With Passover upon us and the International Holocaust Remembrance Day approaching,  I thought it would be a great time to review some Holocaust films worth checking out.

2008-2009 has seen the return of the Holocaust in Hollywood with several movies either dealing with the subject directly or tangentially.  The Holocaust has always been sporadic material for Hollywood.  Every few years a small budget independent or documentary will show up.  Mainstream Hollywood rarely invests big dollars.  While many Holocaust films are done very few are big budget.  A great documentary on the subject of how Hollywood has addressed the Holocaust is Imaginary Witness:Hollywood and the Holocaust. 

There is no denying that sentiments and views of the Holocaust have changed over the years since the end of World War II.  Hollywood has changed right along with those sentiments and views and changed the types of movies and the way events are depicted.  A review of the Internet Movie Database reveals that from 1945-2008  there were over 400 theatrical productions and documentaries made which addressed the Holocaust in one form or another.  Of those, the majority were foreign-made documentaries.

Here is my list of Hollywood movies and television media that I feel offer the most to the viewer in the portrayal of events and figures of the Holocaust.   I include foreign films if they had mainstream United States release.   I am only including films whose main focus was the Holocaust as compared to the Holocaust being just one historical event in the movie.  An example would be Band Of Brothers. This mini-series addresses the Holocaust but is not about the Holocaust.  Another recent two films I left off because I did not consider them  Holocaust films are Defiance(2008) and Good(2008).  I will start with the most recent entries into the Holocaust genre, “The Boy In The Striped Pajamas”  and “The Reader”.

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas.  Adapted from the book of the same name by John Boyne.  A short, faithful adpation to the book.   A movie similar to  Life Is Beautiful.  This time the story is told from the side of the child of a Concentration Camp Commandant who befriends a Jewish child imprisoned in the a camp. The child has been shielded by his father from the horror, brutality and the truth of the purpose of the camp.

The Reader(2009).   Ralph Fiennes reminds us of his brilliant performance in Schindler’s List to once again tackle the Holocaust in a much different light. His character has an affair with his care-taker. Years later, while a law student observing a Nazi war crime trial, he is re-united in a shocking way.   She is a defendant charged with war crimes. The Reader has sparked some revisionist sentiment in the Jewish community.  The criticism is that the film through its central theme attempts to  legitimize a notion that ordinary Germans were completely ignorant of The Final Solution until after the war.  The producers were certainly more interested in producing an Oscar winning film than staying true to history.  The Reader brought Holocaust sensitivities in Hollywood portrayals front and center again.

Paperclips(2004) An extraordinary documentary that I stumbled across surfing cables channels once night.  Whitwell Middle School in rural Tennessee is the last place you would think would be a hot bed of Holocaust study.  It however is the setting for this documentary about a unique experiment in Holocaust understanding. The students at Whitewell collect six-million paper clips to better understand the extent of Holocaust and share that understanding with Holocaust survivors.

The Diary Of Anne Frank(1959). The 1959 version appears to be Hollywood’s first mainstream attempt to bring the Holocaust to the masses although it did so by sacrificing the depth and emotion of the Holocaust to give the public a Hollywood blockbuster movie. The movie itself was a Hollywood hit by the standards of the day. It won three Oscars. An interesting side note is that Audrey Hepburn turned down the role of Anne Frank because she herself lived in occupied Holland and witnessed Nazi atrocities first-hand.  To get a feel for early Hollywood treatment of the Holocaust, the Diary of Anne Frank is a must see, but be sure to view the original before viewing the remakes.

Holocaust(1978).  A four-part made-for-TV mini-series. That was the first major network big time portrayal of the subject. The series was a monstrous success, drawing a 49 percent market share. So many people watched this mini-series in New York City when first broadcast, that when commercials were on, the local water pressure dropped due to the large number of people using their toilets at once. It won Golden Globe and Emmy awards. It was instrumental in rocketing the career of Meryl Streep.  Michael Moriarty is brilliant as an out of work lawyer who enters the Nazi party and advances through brutality and helping implement “The Final Solution.”

Schindler’s List(1993). The Holocaust comes to Generation X with the Steven Spielberg story of Oskar Schindler, a German industrialist and Nazi party member who started out getting rich off the backs of Jewish slave labor and ended up finding his own humanity.  He went on to save thousands of Jews from the gas chamber, risking both his personal wealth and his safety to save as many Jews as possible. He spent his entire fortune to bribe Germans and buy the lives of the  Jews who worked for him.  He kept them for the most part safe until Germany’s surrender.  He ended up penniless.  Today, there are more than 6000 descendants of “Schindler Jews” living around the world.   The movie is done in and black and white and riveting from beginning to end.  The movie itself was a huge critical and box office success winning seven Oscars

Sophie’s Choice(1982). Sophie’s Choice is a brilliant performance by Meryl Streep as a Holocaust survivor with dark secrets in her family’s past. Her performance as Sophie Zawistowska is ranked #3 on Premiere Magazine’s 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.  She won an academy award for her performance.  It should be noted that this film was released 11 years prior to Schindler’s list. It contains one of the most heart wrenching moments in movie history when Sophie recounts the night she arrived at Auschwitz with her children, and of how she was forced by a Nazi officer to choose life for one child and death for the other.

Life Is Beautiful(1997).   Life Is Beautiful is told from the view of a man who uses the gift of humor to protect his only son from the inhumanity while in a concentration camp. The film is incredible in that it allows you to smile and laugh with Guido right up until the tragic end and not feel sad.  This movie won three Academy Awards. While classified as a Holocaust film, this film is also a joyous celebration of the human spirit.

The Pianist(2002). This movie is told from the viewpoint of a very talented piano player played by Adrian Brody.  He  hides out in the Warsaw Ghetto throughout the Warsaw Ghetto Liquidation and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  When the German occupation begins, he simply wonders when he will be able to return to his music. When the killing begins, he is forced to hide and change his priorities to simply trying to survive. Even though he can no longer play, music is the hope and salvation that keeps him alive.

The Grey Zone(2001). The Grey Zone is gritty, dark and sometimes hard to follow.  It is, however, a must-see for all those who want an understanding of the Holocaust beyond the basics. The Grey Zone deals with an issue that is very sensitive to Holocaust survivors.  Jews sending other Jews to the gas chamber.  These Jews were called “Sonderkommandos“.  Sonderkommando members did not participate directly in the killing  which was reserved for the guards.  While their primary responsibility was disposing of the corpses, they often took a much more active role in getting the inmates ready to enter the gas chambers. These inmates were kept in close groups and had much better living conditions than the average inmate.  They were also killed off at regular intervals to prevent any word of the inner workings of the Nazi death apparatus from leaking to the outside world.  This movie is about one of several Sonderkommado revolts that took place.  It features an outstanding peformance by Harvey Keitel.

