Politics and the pulpit

2019 edit: Interesting how even at this early stage, how I was putting things together. If abortion was truly murder, then rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. I didn't quite come round to the full thought put forward in  Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice - that the fact that they allow for those exceptions shows they aren't interested in the zygote so much as the woman's behavior...

Back to 2008...
It’s an election year again and I’m reminded of my unending personal debate. I’m fairly conservative religiously compared to the general population, but fairly liberal otherwise. I grew up listening to my dad, my parents’ friends, and even sermons in church say and imply that the Republican party offers the most Godly platform and positions and candidates and so we Christians should vote that way. The sermons generally wouldn’t say vote Republican explicitly, but you could tell what they were getting at. In my parents’ house, with their friends and to some degree among the Christians I grew up with, liberal was a dirty word- used almost like a slur.

For the Christians, including my parents, that I speak of I have the utmost respect and I agree totally with them on matters of Scripture. I do take issue with when Bible and Christianity mix with politics, though, and I hope if any of them happen to read this that they don’t take offense or think me disrespectful. I’m still trying to muck out my political position exactly. There isn’t really a party that captures my beliefs perfectly, no candidate that I can feel passionate about supporting.

I have a problem with saying candidate or party A is against abortion and gay marriage and the Bible is against them, therefore I must support A. I believe and can provide Scriptural support for their (and my) position that abortion and homosexuality are sin, but I think the fact that you must support candidates that have that position is opinion because it’s not that simple. Let me explain my thought process.

What was and is Jesus’/God’s goal or desire? That all would come to Him, that is, believe and live faithfully. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 say this quite well. When we look at Jesus’ example, he didn’t want to change (inside or outside the set process of government) the government even though the Romans were quite harsh on Christians and it was far from Godly. His focus was on individual responsibility because that is how we’ll be judged- John 12:48 and Rom 2:6. While I can see some value to having Christian leaders of a country, there are problems, too. One being the issue of having religious influence in government such that laws would be specific to certain denominations or something like that-the slope is slippery and I fear that myself and those who believe like I do wouldn’t be in the majority, so we’d be at their mercy.

One way to accomplish this (Jesus’ desire), some might say, is electing Christian officials to enact Christian laws and ones that don’t violate God’s law. This seems a little backwards to me, though there is some truth to the expression “fake it til you make it”. Another, the opinion I hold for now, is to focus on spreading the gospel individually such that people choose not to have abortions, rather than go the more authoritarian route. I think everything has a moral issue to consider whether it’s the abortion stance, how well he will handle money (money God blessed me with and I am to be a good steward of), or whether he will attack countries at will, killing innocent people for no real reason. The point is, is that how to accomplish God’s desire is opinion. Sin is sin and there is Bible proof for that, but who you elect, whether you are pro separation of church and state or against, and other political issues are open for debate. There has been a movement in the past decade to politicize certain religious issues, which has removed the necessity to think for oneself. Not to say that those who disagree with me aren’t thinking for themselves-far from it-but the propaganda doesn’t help us talk intelligently and freely about these issues.

I also have an issue with the fact that the abortion ban poses some problems. It is murder when used as birth control and even in the case of rape and incest (on which most Republicans will take exceptions BTW), but what about ectopic pregnancy or other instances that I can’t think of where the question is to save the baby or mother or both are in danger? Will an abortion ban account for those, albeit, small number of cases? Should it, Biblically? Since I can’t answer that, I have a hard time with saying ban abortion absolutely and vote for those who will work to ban abortion. Never mind the fact that the so-called family values candidates are willing to murder a baby when the mother was raped. It’s a hard situation for sure. Would I make the right decision? I don’t know. But there is a right decision there and Republicans and Christians who support Republicans as the Godly choice have no problem with murder in those cases (or they must not because they say they can’t support a pro choice candidate because he leaves the door open on murder).

Also invoked in election years is how the country needs to get back to its Christian roots. I don’t think we want state established religion, do we? That’s how we started. If you didn’t attend twice on Sunday there were a set of consequences that involved the gallows at sea. And if you weren’t the “correct” denomination, there were harsh consequences including but not limited to prison. Founding Faith is an interesting book to read on this subject. The Founding Fathers and others of the time (who weren’t part of the state enforced denominations) tended to believe, with some exceptions, that separation of church and state would be good for both in different ways. Now, religious folks often look at separation of church and state as evil, worldly, and trying to take God out of schools, etc.

