Now Is The Time For Pants

For further reading on this subject within the Bigwhoop Universe, you can bring yourselves to these destinations:

Furst - http://furst.bigwhoop.org/archives/002826.html
Bess - http://bess.bigwhoop.org/archives/002828.html
AE - http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002827.html

HEY!
After reading this article I of course called home to get the low down...Hanna...I hope you are reading this...apprently people in Goshen are forming their own conclusions. I've already heard several instances of a family whose son happens to be named "Joe" being looked at in a new light. The people who are thinking this are of all different religious backgrounds.

Good, those who know who I am will come here, come to my website and see reality.

Perhaps we should all write letters to the OL' Indie....cause anyone who is from Goshen knows this will appear in the editorial or opinion section.

I haven't finished reading all the (vast) material here yet, but, as a Jew, a member of the Bigwhoop organization, and as a columnist for an area paper (catch me every 2nd and 4th Friday in the Chronicle!) I sure will. One question to start, though - Weiss converted? When did that happen?

For what it's worth, I was also an employee of the Times Herald Record at one point. And for irony's sake, I've been writing agonizingly liberal letters to the editor since high school. I invite them to pull up all of the material I've sent their way -- published and unpublished -- to arrange next to these current accusations in some sort of all-inclusive textual montage, so that readers can draw their own conclusions regarding what kind of person I am.

My goodness. As perhaps the least "professional" poster (and certainly the poorest communicator) of this site, I honestly don't feel up to the task of commenting on this, shall we say, "nonsense."

I think AE's response says it all - "...being irresponsible with the power of her medium..." Forgive the text taken out of context, but I believe her meaning is simply that it is one thing to post on bigwhoop saying you're disgusted with Christians, or all whites are arrogant bigots, but it is entirely something else to utilize your journalistic power and narrowly targeted reader base to further your own agenda against someone.

If H had simply posted her feelings on this site, I can only imagine that it would result in all kinds of back and forth among the opinionated folks here, but it would certainly be without malice. Now, she's gone and told her entire reader-base, who likely have no source other than her slanted editorial. I'd like to at least see a link to related material somewhere in there so people could gain a perspective. Certainly all the poster's here have done that...filthy liberal media. :)

Not to make light of this whole situation (honestly, I am entirely out of the loop since I have no direct connection with Goshen and never read the original words at stake), but someone needs to inject some antidote before it gets to virulent around here. I can't help but think that Bigwhoop has been dooced, except it needs a new word, because that word has already been taken.

"Dooce" now means (I don't think it had any previous incarnation) "to lose one’s job because of one’s website." For more information about this, visit Dooce.com. Incidentally, Heather Armstrong, the writer behind this blog was just on a segment of ABC News. She writes a good blog...if you have time to read or procrastinate.

Anyway, so any suggestions for a word for this little nipple-twister that's caused all this grief?

Exactly. The issue is totally NOT whether or not Furst, Bess, etc. are or aren't anti-semites. They are clearly not, and I refuse to believe that this is not obvious to Hannah and her sister, who grew up with Eric and Bess.

The issue is the irresponsible manner that Hanna went about revealing what she perceived to be a childhood-memories-altering travesty committed against her and her family. The TH Record published something that was more or less a personal diary entry in the form of an approved editorial.

Kerwin, this is sort of like our back and forth on our personal disagreement about the lady friend a few years ago. It was stupid enough in the emails we sent each other, and it's embarassing that either of us let it flow into the borderline public space of our websites. Of course, what happened here would be like if we had driven to each other's hometowns and written articles, citing things out of context from the entire history of our personal emails with each other, for local publication in order to defame the other person and their family.

Actually, that's a horrible example. That actually would be funny if you and I did it- whereas the reality here is not and won't be.

The fact that they chose "go to print" over "quick email to people we think of as friends" brings their intent into question. It's fine that they were hurt or confused by what they read, but I remain unconvinced that creating a public spectacle is a more suitable response than a two minute phone call or email for clarification.