Playing for Time.    Playing for Time is a made-for-T.V piece that is worth seeing.  It ias another movie that gives a perspective on the inner workings of  Nazi concentration camps in which some inmates were forced to play music for the others as they marched to the gas chambers or life-death selection process. The purpose was to keep them calm and reduce the chances of revolt.

Europa Europa(1991). A young Jewish boy poses as a German “Aryan” orphan and joins the Hitler Youth in the early days of World War II.  An interesting look at the racial, moral and religious identity struggles faced by Jews as they did what they could to prevent their extermination in Nazi Germany.

Music Box(1989). This is one of the few movies dealing with the issues of aging former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers who committed war crimes living in the United States.  Jessica Lange and Armin Mueller-Stah give great performances. The movie is based on the true story of John Demjanjuk.   While the premise of a daughter representing her father on trial with such high stakes is a stretch, it works well here.  Jessica’s emotional opening statement is also unrealistic and inadmissible. The movie is incredibly moving on all levels. You are torn between her father as a loving grandfather and a brutal murderer guilty of terrible war crimes. In an interesting twist of life imitating art, the father of Joe Eszterhas who wrote the screenplay, was accused of writing anti-Semitic propaganda before and during World War II. Like the character in Music Box, his father denied being the person who wrote these materials. Mr. Ezterhas denies knowing anything about his father’s past at the time he wrote the screenplay.

Also of interest is that the real life John Demjanjuk was recently ordered deported to Germany.  They want to put him on trial  for  Nazi era war crimes.  An appeals court has stayed the deportation while it considers whether his deportation constitutes “torture” due to his age and health.

That is my list of Holocaust films that I feel are must sees for anyone wanting to get a good understanding of the subject through Hollywood.  Is this a definitive list?  Absolutely not. There are numerous foreign films and documentaries dealing with general and specific issues surrounding the Holocaust.

Please feel free to comment and add you own movies to the list with an explanation of why you feel it is an important film or simply why you enjoyed it.

Bot – A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions. A bot is a program that performs various computer protocols automatically without human intervention. For ex GoogleBot is a application that surfs the internet and collects all the websites for Google and saves it in a database.  Email Extraction bots surf the internet and scan pages for email addresses to spam.  With regards to Digg, Promote-My-Site provides bot services that allow a person to digg without being at his or her computer.

Script – A simple program in a utility language or an application’s proprietary language. Scripts are usually very small code.  Designers tend to refer to any code in JavaScripts as script. Most webpages including Digg have some JavaScript in them which performs some action. For example the legitimate Digg button provided by Digg  uses a script.  When you click the Digg  button that action is reported back to the server.

So what about Digg?   What is the big deal with the external development of certain scripts and bots that do not impact the Digg servers and do not have any impact on the Digg algorithm?  If you listen to DiggBoss his two external scripts fit the following criteria:  They do not enable spamming or any other illegal activity. They do not allow faster digging. They do not remove or add Digg buttons. They do not bypass any protocols.  They do nothing more than enhance the Digg community user experience. Should not these types of applications be encouraged maybe even rewarded as they are often encouraged and rewarded in the Open Source community?  Why can’t Digg do likewise with API?    Digg allegedly encourages the creating of these programs through its “Application Programming Interface“(API).

The Digg Application Programming Interface (API) has been created to let users and partners interact programmatically with Digg. The API returns Digg data in a form that can be easily integrated into an application or a web site. While the API is available to everyone free of charge, its use is subject to acceptance of our API License Agreement.

The API license reads as follows:

1. GRANT OF LICENSE – Subject to your (”Licensee’s”) full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of this API Agreement (”Agreement”), Digg, Inc. (”Digg”) grants Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable, nonsublicensable, nontransferable license to download and use the Digg application program interface and other materials provided by Digg (collectively, “APIs”) to develop, reproduce and distribute non-commercial applications that interoperate with Digg.com or any other web property owned by Digg (”Digg Applications”). Licensee may not install or use the APIs for any other purpose (including without limit any commercial purpose) without Digg’s prior written consent. For the sake of clarity, the sale of advertising on a website where a Digg Application is hosted shall not alone constitute a commercial use under this Agreement, provided that the advertising is not integrated within the Digg Application itself. Licensee shall not use the APIs in connection with or to promote any products, services, or materials that constitute, promote or are used primarily for the purpose of dealing in: spyware, adware, or other malicious programs or code….

Digg’s  data is open to all under creative commons license.  Digg has a systematic way of delivering its data to anyone who is interested in having a look at it as long as they agree to the terms of access. They provide API or “Application Programmers Interface” Rather than write bots a programmer can legally view data that is made available by Digg. The data is read only in nature i.e. you can only view the data, you cannot submit back, edit or delete the data using APIs.

Former Digg power user “DiggBoss”, real name David,  used the API program to create two very useful Digg add-on applications that became extremely popular with the Digg community.  He was banned from the site when his applications became known to Digg. They had become more popular than the ones Digg had developed to enhance the user experience.

The two DiggBoss scripts made use of the API to check if your Digg friends were digging your submissions by making API queries to the digg server. The script would display the result such as 10 / 15 against the friend’s user name. The would mean the friend had dugg 10 of your last 15 submissions.   A very useful feature and a feature one would think would interest Digg. They have a much more basic feature that is extremely cumbersome and time consuming to use.  There was also a feature that allegedly reduced shout spam.   The feature was called “Shout To Friends Not Dugg”. This feature allowed a user to shout only to friends who had not previously dugg a story. There is certainly an argument that this did not reduce shout spam at all.  A person may not have dugg a story because he/she did not want to.  When that person got a re-shout it would be considered spam.  The script worked by sending a query to the Digg API server to find out friends who had already dugg and select the friends that had not this way reducing multiple shouts.

It was not possible for Digg to determine who was using the “who dugg” or  shout management feature. The script made calls to the free Google server where the application was installed and from the Google server to Digg API server.  The user computer with the script made the call to free Google server from Google server to Digg API sever and then back. The user was was never exposed to Digg server. The Digg APIs do not require any authentication i.e. passwords to operate.  If David’s script had stayed under the radar, he may never have been discovered. All Digg API data is open creative commons free for everyone.  It did not incorporate any of the “Easy-Digg” buttons or bypasses used in the scripts that allegedly resulted in his ban from Digg as well as over 100 other “power diggers”.

