A physician based in L.A., who requested anonymity because he fears reprisals, worked as a medic during Sunday’s protest outside the Adas Torah synagogue in the predominantly Jewish Pico-Robertson neighborhood. During the hours-long melee, in which violent clashes broke out between pro-Palestinian supporters and pro-Israel counterprotesters, he said he treated at least 11 people, whose injuries ranged from chest pain and shortness of breath from inhaling pepper spray to a fractured arm.
“This was probably the scariest protest I’ve been to,” he said. “It was very apparent that our police weren’t there to protect us and that any acts of violence that occurred in front of them wouldn’t be met with consequences.”
…He said he treated at least 11 protesters during the violence that ensued, including seven who had been pepper-sprayed. One woman was sprayed three times in the face as she chanted through a megaphone, he said. He said he treated another person who complained of chest pain and shortness of breath after inhaling pepper spray. Another person’s right arm was fractured after being struck by a police baton, he said.
Three people came to him with bruising, he said: One was hit on the cheekbone by a counterprotester, another was punched in the chin and the third was struck in the right forearm. One protester was pushed to the ground and beaten on his back with wooden sticks, he said.
“There were a lot of people struggling to stay safe,” the medic said. “I was not only treating acute injuries but talking to the organizers and reminding them that it was no longer a productive and safe action and an escape plan needed to be initiated.”
I saw far more people interested in brawling that in struggling to stay safe. If you wanted safety, why were you anywhere near the fight?
Most people at the brawl were having a ball. They were thunderstruck. They were shaking at their knees. They wanted to come again, please.
Everyone who has anything to lose and speaks about the event does it in the most sorrowful terms. The pronouncements are phony.
Posted inPico/Robertson|Comments Off on LAT: Protesters on both sides criticize LAPD response to violent demonstration outside synagogue
As author Jonathan Schell would write, the Simpson and Clinton dramas proved to be beta tests for what Schell called a “new media machine” that chose to elevate “the trifling (sex and lies about sex) to earthshaking (impeachment of a President and damage to the constitutional system) … [and] may have fatally tipped a newly endangered balance of power: the balance between fantasy and reality.” The June 1994 Bronco chase, Schell believed, was the pivot point: “At that moment, virtual reality and plain old-fashioned reality were inextricably fused in some new way.”
In hundreds of essays and reviews, the nineteenth-century lawyer and judge James Fitzjames Stephen considered the novel’s effects on society at a time when it was becoming the dominant form of entertainment…
Nevertheless Stephen is always reading, as it were, against the text, like a prosecuting attorney scrutinizing a defendant’s testimony.
…Novel readers, he implies, are regularly choosing, indeed paying for their pathos. And authors are all too willing to supply it. Dickens “gloats over [Little Nell’s] death as if it delighted him…touches, tastes, smells, and handles [it] as if it was some savoury dainty which could not be too fully appreciated.”
…Other distortions are the suppression of vast areas of experience (particularly work life), the undue prominence given to romantic love (“of course, every one is in love in a novel”), the alteration of historical facts, the overdefinition of character, the romanticization of crime and vice, and the evidently contrived plots.
…The second essay, “Woods v. Russell” (1856), turns to journalism. During the Crimean War, Nicholas Woods was the correspondent for The Morning Herald and William Russell the correspondent for The Times. Both had contributed to the view that the British campaign in the Crimea resembled an “army of lions commanded by asses.” This had won them notoriety and popularity. Stephen takes advantage of the publication of collections of the two men’s war dispatches to analyze the evidence they offered for their criticisms. Meticulously cross-referencing their accounts, he shows how frequently they contradict each other over the most elementary facts, while on other occasions one man has clearly plagiarized the other. As with the novel, Stephen complains, newspapers enjoy great political influence, without demonstrating the sort of responsibility and impartiality that might legitimize it: “Statements of the most vehement kind are made upon any or no authority” and presented in a “showy, noisy, clever, and picturesque” style that in one case has a dead dog being described as a “decayed specimen of canine mortality.”
…“A newspaper,” Stephen reminds us in a later essay, “is essentially and pre-eminently a mercantile speculation.” The power it boasts to intervene in cases of injustice is limited by its need to sustain the interest of its readers. Journalists, like novelists, labor under an obligation to be entertaining. They play to “the impatience which every one feels of being governed in a prosaic way,”
…”Most writers are so nervous about the tendencies of their books, and the social penalties of unorthodox opinion are so severe…that philosophy, criticism and science itself too often speak amongst us in ambiguous whispers what ought to be proclaimed from the house tops.”
In Politics and Literature at the Dawn of World War II, James Heffernan argues that for a full understanding of any historical period, we must read the literature written while its events were still unfolding…
In Politics and Literature at the Dawn of World War II, the Dartmouth literary scholar James A.W. Heffernan proposes that academic and popular histories, diaries, and journalistic accounts offer only a blinkered view of the past. For a fuller understanding of any historical period, you must read the literature it produced. Best of all, you must read the literature that was written and published while the events of the period were still unfolding.
