Gojim naches ist ein hebraeischer Ausdruck, der sich nicht uebersertzen laessgt, und der so treffend etwas charakterisiert, wie es keiner Sprache beser und erschoepfender moeglich ist. Die Erklaerung ist mannifgfaltig. Das Thema: Gojim naches ist unerschoepflich.
Ein Beispiel: Versetzen wir uns in die Vorkriegszeit, wo wir noch beglueckt und zufrieden under dem Joche der Kaiser und Koenige seufzten.
Kaiser Willhelm wird am 12 November, morgens um 7 Uhr, zum Besuch unaseres Kaisers Franz Joseph am Nordbahnhof erwartet.
Um 6 Uhr frueh steht eine ungeheure Menschenmenge Kopf and Kpf Spalier, vom Nordbahnhof ueber die ganze Praterstrasse bis zum Ring, und wartet. Es regnet--gemischt mit Schnee--ein Sturm peitscht den Wartenden diese vom Himmel kommende breiartige Substanz in die Gesichtszuege.
Da plotzlich heisst es: der Hofzug sei wegen Schneeverwehungen um einige Studen verspaetet und kaeme erst um 10 Uhr.
Die Menge bleibt stehen und wartet.-- Kein Mensch ruehrt sich von seinem Platze.
Nach vierstuendigem Ausharren geht eine Bewegung durch die Reihen. Ein bummfest geschlossener faehrt im rasenden Tempo vorueber--es sind vier weisse Handschuhe durch die vom Regen angelaufenen Fenster des Wagens zu sehen.
Die Menge schreit begeistert: "Hoch!" und geht dann befriedigt und mit einem Riesenschnupfen nach Hause.
Das ist Gojim naches!
P.S. In die Kategorie besonders erschwerenden 'Gojim naches' -- wird das Bergseigen - Fussballspielen -- Wettlaufen und Studium der alten Sprachen gezaehlt.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
A fine and timely Carroll column from the Boston Globe
JAMES CARROLL
Preach peace in Holy Week
NOW BEGINS the most sacred week of the Christian year — and the most dangerous. In Holy Week down through the centuries, mobs have poured out of churches in search of Jews to harass and kill. (In 1096, beginning on Good Friday, Christians killed something like 10,000 Rhineland Jews in a few short weeks — Europe’s first pogrom). And why? The Passion narratives that Christians hear proclaimed from pulpits between now and Friday explicitly blame the murder of Jesus on “the Jews.’’ Mobs were avenging the death of the Lord.
In recent decades, Christians have begun to dismantle this lethal legacy — most dramatically by the Catholic Church’s formal renunciation of the “Christ killer’’ slander at the Second Vatican Council in 1965. But the troubling texts remain. “Let his blood be upon us and on our children,’’ the Jewish crowd is reported by St. Matthew (27:25) to have cried at the reluctant Pontius Pilate, forcing the Romans to crucify Jesus.
Each of the four Gospels cast “the Jews’’ in the role of villain, and Christians will hear that story repeated verbatim this week. The vast majority will believe they are hearing a report of what actually happened. The most open-minded of them will adopt an attitude of forgiveness toward the Jewish people (“Father, forgive them. . .’’), but that compounds the problem.
Although based on events that actually occurred (the Romans crucified Jesus), the Gospels are not works of history. They were not written by eyewitnesses. They have a polemical intent that does not originate with Jesus.
Despite the fact that, over the past century, mainstream scripture scholars have unanimously concluded that the biblical accounts of Jesus’ passion and death are widely at variance with what actually occurred (far from the man of delicate conscience portrayed in the texts, Pilate was a brutal dictator who would have thought nothing of ordering the death of a Jewish troublemaker like Jesus), very few Christian lay people know that. Few preachers ever confront the Passion story as a slander against the Jews.
Such a confrontation would begin with the questions, Who wrote the Gospels? When? And in what context? A brief review of the chronology might help. Jesus was murdered in about the year 30. In subsequent years, those who loved him kept his memory alive (especially over meals of bread and wine) by relating stories about him, retelling his parables, recounting his sayings, understanding him in terms of their scriptures (which, of course, were Jewish scriptures, since they were all Jews). An oral tradition about Jesus developed. The Christian movement was still essentially a Jewish sect.
