News Articles Books

Jack Fischel's review can itself now be reviewed at Amazon. (It does seem a little funny to be writing a review of a review). The content of Fischel's review is disappointingly slanted, and I expected better from a mainstream periodical such as MIDSTREAM.

To begin with, Fischel not only accepts the dubious version of events at Jedwabne propounded by Jan Thomas Gross, but does so hook, line, and sinker. To top it all off, he even attacks those who challenge Gross for "refusing to accept his evidence". Incredible! Since when are scholars just supposed to accept the claim of a particular writer without question? And what about the shoddy nature of Gross' so-called evidence?

Fischel criticizes Polish scholars Bogdan Musial and Tomasz Szarota not only for daring to disagree with Jan Thomas Gross, but also for what Fischel considers the undermining of Holocaust historiography itself. Musial is quoted as pointing out that the entire Second World War has now become reduced to the Holocaust, while Szarota adds that the attitude towards the Jews has replaced the struggle against Hitlerism as the primary measure of morality during World War II. Would Fischel actually have us believe that nothing much happened in World War II except the genocide of Jews, and that the 2-3 million murdered Poles are supposed to be consigned to an Orwellian memory hole? Fischel even complains that the annihilation of European Jews by the Nazi Germans is diminished by the attitudes of these Polish scholars. In view of the fact that the fact of 5-6 million murdered Jews is well known all over much of the world, how could this even be potentially true?

Fischel repeats some rather primitive Polonophobic remarks, such as the one about few Poles doing anything to rescue Jews. In actuality, Poles did more to rescue Jews than any other German-occupied nation, and did so under vastly more difficult conditions than, for example, the much-acclaimed Danes. In accepting Gross' version of events at Jedwabne, Fischel also repeats the charge that Poles share the burden of moral culpability in the Holocaust. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If so, then Jews also share the burden of moral culpability for the sufferings of the Poles, even if in fact it was only a small fraction of Poland's Jews that assisted the Soviets in the arrests, imprisonments, deportations, and killings of Poles.

Unfortunately, Fischel is not up to date in his analysis of the tragic events at Jedwabne, although he may not have been aware of it at the time he actually wrote his review. A book published several months before Fischel's review article appeared (Chodakiewicz, Marek Jan. 2005. THE MASSACRE IN JEDWABNE, ISBN 0880335548, available from Amazon) meticulously examines ALL the evidence relative to the Jedwabne massacre, not just the small sample of mostly-hearsay individuals selectively quoted by Jan Thomas Gross. Archeological evidence itself practically eliminates the possibility of a spontaneous or quasi-spontaneous Polish pogrom. The preponderance of actual eyewitness testimony, both Jewish and Polish, implicates the Germans and not the Poles as the main perpetrators of the Jedwabne massacre. The Polish involvement in the roundup and guarding of Jews is shown to be subsidiary to the Germans and probably not consensual to begin with. Finally, there is no compelling evidence of the Poles taking part, consensually or not, in the torching of the Jew-filled barn. The latter, in fact, bears all of the hallmarks of a classic German atrocity. For those readers seriously interested in the Jedwabne massacre, I recommend Chodakiewicz without reservation.

The article is a very light overview without the detail necessary to be useful to a patient. Bottom line: Exercise is good for chronic conditions. You will need other resources, a physical therapist or a trainer to figure out what those exercises should be.

I think this article was seriously in error. It advised Israel to present its case to the International Court of Justice. I think Israel was right not to do so. Basically, the ICJ is perverse, much like some of the worst German courts of the 1930s and 1940s. I think it is wrong to show anything but contempt for it.

Getting rid of the security fence between Jews and Arabs has some probable consequences, all of which the ICJ appears to like. First, it will hurt Israel. Second, it will help promote terror (and retaliation for it). Terror will kill more Jews, and make Israel less secure and less prosperous. Retaliation will cause Arab deaths that antizionists can blame on Israel.

That's not what this article says.

