Updated but Question Remains--Is Russell Crowe Anti-Semitic or Just Stupid?

Between the controversy surrounding the proposed local laws in California against circumcision. and the Weinergate scandal, so far the month of June can be called the month of the schmeckel (Yiddish for penis).  There has been more schmeckel talk in the main stream media over the past two weeks, than occurs in an eighth grade lunch room in an all-boys school during the course of an entire school year.

Thankfully there will probably be no more Weiner's wiener pictures released (even though the nightmares remain), and after a leader of the anti-circumcision movement published a blatantly anti-Semitic comic book (called Foreskin Man), the ballot initiative to ban childhood circumcision Santa Monica was dropped. The San Francisco initiative still remains on the ballot.

Sadly the movement against circumcision is not over and Academy Award winning actor Russell Crow, has decided to join in on the "fun" with an anti-circumcision rant on twitter.

A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.

Crowe responded harshly, saying that "circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?"

The actor added that "babies are perfect" when they are born. Crowe later said that he "will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires."

One follower asked if he was "comparing sexual mutilation w/ a jewish ceremonial act?!” Crowe wrote: "Can you actually read the words you just typed 'a ceremonial act', F--- that. The Mayans had ceremonial acts too.”

Mr. Crowe should know that throwing a telephone at an employee of the Mercer Hotel is barbaric and stupid, circumcision is not, it is part of a both Jewish and Muslim religious practice.

Many Jewish practices do originate from Rabbinical interpretation of what is written in the Torah, such as not eating milk with mean (Rabbis got that from the Torah saying "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk)

On the other hand circumcision is directly commanded in the Torah, the five books of Moses. The command for circumcision is in the appears  in  Bereisheet (the Jewish name for the book of Genesis)

You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, as a sign of the covenant between Me and you. At the age of eight days, you shall circumcise every male child born to you throughout the generations ...Bereisheet 17:11-1

This is not as Mr. Crowe says an  interpretation of what God wants, but according to Jews and Muslims it is a direct order right there in ink and parchment. From what I understand from my Christian friends,  they too believe that the Torah is the word of God (but order's such as circumcision apply only to Jews in the "old Testament")

Where there is interpretation is why God ordered Jews to circumcise their son's at eight-days-old. One interpretation given by the Rabbis is that males are  not born perfect on purpose.  The reason for circumcision is to give fathers (the parent who is ordered to conduct the ritual) is to allow them to have a greater participation in the act of creation.  We believe that God has a huge role, and the mother's obviously have the role of developing the baby within her body, through the act of Brit Milah (the circumcision ceremony) dad has the role of adding the final touch, making the boy perfect.

Several followers responded to Crowe's remarks, using scientific and hygienic explanations to justify circumcision. The actor rebuffed them, saying that "'human' science has caused too much damage," calling the follower "a moron". In response to claims that circumcision is hygienic the actor scoffed, saying "why don't you sew up your ass then?"

Maybe Mr. Crow should sew up his fingers before his stupidity continues. It is an established scientific fact that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

The actor pointed out what he believes to be a double standard, saying it is "interesting that female circumcision is widely considered barbaric, while male circumcision is so widely accepted."

Perhaps it has been a long time since Mr. Crowe saw a woman naked (which may be why he is so cranky), so allow me to refresh his memory....females parts are different than male ones.

The female circumcision argument is often presented by the anti-circumcision forces. Female genital cutting, a controversial practice that usually involves the removal of the clitoris, is illegal in the United States.  Female circumcision  is designed to take away sexual pleasure from women, male circumcision does not reduce sensation (you will have to trust me on that one).

Per the explanation I gave above, according to the Rabbis, it is males who are born imperfect, not females so there is no need for female circumcision. As far as permanent injuries during the practice, thankfully they are very very few and far between (although after my Bris at eight days old, I could not walk for over a year, the same thing happened with my son).

Crowe clarified that he is not anti-Semitic, saying he loves his Jewish friends with their "apples and the honey and the funny little hats". However, he implored them to stop "cutting" their babies.

He may not be anti-Semitic but he is certainly insensitive. The reader is half expecting him to say  "some of his best friends wear those funny little hats."

Crowe's argument is reminiscent of the Hellenist philosophy behind the Chanukah story.  The Hellenists "worshiped" the human form, it was the essence of perfection. The story of the Maccabees begins with the  Greeks banning circumcision, which led to a bloody revolt. The Romans banned circumcision after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.

The Hebrew word for ritual circumcision, Brit Milah , literally means "covenant of circumcision." It is a covenantal act that Jews have practiced since the time of the Patriarch Abraham more than 3,500 years ago. It reflects a commitment to God.

 Historically movements to ban circumcision are centered in attempts to move the Jewish commitment from God and refocus it on man. In fact almost every campaign to destroy the Jewish people started with a ban on circumcision, which is followed by a ban on kosher slaughter and finally a ban on teaching Torah.

Whether they were meant to be anti-Jewish or not, both the SF Ballot initiative and Crowe's rant,  are fundamentally anti-Semitic,  as is the Dutch ban on kosher slaughter and the movements across Europe to ban kosher meat.