In March 2008 David did update the “Digg Friends Easy” script. He was then warned by Digg that such scripts were prohibited.  He was  asked to remove the script immediately. He was asked not to promote the script. He immediately removed it from the server.   What was left was the “who dugg”  application and the shout management application.  The “Digg Friend Easy” scripts themselves were not developed by David and are widely available on the web. The most popular one can be found at  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/12708. This  script that adds “Diggit” or “Digg This” button on pages where Digg has not provided for them. This script has been on the internet as open source code since Oct 2, 2007.

In the end it appears getting rid of David was more about protecting the Digg business model and less about evil “Darth Vadar” scripts. The “Who Dugg” and shout management scripts did not even access the Digg primary servers.  In addition  Digg has recently released its own Firefox add-on touted by Kevin Rose on the Digg Blog.  The Diggboss script was a much better developed and more popular form of competition. Maybe they were in no mood for dealing with someone who had developed a better product showing up their  developers.  This seems strange since the  the license agreement gave them ownership of the Diggboss program.  The API license contains the following language:

“Digg shall own all right, title and interest relating to any and all inventions, works of authorship, designs, know-how, ideas and information made or conceived or reduced to practice, in while or in part, using the APIs. Licensee hereby agrees to make all assignments necessary to accomplish the foregoing ownership.”

Digg may have taken a lesson from the MySpace bot market and feared that David would market the program to his own benefit. Once the script was out in the open, it could be refined, improved upon and mutate into a Godzilla like creature devouring Digg profits with each digg.   The problem there is that is that the program needs their API server to function.  You would think Digg could simply shut down the API server to anyone trying to attempt the same thing?

In the end petty turf internal politics and turf wars won out over a better Digg experience.  Better to boot David for whatever reason or no reason at all. They can take his development for later use as their own when he is long forgtten.  Even if it was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the clearly illegal scripts it shows once again that the Digg model is becoming less and less about user experience or community satisfication. It is all about bucks.  That is assuming Digg can ever be monetized to the extent anyone wants to give them bucks.  Google sure didnt.

WHY ARE COMMENTS CLOSED?

Comments are closed because all anybody seems to want to talk about is how I write about Digg because I am a Bitter Banned Digger or about the two”Easy-Digg” Scripts that got people banned. This blog is about  neither. It is about two Diggboss API add-ons that have nothing to do with those two scripts. It is about whether they should be allowed as user-enhancement add-ons.  If nobody wants to talk about that there is no point in opening comments.  If anyone does want to talk about that please email me and I wll post your comments.

Brian Cuban

Bot – A software program that imitates the behavior of a human, as by querying search engines or participating in chatroom or IRC discussions. A bot is a program that performs various computer protocols automatically without human intervention. For ex GoogleBot is a application that surfs the internet and collects all the websites for Google and saves it in a database.  Email Extraction bots surf the internet and scan pages for email addresses to spam.  With regards to Digg, Promote-My-Site provides bot services that allow a person to digg without being at his or her computer.

Script – A simple program in a utility language or an application’s proprietary language. Scripts are usually very small code.  Designers tend to refer to any code in JavaScripts as script. Most webpages including Digg have some JavaScript in them which performs some action. For example the legitimate Digg button provided by Digg  uses a script.  When you click the Digg  button that action is reported back to the server.

So what about Digg?   What is the big deal with the external development of certain scripts and bots that do not impact the Digg servers and do not have any impact on the Digg algorithm?  If you listen to DiggBoss his two external scripts fit the following criteria:  They do not enable spamming or any other illegal activity. They do not allow faster digging. They do not remove or add Digg buttons. They do not bypass any protocols.  They do nothing more than enhance the Digg community user experience. Should not these types of applications be encouraged maybe even rewarded as they are often encouraged and rewarded in the Open Source community?  Why can’t Digg do likewise with API?    Digg allegedly encourages the creating of these programs through its “Application Programming Interface“(API).

The Digg Application Programming Interface (API) has been created to let users and partners interact programmatically with Digg. The API returns Digg data in a form that can be easily integrated into an application or a web site. While the API is available to everyone free of charge, its use is subject to acceptance of our API License Agreement.

The API license reads as follows:

1. GRANT OF LICENSE – Subject to your (”Licensee’s”) full compliance with all of the terms and conditions of this API Agreement (”Agreement”), Digg, Inc. (”Digg”) grants Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable, nonsublicensable, nontransferable license to download and use the Digg application program interface and other materials provided by Digg (collectively, “APIs”) to develop, reproduce and distribute non-commercial applications that interoperate with Digg.com or any other web property owned by Digg (”Digg Applications”). Licensee may not install or use the APIs for any other purpose (including without limit any commercial purpose) without Digg’s prior written consent. For the sake of clarity, the sale of advertising on a website where a Digg Application is hosted shall not alone constitute a commercial use under this Agreement, provided that the advertising is not integrated within the Digg Application itself. Licensee shall not use the APIs in connection with or to promote any products, services, or materials that constitute, promote or are used primarily for the purpose of dealing in: spyware, adware, or other malicious programs or code….

Digg’s  data is open to all under creative commons license.  Digg has a systematic way of delivering its data to anyone who is interested in having a look at it as long as they agree to the terms of access. They provide API or “Application Programmers Interface” Rather than write bots a programmer can legally view data that is made available by Digg. The data is read only in nature i.e. you can only view the data, you cannot submit back, edit or delete the data using APIs.

Former Digg power user “DiggBoss”, real name David,  used the API program to create two very useful Digg add-on applications that became extremely popular with the Digg community.  He was banned from the site when his applications became known to Digg. They had become more popular than the ones Digg had developed to enhance the user experience.

The two DiggBoss scripts made use of the API to check if your Digg friends were digging your submissions by making API queries to the digg server. The script would display the result such as 10 / 15 against the friend’s user name. The would mean the friend had dugg 10 of your last 15 submissions.   A very useful feature and a feature one would think would interest Digg. They have a much more basic feature that is extremely cumbersome and time consuming to use.  There was also a feature that allegedly reduced shout spam.   The feature was called “Shout To Friends Not Dugg”. This feature allowed a user to shout only to friends who had not previously dugg a story. There is certainly an argument that this did not reduce shout spam at all.  A person may not have dugg a story because he/she did not want to.  When that person got a re-shout it would be considered spam.  The script worked by sending a query to the Digg API server to find out friends who had already dugg and select the friends that had not this way reducing multiple shouts.

