Anyone who lives in the North Texas area is aware of the tragic loss of life that took place in Grapevine, Texas on Christmas day.  Azizolah “Bob” Yazdanpanah, who is reportedly Muslim,  dressed as Santa Claus,  fatally shot six family members on Christmas Day before killing himself.  A terrible tragedy.  My heart goes out to the Yazdanpanah family and all affected by this senseless act of violence.

Upon opening up my Facebook news-feed yesterday, there were numerous references to the shooting.  One of the story-lines that seemed to be taking on a life of it’s own were people posting that this was an “honor killing”.  I was surprised as nothing had been reported as such. The police had issued a statement that day stating that no motive had been developed.  Many of the Facebookers grabbing on to the honor killing angle also accused our local media of engaging in a “coverup” of that fact.

Where did this honor killing story come from?  How did it go from a tragic event still being investigated to a stereotyped event devoid of factual basis meant to degrade and dehumanize the family and the tragedy because they were Muslim?  It was clear from the posts that the predominate response  was catering to the stereotype with an “it figures.” type response.  “It figures” because stereotypes tell us that all Muslim husbands are abusive and when a Muslim father is unhappy with who his daughter is dating he kills her right?  So where did this “honor killing angle” come from?   The story appeared to have  originated with these  fringe”sources”:

Jihad Watch:  A far right blog that spends  much of it’s time proving that all Muslims are evil people. The blog claims to have interviews with friends/classmates of one of the victims. They talk about how strict the father was and how upset he was at his daughter’s dating situation.  The blog is  vague on whether the author did the interviews or got them from another source.  I can find no mainstream reference to any of the alleged quotes from classmates.  In fact, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the closest major newspaper vicinity wise, did in fact interview friends of the victims, one of whom stated that this was not an honor killing:

“This was not an honor killing,” Jessica Toumani, a friend of the Zarei family’s, said in a statement e-mailed to the Star-Telegram.”We are not sure of much at this point, but we are sure that is not a viable theory. Aziz was never religious, nor were any of the victims. They left Iran to escape the Islamic regime, which is why most Iranians left.”

Atlas Shrugged:  This lady who runs this blog,  Pamela Gellar is one of the biggest hate mongering, Islamaphobic, bigots on this planet.  I won’t give her any link love.   She grabbed onto the  Jihad Watch story and put her own Anti-Muslim spin on it.

The International Business Times:   If you read their story, they cite Jihad Watch as their source on the honor killing angle.

I confronted one Facebook poster who maintained that the tragedy was an Honor killing.  He cited the IBT story.  When I pointed out that the police had not released a motive and that the story was citing blogs and not legitimate reporting sources he then stated that he had also heard a local Dallas news station report it as an honor killing.  I contacted the reporter he named. She stated that no such report had ever been broadcast as the police had not stated a motive.  When I confronted the person with her denial, he reverted to his first source insisting that it was a legitimate original source for the story.  It of course is not but it was enough for him because it validated his fears and stereotypes well as  allowing  him to spread the canard to validate everyone else’s.

Before writing this blog, I Googled the search term “Grapevine Honor Killing” There were 118, 000 potential hits.  Of course, not all will be relevant to the story but it seems clear that as of the writing of this blog, the Honor Killing theory has spread  from three fringe sources, two of which make it their business to stir up anti-Muslim hatred to pretty much the entire far right-wing Islamaphobic Bogosphere, Facebook and Twitter.

That, my friends, is how hate goes viral.

This is from a Penn State message board.  I usually do not just repost but this really grabbed me as a Penn State alumni. I hope Beth Painter does not mind the repost. Thank you Beth and WE ARE! PENN STATE!

“We know you don’t understand. Generally, we don’t try to explain. Unless you are a Buckeye or Fighting Irish, you probably don’t get how an institution embeds itself in a student’s life. And that is fine.

But right now, we want you to know this:
…
We are distraught and truly sickened by this horror perpetrated on young victims by one who represented the Blue and White, and perpetuated by others at the University. We aren’t blind followers who drink Blue Kool-Aid. We grieve for and with the victims and their families. We pray for them to find healing and peace and a way to live a good life.

We know that while many people had responsibility, the most visible one almost always goes down first. We are not disputing the need for this to happen.

We are not “defending” anything. We are simply crushed and heartbroken. This is not the Penn State we love, the Penn State that is part of our being.

What you know of Joe Paterno probably comes from television or magazine articles.

We know the man who has lived in the same McKee St house for decades. We have chatted with him as he walked to practice. We have eaten ice cream with him at the Creamery. We have studied in the new library wing his money helped build. We have visited the sports museum and spiritual center he also helped build. We have seen him cheering on other Penn State athletes. We know he loves Penn State as much as we do.

Some of our friends, brothers, husbands, sons have been privileged to put on the Blue and White uniform and listen to 100,000 fans in Beaver Stadium. We know how hard they have worked, how much time they have devoted, how many of them have been part of an excellent scholar/athlete legacy…and how much they love this man and this program.

