

Sometime shortly after birth, an American Jew realizes he’s in the minority. That realization takes a little longer if the delivering obstetrician is Jewish or if the baby’s born in New York, but it’s still clear from very early on. This is a Christian show—and that’s no accident. Because when it comes to amassing a religious majority, Christianity, like most winners, cheats. And not just in the big historical ways (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Santa Claus), but with something more basic, something all around us: Christianity has ingrained an almost irresistibly hard sell right into its architecture. Beautifully adorned churches demand awe and reverence. Towering steeples force spectators to raise their eyes toward the heavens, where affixed crucifixes live in the sky. You can’t see a church without looking up—at God.

Surely, Christianity is God’s true religion because unlike comparatively modest synagogues, churches are more than houses of God; they’re homes for God. A place He might actually crash after a hard day of smiting. Sometimes He even hangs out there in those terrifyingly inspirational wax museum curios. You know what He looks like. The proof is in the plaster. (Though it strikes me as odd that a religion that places such a high premium on faith would leave so little to the imagination.)

And while I’m referring more to the flashiness of Catholicism than Christianity as a whole, Jews know as much about these differences as gentiles do about varying Sephardic and Ashkenazi pronunciations. In the end, all that matters to Jews is that it’s a Christian world and Christianity is growing, setting up shop in more and more places, always ahead of the competition and undaunted by the occasional lawsuit.

Humor can undo some deeply held beliefs. Just look at Jerry Lewis. How else, but through comedy, could the French be fooled into loving such a greasy Jew?

Jews know this. And we accept that Christianity is lovely and successful and popular and comforting. Furthermore, we know all about you without even going to church because—unlike the mysteries of our minority religion—Christianity flourishes in the secular world. There are really good Christmas carols and Christmas movies and New Testament allegorical adventures with talking animals. But sometimes Christianity’s über-majority status becomes empowering to the point of perversion. Either that or they must be handing out testicles at Mass, because some Christians actually have the balls to complain about “Jewish paranoia”—as if six million Jewish men, women, and children weren’t rounded up, shipped out, tortured, and killed in the middle of the 20th century. Calling Jews “paranoid” is like giving shit to Christians in Ancient Rome for acting “kinda jumpy” around lions.

So, yeah, that’s being a Jew in America. It’s not heartbreaking, it’s not debilitating, and it’s clearly not as difficult as being a non-white minority—though it’s had its moments. And while 2,000 years ago we might have gotten all Judah Maccabee on your ass, now all we have is Jon Stewart (and he’s not as good with a hammer as we hoped). So what else can we do except joke about it? Besides, comedy can be powerful; humor can undo some deeply held beliefs. Just look at Jerry Lewis. How else, but through comedy, could the French be fooled into loving such a greasy Jew?

But is that all Jewish comedy really is? A way of complaining? A subtler form of throwing a punch? A cry for acceptance? For some, sure, but those guys never seem to make it past a couple of Letterman appearances. There’s more to it than that because the truth is, we’re not sore losers. We haven’t even lost. Look it up. There’s never been a race between Judaism and Christianity to see who could amass the greatest numbers of souls. Judaism has always been an invitation-only affair, a reward that’s unsettlingly similar to a punishment. Like when the schoolteacher picks the good kid to help clean the erasers after class, Judaism is something of a burden. And that accounts for a need for humor as much as anything else.

Tikkun Olam and Comedy

Jews go by many names—”Children of Israel,” “Members of the Tribe,” “Executive Producer”—but perhaps the most descriptive is “Chosen People.” Chosen. Set apart by God. That means we don’t go looking for converts. Indeed, if a gentile comes to a rabbi seeking conversion, the rabbi is to refuse the candidate three times before even discussing the possibility of converting. Don’t hate us for that. It’s not like we’re bogarting the one true path to salvation. We don’t have a heaven, and if we did, we wouldn’t believe that only Jews go there. It’s not like Miami Beach.

No, rabbis initially refuse a convert only to make sure the potential Jew is serious—and tenacious. Because there’s work to be done. The world is incomplete, and God chose the Jews to complete it. Not chosen to reach heaven before others, but chosen to help with the heavy lifting during the final phases of construction. This concept is embodied in the Hebrew phrase “tikkun olam,” which roughly translates to “putting the world in order,” and conveys an obligation on Jews to pursue social justice. And even though countless Jews have never heard this phrase, we all carry it in our hearts, somehow.

The joke recognizes that Jews don’t do things the easy way. Why? Because they’re supposed to do more.



But how does a Jew—even a religiously ignorant Jew—achieve these ends? How does a Jew complete the world? Charitable donation? Labor organization? New York Times op-ed? We don’t know. Somewhere there is a nagging voice telling us that everything is not all right. That action can’t be left to someone else at some other time. It’s hard to say if it’s the voice of God or the voice of history or, if Philip Roth were right, the voice of our mothers—but apparently he was raised by a cartoon. And still, we hear that voice and, without knowing what to do with it, sometimes we make a joke. Can making a joke mend the world? It sure couldn’t hurt.

Probably everything you need to know about this kind of Jewish humor and the Jews as a people can be summed up in an old joke popularized by Jack Benny and, more recently, Eddie Murphy in Coming to America:

An old Jewish man sits down in a fancy restaurant and orders a bowl of soup.Within 30 seconds of being brought his order, the man calls the waiter over and asks that he taste the soup. The waiter inquires as to the problem. The Jew doesn’t answer, but again asks the waiter to taste the soup. The waiter advises that he’s not in the habit of tasting patrons’ food, but the Jew persists. The waiter asks if the soup’s too cold, too hot, or contains—heaven forbid—a fly. Each time the Jew merely repeats his request for the waiter to taste the soup. Ultimately, the waiter relents, if only to bring some closure to what has become quite an episode. He looks all around the table, and then asks, “Where’s the spoon?” To which the Jew replies with a smile, “A-ha.”