It was not possible for Digg to determine who was using the “who dugg” or  shout management feature. The script made calls to the free Google server where the application was installed and from the Google server to Digg API server.  The user computer with the script made the call to free Google server from Google server to Digg API sever and then back. The user was was never exposed to Digg server. The Digg APIs do not require any authentication i.e. passwords to operate.  If David’s script had stayed under the radar, he may never have been discovered. All Digg API data is open creative commons free for everyone.  It did not incorporate any of the “Easy-Digg” buttons or bypasses used in the scripts that allegedly resulted in his ban from Digg as well as over 100 other “power diggers”.

In March 2008 David did update the “Digg Friends Easy” script. He was then warned by Digg that such scripts were prohibited.  He was  asked to remove the script immediately. He was asked not to promote the script. He immediately removed it from the server.   What was left was the “who dugg”  application and the shout management application.  The “Digg Friend Easy” scripts themselves were not developed by David and are widely available on the web. The most popular one can be found at  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/12708. This  script that adds “Diggit” or “Digg This” button on pages where Digg has not provided for them. This script has been on the internet as open source code since Oct 2, 2007.

In the end it appears getting rid of David was more about protecting the Digg business model and less about evil “Darth Vadar” scripts. The “Who Dugg” and shout management scripts did not even access the Digg primary servers.  In addition  Digg has recently released its own Firefox add-on touted by Kevin Rose on the Digg Blog.  The Diggboss script was a much better developed and more popular form of competition. Maybe they were in no mood for dealing with someone who had developed a better product showing up their  developers.  This seems strange since the  the license agreement gave them ownership of the Diggboss program.  The API license contains the following language:

“Digg shall own all right, title and interest relating to any and all inventions, works of authorship, designs, know-how, ideas and information made or conceived or reduced to practice, in while or in part, using the APIs. Licensee hereby agrees to make all assignments necessary to accomplish the foregoing ownership.”

Digg may have taken a lesson from the MySpace bot market and feared that David would market the program to his own benefit. Once the script was out in the open, it could be refined, improved upon and mutate into a Godzilla like creature devouring Digg profits with each digg.   The problem there is that is that the program needs their API server to function.  You would think Digg could simply shut down the API server to anyone trying to attempt the same thing?

In the end petty turf internal politics and turf wars won out over a better Digg experience.  Better to boot David for whatever reason or no reason at all. They can take his development for later use as their own when he is long forgtten.  Even if it was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the clearly illegal scripts it shows once again that the Digg model is becoming less and less about user experience or community satisfication. It is all about bucks.  That is assuming Digg can ever be monetized to the extent anyone wants to give them bucks.  Google sure didnt.

WHY ARE COMMENTS CLOSED?

Comments are closed because all anybody seems to want to talk about is how I write about Digg because I am a Bitter Banned Digger or about the two”Easy-Digg” Scripts that got people banned. This blog is about  neither. It is about two Diggboss API add-ons that have nothing to do with those two scripts. It is about whether they should be allowed as user-enhancement add-ons.  If nobody wants to talk about that there is no point in opening comments.  If anyone does want to talk about that please email me and I wll post your comments.

Brian Cuban

With Passover upon us and the International Holocaust Remembrance Day approaching,  I thought it would be a great time to review some Holocaust films worth checking out.

2008-2009 has seen the return of the Holocaust in Hollywood with several movies either dealing with the subject directly or tangentially.  The Holocaust has always been sporadic material for Hollywood.  Every few years a small budget independent or documentary will show up.  Mainstream Hollywood rarely invests big dollars.  While many Holocaust films are done very few are big budget.  A great documentary on the subject of how Hollywood has addressed the Holocaust is Imaginary Witness:Hollywood and the Holocaust. 

There is no denying that sentiments and views of the Holocaust have changed over the years since the end of World War II.  Hollywood has changed right along with those sentiments and views and changed the types of movies and the way events are depicted.  A review of the Internet Movie Database reveals that from 1945-2008  there were over 400 theatrical productions and documentaries made which addressed the Holocaust in one form or another.  Of those, the majority were foreign-made documentaries.

Here is my list of Hollywood movies and television media that I feel offer the most to the viewer in the portrayal of events and figures of the Holocaust.   I include foreign films if they had mainstream United States release.   I am only including films whose main focus was the Holocaust as compared to the Holocaust being just one historical event in the movie.  An example would be Band Of Brothers. This mini-series addresses the Holocaust but is not about the Holocaust.  Another recent two films I left off because I did not consider them  Holocaust films are Defiance(2008) and Good(2008).  I will start with the most recent entries into the Holocaust genre, “The Boy In The Striped Pajamas”  and “The Reader”.

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas.  Adapted from the book of the same name by John Boyne.  A short, faithful adpation to the book.   A movie similar to  Life Is Beautiful.  This time the story is told from the side of the child of a Concentration Camp Commandant who befriends a Jewish child imprisoned in the a camp. The child has been shielded by his father from the horror, brutality and the truth of the purpose of the camp.

The Reader(2009).   Ralph Fiennes reminds us of his brilliant performance in Schindler’s List to once again tackle the Holocaust in a much different light. His character has an affair with his care-taker. Years later, while a law student observing a Nazi war crime trial, he is re-united in a shocking way.   She is a defendant charged with war crimes. The Reader has sparked some revisionist sentiment in the Jewish community.  The criticism is that the film through its central theme attempts to  legitimize a notion that ordinary Germans were completely ignorant of The Final Solution until after the war.  The producers were certainly more interested in producing an Oscar winning film than staying true to history.  The Reader brought Holocaust sensitivities in Hollywood portrayals front and center again.

Paperclips(2004) An extraordinary documentary that I stumbled across surfing cables channels once night.  Whitwell Middle School in rural Tennessee is the last place you would think would be a hot bed of Holocaust study.  It however is the setting for this documentary about a unique experiment in Holocaust understanding. The students at Whitewell collect six-million paper clips to better understand the extent of Holocaust and share that understanding with Holocaust survivors.

The Diary Of Anne Frank(1959). The 1959 version appears to be Hollywood’s first mainstream attempt to bring the Holocaust to the masses although it did so by sacrificing the depth and emotion of the Holocaust to give the public a Hollywood blockbuster movie. The movie itself was a Hollywood hit by the standards of the day. It won three Oscars. An interesting side note is that Audrey Hepburn turned down the role of Anne Frank because she herself lived in occupied Holland and witnessed Nazi atrocities first-hand.  To get a feel for early Hollywood treatment of the Holocaust, the Diary of Anne Frank is a must see, but be sure to view the original before viewing the remakes.

Holocaust(1978).  A four-part made-for-TV mini-series. That was the first major network big time portrayal of the subject. The series was a monstrous success, drawing a 49 percent market share. So many people watched this mini-series in New York City when first broadcast, that when commercials were on, the local water pressure dropped due to the large number of people using their toilets at once. It won Golden Globe and Emmy awards. It was instrumental in rocketing the career of Meryl Streep.  Michael Moriarty is brilliant as an out of work lawyer who enters the Nazi party and advances through brutality and helping implement “The Final Solution.”