We aren’t stupid or naive. We know Joe Paterno has culpability. We know he could have made different choices – he admitted that. We don’t think he is God or always perfect or saintly. But he is the greatest college football coach ever, and he is PSU family, and we don’t want his exit to be like this.

WE ARE…not closing our eyes, ignoring reports, pretending this isn’t a wretched occurrence.
WE ARE…angry that innocents would be violated under our care.
WE ARE…in support of appropriate punishment for every person involved.
WE ARE…demanding change to a system that would allow this.
WE ARE…not concerned if you do not understand our love and devotion.
WE ARE…PENN STATE proud and we will rise again.

~Beth Painter

I have seen and heard a lot of  Holocaust Denial.  I am not sure why I am shocked every time I am hit with it.  Many times people do not realize that I am Jewish and they simply blurt it out.  Other times, they are proud of the fact that have a different “spin” to history much in the way deniers idolize the likes of their “Denial Guru” David Irving.

I recently posted an article on my Google+ page about Germany’s renewed effort to pursue Nazi War criminals.  A person by the name of Jerri Cook commented as follows:

Fair comment.  Whether I agree or disagree,  there are many who agree with her.  It is certainly a debatable issue.  A gentlemen chimed in with a contrary view.  I chimed in actually defending Jerri’s right to express her view.  Then Jerri let us know what it was really about with this comment:

In denying that the Holocaust was a genocide, Jerri has engaged in a form of  Holocaust Denial.  The denial is ironic in the face of history. The term “genocide” did not even exist until 1944 when it was coined specifically to describe the Nazi policies of systematic murder.  I am not sure what “I don’t believe the spin” means but it certainly implies the questioning aspects of the Holocaust.  What is the definition of genocide?  It means:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Who is Jerri? Why do I even care?  I had never heard of her or had any social media contact  prior to her comment.  Jerri’s LinkedIn profile lists her as a “Experienced Editor, Writer, Blogger, Social Media Specialist, Digital Media Specialist, Online Crisis Manager “  She is the editor of Countryside Publications.  She also lists herself as a law student at “Concord Law School” which is an online only law school.

Why am I being the “big bad bully” and calling out little Jerri?  It’s not like I am going to bring down the world of  the ignorant and angry.  Unfortunately, there are far too many.  I am doing it because to battle Holocaust Denial and eventually defeat it as a virulent form of antisemitism, it must be brought out of the dark, seamy corners of the internet.  I doubt Jerri  is sharing her views on the Holocaust at mainstream functions and the company Christmas party.  Now, to the extent I can play a part in the process, she will have to.  To the extent that my little blog has any voice, Jerri can no longer hide her dirty little secret.  She is a Holocaust Denier.  She is not alone. Who’s next.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that there were upwards of 150, 000 soldiers of partial Jewish descent serving in the German army during World War II?  I had no idea until I attended a lecture by Bryan Mark Rigg discussing his book entitled Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.  What is even more startling is that Adolf Hitler was aware of this and for a while allowed them to serve.  In most cases these soldiers had no knowledge of the Holocaust killing machine.  From their point of view they were simple German patriots fighting for their country. Many did not even consider themselves Jewish. Some were unaware of their “Jewish blood”.  According to his book, at least 20 soldiers of “Jewish blood” were awarded The Knights Cross.  Included in the ranks were two field marshals and fifteen generals. The most prominently known of these commanders of Jewish descent was General Erhard Milch who had one Jewish parent.  He was deputy to Herman Goring, the head of the Luftwaffe(German Air Force).

When I look back at my own Jewish Immigrant background, the “specter” of Jews fighting for the Nazis in the traditional sense sickens stomach. My ancestry is much like other Jewish immigrants. Both sides of my family immigrated to the Unites States from Czarist Russia in the early 1900′s. They came to escape the brutal exterminating pogroms of the Russian authorities much like the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Czarist officials not only promoted pogroms to blame Jews for government failures and economic depressions but also to isolate jews and keep them fearful. They forced the “Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion,” a documents used the to justify persecuting Jews ans stil in circulation now in Middle Eastern Countries to “prove” that Jews controlled World Finance. Moreover, the Czars conscripted Jewish youth as young as 12 to serve 25 years in the army. Some Russian Jews immigrated to Poland only to be ultimately persecuted by both the Hitler regime and their very own. German born Jews treated Eastern Jews as inferior calling them “Ghetto Jews”. Jews of this background constituted the majority of the Jews massacred pursuant to “The Final Solution“.

The common public notion is that no one of Jewish descent would have ever been allowed to serve in the Nazi regime and, if discovered, would be immediately deported to a forced labor or extermination/concentration camp. This was not the case. The Nazi racial classification or “Nuremberg Laws” were complex and bizarre as to who was classified as a “Jew”. (see Nazi classification chart) This classification dispute is responsible for some controversy. Some scholars have complained that the title of Rigg’s book is sensational and misleading because it implies that these Nazi soldiers were Jewish when, in fact, many of them would not be classified as Jews under Jewish law (Young men were considered Jewish if their mothers were Jewish.). Many of the soldiers interviewed did not consider themselves Jewish at all and had been baptized into a Christian tradition. I view this as a simplistic criticism since the overall issue of how Hitler bent and twisted the racial laws of his regime to serve his own bizarre purposes in the face of the Nuremberg laws is a fascinating idea that Riggs explains from a unique perspective. Riggs demonstrates the willingness of the Nazis to bend their own laws of racial classification and Jewish persecution and documents Hitler’s extensive , obsessive involvement in deciding which “Jews” received a pass ,which would be discharged, and which would ultimately be deported. Riggs also explores the historical, religious and cultural individual personal conflicts of “The Jewish Identity”.

