May a thousand George Soros's bloom. May Peretz, Kristol, et al get high blood pressure fretting about them.

Soros is exactly correct, after Iraq America needs much, much more than a superficial change of heart. If Soros put it inelegantly from the point of view of some people, that remains the case and needs to be said over and over again.

global citizen

Good post but are there Neo-Cons on the left?

Tom

Soros is right, though I'd say a better comparison to the US of today would be Britain during its most rapacious imperial period in the mid-late 1800's-- when the British killed many, many millions in India after Indians' attempted rebellion against British rule in 1857 (at least in the parts of India that Britain controlled), the concentration camps were begun in the Transvaal, genocide against the Australian native peoples proceeded apace and Afghanistan was invaded twice (with the British, of course, suffering disaster just as the Russians would in the 1980's).

Britain justified its murderous acts with the notion that it was "advancing civilization" which, of course, was little more than a cover for theft of resources. Similar to the US (and Britain again, curiously enough) today, with the claim of "spreading democracy" acting as a cover in the real objective in controlling the production and distribution of oil.

"Soros said Turkey and Japan were still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process.""

I'd say this applies doubly so to Britain and to some other Western European nations like Belgium with significant 19th-century empires and horrible atrocities in them. Irish people have never forgotten the British massacres there. Indians have never forgotten the bloody military operations and the sight of bloated corpses by the millions dead from starvation in the 1880's, even as Indian farmland was converted for cotton production en masse and available food was exported to Britain. South African Zulus have never forgotten the way their ancestors were brutalized in the British concentration camps, nor have Kenyans forgotten the Nazi SS-like British atrocities there in the 1960's. Same applies to the Yemeni and Cypriot civilians massacred by British forces in the 1950's and 1960's, even as the armed rebels in those countries eventually defeated the British and forced them out, just as the Algerians had done in France. Australian aborigines and New Zealand Maoris are still fighting for their basic rights to self-determination. All the while, Britain continues to hoard diamonds looted from its colonies among the crown jewels when it should be negotiating their repatriation, as Germany has done to its credit.

Thanks for that little TJking vignette on the life of George Soros. I don't imagine what Soros did or did not do as a teenager will absolve the neo-con's in their aiding and abetting war crimes today. For another opinion on the Iraq war from another Jew:

link

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

..."Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York.....

 

According to people I work with, Soros is insane and has some kind of grand plan to destroy America and profit from it by shorting dollars, which is why he supports Democrats and is critical of some aspects of American foreign policy. The more extreme people I work with believe he is insane, has some kind of grand plan to destroy America and profit from it by shorting dollars, and is a secret communist who wants to make America the new Soviet Union. I work in the securities industry; these people ought to know better, but the right wing has done such an excellent job of character assassination on Soros that these people really do believe this insanity. When I realized that I also realized how deeply in trouble this country is, trouble that goes much, much further than Iraq or George Bush. They are merely symptoms of a greater pathology.

Neocons, Bush and Cheney seem to have a deep-seated hatred of Europe and Europeans to the point where any reference to them immediately evokes vitriolic condemnation of whatever subject is at hand - and whoever has introduced it. Remember when Bush insisted in his '04 SOTU address that he would never "seek a permission slip" from any world body to do whatever he wanted? When Rumsfeld (or Cheney) referred to "old Europe" he really meant all of Europe?

That said, the neocon mantra (excuse) that they are promoting democracy world-wide sounds quite noble. (That's the con job they've successfully done on Bush who seems to have a savior complex.) Neocons don't get it that selling the wonderfulness of democracy to a guy while you're pointing a gun at him tends to lose something in translation. (Armed missionaries are seldom if ever loved.)

It's clear to most Americans and the rest of the world that the Project for a New American Century means the rest of world is scheduled to become America's cash-cow/playground no matter how many innocents the neocons have to have killed to bring it off.