Please at least get your facts straight. Hanna did first post to Eric's site. The following is the exchange (in which it seems you engaged). Not exactly the apology you suggested would come from such a comment (you wrote: "Say you had emailed or posted with a simple "so, uh, are you guys really all anti-semitic agenda promoters?" we probably could have steered you into a more accurate view of what was going on.")
Had that indeed happened, I am sure much could have been avoided. see my posting on Eric's site.

The following was the exchange, and Hanna's "reward" for addressing you all first, on your terms.

i hope you guys aren't planning on running for office. did you really mean to highlight your anti-semitism on the web?
Posted by: hanna on January 27, 2005 10:14 PM

I think I'm still clear to run for public office if we look only at this post. Any rulings?
But in general, yes, I think you've stumbled upon the site's mission statement: "highlight anti-semitism on the web". It's just an overview, the high points if you will. Not really promote, necessarily, just highlight. And only as it pertains to the web. Oh, how I've missed your luxuriantly thin skin.

Well, looks like the gang's all here now.

Posted by: E1st on January 27, 2005 10:39 PM

Yes, Furstie, discussing Karl's 5 middle names is clearly anti-semitic behavior. So is not knowing how to spell bat mitzvah. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And if I ever decide to run for office, I will beg you to delete my comments from this post. It can never be known that I declared that 1990s Goshen was run by the parents of its 5 Jewish kids, via a hidden command center in the basement of the Trotting Horse Museum.

Posted by: Bess on January 27, 2005 11:58 PM

No no...it CAN and SHOULD be known, because that's actually true! I'd use their actual names, but as I've pointed out before, there are certain people in Orange County who would profit considerably from my "untimely demise", as it were. I believe that any more public name calling (I've already identified the county executive) would rattle the wrong skeletons and what have you, possibly motivating them to bring their plans for me into fruition.

Posted by: jankowski on January 28, 2005 12:58 AM

Yes, and -- having grown up with Eric -- Hanna should have seen the obvious sarcasm that we all responded with as any of: 1) evidence that we were SO non-anti-semitic that we assumed her charge of anti-semitism was also being said in jest. 2) A call to clarify that she was, in fact, personally offended and not being sarcastic, and could we please state whether or not we actual thought of her primarily as a jew or not, because she was about to expose our families as hate-mongers in a publication read by essentially everyone in our community that we know, love and care about. 3) An opportunity for you to email Bess and say "Bess Jankowski, we've always admired each other - do you secretly hate me for my judaism?"

I mean come on, that thread was about people with lots of middle names, Furst's adolescent crush, "bar mitzvah showdowns", the mathematics of fraternal vs. identical twins, the eggs I had for breakfast, the boston red sox and the since-removed horrific color scheme on his website that day.

Hardly a serious discussion, let alone one filled in any way with hate. In fact, even looking back at it in retrospect, knowing that it's offended someone, I still think those comments are funny.

Take mine for example -- it's utterly, ridiculously, hilarious. I've combined sarcasm and a non-existent conspiracy against me to imply that a circulatory condition I was hospitalized for nearly a year ago was being carried out by government officials in a county that I haven't lived in fulltime for seven years. If that's anti-semitism, then I'm an anti-semite.

Becca, where in Hanna's initial comment--

"i hope you guys aren't planning on running for office. did you really mean to highlight your anti-semitism on the web?"

--does it indicate that she's hurt?

Because, honestly, when I saw her comment, I thought that she herself was just sort of pulling our legs; you know, the whole "better not try to run for office anytime soon" poke. I say that to people all the time, in response to a variety of words and actions. I've never said it to express hurt, though.

Likewise, I personally viewed the anti-semitism part of her comment as just so off-base -- since there's NO anti-semitism anywhere to be found in the post -- that it didn't even cross my mind that she genuinely took offense.

