January 25, 2011 | 3:18 pm

Jews get lots of nods in Oscar nominations

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

As Jay has explained, it’s pretty simple to make it as a Jew in Hollywood. You could even say “Jews run Hollywood”—just not in the “Protocols” sense. And Jewish entertainers cleaned up in the Academy Award nominations today.

Danielle Berrin gives the rundown at Hollywood Jew. Here’s what she had to say about the acting, directing and screenwriting nominations:

ACTING: As expected, Jesse Eisenberg and Natalie Portman get top nods for starring in the most talked about movies of the year. Eisenberg, for his fictional portrayal of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in “The Social Network” and Portman for playing the self-mutilating, psychologically unhinged ballerina in “Black Swan”. James Franco, whose mother is Jewish, is nominated (also for being self-mutilating but in a life-preserving way) for the outdoor adventure film “127 Hours”. And in the supporting category, 14-year old Hailee Steinfeld nabs a nod for her portrayal of Mattie Ross, out to avenge her father’s murder in “True Grit”.

(skip)

DIRECTING: Darren Aronofsky gets his first nod for the balletic melodrama “Black Swan” and Joel and Ethan Coen—aka the Coen Brothers—nab a nom for “True Grit”, their most commercially successful movie yet. David O’Russell, the son of a Jewish father and Italian-American mother also achieves in the directing category for the boxing drama “The Fighter”.

(skip)

SCREENWRITING: Continuing with his sweep of writing awards, Aaron Sorkin is nominated in the adapted screenplay catergory for “The Social Network” and The Coen Brothers are also nominated in this category for “True Grit” for their faithful adaptation of the 1968 novel by Charles Portis. Writer/director Debra Granik nabs a nod for the chilling Midwestern thriller “Winter’s Bone”. In the original screenplay category, Mike Leigh is nominated for “Another Year” a glimpse into mid-life crises among the British middle class. Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg are honored for their portrait of a lesbian couple and their family in the “The Kids Are Alright” and David Seidler gets a first nod for the sharp and witty “The King’s Speech”.

January 24, 2011 | 11:22 pm

Israel’s partner for peace?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Thirty-five people were killed today in a Moscow airport suicide bombing, but the story that everyone seems to be talking about is news that Israel has and has rejected a partner for peace in the Mideast. Or that Israel doesn’t have a partner in the Palestinian Authority, which is now in the embarrassing position of backpedaling before an angry Arab community from unprecedented concessions it offered Israel.

Here’s the story from The Washington Post:

Palestinian Authority officials in the West Bank reacted angrily on Monday to the release of memos by al-Jazeera TV that revealed apparent concessions negotiators were willing to make to Israel in 2008. The discussions were kept confidential out of concern that media leaks of details from the talks would undermine the peace process.

Among the revelations contained in the documents, which the station’s Web site said number more than 1,600, were Palestinian negotiators’ willingness to concede sections of East Jerusalem to Israeli control as part of a final peace deal.

Minutes detailing the concession came from a meeting in Jerusalem in June 2008 between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators mediated by then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Al-Jazeera’s English-language Web site is calling the documents the Palestine Papers, and is posting them incrementally, WikiLeaks-style, over the next several days.

(skip)

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, who is featured prominently in the documents as one of those willing to surrender Palestinian control of parts of East Jerusalem, issued a statement late Monday saying many of the documents “misrepresented our positions’’ or took “statements and facts out of context.’‘

“Even though many ideas have been discussed by the two sides as part of the normal negotiations process, including some we could never agree to, we have consistently said any proposed agreement would have to gain popular support through a national referendum,’’ Erekat said.

Possibly the most entertaining aspect of this drama is that Al Jazeera, which published the documents, is being accused by the Palestinian Authority of “distorting reality” and trying to undermine Hamas’ rival in the Palestinian territory.

The sad thing is how FUBARed the whole Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” is at this point. If before today there was any blood still coursing through those veins, it’s all dried up and peace would appear to be a corpse. And both Israel and the Palestinians are to blame.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

January 24, 2011 | 12:16 am

Big Ben: ‘God is good’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I almost forgot to mention the TV double-take I had to make at the conclusion of the Steelers-Jets game tonight. I was watching the post game, and something Ben Roethlisberger said made me reach for the DVR remote. I had to rewind and confirm what I thought I had heard:

“God is good.”

