If you’ve seen the trailer for Adam Sandler’s new movie You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, it may be tempting to write it off as yet another low-brow comedy aimed at fifteen-year-old boys and best avoided by everyone else. But wait. After Hollywood’s recent spate of dour axe-grinding films about Iraq, a fun movie featuring an Israeli counter-terrorist as the protagonist is a refreshing change, even if it is no more serious or realistic than a cartoon.
Sandler plays Zohan, an elite Israel Defense Forces commando who feels no pain, can do push ups with no hands, and can catch bullets fired at him in his nostrils. He’s a superhero, basically, and his oddly likable Palestinian nemesis (“the Phantom,” played by John Turturro) is an equally indestructible comic book arch-villain who also feels no pain and can defy gravity. Zohan’s trouble is that he’s tired of chasing bad guys, even though he’s very good at it. He would rather live in the United States and work in a hair salon. So he fakes his own death and smuggles himself to New York to get away from it all and live the American dream. There’d be no movie, though, if it were that easy. Zohan is spotted by a Palestinian taxi driver, and buffoonish Arab terrorist wannabes plot to take down the Zohan at his place of employment.
The film’s lead actor and co-author is a Republican, but of the Rudy Giuliani-supporting “South Park Republican” variety. Andrew Sullivan coined the phrase after South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker outed themselves as irreverent anti-leftists a few years ago. Matt Stone is a registered Republican, and Trey Parker famously said “I hate conservatives, but I really f***ing hate liberals.”
This, then, is no Mel Gibson movie. Gibson’s politics, in fact, are swiped at in this movie. No cultural conservative could possibly have written You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. Sandler’s character becomes the most sought-after hairdresser in New York City because he joyfully includes sexual favors for senior citizens as part of his salon service package. At no point in the film is there even the slightest suggestion that there’s anything wrong with promiscuous sex or brazen prostitution.
There’s a seriousness, though, beneath the surface of what is otherwise a ridiculous and crude cartoon with live actors. Israelis are portrayed as the good guys, which is not exactly what might be expected from Hollywood these days. Jokes are made at their expense, but the humor is not politically charged. Zohan brushes his teeth with hummus, for instance. His dad stirs it in his coffee.
American mall rats who buy theater tickets just for the laughs get a brief lesson on the Six Day War in 1967 and on Israel’s rules of engagement designed to shield innocent civilians from collateral damage. Zohan may be a raunchy comic book type of character, but he accurately represents most Israeli soldiers I’ve met in at least one way – he would much rather hang out with beautiful women on the beaches of Tel Aviv than fight Arabs. He’s easy to get along with as long as you are not trying to kill him. And if you are trying to kill him – watch out. The United States is correctly portrayed as a place where tension still exists between Israeli and Palestinian immigrants, but where that tension is also significantly muted and where some members of each community have pitched the old world hatreds over the side.
The second half of the movie gets even more silly and less believable when it begins to push a can’t-we-all-just-get-along message. Zohan’s boss, love interest, and the film’s heroine is Palestinian. The message is arguably appropriate, though, for a slap-stick American comedy. No one should expect a gritty, realistic treatment of tragic Middle East politics from a film like You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. The message, while a bit unrealistic, does manage to prevent a pro-Israel movie from becoming an anti-Arab movie, which is at it should be.
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan is not anti-Arab, nor is it really right-wing. It is far too juvenile and bawdy for that. But it’s refreshingly not leftist either. Those who love to hate Israel will hate Sandler’s new movie as much as Hezbollah and Hamas undoubtedly will.
Of course, if this is true, then we do not need to really worry about stimulus, global warming, or frankly even paying off that short term debt you may have.
“It remains a mystery why the White House isn’t taking a stronger hand in reworking the bill to improve it. After all, that is what Rahm Emanuel, in part, is there for — to restrain the worst impulses of the Democratic Congress. So far he’s not doing a very good job.”
Considering Obama is cut from the same cloth, politically, as Pelosi there may be nothing to restrain.
This is the time for a renewed Contract with America, where republicans put forth a real stimulus alternative, even if just for public relations.
1) Tax cuts
2) Spending cuts (balanced budget amendment, redux?)
3) No more bailouts, ever
Shame they blew eight years where this might have been a reality. We are being properly punished for their disgraceful ineptitude.
Getting yelled at by “Ari Gold” is not the best way to build a concensus. Granted, sometimes you need an enforcer, but if he is working it, Rahm is not showing any progress.
Better take a second eyeball at some of those programs before you get out the ax, warns Politico:
“STDs higher in Red States?