We engage in numerous kinds of discussion here -- race, religion, science, pop culture, sports -- and we are KNOWN for EXHAUSTIVELY debating things back and forth and back and forth and back and forth until it at least LOOKS like at some point MAYBE an agreement can be reached. If any of us had a CLUE that Hanna really took offense -- or for that matter, was hurt -- we would have immediately discussed things right then & there, for clarification of both sides, no questions asked.

That's just what we DO here.

Is it possible you all might want to reconsider your definition of "anti-Semitic"? You do not have to hate Jews or want to kill them to make an anti-Semitic comment. And you certainly do not have to intend anger, or be aware of the possible subconscious underpinnings of what you say, to be hurtful and to owe someone an apology.

As for the debate any of us 'should' have engaged in with you all--this was not our forum or a group we felt all that comfortable with, for reasons that should now be obvious to you all. If you want to publish statements about someone on the web that will be found when that person is googled, and add to that comments that are taken by many objective observers to sound like textbook anti-Semitism--you really can't be surprised or angry when that person chooses to publish her response in a different, more neutral, forum. You published much less self-reflective statements on the web about my sister. I cannot understand your outrage in response to her publishing her feelings on the subject without even using your names. You can't always dictate all the terms of the game, just because you started it.

Okay, I've given up on reading everything that's been written, because every time I get close more is added, like the Greek guy in hell with the rock.

Um...that was no offense meant to Greek people, by the way.

So, I want to comment on the two main points of contention - was the post in question Anti-Semitic, and should a column have been written about it?

I'm warning you here, no one's going to like what I say. So let me say up front that none of this is meant to reflect on anyone personally. Those of you I know I like, and those of you I don't know seem just dandy. Here goes.

Basically, as someone who googles his own name (my number 1 link is at some Spider-Man website), I tried to put myself in the situation of finding that same thread but with my name on it. Say I had actually had my Bar Mitzvah at the Trotter (I was rocking the Temple Social Hall, son). Would I have been offended if someone pointed out that that had happened? No, especially if Furst was invited, but probably not either way.

Here's where it gets sticky, and again, this is not meant to disparage anyone. I don't think anyone's actually Anti-Semitic, I'm merely talking about how I would have viewed it if I were in that position.

I think Hannah was well within her rights to take Bess' comment as Anti-Semitic.

The thing to bear in mind here is context. If someone had said, "There's five Jewish families in town, and all of them are shiftless and lazy," then I would take it to be a stab at humor. If someone said "There's five black families in town and all of them are shiftless and lazy," then you would have to strongly consider that that person is, if not racist, at least expressing a racist opinion. There's a historical context to African Americans being stereotyped as lazy, and there's a historical context of Jews being stereotyped as running things. Combined with the fact that, nowhere in her comments does Bess engage in anything more than mild hyperbole (I've frequently said that there were more churches than Jews in Goshen, so there's a difference between exaggeration and outlandishness), and the fact that there's at least a grain of truth to the assertion, in a town where Jews have recently been Mayor and many other elected offices, I think a reading of that comment as Anti-Semitic is entirely reasonable.

Now, have things unfolded from there in a reasonable manner? I agree with Bess that there's nothing in Hannah's post to suggest anything other than she's joining in on the fun. Further, I agree with Rebecca that, knowing that she wasn't joining in on the fun, there was no incentive in other people's replies to cause Hannah to continue to try to engage people in that manner.

Here's where things start to fall apart. If it were me, and the person who was saying these things was a friend from high school, I would have emailed her, especially since there's no research work in getting her email address.

Frankly, I think Hannah's column could have benefited from this approach. On Furst's blog, Rebecca says that it wasn't easy growing up Jewish in Goshen. I myself have had coins thrown in my path as I walked, as she mentioned. Therefore, Hannah's initial hypothesis that she had grown up in a town free, as far as she could tell, of Anti-Semitism seems flawed.

