Haven't used this in a while

Let's see how it goes. For now, take a look at www.newbrunswicktoday.com.

Hey Michelle Malkin

To: Michelle Malkin
Re: Comment Registry

I have read and enjoyed some of your commentary over time (well, I'm not exactly a conservative, I'm more of a center left guy, but, still... sometimes what you write makes sense). I have noticed, however, that you have not been allowing people to join your registered community of comments lately. While this does a disservice to those of us who would very much like to comment and talk about going-ons and opinions, whether conservative or liberal, whether sensical or not, this might be understandable. Anyhow, you have been doing this since at least late 2008, and probably much earlier than that. Anyhow, that being said, I might as well proceed to make comments on the following articles:

Flight 1549 pilot: God bless Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger!

Amen to that. Sully is quite the barnstormer, and he is also proof that good military men and women make good American citizens. This is not always the case for every military, but it seems to be the case for the military of the USA, and perhaps for Britain and some other Western countries. It may be true for Israel, too, as warlike as it is, and places like modern Japan, modern China, etc. In the militaries, obesiance to rules is highly regarded, and if the rules are noble and ethical, than the military people will also likely wind up noble and ethical. It is when people running militaries make stupid rules and encourage stupid things to happen (like the ruthless Rape of Nanking or the Abu Ghraib disaster) that militaries wind up being, well, foolish and evil. Unfortunately, in the emotional heat of wartime, this is likely to happen, because anger leads to the urge to harm the target of that anger, which, in turn, leads to wartime atrocities. (In WWII, no side was innocent, although the principal Axis countries and the Soviet Union were more guilty than other participants. To wit, the USA imprisioned Japanese-Californians, failed to help Jewish refugees enter the country as much as it could, and made a controversial call over whether or not to use a practically untested weapon (there was only one nuclear explosion on record at the time) on two Japanese cities in order to end the war; the Soviets and Germans bitterly contested eastern Europe with numerous atrocities and tragedies, there were the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, and the Bataan Death March, and so on and so forth. To be sure, civilians performed some, but not all, of those atrocities (the Holocaust was at least partly a civilian affair, although military people played a role, I think; the racism in America was also at least partly civilian, I think, but correct me if I'm wrong).

Tl;dr: Military people are more likely to be good and trustworthy when the rules followed by militaries are good and trustworthy, and this extends to the heroism of people such as Sully Sullenberger. And, yeah, he made a heroic landing that was difficult, relatively untested, and a major lifesaver, and he deserves a reward for this mitzvah.

AP's final dig at President Bush

Yeah, MSM and AP do have some contempt for President Bush. Probably with good reason, too: this was a man that the US should've known better than to elect at least once (I still think Bush "stole" 2000 from under Al Gore's feet, although one might argue that it was essentially a draw and thus both people should've considered themselves winners). Bush's initial "election", if you want to call it that and not an appointment (by the Supreme Court), was due to his name and family connections, and because he appeared friendly to the people around him. While he had executive experience (unlike Obama), this was also largely due to family connections and not really due to talent in his own right (he hires people to tell him what to do, just look at Dick Cheney!). Furthermore, he was a Big Business and Big Oil type of guy, bad for our environment and bad for mixed transportation systems. Also, let's not forget that Dubya was a "C" student in college. On the plus side, Dubya made for many a funny presidential moment (remember him and the locked doors in China?)

Obama, in contrast, while his executive resume is short, is a very good speechmaker and a decent writer, and his resume is one of an activist and community organizer. Also importantly, he's sort of an outsider - someone who got picked up by some high level Democrat for the 2004 convention because he liked his charisma and his ideas, rather than his family connections (Obama? Who has ever heard of an Obama in American politics before?). While there are concerns about Blagojevich and the Illinois political machine (there's a lot of bribery and pay-to-play over in Illinois, but this wasn't Obama's fault and might not really be any current Illinois politician's fault to begin with), Obama still appears to have better potential than Bush did. I also like him because he appears to be friendly to Amtrak and other transit (would you imagine John McCain, staunch Amtrak opponent, picking "Amtrak Joe" to be veep or riding a president-elect train down to his inauguration?). Furthermore, this economy is in a classic recession, with lost jobs and receding prices, and Obama is a Democrat, and Democrats tend to be good with classic recessions (not to be confused with stagflations, where tax revolts become more common).