“Punctual literature,” as Heffernan calls it, is a narrow category, especially when it comes to World War II, for practical reasons: it isn’t easy to write and publish while being bombed. To fortify his argument Heffernan further narrows his definition of “punctual,” limiting his survey primarily to fiction, poetry, and plays set or composed or published in 1939 (which happens to be, he gallantly declines to mention, the year of his birth) “and one or at most two of the years that followed.” Virginia Woolf’s Between the Acts, Patrick Hamilton’s Hangover Square, and Evelyn Waugh’s Put Out More Flags are novels about historical events, but they’re not historical fiction, strictly speaking, because they were written in the early years of the war, before the conclusion was known—before the chaos of those years could be sealed and wrapped and ribboned in a tidy narrative. “The uncertainty of being in medias res,” writes Heffernan, “is precisely what punctual literature aims to represent.” Ignorance of the war’s outcome does not count as a deficiency of this literature, as it might to a historian, but as an advantage.
…He directs his argument not to readers of literature but to historians. Brazenly he trespasses into their territory, their cleared jungles and straightened rivers, as an emissary from the shadowy realm of make-believe who dares to suggest that their scrupulous volumes, no matter how impressively researched or dramatically written, cannot match the honesty of fiction, poetry, or theater. “Histories tell us much…about the origins of World War II,” he writes. “But the literary works…examined in this book tell us even more.”
These are fighting words. Heffernan’s method is to pit a work of literature against a definitive historical account of the same subject. In these head-to-head battles, literature cheerfully concedes some predictable defeats.
Podnotes AI summary: “America’s Sweetheart” on Netflix is a mesmerizing series about the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, especially Reese. She dances for Jesus and captivates audiences with her commitment and talent, even performing to AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck.” Despite their fame, these cheerleaders earn little, around $500 per game plus promotional work totaling roughly $60,000 annually. They balance full-time jobs with rigorous practice schedules.
Many cheerleaders endure physical strain leading to surgeries; it raises questions about their well-being. Some impress like the nurse who leads them, but others seem driven by a need to feel beautiful after childhood insecurities—paralleling some women’s reasons for entering adult entertainment.
The dedication of these cheerleaders mirrors my Orthodox Jewish community’s devotion —both are deeply rooted hero systems in their cultures.
Protests blocking access to Jewish facilities resemble acts of war under international law—they disrupt lives and could warrant severe consequences if persistent enough. This blockade mentality was evident at a recent Los Angeles protest where violence erupted because Jews had no choice but to push through the barriers set up by pro-Palestine activists.
Breaking Points discussed this event as merely a protest when it was actually an aggressive blockade against Jews attending synagogue—an act that incites inevitable violence due to restricted freedoms.
In conclusion, while protests can be legitimate expressions of dissent, blockades that impede people’s daily lives cross into aggression deserving strong rebuttal or legal action.
I believe the critique is valid; this event revolves around real estate, and that’s key to understanding why there were protests. This detail should be highlighted early in any discussion about the incident.
Online rhetoric questions why certain lands are being bought up, but it’s not just about purchase—it’s about usage. Religious sites serve dual purposes: spiritual and practical for their communities. The protest wasn’t against prayer; it was over a real estate affair.
There seems to be selective outrage when land sales involve Jews, yet similar events elsewhere don’t provoke the same reaction. If only Jewish actions elicit such responses, bias is evident.
People often choose neighborhoods where they feel comfortable and can communicate easily with others—this isn’t unique or outrageous. Accusing individuals of racism based on neighborhood choice without context is unreasonable.
Protesting policy decisions makes sense to me—even if I’m not directly affected, I’d understand such actions by others as long as they don’t impede freedom of movement.
Most Americans prioritize domestic issues over international ones like Israel-Palestine conflicts unless directly impacted at home.
Regarding recent events at a synagogue in Los Angeles reported by Alexandra Orbach in The Wall Street Journal: Violence erupted between protesters and attendees at an Israeli real estate fair held there. While President Biden and other officials condemned the violence online, physical intervention was lacking from law enforcement on site—volunteer security groups had to step in instead.
To get deeper insights into these complex dynamics, we should focus on specific points rather than getting lost in multiple angles simultaneously.
The connotative meaning of two words such as “conspiracy theory” differ greatly from their denotative meaning.
Dooovid joins: I’m researching conspiracy theories, examining both the historical and scientific perspectives versus harmful beliefs like CIA involvement in JFK’s assassination. These different uses shape my neutral stance on conspiracies.
I plan to explore how paranoia differs from conspiracy theories. While paranoia involves irrational fears, such as believing others are plotting against you without evidence, a conspiracy theory is an explanation for events that involve secret plots by powerful groups.
In creating online content, it’s crucial to offer unique insights rather than rehashing common views. This approach attracts attention and distinguishes your voice in a crowded space. For example, redefining “conspiracy theory” could intrigue an audience seeking fresh takes on familiar topics.
Live streaming demands something special beyond mainstream news repetition—whether through controversial language or revealing personal experiences—to engage viewers actively.
Finally, loneliness can drive people into vulnerable situations or unhealthy behaviors as they seek connection and validation. Understanding these motivations helps us navigate our own lives and interactions with others more compassionately.