The really scary thing is that John Kerry felt compelled to say something quite similar to the 'no permission slip' remark. Whan a nation spends as much on arms as all the rest of the world put together it is time to walk softly because that is a mighty big stick. Bragging about being willing to use that stick to control the world as PNAC did is a recipe for disaster including a wariness among nations that might have been allies, nuclear proliferation and more recruits for terrorism.

global citizen

While not exclusively a GOP problem, neocons roost primarily in the GOP right wing. As long as they do so, let the GOP deal with them. It's their problem and the more they ignore it, the more marginalized they'll become. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

What would be a better thing is to expose to the public exactly what the neoconservative agenda is, in their own words. Daylight will do more to discredit their political philosophy than all the protest letters and boycott threats in the world.

Sam Thornton

The neo-con philosophy is very simple to understand. It is this: whatever furthers US interests is good, whatever takes into account other's interests as well is bad.

Then the Administration should be described as would-be Neocons, because what they have wrought has certainly not been in the interests of the US.

I am still impressed with South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process. It brings out the truth by getting the perpetrators of the atrocities themselves telling the stories.

It has been obvious that since WW II the U.S. has spent money on the military rather than on health care and education for the population. It became clear that we could not afford to segregate 10% of the population, so desegregation was required to keep the military machine operating. Then the middle class found that it could no longer sacrifice the pay raises that should have come from productivity increases without both parents working. Good for women, but after about 1970 it was also bad for many families, because the government could not afford both the social services for families and the military too. Since 1970 it has also diverted the income from increased economic productivity into the Military industrial complex.

Is it a surprise that we spend more money that all the rest of the world on the military? It destroyed our international economic competitiveness beginning in the late 1950's and since about 1970 it has destroyed a great deal of the American middle class and kept the working class mired in poverty.

Now the only international power America has is the world's reserve currency (soon to be replaced by the Euro as the dollar plumpets because of Republican mismanagement) and the military power which Bush has thoroughly mangled in Iraq. We have no effective ground forces remaining, but we still have a dozen carrier battle groups (vs. no others in the world) and a world class Air Force.

Paul Kennedy had it right in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. America, like the USSR before us, has squandered its power in military spending. The final dominos have not yet fallen, but like Global Warming, it is now inevitable.

SeeDee
I think what Soros sees is, that 'til now (since the Civil Rights upheavals of the the mid-20th century, at least) America, though not being on "the same plain (level) of Nazi Germany in the 1930's and '40's", is in danger of becoming that kind of a nation IF we allow the Neocons to herd us into following their stupid policies.

And, as pointed out, the incidents such as Abu Ghraib and other insane brutality by Americans in Iraq, are an indications of just how depraved ANY human can become.

TJ, you are a particularly unimpressive person. Your comments reveal your prejudice and lack of conscience.

Benjamin Ferencz is not trying to 'relive his moment of glory', he is not a throwaway star of American Idol.

He is an expert on the subjects of war, politics and international law.

Nothing you say has any relation to what Ferencz said in his commentary at the link given above, or here

Abu Ghraib should have been no surprise to anyone with a knowledge of major psychological research, such as Milgram's experiments on obedience and Zimbardo's even more telling Stanford Prison Experiment. I don't know if you mean that Abu Ghraib took you as a total surprise, or as more like the behavior seen in virtually any prison situation, civil or military, without adequate supervision.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry, Soros has done more good than all the neocons and neoliberals combined (not that that's saying much -- Paris Hilton has done more good than those bastards!. I understand how frustrated and angry they must be knowing that they're all going to go down in history as the stupidest pundits since the Cliveden Set. But surely there's another country Peretz et al can destroy instead of attacking Soros.

You seem to have a difficult time seeing the difference between someone who is already a slave and someone who has joined the slave traders. You don't know what a smear is obviously. Many of the prisoners that worked for the war machine, did later say the struggled to overcome feelings of guilt or sadness that they were involuntarily helping the Nazi war effort. When asked about their feelings, they would give more elaboration than a simple "no".

Talk about things that exist in your imagination. Did I mention Martin Peretz? Did I bring him up?

Democrat fundraiser Martin Peretz, who happens to be one of Al Gore's biggest benefactors and Cheerleaders may be a racist to you, but contrary to your remark, Israel does exist, it is not a figment of anyone's imagination and much to the chagrine of Mr. Soros and you, it will stay that way.