Schindler’s List(1993). The Holocaust comes to Generation X with the Steven Spielberg story of Oskar Schindler, a German industrialist and Nazi party member who started out getting rich off the backs of Jewish slave labor and ended up finding his own humanity.  He went on to save thousands of Jews from the gas chamber, risking both his personal wealth and his safety to save as many Jews as possible. He spent his entire fortune to bribe Germans and buy the lives of the  Jews who worked for him.  He kept them for the most part safe until Germany’s surrender.  He ended up penniless.  Today, there are more than 6000 descendants of “Schindler Jews” living around the world.   The movie is done in and black and white and riveting from beginning to end.  The movie itself was a huge critical and box office success winning seven Oscars

Sophie’s Choice(1982). Sophie’s Choice is a brilliant performance by Meryl Streep as a Holocaust survivor with dark secrets in her family’s past. Her performance as Sophie Zawistowska is ranked #3 on Premiere Magazine’s 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.  She won an academy award for her performance.  It should be noted that this film was released 11 years prior to Schindler’s list. It contains one of the most heart wrenching moments in movie history when Sophie recounts the night she arrived at Auschwitz with her children, and of how she was forced by a Nazi officer to choose life for one child and death for the other.

Life Is Beautiful(1997).   Life Is Beautiful is told from the view of a man who uses the gift of humor to protect his only son from the inhumanity while in a concentration camp. The film is incredible in that it allows you to smile and laugh with Guido right up until the tragic end and not feel sad.  This movie won three Academy Awards. While classified as a Holocaust film, this film is also a joyous celebration of the human spirit.

The Pianist(2002). This movie is told from the viewpoint of a very talented piano player played by Adrian Brody.  He  hides out in the Warsaw Ghetto throughout the Warsaw Ghetto Liquidation and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  When the German occupation begins, he simply wonders when he will be able to return to his music. When the killing begins, he is forced to hide and change his priorities to simply trying to survive. Even though he can no longer play, music is the hope and salvation that keeps him alive.

The Grey Zone(2001). The Grey Zone is gritty, dark and sometimes hard to follow.  It is, however, a must-see for all those who want an understanding of the Holocaust beyond the basics. The Grey Zone deals with an issue that is very sensitive to Holocaust survivors.  Jews sending other Jews to the gas chamber.  These Jews were called “Sonderkommandos“.  Sonderkommando members did not participate directly in the killing  which was reserved for the guards.  While their primary responsibility was disposing of the corpses, they often took a much more active role in getting the inmates ready to enter the gas chambers. These inmates were kept in close groups and had much better living conditions than the average inmate.  They were also killed off at regular intervals to prevent any word of the inner workings of the Nazi death apparatus from leaking to the outside world.  This movie is about one of several Sonderkommado revolts that took place.  It features an outstanding peformance by Harvey Keitel.

Playing for Time.    Playing for Time is a made-for-T.V piece that is worth seeing.  It ias another movie that gives a perspective on the inner workings of  Nazi concentration camps in which some inmates were forced to play music for the others as they marched to the gas chambers or life-death selection process. The purpose was to keep them calm and reduce the chances of revolt.

Europa Europa(1991). A young Jewish boy poses as a German “Aryan” orphan and joins the Hitler Youth in the early days of World War II.  An interesting look at the racial, moral and religious identity struggles faced by Jews as they did what they could to prevent their extermination in Nazi Germany.

Music Box(1989). This is one of the few movies dealing with the issues of aging former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers who committed war crimes living in the United States.  Jessica Lange and Armin Mueller-Stah give great performances. The movie is based on the true story of John Demjanjuk.   While the premise of a daughter representing her father on trial with such high stakes is a stretch, it works well here.  Jessica’s emotional opening statement is also unrealistic and inadmissible. The movie is incredibly moving on all levels. You are torn between her father as a loving grandfather and a brutal murderer guilty of terrible war crimes. In an interesting twist of life imitating art, the father of Joe Eszterhas who wrote the screenplay, was accused of writing anti-Semitic propaganda before and during World War II. Like the character in Music Box, his father denied being the person who wrote these materials. Mr. Ezterhas denies knowing anything about his father’s past at the time he wrote the screenplay.

Also of interest is that the real life John Demjanjuk was recently ordered deported to Germany.  They want to put him on trial  for  Nazi era war crimes.  An appeals court has stayed the deportation while it considers whether his deportation constitutes “torture” due to his age and health.

That is my list of Holocaust films that I feel are must sees for anyone wanting to get a good understanding of the subject through Hollywood.  Is this a definitive list?  Absolutely not. There are numerous foreign films and documentaries dealing with general and specific issues surrounding the Holocaust.

Please feel free to comment and add you own movies to the list with an explanation of why you feel it is an important film or simply why you enjoyed it.

The Legalities of Lindsay Lohan written July 29. 2006

I have never seen a Lindsay Lohan movie. I do not read gossip columns,  or frequent TMZ.  I could not care less about her off screen antics.   I however  could not resist seeing what kind of threatening letter a top studio executive sends a 20 year old out of control, party-wild,  self impressed actress when they are not happy with her work habits.

In this case it involves a movie in production called “Georgia Rule” in which she is the star.  The studio is apparently concerned with Lindsay’s failure to show up for production calls and showing up late when she did show.  They feel there is some relationship to her perceived excessive partying.  In the letter James G. Robinson, CEO of Morgan Creek Productions, calls Lohan’s recent absences from the set “irresponsible and unprofessional.”

Being an attorney, I took interest in the letter.  I  scanned quickly through all the emotional rhetoric and right down to the legal threats. They of course threaten to take all action necessary to ensure the protection of the integrity of the film.  Having some limited exposure to the film industry, the first thing that came to my mind and was what is generally considered one of the more costly aspects of a major motion pictures aside from salaries. This is the completion completion insurance or a “completion bond.”

Now you may ask, what the hell does insurance have to do with Lindsey Lohan and the making of her film?  It may not have a lot to do with this film, but I can guarantee you it will affect her future films and if she doesn’t calm down.  She may find herself a “B” movie queen because she will be uninsureable or it will be cost prohibitive to insure her.

When a studio is casting for a major production it is  a crap shot on whether it makes money.  Like most other business ventures  it is about minimizing risk.  If an actor or actress can not be insured or be insured for a reasonable amount in comparison to the projected revenues of the film that person is probably not going to get many starring  or mainstream roles.   This is because the producers of the film may not be able to get a completion bond.