I don't argue with her ability, as a writer, to deal with issues that personally affect her. However, wouldn't it have been a richer column if she had reached out to the people who did her perceived injuries, or at least the ones she considered friends? Wouldn't she then be able to write about the Anti-Semitism she experienced growing up, and how she witnessed it again, regardless of intention, on the web, and how through conversation she was able to understand why someone she respected would say that, and hopefully educate other people about how others view their words, even those said in jest? At the very least, a column on this subject would have left out the speculation of the Anti-Semitism of these people's families, which was the most unfortunate part of the writing.

So basically, no one's blameless. People say things in a public forum without thinking of how people who aren't in on the joke will take it. People express their outrage in another public forum without trying everything in their power to get a full understanding first.

I'd like to think that we as an online community and as a physical community can get past this. I'd like to think that Eric and Hannah can have a talk, and Rebecca and Bess can have a talk, and everyone can understand everyone else's point of view on this.

But how can we, when the media is run by the Portugese, who everyone knows have three eyes and psychic powers?

From someone who is often hurt by words said and written on the plethora of Bigwhoop pages, I can understand the confusion, frustration, pain of this situation. Sure, maybe Eric shouldn't have posted any full names. Maybe Bess's comment was offhand (which she apologized for specifically in her letter), but don't group everyone's actions and intentions into one. Clumping Matt, Bess, Eric, myself, AE and anyone else into a "you" isn't completely accurate. There was no intention of hurt in those comments, as Matt was saying. I would definitely say it could be argued as insensitivity, but try to see the intentions.

I know it's hard to go back and see what actually was there at this point in the situation. I must say that the intentions that were used in response to the hurt from the thread has resulted in a situation which is now completely out of control. Maybe it should have been forseen, but don't blame those without malicious intent for not seeing these very specific personal attacks as natural consequences.

I'm not from Goshen, I only know people caught up on one side of this situation, so perhaps my opinions do not matter. I do care about these individuals and I know that they care about resolving this.

Rebecca - you are correct, you need to be hurtful or wrong to owe someone else an apology. Has Hanna started drafting that yet? I think she's got both of those prerequisites covered.

As for the forum for discussion, I'm unsure what you mean about being uncomfortable. We welcome all reasonable participants, and encourage attempts at common ground and resolution over vague name-calling and sensationalized accusations. I thank you for, perhaps unintentionally, parallelling the stature and scope of our small web-based community with that of the Times Herald Record's opinion pages. Of course, given recent events, I must say that I think we have better quality control standards in place around here.

Justin - well said, and thank you. Please keep in mind though that not only would we need to clear the editorial blessings of those psychic, triclops Iberians, but we would need to physically route around the carwash blockade being set up by the team of blonde, swedish, bikini bimbos.

Justin--

Actually, there is someone blameless. Furst's parents are blameless. The Jankowski parents are blameless. They are the MOST blameless, as total non-participants, and they are in fact, the most blamed in Hanna's piece. She at least gives some sympathy to the poor children who were poisoned by their parents spewing anti-semitism over dinner.

And I'll note that there's been ZERO acknowledgement of that. Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, there's really been a lot to keep up with today, but I've seen ZERO responsibility taken for the smear against the Furst and Jankowski parents.

And as with Maceo, I'll acknowledge your point about the "control the town" comment. But I'm not going to concede that any comment in observation of the distinctions of any class of persons is de facto racist. That's absurd, and that's the extent to which they've taken this in their fervor to condemn the innocent. Oh how much more might have been accomplished if Hanna had simply said she was offended, as Furst recently did to me over my jocular --and unintentionally offensive-- use of the term "Xtian." And I don't agree with his assessment of it, and I think my intent counts, but his response to it, as a person a respect and appreciate , matters to me more. So I won't use it, since he plainly expressed his dislike of it.

But NEVER in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER did Hanna indicate that she was hurt by the comment, or did she futher investigate its intent or its origins or anything. And she's taken no responsibility for her response.

