Instapun*** Archive Listing

Archive Listing
August 4, 2006 - July 28, 2006

Friday, August 04, 2006

The Friday Follies

Dancing your cares away.

TGIF. Are you all dancing yet? If you need more help getting in the mood than the lovely ladies above, perhaps you'll be inspired by the likes of Tony Blair and Napoleon Dynamite. Even the saddest and grumpiest of you should be able to profit by their example.

Speaking of sad and grumpy, Mel Gibson doesn't seem to be having that great a week. Did any of you hear about his recent misadventure? No? Well, you can get a rough idea from WuzzademWuzzacopy, who has more background on the events of that night than you'll find in police reports. The good news is, Mel's already started therapy for his problem. Happily for the Friday Follies, his treatments also include dancing; we understand he has to follow along with this snappy little number 4 hours a day for the next six weeks. That ought to drive away the sad and grumpies.

Our next topic is cars. Cars don't dance, you say? Sure they do. Here's the proof:

We're sure that's fun and all, but there's another kind of fancy footwork cars do, and that's the kind we spent way too much of our youth practicing. These days -- what with radar and laser guns and traffic cams and other weapons of the nanny state -- that kind of automotive choreography has become something of a lost art. In fact, we feel sorry for the current generation of cartoon dudes who think cars are mobile CD/MP3 players. Maybe the film below (h/t Ace of Spades), which features 10 minutes of no music, no rap, and no over-strained over-sized speakers, will be educational for the kids who think "driving" consists of lying down in the lefthand seat with a Big Gulp between your knees and a cell phone screwed into your ear.

Of course, we're not suggesting that anyone like you try this at home. It's dangerous, it's irresponsible, it's illegal, and it's much more fun than today's delicate unisex constitutions can withstand. So don't do it. We've gone to considerable lengths, in fact, to find a pursuit that's more appropriate for contemporary skill sets. We call it Grand Theft Auto for Dummies. You'll love it.

For the curious, though, here's some history about the film, which has been a legend for almost 30 years. Uh, yeah, that site is in French. Sorry. But the movie is French. Here's another site that's in English, though not all its facts are correct. You figure it out.

Maybe some of you like it better when not all the facts are correct. If that's your preference, here's a wonderfully unfunny promo piece by Al Franken for his new book. (Anybody who doesn't see the punchline two minutes in advance of its, uh, delivery, please write us here at Instapunk. We can recommend some very good adult Special Ed instructors who will help you lead a somewhat normal life.)

We know. Now you have a bad taste in your mouth. Apologies. Do you like tap-dancing? Tap-dancing on the head of a humorless, self-important bureaucrat? Cool. Then try this (h/t Hugh Hewitt). You'll like it. Cancel that. You'll love it.

Bye now.

UPDATE. One more dance. Have you ever seen someone actually dance on the head of a pin? Or a thousand pins? Well, roar on over to Greg Gutfeld's blog at the Huffington Post today. All the Huffpo pinheads are screaming so furiously that they've closed the comments on his masterpiece of interrogation. He wins this month's Honorary Punk Award by acclamation.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Pugs Are Funny.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Can you spell T-W-I-T?

Lil Jessica Stern of Harvard

DON'T BREAK THE CHAIN. What would we do without academic experts? We'd probably motor along somehow, but without nearly as many laughs per gallon. Thanks to, I discovered one of the more humorous MSM essays of the week, written by Jessica Stern of Harvard and characterized by blogger Dean Barnett as a "shockingly ignorant op-ed piece." Here's an excerpt:

The only way to understand how this phenomenon works is to hang out with Muslim youths and talk to them. I have done quite a bit of that in various parts of the world in Western cities, in Palestinian slums, and in Pakistani madrassas. And what I've learned is this: Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap. It is a fad that feeds on images of dead children.

Most of the youth attracted to the jihadi idea would never become terrorists, just as few of the youths who listen to gangsta rap would commit the kinds of lurid crimes the lyrics would seem to promote. But among many Muslim youths, especially in Europe, jihad is a cool way of expressing dissatisfaction with a power elite whether that elite is real or imagined; whether power is held by totalitarian monarchs or by liberal parliamentarians. And we should not assume jihad is a Middle Eastern or European problem. The idea is spreading here in America as well.

Jihad has become a millenarian movement with mass appeal, similar, in many ways, to earlier global movements such as the anarchists of the 19th century or even the peace movement of the 1960s and '70s.