When people talk of "accountability" do they mean like the way Kissinger and Ford were held accountable for Timor or like Reagan was held accountable for Nicaragua or Johnson for Vietnam,Nixon for Cambodia? That kind of accountable? Like Clinton was held accountable for supporting Turkey against it's Kurds or bombing the pharmecuetical plant in Sudan? Yeah, we're all about "accountability".

I rather like the idea of an industrial-sized jar of mayonnaise -- a slightly rancid preparation -- slid over Rove's head.

What, did you think he'd ever make a Marine?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Rather the least likely possibility, along with microskirts.

How about Cheney and Rove dancing with the hippos in Fantasia? Perfect for the current pear-shaped situation.

I think I'd like to see some more specifics about the Zulu. You will note that I don't, in the slightest, doubt the British were doing atrocious things to the Boers. To some extent, however, I suspect that that which happened in the British camps were more like the situation at Andersonville in the Confederacy: an unimaginative commander, unwilling to take the initiative to improve conditions or let prisoners do it. Some of the stories, such as ground glass in oatmeal, do not tend to make much medical sense.

The link about the Mau Mau was premium content I could not view.

Besides, the Kenyans in that conflict were akin to the Algerians in French-occupied Algeria-- they were fighting against a ruthless occupying force and often applied ruthless tactics of their own, but almost singularly focused on military targets.

I am not going to excuse an atrocity regardless of what side it is on. That doesn't mean I can't understand why an occupied people might take such actions, just as I understand why a resistance force may encourage overreaction against neutrals. There's a fair bit of documentation on Algeria that suggests that both sides were ruthless to whom they perceived as fighters.

Also, an interesting little bit of history to preface our current disaster in Iraq: Although we often hear about the terror-bombing in Guernica, the British had terror-bombed Iraq in the prior decade when the Shiites and Kurds especially rebelled against the British, who had broken their promises to the Arab people from WWI.

And the Italians in Abyssinia? I'm sorry, but I am finding you being very selective in the countries you are accusing of atrocities you equate to those of the Nazis or indeed the Gulags, especially those atrocities that took place in the 19th century or earlier, with literally different value systems.

Depends on what you mean by brutal past. I can think of few nations without brutality in their past. Now, you perhaps have seen my posts, recently to TJKING, saying brutality has proven to be rather useless, not just a violation of Just War doctrine.

There is a question in my mind, however of what you mean by "come to terms." Accept that the US was effectively genocidal to many American Indians? Yes. Personally feel guilty over something that happened generations before my birth? No. None of my relatives were in the US at the time, and, ironically, I haven't been on speaking terms with some relatives for long enough that I don't know, or care, if they are alive. I'm proud, however, to have a good friend who is White Mountain Apache, and with whom I've discussed a great deal of history, including his career in the US Army.

All my relatives who fought in WWI died at least thirty years ago, so I can't see reaping anything they sowed. As far as I know, the grandfather I knew best mostly carried cannon shells to the guns, and got gassed. I had nothing to do with colonial bad conduct in the post-WWI period, nor, for that matter, with the Versailles Treaty. For those that still consider this a casus belli, I suggest they move on. There is a difference between acknowledging historical wrongs, and recognizing that all one can do is acknowledge and learn from it, and do better in the future. I will condemn current Administration decisions when they should know better.

I'm reminded of one side or another in the Balkans -- it really doesn't matter which -- that dug up a grave, several centuries old, to piss on it. I have no patience for people that run their lives on hatred and continuing hatred -- that's a low-tech version of Orwell's "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Defensive? Not as much, now that you have clarified you do not mean it on a personal level. I've run across quite a number of people that feel that individuals, of many countries, should feel guilt over things that happened long before their birth. Now, when there is a continuing problem from old actions, that may need counteraction. There are certain individuals, such as Chomsky and Clark, that seem so intent at finding the US at the heart of everything wrong in the world that they have lost all credibility with me, other than Chomsky in computational linguistics. I don't know Soros well enough to form a firm opinion, but I get just a flavor of this sort of attitude -- and I may well be wrong.

I can't respond to something as general as "ringed by bases". As far as Iraq, I have long held that it is a terrible place, for pure military reasons, to have long-term bases, even before getting into the desires and conflict of the people. On the other hand, I see no problem with having bases in Kuwait, where there is a positive relationship, one of the few cases of recent times where it can reasonably be argued there was a liberation. I really don't see Afghanistan as ringed with bases, although it is a base itself -- partially to deal with groups in the essentially tribal FATA of Pakistan.