As we reported yesterday, the GOP has been sending out targeted press releases demanding to know how freshmen House Dems feel about the inclusion in the stimulus of $330 million in prevention funding for sexually transmitted diseases.
Several readers made an interesting point: Republicans are hurting their own constituents because the highest STD rates are in 2008 Red states.
We checked out the data. The claim, while not entirely accurate, has an element of truth.
AIDS is still, to a great extent, a disease of big city America and the states with the highest HIV rates are the ones with the biggest, most cosmopolitan cities — California, New York, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts and Illinois.
But three of the most prevalent non-AIDS STDs do seem to hit Red states disproportionately when it comes to infection rates, according to 2006 U.S. health data compiled by Avert, an international AIDS organization.
Gonorrhea: Seven out of the top ten states (Mississippi, S. Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri) are red.
Chlamydia: Six out of the top ten states (Alaska, Mississippi,S. Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee) are red.
Syphilis: Five out of the top ten states (Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee) are red.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/
Maybe conservatism is a stage of advanced venereal disease? Any doctors out there to verify?
When you unanimously oppose legislation that passes anyway, any bargaining power you might have had is gone. Who in hell needs to pay a single bit of attention to John Boehner except to laugh in his face?
“I’m concerned that bad process leads to a bad product,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who said he cast a “reluctant yes” vote.
The cynic in me says that he got a look at that poll making the rounds where independents are suddenly not very pleased with this trainwreck of a bill.
Um, Obama’s never run anything in his life. His chief-of-staff is a political hack and career legislator. Are we supposed to be surprised that Congress is trying to run all over him?
Inkwell
You write;
“But three of the most prevalent non-AIDS STDs do seem to hit Red states disproportionately …”
then you go on to add,
“Syphilis: Five out of the top ten states (Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee) are red.”
Hmmm..?? I assume that the other five are not so “disproportionatey” red. What color the other 50% be, “disproprtionately” and all?
“When you unanimously oppose legislation that passes anyway, any bargaining power you might have had is gone. Who in hell needs to pay a single bit of attention to John Boehner except to laugh in his face?”
Less bargaining power, yes. No bargaining power, hardly. If the republicans have no bargaining power as you say, then why did Obama himself (not Pelosi or Reid) meet with them? To show how post-partisan he is? Yeah, right. No, he needs them for political cover in case this train wreck of a bill falls on its face. If it passes the Senate in similar unanimous fashion, or close to it, then the democrats will own this. That means if the economy doesn’t start to recover by the end of ’09, the D’s are going to get trounced in the mid-terms. Might not lose their majority but certainly would bring some balance back to the House and/or Senate.
Sorry meant to say “If it passes the Senate in similar fashion with no republican support, or close to it, then the democrats will own this.”
#9
Complain to Politico. It’s their article, which I think I made clear.
Rahm Emanuel will not do the Republicans’ work for them. They will have to remain loud, determined, unified and coherent to scare Barry straight. Btw, this blog’s censorship software would have closed down George Carlin a lot quicker than the FCC.
f the republicans have no bargaining power as you say, then why did Obama himself (not Pelosi or Reid) meet with them? To show how post-partisan he is?
Obama met with them because, during his presidential campaign, and in his books, he called for a reduction of partisan tensions. He was fulfilling a promise. It’s a variant of truth, which is something the dual-citizen traitor Bund wouldn’t know if it hit ‘em in the face, and in fact actively disdains.
From here on out, if I were Obama I’d keep meeting with them but with respect to the specifics of any legislation I’d be a much tougher bargainer. I wouldn’t ever again start out by, for example, including Republican-suggested tax cuts in my stimulus legislation. I’d make the Republicans scream, shout, squirm, and grovel for every last inch of ground.
“Maybe conservatism is a stage of advanced venereal disease?”
Better the temporary bane of STD’s than the permanent dementia of liberal ‘solutions’.
#7
“The cynic in me says that he got a look at that poll making the rounds where independents are suddenly not very pleased with this trainwreck of a bill.” — ECM
Gallup:
52% of the nation’s adults are in favor of Congress passing the plan and 37% are opposed, while 11% have no opinion.
“Current attitudes about the plan remain strongly partisan. Nearly three in four Democrats (73%) favor its passage while 59% of Republicans are opposed. Political independents are closely split, with 46% in favor and 40% opposed … .”