Where to begin? How about with Ms. Stern's resume, which includes plenty of educational and power elite credentials.† For example, her C.V. says she "received a bachelor's degree from Barnard College in chemistry, a master's of science degree from MIT, and a doctorate in public policy from Harvard." She also served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, where she was "responsible for national security policy toward Russia and the former Soviet states and for policies to reduce the threat of nuclear smuggling and terrorism." She's a member of the Trilateral Commission too. And here's my favorite quote from her resume: "From 1998 to 1999, she was the superterrorism Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations..." Cool.

There's more but you get the picture. A policy wonk, yes, a cultural anthropologist, no. If I were seeking someone to go "hang out with Muslim youths and talk to Western cities, in Palestinian slums, and in Pakistani madrassas," I probably wouldn't select a Barnard chemistry major who's spent most of her adult life "hanging out" with the National Security Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trlilateral Commission.

Still, she claims to have done it and we have to take her at her word. How do you suppose she went about it? Did she slip into her little burkha and sashay over to the nearest male-only cell meeting of Hamas suicide-bombers-in-training to sound them out about their taste in music, jeans, sneakers, bling, Bentleys, and all the other habiliments of a pop culture "fad"? Did she carry her urdu phrase book into madrassas accompanied by Musharaff's secret police and somehow bond with pubescent Jew-haters? Or did she take tea in university common rooms with English-speaking students who were intensely aware they were in a position to send messages to the world of American academia? Just asking.

After all her in-depth discussions with muslim homeys, she consulted her encyclopedic knowledge of the gangsta rap culture and determined that jihadism is just another fashion craze, a trend in young people's entertainment of which most adults predictably would not approve.

Sound plausible to you? For myself, I'm having a hard time imagining that Ms. Stern has done much "hanging out" with gangsta rappers in the hood, either, and I'm thinking it's likely their "culture' would have remained impenetrable to her if she had.

In his analysis, Dean Barnett opines, "I'm not sure that you can describe something that's been around for 14 centuries as a fad.† But if gangsta rap is still popular in the 35th century, I'll eat my words."

He's right that jihadism is no fad. But just as damaging for Ms. Stern's credibility is the fact that gangsta rap isn't a fad either. Both of these cultural manifestations are profound pathologies, and her failure to recognize this invalidates any and every observation she might offer. It's as if her extremely limited real world experience has actually caused her to relish her little rendezvous with jihadists, and like a little girl in the big city, she's become star-struck by the air of excitement and energy she's encountered.

Too much to assume? Consider this quote from an interview she gave for a Harvard website called Ask the Experts or some damn thing. She was asked to describe the relationshop between terrorist leaders and their followers. She said:

Some of the leaders Iíve met are extremely charismatic. I have found myself feeling slightly mesmerized, even when these charismatic leaders espouse views I find abhorrent. I can readily imagine that young men from difficult backgrounds might feel hypnotized in the presence of these leaders, especially if the leaders have taken them into their homes, armed compounds, or schools.

Ooh, the magnetic masculinity of a Zarqawi!? Think about it. A highly educated American female academic "mesmerized" by the worst examplars of a society that has been described, by someone who is competent to judge, in these terms:

(I)n a typical shame culture (i.e., Arab/Islamic culture) what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has several side-effects, including granting the individual carte blanche to (1)engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved; and (2) engage in any necessary behavior, including wrong-doing (i.e., murder, beheading, etc.) in order to avoid shame and/or recover honor...

One of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor. In Arab/Islamic culture, women are one of the primary instruments of achieving honor. Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even women buy into the delusion.

To equate this kind of socially embedded, and religion-supported, sickness with a fashion or fad is the purest of delusions. And for a western woman to so deceive herself in the presence of "extremely charismatic" barbarians is actually quite frightening.

Let's hope she doesn't believe her own superficial perceptions so much that she ventures into the slums of L.A., New York, or even Boston to encounter the exciting gangsta fad in person. If she's tempted, I certainly hope she'll take a look at this before she does anything rash:

What happened to the Black community between the Harlem Renaissance and the advent of N.W.A?† Part of what happened was the growth and development of an entire bureaucracy devoted to the ongoing victim status of the American Black.† There is no question that on an individual basis many poor Black Americans became materially better off with the Great Society programs, but what they lost was so much more significant.† Victims have no dignity and no agency; they are helpless and weak, like children.† Worse, the toxic combination of anti-male radical feminism that† began to seep into the culture along with the growth of the nanny state, had horrendous consequences for the poor Black community; their men were devalued (after all, they were seen as incapable of supporting a family without assistance) and unnecessary.† Since a young woman could raise a child (financially) without any input from "her baby's father" (in a locution that has become all too popular), the father's importance in the life of the child was diminished.† Boys growing up without fathers have no fully human, three dimensional, role models for becoming men; as a result they have adopted a caricature of manhood which depends on demanding and coercing "respect".† The results, stuck at the level of a Shame Culture, have been all too apparent in the destruction of the poor Black family.

