June 11, 2008 | 11:41 pm

Bachelor parties and bidets

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

(Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with religion. Stop now if you don’t want to read about a friend using a bidet the wrong way, and having it blow up in his face.)

I am in the middle of bachelor party season, which means three things: continuing my 26-year streak of stripper-less festivities, lots of short workweeks and long weekends and quite a few stories that will be worth remembering long after my friends have moved far away. One such memory, from a bachelor party two years ago, was jogged when I received an email about an upcoming celebration for which I’ll be traveling to Palm Springs. There my friend Torch has rented a large house that is going to sleep some 15 guys and just so happens to have a bidet.

“For those who don’t know what that is,” Torch informed us, “according to wikipedia: A bidet is a low-mounted plumbing fixture or type of sink intended for washing the genitalia, inner buttocks, anus, and Stephen’s face….”

Which takes us back to the previous bachelor party at Lake Mead and one never-ending, totally wholesome night in Vegas along the way. The story makes my college buddies and I sound like a bunch of children—not just this story, either—but this group included a journalist (the guy they call Muscles), a software designer, a baseball front-office guy, an elementary school teacher and a soon-to-be sheriff’s deputy.Troy recalls the ordeal here:

Somehow, for the seven guys, Ben had managed to book the freaking Honeymoon Suite. This consisted of the following items:

1) One king-sized bed

2) One shower with transparent door, completely unhidden from the rest of the room.

3) One hot tub, located precisely in the middle of the room, so that you passed it walking from the door to the bed.

4) One bidet. If you don’t know what that is, here is the dictionary.com definition: “A fixture similar in design to a toilet that is straddled for bathing the genitals and the posterior parts.”

If you think that seven guys between the ages of 21 and 24 are mature enough to handle such a situation, you are sorely mistaken. But perhaps this event best illustrates our 4 hour stay in the hotel room:

I’m not sure how much money was involved in the bet, but eventually Stephen was convinced to use the bidet. It was enough for most of us to sit back and wait for the inevitable shriek that was to come. But for Muscles, this would not do.

Stephen’s first mistake was leaving the door open. Yeah, I know, you would think that the one married guy in the group would NOT be the one watching another guy use the bidet, but Muscles claimed it was going to be “too hilarious to miss”. He was right. First of all, Stephen began by facing the wrong way on the bidet. He hovered over the porcelain as a steady stream of water started to emerge. But apparently it was too strong for his liking, and so before making the jump, he decided to turn it down a bit. Unfortunately, he twisted the knob in the wrong direction, and a powerful jet shot up from the bidet (we later discovered it could reach the ceiling) and right into his FACE. What came next was straight out of a slapstick comedy - Stephen struggling for breath, gurgling out the toilet water, as he attempted to turn the whole thing off.

Suffice to say, I didn’t try the bidet.

June 11, 2008 | 3:35 pm

The tyranny of Tyrannosaurus Reich

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

T. Reich

The DC Comics villain you’ve never heard of. Tyrannosaurus Reich appeared in one issue, much to the lament of this fan who thinks he was a sorely misunderstood and underused supervillain. Maybe the problem was that you needed to read German to get the storyline.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

June 11, 2008 | 11:58 am

The inner jihad: Islamic extremism attacks itself

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Still not a good guy

It’s an ancient lesson that for every warrior/gangster/terrorist the good guys kill, five more step up to fill the void. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi gets killed but Al Qaeda in Iraq persists. Don Corleone dies at the end of “Godfather,” and his son Michael steps up to lead the family in two subsequent movies. You’d think all of our foreign-policy geniuses in Washington would be aware of this. Most people are.

The War on Terror has, in seven years, cost $527 billion and 4,587 lives (and could grow to much more). But the answer to Islamic extremism lies not just in firepower but, as President Bush’s loyalists used to say, winning hearts and minds. This doesn’t seem to be happening en mass, but the New York Times recently had an article about the de-radicalization of younger Iraqis and some outside jihad leaders have turned against the ideology, as detailed in this New Republic article about Noman Benotman, a former leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group:

Although Benotman’s public rebuke of Al Qaeda went unnoticed in the United States, it received wide attention in the Arabic press. In repudiating Al Qaeda, Benotman was adding his voice to a rising tide of anger in the Islamic world toward Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose victims since September 11 have mostly been fellow Muslims. Significantly, he was also joining a larger group of religious scholars, former fighters, and militants who had once had great influence over Al Qaeda’s leaders, and who—alarmed by the targeting of civilians in the West, the senseless killings in Muslim countries, and Al Qaeda’s barbaric tactics in Iraq—have turned against the organization, many just in the past year.