But then, in the year 70, a catastrophic trauma occurred. The Romans savagely destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, generating a religious crisis of identity for all Jews — including the Christian Jews: What is it to be a Jew without the Temple? One group of Jews answered that now observance of the Law and study of Torah is key — the start of Rabbinic Judaism. The other group answered that now, Jesus is the New Temple — the start of the church. The two groups, in effect, were arguing over what it is to be a Jew. And that argument is reflected in the texts that only then began to be written down — the Gospels.
The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it dates to about 70. The latest is John, dating to about 100. In those three decades, the argument between Jesus-believing Jews (and their Gentile associates) and Jews who rejected claims for Jesus is reflected in the way the Gospels demonize “the Jews.’’
The point is that this polemic was written by people who were themselves Jewish, and for them the loaded phrase “the Jews’’ actually meant “those Jews who reject our understanding of Jesus.’’ When they define the Jews as the enemy of Jesus, they are writing about their own experience two generations after Jesus.
This week, Christian preachers must preach against these texts. Christians must hear these texts as if they are themselves Jewish, having foremost in mind that Jesus never stopped being a faithful Jew. If Christians had remembered that, and measured both their doctrines and their behavior against their Lord’s undying love of his own people, the history of the last 2,000 years would be very different.
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe. 
Sunday, March 28, 2010
How the Alsop brothers erred on Truman--and admitted it
show details 4:30 PM (0 minutes ago) |
There is something refreshing about going back to some of the old timers; i.e. Joseph Alsop who in his autobiographical I've Seen the Best of It reflects:
Sad to remember although (brother) Stew and I reported all this (Dewey's incompetent campaign)
it in no way changed our conviction that President Truman had no chance of victory. In advance,
the election of 1948 was judged to be the dullest in modern memory. Those of us whose
business it was to speculate were so dead sure of the outcome that, by mid-October, we had stopped paying attention. Indeed, by that time, Stew and I were regularly referring to the Republican candidate as 'President Dewey' in our columns, For our readers, on the day of the election we
solemnly predicted a Republican victory and fretted about how the country might survive the final weeks of Harry Truman's candidacy.
solemnly predicted a Republican victory and fretted about how the country might survive the final weeks of Harry Truman's candidacy.
- Show quoted text -
Fwd: Time for lunch...........
There is something refreshing about going back to some of the old timers; i.e. Joseph Alsop who in his autobiographical I've Seen the Best of It reflects:
Sad to remember although (brother) Stew and I reported all this (Dewey's incompetent campaign)
it in no way changed our conviction that President Truman had no chance of victory. In advance,
the election of 1948 was judged to be the dullest in modern memory. Those of us whose
business it was to speculate were so dead sure of the outcome that, by mid-October, we had stopped paying attention. Indeed, by that time, Stew and I were regularly referring to the Republican candidate as 'President Dewey' in our columns, For our readers, on the day of the election we
solemnly predicted a Republican victory and fretted about how the country might survive the final weeks of Harry Truman's candidacy.
solemnly predicted a Republican victory and fretted about how the country might survive the final weeks of Harry Truman's candidacy.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <thoshughes@aol.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Time for lunch...........
To: hraymont@gmail.com
I've got some conflicts but will lbe back in touch. Tom
From: <thoshughes@aol.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Time for lunch...........
To: hraymont@gmail.com
I've got some conflicts but will lbe back in touch. Tom
To: thoshughes@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 3:03 pm
Subject: Time for lunch...........
Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 3:03 pm
Subject: Time for lunch...........
Perhaps this coming week, after the Passover mischugas?
Abracos,
Onkel Heinz
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Computer idiots will remain computer idiots with blog or no blog
I am catching holy hell from my computer wise daughter for sending inane reflections on the email service to multiple destinies instead of confining them to this more reserved space. The fact is that
the email is more readily accessible, according to my fingers. Perhaps I shall eliminate the email service.
But it would be a bore to communicate that self-denying gesture to the list of people in Mexico, Argentina and other far-flung spots one is not evven aware of. So let me be, let me be and revel in my computer ignorance. Who said ignorance is bliss; well its thrice bliss in the computerland.
El Ludito (or should it be 'Luditoso'--the Luddite who makes a fuss)
the email is more readily accessible, according to my fingers. Perhaps I shall eliminate the email service.
But it would be a bore to communicate that self-denying gesture to the list of people in Mexico, Argentina and other far-flung spots one is not evven aware of. So let me be, let me be and revel in my computer ignorance. Who said ignorance is bliss; well its thrice bliss in the computerland.