I hesitate to post this as some will probably think it heresy or worse, but this is a pet peeve of mine-politics from the pulpit- and I don’t always say what I want and don’t always have opportunity to say it, so I’ll write it here and move on. I hope you can do the same. I apologize if anyone reads it and it’s hard to follow or if I don’t explain myself clearly-I did my best with the time I have.

I guess I'll post it. Here goes...

Omer's beating: a lesson to innocent Palestinians??

This is something I posted at http://share.triangle.com (N&O). My fellow N Carolinians aren't much interested in foreign affairs it seems. I've got some in politics and current events and no one responds, so I'll turn it into a blog post. Not that anyone will read this, either!

Mohammed Omer was beaten (to put it mildly!) by Shin Bet on his way back to Gaza from London after receiving the Martha Gellhorn Prize for journalism.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/06/28/israelia_8217_s_beat_and_torture_returni

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/headlines

10th topic down

Is this proof that the oft repeated claim that if the Palestinians would stop doing x, y or z then Israel wouldn't have to use force is false?

When Palestinians who are obviously innocent and unarmed are treated in this way, what incentive is there for other not so prominent Palestinians to turn from violence or resist joining the violent fringe?

Was this a political statement by Israel? Are they trying to silence his reporting in Gaza?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/7/award_winning_palestinian_journalist_mohammed_omer

Shin Bet response to the issue: Omer “received decent treatment and no extraordinary measures were taken against him.” Read and decide for yourself. Should the US also institute these routine measures? We have learned a lot from Israel about torture-Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc. I wonder if these critical safety measures will accompany the taking off of shoes in our security procedure since they are routine and so effective.

Check this link if you want to know exactly what happened to this guy. It was obviously not in the name of security. The agent said we wouldn't have let you out if we knew you were coming back. The guy posed absolutely no threat and did nothing threatening except speak out at conferences, which in a democracy you'd think this would be respected to some degree. The agent reveals that the goal of so called security measures (entry policies, collective punishment, and torture) is ethnic cleansing. Pure and simple. Security is not part of it at all.

If this is how the innocent are treated, how can Palestinians believe that even if they had power over the militant groups to stop suicide bombing, that they would get rights, justice, respect, etc?? Collective punishment so harsh that it involves killing, torture, bulldozing homes, etc of innocents is not proportional or warranted in response to the threat. They have the wrong target and criticize suicide bombers for targeting innocents. Their weaponry is more advanced, precise, and plentiful and still they target or have A LOT of "accidents". Is Israel any better than those suicide bombers?

Israel and children

10-year-old subjected to torture by Israeli soldiers
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=811&CategoryId=1

How many times have you heard this story in the last week?? If this were an Israeli killed or injured by a homemade rocket, we'd hear it several times a day for several days.

We have very cozy relations with this country, one that we call the only democracy in the Middle East. WHY? It is debatable whether or not they have "democratic values" and respect for human rights. Ok, it's not debatable. They flout international law, continue to build settlements in defiance of international law and our restatement of international law on the subject, and think it's just fine to punish/torture a whole population for the crimes of a few.

McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton all made appearances at the AIPAC, trying obsequeously to win them over. Obama even abandoned his diplomacy theme (which is something that drew me in) for tough talk on Iran. Our Senators and House members preface their comments in the chamber with prolific praise and examples of how their constituents are friends of Israel. This is disconcerting to say the least, but I'll bet you won't hear them reprimanding their "friend" for this abuse, people that have died at checkpoints, use of human shields, settlement building, etc any time soon.

Why not? We hear about every injury and the periodic death by homemade Palestinian rocket. The Palestinian injuries and deaths mount in almost total silence, though they are almost triple the Israeli deaths. Are there just so many, that people would or have gotten tired of hearing about it? Is it because Israelis look and dress like "us" and Palestinians are brown? Are the Territories just too dangerous to report in, so they look to Israel, which has some action, but not too much? Conspiracy, carelessness, desensitization?

Congress can't speak out or they will lose their AIPAC funding or AIPAC will fund their opponent to get a more pro Israel candidate. Where are the journalists? Journalists seem to love covering hurricanes. They will stand there until they themselves blow away and seem to love every second of it.

Bulldozer attack

The big news is a Palestinian who went on a "rampage", killing three. Given that Israel, with the help of the company, Caterpillar, has bulldozed thousands of homes, made an average of 12 homeless per home, and killed indiscriminately, I'd say we should have expected this a lot sooner. You might call it ironic.