After September 11, there was considerable fear in the West that we were headed for a clash of civilizations with the Muslim world led by bin Laden, who would entice masses of young Muslims into his jihadist movement. But the religious leaders and former militants who are now critiquing Al Qaeda’s terrorist campaign—both in the Middle East and in Muslim enclaves in the West—make that less likely. The potential repercussions for Al Qaeda cannot be underestimated because, unlike most mainstream Muslim leaders, Al Qaeda’s new critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite. “The starting point has to be that jihad is legitimate, otherwise no one will listen, ” says Benotman, who sees the Iraqi insurgency as a legitimate jihad. “The reaction [to my criticism of Al Qaeda] has been beyond imagination. It has made the radicals very angry. They are very shaky about it.”

A week before this article appeared, Lawrence Wright, who won a Pulitzer for “The Looming Tower” and has a more intimate knowledge of Al Qaeda than any other American journalist, wrote a very long piece for The New Yorker about Al Qaeda’s inner rebellion.

I don’t want to be overly optimistic, or pessimistic, but these are positive developments. Still, they are incredibly limited in their scale and need to be reproduced over and over to cause significant change.

Read more of this post

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 11, 2008 | 9:43 am

How many evangelical votes can McCain afford to lose?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’ve written recently about John McCain’s outreach to evangelical Christians, that oft-mentioned Holy Grail voting bloc that propped up George Bush in 2000 and reelected him (after Iraq got ugly, no less) in 2004. (Disclaimer: I am an innocent member.) McCain hasn’t played as well, which is to be expected because it’s difficult to imagine any politician being embraced so genuinely, but he does have that anti-abortion trump card, and already is running close with Barack Obama in national polls.

Which raises an important question: What portion of the evangelical vote does McCain need to capture to move into the White House?

Christianity Today’s attempt at answering this after the jump:

Read more of this post

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 10, 2008 | 5:42 pm

Muslim women surgically ‘restore’ virginity

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Repairing the hymen is a 30-minute surgery that costs just under $3,000 and involves a small cut and some 30 stitches. It’s purpose is to provide “the illusion of virginity,” the New York Times reports in tomorrow’s paper:

Like an increasing number of Muslim women in Europe, she had a hymenoplasty, a restoration of her hymen, the thin vaginal membrane that normally breaks during the first act of intercourse.

“In my culture, not to be a virgin is to be dirt,” said the student, perched on a hospital bed as she awaited surgery on Thursday. “Right now, virginity is more important to me than life.”

Read more of this post

2 Comments — Leave your comment

June 10, 2008 | 1:22 pm

God’s Blog #2: Ten Commandments

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

“Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”

“Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it.”

“Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither shalt thou steal.”

I don’t mean to kvetch, but are these five commandments, and the others I gave you, really so hard to follow?

There are 613 mitzvot, but only Ten Commandments. And, despite what you may have heard or seen on the big screen—“The Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen…” Moses on film proclaimed before dropping and shattering of one of three tablets. “Oy!... Ten! Ten Commandments! For all to obey!”—there were only Ten Commandments.

Moses had a stutter, but he was no klutz. And Mel Brooks was one of my better comedic creations, but he’s no historian.

There were other commandments I could have included—caring for the poor, protecting My physical creation—but I knew 10 would be challenging enough. Coveting is pleasurable and lying can get you out of a bind. But they only amplify your problems. I, of course, knew this.

It is not (always) my nature to anger; I have been incredibly patient. And yet too many see burden where I offered a gift. I spent a lot of time working on these Ten Commandments, knowing that without them the Israelites would follow there flighty hearts. Remember, what Moses found when he returned from Mount Sinai with My Law: My chosen people worshiping a golden calf fashioned by his own brother who would become My first priest.

So while a minority of you spent Sunday night reciting Torah and thanking Me for delivering The Law, too many ingrates ignored My benevolence.

(God’s Blog is a new addition to The God Blog. For details, click here and here.)

6 Comments — Leave your comment

June 10, 2008 | 12:01 pm

The Rabbi in the dugout

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Greenberg. Koufax. Horwitz?

Welcoming MLB’s newest Jew. Giants outfielder Brian Horwitz is no Ryan Braun or Kevin Youkilis, but he’s having a pretty righteous coming out party, batting .385 in his first seven games, with four runs and an on-base percentage of .973.

“The Rabbi,” as teammates are calling him, slapped his first home run in his third game, and then swapped a signed bat to get it back:

“It means a lot to me,” Molina said. “It’s like most guys hitting 3,000. I know I’m not a superstar. I know I’m not a Hall of Famer. To get 1,000 hits for a guy who was not supposed to sign at first, then signed for $1,000, $750 after taxes, a guy who wasn’t supposed to make it in the major leagues, the slowest guy in the world ... to get 1,000 hits is an honor for me.”