Yes, He is. But who does Roethlisberger think he is fooling as he attempts to rehab his image?

I don’t want to judge Big Ben’s heart. I don’t know anything about his relationship with God. But I do know that the Steelers’ QB is one of the skeezier sports superstars out there. Remember the recently annual sexual assault allegations?

Unlike Michael Vick’s recent comments, Roethlisberger’s today struck me much like the liner notes to many hardcore rap albums—full of praising and thanking Jesus, followed by a bunch of vulgar lyrics about killing and screwing.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

January 23, 2011 | 9:25 pm

Ricky Gervais a bad ambassador for atheists?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I think anyone who watched the Golden Globes last Sunday formed a pretty firm opinion of host Ricky Gervais, who got into a bit of trouble for a reference he made to famous gay Scientologists. (Oh man, this closet is really nice.) Mollie at GetReligion had an interesting take on Gervais.

A snippet:

I was thinking, as I finished watching him, about what a “hugely mean-spirited with mildly sinister undertones” ambassador for atheism he is. It’s probably wrong that I find his humor so funny, but there’s no escaping the hatred and negativity there. How comfortable are various atheists with this high-profile atheist being such a hater? What do the “Why Believe in a God? Just Be Good for Goodness’ Sake” campaigners think about this fellow nonbeliever? I have no idea and I think it would make for an interesting piece. And it could be tied into Gervais’ film, a less-than-subtle argument for atheism that didn’t go over well with viewers.

Atheists definitely have a problem with seeming relatable. Read the rest of Mollie’s post here.

6 Comments — Leave your comment

January 23, 2011 | 12:35 pm

Xtranormal sketch: ‘Who are the Palestinians’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Reader Darcy Reed created and passed on this Xtranormal sketch. It’s not “So you want to go to law school,” but I could see “Who are the Palestinians” generating some good conversation here.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

January 22, 2011 | 5:15 pm

Joe Lieberman’s Jewish political life

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Upon Sen. Joe Lieberman’s announcement this week that he’d be leaving public office in 2012, Daniel Treiman shared his 2006 op-ed for The Forward titled “The Jewishness of Joseph Lieberman.” It focuses on why Lieberman has been a divisive figure in American Jewry.

Here’s an excerpt:

Discomfort with Lieberman is partly explained by the fact that this pioneering Jewish politician is far from your typical American Jew. For starters, there’s his Orthodoxy, a stream of Judaism that represents only a tenth of American Jews. More significant is his very public use of faith-based language—particularly jarring to a community that has long seen a high wall of separation between church and state as the best guarantor of its place in American society. Finally, some on the Jewish left resent the fact that the country’s most liberal ethnic group has as its most visible representative an aggressively centrist politician.

Yet for all the ways in which Lieberman is atypical, there is also something very Jewish about his politics. Indeed, some of the hostility he arouses on the left, which often seems disproportionate to his transgressions—recall that his voting record earned him a respectable 76% lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action—is the result of a civil war raging within Jewish liberalism for more than half a century.

From the battles between fellow travelers and anti-communists in the early days of the cold war to the dueling worldviews of the largely Jewish staffs of The New Republic (which offered a lonely endorsement of Lieberman’s presidential candidacy) and The Nation (which hasn’t shown him much love), Jewish liberals are a fractious family. And Lieberman is the closest thing we have to a standard-bearer—however imperfect—for a particular kind of Jewish liberalism: skeptical of race-conscious public policies, vocally opposed to the ideological excesses of the academic left, bullish on America’s potential to advance the cause of freedom abroad and hawkishly pro-Israel.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 22, 2011 | 12:39 pm

Satan at the Supreme Court

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Speaking of the Supreme Court, Christianity Today last week published an op-ed about whether the high court’s justices take Satan seriously. John Murdock wrote:

Satan showed up when the justices, as they often do, sought to push the bounds of each side’s arguments with extreme hypothetical questions. Would unfounded rumors of satanic connections (such as have dogged Procter & Gamble for years) be material enough to warrant a formal disclosure under the Court’s test addressing information that a “reasonable shareholder” would need to know? It’s not an entirely crazy question: such strange allegations dogged Procter & Gamble for decades and became the subject of a high-profile lawsuit in which the company sued some Amway distributors for spreading the rumors. A jury eventually awarded Procter & Gamble $19.25 million in 2007.