It's called a terror attack, but is it not possible that a Palestinian who's fed up with the Israeli oppression is driven crazy by possibly family being killed by IDF, lack of movement, Israel induced stagnant economy, etc? This one makes the news because the victims are Israeli. The 5000 homes demolished are not worth mentioning because Palestinians are losing everything, sometimes their lives; no Jews were harmed. Rachel Corrie made the news, but our government refused to hold Israel responsible, as it folded to Israel's wishes in the USS Liberty attack. I guess if we gave up our own servicemen to save Israel's rep, why sweat one young girl, right?

Here is the link for the Big Story- Palestinian bulldozes three in terror attack
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/02/israel.bulldozer/index.html?iref=nextin

Everyone is calling this a terrorist act, trying to find a group that will claim responsibility, etc. Israel's home demolitions and associated murders are just administrative moves- journalists don't mention terrorism, collective punishment, land grabs, or even do a follow up with the family ot find out what their next move is (as in other disasters) if they report it at all. The President doesn't call with condolences when Israelis are driving the bulldozers that crush homes, kill people, crush cars, etc. Mention "national security" and murder and destruction of property are immediately justified, no matter how unrelated it is to national security and how little sense it makes otherwise.

I heard a good point mentioned recently: Where were the bulldozers razing the family homes of relatives of the guy who assassinated Rabin? That's Israel's policy, right?

Here are some facts on home demolitions and other examples of Israel's continued commitment to human rights:

http://icahdusa.org/facts

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1

Terror watch uses local eyes
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077

This sounds scary. Or it could be. It doesn't look that bad in the article, but the fact that things you do and say that aren't even illegal are being recorded and could be pieced together in patchwork fashion to frame you if the need arose is crazy. This opens the door for abuse, big time. On one hand it's great they're being vigilant; on the other, we're all a bad picture away from Guantanamo.


Preparing the Battlefield
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh knows what's up. When he wrote about Iraq, I was thinking...naw...Bush isn't that crazy. It would be too hasty, there are too many former officials dissenting, the evidence doesn't seem to be there yet. And we ended up in a disaster there.

I didn't imagine it. I thought maybe I'd confused some news stories as I was listening to CNN while nodding off on the couch...

Mofaz said: "Israel would attack Iran "if it continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons". "

Mofaz criticised over Iran threat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7442471.stm

If this is true (and it probably is), who do you think will foot the bill? Who do you think will volunteer it's citizens gladly, without a thought to what's in its citizens' best interest? Israel won't even have to declare war. There will be some back door calls or visits to the White House by Israeli officials and we will happily sacrifice our sons and daughters for Israel's paranoid perceived existential threat because we have promised to protect Israel at all costs. It's in the oath of office for president and Congress. It must be. Why else would we hold to this even when it completely is at odds with our interests and security??

Israel's writing a check our American butts are going to have to cash. But that's never happened before, right? ;)

murder in Israel, scholarships revoked, Rachel Ray the terrorist, links

Pipe bombs or cell phone- Can you tell the difference? Israeli soldiers can’t.

http://www.mahsanmilim.com/fahmi_aldardukE.htm

This story makes you wonder how many more like this incident occur that we don’t hear about…

This boy was on a cell phone with a headset at a checkpoint and was shot several times. Israel officially maintains that the boy was a suicide bomber armed with pipe bombs with wires visible. The headlines in Israel for this were that an attack was “thwarted”. Other Israeli reports indicated the incident was an “accident”.

***
Israel and the US punish the type of people they claim they want running a new Palestinian state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/world/middleeast/30gaza.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The New York Times
May 30, 2008
U.S. Withdraws Fulbright Grants to Gaza
By ETHAN BRONNER

Irresponsible moves like this contradict our peace rhetoric. Israel’s interests seem to trump our own in a variety of ways. This is merely one example. Why are we making moderate hardworking Palestinians pay for the crimes of extremists?? Perhaps this is why we don’t hear the voices of moderates (or so the neocons say); they are drowned out by the media recording our and Israel’s tunnel vision that’s focused only on extremists. We refuse to question Israel’s policies, even when they are in opposition to our interests or just plain absurd. Israel tells these students to change their government and then we’ll let you travel, trade, and eat. This is like telling a man stuck in a deep well to climb out and then we’ll give you a rope. Absurd, but why change? It’s been policy for so long…


Let the responsible parties know that you insist that the Fulbright scholarships be reinstated, and that Israel be pressed to allow the awardees to travel:

Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board Chair
Ms. Shirley Moore Green 202.453.8189 greenm@state.gov

Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs
Political Affairs Office
Matthew Rosenstock (202) 647-1481 rosentstockms@state.gov

Deputy Secretary of State for Visa Services
Stephen A. "Tony" Edson (202) 647-9584 tonye@state.gov

My letter:
Dear Ms Green,

I was outraged and extremely disappointed to hear that you are revoking the scholarships earned by 7 deserving Palestinian students.