While most of Jewish descent were ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, some rose to very high ranking positions of authority in the Nazi Regime. Some either directly or indirectly participated in the Jewish killing machine. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country whose official policy was that they were regarded as second-class citizens and, in most cases, not even human. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country that was deporting their relatives to concentrations camps for eventual extermination. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country who, some say, planned to ultimately exterminate them also when Germany won the war.  How could these “Jews” fight for a country that planned their extinction?  Why did Hitler allow this to take place?  We know it is not due to the common misconception that Hitler was part Jewish.  Scholars universally agree that there is no evidence of this.  Rigg’s thesis certainly goes against everything I believed about my identity as a Jew and what it means to be Jewish.  Does having “Jewish blood” in itself make you Jewish?  While the simple answer seems to be no, it was quite complicated in Nazi Germany.

A fascinating aspect of the lecture and the book is the method by which the Nazis determined who was Jewish and who was not. For racial and military purposes, the Nazi Party classified Jewish people as full Jews, half Jews, and quarter Jews. Each classification was treated differently with regards to whether they could serve in the German military and what rights, if any, they had under German law. As previously mentioned, according to Jewish law, a person is determined to be a Jew if the person’s mother is Jewish.

I would have been a full Jew under Nazi laws. All four of my grandparents on both sides were Jewish. I am also of Russian descent. Not only would I have been prohibited from serving in the German military, I would have in all likelihood been on the first train out to to Auschwitz or some other extermination camp. Jews of Eastern descent or “Ghetto Jews” were also looked down upon and discriminated against by German born Jews as well as the Germans. It was a double whammy. (it was an upper vs lower class type discrimination as compared to the totalitarian discrimination of the Nazis)

Many of those of partial Jewish descent while Jewish by both Jewish law and Nazi racial classification had become so assimilated into the German-Christian society through mixed marriages that they did not consider themselves Jewish. Some were practicing Christians. This was only changed through Hitler’s racial classification system and the Nuremberg Laws which officially made the majority of people of full and partial Jewish descent second-class citizens called “Mischling“, meaning they came from a mixed marriage and had partial Jewish ancestry. Germans of partial Jewish descent who had practiced Christianity all of their lives, were suddenly classified as a “Mischling,” Jews under Hitler’s racial classification laws. They were suddenly stripped of most rights under German law.

Interestingly, the situation was not just a German/Jewish phenomenon. In 1941, Finland joined the war as a “co-belligerent” of Germany. (Finland refused to call itself an ally.) There were 250-300 Finnish-Jews fighting alongside Germany on the eastern front against Russia, and some of the Finnish-Jews were even awarded German battle decorations. Soldiers with Jewish heritage also fought along side the Nazis when Romania was aligned against the Soviet Union as well as for Italy.

There was a huge ideology gap between what occurred in Finland and Nazi Germany. Finland was not under Nazi rule. Finland, from its perspective, was fighting for its independence from Russia rather than to support any anti-Semitic ideology or German persecution. Finland as a nation refused to endorse the Nazi anti-Semitic policies and refused to deport, persecute or discriminate against its Jewish population. It is quite the paradox that despite this policy their fighting alongside Germany certainly helped Germany achieve military goals and indirectly aided in the Jewish persecutions. The Finnish-Jewish soldiers were not blind to what was going on. It caused quite a bit of internal conflict and tension with the German soldiers. This was also not a racial classification issue. Finland did not discriminate against or classify their Jews. In this situation, full, practicing Jews were fighting alongside the Nazis against the Allies, fighting predominately at Leningrad.

The German racial classification system for Jews and the resulting disparate treatment with regards to military service in the Nazi army highlights some of the fundamental issues of Jewish Identify that exist even today. What does it mean to be Jewish? What qualities and beliefs make someone Jewish? If your mother is Jewish you are certainly a Jews by definition of Jewish Law but that may not be how you may look at yourself if you were not raised in the Jewish tradition. Are we as Jews defined by our culture, our religious practices or how other view us? As an example, several years ago I got into a heated argument when a person who was close to me told me in her opinion I was not Jewish because I did not adhere to Jewish religious practices. I was infuriated. It was and is my belief that my bond to Judaism is through culture, common history and suffering. The bond that all Jews share. That is what defines me as a Jew. She could not grasp this concept. This was the dilemma faced by many of the Mischling in Nazi Germany. This is a historical and religious conflict faced by Jews today as mixed marriages have become much more common and accepted in the United States. Jews argue among themselves over this issue. It is a conflict that transcends time.

Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais(SNCF)  is bidding to get a piece of the lucrative contracts to build the United State’s first high speed rail tracks.  Plans for high-speed rails were announced by President Barack Obama.   Nothing out of the ordinary  until you add in some creepy and disturbing historical context.

Sixty-Nine years before they made their current play to transport us at high speed around the United States, SNCF was transporting Jews at relative high speed to concentration camp gas chambers during the Holocaust. Between 1941 and 1944, 3,000 wagons — originally designed for the transportation of cattle — were used by the SNCF to transport Jews to Nazi death camps.  Holocaust survivors and others are voicing their opposition to SNCF being part of the high speed rail process.

This is not the 1st time a foreign company with Holocaust ties has caused controversy when trying to do business in this country.  In 2008,  the Germany based financial services giant(the largest in the world),  Allianz received similar treatment when they announced that they would bid for the naming rights to the NFL’s New York Jets and New York Giants new Meadowlands Stadim. Allianz  has its name on Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany.   That’s the relative present.  In the historical past, Allianz insured the building of concentration camps.  In the past Allianz  had given money owed to Jewish beneficiaries of their life insurance policies to the Nazi authorities instead.

At first,  Like Allianz,  SNCF  poured on excuse after excuse of justification and order following to minimize their historical complicity in mass murder. SNCF  argues that it had no control over railroad operations when France was under Nazi occupation from 1940 to 1944. It was simply under orders to transport Jews to death camps. The following orders” argument goes directly to the moral low ground explicitly rejected in the Nuremberg Trials  and other war crimes tribunals.  It is insultingly despicable that it would even be put forth in a  good faith attempt to deal with the facts.  In January, faced with the prospect of  the loss United States high speed rail contracts,  SNCF finally did proffer a formal apology for its role.

States are now also taking steps to ensure that any company involved in the Billion Dollar nationwide project, disclose any involvement with the Holocaust. In California, lawmakers had passed a bill to ensure this,  but it was subsequently vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The bill would have forced companies  wanting to bid on a share of  California’s $45 billion high-speed rail project to disclose whether they transported Holocaust victims.  Maryland has  passed legislation requiring  SNCF  to disclose, as a condition for receiving their rail contract, to disclose it’s role in transporting 76,000 people loaded in 76 cattle cars to their death in Nazi camps.

More recently, SNFC struck a deal with the  state of Florida to fund a Holocaust education program with an 80k donation.   Is this enough?  Many survivors do not think so calling it “tainted money”.

To a large extent time is taking care of the most vocal objections.  Within 10 years there will be few if any survivor left.   Many of us will always remember but many will forget, especially when profits make it expedient to do so. Will “Holocaust Tainted” companies care anymore then?

To quote a line  from the movie, The Social Network, “You Don’t Get To 500 million friends(now 750 million) without making a few enemies.”  Within any population sample whether it be brick and mortar or the online social sphere there will be a percentage of content that is hateful, offensive, and downright violent in nature.

A 2010 report, by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, found 14,000 hate and terrorism related web sites which constituted a a 12 percent increase from the prior year. Previous reports have targeted Facebook and YouTube as prime breeding grounds for this subculture of hate.  Now entering stage left is Google+  on pace to be the fastest growing social network ever.  It remains to be seen whether this growth can be sustained. There is however one certainty. Part of that growth will entail content that one group or another considers offensive.  Currently in the invite mode, we have yet to see much(if any) traditional hate speech content.  That is not to say that there are not racists, antisemites and homophobes among the early adopters.  Basic  demographic probabilities say there are.  They are simply not making themselves known because they currently lack a forum to have courage in numbers with the anonymity of groups pages which Google+ does not currently support.  Once the platform opens up however, it seems that features such as Circles, Huddle and Hangout with  multi-user ability will be prime to bring small minded individuals to a common place much in the same way as Facebook groups accomplish that function. Whose going to know about your “Holocaust Deniers” or “KKK member circle?  Build that circle, use Huddle and Hangout to prime the pump. You’re off and running in  much more subtle in insidious manner than traditional content postings.  How will Google monitor this?   It will obviously be(and is) a user based reporting system.  Hopefully Google+ will provide the tools, and be staffed to be more responsive and articulate than Facebook when it comes to dealing with hate speech reporting.  Google+ does have their initial “Content Policy” in place.  It is a strict and detailed one.

HATE SPEECH: “Do not distribute content that promotes hatred or violence towards groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity”

This is a very specific and much more restrictive content policy than Facebook. It would indicate that Google will take a dim view of many types of unpopular speech that Facebook currently allows.  Facebook’s content policy with regards to hate speech reads as follows:

“You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence”

Facebook”s policy is purposely vague.  They would rather make the decision with finality in a back room on what is “hateful content” than get into thousands of disputes with users over what content violates their content policy.  They do not want to die the death of a thousand razor cuts by having to staff to deal with it. Google+ has such a specific content policy that they may very well find they are dying that very death when the platform opens up.  What we see today in terms of prohibited content may not be what we see six months or a year from now.  Facebook’s vague policy has led to some very public disputes over  content that promotes Holocaust Denial, photos of  women breastfeeding and  Klu Klux Klan pages  just to name a few.