That’s pretty decent support for a spending program that no one is thrilled about. Republicans barely have majority support within their own party for opposing the package.
f it passes the Senate in similar unanimous fashion, or close to it, then the democrats will own this. That means if the economy doesn’t start to recover by the end of ‘09, the D’s are going to get trounced in the mid-terms.
I don’t think so. The name of your lying, incompetent, floor-crawling drunk of a Republican former president is going to live for a long time. Democrats are going to be running against George W. Bush for a long, long time. And if the Republicans sit there and vote against attempts to clear up your ex-fuhrer’s mess, they’ll be crushed even worse. Just wait. You’ll see.
#6,
You keep laughing Johnny boy.
When this blows up in the dems face, when it becomes undeniable that, faced with financial crises they used it as cover to feed at the public trough…when they OWN this debacle of a ‘bill’, then it will be clear that they gave not a whit for the ‘greater good’ nor main street.
The ‘chickens will start to come home to roost’ and you’ll have egg all over your face. We’ll see who’s laughing then.
As the bard so eloquently put it, “He who laughs last, laughs best”
But it’s NOT an ‘attempt’ to clear up any mess, is it? It’s just an attempt to get money for the democrats special interest groups pet projects. And when it puts the country into even greater financial peril the true allegiance of liberals will be clear to all.
“$150 million for honey bee insurance”
Hahah… I don’t even know what that means.
“Obama met with them because, during his presidential campaign, and in his books, he called for a reduction of partisan tensions. He was fulfilling a promise…..I’d make the Republicans scream, shout, squirm, and grovel for every last inch of ground.”
Sounds post-partisan to me!
“And if the Republicans sit there and vote against attempts to clear up your ex-fuhrer’s mess, they’ll be crushed even worse. Just wait. You’ll see.”
After cutting through your invective (which is tough), I disagree. He has already in a week’s time, rebuked several of Bush’s major platforms. So he has signaled that this is a new beginning (hey, elections have consequences). However, now he has no political cover for a trillion dollar bet. I don’t think voters are going buy the “it’s Bush’s fault” excuse after spending that kind of $$$, only to have a protracted recession. Just wait, you’ll see.
Matt, did the voters rebuke FDR in 1934? In 1936? In 1940? Nope. They blamed it all on Herbert Hoover.
Actually, Matt, the Dems may have to thread the needle even better. If the economy visibly begins to recover in a timely way – this Summer or even Spring as some economists predict – then the question will be what all that money that hasn’t even been spent yet (in many cases not even allocated) was for. If the economy doesn’t recover, then the question will be what the Bill was for, now that it’s obligated us another $1T beyond our means, to no apparent purpose.
I’m not saying that it’s a political-rhetorical impossibility, and no one can say what other unpredictable events might be intruding by 2010 – it wasn’t very long ago that high energy prices were KNOWN to be the all-dominating issue in America. Otherwise the comparison to Hoover/Roosevelt is highly inapt, even setting aside differences between the political cultures of the 1930′s and the ’00s, because Hoover had presided over 3 years of severe economic dislocation. The stock market crash took place during the first year of his administration. Unemployment had already reached 25% when FDR took office.
CK, well said. Nobody, including leading economists, has any idea whether we’ve seen the worst or if this is just the beginning of a long recession. Obama is “all in” on this stimulus bill to use a poker analogy, and his party owns it. If it pans out, he’ll take the credit. If he’s left holding a trillion dollar bag, D’s will pay the price.
#12
“But three of the most prevalent non-AIDS STDs do seem to hit Red states disproportionately when it comes to infection rates, according to 2006 U.S. health data compiled by Avert, an international AIDS organization.
Gonorrhea: Seven out of the top ten states (Mississippi, S. Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri) are red.
Chlamydia: Six out of the top ten states (Alaska, Mississippi,S. Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee) are red.
Syphilis: Five out of the top ten states (Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee) are red.”
So does a red state, which must be a state that gave its electoral votes to McCain, I guess, have only Republican syphilitics? Or are the conservatives infecting the utopians? It’s too bad that Mark Twain, who would certainly have been considered a liberal during his own lifetime, can’t get you in a verbal boxing ring. You’d be KO’d in round one and out for a week.
#6 John Hartland Says…
John, that’s called standing on principle – a new concept, I know. As a Republican/Conservative, why would a Representative want to be included among the supporters of such a colossal train wreck of legislation?
The Democrats can have this one soup to nuts.
Aah, the gusanitos crawl out again, with no mention (amazing!) of Marty Feldstein this time. Guess they’re still incapable of understanding (reading?) what he put in the WPost Jan. 29 (look it up).