The US claims to support a two state solution, academic freedom, and moderate Arabs. This refusal to help these Palestinians get to the US to study flies in the face of all these noble goals. Support for Israel is popular in the US, but we really need to re-examine our unconditional support, especially when it interferes with our national interests. It is in our best interest to get these moderate, educated Palestinians to the US to study so that they can help build a Palestinian state, learn about our democratic system, and so we can encourage moderate political discourse in the region.

What's more, Israeli officials claimed to be surprised to find that these students received scholarships and couldn't get to the US and were having the earned scholarships revoked. It just feels like we didn't even try to persue any dialogue with Israel on this issue of students leaving Gaza. Even if it is your policy to leave the travel arrangements up to students alone, this is a special case that warrants intervention as it is well known that Gaza is under lock down and conditions in Palestinian areas are difficult in every aspect of life to say the least.

Please make an effort to get these 7 students to the US and to give future students freedom of movement.


***
Rachel Ray’s a Terrorist!

This shouldn’t even be an issue. Rachel Ray wore a paisley scarf for a Dunkin Donuts ad. Far right or neocon bloggers complained that it looked like a keffiyeh and henceis a symbol of terrorism. At first DD just stated the facts, that the scarf has no meaning and is paisley and was chosen by a stylist, then they pulled the ad under pressure of a right wing boycott. A) It wasn’t a keffiyeh and B) the Palestinian scarf isn’t a symbol of terrorism (all Arabs aren’t terrorists).

And I thought Ann Coulter was an idiot…
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/28/the-keffiyeh-kerfuffle/

This guy has it right. He points out that she wrote a book supporting internment, so that should discredit her as far as rational thought goes.
http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2008/06/keffiyeh-pseudo-controversy-blogger.html

The head of marketing at Dunkin Donuts is Frances Allen; her e-mail address is frances.allen@dunkinbrands.com

The Dunkin Donuts Customer Care service line: (800) 859-5339. Be patient calling this number, it takes some time to get through.

You can e-mail your concerns to customerservice@dunkinbrands.com or send a letter to:

Dunkin' Donuts Public Relations Department
130 Royall Street
Canton, MA 02021
Tel: 781.737.5200

My letter:
Dear Ms Allen,

I was encouraged to hear you dispel the rumor that Rachel Ray was wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh.

Then, I was amazed and miffed that you would cave to the extreme far right fearmongers in this country who want us to believe that all Arabs are terrorists. I thought we had come farther in our understanding of Arab culture, but that is apparently not the case. This is aside from the fact that Ray was not actually wearing a hijab, headdress, Arab scarf, etc at all.

I am extremely disappointed because I love Dunkin Donuts (until now), but I regret that you have made a political decision to side with fearmongers and promote fear of Arabs and Islamophobia and so me and anyone that I and many organizations contact will not be buying anything Dunkin Donuts. You could have stuck to your guns (scarf was paisley) and stayed above the fray (remain apolitical), but you didn't.


***

Archbishop Tutu meets devastated Gaza family
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/archbishop-tutu-meets-devastated-gaza-family-835867.html

Jimmy Carter for the first time exposes Israel as having 150 nuclear weapons
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987703.html

Body of 15 year old Palestinian boy found mutilated in Israeli settlement
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m43179&hd=&size=1&l=e

Israeli occupation forces continue the economic genocide
http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/27/eighteen-years-of-work-destroyed-in-less-than-four-hours/

Palestinian Suffering Dampens Israel Celebration by Bessy Reyna
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-reyna0516.artmay16,0,3405837.column

Sixty Years of Dispossession, Humiliation, and Oppression in the Middle East by Susan Abulhawa
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/05/14/02348.html

Dancing on graves – Israel celebrates 60 years
http://palestine.org.nz/phrc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1

Australia may be close to a paid maternity leave, as I heard on the BBC today. That would leave us, the US, dead last, trailing even developing nations with zero paid leave for working mothers. Almost makes me want to move to Sweden. They get 18 months. Wikipedia has all countries. It's interesting. It made me mad, but it's interesting nonetheless.