As a Dodgers fan, this marks the second time in less than a week that tribal affinity helped me overcome sports-fan prejudices, and I really can’t stand the Giants.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

June 9, 2008 | 5:51 pm

One wild weekend for George Bush or Jesus or just some nude Alabaman

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Some of the strangest stories I write about come courtesy of the Bible Belt Blogger: Indian airline chops off goat heads to prevent mechanical failure; armed thugs drive around in “We Love Jesus” van; and thieves steal 8-foot-tall plaster Jesus hoping to scrap the metal that’s not inside it.

Add to that list this latest oddity from Birmingham:

Jefferson County Jail inmate has quite a tale to tell about how he got there. The nude man claimed to be Jesus Christ and George Bush when sheriff’s deputies shot him with a stun gun after he ignored their commands.

A motorist spotted the 30-year-old standing nude in the middle of Alabama 79 early Friday morning and called police. The man struggled with police and was shot with a Taser four times before they subdued him and put him in handcuffs and leg irons. He told the deputies he was Jesus Christ and George Bush and could break the handcuffs.

Police say he appeared to be intoxicated. The man was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

I’m glad the police clarified that, because no one spotted that from the word “nude.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 9, 2008 | 12:56 pm

Mock LA mayor: ‘when I say Jewish state, I am referring not just to Israel, but also to California’*

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

“Is this anti-Semitic?”

I was just asked that question about a column in today’s LA Downtown News. I had wondered the same after I read the piece in which Executive Editor Jon Regardie ponders what Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa might say in explaining his criticized trip to Israel this week. (Just a guess, but considering flights are now over $2,000 and a few dozen city employees are flying out Wednesday, Angelenos can expect this to cost them upwards of $100k). Here are Regardie’s ruminations:

Read more of this post

3 Comments — Leave your comment

June 9, 2008 | 10:28 am

Evangelicals on McCain: ‘in a holding pattern’ *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I mentioned last month that John McCain’s trump card for socially conservative Christians would be his well-established opposition to abortion. But that just doesn’t rally the troops like it used to.

In 2004, to stoke turnout among conservatives, Karl Rove engineered the addition of anti-gay-marriage voter initiatives to the ballots in Ohio and other states; last week, though, when the California Supreme Court voted to allow gay marriage in that state, only hard-core activists were able to muster much outrage. When it comes to the Constitution, McCain is on the wrong side of the voters, and of history

Save for California, I don’t know any states that will be voting on gay marriage in November. That could make it even harder for McCain to win over those evangelical Christians the NYT reports remain wary of the presumptive Republican nominee:

Read more of this post

1 Comments — Leave your comment

June 8, 2008 | 10:30 pm

Israeli official: We’ll strike if Iran doesn’t drop nukes effort *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

IDF soldiers during Six Day War

One of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies waved a big stick Friday:

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

(skip)

A spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not address Mofaz’s comments directly but said that “all options must remain on the table” and said more could be done to put financial pressure on Tehran.

“Israel believes strongly that while the U.N. sanctions are positive, much more needs to be done to pressure the regime in Tehran to cease its aggressive nuclear program,” spokesman Mark Regev said.

I don’t think this should be considered an empty threat. Israel has been known to strike preemptively when the occasion arises and when it might involve nuclear wanna-bes.

Commentary magazine, which has previously promoted the American case for bombing Iran, was at it again in response:

Many assume that no Israeli government will let the Iranians build a nuclear arsenal, and Mofaz’s words — he also used “unavoidable” in the same sentence as “attacking Iran”– constitute the most explicit threat to use force to date.  Because it looks unlikely that the Iranians will stop their program to enrich uranium, war in the Persian Gulf is becoming inevitable.

So this appears to be the last chance for the Bush administration to take the lead in stopping Iran.  And it is perhaps the last chance for us to maintain the current international system.

Updated: I was out of town this weekend, so this story was a bit stale when I posted it. Here’s an update from the AP. Not surprisingly, the Israeli government has been downplaying Mofaz’s statement:

Read more of this post

1 Comments — Leave your comment

June 6, 2008 | 12:38 pm

Obama ‘clarifies’ undivided Jerusalem

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I guess one part of American politics that Barack Obama doesn’t want to change is the tradition of campaign obfuscation. Wednesday he worried liberals with his Jerusalem-must-not-be-divided speech. Now he’s angered hawks again with this “clarification”:

a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”

“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

“Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations,” the Obama adviser said.

Many on the right of the political spectrum among America’s Jews welcomed Obama’s remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.

“The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama’s important statement about Jerusalem,” said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama’s Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

“In the current context, everyone understands that saying ‘Jerusalem… must remain undivided’ means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967,” Diament explained.

“If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation.”

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama’s statement, now called the candidate’s words “troubling.”

“It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn’t really believe,” Klein charged.

Thanks to Richard Silverstein for passing this along.

29 Comments — Leave your comment