Not all conservatives are singing O-Kumbaya

Yeah, the current inauguration is a bit overblown (although I'm more preferential to the word "ticky-tacky" than "schlock"). However, spending is important for the economy, which is in a funk right now. What we need is good management, not a coronation; however, coronations are fun and enjoyable, whether of a new President or of a king (or a mayor, although I have yet to see this much grandeur and pomp surrounding a new mayor or a new governor). When Governor Paterson took office in NY state, he pointed out repeatedly that it was a "Monday (or whatever day of the week it was) morning and it's time to get to work", and that's what he did, rather than hold a large and distracting celebration of his taking office. So, go ahead and party, but keep in mind that work needs to be done.

nice, huh?

A Response to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's Letter

(reprinted from http://transitstuff.iforumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=244&mforum=transitstuff)

(Quoted translation is on CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/)

Quote:

(CNN) -- In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Superman? Oh wait, he's not a human, and he ain't even real.

Quote:

Noble Americans,

Are there any non-noble ones?

Quote:

Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries; Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity; Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.

And what if we were the Shinto-Buddhist Japanese or the secularist French? Then what? Otherwise, so far, nice propaganda opening.

Quote:

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together. Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection. Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

That may be the case, but do you guys have to be heavy-handed over it, and aren't your ideas of human rights a bit archaic, based on one man's hearsay about God from one-and-a-half thousand years ago? Of course you're going to say no about this, but the fact remains that Iran, while it may value compassion and resprct for human rights, is nonetheless undemocratic and has a top-down decision making process. At least our system requires that the people be listened to.

Quote:

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need. We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings. We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty. The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.

Then do the right thing. Get out of the government and let the Iranian people take care of the nation's needs. They don't need to have mullahs watching over their shoulder every step of the way.

Quote:

Noble Americans, Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world. Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities.

True.

Quote:

As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world. We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.

The trouble is that the Zionists also have a rightful claim to the same land that the Palestinians do. They won it thousands of years ago, and won it again some fifty to a hundred years ago, and not only by way of warfare. God allegedly promised Palestine to the Israelites during the time of Moses; it is a matter of record that Romans took Palestine out from under Jewish feet sometime around 70 CE. However, aggression won at least part of Palestine for the Zionists: in Biblical times, Jericho was beseiged; in modern times, Zionists fought a defensive war when people supporting the Palestinians struck at the Zionists. The Zionists had left Europe because they had nowhere else to go. So they stayed and fought. Moreover, the Zionists technically took part of Palestine from the British, who stole it (or won it fair and square) from the Ottoman Empire, who stole it from someone else, who may have taken it from Crusaders, who took it from earlier Muslims, who might have done the same from the Byzantines, who inherited it from the Romans, who stole it from the Jews (some of which were probably paleo-Zionists even then), who took it from Cana'anites and Philistines, who took it from Egypt, who took it from, perhaps, ancestors of the Jews and Cana'anites, who probably took it from some prehistoric group, and so on and so forth, all the way back to the cavemen and pre-human species. So who, really, is the rightful owner of Palestine? Is it not some long-dead cave-dwelling protohuman? Since he or she has obviously died without leaving a will, it is up to the land's current inhabitants to take care of it.

Quote:

No day goes by without a new crime. Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn't? For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland. You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it. Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?

This is the tragedy of building and maintaining a state principally on discriminatory grounds (the point of which was to maintain a haven for Jewish people so that there would never again be a tragic anti-Jewish massacre like the Holocaust). You are not innocent of this tragedy. For example, Iran uses Islamic law, which discriminates against non-Muslims, does it not? Just the same, Israel (which is the country's proper name, reflecting the land and not just the "city on a hill" of Al-Quds/ Jerusalem/ Zion) does need to look deep into its own heart and realize that it has been mistreating a people. Also, the Arabic nations need to do the same: they have refused to harbor the Palestinians and frequently kicked them out, condemning the Palestinians to inhabit the misarable piece of sod that is Gaza and the cluttered mountainscape of the West Bank.

Quote:

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people. Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception. Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated. In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government. Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq. I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.

The Iraq war has pretty much become a fracas of Iraqis fighting Iraqis on Iraqi soil. There may be a short-run benefit for America, shocking as it may seem, because the terrorists are committing their crimes in Mesopotamia rather than in America. However, in the long run, it can be dangerous, because this is the sort of situation that breeds expert terrorists, and provides an anarchy for which weapons can be passed through.