A completion bond is a motion picture completion guaranty is a written contract that guarantees a motion picture will be finished and delivered on schedule and within budget. The majority of films produced and fully financed by the major Hollywood studios are self-guaranteed. However, most independently financed films, including many that are released and distributed by the major studios, require a completion guaranty.

A producer usually secures a completion guaranty for the benefit of the bank or other financiers who agree to make the necessary production funding strike price available to the producer. In general, a completion guaranty assures banks and financiers that:
1. The producers will complete and deliver the film in keeping with the screenplay, budget and production schedule that the bank or financiers approved; or
2. The completion guarantor will complete and deliver the film in keeping with such pre-approved screenplay and production schedule, and advance such sums in excess of the pre-approved budget necessary to do so; or
3. In the event production of the film is abandoned, the completion guarantor will fully repay all sums invested in the film by the bank or financiers.

If Lindsay, who is from what I hear a very talented actress when she is sober, does not get her act together soon, she will find herself relegated to low budget Indies such as “Herbie Retooled and Reloaded Again And Again And Again And Again”

Date Raper in Dallas”

THE DIRTY ARMY: This trout is named Brian Cuban and there isn’t a girl in Dallas who hasn’t felt “dizzy” after he buys them a drink..I know 2 girls that woke up the next day asked what happened and he said “you were screaming all night baby”..I believe it..screaming like a surgery patient that’s awake!! This clown has to lead the world in Rohyphinol(sic) use. Put him on blast and see how many UNDERAGE girls comment on their soapy tasting drinks he has given them!

Beneath it was an additional caption by theDirty chief dirty dog  “Nik Ritchie” stating:

“If I was a girl, I would not do Cuban with your Rohyphenol”

Ironically just 3 weeks later, I received a call from my sister.  She is a local radio personality and was horrified to find a publicity still of herself on theDirty web site.  Under it was the following caption:

This is Stella. She makes a living getting her groove on with anyone she can. She is a band groupie but she never gets to “the band”… She merely f*cks managers, roadies, and guitar techs. Two-faced as they come she is constantly talking sh*t about her friends, going after other people’s boyfriends and spreading around the latest and greatest STD.  To make matters worse she looks like she fell out of the ugly tree and got pummelled with a sack of nickels when she hit the bottom. Don’t even get me started on that trailer park hair. I guess it begs the questions, Nik…. Would you?

Beneath it was an additional caption by “Nik Ritchie” stating:

If she has a STD she must really like to “ride the stick”

What a thing to say about my sister!  I am just kidding of course.  Much to my girlfriend’s relief, this did NOT  happen to me and I do not have a sister. Similar “testimonials” however were posted with photos about two friends of mine.  What should I tell them?   Can they prevail in a lawsuit against theDirty?  What about the poster of the  photo and commentary if he/she can be identified?(often no easy task)

There are four common denominators between the two cases.  The first is that the  photos were taken without permission from their social networking pages.  You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure that lesson out.  Watch what photos you put up on your social networking site!  There is no real security from having your photos grabbed. Once on the internet they are there forever to be “dirtied” about at the whim of whoever takes them for time immemorial.  The second is that both have content put up by the end  user called “user generated content” which consists of the photos and the caption.  The third is that there is the content added by “Nik Ritche” on behalf of the theDirty in the form  of his witty one-liners.  This is can be an important distinction. Whether the content on the site is “user generated” or provided in part by the site itself can possibly have an effect on the site operator’s legal immunity from suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act depending on the nature of the content contributed by the web site operator.  The fourth is that each contained statements that, if untrue  are arguably “defamation per se” under Texas law.

With the advent of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the safe harbor provisions of  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act passive gossip web content sites such as theDirty as well as business rating sites such as The Ripp Off Report and sites that rate doctors, lawyers(rateaPartner) and other professionals are becoming more  prevalent due to the almost absolute immunity of the site owners  if they are not deemed “content providers”.  Simply meaning, as long as the site consists entirely of “user generated content” they are for the most part immune from liability for nature of the posted content even if tortious in nature.  You will probably not prevail in a lawsuit against them for the tortious content although you can certainly go after the almost always  anonymous person who posted the content.  That person has no immunity from suit.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA)provides protection against liability for torts (including libel, slander and other forms of defamation) for website operators for third-party content posted on their site.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act(DMCA) provides protection against copyright infringement claims for the user-generated content, if the site owner observes certain “safe harbor” provisions set out by the law.  These provisions provide that web site operators such as “theDirty”  must take down claimed copyrighted content if the following notice is provided to them:

• The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
• The infringing materials and their Internet location
• Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
• A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of
• A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner

What is the gist of this legal mumbo jumbo?  Once notice is given to the  theDirty  or similar site, it is required to expeditiously(within 72 hours) remove, or disable access to, the infringing/copyrighted material. There are also provisions for the site to notify the person who put up the content, giving them the opportunity to prove that the images do not infringe anyone’s copyright and have the images put back up.  You can be subject to damages for making a false claim of copyright infringement.  In the case of a site like theDirty and other anonymous rating sites, it seems unlikely that anyone would go to those lengths with the end result that the material would simply come down.

While the protection afforded sites such as TheDirty and TheRippOff Report are broad, some courts have begun to  chip away at those protections.  The most interesting and talked about case in the 230 immunity area is  Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com,

Roommates.com operates a website designed to match individuals who were seeking housing. The website required users to state their own sex and sexual orientation among other facts about themselves. The site also allowed users to post their own content in an “additional comments” section.  The Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego sued Roomates claiming  that its website violated federal and state fair housing laws by soliciting and distributing information based on protected categories—sex, sexual orientation, and family status.

The lower District Court found Roommates to be immune from suit under Section 230. On appeal the 9th Circuit on appeal found them partially liable. The court found that by asking illegal questions  they became a partial content provider” under 230 therefore losing their immunity from suit on that particular issue but not as to others such as user generated comments.

The court in my opinion made an  interesting distinction that arguably has opened up the door to lawsuits against sites like theDirty that are not completely passive, adding their own content that arguably furthers or encourages the posting of content prohibited by law . The court stated:

“A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is “responsible, in whole or in part” for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider. Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content”

Importantly the court also states that it was not enough that the website simply “augments” the content in question.  The court stated:

A website helps to develop unlawful content, and thus falls within the exception to Section 230, if it contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct.”

Does  adding Nik Ritchie “one liners” to the posted content “contribute materially to the alleged tortious conduct” if  a caption under a photo posted on the site is  deemed “defamatory?