This is my favorite Jewish joke, even though I’m sure the only thing most take away from it is that Jews are insufferable pains in the ass. But that’s only the obvious punch line. Of course it’s easier just to ask for a spoon. This joke recognizes that Jews don’t do things the easy way. Why? Because they’re supposed to do more. This old man wanted to teach a lesson and not in a haughty, degrading manner, but through humor. Without putting the waiter down, he said, “Understand what’s it’s like to be a hungry man with a bowl of soup and no spoon.” Yes, he wanted a spoon, but he also wanted to make the waiter remember. This old Jew wants to make sure that someone else gets their spoon tomorrow.

Perhaps more important, though, is that by taking the time and energy to do things the hard way, he confirms his faith in humanity. He rejects cynicism. Who would waste that kind of energy unless they believed they were addressing someone who wanted to be taught? That kind of humor, mixed with energy and faith, is a tiny part of tikkun olam. And even though it’s not in the joke—because it’s not funny—I like to believe the old Jew left the waiter a good tip. Of course, he did: The Jew likes the waiter. Don’t you know that?

This joke is only possible with a Jewish patron. Change the customer to a WASP and this is what you get:

An old WASP sits down in a fancy restaurant and orders a bowl of soup. After receiving his order, he notices that the waiter has failed to bring a spoon. Accordingly, he simmers, quietly, for five minutes until he can catch the waiter’s attention with a polite gesture. Upon doing so, he requests a spoon while mentally calculating a small, but distinct, reduction in tip.


The sad part is that most of us would rather sit at the table next to the quiet (if angry) WASP were we at the restaurant. But don’t you think the old Jew knows that, too? He lives in this world. He knows he has been set apart. But he does it anyway. He makes a joke knowing that some will view him merely as the joke.

But what about those who might reject that analysis? People who are convinced this joke is only about how far Jews will go to belittle and belabor, because they think they’re better than gentiles? Of them I would ask, “Is it hard to find a place to get your jackboots properly polished in Argentina?” Because these are the people who can’t be taught. These are the people who blindly hate. And they deserve the Don Rickles kind of comedy, not the Jack Benny kind. Being a Jew in America you need to learn the difference, and if people are going to hate you anyway, well, then sometimes it feels better to give them a reason.

A Rejected Invitation and the Confession

Don’t get me wrong. America is rife with gentiles who magnanimously blur the distinctions between Jews and the rest of Americans. They’re really swell folks. They stress unanimity. Some are even hostile to the notion of a difference. “You’re just like us,” they say while adjusting their navy blue sports jackets—”and who wouldn’t want to be?” Who could envision anything better? Don’t the citizens of every country want a government just like ours? A powerful presumption by Christian Americans who fully understand (without ever even stating it, of course) that Christianity is America: powerful, successful, expansive, and almost completely devoid of American Indians.

So sometimes, our humor is a polite way to decline your invitation to climb aboard the S.S. Milquetoast. Flattering to be thought of that way, but we better not. We’ll react badly to the shellfish appetizer. Yes, it’s like an allergy.

It’s better that we use humor to kindly keep some distance and gently remind you who we are, to save us both the pain of your shocking realization. Because even the most inclusive of you will ultimately discern the difference. And we want to be different. Yes, we can throw a punch or a football. We can drink a beer or go fishing. But we don’t buy meat on a stick or tell our kids they can skip homework to watch the Final Four. We won’t do something because everyone’s doing it. We won’t believe all’s well that ends well when the same sin is scheduled for the day after tomorrow. Except for those Jews who will—because some Jews do. And I don’t know what to say about them. They own BMWs. They like Philip Roth. They don’t make inappropriate jokes. They ruin theories. They’re not like me.

I like to think those Jews aren’t funny. That they don’t laugh at the right jokes. That all of them probably wish they were Christians. And I like to say I’m different—that if I were Christian, I’d ask to convert to Judaism. But I have to confess, I’m truly afraid I might only ask twice. Funny, isn’t it?

posted by LeBlues
9:12 AM

0 comments

Diplomatic dodge to breath test

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


A Chinese diplomat in South Korea locked himself and three colleagues in his car for eight hours to avoid taking a breathalyser test, police have said.

The car was stopped as part of routine checks for drink-driving in the capital, Seoul, on Tuesday night.

But the diplomat, who has not been named, refused to take a test or identify himself, locking the doors.

He was allowed to leave only after officials from the Chinese embassy and South Korean foreign ministry arrived.

China's embassy later said the diplomat had done nothing wrong.

"Our internal investigation has found that the diplomat did not drive under the influence of alcohol," an official told the AFP news agency.

But South Korea's government was unimpressed.

"Before demanding diplomat rights, it is expected of diplomats to follow the regulations of the country they are staying in," said Foreign Minister Song Min-soon.

posted by LeBlues
1:34 PM

0 comments

Virginia woman says “STFU” license tag was to honor late friend


The way Kirsten Norman tells it, the vanity license plates on her Volkswagen Jetta were meant as a tribute to a friend who died from cancer. The Commonwealth of Virginia, however, had a different interpretation of “STFU-PLS.”

