Letter to the Editor |
Dark Fun: Seinfeld joke misses moral mark


Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter says one Sentinel reader.


Dear Editor,

At comedian Jerry Seinfeld's recent show in Chicago, an audience member shouted about Gaza, "Twenty-two thousand Palestinians who are children now are killed with our taxpayer money, and you're making jokes?!"

The comedian then began dancing on stage and mockingly declared, “I am a racist. It’s a genocide. I’m into it,” before saying, “I’m gonna find out how much your ticket was, and I’m sending it to Israel.”

Seinfeld, an outspoken supporter of Israel, previously stated, “I don’t care about Palestine,” and that "It doesn't exist."

In their journal article, "Genocidal Enjoyment: On the Weaponization of Joyful Cruelty and 'Dark Fun' during Israel’s Genocide in Gaza," sociologists Raúl Pérez and Charles Thorpe define genocidal enjoyment as “the weaponized use of joyful cruelty in the service of state violence” against a dehumanized community.

One example cited is the propaganda channel, “72 Virgins-Uncensored,” which was operated on the social media platform Telegram by members of the Israeli Defense Forces' Influencing Department. Its target audience was Israeli citizens, and the channel showed videos and posted photos celebrating and mocking the death and abuse of Palestinians.

According to the authors, genocidal enjoyment bonds soldiers and supporters through shared pleasure, reinforcing moral hierarchies and portraying the targets of state violence as moral outsiders.

Seinfeld’s actions demonstrated genocidal enjoyment. Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI


Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.




What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


The Sentinel On This Day |
October 14


Today we learned about a St. Joseph resident who sent care packages to troops. We told you about five Urbana players qualifying for state in tennis, and new rules for energy assistance from the Trump administration. These and more stories from October 14.

Sentinel Article Archive for October 14


Loading posts from this day…



TAGS:

New rule puts federal assistance out of reach for small farm operations


Detractors argue that the USDA cannot restrict renewable energy because of the current administration's preference for fossil fuels.

Photo: Dedrie/Pixabay

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service


CHICAGO - A new federal rule set to take effect this week could make it harder for Illinois farmers to get help funding renewable energy projects.

The regulations will require farmers to complete projects and document a year of energy savings before applying for funding. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the changes are intended to streamline its Rural Energy for America Program and ensure funding decisions reflect actual project performance.

Chad Hughes, senior associate attorney, Environmental Law and Policy Center, said requiring farmers to cover costs up front could put federal assistance out of reach for smaller operations.

"Only those that can afford to carry those costs for over a year without knowing whether or not they're going to be reimbursed are going to be able to apply for REAP. So it's going to make the program just much less accessible," Hughes contended.

The changes, which also limit wind projects on certified cropland, take effect Oct. 16. Farmers and rural businesses can submit comments through Nov. 2 at Regulations.gov. The new guidelines follow earlier USDA policy changes limiting solar funding and were applied retroactively to pending applications.

The Environmental Law and Policy Center sued the agency in September, arguing the policy conflicts with Congress' intent for the REAP program to support the projects. Hughes argued the USDA cannot restrict renewable energy because of the current administration's preference for fossil fuels.

"The law has these basic principles of fairness baked in. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game like that unless you have a really good reason to do so, and USDA just has not identified such reason," Hughes stressed.

The USDA said it is working to protect farmland, safeguard taxpayer dollars and keep components from foreign adversaries out of federally supported projects. But Hughes countered none of the goals help farmers who have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, engineering and other costs, which had qualified for reimbursement under previous rules.

"Now suddenly they're finding out that, hey, that $60,000 that you thought was going to come through from the government that, over the course of 20 years, this program has worked and the money's always come through for farmers, well, this time it's not because USDA is abruptly changing the rules of the game after you already applied," Hughes emphasized.

Between 2023 and 2025, REAP supported nearly 7,000 projects and drove an estimated $2.75 billion in rural economic development. A USDA report showed in 2024 alone, the bipartisan program generated or saved enough energy to power more than 300,000 homes.




TAGGED: Farmers can speak out against new federal rule, funding changes in the Rural Energy for America program, rule changes by the USDA, REAP funded 7,000 renewable energy projects, keeping foreign-owned companies from receiving federal funds

Viewpoint |
All profit, no principles


Trump offers Russia a diesel lifeline as reports link Moscow to Iranian targeting of American forces.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


Americans are being asked to pay for fuel from a government reportedly helping Iran locate American forces and endangering American lives.