The weapons of mass destruction statements weren't lies: they were simply mistaken beliefs that were widely believed. We THOUGHT that Saddam WAS harboring such weapons. That being said, Bush may have had a personal agenda against Saddam (who after all fought with his father, the elder George Bush). Our military adventure succeeded at doing in Saddam. However, as Bush the Elder once cautioned Bush the Younger, he needed an exit strategy, and there was none to be provided. So what we have on our hand is an Iraq a lot rowdier than Japan was after it was humbled in the Second World War. (We got out of Japan in a few years because at least the Japanese kept their temper.) As for kids being in far-away lands: that happens all the time voluntarily; it is called "going on vacation".

Quote:

Noble Americans, You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them. You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations. The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of "the war on terror," civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death. I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

Sounds more like deliberate police practices in your own country. At least when cops kill people arbitrarily around here, they get into trouble and there is a scandal. The Rodney King beating caused a riot. I agree that fundamental rights are being trampled upon; however, you in Iran need to clean up your own act as far as fundamental rights go, as your record is worse than ours.

Quote:

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

True in many cases. The USA has a proud tradition of independence, which is one of the reasons why our original breed of imperialism (Manifest Destiny) gave way to a hegemony over other independent countries instead, and why we let Japan go free after a few years of occupation. The US would love to do the same with Iraq; if only Al Qaeda stopped putting its dirty hand into it and the Iraqi radicals stopped messing with the general peace! Nonetheless, the USA needs to cooperate more with the outside world, I agree with you on that. It needs to continue the benevolent traditions of charity and goodwill that led to the UN's location in Manhattan, New York, USA. There are also global warming, which is a global problem, and environmental disasters, which are also worldwide issues.

Quote:

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Legitimacy and influence may reside in logic, justice, compassion, and empathy, but control of means of violence help keep the peace. Resorting to force is an ugly business, but we find it necessary because if we don't, malicious people like Hitler and Osama certainly will.

Quote:

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

Yeah: step more lightly in Iraq and refrain from putting romantic moves on boys and girls under 18 years of age. LOL Also, be discreet and tuck away relationships between homosexuals and, um, English is a nice language and transportation is nice to have.

Quote:

My questions are the following: Is there not a better approach to governance? Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

Tell that to Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents. They started the problem, or at least greatly expanded the problem. If it were not for them, we'd not currently be continuing to resort to aggression.

Quote:

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent. But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved? The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all. What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world. What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

Israel is a democracy in the Mideast, a country with relatives and close ties to numerous Americans. While many other countries are, it is also the Holy Land, the place where Jesus was born and raised. While certain Jewish people and/or Zionists have a substantial media presence, and may have some inroads into business and government, it is Jesus - which even your religion calls a prophet and a Messiah! - a Jew - who may have captivated the United States' interest enormously. He founded Christianity, a religion adhered to by some nineteen out of every twenty Americans. In addition, there was a dark tragedy behind American support of Israel. We call it the "Holocaust" or the Shoah; it is estimated that some five million Jews and seven million others (Gypsies, handicapped people, Poles, etc.) were slain in that genocide. (The traditional figure is six million Jews; the deniers often level the size of the massacre off to a mere few hundred thousand, but the fact remains: the Nazis committed an enormous war crime against Jewish people.) We felt sympathy for the Jews of Europe (although there wasn't as much sympathy for the Gypsies or some of the other groups, and they needed more sympathy than we gave). So, no, Jewish political power is not the only cause of our alliance with Israel. Profound human feelings, such as empathy for other people and religious sentiment, played a larger role. In addition, we had a problem with the Soviet Union when that country was around, which may have contributed to the alliance in earlier years. And guess what? The US still likes Israel. It's a democracy, it at least has some moral values at heart, and it's an important contributer to the Mideastern economy (ok, the European-Mediterranean economy, whatever).

Quote:

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.

Um, ok, but Judaism should continue to play a major role and policy in the Jewish state. I don't know how to do that in a democratic society swamped by Palestinians. Furthermore, all Jews, Canaanites (the descendants of the original Canaanites might be residing in places such as Malta, Spain, North Africa), Crusaders (their descendants are Europeans and Americans and Latinos, I suppose), Turks, Egyptians, etc., ought to have a say. That should be one interesting referendum, and don't blame me if quarreling and fighting breaks out over poor ISRAEL.

Or maybe we should recognize both the right of Palestinians and Jews to live in their own homeland, and have a couple of nations side-by-side, which is what we originally had when independence came in 1948 and the Arabs decided they wanted the WHOLE land rather than just part of it.