I would argue that at a minimum it create an issue of fact for a jury.  While the Nik Ritchie blurbs themselves are never defamatory, they go beyond minor edits to content, such as by correcting spelling and the like which would not affect their immunity.  The comments are an integral part of the content posting process designed to encourage further postings. They are often  part of the overall alleged “defamatory feel” of the posted content.

The practice and pattern of the comments added by Ritchie arguably evidence a pattern of conduct designed to specifically encourage posting of user content even if that content is tortious.  To put it simply, people post outrageous, often defamatory captions with photos on theDirty with the specific intent to elicit the expected  zinger from Nik Ritchie. The owners of the site undoubtedly know this. It is part of the site’s draw.  Will this argument win the day?  I really do not know. The courts lean over backwards to protect site owners.

In order to get the perspective of the web site, I went straight to the source.  theDirty.com was gracious in allowing me to interview their attorney. David S. Gingras with the firm of Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. in Phoenix, Arizona. He represents both theDirty and The RippOff Report. His experience in these matters is substantial. He does not agree with my assessment.

“In my view, there’s nothing controversial about that(Roommates.com) holding.  Look at it this way — if someone posted a comment on The Dirty which said: “Brian Cuban is a convicted child molester,” that author would be liable for his statements but The Dirty would be protected by the CDA”

On the other hand, if Nik created a section which said: “What do you think about the fact that Brian Cuban is a convicted child molester?  Post your comments here…” then clearly he is the information content provider of that ‘question’ and he would be liable for it regardless of the CDA.  This isn’t exactly what Roommates says, but that’s the basic idea

“We have dealt with probably 4-5 new cases for Ripoff Report since Roommates was decided, and none of the courts involved have accepted the idea that Roommates has changed the law in any significant way.  Also, it’s important to keep in mind that right around the time Roommates was decided, the 6th Circuit reached nearly the opposite result in the Craigslist case (though I think both cases were correctly decided, and there’s nothing inconsistent about them; they just had different facts)

“Likewise, I have gotten several demand letters directed to The Dirty which mention Roommates, but each time the person making the demand is angry about something said in a user’s comment, not about anything that Nik did or said.  Those kinds of claims are just pure CDA cases, so I don’t feel like Nik has much to worry about”

There you have it.  What was the fate of my two friends?  Upon request the site removed both photos and captions. While I would argue they were required to remove the publicity shot under the DMCA, they would argue that they had no obligation to remove anything else and it was purely at their accommodating discretion that they did so.

It does however drive home the point that the first avenue is simply to ask nicely. If there are photos involved, make your DMCA request pursuant to the procedure set out on the offending site.  They are required to post the DMCA challenge pocedures on their site.   Odds are good that the photo will come down without challenge by the poster. Without the photo whatever nasty caption is up has no context so that will probably come down as well.   A DMCA request to remove the photo  if applicable should always be part of any objection to a defamatory caption.

When all else fails, just ask nicely.  If that fails and you feel there is enough at stake to justify further action, get your attorney to  at a minmum supeona the sites user records to identify the poster who is probably your recently dumped  ex-boyfriend.  It is not an inexpensive process.  Does he have any money to pay a judgment?  Probably not.  That’s why you dumped him in the first place right?  Now go get Dirty!

Shitty dates, no-show dates, cheapskate dates, text and twitter booty-calls, tweet-up hookups, and relationship status updates that change faster than Lindsey Lohan’s religion and sexual orientation.  People hook-up and break-up without putting down their cell-phones or  logging off of their Twitter or Facebook account.

Doesn’t this  pretty much sum up Generation Y relationships?   For much of my Baby Boomer dating  life we did not have cell phones or internet.  I had to ask for a home number.   I took the risk of nosy parents, brothers and sisters answering the phone.  Had to be on my game from minute one.  How did the world go on without Facebook, Sexting, Texting and Twitter?   God forbid we should actually have to look someone in the eye when asking them out or even worse, breaking up.

Now we are not even asking for phone numbers. We are asking for Facebook pages and Twitter user names.  When we do ask for a number we do not call, we text.  We are texting and tweeting our way to love and heartbreak. We are sending “Dear John Tweets” in 140 characters or less.

You would think the following text message exchange is right out of a Sex In The City episode.  It is a real life exchange between two people I tried to hook up on a blind date.  She lives in Manhattan and he is a very well known Hollywood actor.

The back story to this exchange is that Monica and Trent had been having a torrid “text and twitter  romance” but were  unsuccessful in trying to hook up for dinner.  They agreed to meet for a late coffee at Starbucks in Mid-Town.

Monica arrives on time but Trent is running late.  Monica is waiting anxiously in anticipation of their first Starbucks meet.  Trent finally texts her (some texts have been combined to save space).

(Trent)   Give me Ten Minutes

(Monica) So, I gave you 20 mins. Haven’t heard from you. Guess your not going to show, good night.

(Trent) I’m in a cab NOW heading to the financial district just tell me the cross streets.

(Monica) You are too late, going home.

(Trent) OK but lets discuss it further when I get there.

(Monica) No. I am meeting a friend for a bite. Sorry. You should have communicated better. Next time.

(Trent) I ‘m almost there, I’ll join you and u’r friend, in fact I’ll buy you both dinner:o)

(Monica) No thank you

(Trent) Great! Which restaurant are we meeting at?

(Monica) Trent, I don’t need your charity.  I need you to be on time. You missed that window and I have made other plans.  We will have to get together another time.

(Trent) I took a cab all the way down here. It cost me a fortune.  Can you recommend a nice restaurant I can have a meal at by myself?  With all due respect there will not be another time.

(Monica) You are being ridiculous. You were 45 minutes late and I made plans.  Its your own fault. Don’t take it out on me!  Plus we were supposed to meet in  your neighborhood not mine.

(Monica)  If anything you should have apologized.  I have had one hell of a day and do not deserve to be treated that  way!

(Trent)  Ur nuts. If we were going to meet in my neighborhood you would hadda traveled up here it would have taken at least a half hour,

(Trent) i was coming to u to make it easy.  now I’m walking all  the way back from wall street I’m at canal, again no disrespect , and in an apologetic tone, LOSE MY NUMBER!

(Trent)  I left my wallet at my meeting and I used all my cash for the cab

(Monica) We talked about me coming to you. I am sorry you left your wallet at the restaurant. I’m not sure how all this is my fault. Why are you being so nasty to me?

(Monica) I didn’t do anything to you. Do you need me to bring you some money?  I’m no sure what you want me to do here.

(Monica)  By the way, if you don’t have your wallet how were you planning on buying my friend and me dinner? You’re a liar and a pig

(Trent) I’m not being nasty, just straightforward.  I thought it would be better for u and considerate of me to come meet you downtown.