****
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_mcclellan_book

Condi's commenting on Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened. She sure is saying a lot for someone who's not going to comment on a book she hasn't read!

Interesting to me is that the White House and others quoted aren't really saying McClellan's making false statements. They are just "puzzled" and think it's "sour grapes". Condi is trying to take issue. She says WMD was the fundamental reason; McClellan says the primary reason was spreading freedom, etc. The way I remember it was McClellan's point, then that faded to the WMD focus. Regime change was cited after the invasion as a primary reason, I think. WMD was bogus, so they had to think of something else.

She also backpedals a bit and cites excuses:

'It wasn't just us who was concerned about WMD'

'Those skeptics should have stood against UN sanctions/oil for food'

'If you believe he wasn't a threat to international community, then why allow Iraqis to suffer under oil for food'


There WERE critics of the admin's approach! All the former officials speaking out is what made me seriously doubt Bush & Co's plan. They just chose to ignore them and dismiss them as unpatriotic, etc. There were also critics of oil for food speaking out. I read things about Hussein getting rich while the people starved. None of those things Condi cited justify the invasion of Iraq. AND, Hussein was pitched as an imminent threat against the US, not just the international community in general. He was implicitly linked to 9/11 more than once by Cheney and Bush, etc.

Soup Nazi

Norman Finkelstein was arrested at the airport in Israel on his way to the Occupied Territories.
He's banned for 10 years. It's almost funny. Except it's real. It's a bit comical like the soup Nazi. No entry for you! Come back 10 year! Next!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/23/headlines

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1700

----------

If you think US support for Israel is remotely a good idea, have ever thought- why do they hate us, are American or Jewish or a politician... well... just read it.

It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence From Israel
http://www.alternet.org/story/55827/

Ok, you've heard my rant, now here's someone more eloquent :


Bush in Israel

Refugees are the Key

By SAM BAHOUR

“[When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence it] was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David: a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

“You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth.”

- President George Bush, May 15, 2008

President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset to mark Israel’s sixtieth anniversary. The President’s speech was absent of any real insight or policy. Instead of addressing the politics of a region that can only be equated to a powder keg about to explode, he assumed the other worldly role of bestowing on Israel a religious right, one dangerously terrifying because it represents the views of the most rabidly extremist Jews, similar to the Jewish law student that assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the gun-toting Israeli settlers (many holding dual U.S./Israeli citizenship) that populate Israel’s Jewish-only settlements across the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

President Bush used the out-dated words “Eretz Yisrael” [biblical Land of Israel] to depict the Israeli state. This sort of usage was, and is, exactly what most right-wing Jewish fundamentalists use to refer to an Israel that reaches from the Euphrates River, in what’s left of today’s Iraq, to the Mediterranean Sea.

Adding insult to injury, he went on to praise Israel’s welcoming of immigrants from around the world to populate the newly created State of Israel. It meant absolutely nothing to President Bush that the indigenous Palestinian population, lingering for 60 years only hours away from where he was standing while addressing the Knesset and on whose ruins Israel was built, remains today’s longest standing refugee community.

The Palestinian refugees symbolize the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The refugee problem has its roots in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which ended in the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (approximately half of the Arab population). According to historical accounts of the War, including from recent Israeli historians, Jewish Zionist forces precipitated the flight of the Palestinian Arabs as part of a campaign of population transfer. The nascent State of Israel subsequently enacted laws to expropriate the refugees’ property and bar their return. The refugees were left homeless and destitute, mostly dependent on foreign aid for survival. The subsequent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in the further displacement of around 200,000 Palestinians.

Today there are over 5.5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who have never been allowed the choice to return to their homes or given redress for their losses. The continued denial of their rights encapsulates the decades-long strife, disenfranchisement and dispossession the Palestinians have suffered.

With the advent of the peace process in the early 1990s, hopes were ignited that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip would end and the plight of the refugees would be resolved. These hopes were dashed as the negotiations reached an eventual deadlock, leading to a stalemate and Israeli military onslaught on Palestinian areas that continues to plague the region.