Although I would argue that their intent is more nefarious, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their intent to be Humanist or Hellenistic the end result is banning key Jewish rituals and practice.

As for Crowe, if he is truly not anti-Semitic,  he should do research on the issue and understand, prior to starting to rant against it. Based on his tweets he either a hater, too stupid to think before he tweets.

UPDATE: Two Developments since this post first went up. Crowe's friend Eli Roth went all out trying to defend his buddy against charges of Antisemitism

Roth is talking about the line with the funny hat, apples and honey, and stop cutting your babies, which was made to Roth. Allow me to suggest that not only wasn't it funny but giving him the benefit of the doubt, a line like that should be made via direct message not an open tweet.

Crowe removed the anti-Circumcision rants from his site and apologized for the insensitive comments publicly made to Roth, adding:

• "I have a deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities, I'm very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress."

• "My personal beliefs aside I realize that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry."

None of this changes the conclusion made above.  The fight against circumcision is an attempt to draw people away from God.  My criticism of Crowe was not based on his remarks to his buddy Roth but on his outburst against circumcision and I suggested that  he should do research on an issue and try to understand it, prior to starting to rant against it. Based in his rants he understood neither the reasons why Brit Milah is important the Jews, not the history of  circumcision bans leading to major waves of Antisemitism.  If he understood the background and still made those comments then he is a hater. Should he have made the comments in the absence of any knowledge lets just say he doesn't have a beautiful mind just simple one.

Hence the question in the title, is he anti-Semitic or just stupid, I leave the answer up to the  reader.

Mrs. Weiner's Pregnancy Reads Like A Broadway Play

Yesterday we got the big announcement that Representative Anthony Weiner and  his wife,  are expecting their first child. The scenario of a disgraced politician about to be forced from office, and his wife announcing her pregnancy at the nick of time, seemed so very familiar. Then I remembered the origin of that familiar feeling.

Some of you may remember a story posted here last November about one of my favorite Broadway plays of all time, "Of Thee I Sing." The resolution of the play is very similar to yesterday's pregnancy announcement.

Of Thee I Sing, a musical that first appeared on Broadway almost seventy years ago and one of the most biting political satires ever written. In fact, Of Thee I Sing was the first successful American musical with a consistently satiric tone.  The writers and the cast were unsure of what the public's reception would be, prompting one of the writers of the book, George S. Kaufman, to quip "Satire is what closes on Saturday night."

Written at the beginning of the great depression, Of Thee I Sing lampoons a political system too tied up in personalities and silly little issues to fix the country’s economy. (sound familiar?). It was the first musical ever to win the Pulitzer Prize for drama.

The play tells the story of presidential candidate John P. Wintergreen,” he’s the man the people choose, loves the Irish and the Jews.” For Vice President the choice is Alexander Throttlebottom, who throughout the play keeps trying to get into meetings and rallies, but gets thrown out because no one knows who he is.

In the second act, after being elected President, Wintergreen is facing impeachment (if you want to know why read the original post here).  Just as the Senate is going through its roll call, in bursts the First Lady who announces she’s expecting.  Since no expecting President has ever been impeached the impeachment is called off (if you cannot see video below click here).



Huma Abedi's pregnancy is most probably legitimate (in the play, Mary Wintergreen was legitimately pregnant).  But the announcement made to the NY Times last night was conveniently leaked to the progressive paper just as momentum was building from Weiner's own party.

During the past Presidential  election season,  progressives made the unfair accusation that Sarah Palin was using her children as a prop on campaign stops. According to progressive pundits, this gave them a free pass to go after the Governor's children.

Unlike the progressive scenario regarding Governor Palin, the Abedi's pregnancy seems like an actual attempt to use her "delicate situation," in an attempt to gain sympathy for the Congressman's effort to hang on to his House seat,  in face of his growing scandal.

I guarantee you that there will be no pundit attacks on Wiener's family, in anyway similar to the unfair attacks on the Palins. There will also be no questioning of the NY Times who allowed its name to be exploited by Weiner's staff in their not so cloaked effort to save their bosses job.

The Other Anthony Weiner Scandal is Ignored By The Media

The latest on Weinergate is that the Congressman is meeting with correspondents from major news organizations telling them

"This was a circumstance where someone committed a prank on the internet," he told MSNBC's Luke Russert. "I didn't send [that] picture out" the congressman said, though he does not know who did. Is the photo of him? "I can't say with certitude" he told Russert.

I will leave it up to the reader whether you believe his claim or not. (you can see the entire interview here). But there is an even bigger scandal surrounding the NY Congressman that has largely gone unreported, his use of earmarks to help campaign contributors.

In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to inform you that IMHO since he was first elected to congress, Anthony Weiner's (D-NY) only major contribution to this country was getting bit on the hand by a goat on the Capitol Building Lawn. Actually that was the goat's contribution wasn't it? Now that Alan Grayson is gone, Anthony Weiner is the nastiest hypocrite in congress.