Quote:

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.

Yeah, bring some of the officials and soldiers home. However, the Mideast is still unstable, and we're still concerned about you guys. For example, Hitler promised peace in an infamous treaty back in 1938, and then used the treaty in order to spur ferocious aggression in a war the very next year? What's to say that you won't do the same? We need soldiers in order to not only try to keep the peace, but also to keep a) Osama bin Ladin, b) some other fool, and c) you from screwing around with Iraq's government. I'm sorry, but we have interests in the Mideast (damned oil addiction), and we need to wean ourselves off oil before we can let the Mideast go. Otherwise we get stagflation from OPEC, which leads to more suffering for Katrina victims, and greater poverty and homelessness. That being said, the government SHOULD pay a lot more attention to America's paupers and disaster victims.

Quote:

I'd also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US: The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations. Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history. If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.

With all due respect, a sex scandal contributed to the turnover, but then again, sex scandals and popular indecisiveness (plus court justices) put the Republicans in power to begin with. Furthermore, the elections turn on rather silly issues, such as whether to ban the abortion of babies at a certain stage of pregnancy or whether to recognize the fact that gays are living together. Also, taxes are an issue. But you're right about one thing: the American people hate having to go to war. All the same, Americans want to go to war when pissed off over a large tragedy. Vietnam was a mistake; there was hardly anything to get us pissed off except for a vague fear of Communist expansionism. Iraq? Well, it wasn't as much of a mistake; we thought there were weapons involved, and there were terrorists that needed to be taken care of; however, the "colonialism" after we kicked out Saddam is becoming disasterous.

Quote:

To sum up: It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice. It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion. It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

True.

Quote:

It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

I disagree: Perfection of the world is not contingent on adherence to a religion or a form of religion. Perfection is contingent on ethics, and on following the principle of not harming people, of raising children to be sociable, of listening to other people's concerns, of helping people, and of not being violent in a dispute with others. The Islamic Prophets had their own view of the world, one which was based on your Quran and similar philosophies. Other parts of the world evolved different philosophies which worked well for them. This is one reason why America is relatively peaceful within its borders: it has freedom of religion, and freedom to sample religions and spiritualities. You guys ought to try it, and abstain from fighting, please. Americans don't take up arms against their own dissenting religions, generally speaking. (Yes, there were tragedies such as the Branch Davidian siege at Waco and various acts of discrimination against Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11, but they were the exception and not the rule.) Tolerance of all religions is a way to peace.

Quote:

Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.

While not all of us are necessarily God-fearing and followers of what you probably consider Divine religions, we DO have ethics, we have feelings for other people, and we DO want to get along.

Quote:

What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.

As well as some of mine. But religion? Muslims get too worked up over that issue. Take a deep breath and relax over that issue, it's nothing to worry about.

Quote:

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity. The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded. We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur'an: "But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him." (28:67-6 I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran 29 November 2006

Well, we should all repent for wrongdoing and do good, of course. I am not so sure faith or adhering to Islamic/ Jewish/ Christian trivialties are necessary, given the questionable basis upon which such trivialties rest (hearsay from angels while isolated from others, hearsay from alleged ancient documents, legends spoken long before they were written, works edited by biased editors after the original authors had died, etc.) That being said, I join your concluding prayer, and I pray that the Israeli
nation and Palestinian nations be blessed with dignity and success. Whether there is a God, a Goddess, or Gods/ Goddesses to hear such a prayer, I don't know, but nonetheless, it's a prayer all the same.

- Rovin' Ricky
New Jerseyan and Rutgers Student
30 November/ 1 December 2006

B7ed from Subchat: Letter from Larry Fendrick

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:06:13 -0400
From: Larry Fendrick
To: Richard Rabinowitz
Subject: Re: Hey Larry: you have pretty weird reefing/banning habits

Richard,

I am working on a better system to "time out" users, that will show
remaining time left and a reason.

I try not to censor posts, and give more leeway in OTchat than I do in
SubChat, but if someone just starts typing random keys and wasting bandwith,
I need to do something because I cannot sit and monitor the board 24/7.

BTW it's the flaming + this that lead to this time out.

Hope that explains it, see you on the board tomorrow.