Several justices asked “satanic” questions, all in a manner that suggested that no “reasonable” person would ever seriously consider “irrational” notions that a product could be linked to “satanic influences.” One might as well have substituted the tooth fairy for Satan. Justice Scalia put it most bluntly and drew the biggest laugh. The government’s lawyer (surprise) did not directly answer his question.

I have no reason to doubt the sincere religious faith of any of the justices, but while some remained silent none in any way sought to suggest that, rather than being a laughing matter, perhaps the hypothetical questions were straying into a truly dangerous domain. I laughed too, but quickly began to feel quite uncomfortable with the scene. While I worry about those who see the Devil everywhere, I worry even more about a culture that fails to see the demonic (or the sacred) anywhere.

To begin, Court membership is currently split between Catholics and Jews. There are no evangelicals members of the court, who would be most likely to believe in literal spiritual warfare and demonic interference with righteous intentions.

More importantly, though, I don’t want my unbiased, arbiters of justice to be imputing their religious beliefs into their legal—and I might add, binding and final—judgments of the law.

Yes, I believe the devil is not just a mental adversary but a real dude. A real bad dude. And I hope my national leaders believe the same. But the “truly dangerous domain” would be if our Supreme Court Justices were interpreting law based not upon the Constitution and legislative history but upon their own religious understandings.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

January 21, 2011 | 9:00 pm

Olbermann out at MSNBC; not clear why

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Keith Olbermann has rarely made on appearance on The God Blog. He’s just not O’Reilly or Jon Stewart or Colbert or even Bill Maher. But the announcement he made tonight on “Countdown” is worth mentioning.

Olbermann and MSNBC “have ended their contract.” Sounds like the liberal commentator was fired. Here’s the story from CNN:

Olbermann made the announcement in his typical deadpan style, evoking scenes from the film “Network” and thanking viewers for keeping him on the air for eight years.

“In the mundane world television goodbyes, reality is laughably uncooperative,” Olbermann said before launching into a story about his exit from ESPN 13 years ago.

“As God as my witness, in the commercial break just before the emotional moment, the producer got into my earpiece and he said, ‘um, can you cut it down to 15 seconds so we get in this tennis result from Stuttgart,’” he said, half-smiling, pausing for composure.

It’s likely no coincidence that this “parting of ways” came about two months after Olbermann was unfairly suspended by MSNBC for political contributions he made. I’m no fan of Olbermann, and his actions violated MSNBC ethical policy. But the spirit of that policy is to maintain unbiased news reporters and anchors—and no one ever had the illusion that Olbermann was unbiased.

Here’s an excerpt from a GetReligion post I wrote titled “BREAKING: Olbermann likes Democrats!”

MSNBC’s is an easy-to-follow rule, and it’s fair enough that a reporter or anchor would be suspended for violating it. In fact, I would expect it if the journalist in question even pretended to be objective. But why care about that rule, and why now?

Typical news guidelines, even for anchors and not just reporters, state that journalists should not opinioneer when they aren’t appearing on the op-ed pages — and even then they shouldn’t do so if they would be discussing a topic they are supposed to cover objectively.

Personal, solitary objectivity is a farce. Good journalists just try to know their subjective biases, and to keep those from skewing their stories. Good newsrooms demand that. It is a matter of professionalism and, well, diversity.

Olbermann never did any of that. He was an often humorous old gasbag and a nice counterbalance to the fatter O’Reilly’s of the world. From this journalist’s perspective, donating to Democratic political campaigns was just about the least political thing Olbermann has done in years.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

January 20, 2011 | 6:41 pm

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was Daniel Pearl’s killer

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Back in 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed from his Guantanamo cell that he had killed former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Now it looks like he was telling the truth. From JTA:

Four men were wrongfully convicted of the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl nine years ago, while the actual killer is the suspected mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks, a new investigation alleges.