Perhaps here, after all, we can see the reason for Ms. Stern's astonishing dim-wittedness (even if she can't). Rapper misogyny has evolved to resemble Islamic misogyny from the exact opposite direction -- from the cultural castration of males as opposed to the cultural priapism of males created by a religion that has always used women as appliances. Here, two different kinds of diseases meet and reflect one another, and they may do do so for some time, because there is no quick or easy way out of such an annihilating value system.

But Ms. Stern believes there must be a temporal limit to misogynistic jihadism precisely because she believes that the liberal policies which have re-enslaved black men are really going to work somehow in the long run. That affirmative action and the political correctness which refuses to identify a gangsta rapper as an animalistic thug will eventually lead to a happy result. So why shouldn't she believe the same about Islamic fascism? If we can only make sufficient reparations for their avowed grievances and treat them politely enough, they will outgrow the "fad" of beheading their enemies, employing women and babies as shields for their own murderous gangs, and binding their womenfolk in perpetuity like mummified stillborns. We just have to be smart enough to understand and tolerate their ways in the interim.

If Ms. Stern has close friends and family who care about her, my final words are to them. Don't let her go alone into any place where she can bask in the glow of the jihadist OR gangsta rap fads. She'll get hurt or killed. The women who choose to accommodate them are their most natural victims. Just ask Lil Kim.

Monday, July 31, 2006

The Algebra of Non-Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism

We're sure it adds up; we just don't know how.

TALKING PEACE. Yesterday's post inspired a comment that's worth responding to. I started to write my answer in the Comments section, but mindful of all the flame wars raging through the blogosphere, I remembered the advice of one presently beleaguered blogger who remarked that if a comment is worth answering at all, it merits a post that everyone can see. I think that's good advice. So I'm responding here to the comment of Blade, who cited one phrase of my post and registered an objection:

>> nauseating phenomenon of pro-Palestinian "anti-zionist" Jews<<

Anti-Zionism == Anti-Semite. I've never gotten this algebra.

It works out like this: if you even consider the idea that a political fiat establishing a "country" in the middle of a 6,000-year-old war zone might not have been a good idea -- even if you are actually a Jew -- you an Anti-Semite.

I suspect you are considered an Anti-Semite for even wondering aloud about such a strange equation.

I believe Blade speaks for a significant population of virtuous but skeptical thinkers. He deserves a thoughtful reply. Here's mine:

Dear Blade,

Thank you for your reasonable tone. It's much appreciated.

The anti-zionist position is not automatically anti-semitic. It does, however, carry the huge burden of its disastrous bedfellows, many of whom are avowed anti-semites and many of whom are -- regardless of your own rational perspective -- secret anti-semites. Does this and should this silence you? No.

It does seem to me, though, that anti-zionists who are not anti-semitic have a special responsibility. If I inclined to the anti-zionist position, for example, I would be eager to make it clear exactly why and how my beliefs were distant from any desire to pack Jews into gas chambers and cremate them after first digging the gold fillings from their teeth. I'd be hypersensitive about this. I certainly wouldn't want to be quoted in print for the casual observation that it's not "a good idea" to plop a hated people into "the middle of a 6,000 year-old war zone." I wouldn't want my doubts to be read like some slightly condescending review of a badly written play. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake me for one of the people who sincerely believe the world would be a better place with no Jews in it. And I certainly wouldn't drop a hint about my anti-zionist leanings and then lapse into silence with the suggestion that to say more would be to expose myself to the unfounded charge of anti-semitism. I would instead regard it as my responsibility to delineate in precise detail the differences between my position and that of both the Zionists and the Jew-haters.

In fact, I'm prepared to describe the particulars of the special responsibiliity I believe non-anti-semitic anti-zionists have. Are you prepared to shoulder that responsibility?

First, I believe they should recognize that more than other idealists, they have an obligation to describe how, other than via Israel, the Jews might be protected from the multiple cultures and peoples who wish to exterminate them. For example, it's all well and good to criticize the ad hoc decision in the wake of WWII to give the Jews a homeland surrounded by desperate bigots bent on their annihilation, but we who had no part in that decision are the reluctant heirs of a history that cannot be repealed. What precisely would you propose we do to rectify this half-century-old error that does not involve destroying the lives of the descendants of Hitler's (and Stalin's and Mussolini's, and Vichy's, etc) victims? Are you prepared to throw the French and Germans out of Alsace-Lorraine and plant the Jews in an ancient war-zone surrounded by (hopefully) more civilized† anti-semites? Or do you prefer turning everyone out of New Jersey (where I live and you presumably do not) so that the world's most accommodating nation can absorb the human cost of a second radical displacement of peoples? Hypothetical if-wishes-were-horses solutions to the fatal problem your realpolitik logic sees are unacceptable. If your objection is grounded in the accuracy of your real-world vision, so must be the more intelligent alternative you prefer.