The more I think about it, the more I find my difficulty with your posts are their generality. Long before the 2003 invasion, I criticized the Administration's stand on Iraq as making little sense. High-intensity combat generally was competent, but the US seemed to go out of its way to lose the peace. I can analyze Iraq, and the British and Ottoman history that make it what I consider an artificial country.

I don't know how to generically 'fess up. I can see how to deal with it one country at a time.

To me, past colonial wrongs are not the explanation for adventurism, but an almost willful ignoring of history and politicomilitary experience in pursuit of a new form of regional control. I do believe there can be cooperative presence in regions, but Iraq is not such an example. As recommended by the ISG, the US should engage in unconditional talks with Syria and Iran. Syria seems to have met most criteria anyway, and Iran is simply not going to give up their nuclear program -- to do so would be to make the talks moot other than for Iraq and Iranian-American relations, which are more of interest to the US than to Iran.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think to some extent I would sort of split the difference between you two. I had a college roommate from Tunisia in 1964. Really bright guy, but whenever we might start talking about the political situation in the Middle East or with France I could see him tense up with anger. At one time he told me that he hated the French above all nationalities because a Foreign Legionaire had, for no reason, kicked his father in the face and his father had lost most of his teeth. This happened in the late 50's, and Salah would be about 60 today.

Between them the French and British controlled much of the Middle East and North Africa until the 50's. The most significant countries were Egypt and Persia (Iran) both under British domination. The Iranians properly blame the British and the Americans for imposing the Shah on them, which lasted until 1979. The whole Arab Middle East blames the British and the Americans for installing Israel in their midst, again with good reason. Then there is the fact that the British, French and Americans have been over there manipulating their governments at our whim to get the oil they are sitting on top of.

One thing I have noticed is that countries who export oil rarely have any other real economy. The result is a group of very wealthy people living side-by-side with the majority who are extremely poor. Before Kadaffi took control of Libya, Libya had the lowest per capita income in the world. But the King was living on the oil revenue and gambling in Monaco. His troops kept order quite brutally. This has been true in almost every oil-rich country. Since a very few people control who the oil is sold to, the benefits are not widely distrubuted. This invariably leads to insurrection, and as the Shah did in Iran, the government sets up secret police and puts down the insurrections brutally.

Guess what. We Americans today get blamed for this. Usually because during the Cold War, we trained and equipped their armies and secret police.

Take that, take the history of European colonialism (especially after WW I in the Middle East), take the extremely unequal income distribution within those countries (which has been shown to be related to revolts and the resulting governmental crackdowns) top that with our backing of Israel no matter what they do to the Palestinians, and then top all that off with our invasion of Iraq when the whole damned world knows perfectly well that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and what should we expect from those people?

Sure their own governments have been stealing the money from oil so that a few could live high on the hog while most had incomes under $1,000 per family. We didn't do that to them - but we sure handed the weapons and training to the armies those governments needed to put down the revolts. [Of course - a successful revolt would make our access to their oil uncertain. Stability is what matters, not fairness and income equity. We'll pay to support stability there.]

Then look at Iran. First we gave the Shah asylum when the Iranians kicked him out. Strike two against us.

We supported Saddam early on, and when Saddam attacked Iran we became officially neutral. Then Iran started winning, so we made sure Saddam got the latest satellite photos of Iranian troops and got agriculture loans that were immediately used to buy arms, ammunition and spare parts. We knew what those loans were being used for.

Sure we were still smarting from the Embassey-takeover, but taking Saddam's side did not make the Iranians like us that much. Particularly since we embargoed the repair parts for their tanks, guns and aircraft which were all American-made.

We, the British and the French have controlled and manipulated the governments of the Middle East since Napoleon attacked Egypt. We have fought our world wars (starting with the Seven-years-war (known by Americans as the French and Indian War) across their lands since 1756. And we haven't stopped.