While the 1st Amendment does not apply to private social networks, they all strive to  strike a balance between a First Amendment corollary to the  free exchange of ideas and limiting offensive speech.  Where will Google+ fall on these issues?  Their 1st attempt goes well beyond a 1st Amendment type mindset and I expect that there will be push- back as the network grows.   In the early stages of Google+ it is all kisses and kumbaya but that will change.

The mayor of Arlington, Texas is pissed off.  Someone has created a fake Twitter account in his name and is making fun of him.  The horror of it all!

Arlington Mayor, Robert Cluck  has asked police to investigate a Twitter account using his name and photo.  The account named “Fake-Robert Cluck” is clearly a parody account designed to criticize Cluck.

It appears that Mayor Cluck has taken the fact that the Texas online harassment law was really designed to protect children and others from legitimate online bullying to heart.  He has decided to act like a child and attempt to twist the state law to snuff out the 1st Amendment and those who choose to criticize his performance through the use of parody.  Like a 10 year old crying to his mommie, he wants the other kids in school to stop saying mean things about him.

That the  mayor of a large community can not understand the basics of 1st Amendment protected parody and attempt to usurp a state law designed to protect children and others from legitimate, safety threatening harassment is beyond disturbing. This highlights the problem with anti-harassment statutes in general. They are rarely in comport with the 1st Amendment and consistently abused for personal agendas.  The bright side is that this is such an obvious case of 1st Amendment protected speech that someone who at a minimum took a high school civics class can set him straight.

In addition to not understanding the 1st Amendment, Mayor Cluck will be SOL in his attempt to get Twitter to remove the account.  Twitter actually has guidelines as to Parody accounts.  The fake Cluck account is well within those guidelines.

Here is the bottom line.  If there is another fake account set up under Cluck’s name, he can assume I am behind it.  I am making it easy on you Robert! Come and get me!  I really had no idea who you were before now but I have the 1st Amendment right to parody you, criticize you in your official duties and and generally say very mean things about you on the internet if I want to. I can use a parody Twitter account to do it as well.  I understand the 1st Amendment.  If you can’t grasp it or have a basic understanding of the Texas Anti-Harassment statute shame on you. Maybe you should educate yourself or resign.

Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais(SNCF)  is bidding to get a piece of the lucrative contracts to build the United State’s first high speech rail tracks.  Plans for high-speed rails were announced by President Barack Obama.   Nothing out of the ordinary  until you add in some creepy and disturbing historical context.

Sixty-Nine years before they made their current play to transport us at high speed around the United States, SNCF was transporting Jews at relative high speed to concentration camp gas chambers during the Holocaust. Between 1941 and 1944, 3,000 wagons — originally designed for the transportation of cattle — were used by the SNCF to transport Jews to Nazi death camps.  Holocaust survivors and others are voicing their opposition to SNCF being part of the high speed rail process.

This is not the 1st time a foreign company with Holocaust ties has caused controversy when trying to do business in this country.  In 2008,  the Germany based financial services giant(the largest in the world),  Allianz received similar treatment when they announced that they would bid for the naming rights to the NFL’s New York Jets and New York Giants new Meadowlands Stadim. Allianz  has its name on Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany.   That’s the relative present.  In the historical past, Allianz insured the building of concentration camps.  In the past Allianz  had given money owed to Jewish beneficiaries of their life insurance policies to the Nazi authorities instead.

At first,  Like Allianz,  SNCF  poured on excuse after excuse of justification and order following to minimize their historical complicity in mass murder. SNCF  argues that it had no control over railroad operations when France was under Nazi occupation from 1940 to 1944. It was simply under orders to transport Jews to death camps. The following orders” argument goes directly to the moral low ground explicitly rejected in the Nuremberg Trials  and other war crimes tribunals.  It is insultingly despicable that it would even be put forth in a  good faith attempt to deal with the facts.  In January, faced with the prospect of  the loss United States high speed rail contracts,  SNCF finally did proffer a formal apology for its role.

States are now also taking steps to ensure that any company involved in the Billion Dollar nationwide project, disclose any involvement with the Holocaust. In California, lawmakers had passed a bill to ensure this,  but it was subsequently vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill, would have forced companies  wanting to bid on a share of  California’s $45 billion high-speed rail project to disclose whether they transported Holocaust victims.  Maryland has now  passed legislation requiring  SNCF  to disclose, as a condition for receiving their rail contract, to disclose it’s role in transporting 76,000 people loaded in 76 cattle cars to their death in Nazi camps.

Will we reach a historical point where companies who wish to shed their Holocaust past can do business without fear of negative publicity and blackballed business dealings?  To a large extent time is taking care of that.  Within 10 years there will be few if any survivor left.  Many of us will always remember but many will forget, especially when profits make it expedient to do so.  There however,is still  time for companies who have not adequately confronted their past to do so and re-brand themselves for the future without excuse or justification.

The souls and families of  thousands of Jews murdered in the Holocaust can rest a little easier.  John Demjanjuk  has gone from an accused to a convicted Nazi War Criminal.  Pending a certain appeal, the end to a saga that has lasted over twenty-five years has come full circle.