52% of the nation’s adults are in favor of Congress passing the plan and 37% are opposed, while 11% have no opinion.”
That’s even worse than I suspected for Obama. It’s not 52% of registered voters or of likely voters, but all adults. It’s probably lower than 50% of likely voters and sinking all the time.
The STD states that were mentioned have large black populations. Your insinuation about Red Staters may well include a lot of Democrats.
I just heard Obama and his outraged comments about the bonuses given out in the financial industries. I fail to see any difference between that and the huge PORKULUS bill the Democrats are providing as their bonus for having won the election. We, the US, can NOT afford to waste all this money at a time when we may be going bankrupt!
Rahm is the man. He’ll be alright.
Obama met with Republicans because he does not like to dine at home. He is sure that his prettiness and sweet talk without any compromise will convince everybody to love and support him.
It did not work on Congressional Republicans, now is the time to try it on Mullahs.
But taking into account that ideologically Mullahs are closer, probably he will be ready to give them something, something not very important, like Zionist entity.
ok but wait, about the honeybees:
the loss of huge populations of American honeybees has started to have a disastrous effect on food production. you probably don’t realize how integral to the process the bee is! and recently large swarms have been dying off for mysterious reasons.
seriously: google it. I’m so not making this up.
so I’m good with with the honeybee insurance. at least it’s not redecorating the HQ of the Commerce Department…
$400 million for STD prevention? But bill Clinton isn’t President anymore, and Stinkwell isn’t even a special interest! Besides, its too late for both of them.
Hey stinky, how are your @$$ herpes? According to recent polls, they’re supposed to hurt.
the economy visibly begins to recover in a timely way – this Summer or even Spring as some economists predict
Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Sorry, whack job. Your lying, incompetent, drunken war criminal of a fake Republican former president screwed it up so thoroughly that the economy will be declining throughout 2009 and likely well into 2010. The public will be putting the blame where it belongs: On George W. “Herbert Hoover Rupublican” Bush. Do you know just how screwed you are? No, I guess you don’t.
the loss of huge populations of American honeybees has started to have a disastrous effect on food production. you probably don’t realize how integral to the process the bee is! and recently large swarms have been dying off for mysterious reasons.
This has happened because your incompetent, lying, corrupt, neocon Bund tool of a former Republican fake president put the chemical lobby in charge of pesticide regulation. The bees are dying of pesticide poisoning, and soon enough even the neocons will wonder why food is disappearing from the shelves.
Actually, the bees are dying of disease that seems to be spread by mites.
The honeybee insurance is another kind of agricultural subsidy. Yes, orchardists really have a problem when bees are decimated by disease. But natural calamities that harm people’s businesses happen all the time. I’d be in favor of funding research to figure out the case of the bee problem, but not honeybee insurance.
Though I agree it’s not as bad as redecorating the Commerce Department.
es, orchardists really have a problem when bees are decimated by disease. But natural calamities that harm people’s businesses happen all the time. I’d be in favor of funding research to figure out the case of the bee problem, but not honeybee insurance.
The research has been done. Your lazy, incompetent, corrupt, floor-crawling neocon drunk of a Republican fake president’s administration has refused to take action, for fear of crossing the chemical industry.
#17: “Democrats are going to be running against George W. Bush for a long, long time.”
Wishful thinking. This theme faded even in the latter part of the
2008 campaign.
A Democrat attempt to renew blaming Bush after some
future failures would sound mean-spirited, weak, and,
more importantly, it would sound as an attempt to
avoid responsibility.
Does “the buck stops here” – or did it stop with a
past president, never to get here?
Who’d the average suffering citizen rather
blame for his problems – someone in the present
government who can be held responsible, or someone
in the irretrievable past?
The former – because a present cause may be fixed;
while blaming the irretrievable past would kill hope.
BDS may still be alive on the Left margin – but Bush fatigue is
largely over among the masses. Will a Bush nostalgia set in instead?
Possibly, though one should not wish for it: its most likely cause
would be a major breach of American security…
Typo in #38.
Should be:
Does “the buck stop here” – or did it stop with a
past president, never to get here?
What, is there no frog tunnel anywhere in this bill? Obama is clearly falling down on the job.
#5, #12
Inkwell Says: “Complain to Politico. It’s their article, which I think I made clear.”
And it is a dishonest article. STDs are not all equal.
AIDS is more serious than chlamidia or gonorrhea, and costs
more to the community. Therefore this allocation disproportionally
favors blue states, not red states. Not that this matters:
it simply does not belong in a stimulus bill…