It is arguable that Cheney directed the attack on Iraq to get direct control of the second largest pool of oil in the world before China did, as well as putting U.S. troops into permanent bases West of Iran to balance those in Afghanistan which would have been East of Iran. Sure this is murky, but our military has been dependent on oil for a century now, and there is no near term replacement. Nor is there a certain long-term replacement.

From the point of view of the populations of the nations of the Middle East, the poor ones, all of this seems aimed directly at exploiting them. Their only defense for the most part has been to attach themselves to Islamic organizations. Since the most radical (i.e. fundamentalist) Muslim organizations offer the clearest contrast to the Western-dominated governments who are oppressing them, they are going to the fundamentalist religious organizations.

Since I think I have shown that colonialism lasted up until 1979 in Iran and certainly through the 50's and 60's in most of the Middle East, it is no surprise that it is a major factor in the rebellions we are facing.

One last thing. The Serbians looked back at "their" defeat at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 as a cause of war. Osama bin Laden has spoken of the Crusades as a cause of war. If you think these are not really current causes of war, you are correct.

But today there are organizations which want war that go back and use the historical "wrongs" to cause individuals today to join their groups. Anything that old is just propaganda. But stuff that goes back to WW II is still in the memory of living people, and going back to 1900 is fresh family memory. My Dad, born in 1904, was still pissed at his uncle who was offered all the Brazos River bottom land in Texas he wanted at $1.00 an acre. That happened about 1870. The children and grandchildren of my Tunisian roommate will hate the French Foreign Legion for kicking the teeth out of my roommate's father. And for the nation which was the cradle of civilization between the rivers, history goes a lot further back than it does for Americans.

America, Great Britain and France have no history of cooperative presence in the Middle East. None.

Why should that change now?

=============================
Boy! Did I get carried away. Sorry.

I'm honestly not sure it was deliberate as much as negligent. The media have focused on the disciplining of the people that did the actual atrocities, and the top commanders charged, BG Karpinski and COL Pappas.

Karpinski claims she was overburdened and couldn't oversee everything. While this happened under her command, however, there are questions not really answered.

She was the MP Brigade commander. Under the brigade were, IIRC, 6 or so MP Battalions, commanded by lieutenant colonels assisted by a sergeant major. The role of the "senior enlisted advisor," such as a battalion sergeant major, is not always well understood. This person is not in the line of command, but is treated with great respect. Wise commanders use their sergeant major or first sergeant as their roving eyes, checking on lower-level supervision, and the performance of individual soldiers.

During the same time, one of those battalions, on quite different duties, was commended. That is mild evidence that Karpinski was not the root of all problems.

Below the battalion was the 372nd MP Company, commanded by a captain assisted by a first sergeant. I'm not sure of the next level down in a MP Company organized for prison guarding, but it would typically be a Platoon led by a lieutenant assisted by a sergeant first class. There might be a level of shift supervisor, probably a staff sergeant.

Every active or retired soldier with whom I discussed Abu Ghraib puts the greatest failure, next to the guards themselves, on the senior noncommissioned officers and secondarily officers at company and battalion level. The soldiers with whom I talked said the NCOs should have been frequently walking around, inspecting, and they would either have known about the abuse or were incompetent in their jobs. Some NCOs got reprimands and probably ended their careers, but none were charged criminally.

If one looks at Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, or consults any textbook on penology, the assumption is guards will become brutal, due to the environment, unless the supervision is frequent, attentive, and proactive. This obviously failed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You remind me of my method for determining the origins of Americans, when I ask them about the designation and outcome of the little dispute between 1861 and 1865.

"We fought to free the slaves and won." Probably relatively far north, as New England.

"We won the Civil War". Generic northerner.

"Oh dear. I'm afraid we were embarrassed by the Unpleasantness Between the States". That's a direct quote from a proper, elderly Suth'rn lady docent in the Museum of the Conferacy in Richmond.

"The North won the War of Yankee Aggression only because it had more men and more guns, but we had a moral victory." Getting fairly far south.

"What do you mean by saying the War of Yankee Aggression is over?" True believer in the Cause.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Rick B.