The fact is, it's been almost 60 years since the Palestinians were deprived of sovereignty over their patch of desert. And history is overflowing with examples of land that changed hands. (Anyone heard from the original Britons lately? The proto-Liberians? The pre-Viking Russians?) Do you find it at all interesting that the Jews lived for nearly 2,000 years after the Diaspora without becoming monomaniacal† terrorists living only for the possibility of annihilating those who displaced them from their patch of desert? Is it only casino licenses that's preventing the Native Americans from lobbing rockets into Oklahoma City and Dallas on a daily basis? Or is it somehow possible that a stone-age people in the Americas had more civilization in their wheel-less world than the ne'er-do-wells of one of the world's most prevalent cultures?

You see, part of the special responsibility of anti-zionists is also to describe the definition of justice that makes it acceptable for a supposedly advanced, civilized, and estimable people to abandon all pretense of ordinary human morality and adopt instead the pursuit of genocidal vengeance so rabidly that it warps even the parent-child relationship into a breeding program for mass-murdering martyrs. How can this phenomenon be excused in any system of morality? And why is it always wrong for the descendants of an historical fait accompli to defend themselves from the terroristic assaults of the descendants of the long-dead dispossessed? Speak to me about this in a way that does not evince the flavor of anti-semitism. I'm not saying you can't do it. I just haven't heard it. And I have no doubt that if you could explain such an exotic morality, it would be educational for reactionary zionists the world over. It might even lead to a framework for peace.

Finally, the special responsibility includes the obligation to explain the moral basis of the double standard that obtains in the response to the stated genocidal intentions of Araby by the U.N., the E.U., Russia, and AmericanBerkeley "liberals."†

Why, in particular, do anti-capitalists of the Third World and the post-Marxist left make this one spectacular exception to their contempt of the concept of property? As a universal rule, they believe that everything belongs to everyone, regardless of who made it or remade it or developed it or created it or earned it or imagined it in the first place. Except for Palestine. Which belongs eternally to the Palestinians because they owned (!) it -- from the time when the Jews were driven out of it into millennia of persecution until they came back in sorrowing desperation -- and therefore can't be expected to get over the loss of their property EVER. This is the basis for my criticism of Pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist Jews. For the most part Jewish anti-zionism is derived from Marxist sympathies (and the neurotic self-hatred that accompanies membership in the world's most hated club). Yet they do not ever explain why they acknowledge this one lonely claim of property while they disdain all others.

I'd also like to hear how you feel about the company you keep. Does it bother you (even a little) that Israeli sympathizers mistake your completely rational objections to the existence of their tiny nation as anti-semitism? Or is it, in the final analysis, no big deal? Do you think it's basically positive that people can agree to disagree about the disposition of the Jewish problem? That it would be a shame if they all wound up dying, but nevertheless a mathematically predictable outcome of an old bad decision? Is that your underlying algebra?

I'd love to read your response, and I'm not being sarcastic. If there's something you know that we Zionists don't, this is the time to enlighten us.


The answers don't have to come from Blade. But they do have to address my points. I'm tired of the sneaky, superior hit-and-run commentary†about this matter. Prepare to swing for the fences or shut the hell up.

I'm waiting.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Talking Peace

"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."

IMPORTANT ISSUES. So now everyone is scurrying around demanding talks. The U.N., the Europeans, and even the U.S. State Department think it's time to begin some kind of negotiations to stop the violence. Sounds good, but it's ridiculous.

There's just one point to made here, and it's one most pundits either talk their way around or lump in with other arguments they want to get off their chests. It's this: negotiations of any kind depend on the parties involved having something to trade, something the other side wants and can afford to give up. That isn't the case here. Israel has already given up the occupied territories. There's nothing left for them to trade for peace except their lives, which is the only concession that will satisfy Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran. What they want is for the Jews to die. They've been remarkably clear and consistent about this for many years. What part of this simple objective do the world's diplomats fail to get?

