Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

My Whim is Law is a terrific blog we used to frequent quite a bit. The author, Betsy, is a single mother in Portland, Oregon. Her ordinary life makes for fascinating, compelling and addictive reading. This post was originally published on April 4, 2005.

Reading a post by Betsy, from My Whim is Law, dredged up an old memory. She recounted a lousy date, and I immediately knew I could top it.

Not everyone is like NG, no sirree. I know just how lucky I am.
A number of years ago, I was ‘fixed up,’ by a close friend. Actually, it was his wife that did the ‘fixing up.’ She had a second cousin she thought would be ‘perfect’ for me. That should have been the first clue.

Well, I resisted for a long time. Blind dates have a way of going bad, very bad, for me. Previous attempts at that kind of socializing have resulted in my escorting peasant dress and Birkenstock with sock types, ranting vegans and wannabe opera singers- a fine vocation if you have a voice, not such a good idea if you sound like a tugboat horn. That was confirmed that when I was treated to a private rendition of Ave Maria sure to drive any Christian into the arms of a Wiccan coven. There was also the dentist, who insisted on commenting on every set of teeth she observed. Big mistake taking her out to a basketball game.

But I digress.

My friend had offered up his wife’s offer for about 2 years. Always, I demurred. One day, my friend told me that his wife was so insistent that he convince me to go out with her cousin, that she had begun taking it out on him. Out of misplaced loyalty and friendship, I finally buckled and said yes.

The appointed Saturday evening came, and I arrived at my friends house, to pick up my date for the evening. She had come in from out of town and was staying over.

Much to my surprise, she was very, very pretty. Actually, she was drop dead gorgeous. I was very much taken aback. Maybe there was something to a well arranged blind date. In any case, I was ready!

That optimism was dashed almost immediately. The entire trip into the city (I was living in NYC at the time) from my friends home in the suburbs was spent listening to my blind date recount the faults and failures of every man she had dated, and for that matter, the faults and failings of all men, everywhere. None apparently, were worthy of her companionship, qualities or beauty- of which she would refer to every few minutes, as if on cue- as in, “I don’t have to settle, I’m too good to settle. I deserve the very best. I can get any man I want.”

Fifteen minutes into the drive, I was wracking my brain as to how to fake symptoms of some exotic and highly communicable disease, so as to put as much distance between this self absorbed and self important bitch, er, person and myself, as possible. I had made reservations at a very nice restaurant, One if by Land, Two if by Sea, at the time a very nice place (I’m told it’s since slipped a bit). I wanted to get the dinner over with as soon as possible and just get her back and get myself back into the city.

We finally reached our destination and made our way into the restaurant (at this point, I was hoping she was a vegan, would be so outraged at the display of animal, fowl and seafood flesh in plain view on every plate, and would almost faint and insist on being taken home. No such luck). We were seated, the menus, bread and water discreetly brought to our table and then it started.

My date for the evening opened her purse and pulled out a sheet of paper, unfolding it purposefully. On it, were questions (a cross examination) she wanted to pose to me, so as not waste time of there was not a ‘meeting of the minds’ and a shared idea of ‘priorities.’

My interrogator wanted to know how much I would allot her to spend on clothes. She wanted to know how often we might vacation, and where. What type of travel and accommodation arrangements would I make? Would I bestow a gift of jewellery once a month? What would be her allowance? How large a home she wanted and a decorating budget were mentioned, with the express proviso that the budget was not written in stone. She also believed that fine dining 3 to 4 times a week was not unreasonable. I just listened. At no time was there any reference to what was in it for me.

My evening’s companion then perused the menu and ordered the most expensive item, as the waiter gently hovered over us. I ordered a plate the establishment was well known for, a salmon dish. It then asked if she could order the wine. Being a gentleman, I agreed. She then ordered a $225.00 bottle of wine.

Now, I could afford the wine, dinner, etc., easily. It would not have made a bit of difference in my life or lifestyle. I have been fortunate in that way.

Nevertheless, I was stunned- just stunned- as someone I don’t even know would take that kind of liberty. Of course, I concurred and complimented her on her choice of wine.

I then excused myself from the table. I got up, walked back through the reception area towards the men’s room and then turned the other way and left the restaurant.

I had not that done before, nor since that time. I would never do it again. But I’m not sorry I did it back then.

I went home, ordered a massive burger from Burger Heaven with extra fries and cole slaw and waited for the call.

The call came about an hour and a half later. My friend was furious- and I mean furious. He ranted and raved and threatened and just went off the deep end. He finally paused long enough for me to ask him if he were done. He said yes. I immediately told him exactly what transpired. He was shocked. He put his wife on the phone, who informed me that her second cousin, with whom she so kindly fixed me up with, was in tears and furious. No one, it seems, had ever treated her cousin so poorly.

Then, I told her what had happened. I suggested she look in her cousins purse for that questionnaire. She hung up. I finished my fries quickly, because I knew there would be another call. That call came in 10 minutes later, with 20 minutes worth of apologies from my friend and his wife.

Last I heard, that lovely still isn’t married.