Doov: For me, as someone who has always felt on the margins, it hits hard. From a young age, I designed my personality around being an outsider and never aimed for mainstream acceptance. King seemed to think he was mainstream despite evidence to the contrary.
Luke: People at the center of life—popular and successful—don’t choose marginalization. But if you’re already there, you make the best of it. We’ve all done that here with our marginalized status.
Dooov: Intelligent women turning to pornography might start with using their smarts in manipulative ways as teenagers, realizing they can outwit others. Eventually, this intelligence leads them down paths like prostitution—not because they’re geniuses but smarter than their immediate peers.
Luke: Regarding COVID vaccine mandates—I was initially against government-enforced mandates but now see some merit after reading Linda Greenhouse’s essay in The New York Review of Books discussing religious liberty versus public health protection by the Supreme Court.
My views have shifted towards valuing public good over individual freedom more than before; regulations seem necessary for society’s benefit from my observations reporting on the adult industry. Incentives for vaccination are essential; even personal experience showed me how proof of vaccination affected access to places during COVID-19 peaks.
Finally, discussions around human rights typically focus on suffering elsewhere rather than citizenship rights—a shift worth noting when considering global perspectives on what it means to be human and have rights today.
We can trace the origins of human rights to the 1940s, particularly after the Universal Declaration in 1948. The concept gained prominence during WWII with documents like the Atlantic Charter, emphasizing four freedoms. However, initially, “human rights” didn’t imply international law but were seen as national benchmarks.
In America and Europe, there was a vision of social democracy – a fight against tyranny aiming for positive change. FDR even proposed a second bill of rights in 1944 for social and economic protections. Yet these ideas weren’t globally oriented; they focused on what states could provide their citizens.
Internationally, excitement brewed not over social democracy promises but self-determination – an idea pushed by Lenin and Wilson that seemed to challenge colonialism. Churchill managed to convince FDR that this principle didn’t apply to British Empire’s end.
Thus began a complex relationship between self-determination and human rights: when people couldn’t gain autonomy, they received human rights as a consolation prize without threatening empires’ power structures.
Despite enthusiasm for the Atlantic Charter worldwide due to its anti-colonial sentiment, interest waned for the Universal Declaration outside Western nations—highlighting differing global perceptions about these concepts’ significance.
As time passed, though idealistic talk surrounded international organizations promoting human rights post-1944 drafts revealed limitations—showing that while aspirations were high, actual implementation remained challenging.
Posted inAdas Torah, Israel, Palestinians|Comments Off on Decoding The Winning Strategy Of The Palestinians Part Two (6-25-24)
I was usually ambivalent about government directed Covid vaccine mandates. I didn’t support them but the topic made me uncomfortable. I am pro-vaccine and pro freedom. I think our elites (including political and public health elites) did a better than average job during Covid.
Now I love the topic of government directed Covid vaccine mandates (of course private entities should be free to require Covid vaccines). How much personal freedom should one lose if there is a massive public health payoff?
What changed my mind was reading this Linda Greenhouse essay in the New York Review of Books: “For the new majority on the Supreme Court, religious liberty takes precedence over the government’s power to protect public health.”
In the general dispute between individual freedom and the public good, I’m slightly more towards the public good than I was in earlier days.
She places on display an American exceptionalism of a particularly disquieting form: a legal mindset that has come to value individual freedom over communal welfare and so has “lost sight of contagion’s most compelling lesson: Our own health depends on the health of others.”
…American legal culture—constitutional law in particular—played an unacknowledged part “in generating the vulnerabilities that the pandemic exploited.” A uniquely American body of law “privileged a particularly thin and one-sided conception of liberty” that helped to “amplify the forces that tear at our social fabric.”
…In Parmet’s view, the Jacobson opinion exemplifies a “rich conception of liberty,” which was lost during the Covid-19 pandemic to the “narrow and individualistic conception of liberty” that came to dominate the public and judicial discussion. She does not exempt the Biden administration from criticism for the “individualistic framing” it adopted. In May 2021, referring to the vaccines that by then were widely available, Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, declared that “we really want to empower people to take this responsibility into their own hands.” Parmet observes, “Once health risks are viewed in this manner, pandemic mitigation measures appear as intrusions on individual liberty.”
Courts embraced the individualistic framing as if on cue. In January 2022 a federal district judge barred the navy from penalizing a group of SEALs who claimed religious reasons for refusing the Covid vaccine. Parmet notes this astonishing case, but without giving the details that demonstrate how far away from the “rich liberty” of the Jacobson case the legal system was moving not even two years into the pandemic. The district court decision’s list of the SEALs’ rationales for refusing to be vaccinated included the “belief that modifying one’s body is an affront to the Creator” and “direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine.” The navy argued that the requested waivers would render the SEALs nondeployable, to the detriment of military readiness and the national defense. Judge Reed O’Connor was unmoved. “The Plaintiffs’ loss of religious liberties outweighs any forthcoming harm to the Navy,” he concluded. (The Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request for a stay of O’Connor’s decision, over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, while the case proceeded. Congress later that year ordered the Pentagon to lift the deployment bar on unvaccinated service members, and the navy’s compliance rendered the case moot.)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