Acting on a September e-mail complaint that the acronym stood for “Shut The Fuck Up Please,” the Department of Motor Vehicles quickly recalled the plates, sending Norman a letter noting that the tags were “issued in error” and no longer valid. Along with the correspondence, DMV officials sent Norman new plates (the less distinctive “KDA 347″) and asked her to return the personalized plates in a self-addressed envelope they provided.

Norman responded with an amusing October letter in which she explained the supposedly true meaning of “STFU-PLS”. Norman noted that she would not allow the state to “tell me what I can and cannot say on my license plates because of what you THINK it means. This goes against my first amendment rights.” Additionally, in an e-mail to TSG, Norman added, “God the American Government sucks. Freedom of speech my ass.”

posted by LeBlues
10:55 AM

0 comments

The good book business

In a sixth-floor conference room of an office building near Nashville International Airport, Rodney Hatfield’s BlackBerry buzzed with an incoming e-mail: “The Lord placed a vision on our hearts of a skaters’ Bible. We really love the N.K.J.V. and would love to use this version. Who can I talk to regarding this? We hope to pack the study Bible with testimonies from pros, devotions, skating tips, etc.”

Hatfield is the vice-president of marketing for the Bible division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, and the N.K.J.V. (the New King James Version) is its best-selling translation. Thomas Nelson has a history stretching back to 1798, and, in the American market, it is by some measures the largest Christian publisher, the second-largest publisher of Bibles, and the ninth-largest publishing house of any kind. The e-mail was from a Florida skateboard ministry, and Hatfield read it impassively but not dismissively. After all, one of the company’s lead titles for the fall, “The Family Foundations Study Bible,” had its origins in a similarly unsolicited suggestion from an outsider. True, that source was more estimable (a major Christian retailer) and the idea less fanciful. But the general principle—that Scripture can be repackaged to meet the demands of an increasingly segmented market—is at the heart of the modern Bible-publishing industry.

The familiar observation that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year. Calculating how many Bibles are sold in the United States is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased some twenty-five million Bibles—twice as many as the most recent Harry Potter book. The amount spent annually on Bibles has been put at more than half a billion dollars.

In some ways, this should not be surprising. According to the Barna Group, an evangelical polling firm, forty-seven per cent of Americans read the Bible every week. But other research has found that ninety-one per cent of American households own at least one Bible—the average household owns four—which means that Bible publishers manage to sell twenty-five million copies a year of a book that almost everybody already has. Thomas Nelson’s Bible sales increased more than fifteen per cent last year, and such commercial possibilities have begun to attract mainstream publishers to an area dominated by a half-dozen Christian houses. Penguin published two new editions of the Bible this fall, and in July HarperSanFrancisco, part of HarperCollins, announced the creation of a Bible imprint. In June, Thomas Nelson, which last changed hands thirty-seven years ago, for $2.6 million, was purchased by a private investment firm for four hundred and seventy-three million dollars.

This is an intensely competitive business, and, despite the provenance of “The Family Foundations Study Bible,” publishers rarely rely on mere inspiration. Another new Nelson release, “The Grace for the Moment Daily Bible,” had a more typically strategic genesis: it is an extension of one of the publisher’s most popular brands, a series of devotional books by Max Lucado, a Texas minister whose many titles have sold nearly fifty million copies. Nelson has seventeen imprints in addition to the Nelson Bible Group, and when it has a popular writer like Lucado it will spin him off into as many different lines as possible. The “Daily Bible” features Scripture portions paired with short essays excerpted from other Lucado titles. In the absence of such ready-made material, Bible publishers formulate projects using classic market research. Every year, Nelson Bible executives analyze their product line for shortcomings, scrutinize the competition’s offerings, and talk with consumers, retailers, and pastors about their needs.

Nelson categorizes “Grace for the Moment” as an everyday-life Bible, whereas “Family Foundations” is a study Bible. The distinction points to one way in which publishers sell multiple copies of the Bible to the same customers. “They each have a different purpose,” Hatfield told me. “It’s kind of like a tool chest. All the tools are tools, but they’re designed for doing different things.” And there are distinctions within each category. There are study Bibles that focus on theology, on historical context, or on practical applications of Biblical teachings. There are devotional Bibles for new believers, couples, brides, and cowboys. On an air-plane recently, I saw a woman reading a surfers’ Bible very similar to the proposed skaters’ one. The variety is seemingly limitless. Nelson Bible Group’s 2006 catalogue lists more than a hundred titles.

“I almost liken it to what happened in radio,” Wayne Hastings, the publisher of Nelson’s Bible division, said. “Look at satellite radio—what is that, a hundred and seventy-eight stations? And it’s all niched. We’re doing the same thing in Bibles.” In this process, style is nearly as important as content. Bible publishers depend heavily on focus groups, surveys, and trend-spotting firms. For cover designs, they subscribe to fashion-industry color reports. Tim Jordan, a Bible marketing manager at B. & H. Publishing Group, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “It doesn’t have to be ‘a King James Bible in black bonded leather, and we might offer it to you in burgundy.’ In years past, that might have been O.K., but the game has changed.”

Bible publishing in the twenty-first century involves an intersection of faith and consumerism that is typical of contemporary American evangelicalism. Peter Thuesen, a religious historian and the author of “In Discordance with the Scriptures,” a history of Bible translation controversies in America, sees in Bible publishing “a growing comfort with commercialization.” He explained, “Different kinds of packaging can always be seen by true believers as having an evangelical utility. If it helps reach people with the Word, then it’s not bad. You can consecrate the market.”

As with so much of American popular culture, the modern era of Bible publishing has its spiritual roots in the nineteen-sixties. Through the first half of the twentieth century, the Bible, literally hidebound, had been synonymous with the establishment. Though there had been two major American translations—in 1901 and 1946—they were scholarly and dense, and the archaic King James Version, of 1611, remained dominant.