Really, I think concessions and reconsideration has been forthcoming from the people who were attacked, and nothing even remotely akin to self-reflection or contrition has been offered by Hanna, et al. I'm really disappointed that they find this collateral damage acceptable. It is as if to say, "SOMEBODY'S gonna pay, what's it to me if I've besmirched somebody totally uninvolved in my complaint."

I wrote to Hanna and her mother both. Very politely, I'll add, mom to mom, Jew to Jew, writer to writer. True to form, they couldn't deign to offer a civil response or any response at all. Infer from that what you will.

And Rebecca, I'll just add that perhaps it is YOU who should reconsider the meaning of 'anti-semitism. ' Just because you are a Jew and something hurts your feelings, does not make it an anti-semitic comment. Context DOES matter. Intent does matter. Clearly....

AE, I think a lot of what you're saying actually was covered in what I wrote. I do find the discussion of the parents unfortunate. And I do think this whole thing could have been avoided by discussion, which I mentioned above.

And I'll agree that not every observation about a group of people is racist. However, the notion of Jews as a group "in control" is not the same as saying most Jews value education in their children. The shadowy Jewish cabal sterotype has been around for hundreds of years and the distrust it breeds has been responsible for some of the worst acts humanity has ever witnesses. Am I saying that when Bess said that she was being Anti-Semitic, or even contributing to Anti-Semitism? No. I'm saying that it's the sort of thing you should take pause before saying, especially in a public forum, especially with nothing outwardly showing that you're joking. And, furthermore, if I discovered a thread somewhere where the subject of Judaism came up as a result of someone mentioning me, and then I read that comment, I'd be pretty taken aback.

Incidentally, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I once had a birthday party at the Trotter. I think Matt may have been there.

Fine, I admit it. I was hoping that this wouldn't come out publicly in all of this, but I did in fact attend Justin Aclin's birthday party at the Hall of Fame of the Trotter. I apologize to everyone and anyone who had money invested in the "matt jankowski never admits to being at the HOFT" contract - but, as Justin said, in the interests of complete and total disclosure it's only appropriate for me to come clean with my past.

I don't disagree with you about prior harms, Justin, but I don't think the public/private nature of these things has really been tested, and I'm just saying that the medium, as used, is more analogous to a clutch of people standing and chatting in the town square than it is to someone on a dais with a bullhorn or someone publishing their screed in a paper.

I have kept it civil and polite over the last 24, but really, I'm pretty disgusted. This was totally irresponsible chickenshit, but ultimately, it will stick with her longer than any of the good people she has harmed, because the same trick she used to launch her smear campaign is how we hire http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002837.html journalists nowadays. We google, just like clever Hanna.

And we can find out what else they've been up to besides the pretty little packages they present with their resumes. And I absolutely wouldn't want anyone so unaccountable and irresponsible on my staff, or any other. She would be a real liability.

Anyone who can smear an entire town, and crucify decent people over inadvertent offenses and malign completely uninvolved third parties is a loose cannon, and frankly, kind of a self-righteous weenie. Yeah, that was me calling names. So sue me.

Hanna Ingber had every opportunity to "reach out" and help with some "healing" or any other warm fuzzy conciliatory interaction, but true to form, she didn't bother with that any more than she bothered with civil discourse or fundamental journalism. She's making it up as she goes along, without regard for the consequences. It's cowardly.

I hope she builds her talent for dramatic fiction, because she sure as hell doesn't belong in journalism, though at least the evidence of that will be forever cached on Google. It could have been the whole kafuffle, and Hanna Ingber acting honorably, but that's not what she's left in the record of her witch hunt.

You even stripped her name out of your post. Given the way her family and their supporters have been throwing around names, I think they want for people to find it. I say more power to them, that's how this all started, and it's only fair that she face responsibility for her writing as I have for mine.

I meant "we". I'm so self-absorbed, damn.