Wertheim does admit that the General Assembly used some leading language to submit the question to the ICJ. First, it asked what the legal consequences were arising from the construction of "the wall being built by Israel" when in fact most of it is a fence. Then it referred to Israel as "the occupying Power" when in fact the land the fence is on is at worst disputed. It also refers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as belonging to some other entity, but this is not the case, nor has that entity ever existed. And it refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Although that Convention does not actually apply to this case, the clear desire is to have it misapplied here.

The author argues that by pointing out the UN's lack of reference to the suicide bombings that caused the security fence to be built and UN's attempt to prejudge the case, Israel could have shown that the General Assembly was out of line. But so what? Even Wertheim admits that the ICJ would still have been unlikely to turn down the case. I think it is a mistake to recognize perverse courts at all.

And, of course, the rest of the article is like this, pointing out all sorts of afactual and illogical elements of the anti-Israeli case. Again, so what? The ICJ was not interested in truth or justice. It was in no mood to listen. I see no advantage in giving such people credibility by making serious statements to them.

My recommendation is simple. Permanently refuse to recognize the ICJ. Ignore its rulings. If anyone ever has a chance to put the ICJ members on trial for war crimes, then perhaps we'll have something to discuss.

I generally use Linksys equipment for home and small business wireless networks. I tried the Linksys Signal Booster and found it to be problematic from a number of perspectives. Difficult to configure and would not maintain settings through a power loss. I am a 20 year IT professional and have worked with networking in a variety of situations for years. Bottom line is this particular unit is now in a box of junk computer equipment. I still use and recommend the Linksys routers and Access points, etc. when properly configured. As an alternative, I happened on a US Robotics Wireless Range Extender (I didn't even know they had added wireless equipment to their long standing modem line) which integrated quite nicely and simply with my Linksys hardware, was very easy to configure, including the ability to restrict MAC addresses at the Extender along with other basic security standards. I've be running the US Robotics Extender for about a year now and other than the occasional need to IPL, it has performed quite nicely.

It is only one page. I'm a parent of a teen with spina bifida. I learned nothing. It says, basically "There is a need" and "We were lucky". No how-to, no strategies ... nothing that can be used to try to help get care for someone who really needs to stay in a team enviornment. Sigh.

The article itself is somewhat informative, but can be found elsewhere via Google for free. amazon.com is the real problem not putting the article in my digital box for days despite multiple complaints and requests. There is no procedure for getting a refund even though amazon claims there is. Nor was a refund request via e-mail honored.

As to the content of the article, both pro and con have legitimate statements to make, but let's face it, stents are putting surgeons out of business more and more.

Enter comment

I was under the impression when I purchased this ebook that it was, in fact, a book - or, at least, an indepth article. For $5.95 I certainly expected more than 1 and 3/4 pages of type. This is such important information but I could have easily read it for free at the library. I am very disappointed in the lack of information in this very short article for such a very high price.

Sincerely,
Elaine Suranie

From the title, this sounds like more of a review than it really is. It's basically just a description of the Blinkx desktop search engine, with some information about its features that you could find on the Blinkx site for free. The review does put Blinkx in some context, but there's no comparison with other desktop search engines. Though the writer throws in a few statistics on search, they're long outdated. Better reviews are out there, free; don't waste your money.

This article, all $5.95 of it, is only 379 words long. It does NOT include statistical data. It is a news brief about a lecture given by someone else. It doesn't tell you anything you don't already know: eat less, move more, keep at it, monitor yourself, and get support. That is hardly worthy of Amazon.

I own the audiophile LP version of these performances and was quite disappointed. The 1812 build up is brushed off in order to get to the main piece of business: noises, gunfire and un natural mixing levels changes during the climax -bells are over the top-. Effects over essence, no drama just the anticipation of spectacular that once it comes, is a let down. A paltry compared to the skillful tension buildup Sir Adrian Boult created for Decca, in mono but much, much more exciting than Alwyn's fluff.
The Italian Capriccio fares better but could have been more organic: this is the case of an average, unimaginative conductor given great musicians to work with. The Slave March is in the same vein and only the recorded quality makes the side B worth the 2 stars rating.
Decca should offer us back the Boult version as it is without contest the best of the 1812.