Into this world came “Good News for Modern Man.” Published by the American Bible Society in 1966, “Good News for Modern Man” was a Bible for the young and disaffected. It resembled a mass-market illustrated paperback novel. A year later, five million copies were in print. Other publishers were quick to follow this lead, according to Paul Gutjahr, a professor of religious studies and English at Indiana University. Tyndale House published the Living Bible, a freewheeling paraphrase. The spirit of the era is best captured by an edition of the Living Bible put out under the title “The Way,” which features psychedelic lettering and photographs of shaggy-haired young people and describes Jesus as “the greatest spiritual Activist who ever lived.” The success of these accessible, culturally relevant Bibles alerted publishers to a new world of possibility. They introduced women’s Bibles in pastel colors, recruited celebrity pastors to write exegeses, and made room for breezy spiritual pep talks alongside, or instead of, the scholarly commentary.

“Good News for Modern Man” was revolutionary not just in its packaging but also in its text. Until then, major Bible translations in English had taken an approach now known as “formal equivalence,” striving to maintain the sentence structure, phrasing, and idioms of the original Hebrew and Greek. The Good News Translation, as it’s usually known, followed the precepts of “functional equivalence”—translating not word for word but thought for thought, with the goal of capturing the meaning of the original text, even if that required massaging the words or reordering sentences. Walter Harrelson, a Bible scholar who served on the committee that produced the relatively formal New Revised Standard Version, in 1989, likes to say that formal equivalence carries the reader back to the world of the Bible, while functional equivalence transports the Bible into the world of the reader. Harrelson is a proponent of formal equivalence, and argues that preserving the linguistic qualities of the ancient text reminds readers that the Bible is “a document from another world that is luminous and transforming of our world.” Proponents of functional equivalence counter that, to the original audience, the Bible would have sounded contemporary and vernacular, and that translators should preserve these qualities.

The popularity of the “Good News” Bible proved that there was a following for functional equivalence, and other publishers began tinkering with the formula. By far the most successful has been the New International Version, a moderately functional text published by Zondervan in 1973. Highly readable, it was more accurate than its sixties predecessors and more theologically conservative than the 1946 Revised Standard Version. These qualities enabled it, by 1986, to supplant the King James Version as the best-selling translation in America.

The effect of the functional-equivalence approach on the message of the Scriptures is most striking when it comes to rendering metaphors. A literal translation of God’s words to straying Israelites in Amos 4:6 reads, “I gave you cleanness of teeth.” The New International Version eliminates the potential misreading that God was punishing the wicked with dental hygiene, and translates the phrase as “I gave you empty stomachs.” Functionally equivalent translations, at their most radical, often bypass the exotic metaphors of the Bible entirely. Matthew 3:8, in the N.R.S.V., reads, “Bear fruit worthy of repentance.” The Contemporary English Version (1991) reads, “Do something to show that you have really given up your sins.”

It is estimated that there have been more than five hundred English translations of the Bible, and there has never been a time in American history when so many translations have been in widespread use at once. A large Christian bookstore may carry as many as fifteen, although the top six account for ninety-five per cent of sales. Considering that the King James Version lacked a significant rival for three centuries, one could question the necessity of so many versions. Publishers can point to the fact that new archeological discoveries are constantly shedding light on the best way to reconstruct the piecemeal documents that make up Scripture. Language use evolves, too, of course, though it’s hard to argue that anything truly significant changed between the publication of the English Standard Version (2001), Today’s New International Version (2002), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004). A more important factor, it seems, is market demand for more choices. Different denominations want translations tailored precisely to their needs, and the more translations that are available the greater readers’ desire for yet further variety.

There are also commercial incentives. The King James Version is in the public domain, but if a company wants to publish a study Bible or a devotional Bible using a modern translation, it will have to pay royalties to the owner of that translation. Commissioning a proprietary translation is often more cost effective in the long run, especially since it can be licensed out to other publishers. Kenneth Barker, a theologian who ran the committee that translated the N.I.V. and has worked on three other translations, told me that he doesn’t think a new version will be needed for at least twenty-five years, but he doubts there will be such a long break. “We like to think that the motivation is all holy and pure,” he told me, “but finances do enter the picture, and publishers and Bible societies like to have their slice of the pie.”

The popularization of the Bible entered a new phase in 2003, when Thomas Nelson created the BibleZine. Wayne Hastings described a meeting in which a young editor, who had conducted numerous focus groups and online surveys, presented the idea. “She brought in a variety of teen-girl magazines and threw them out on the table,” he recalled. “And then she threw a black bonded-leather Bible on the table and said, ‘Which would you rather read if you were sixteen years old?’ ” The result was “Revolve,” a New Testament that looked indistinguishable from a glossy girls’ magazine. The 2007 edition features cover lines like “Guys Speak Their Minds” and “Do U Rush to Crush?” Inside, the Gospels are surrounded by quizzes, photos of beaming teen-agers, and sidebars offering Bible-themed beauty secrets:

Have you ever had a white stain appear underneath the arms of your favorite dark blouse? Don’t freak out. You can quickly give deodorant spots the boot. Just grab a spare toothbrush, dampen with a little water and liquid soap, and gently scrub until the stain fades away. As you wash away the stain, praise God for cleansing us from all the wrong things we have done. (1 John 1:9) “Revolve” was immediately popular with teen-agers. “They weren’t embarrassed anymore,” Hastings said. “They could carry it around school, and nobody was going to ask them what in the world it is.” Nelson quickly followed up with other titles, including “Refuel,” for boys; “Blossom,” for tweens; “Real,” for the “vibrant urban crowd” (it comes bundled with a CD of Christian rap); and “Divine Health,” which has notes by the author of the best-selling diet book “What Would Jesus Eat?” To date, Nelson has sold well over a million BibleZines.