I haven't gotten around to putting her name back in where I politely redacted it for the sake of containment. But anything else I have to say about this -- and I have a few things, believe me -- I won't be redacted her name. If y'all want to, that's up to you. I have slightly different issues with the kid by now.

Not the least of which is the cowardly way Hanna Ingber and her minions like going after the soft target. She doesn't mind using MY words to accuse YOU, but she doesn't have the huevos to go to the source. Accusing another Jew of anti-semitism doesn't have the same zing.

But as Becca said, just because you start the game doesn't mean you get to make all the rules.

I don't care what she wants to say as a pained and suffering private citizen, but if she wants to get up and wield the power of the press, which is still vastly superior to the power of the bigwhoop, she can expect to be taken to account. I'm sorry she had her feelings hurt as a Jew, even though she was childish and selfish and self-righteous and counter-productive and irresponsible in handling it. For and genuine discomfort she may have felt, I am sympathetic, as I originally expressed.

But for her abusive acts as a journalist, I give her no quarter. Anti-semitism isn't a joke, but she's made a mockery of it with her disingenous miseries. She's hurt people INDISCRIMINATELY with her spurious cries of subconscious bias, her outright accusations of parental hate-mongering. She couldn't even bring herself to take ownership for that, couldn't even offer an apology to the people she specifically defamed while smearing all of Goshen. That's a dangerously self-righteous attitude for someone who can operate under the protection of a masthead. She's a disgrace as a journalist, and if you wanna talk about who has influence, she'll have a lot more influence as a journalist than as a Jew. I'd like to make sure she doesn't get to abuse it any further.

AE - I can't believe you're jewish. I feel betrayed. I don't know why. I just wanted to make a negative comment about your religion because I find poking fun at belief systems to be infinitely more rewarding than making any positive contribution. Way to kill god.

...what?

Dearest, trusted Kerwin--

I am very disappointed. I would have thought you could muster a better poke than that. However, you may try again. Since you and I have traded jabs and jibes on topics from child abandonment to government intervention, I am well familiar with your habits of speech and interaction. I have reached a conclusion about the cut of your jib, and your jib is okay with me. I therefore give you my official permission to poke fun at my belief system or my culture.

If I find that your fun poking is beyond the bounds of good taste, or if I recognize in your fun-poking something with I regard as evidencing actual ignorance or ill-will toward my culture or religion, you can trust me to let you know in the manner to which you have become accustomed.

You can also trust me to continue to poke fun at your privileged, wealthy white-boy upbringing, and probably to continue to threaten you with pretty girls who might be carrying knives.

If other persons scrumming around the internet looking for things to be affronted about find your fun-poking comments at me and take offense, you may direct them to this official permission. If they take offense at me poking fun at you, they can whine to someone who cares, because I don't, and I'm sure you don't, because you are a privileged, educated white boy and you already got yours, so what's it to you what they think?

If they still don't like it, they can move to a totalitarian state, take power and control speech however they like, and get off our American backs.

Love,
AE

For the record, both Kerwin's jib and the cut of said jib is not ok with me.

I specifically retract any permission I may have once given him to denegrate myself or my people, and plan on responding to any such attacks with the power and weaponry of the fully operational battlestation whose command console I am now in control of. Or I will send him flowers.

Ah, yes, that's the way you handled these things in the old country...

How come your websites are all fun and fluffy while mine is Sanjay's legendary clusterf***? I'm about to tell them to drop their pitchforks and go home.

Yeah, how come? I feel like I've contributed sufficiently to this clusterf*** that I ought to be getting a little traffic out of all this. My stats are for sh**. Everyone can bring their pitchforks over to my farm if they want. What if I go ahead and stage the lynching? How about a hanging in effigy? Maybe I should serve refreshments; that always improves attendance.

By the way, Matt, I love the new Bigwhoop home page and how it's arranged with all the new posts feeding into it. Very convenient. Also, I love my picture. I've never looked more Jewish.