President Trump announced more than 300,000 metric tons of Russian diesel for markets after temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian fuel. He calls it relief for Americans facing high prices. It is a gift to Moscow wrapped in American hardship.

The relief will be small. That cargo equals roughly 2.2 million barrels, about half a day of U.S. diesel demand. For Russia, the transaction brings fresh revenue, restored access to markets and a precedent for escaping sanctions.

The law may not permit it, either. Republican Sen. Tillis says the arrangement may be illegal, and a bipartisan Senate statement says the administration neither consulted Congress nor provided the explanation required by statute.

Congress should demand the legal justification, commercial terms and expected benefit to Moscow. Who collects the proceeds? What enforceable concession has Putin made?

In March, The Washington Post reported that Moscow was supplying Iran with targeting information, including the locations of American warships and aircraft. Reuters later reported a Ukrainian intelligence assessment of Russian satellite surveys of Middle Eastern military sites, and two sources said imagery had been shared with Iran.

None of this proves Moscow directed individual attacks. All of it demands an answer. Why reward a government reportedly helping an adversary find American forces?

Meanwhile, Trump has pressed Ukraine to stop striking the Russian refineries that sustain Moscow's war. Reuters, citing a person familiar with the situation, reported that Washington threatened to cut intelligence sharing and weapons procurement if Kyiv refused.

American intelligence becomes leverage against the victim while Russian intelligence reportedly aids those who threaten Americans.

Protect the refineries, restore the revenues, pressure the victim. That is a remarkable definition of American strength.

Fuel is how Russia pays for this war. Sanctions on its energy revenue were meant to shrink the budget behind the missiles and drones aimed at Ukrainian cities. Waiving them tells allies who bore the cost of enforcement that American resolve was seasonal, and tells Moscow that pressure can be outwaited.

Trump has since announced an energy ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine would hold its fire if Russia reciprocated, but the Associated Press reported continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy sites. A declaration is not an agreement, and an agreement is not a concession delivered.

The familiar defense is that Trump is negotiating. Then show the exchange. A reciprocal halt to energy attacks could protect civilians and deserves support. Unilateral restraint on Ukraine, coupled with fresh Russian sales, deserves rejection. Negotiation requires something from the other side. Otherwise, “deal” becomes a flattering word for surrendering leverage.

Some Republicans understand the danger. Sens. Collins, Murkowski,Tillis and Curtis joined Democrats in demanding that Trump reverse course.

Sen. Barrasso defended the arrangement as relief for consumers, farmers, ranchers and truckers. Those Americans deserve affordable fuel. They also deserve an honest accounting of the security cost.

This is not an isolated concession. Trump's deference to Putin has repeatedly produced ceremony, promises and headlines without the corresponding results.

In August 2025, Trump welcomed Putin to Alaska with a red carpet and military flyover despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Trump sought a ceasefire and left without one. Putin received the ceremony; Ukraine received no halt to the fighting.

The questions reach Trump's family, too. ProPublica reported that Russian oligarch Kremlev, who has close ties to Putin, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars toward Trump Jr.'s Bahamas wedding celebrations, including a private-island rental. The couple acknowledged the gift, and Kremlev later said Trump Jr. repaid him.

A gift does not prove that policy was bought. But the circumstances demand documentation: Why was it offered, and what records substantiate the repayment?

Congress has the power to obtain answers. It can subpoena the transaction's terms, hold hearings and force a vote. Republicans need no theory, only the willingness to judge a Russian lifeline as harshly as they would if a Democratic president had authorized it.

Cheap diesel cannot justify rewarding a government reportedly helping Iran locate American sailors and pilots. Americans deserve relief at the pump, but not at the price of their security.

When Putin profits and American forces face the risk, the question is not whether the deal is cheap. It is who is paying the real price.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.





What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.


Loading latest story ...




Taking on one of personal care's least-talked-about problems

(PRNewswire) Chicago -- There are products for sweaty armpits, sweaty feet and sweaty faces. But when sweat shows up somewhere a little less comfortable to talk about, the options get limited fast.

Chicago-based Cheek Sheets is looking to change that.
Cheek Sheets today announced the launch of its namesake absorbent sheets, an ultra-thin, dry and discreet personal-care product designed to help absorb sweat and manage unwanted moisture between the cheeks before it becomes uncomfortable, embarrassing or funky.


| Most recent articles

Loading recent stories ...


| Home Improvement

Loading recent stories ...


| Opinions

Loading recent stories ...



More Sentinel Stories