The success of the BibleZine was all the more notable for occurring in a commercial field already crowded with products and with savvy marketing ideas. This year’s annual trade show of the Christian Booksellers’ Association, in Denver, brought such innovations as “The Outdoor Bible,” printed on indestructible plastic sheets that fold up like maps, and “The Story,” which features selections from the Bible arranged in chronological order, like a novel. There is a “Men of Integrity” Bible and a “Woman, Thou Art Loosed!” Bible. For kids, there’s “The Super Heroes Bible: The Quest for Good Over Evil” and “Psalty’s Kids Bible,” featuring “Psalty, the famous singing songbook.” The “Soul Surfer Bible” has notes by Bethany Hamilton, who lost an arm to a shark in 2003. “2:52 Boys Bible: The Ultimate Manual” promises “gross and gory Bible stuff.” In the “Rainbow Study Bible,” each verse is color-coded by theme. “The Promise Bible” prints every one of God’s promises in boldface. And “The Personal Promise Bible” is custom-printed with the owner’s name (“The LORD is Daniel’s shepherd”), home town (“Woe to you, Brooklyn! Woe to you, New York!”), and spouse’s name (“Gina’s two breasts are like two fawns”).

There is also a renaissance in the field of audio Bibles. This category has long been dominated by stentorian readings by prominent ministers, and by such famous believers as Charlton Heston, Johnny Cash, and James Earl Jones. The latest audio versions, by contrast, are sophisticated dramatizations that feature sound effects, original music, and large professional casts. In Denver, Zondervan showcased “The Bible Experience,” featuring just about every black actor in Hollywood, from Denzel Washington to Garrett Morris, and starring Blair Underwood as Jesus and Samuel L. Jackson as God. The publisher of Zondervan, Scott Bolinder, spoke with excitement about the possibilities for distributing the book on iTunes. “A person hears about it, says, ‘I don’t know, I’m not parting with thirty-four dollars. But I’ll try the Book of Revelation for a dollar-ninety-nine,’ ” he said. Thomas Nelson is already working on a rival version, in which Jim Caviezel reprises the title role in “The Passion of the Christ.” Jason Alexander, of “Seinfeld,” is signed on for an unspecified Old Testament character.

It is easy to ascribe a cynical motive to publishers’ embrace of commercial trends. Tim Jordan, of B. & H., concedes, “You do get some folks that say you shouldn’t treat the Bible as a fashion accessory or a throwaway.” Nonetheless, he feels that, from the point of view of a serious religious publisher, fashion can’t be ignored as a way of reaching new audiences. The point, he says, is “to expose as many people as you can, because we believe that it’s God’s word, we believe that it’s life-changing, and we don’t take that lightly.”

In the middle of the summer, Nelson Bible’s marketing team assembled at the company’s offices, in Nashville, for a fall strategy meeting. The staff members radiated the efficient good cheer of marketing professionals everywhere. Rodney Hatfield, his thick hair mostly gray, sat at a corner of the conference-room table while Scott Schwertly, the marketing director, got things rolling. “If we’re going to start with the ‘Family Foundations’ Bible, let’s go ahead and pull out the five-by-five matrix for that title,” Schwertly said. The matrix is a chart of twenty-five squares; an axis along the top identifies “Target Audiences/Needs,” such as “Churches/Pastors,” and an axis down the side shows “What you will do to reach them.”

An unusual challenge of Bible marketing is that there is no living author to do promotion. As a result, endorsements by well-known pastors become crucial. These are often the only names that will go on the cover. Hatfield asked about targeting the pastors David Jeremiah and Rick Warren: “Maybe there’s even a customized version of this that they can brand for their ministry.” The megachurch movement has created attractive possibilities for Bible marketers. A single recommendation from the pulpit of the right pastor can mean ten thousand potential sales.

With the book’s marketing budget set at sixty thousand dollars, ads in mainstream publications were out of the question, but Kelly Holt, a marketing specialist, presented ideas for a campaign to run in several Christian magazines, including SpiritLed Woman, MOMSense, and Rev!, a magazine for pastors. Holt said, “The imagery would be the tired family at Disney World who’s waiting in line all sweaty and nasty, and the tagline would be, like, ‘There’s a better way to spend quality time together.’ ” In addition to the Christian press, Nelson has the advantage of being able to place ads for its own products in its BibleZines. Ads for Christian horror novels and a reality show about missionaries ran in “Refuel.”