Weiner has been working hard pushing his position wives of Supreme Court justices have absolutely no right to work, not all justices of course just conservative ones. The big weenie of congress is leading 73 members of congress in a demand that Judge Clarance Thomas recuse himself from any Obamacare case that reaches the Supreme Court. Weenie believes the career of the Judge's wife, Ginny Thomas who is a conservative political activist by trade.

"As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the Democrats wrote. "We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act."

Weiner is basing his demand on the fact that Mrs Thomas is a tea party activist and a lobbyist  who has "experience and connections" and appeals to clients who want to overturn health reform (their words, not necessarily Mrs. Thomas').

"Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court," they wrote. "We urge you to recuse yourself from this case."

They also say Thomas did not disclose his wife's receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2006.

Of course what they don't say is that there is nothing wrong with Mrs. Thomas working for as a lobbyist or for the Heritage Foundation and the Judge wasn't required do disclose his wife's income, but did anyway.

The Mrs Thomas represents a conflict of interest ploy has been used before without sucess. During the Judge Thomas' confirmation hearings, several Democratic Senators claimed that his wife's job, then  with the Labor Department, might create a conflict of interest.  In 2000, she was working for the Heritage Foundation; and conflict-of-interest was again raised because she was collecting résumés for potential Presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration when the Judge Thomas was on the Supreme Court  deciding Bush v. Gore.

Its interesting that the congressman who co-sponsored the re-introduction of the equal rights amendment in 2007 believes that a woman cannot have an independent career when it's politically expedient. And that is what this is all about...politics.  This move by the Weenie is really being made to preempt another recusal request, Judge Elena Kagan.

Kagan was solicitor general for the Obama Administration during the time the bill was being passed although she has claimed that she had no substantial legal involvement with the bill (of course she is the one defining substantial).  Congressman Weenie's letter was trying deflect attention away from Kagan.

Weiner is not one to talk about conflict of interest.  In the 2009  spending bill Congressman Weiner sponsored $18.3 million in earmarks for 22 groups and projects,  over $500,000 of those earmarks went to campaign contributors.

An earmark of $238,000 for the Sephardic Addiction and Family Education (SAFE) foundation, which may or may not be an organization deserving of tax payer dollars. Of course the fact that  the organization’s board of directors have contributed more than $160,000 to Weiner’s various campaigns, may make it a bit more worthy in Weiner's eyes.   Weiner also sponsored a $300,000 earmark for Brooklyn’s Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, whose director, David Mandel, personally contributed $6,240 to Weiner’s political campaigns.

According to the NY Daily News:

At least four board officers of the Sephardic Addiction and Family Education (SAFE) Foundation have, together with their families and close associates, directed more than $160,000 to Weiner's campaigns, including more than $100,000 for this year's mayoral race.

"It smacks of pay to play," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an advocacy group that has railed against so-called "earmarks" in the federal budget that let lawmakers steer federal dollars to pet projects back home.

"You can't prove and there may not even be a quid pro quo, but it does raise the specter of that in the minds of taxpayers," Ellis said.

"People might make contributions to curry favor ... to get federal dollars for themselves or their organization."

When the story broke, Weiner declined to answer questions about why he chose this group for the funding, or about the campaign contributions.

His spokesman John Collins said in a statement: "It is an outrageous smear to say these leaders of the Jewish community are engaged in anything improper."

This is at least the second year that Weiner has steered cash to nonprofits in Brooklyn's Sephardic Jewish community, whose board members have been longtime supporters.

Last year, the Sephardic Angel Fund, which gives no-interest loans to underprivileged business owners, picked up $282,000. The Sephardic Community Center snagged nearly $100,000 for a program to help "at-risk immigrant youth."

The three Sephardic groups are not affiliated. Some of their board members come from the same families and all three have officers who have made contributions to Weiner.

"Anthony is a friend of the Sephardic community of Brooklyn," said Morris Missry, a SAFE Foundation board officer who raised $67,700 from 27 donors for Weiner last summer.

He and his wife have given $9,950 to Weiner's mayoral and congressional campaigns.

Missry said he was surprised about the Weiner earmark when called by the Daily News. "That's wonderful," he said of the $238,000 for SAFE. "We need the money."

Other SAFE Foundation officers who gave money to Weiner did not return calls or could not be reached for comment.

The Sephardic Angel Fund has been the focus of scrutiny because tax documents revealed that a wealthy board member, Eddie Shamah, received an improper interest-free loan. The group also gave no-interest loans to board members' relatives.

Shamah, who has given $3,000 to Weiner since 1999, said the tax document was an error and the Angel Fund has since filed an amendment.

A lawyer for the fund confirmed Shamah's claim that he never received a loan, but said the amendment had not yet been filed.

This issue does not call into question the ethics of "these leaders of the Jewish community," But it does call into question the ethics of Congressman Weiner.  Personally, if the junk tweeting episode is true, it occurred between adults and unless there is evidence it was done on the public dime, I believe it is an issue between Weiner and his Wife.

This suspicious use of the congressional earmark privilege calls into question his use of public funds. That and his hypocrisy, after all  before he questions others about conflicts of interest, Congressman Weiner should answer questions about his campaign deals/ earmarks that smell a bit rancid?