(Trent) Anyway, I’ve taken off my coat and tie, rolled up my suit  jacket  and am going to try to panhandle-i’m at the union sq. park. I just need to raise 2 bux for the train

(Trent) This is embarrassing.  I hope ur satisfied!

(Trent) No.  Please don’t bring any money. I’ve already gotten 30 cents-i’ll raise two bux in less than 20 minutes but thank for the gesture. :o)

(Monica)  Your choice.  Stay away from the crack dealers.

(Trent) I need to put the Blackberry away or else they’ll think I as at one of those giant evil banks, and they won’t pity me.-they’ll spit on me! So I can’t continue to communicate with u…..

(Trent) No hard feelings-just not meant to be.

Love found, lost, texted and tweeted  without ever dialing a digit.   The epitome of a Dating 2.0 world.  We are advertising to the entire social networking world that we are on the market in 140 characters or less.

We used to break up in restaurants so there would not be a scene.  Now we find out  we are newly single for the first time when we see our “significant other’s” Facebook relationship status suddenly set to “single and looking”  You  try to text her and her phone number has been changed.  You try to contact her on Facebook and find you are now “blocked”. You are also blocked and “un-followed” on Twitter.  A total dating 2.0 disconnect.

In my day, if you met a girl in a bar and she thought you were a  total douchebag, the  number she gave you was actually the Rejection Hotline or Dominos Pizza.(I ate a lot of pizza)

It will not be long before we will be creating our twitter networks for the sole purpose of finding a mate.  We will see tweets like ads we now see on billboard or the billboards themselves will tweet our message to the local masses.

“30k Millionaire Tweetgeek” user name bcuban seeks SATM(Single Attractive Tweet Mate).  Tweet me your vitals and lets Tweetup!”

Any takers?

©2009 Brian Cuban

As someone who eats out 90 percent of the time, I was a regular user of their service. I used it on an average of 2 times a month. My order history shows that since January 1, 2009, I used the service 12 times.  For me, it  it was a great deal.  The 7  dollar(rounded) delivery charge was worth it to be able to order out without the hassle of going out.

It was a great deal until they recently raised their minimum delivery order from 15 to 25 dollars.  It then transitioned from a decent restaurant delivery service with an good selection of restaurants to an over-priced, sometimes flawed, delivery service with a limited selection of restaurants.  At 15 dollars, I was willing to tolerate some delayed delivery and miss-filled orders.  At 25 dollars I want exactly what I would get if I sat down at the restaurant.  Diningin.com does not always deliver on that and if they make a mistake it is a hassle to correct once the food has left the source.

A 15 dollar price point allows you do order for one.  It allows you to consider a wide variety of any of the available  menu selections.  At 25 dollar plus delivery fee you are forced to order for two.  It forces you to limit your selection of items to reach that price point.  It will ultimately hurt their quick-casual restaurants.  Those that have primarily lower-mid-priced items on their menu.  Items on the menu that were once big sellers at a lower cost will  be bypassed just so a person can make the minimum order price.   What’s more, if I am now forced to spend 50 dollars with service charge and tip to use the service, I would rather sit down somewhere to ensure good service and accurate food delivery.  That’s a weekend night at a pretty good restaurant for a lot of people

One would think that such a drastic required minimum expenditure increase would spell corporate death in this terrible economy.   I suspect that Diningin.com was losing money on the individual consumer orders so they decided to price those out of the business model and focus on catering and corporate.  It may be a no-win scenario.  Consumers are not the only ones cutting back.  Corporations are also eliminating these types of discretionary expenditures. Someone there must have crunched the numbers and decided that this was the only way to go in a survival mode.

It is also possible that Diningin.com looked at the numbers and decided that I was not the type of customer they could support anymore.   The single guy coming in around the minimum with each order.  Maybe guys like me were sucking the life out of their profitable higher dollar revenue.  It is also possible that their numbers demontrated most orders as being closer to 25 than 15 regardless.  If that’s true, maybe their decision to eliminate my business was a good one.  Bean counters do not always take the perception versus reality factor into account.  Either way  Diningin.com will never see my business again.  I hope somebody steps in to fill the void.

As we were chit-chatting and enjoying the visual entertainment, a guy I know entered and walked up to the bar.  He was one of those guys or girls who over the years, you see repeatedly as you and your fixed clique of single, once single and single again acquaintances move through life in a often fluctuating but never really changing mate and date scene.

He was very good looking guy that always had a very good looking women on his arm.  They however, were always the same women.  Not the same in re-hooking up with a previous flame.  The same in that he always seemed to be with a women from the same rotating fixed menu choices that I had seen out on the Dallas scene for the last 10 years.

That night was no exception. In lockstep behind him was  a very attractive women who had also been part of the Dallas “out and about” scene for the last 10 years.  I turned to my girlfriend and said:

“That makes perfect sense that they are together”

She inquired as to why.  “It makes sense because they are both into group sex”

She was flabbergasted and immediately suspicious.   “How would you know they are into group sex!!”

“Because they run in a group that no matter how many years go by, at one point or another, everyone in the group has dated or slept with everyone else in the group.  Group Sex!!

My girlfriend was  relieved at my explanation and returned to her normal skin color.

About three months later I saw the same guy again at a Dallas Mavericks game.  He was with, you guessed it, another group sex girl!

What is it about this “group sex” phenomenon.  Ten or Fifteen years will go by and the dating clique will move right along with it, fluctuating only as people get married, divorced, date and dumped.  Always coming back to the flock like pigeons to a homing beacon.

Any explanations out there?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

2.   Historical  Quote #2  -Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller ( 1892 –  1984) -“First They Came”

Then the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

The End 2009 Product Of The Lessons Learned From The Above:

This is an email I received in response to my Open Letter To Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, urging him to remove Holocaust Denial Groups from Facebook.

Out of the hundreds of comments and emails I received, I found this to be the most disturbing and not for the personal attack. I received tons of those.  While I can process and understand the free speech arguments, I will never be able to process and understand what Timothy had to say.

Timothy (kingpoopypoop@msn.com)

“Brian, move on and quit over-playing and exaggerating this issue (i.e. Get a life or career or family or hobby or anything positive). You are a real downer and time waster. How about supporting a charitable cause with this same effort and energy. As a fellow Jew, I know of many needy organizations who would appreciate your POSITIVE efforts. By the way, how were you and I effected by any of this, or how might we be in the future?“

Is this the overall feeling of our Jewish youth or just one disconnected individual?   Do they as a group feel that these issues do not affect us nor will they?   That the issues are exaggerated?

I ask again.  What is wrong with our Jewish Youth…?