Next, the meeting proceeded to the “Grace for the Moment Daily Bible.” The marketing budget for this was only about half that of “Family Foundations,” because Nelson was counting on Max Lucado’s name to do most of the selling. The marketing group had explored giveaways on Christian radio stations and a collaboration with DaySpring, a Christian greeting-card company owned by Hallmark, for a line of Max Lucado cards. The group also discussed promoting the book when Lucado made appearances at Women of Faith, a travelling ministry that holds two-day “spiritual spas” attracting as many as twenty thousand paying worshippers. The largest chunk of the budget was going toward consumer ads, targeting both men and women, in Christian magazines. “I need some feedback,” another marketing specialist said. She held up a print ad—a white orchid on a satiny black background—that had been created to run in “Redefine,” a new BibleZine for baby boomers. Hatfield made a suggestion: “I guess what it doesn’t say enough of is ‘Max Lucado.’ ” “That should be huge,” Jennifer Willingham, a publicist, said dryly. “Drop out your image: white sheet of paper and ‘Max Lucado Bible.’ ”

Although Bible sales in America have been robust for the past decade, the business is still fraught with anxieties. For one thing, Bibles are expensive to produce—two to four times the cost of a typical hardcover book—and retail at prices that often leave a very small profit margin. (“The Family Foundations Study Bible” lists at $39.99 for the hardcover and $59.99 for the bonded-leather edition.) The expense begins with the page count: most Bibles are nearly two thousand pages long. Publishers must often commission custom fonts that are thin enough to keep the Bible compact and dark enough to read, but not so dark that they bleed through the thin (and expensive) paper. Internal design is complicated, too, with footnotes, study notes, center-column references, charts, maps, and illustrations. Leather covers add to the outlay. Gilding, a labor-intensive process, can be simulated with a spray stain, but costs remain high. Thomas Nelson stitches most of its bindings, though other publishers have moved toward glue. Red-letter Bibles require two-color printing. Tabs, ribbons, and boxes add to the cost.

There is also concern that Bible publishers, for all their marketing ingenuity, have outsmarted themselves. Tim Jordan said, “There’s been research that has shown that half the people who come into a Christian bookstore intending to buy a Bible, with money in their pocket, leave without one, because they get overwhelmed.”

In an auditorium at the Christian Booksellers’ Association show this summer, Nelson’s Wayne Hastings, a dapper man, nearly bald with a trim mustache, took the stage for a seminar on this issue. For half an hour, he laid out his company’s new research into customers’ “felt needs.” According to Nelson’s findings, people don’t come into a store looking for a specific translation—the criterion by which most retailers arrange their Bible shelves—but, rather, to meet a need. More than sixty per cent of Bibles are purchased as gifts. Others are bought by people with scenarios in mind: I’ll study it before breakfast; I’ll read it on the bus. Hastings’s message was that booksellers need to orient their displays to this need. “Are you willing to break some paradigms?” he asked. Behind a curtain, his company had set up a prototype for the Bible department of tomorrow. It consisted of color-coded shelves and packaging, organized not by translation but according to Nelson’s six felt needs. Nelson says that ninety-five per cent of retailers have responded positively, but the reaction from other publishers has been lukewarm. Zondervan wants to stick with a translation-based system, which, perhaps not coincidentally, benefits its popular New International Version. Tyndale and B. & H. accept the felt-need premise but are quibbling over the specific categories, and are skeptical about the feasibility of industry-wide color-coding. Tim Jordan said, “You’re not going to go to all the potato-chip companies and tell these people, ‘You’ve got to change your packaging to reflect some common color for the potato-chip aisle.’ I don’t think Frito-Lay is going to go for that.”

The most obvious solution would be fewer choices, but, given the enthusiasm that consumers have shown for a diversified market and the investment that publishers have made in satisfying this demand, that’s out of the question. The situation worries some people. Phyllis Tickle, a former religion editor of Publishers Weekly and the author of popular prayer books, told me, “There’s a certain scandal to what’s happened to Bible publishing over the last fifteen years.” Tickle is contributing to a new Bible paraphrase for Nelson called “The Voice,” which is intended for the progressive emergent church, so she is not entirely opposed to modern repackaging. The problem, as she sees it, is that “instead of demanding that the believer, the reader, the seeker step out from the culture and become more Christian, more enclosed within ecclesial definition, we’re saying, ‘You stay in the culture and we’ll come to you.’ And, therefore, how are we going to separate out the culturally transient and trashy from the eternal?” The consumerist culture in which BibleZines and the like participate is, to Tickle, “entirely antithetical to the traditional Christian understanding of meekness and self-denial and love and compassion.” In Tickle’s view, reimagining the Bible according to the latest trends is not merely a question of surmounting a language barrier. It involves violating “something close to moral or spiritual barriers.”

Of course, Tickle is questioning an industry trend, not publishers’ sincerity. “I have yet to meet the first head of house that wasn’t in it with some sense of calling as surely as a clergyman is,” she said. Sitting in the Zondervan suite during the Christian Booksellers’ Association show, Paul Caminiti, the head of the company’s Bible division, cited an appropriately Biblical parallel, a story from the Book of Acts about Philip the Evangelist and a man known as the Ethiopian eunuch. The Ethiopian eunuch “was really the chief financial officer for the Persian empire,” he said. “He was a brilliant man. He was probably the Alan Greenspan of his day. But he has a text Bible—and he has been to Jerusalem, so he is one of these people who is spiritually intrigued—but he can’t make head or tail of it. And it’s not because he isn’t smart. So God sends Philip alongside.” According to the Bible story, Philip ran up to the Ethiopian’s chariot and, in the King James Version, asked, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The Ethiopian answered, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” Philip, Caminiti explained, “provides just a little bit of color commentary, and the light comes on.” After listening to Philip’s explication of the passage, the Ethiopian orders his chariot to stop by some water so that Philip can baptize him. “And that’s what we’re doing,” Caminiti concluded. “We’re coming alongside the text and providing some color commentary. And some color covers.”

posted by LeBlues
10:18 AM

0 comments

Hardliners turn on Ahmadinejad for watching women dancers

Tuesday, December 12, 2006


The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who flaunts his ideological fervour, has been accused of undermining Iran's Islamic revolution after television footage appeared to show him watching a female song and dance show.