Here's a "home-grown" example of long (400 years) culturally embedded memories of atrocities committed by a conquering army as illustrated by this incident in 1998:

"ESPAÑOLA, N.M. -- One moonless night in early January, just as Hispanic New Mexicans were starting to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the first Spanish settlement in the American West, an American Indian commando group stealthily approached a bronze statue here of the first conquistador, Don Juan de Oñate. With an electric saw, the group slowly severed his right foot -- boot, stirrup, star-shaped spur and all.

"We took the liberty of removing Oñate's right foot on behalf of our brothers and sisters of Acoma Pueblo," read a statement sent by the group, which later sent to news outlets a snapshot of its hostage foot. "We see no glory in celebrating Oñate's fourth centennial, and we do not want our faces rubbed in it."

The news quickly traveled from this lowland reservoir of Spanish culture 120 miles to the southwest to a mesa, where cheers echoed among the adobe brick houses of Acoma Pueblo. Since 1599, the Acoma had passed from generation to generation the tale of how Juan de Onate had punished the conquered Acoma by ordering his men to chop off the right feet of 24 captive warriors.

"It was funny when it happened to the statue, but it wasn't funny when it happened to the real people," said Darrell Chino, an Acoma artisan.

At the Oñate Monument and Visitors Center, Estevan Arrellano, the director, supervised the attachment of a new foot to the 12-foot-tall statue in late January. He groaned: "Give me a break -- it was 400 years ago. It's OK to hold a grudge, but for 400 years?"

"When I think of what Oñate did to the Acoma Pueblo, I have a vision of Indian men lined up to have one foot cut off," Andres Lauriano, a Sandia tribal council member, wrote in The Albuquerque Journal. "I see the blood pouring from their legs as they crawled or hopped away. I see the bloody pile of feet left behind."
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/ES-112A/Onate.html

On the other hand, in 2005, a statue of Po'Pay, the leader of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 was installed in the DC National Hall of Statuary after much controversy including a 2001 effort in the House to block it. The Pueblo Revolt basically drove the surviving Spanish out of NM for 11 years and was a collaboration of the pueblo peoples of the Rio Grande, Hopis, Apaches, Commanches and some say the Dine who collectively rose on the appointed day to slaughter their oppressors.It's the most successful example of a Native American insurgency in US history.

A 5 to balance mindless 1 rating, for a perfectly appropriate comment.

According to Steve Coll in Ghost Wars the plant in Sudan was much more likely a Bin Laden money making operation. After it was attacked Sudan put out claims that it was an innocent pharmecuetical plant. Apparently it was not.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I would have to go hunt down the details, but, as I remember, the major evidence was ground contamination with a specific chemical. That chemical, indeed, can be a precursor for one nerve gas synthesis.

It also can be a precursor for a veterinary medication regularly shipped by the plant. I'll have to get a copy of Ghost Wars.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Marty Peretz is a head case. He's the same deal as Ed Koch.
Once these guys hit their 70's, they immediately went into the paranoid Jew style of their grandfathers.
Every issue is avout the "goyim" and their undying determination to eradicate Jews.
The only thing Peretz has against Soros is that Soros is a Jew who is not a Zionist. His rage on that score is about as significant as it would be if Shawn Green played ball on Yom Kippur.
Or if Natalie Portman or Jake Gyllenhaal starred in a film with Vanessa Redgrave.
Just a pathetic geezer.

Habit? Nun of that, especially in a Jewish context.

Actually, that reminds me of a story from elementary school. My [public] school, Peshine Elementary in Newark, was across the street from a parochial school. Invariably, in the first week or two of school, a few children, who weren't taken to the school by parents, would wind up going into the wrong school. In that computerless day, that sometimes took a few days to straighten out.

Perhaps it was an urban legend, but a persistent story around Peshine was about an Orthodox Jewish kid who was a big behavior problem, constantly getting suspended. In desperation, the parents enrolled him in the parochial school, hoping it would discipline him.

A week passed, with their son very quiet. In the next week, he started saying "please" and "thank you". In the next week, he added "Ma'am" and "Sir".

The parents couldn't stand it any more, and asked their son why his behavior had changed. He said that he had acted out at first, and was taken to the Mother Superior. She looked at him, silently, until he squirmed, and then she pointed at a rather graphic crucifix. "See that? It's what happened to the last Jewish kid who gave us trouble here. Any questions?"
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*