I suspect they do get it. Kofi Annan and the whores-in-charge of the EU want Israel to die too. All their inane chatter about ceasefires and "ending the cycle of violence" isn't pacifism or dim-wittedness, or even appeasement. Let's not forget that the "evil" Zionist movement was started in the first place because of Europe's irrepressible penchant for persecuting and killing Jews. The historical Marxist left and now the ex-Marxist left have always been anti-semitic too, a circumstance that has given rise to the nauseating phenomenon of pro-Palestinian "anti-zionist" Jews.

Only the United States and Britain have ever understood that the Final Solution is still out there somewhere awaiting completion and fervently hoped for in the darkest hearts of a huge percentage of the world's population. To let this nightmare come true by acts of commission or omission would be unforgivable.

The only bargaining chip Israel has left is its population -- and the potential retaliatory wrath of the United States of America if the U.N., the E.U., and their Islamofascist allies succeed in enabling the unthinkable to occur.

Remember this as you watch the news unfold. It's a cinch the peaceniks of the MSM won't be going out of their way to remind you.

Friday, July 28, 2006

The Friday Follies

Dancing with Mr. D.

TGIF. We thought we'd dispense with politics today and talk fashion. It's no good keeping up with current events if you aren't keeping up with what's in and what's out in matters of personal adornment. The chic mode these days is Islamic (as we predicted), thanks to these guys:

Fashion lords Arafat, Nasrallah, and Zarqawi

Is this a look or what? Especially the low-key Nasrallah approach, which can go as easily with a Burberry as it does with a blue suit. No wonder the creme de la creme of the western world are jumping on board.

Matt Lauer, Spanish PM Zapatero, and Howard Dean.

And don't be thinking it's anti-semitic to dress up like political activists who have said unkind things about the Jews in the past, because look at what Howard Dean just did. He denounced Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as anti-semitic because he refused to condemn Hizbollah. Maybe Zapatero has said some things about Jews that weren't completely tactful, but that's a coincidence. Wearing the kaffiyeh isn't a statement in favor of genocide; it's just about looking really really good. Take Matt Lauer. He's never said a word about exterminating the Jewish vermin from the middle east. So there you go.

The thing is, Jewish fashions are not cool. For example, the yarmulke makes people think you're bald or getting there, or that you just look bald. People want to look young, vigorous, decisive, energetic, and swashbuckling. And that's exactly what kaffiyehs do for you.

Wear it on a date. It even makes smoking sexy again.

Wear it to outdoor activities. The camera will love you.

By now you must be wondering how you can join the fashionable throngs who are setting the pace in today's sartorial scene. Fortunately, it's easy. Men can find great items like the one below at this site. At $9.99 how can you beat the price?

Women are also in luck. Take a look at this beauty:

View from the back. And the front.

It's available at this nifty internet emporium for only $8.99. Ain't it grand?

Of course, it's possible that some of you might be a bit timid about launching yourself into the public eye with a great big kaffiyeh on, but there are also ways you can work your way up to it with baby steps. Like, what sophisticated apartment wouldn't be improved by this gorgeous poster?

You can order that baby right here, for just $5.00. At least your friends will know how cool you are, not to mention how peaceful and nonviolent and anti-anti-semitic you are because of all those peace signs.

Which reminds us, while we're on the subject of fashion and outdoor activities and so forth, we thought this would be a good time to help prevent some of you from making a big fashion boo-boo when you're trying to show the world how brilliant you are about peace and shit like that. Here's an example of what we're talking about:

As Michelle Malkin pointed out in her blog, this little gem of face art is not the peace sign, but the logo of Mercedes Benz. This could be particularly bad if you're also wearing a kaffiyeh, because Mercedes Benz has had some image problems of its own vis a vis the Jews in the past.

Not that everyone shouldn't automatically know that you're not a bad person, because you're not for war, are you? Just point to your other cheek, and they'll know what you mean, unless they've only ever read the Koran or something.

You can get more guidance about Palestinian fashions from this omnibus site.

And a final word to the wise: Don't be calling Mr. Nasrallah about any of this; we have it on good authority he's busy right now. And no matter how basically benevolent you are and he is, please remember that those other people you don't have any ill feelings toward are not being at all polite. Here's an image we grabbed from one of their sites.

It's part of a mean music video, and there are several other mean videos at the same site. So don't go there, and don't play all the videos, and don't keep scrolling down to find more disrespectful jokes and news stories and such. Not if you love peacefulness as much as we do.

Happy Friday and have a good weekend. Ali ali akbar or whatever the hell it is you people say to each other.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we're going out dancing.

P.S. Speaking of Friday Follies, what could be more foolish than adding a big chunk of stuff to an old entry nobody looked at anyway? But guess what we did. We created a whole new page of graphics to go with Wednesday's post about Hillary's Marble Brassiere. Why? Just being playful.

Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to Learn More