The famously austere Mr Ahmadinejad has been criticised by his own allies after attending the lavish opening ceremony of the Asian games in Qatar, a sporting competition involving 13,000 athletes from 39 countries. The ceremony featured Indian and Egyptian dancers and female vocalists. Many were not wearing veils.


Women are forbidden to sing and dance before a male audience under Iran's Islamic legal code. Officials are expected to excuse themselves from such engagements when abroad but TV pictures showed Mr Ahmadinejad sitting with President Bashar Assad of Syria and Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, during last Friday's ceremony in Doha.

Religious fundamentalists, usually Mr Ahmadinejad's keenest supporters, are asking why he attended a ceremony that violated his own government's strict interpretation of Shia Islam.

The Baztab website, considered close to Mohsen Rezaee, a former revolutionary guard commander with links to powerful sections of Iran's political hierarchy, said Mr Ahmadinejad's presence had offended Shias in Iran and elsewhere. "The failure of Ahmadinejad to object and his constant presence has damaged the image of Iran's Islamic revolution and its commitment to Islamic rules in contrast with the Arab countries in the Gulf," it said.

The president's aides insist he was not present during the singing and dancing. His press secretary, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, claimed Mr Ahmadinejad had left for Doha airport before the performance.
However, Baztab posted footage which purported to show Mr Ahmadinejad in his seat after the show. Jalal Yahyazadeh, a rightwing MP, said: "We have heard from some sources that Ahmadinejad was in the stadium at the time. Those who created the conditions for his presence should be investigated as quickly as possible."

posted by LeBlues
9:34 AM

0 comments

'Drunken' bishop faces battle to save his job

Monday, December 11, 2006


The Bishop of Southwark is facing a battle to keep his job after he was apparently found in a tired and emotional state in the back of a stranger's car after a Christmas party.

The Christian Peoples Alliance suggested that the Rt Rev Tom Butler may lose his office after he suffered a head injury last week and told a congregation he was probably mugged.

The bishop reportedly staggered home from a function at the Irish embassy on Tuesday night, climbed into the back of a stranger's Mercedes, and started throwing an infant's toys out of the vehicle.

The Mercedes' alarm went off outside the Suchard bar near Southwark Cathedral. Nicola Sumpter, who owns the car, said: "My boyfriend and his pal raced outside and were stunned to see a grey-haired man in the back seat. He was throwing my one-year-old son's toys everywhere.

"He wouldn't get out so they could pull him away. He couldn't stand up straight and fell over, banging his head."Asked to explain himself, he is claimed to have said: "I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do." He sat and then lay on the pavement for several minutes while an onlooker dialled 999, but the bishop declined medical attention and an ambulance was cancelled. Then he got up and staggered away. The next day his office called the police to report the loss of property, which was reported in some newspapers as a mugging.

Ms Sumpter said she found a bag with the bishop's possessions in the car.

"He does not remember very much at all," said a spokesman for the bishop. "He got a bump on the back of his head but he is OK and is in good spirits. He is back at work and really wants to downplay it."

The bishop's bruises meant he was not able to wear his mitre the following day. He began a ceremony for a new priests' institution at All Saints Church in south London by apologising to the 300-strong congregation, saying that the mitre no longer fitted his bruised head because he had "apparently been mugged".

Alan Craig, leader of the Christian People's Alliance group on Newham council in east London, said: "If it's true he was drunk he ought to resign. He can be forgiven, but he can't carry on as bishop. He's supposed to be a role model and being drunk in a gutter he can't be a good example. It's not comical; it's sad for him, and for the church." A spokes-man for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "It would be premature to comment. We are sorry to hear of the bishop's injuries and wish him a speedy recovery."

Guests at the Christmas reception included the head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller; Sir Hugh Orde, the head of the Northern Ireland police service; and the former Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble.

posted by LeBlues
10:27 AM

0 comments

Revenge on neighbours

A Norfolk man aims to get his own back on his neighbours - by renting out his home to travellers or East Europeans.

Nick Massingham is furious that villagers blocked his bid to run a garage business at his £180,000 bungalow.

So he has put the home, in Hunworth, up for rent at just £100 a month, reports the Mirror.

The advert says it would suit “travelling families, large extended families, multiple occupancy, DHSS and East Europeans. All pets welcome.”

Nick, 46, said: “It’s to show the village what bad neighbours really are.
“People who move in from London just wander about in green wellingtons and think more about the appearance of the village than what a Norfolk person can do for work.”


Resident Jill McGonigle said: “It’s not personal. If anyone tried to start a garage we’d appeal. We’re just trying to keep the village the way it is.”

North Norfolk council vetoed Nick’s plans after locals objected.

posted by LeBlues
9:54 AM

0 comments

Chinese restaurant for releasing stress

Friday, December 08, 2006


BEIJING : Stressed-out Chinese can now unleash pent-up anger at a bar that lets customers attack staff, smash glasses and generally make a ruckus, a Chinese newspaper reported on Monday.

The Rising Sun Anger Release Bar in Nanjing, capital of the eastern province of Jiangsu, employs 20 muscled young men as “models” for customers to punch and scream at.

“Customers can specify how they want the models to appear — they can even appear as women — and then they are free to give them a sound beating,” the China Daily said.


The bar charges from 50 yuan (3.30 pounds) to 300 yuan for the pleasure.

posted by LeBlues
11:02 AM

0 comments

Spanish police and movies

Thursday, December 07, 2006


MADRID, Spain: Spanish police officers settling in for a video presentation on how to get promoted to sergeant were instead shown footage from a hard-core pornographic film, officials said Tuesday.
Howling laughter rippled through the auditorium where 120 Madrid city police officers had gathered Monday to see the video on operations at an academy where they are to study, the Madrid regional justice and interior ministry said.