Based on its trickling, fairly relaxed tone of banter at the moment, I'm currently viewing my site as the smoking den to which all the male guests retreat -- following the main course provided by Furstie's page -- to sip sherry, puff on cigars, and hushedly discuss their new pied-a-terre purchases, while their wives are freshening up in the powder room.

Hey, while we're on break, can someone tell me what a cabal is? I'm guessing it's some sort of clandestine jewish organization, but I really have no clue.

I think that a cabal is just a generic term for a small group of scheming or plotting people. It's usually used to imply that what they are doing is at least in some way dishonest, or an attempt to control power, or whatever. So an example (in the Jewish context) would be the "there is a cabal of Jewish movie executives who control hollywood".

I feel like cabal is used in a non-culture-specific way more times than not though - so you'd see "cabal" used to just describe the organizational structure, rather than implying something about the types of members it has or who/what created the cabal.

AE, you don't even want to know how something like this would be handled in the old country.

It is used without respect to culture. The Webster's New Universal Unabridged cites both French and Hebrew origins, but the term apparently came into regular use in the old country, during the reign of Charles II, in referring to his ministry, the members of which were Clifford, Ashley, Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale, whose initials make up the word "cabal."
Cool factoid.

In Ms. Ingbers column she mentions a "Santa being put on a Jewish guys lawn". My name is Howard Weiss, and I am that "Jewish guy". OK, now that you know who I am, I get to have my say.
Santa was put there as a prank, a joke. Nothing more---nothing less. My son, Matt, Eric and the rest of the guys were all playing jokes on each other for a couple of years back then. Things my son did (or I did for that matter) do not make us anti-gentile or those guys anti-semetic. I have known the Jankowskis for 18 years, and no way would they preach or stand for any such intolerance.
Being the only Jew in my outfit when I was stationed in Oklahoma in 1966 I know anti-semetisim. Does it exist in Goshen. Probably, but thankfully very, & I mean very, few people are like that. Those same anti-semites also hate the African Americans, Italians, Mexicans and everyone else that is not like them.
Ms. Ingber, get a grip. The world is not perfect. Pick your battles. True bigotry is one thing, remain passionate and fight against it. Kidding between a bunch of guys is another. In this time and age of political correctness we sometimes tend to look for hidden meanings and when we suspect we have found one we overreact.

This whole thing is starting to cheer me up again. Just goes to show ... ya had to be there.

AND IF YOU WEREN'T, YOU'RE PROBABLY DOING SOME OLYMPIC CONCLUSION JUMPING!! Give the girl her medal.

Thanks for weighing in, Sarge. That was nice of you.

I'd like to add here - not that it matters but simply to contribute to the mystique and historical record we're forming here - that the original intent of the santa kidnapping was in fact to take pictures of the santa positioned in various places around town. Kinda like people with those travel gnomes or whatever. I'm not sure if it was going to be a "follow the trail" thing or not (where they'd ultimately recover the santa from where ever it appeared in the last photo we supplied), but the Weiss household was only the first stop on the planned santa journey the first time we did it.

I don't even think we were even aware enough of any religious connotations or offenses at the time to take that into consideration. A jewish person may have actually come up with, or at least inspired, parts of the idea.

Point being, we failed to properly follow through on the santa journey idea, but it ended up being kinda funny anyway, and now years later it's being used as evidence of hate crimes. I'd say for a poorly executed plan, that certainly got more notice than what we'd planned on.

That does it. I'm definitely going to rewrite that into a short story. For the Bulwer-Lytton, if nothing else.

"It was a dark and stormy night as Santa approached the Weiss porch ..."

This girl has no sense of humor, or context, does she? I know we have many socio-political-religious conversations here at the "whoopie", but I've never construed it as antisemetic. Am I missing something? For every Furst, we've got a 'me', an agnostic/athiest who doesn't believe in any of this. Come to think of it, I think I'M offended. :-)

I myself am a Jew and take no offense to the events that transpired.