A saga that spanned the globe from the Gates of the Sobibor Concentration Camp in Poland,  to Cleveland, Ohio to Israel and finally back where it all started in Germany has finally ended with Demjanjuk’s conviction as an accessory to the murder of 28,000 Jews at the Sobibor Concentration camp.

There are those who will claim that Demjanjuk was simply a dupe and scapegoat to hold any possible person accountable for the Naz’s horrendous crimes against humanity.  There will those will claim that he is a wrongly accused old man, the victim of a government conspiracy.   There will those who will claim that regardless of his crimes, he is simply too old and close to death regardless, so we should leave him be.  If it makes that contingent feel any better, An appeals court may very well reverse his conviction. Demjanjuk will probably not do any time because of his age. It really does not matter.  The wheels of justice have finally turned.  The statement that has been made time and time again by those pursuing the perpetrators of genocide has been reaffirmed. You can not hide behind the passage of time.  The world has listened in to a the recounting of an event in time that within 5-10 years  there will be no one left to tell the story.  It will be relegated to history books that for the most part give relatively short shrift to this pivotal moment in human history.  John Demjanjuk’s role and conviction will be an official part of that history. The course of human history changed by the murdering of the future.

In the end,  John Demjanjuk will still have lived a the full life of family, friends and a full stomach that he helped deny to thousands of Jews. This is 2011, not 1945.  Lucky for him. 

The Koran is not being burned in Dearborn Michigan but the 1st Amendment has gone up in flames.

In what was a 1st amendment busting egregious display of prior restraint, Koran burning Pastor Terry Jones was prohibited from staging a protest in front of the Islamic Center Of America.  Jones was briefly  jailed when a jury found that he presented a danger of “breach of peach”. He was tried under a Michigan law dating back to 1846 requiring people judged to present a risk to public order to post a “peace bond.” He was released on 1 dollar bond and a promise that he would not go near the Mosque for three years.

Prior to trial, the city had demanded up to a 100k “peace bond” from Jones in order to hold the protest.  He refused to pay and hence the trial.

Let’s start with the fact that peace bonds themselves are an outdated and unconstitutional form of prior restraint.  The case brings back memories of the highly controversial plans of The Nazi,  National Socialist Party to  march on the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie Illinois. The community of Skokie attempted to pass various ordinances including one requiring the posting of a bond designed to specifically prevent the march. The city used arguments similar to the ones used by the Dearborn District Attorney to block the Mosque protest.  In Skokie,  the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the National Socialist Party of America to march . The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, validating the developing national policy that even the most unpopular of speech in the most unpopular of circumstances, merits First Amendment protection.  This is a privilege we take for granted and often willingly disregard when we are offended.  We can try to regulate violent actions but we simply can not universalize a moral compass where speech is concerned.

The verdict and bond requirement will certainly be overturned on appeal as it should be.  It is hard on the ears but necessary that the freedoms we enjoy include the rantings of The Westboro Baptist Church,  Koran burning, the vitriolic protests of  Pastor Jones and Nazi thugs.  If the 1st Amendment does not work for them, it does not work for anyone.

(CBN)The City of Pittsburgh, Pa, home of the Major League baseball team, the Pittsburgh Pirates is abuzz with shock and outrage over the discovery of secretly recorded meeting between between Pirates majority Owner  Robert Nutting and General Manager Neal Huntington .

The bizarre exchange occurred last year in Nutting’s office at the conclusion of the Pirates 3rd worst season in Club History finishing 57-105, leading to the firing of manager John Russell.  The outrage over their 18th consecutive losing season with no real hope for 2011 improvement prompted the recent front page headline, “WHO THE HELL ARE THESE GUYS” in the local Pittsburgh newspaper.

The following  is a transcript of the secretly recorded conversation:

Nutting: Come on in Neal, have a seat.

Huntington: I’m glad you called me in. I’m still unclear on a couple things about our team direction for 2011.

Nutting: Oh, really  Like what?

Huntington: Over the last few years we have traded away practically every decent player we have. Our rookies are not producing.  This was the the one of the worst Pirates teams ever and that’s saying something after 18 consecutive losing seasons.  I think Russell is going to quit and start selling Goodyears.   Who will manage the Pirates moving forward if he does?

Nutting: I was thinking of the Dos Equis Man. He will fit in quite well with our team concept.

Huntingdon: The Dos Equis Man?  You’re joking right?

Nutting: Wrong, my name is Robert, get it right.

Huntington: What exactly is our team concept?

Nutting: That’s what I wanted to talk to you about. I want to put together a team that will help us relocate to Cuba

Huntington: Cuba?  Your joking.

Nutting: I said my name is Robert.  I’m serious about this Neal.  It’s no secret I’ve never liked Pittsburgh much. The weathers lousy, the downtown is a pit, the stadium’s too small,we cant draw dick and no one is reading my crappy newspapers.  Another 2 years of this and I may need to start feeding  Ogden real dog food.

Huntington: You can’t just up and move a team on a whim!