-Larry

At 04:52 PM 10/17/2006, you wrote:

> What gives? You don't ban me for flaming people on a big flamewar thread,
> but you DO ban me for posting "qwertyuiop"? WTF?
> Second of all, how come some rather vulgar threads have been reefed while
> others haven't?
>
> And finally, when does this "time-out" expire?
>
> - Richard Rabinowitz (New Brunswick Station)
>

"Kitty", a character from Anne Frank's "Tales"

It's well known that Anne Frank called her diary "Kitty", although it wasn't necessarily for the friend of the same name (as some have suggested). Less well known is that she made up fictional characters on the side, including one named "Kitty". In addition to her famous journal, Anne described fictional characters, made up fables, told a story of a wandering bear, reminisced about the "good old days" (if you were a teeny-bopper plunged into the wrong side of the battle-lines during WWII, you'd probably do the same), told an adventure story about a girl named Paula, and attempted a novel about a woman named Cady (who feels sorry for her Jewish pal, with the unimaginative name of Mary Anne). (Note: Anne Frank's full name is Anneliese Marie Frank, and that justifies my calling the name of Mary Anne "unimaginative".)

Anyhow, why study Anne Frank's fiction? One reason: most of the rhetoric regarding Anne Frank concerns the fact that she died in a Nazi concentration camp, during the genocide of the European Jews - as well as the fact that she hid from the Nazis in Amsterdam for a couple of years. Thus, most of what folks think of Anne Frank concerns what other people did to her, rather than what she thought of the world around her. The play based on her diary concerns her squirrelling away in the Secret Annexe and her interactions with other residents and visitors to that Annexe; the Diary itself does the same thing. Anne does a pretty good job of describing the going-ons in the Annexe, and - yes - she was starting to pen down opinions and sentiments en masse by the end of the Diary, mostly stuff about herself and her personal life.

Anne Frank's fiction, on the other hand, shows a window into her imagination and something of what went on in her mind, scenes that she remembered from outside the Annexe, stuff she read about (note: she wrote some stuff about her reading in her diary, too), and ideas she had that didn't necessarily concern reality.

The "Tales from the Secret Annexe" begin with a description of a girl named "Kitty". Anne introduces Kitty as "the girl next door", who is Christian and has light blonde hair, freckles, and blue eyes - in other words, just about what the Nazis considered the ideal "race" (the freckles possibly notwithstanding). Yet, when Kitty daydreams about kids, she wants "pretty" kids with curly brown hair and no freckles. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, eh?) Kitty also apparently lives in a poor household. Her mom is a widow; her dad died some time ago, and Kitty has lots of brothers and sisters - Mom can't afford any birthday gift for Kitty except for a 25 - cent trip to the zoo (courtesy of the Amsterdam Zoological Society), which luckily for Kitty happens to be in her birth month of September. Kitty's Mom cleans other folks' houses and clothes for a living, and she obviously wants her daughter to follow in her footsteps. Kitty, however, sharing Anne Frank's own love for gossip, wants to become a factory girl, on the somewhat sketchy ground that she sees them chattering happily on their way to work.

Kitty's dream of being a factory girl - and her mom's nagging that "too clever a girl won't get a husband", something Kitty wants - shows the time and place of Kitty's world, a still rather chauvinistic Western world in the middle of the twentieth century. It is still the industrial age, and girls (among other folks) are heading to work in factories rather than offices or cubicles. I do not know if European girls of that time period would be going to work in a factory if it had been peacetime rather than wartime ("Rosie the Riveter" went into factories in America because of the war, although there were factory girls in earlier eras as well - places such as the Lowell mills in New England). Being nice in Kitty's family entails the giving of sweets to the children - and sweets were likely in short supply in the Secret Annexe. The glimpse that Anne gives into the life of her fictional Kitty is all too short, written, perhaps, in the space of a couple of hours. One wonders what she would've done with the character had Anne spent more than a day working on her - but her education and her journal and the daily chores presumably came first.

In other stories, Anne Frank writes of war and of how being able to head outside and into the countryside would be nice, themes which shouldn't be too surprising, given where she was. Anne writes of the importance of being nice to others, probably something else which shouldn't be surprising. I admit to wanting to involve some of Anne Frank's characters in some future story, but I'm not sure how developed her characters are. Furthermore, I might need to pay royalty to the Anne-Frank Fonds for commercially publishing stories based on her characters (which I probably wouldn't mind doing - but I'd probably rather loosely base a character or two on hers, mix in several qualities of my own invention, give them new names, and involve them in my own universe as characters of my own, which is probably kosher under copyright law.)

Update

I'm studying for exams. w00t for m3.