Following the breakdown of the talks there was much debate about who was to blame for the failure. But this debate obscures the larger problem stoking the flames of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: Israel’s unwillingness to comply with rules of international laws, including the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and third party failure to enforce them.

Taking the Palestinian refugee issue as a case in point, the State of Israel, who controls the key to solving their problem, has refused to recognize the right of the refugees to choose whether to return to their homes and denied any responsibility for the problem since 1948. Israel has adopted this position in violation of international law, including UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation. The General Assembly has affirmed this most basic human right of the Palestinian refugees every year since 1948. Additionally, admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948. At the time, Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.

Israel has defended its refusal to concede the right of return on the grounds that the massive return of Palestinian refugees would spell the death of the Jewish state. But admitting its historical responsibility to the Palestinian people and recognizing the rights of the refugees could in fact deliver security and prosperity to Israel. Indeed, Israeli recognition of these basic principles would improve the atmosphere on the ground, help create more parity between the parties, and provide a fair framework for working out the details of a peace plan for resolving the conflict.

Israel’s first Prime Minister said that “the old [refugees] will die, and the young will forget”. A few days ago, Israel’s current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explicitly stated that Palestinians must, “relinquish your demand for the realization of the right of return.” Following these ill- fated desires, Israel has sought to deny or delay addressing the refugee issue. However, the amount of blood shed since 1948 proves the fallacy and the immorality of the Israeli position. Adhering to it will only lead to more bloodshed.

The rights of the Palestinian people, and in particular the refugees, should be recognized alongside any legitimate rights of the Israeli people. Ultimately, it is through the evenhanded application of international legitimacy that we may be able to get out of the current stalemate and reach real grounds for peace. Otherwise, the failed Israeli practice of “might is right” will prevail and prolong needless death and destruction on all sides.

It does not come as a surprise to Palestinians, and an ever-growing number of non- Palestinians, that President Bush’s speech reflected blindness to the plight of Palestinian refugees. Those Palestinians from the Diaspora, not refugees, but Palestinians with their homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with non-Palestinian foreign nationals trying to assist Palestinians by working and serving in the occupied territory, have become the latest category of victims of the most recent application of the Israeli “might is right” mindset. Israel has been denying entry to scores of foreign nationals, Palestinians and others, trying to enter the occupied territory. The mass majority of these foreign nationals are U.S. citizens and the Bush Administration, although acknowledging that Israel is discriminating against U.S. citizens based on their ethnicity, have done very little in standing up to its “eternal” ally Israel in order to resolve this latest problem.

If U.S. citizens are left to vie for themselves in the face of Israeli intransigence, Palestinian refugees are absolutely correct in not believing that any U.S. mediated “peace process” will lead to the realization of their inalienable rights, including the right of return.

Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism and the author of the infamous novel The Old New Land (Altneuland) and the book The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat), who Bush was keen on recalling in his speech, is surely laughing in his grave at Bush’s visit to Israel and his being more Zionist than Israeli extremists.

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the besieged Palestinian City of El-Bireh in the West Bank. He co-edited with Staughton and Alice Lynd HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and can be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.

http://www.counterpunch.com/bahour05172008.html

Nakba

Bush's speech to Knesset
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text_1

Two very disturbing themes emerged from this obstacle to peace. One was the specific and repeated references to Israel's "historic" "right" to be there, going back to Abraham. The other was the militaristic pep talk that faded to obsequious silliness towards the end. Had it ended on that note, I would have fully expected Bush to lead the Knesset-army out marching and take over Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the speech.

As usual, I couldn't believe what came out of Bush' mouth. His speech writer must be a member of the AIPAC and a big Zionist bigot.

A reference to Ariel Sharon, man of peace - A moniker that still puzzles me. At least he got the warrior part right. Dude loved a fight.

In one paragraph, he hits on two contentious points.
1. "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate."This is a quote from their Declaration of Independence. The Jews have this right and no one else does, apparently. Why not say all people do, if that's what you believe. They don't believe that, that's why. Israel is a state for Jews, not its citizens and has been since its inception.
2. "...redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael."The previous was a political opinion. Now, here, Mr. Bush, you're messing with the Bible. Not only is this unhelpful in our quest as an unbiased mediator, but it is Biblically incorrect. Bush repeats this misconception that in 1948, a Biblical prophecy was fulfilled about Jews returning to a homeland. At one time, the Israelites were God's chosen. With Jesus' death, resurrection and acension, that is no longer the case. Not to mention that the Israelites and today's Jews aren't the same. God did promise the Israelites land and they obtained it, but keeping it was conditional on following God and they turned away. God told them in detail what would happen if they turned away- kicked off the land, pestilence, wars, etc. Bad stuff. A lot of that happened in AD70 when Jerusalem was invaded and temple destroyed. This was symbolic of the fulfillment of the old and coming of the new (Christianity/Jesus). Talk in the prophets of the returning of God's people to Zion after their rejection is symbolism for everyone coming to God through Christ, rather than literal Jews coming to literal Israel. The language is clear if you read it (also Hebrews discusses it).