El Ludito (or should it be 'Luditoso'--the Luddite who makes a fuss)
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Carlos Garcia Bedoya, Juscelino's great ally in OPA
BOLETIN N°8 - ARTICULOS Y NOTICIAS
Veinte años de ausencia del Embajador Carlos García Bedoya
arlos García Bedoya es el gran constructor de la política exterior del Perú, desde su condición de
Secretario General desde 1970 a 1976 y cuando cuatro años después es nombrado Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores desempeña el cargo por nueve meses de 1979, ejerciendo con brillo inusitado para cumplir los objetivos de sus propios planteamientos escritos en 1967 y practicados desde 1968. Siempre recordó a su maestro Raúl Porras y sus ideas sobre el Perú, lo acompañó así a Costa Rica a una penosa reunión de la OEA donde el Canciller Porras sostuvo criterios en contra, no siempre resultaron gratos y tuvo que renunciar en 1960, terminando su gestión en asegurar a los estudiantes de la Academia Diplomática, como la única fuente de personal al Ministerio impulsado por García Bedoya.
Luego de servir en Francia en la Embajada donde se prepara en encuentros con Pérez de Cuellar y Felipe Solari, Embajador en Suiza y funcionario en Ginebra, para tener avances sobre sus propósitos de manejo sobre sus estructuras a futuro. A su retorno coincidió con el golpe Velasco, gobierno con el cual pudo felizmente perfeccionar su plan de política exterior desde la posesión de Secretario General, para luego ejercer un paréntesis de Embajador en los Estados Unidos. A su retorno resulta finalmente Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores llamado por Morales Bermúdez, ejerciendo sus plenos derechos al manejo cabal de la Cancillería de su tiempo, renunciando luego para intervenir en el debate político ya que se trataba de cerrar los doce años de gobierno militar.
Es García Bedoya quien introduce una variable de modernidad en la Política Exterior del Perú, partiendo de un esquema conceptual sobre el Perú y su historia territorial que ocupó a la diplomacia anterior, ahora la situación internacional se vivía como proceso de distensión de la guerra fría, América Latina se sentía cuestionando los desniveles económicos con la identificación de su zona de influencia, mientras que en el Perú de la década de los sesenta empezaba la migración que luego terminaría en la transformando las características de país.
Veinte años de ausencia del Embajador Carlos García Bedoya
arlos García Bedoya es el gran constructor de la política exterior del Perú, desde su condición de
Secretario General desde 1970 a 1976 y cuando cuatro años después es nombrado Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores desempeña el cargo por nueve meses de 1979, ejerciendo con brillo inusitado para cumplir los objetivos de sus propios planteamientos escritos en 1967 y practicados desde 1968. Siempre recordó a su maestro Raúl Porras y sus ideas sobre el Perú, lo acompañó así a Costa Rica a una penosa reunión de la OEA donde el Canciller Porras sostuvo criterios en contra, no siempre resultaron gratos y tuvo que renunciar en 1960, terminando su gestión en asegurar a los estudiantes de la Academia Diplomática, como la única fuente de personal al Ministerio impulsado por García Bedoya.
Luego de servir en Francia en la Embajada donde se prepara en encuentros con Pérez de Cuellar y Felipe Solari, Embajador en Suiza y funcionario en Ginebra, para tener avances sobre sus propósitos de manejo sobre sus estructuras a futuro. A su retorno coincidió con el golpe Velasco, gobierno con el cual pudo felizmente perfeccionar su plan de política exterior desde la posesión de Secretario General, para luego ejercer un paréntesis de Embajador en los Estados Unidos. A su retorno resulta finalmente Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores llamado por Morales Bermúdez, ejerciendo sus plenos derechos al manejo cabal de la Cancillería de su tiempo, renunciando luego para intervenir en el debate político ya que se trataba de cerrar los doce años de gobierno militar.
Es García Bedoya quien introduce una variable de modernidad en la Política Exterior del Perú, partiendo de un esquema conceptual sobre el Perú y su historia territorial que ocupó a la diplomacia anterior, ahora la situación internacional se vivía como proceso de distensión de la guerra fría, América Latina se sentía cuestionando los desniveles económicos con la identificación de su zona de influencia, mientras que en el Perú de la década de los sesenta empezaba la migración que luego terminaría en la transformando las características de país.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)