The revelations, which include the allegation that a dozen terrorists involved in the killing are still at large and operating, are based on a three-year investigation by the Pearl Project conducted by journalism students and faculty at Georgetown University and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Heading the probe was a Asra Nomani, Pearl’s colleague, from whose house in Karachi, Pakistan, the reporter left on the day of his 2002 disappearance supposedly for an interview with a high-level terrorist source.

The four men convicted in the slaying remain in jail, but the actual killer is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the key figure in the 2001 attack on New York’s World Trade Center, according to the project analysis.

I heard Nomani talking about their investigation on NPR. It sound like to her the smoking gun was a hand vein analysis that the FBI or CIA did comparing the hand that beheaded Pearl with a photo of Mohammed’s hand. They were a perfect match.

Many more new details were revealed by The Pearl Project, and you can check it out here. Here are a few more of the key findings, via LAObserved:

The kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl was a multifaceted, at times chaotic conspiracy. The Pearl Project has identified 27 men who played a part in the events surrounding the case. Members of at least three different militant groups took part in the crimes, including a team of kidnappers led by British-Pakistani Omar Sheikh and a team of killers led by Al Qaeda strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is known as KSM….

Nearly half of those implicated in Pearl’s abduction-murder — at least 14 men with some alleged involvement — are thought to remain free. The list includes guards, drivers, and fixers tied to the conspiracy.

What will happen next is unclear. I think Pakistan feels like they’ve washed their hands of Pearl’s death, and without Pakistan’s help there isn’t much the U.S. can do.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 20, 2011 | 1:26 pm

Los Angeles: rudest city in the country

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

My pastor, the Rev. Mark Brewer at Bel Air Presbyterian, often talks about making “LA the greatest city for Christ.” I’d say LA Christians have a long way to go. Via L.A. Now:

Maybe it’s all those frustrated people stuck on the freeways -– honking horns and flipping the bird. Or maybe it’s the notoriously annoying lines through security and customs at LAX. Whatever the reason, visitors voted Los Angeles the rudest city in America, according to a recent Travel & Leisure magazine survey.

Yup, that’s right. Ruder than New York.

Well, it least we have the best Jewish delis in the country.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 20, 2011 | 11:59 am

Miss America: from home school to the White House?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin notwithstanding, I’m not much for beauty pageants. That being said, I’m a little late to the latest Miss America party. But it turns out that Teresa Scanlan, who was crowned last weekend, is an interesting character for this blog.

My GetReligion colleague Sarah Pulliam Bailey has filled in some of the Scanlan details here. In short, Scanlan is an evangelical Christian who was homeschooled and will be attending Patrick Henry College next year. She also has rather lofty ambitions, according to People:

The Nebraska-born beauty wants to attend law school, with dreams of someday becoming a Supreme Court Judge. From there, she has plans to set herself up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., as president of the United States. “I certainly hope” to become president someday, she told the Las Vegas Sun. But since one can’t run for that office until the age of 35, she admits, “I’ve got another lifetime to wait.”

Not that I would expect the people at People to know this, but the U.S. Supreme Court does not have judges; it has justices. As for Scanlan’s career goals, I think law school, after college she actually ends up going, will bring her back down to earth.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 19, 2011 | 1:02 pm

Sargent Shriver and God

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Kennedy biographer Laurence Leamer was on NPR this morning talking about Sargent Shriver, who died yesterday at 95. Shriver was a legendary figure in the world of public service and well-known if far less successful in politics. He was also a devoted Catholic, and it was Leamer’s response to Shriver celebrating Mass most mornings that caught my attention:

I asked him once, Why do you go to Mass every morning? And he said, Because I need God everyday. He was indeed a public servant of a kind we do not have very much of anymore.

That reminds me of Martin Luther’s great line that he was “too busy not to pray.”

The Catholic Online has more about the great pro-life liberal Catholic.

1 Comments — Leave your comment