Nutting: It’s hardly a whim.  Fidel has offered to build us a new stadium — 62,000   capacity, 45 V.I.P. boxes, and all rent to be subsided through sugar cane sales. No other franchise in baseball can match that deal.

Nutting: Whats more, Fidel has taken a liking to the Dos Equis Man.   Fidel personally told me he finds him incredibly interesting. Whats more, he looks like him.  He likes the commercials and thinks of him as the son he always wanted.  There is also a national Cuban Tequila brand rolling out that will provide some good marketing perks . I plan on offering Mr. Equis a long term contract to replace Russell.  Fidel will be the starting 1st baseman in Spring Training. The job’s his to lose.

Huntington: You cant be serious!  What about Clint Hurdle?  He is doing a good job for the Texas Rangers?

Nutting: I’m not serious, For the last time, my name is Robert, whats wrong with you.  Irregardless, it wont work, Hurdle looks nothing like Fidel.

Nutting: Whats more, we will be given the option of signing player development contracts with the parents of all promising Cuban prospects. We will have exclusive negotiating rights starting at 7 years old as well as their real birth certificates. We will corner the Cuban baseball talent market!

Huntington: Even so, the League and the City will never let us  leave Pittsburgh.  There is a lease and laws we have to deal with.

Nutting: I have that all figured out!  I have been pressing Bud Selig for an exhibition or regular season game in Cuba.  Bud is a Big fan of the Dos Equis guy.  Told me the other day how interesting he is.   While we are in Cuba, under my authority as owner and in the best interests of baseball, I will undertake a mass defection of the entire team.   The bottom line is that if we play bad enough no one will care if we defect and the players will love the sunny climate.

Huntington: You mean you want us to lose?

Nutting:  We’ve been losing.  I want us to finish dead last again and set an all time low attendance and loss record. I have been pouring over the numbers.  A 120+ losses is definitely within reach  this year. Speaking of which, I heard Mario Mendoza is making a comeback, offer him a 3 year deal and a free AARP membership.

Huntington: You are out of your mind!

Nutting: Well I still think print media is viable if that’s what you mean.

©2011 Brian Cuban

Republican Rep. Peter King prepares to hold hearings that will examine the threat posed by radical Islam in the United States.  I don’t think anyone disputes that radicalized Muslims or radicalized factions of any religion are dangerous.  Yes, the majority of terror attacks are carried out by radicalized Muslims.  We need hearings to tell us this?  What is the purpose other to inflame passions and fear monger across an entire religious base.  I am expecting Rep. King to open the hearings as follows:

While I can not take the time to name all of the Muslims who we suspect of being radicalized , I have here in my hand a list of names that are known to the Government  as being members of the Muslim faith and present an imminent danger to society and our way of life ”

Does this sound vaguely familiar?  The new McCarthyism is upon us. McCarthyism 2.0.

The concept behind McCarthyism 2.o was around long before this hearing or when Fox’s Glenn Beck labeled the 2010 head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the White House, Cass Sunstein “the most dangerous man in America” but it has been taken to a new level by cable media and internet pundits to be heard above the screaming.

With regard to Senator McCarthy and his infamous Wheeling, West Virginia “I have a list” speech, we know that no such list existed. The piece of paper Senator McCarthy held in his hand had nothing to do with spies or Communists. He might as well have held up a restaurant menu. Was that piece of paper all he held in his hand?  He held so much more in intangibles that won the day to justify fear of our neighbor. He held the trust of an elected official. He played the specter of “I know something you don’t know,” which is a statement that even when simply implied but left unstated, captivates the human desire to know.  His outrageous statements had the sheen of credibility because no one in his position would say such a thing unless it was true.  In other words, coming from a demagogue like McCarthy, his statements had the credibility of the unbelievable. The desire to want to believe those we are supposed to trust overwhelms the logical senses, and we say “there must be something to it”

How many times have we listened to a claim and said “That has to be true, no one would say it if it wasn’t.”  Such a reaction is not confined to the days of the Red Scare simply because it is a natural and normal human response.  How many readers believed Glenn Beck when he said he had evidence that President Barrack Obama was “ building “concentration camps”?  Beck claimed  he had conducted “research on” the so-called concentration camps being built by the Obama White House as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America. He claimed that he could not “debunk them.” He stated, “If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out.  There is something happening in our country and it ain’t good.”

How different is the above from simply stating, “I have here in my hand a list of 200 Muslims I suspect of engaging in terrorism.”  What sort of reaction would that trigger today?  Would anyone in the mainstream media be so irresponsible as Senator McCarthy to make such a statement if no such list existed or the list had not been value checked?  Make the comparison. Beck holds a trusted position as a news commentator.  When Fox News pundit Glenn Beck makes an outrageous claim, we think that outrageous claim must have some truth to it, or why else would someone trusted make it?  How does this differentiate King’s or Beck’s tactics from the tactics of Joseph McCarthy?  Like the fraud of McCarthy’s list, it turned out that Beck completely lacked evidence or common sense to support his claims.  That did not stop his allegations from being picked up by bloggers and tweeters spreading the news with an air of conspiracy credibility until Beck was forced to retract as the ridiculous nature of the statement became clear.