Like I said, not everyone is like NG.

Here’s the deal: Bill Clinton, et al, want ABC to either ‘correct’ errors or cancel the presentation of the docudrama.

As Blue Crab Boulevard (H/T Dr Sanity) has noted,

Back when Fahrenheit 911 was the talk of the blogosphere, all the criticism I read was about its accuracy. There were quite a lot of bloggers that were tearing it apart for its twisting of fact. A lot of bloggers wanted to set the record straight, but to my knowledge not one of those people I was reading at that time before I started blogging myself was calling for it to be silenced. They only wanted the record straight.

Now we have a new “docudrama” about 9/11 coming out. And the left side of the blogosphere and mainstream Democratic politicians are calling for it to be radically changed or silenced. Some are gloating that they think they have silenced some voices.

There are those who are defending the efforts of the Clinton supporters in their demands, by citing the criticism Michael Moore got for Farenheit 9/11 and equating the efforts of their respective critics.

Here’s the deal. ABC’s production of the ‘Path To 9/11′ is a docudrama. It is entertainment, based on a true story. Michael Moore presented his deliberate deceit as ‘fact’ and indeed, even claimed himself to be a journalist in an interview on Canadian television.

Are there any Americans that are stupid enough to believe that Michael Moore would have ‘corrected’ the lies he told in his ‘journalistic effort,’ if asked?

That convicted felon, Sandy ‘Pants’ Berger, has put in his two cents is laughable and only highlights what are already suspicious motives. Stuffing what he believed were the only copies of classified documents- relating to the Clinton administration’s efforts on fighting terror (or lack of said efforts) down his pants, doesn’t do much for the Clinton administration’s credibility in their attempt to look good.

We submit that if ABC does indeed air ‘The Path To 9/11,’ there will be those on the left that will jump on the ‘Bush did it with the Jews,’ bandwagon as a result. Maybe even Clinton himself, backed up by Madeline Albright, will begin making some oblique references to a hidden conspiracy.

Sandy Pants too, might join the crowd. He’s Jewish, so that will make the charge all that more credible, right?

Further, it is ironic to note that those who now so ferociously committed to accuracy and integrity, make no such demands of the vile hate, bigotry and racism that is broadcast and published daily in the Arab world.

It is even more astonishing how readily these idiots- hypocrites, all-  will accept the hate, bigotry, racist and every outrageous charge at face value.

From The Kuwait Times:

Dr Sami Alrabaa

Khaled Al-Qashtini made in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (Sept 5) a very interesting observation. He sasays as he was watching one of Saddam Hussein’s trial sesions, he noticed that a fly had landed on Saddams’s face several times.The Iraqo deposed dictator would wipe it off from his face. Al-Qashtini also notes that while Saddam ruled Iraq, he would ask one of his aids (servants) to remove the fly, otherwise he would be killed.

Now Iraq is free and flies are also free. They can land on anybody. Flies for that matter are the only creatures that are really free in the Arab world. They land on everybody, also on kings and presidents.

“If you want to keep people dumb, just keep them uniformed or misinformed,” the German Nobel Prize winner Heinrich Boell said. Media experts say that if you want to know how much knowledge the population of a certain country has, just listen to their radios, watch their TVs, and read their newspapers.

Nowadays people around the world get their much of their knowledge and information from the radio and TV and the Internet. When you listen and watch BBC, the National Public Radio (NPR), and the German state-owned but independent radio and TV stations, on the one hand, and Kuwait radio and TV, in Arabic and in English, on the other hand, you can see the difference.

Western radio and television and newspapers try to truly inform the public; they inform you about local and international politics, about current economic developments, about food and health issues, about education, culture, just name it. Diverse people with opposed views are interviewed on the air. Government politicians and opposition politicians are interviewed early in the morning. You really get actual comprehensive and in-depth information.

This is definitely not the situation with radio and TV in Kuwait. If, for example, you listen to Radio Kuwait in the morning, you will hear things like: “Dear listener, have a wonderful morning, presented with roses and jasmine ……. smile ….. have a great a day! Life is beautiful! …..”
This silly irrelevant stuff. You would never hear anything about what is going on in a small country like Kuwait. When it is newscast time, you hear, “Minister so and so received guests and said good bye to them …..”

More often than not you have to tune to foreign stations to learn about what is going on next door. You rarely get insights into the thinking of Arab politicians. If they ever give a statement, it is often brief and general.

Marcel Pott, a former German Middle East correspondent says, “Arab leaders and officials find it difficult to deal with the media. Many of them do not know even how to speak. They are not in command of their own mother tongue, Arabic. Some fear that they might say too much and then regret it. They avoid critical questions.”

Qasem, an expat who works as a news editor for a Kuwait radio station, says, “The majority of my Kuwaiti colleagues lack competence. They are appointed as editors, but they are not in command of the Arabic language. They make very rudimentary mistakes. News presenters are not better off.”

The quality of state-controlled TV and radio in Kuwait and most developing countries is the same. It is poor. The successive governments use these media to polish their image. They misinform, or keep a tight lid on information.