A ministry official said computer technicians have blamed the glitch on a Trojan Horse computer virus that activated when the computer containing the video was turned on.

“It was just bad luck that the virus activated right then,” said the official, who could not be named because of department rules.

posted by LeBlues
10:58 AM

0 comments

The Strange "Economics" Of Breast Milk

Wednesday, December 06, 2006



You probably heard about the woman who was kicked off a Delta flight recently for breast feeding her daughter. She was in a window seat, next to her husband. She was being discreet; nothing was showing. A flight attendant asked her to cover up with a blanket anyway. The woman declined; and so off the plane they went.

The episode prompted nurse-ins at airports throughout the U.S. The airline apologized; and I’m willing to believe that the flight attendant thought she was just doing her job. Still, there’s an issue here that goes beyond the lingering residues of prudery – namely, the pervasive bias in favor of commodities, and against anything people can do for themselves for free. Has anyone ever been thrown off a plane for giving infant formula to a baby, which is inferior to breast milk? I doubt it.

Childhood in the U.S. has become a case study in this bias. Kids now need high-tech toys in order to play, organized leagues for sports, drugs to focus their attention, video screens (another form of drug) to occupy them in cars – on and on. The inner lives of children, their innate capacity to imagine, learn and grow, is turning into a Petri dish of deficiency and need. By the conventional economic reckonings, need and craving is what kids are for.This process has penetrated down to their first form of nutrient – milk. I had thought that the infant formula mess had been resolved a while back, but I was wrong. Around the same time as the Delta nursing-mother expulsion, a controversy was simmering in the Philippines over this very question. Research is overwhelming that breastfeeding is best for children. Mother’s milk has all the right nutrients, plus hormones, active enzymes, immunities and other things that cannot be replicated in formulas.

Children who are breastfed do better physically, emotionally, and every other way (except perhaps as consumers of remedial drugs and services later on.) For families there is a financial side as well. The Philippines is a poor country. Officially the per capita income is a bit over $1000 a year; given the gross disparities in wealth, it’s actually less. Yet close to 40% of infants there are fed commercial formula instead of breast milk, at a cost of over $400 million a year. A quarter of those are “poor,” which in the Philippines means really poor.

So why are the poorest people in a poor country spending money they can’t afford on a product most of them don’t really need because they have a better version of it already? Advertising is part of it. Global pharmaceutical companies have the resources to propagandize for infant formula in ways that make people feel backward if they don’t get with the modern American ways.

To combat this, the Philippines banned advertising of infant formula, which would seem a sensible step. What purpose does such advertising really serve? Does there exist a mother who does not know already that formula is available for sale? Would anyone contend that the corporations that make it are the best sources of guidance on whether or not a mother should use it?

Banning the ads would seem no loss and all gain except for the corporations involved. Which is why the biggies -- Abbot Laboratories, Mead Johnson, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, et al –held up the new regulations this summer with a challenge to the nation’s highest court. The challenge framed the issue in terms of the rights of Filipinos themselves – in particular the “right of the people to access to information.”

Exactly what is “informative” about these ads, as opposed to emotively suggestive, they didn’t say (and judges tend to show a staggering lack of curiosity about the difference.) The Court ruled against the drug companies anyway. So now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has weighed in with a letter to Philippines President Gloria Arroyo that threatens dire consequences if the regulations go into effect.

The letter warned of the “risk to the reputation of the Philippines as a stable and viable destination for investment.” Gee, I wonder what exactly they mean by that.

Such threats are not small matters in a country struggling to put an economy together. Arroyo has been compliant with U.S. wishes, especially on intellectual property enforcement. But so far she hasn’t caved on infant formula; and public health professionals from around the world have expressed outrage at the corporate intimidation tactics.

But the corporations are simply obeying their own internal mandates. They can’t look upon children any other way than as a potential lode of what economists call “demand.” It’s their nature. When television first came to my wife’s village in the Philippines a few years ago, I asked people there about the changes it had brought. Practically to a one they said, “The kids all want to go to Jollybees,” the local fast food chain that has beaten McDonalds there.

These children have food literally right outside their doors: rice, chicken, pigs, goats, swamp cabbage, bananas, yams. They were happy with that until commercial television came along. Now they want an expensive (to them) and nutritionally inferior version of what they have already; just as the pharmaceutical companies want to push an expensive and inferior version of what most mothers have already.

There was another bit of news around the time all this was going on. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has once again approved, after a 14-year ban, the sale of silicone breast implants. The numbers are rough, but according to a Wall Street Journal report the market for these could soar quickly to over $600 million a year, not counting the surgeons fees that could run the total to $2 billion or more. That’s five times what the Philippines spends on infant formula.

There is something bizarre about those numbers. One represents the effort by corporations to render the human breast useless, and to displace it with something they sell for money. The other represents a kindred effort to commoditize the breast itself and make it useful to the corporation. Displace what is in the breast with something the mother has to buy; then convince the mother that she has to buy something to put back in.

That’s pretty much what they do to children: hollow them out emotionally, and substitute their products for the capacities the children once had on their own. And not just children – all of us.

I am sure the Delta flight attendant wasn’t thinking of any of this when she booted the breast-feeding mother off the plane. (I didn’t mention that the flight was delayed three hours, so it is understandable that mom was in no mood to be told she had to hide her nursing baby under a blanket.) But that’s the thing about cultural patterns: they replicate themselves silently, without people even thinking.

posted by LeBlues
10:12 AM

0 comments