When Beck called Sunstein the most dangerous man in the world, he went on to further employ “McCarthyesque” tactics and also sounding eerily like hate radio priest Charles Coughlin when he implored viewers who were ‘watching the capitol” to tune into his program because he had done his homework and they had not, further alleging that Sunstein represented history that we did not want to repeat.  Another instance of a symbolic red baiting claim that Beck “had a list” and information that only Beck was privy to so he should be trusted to the exclusion of those without the information.  Beck went even further with Sunstein by incorporating Nazi Germany imagery when he compared Sunstein’s office to the Reichstag and referring to his beliefs “awfully Nazi.”

The final quote from McCarthy’s speech has become a microcosm of the battles fought in the media and fought between left and right wing loyalties in the 21^st Century:

“Today we are engaged in an all out battle between Communistic atheism and Christianity.  The modern champions of Communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen the chips are down, they truly are”

Change Communism to Islam and the song remains the same.

The big difference today?  Today, Joseph McCarthy would have simply tweeted his allegations.  Passions of hatred are inflamed, lives are easily ruined and conspiracies are born in 140 characters or less.

Some thoughts on the Michael Vick, “Key To The City” fiasco.   We now know that it was not a “real” key to the city.  It was a “Mack-Daddy” key to the city to be used by Dallas City Council members including Dwaine Caraway who is the Mayor Pro Tem to suck up to any celebrity that they deem beneficial to their personal agenda.

This is not the first time the pseudo honorary keys have been given out on such basis.  Real “keys to the city” have protocol to be followed.  They are generally given out by the Mayor and reserved for visiting international dignitaries.

If Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway wants to get on his suck up soap box for Michael Vick and bestow whatever compliments he deems appropriate at a private event that is his right.  Frankly, when you compartmentalize it,  Vick does deserve compliments for some of the work he has done with children and such since he got out of prison just as he deserves criticism and disdain for what he did to get there.  I won’t let my disdain for what he did, cloud that fact.  I also do not begrudge Caraway the right to talk about and congratulate Vick for those endeavors at private events. It’s a free country.  Does that entitled Carraway to bestow such a general honor that speaks for the City Of Dallas?   Not a chance in hell.  When Caraway handed Michael that key, he spoke for the city.  He spoke for me.  He spoke for you if you live in Dallas.  He did not have my support.  More important, he  did not have the support of the city.   Mayor Tom Leppert  made it perfectly clear that he did not have such support.   He did not have the support of City Council either.  They also represent the city.  One might say,

“I am a constituent and I supported the awarding of the key.”

That’s great.  You are right.  You are however in the very minute minority.  How do I know?  I don’t for sure.  No poll taken.  I feel strong enough about it however to state that anyone who thinks any more than a small percentage of voters in the city of Dallas supported that move is on crack.  I suspect that Caraway will find that out the hard way when he is either replaced as Mayor Pro-Tem due to the majority outrage or at election time.

In further Key news, it is my understanding that Pee Wee Herman is up for the next for the next Dallas honor for all his wonderful work with children.  If you have children of your own,  make sure to change your locks today.  Who knows what door that key will open.

As we all mourn the loss of life in the Arizona shooting and hope for the speedy recovery of those injured, I can not help but wonder what extent the rise of internet and media hate speech played at a minimum, a tinderbox role in the event.  One only has to use Google and stare in wonder at the breadth of the angry net to understand how this could happen and mind boggle at the fact that it has not happened more often.

Should society become less tolerant of viral hatred and online rants that even tangentially target individuals or classes even though the 1st Amendment protects such speech?  Anger, threats and whacked out nut jobs abound in an boundaryless arena that often seems to value protection of rhetoric over the safety of the  individual.  The downside and upside of a free and democratic society. It however, seems clear that while the 1st Amendment still provides the same guidelines set out in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, society as a whole is becoming less tolerant of such internet vitriol.  Should the 1st Amendment also morph to take more notice of the threat and offer less protection to violent rants and media incitement?  It appears that it is happening even without the blessing of SCOTUS.

As a society we are becoming less tolerant of angry people on the internet, especially when those angry people incite other angry  people to take action even when those people are unknown.   It used to take more than theoretical action and nebulous calls to action.  There had to be real an imminent threat.  That is no longer the case.  Outside of courtrooms and far away from 1st Amendment legal briefs, a post 9-11 and  Nidal Malik Hasan society is becoming more thin skinned to veiled written threats that may have one time never made it to a jury but now are taken seriously and result in convictions even though there is no real imminent threat to the intended recipient or even to a general class of individuals.  Prosecutors are getting convictions on web rants and internet threats in which ranters are left to wonder what went wrong while they do prison time and their appeal winds its way through the court thinking  they had followed the “can’t touch me” 1st Amendment blueprint.  As society becomes more fearful and tired of such internet vitriol the 1st Amendment becomes less of a Kryptonite shield and such arguments to a jury are more likely to fall of deaf ears.  Times are changing.  The 1st Amendment and the societal concept of “free speech” is changing with them.