“But they do it in a clumsy, crude manner. It is so obvious that nobody takes these media seriously,” argues Ralph Friedman, from the “Medien-Forschung Institut” in Berlin. Friedman also says state-controlled media go hand-in-hand with authoritarian regimes. Even relatively new democracies like Kuwait and Russia are reluctant to relinquish state media, in particular radio and TV. 

Saad bin Tifla, a former Information Minister, cautiously tried to introduce some reforms into the radio and TV system in Kuwait. He grossly failed. The task and the opposition were gargantuan. He gave up and resigned. The current Minister of Information Mohammed Al-Sanousi, who is also zealous for overhauling the radio and TV apparatus, will also fail.

If the Kuwaitis are serious about reforming and modernising their radio and TV system, they are advised to replicate the British and German experience. This system is financed by taxes, but it is controlled, run, and managed by independent professional people.

The system does not depend on quotas of customers, it rather depends on objective quality. The board of trustees in the system makes sure that radio and TV programmes serve all segments of the population, all ages, all interest groups. Everybody has a share in the system. Ultimately, the system entertains and informs in depth.

“The experience with privatising radio and TV has been negative worldwide, to a large extent,” Friedman notes. He also says private radio and TV providers have become slaves to commercial advertisement companies. The programming is shallow and based on sensational effects.

Gagdad Bob’s Islamists And Their Symbolic Struggle Against Reality (And Real Struggle Against Irony), is an absolute keeper. We admit- with no great joy- that we missed this particular post when it was first published. As penance and homage to Gagdad Bob, we will subject ourselves to a vegetarian lunch, with only 12 oz of med rare flank steak added to our otherwise vegetarian Ceasar Salad.

Gagdad not so gently addresses some very serious fundamental and dysfunctional issues in Palestinian society, with great humor and soem seriouness. He quotes from an editorial,

“not yet terrorism–but it is a sign of the deep-down insecurity of the Muslim psyche in the modern world. In the presence of Islam, we all feel, you have to tread carefully, as though humoring a dangerous animal. The Koran must never be questioned; Islam must be described as a religion of peace–isn’t that the meaning of the word?–and jokes about the prophet are an absolute no-no. If religion comes up in conversation, best to slip quietly away, accompanying your departure with abject apologies for the Crusades. And in Europe this pussyfooting is now being transcribed into law, with ‘Islamophobia’ already a crime in Belgium and movements across the continent to censor everything at which a Muslim might take offense, including articles like this one.”

Bob connects some not so well hidden dots.

In short, seriousness is a serious problem for Muslims–and therefore, for us. Scruton concludes his piece by noting that “Whenever I consider this matter I am struck by a singular fact about the Christian religion…, which is that it is informed by a spirit of irony. Irony means accepting ‘the other’, as someone other than you. It was irony that led Christ to declare that his ‘kingdom is not of this world,’ not to be achieved through politics. Such irony is a long way from the humorless incantations of the Koran. Yet it is from a posture of irony that every real negotiation, every offer of peace, every acceptance of the other, begins. The way forward, it seems to me, is to encourage the re-emergence of an ironical Islam, of the kind you find in the philosophy of Averroës, in Persian poetry and in ‘The Thousand and One Nights.’ We should also encourage those ethnic and religious jokes which did so much to defuse tension in the days before political correctness. And maybe, one day, the rigid face of some puritanical mullah will crack open in a hesitant smile, and negotiations can at last begin…

The comedic “hands off” attitude toward Islam betrays more than a “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Rather, it is a hard bigotry of no expectations toward the Muslim world. The Palestinians receive no criticism from the left (and the world community at large), not because they think so highly of them, but because they think so badly about them–in fact, they actually have no expectations whatsoever about them. In other words, it is not because the Palestinians are so wonderful that they are immune from criticism and mockery, but because everyone knows that it would be absurd to hold Muslims to the same standards as Christians, or Jews, or Zen Buddhists–to any standards of decency at all, really. No one is shocked at the barbarity of the Islamic world, whether it is committed by terrorists, or perpetrated in the name of the Saudi or Iranian governments.

Now that Bob has payed the rent, it would be easy to dismiss the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world as irrelevant. In fact, Bob’s humor only serves to highlight the tragedy of an society and local culture that has imploded, leaving in it’s wake a tremendous dysfunction. That dysfunction is so toxic, that it has had an effect on us, by virtue of simple proximity. With simple and exquisite clarity, Bob exposes what is hidden in plain sight:

…We live in a morally upside down world, in which making fun of the Islamist ideology is forbidden, but committing mass murder in the name of Islam is explained away. Humorless bigots such as Juan Cole heap scorn on the United States but make every excuse imaginable for the moral failings of Islam. We will know that Muslims have come a long way when they can start making fun of themselves in the same way that Americans have always made fun of themselves, their institutions, their politicians, and their religions.

Oh well. What can you do but laugh about the situation, with some recycled jokes?

If you want to read the jokes and punchlines, read Gagdad Bob’s post. The jokes are funnier- and more poignant, after you’ve read the rest of the post