"unbreakable alliance", "friendship", "shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul" - more obstacles that prevent the US from helping in any way. In fact, it is detrimental to any peace, justice or positive development in the region. And there is more still of Bush bestowing on Jews the religious right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the name of freedom and democracy.

In a mention of the holocaust, Bush again, wrongly, references the “promise of God,” or Israel.
He quotes Golda Meir. This deluded woman has also said there is no such thing as Palestinians.
In a paragraph about the “struggle” for independence, Bush makes them sound heroic-”in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats”. The part about welcoming immigrants is a half truth. They are welcome if they are Jewish. The Arabs that have lived there since the beginning and who are citizens aren’t even welcome. I found this lie particularly funny and out of place, seeing how many Americans are aware of Israel‘s war crimes: “love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity”. Yeah, imprisoning people for political reasons, denying fair trials to Arabs, and treating people like cattle at the many checkpoints, and generally oppressing and collectively punishing an entire population for the crimes of a few. That sounds like liberty and dignity, all right. I guess the Iraq disaster has taught us Israel and the US share a desire to carpet bomb Israel’s neighbors and torture “suspects”. We do have that in common, at least. Worked for peace and fought for freedom?? I’m just not buying it. I’d buy state sponsored terrorism. That fits. Aparthied. I’d buy that. Worked for peace? No. It just doesn’t match the facts on the ground.

He mentions an agricultural miracle?? Whaa??? He’s totally buying into the old myth that Israelis made the desert bloom. What happened was that they expropriated the most fertile land, then diverted most of the Palestinians’ water resources to the dry areas they stole. Today, Palestinians have a serious water crisis and have to look thirstily at the green yards and full swimming pools in illegally built settlements. No miracle there. Palestinians were left with a lot of rocky areas they had to work hard to get any use of- that is more of a miracle, but since it is a positive Palestinian development, it is totally ignored by the US.

Bush mentions several Jewish tourist attractions he visited and said that he’s seen Israel’s character. He didn’t visit any Israeli Arab or Muslim sites (that he mentioned)-guess they don’t factor into Israeli character. Only Jews matter and Bush is applauding and supporting this racist view. He says this, then wants to talk peace and compromise. It is easy to see who will be expected to compromise.

He speaks of moral clarity, value of life, right to a peaceful life, without so much as a nod toward Palestinians.

He says he’s ashamed of the UN for trying to do what no one else dares- to put Israel in it’s racist, oppressive place.

He condemns anti-Semitism (the Jewish kind), which is good, but stops just short of repeating another lie, that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Why don’t free people have the right to examine and question a state’s right to exist, or right to oppress, right to extra-judicially assassinate, right to demolish homes, right to cause a humanitarian disaster, right to influence or control another population’s elections, right to collectively punish?

“On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.”

Ok…I know where Bush is going with this, but Israel’s definitely in the latter category. I think Bush is of the opinion that terrorists are different than Palestinians in general, but with this speech (and other sentiments like it), you’d never know it. In speeches like this, you’d think all Palestinians or Arabs are terrorists or that there are no Palestinians-just Israeli Jews and the Terrorists.

As for breaking ties with Israel, Bush gives no real reason why we reject it. We just do. He says it’s propaganda, so he must be right. He was right about WMD’s, so, let’s all get on board with this, ok?

He leaves an opening for attacking Iran-home run in Israel. Israelis are ready to elect him PM now. Maybe Bush is trying to get elected over there. Maybe this is a stump speech. It would explain a lot.

“to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope”

He just said a few paragraphs ago that he doesn’t expect anyone to talk to those they deem terrorists and here we are extending tolerance? Extend our vision and offer tolerance?? Seems like everyone has to do it our way and anyone who has a different idea is a terrorist.

A rather anti-diplomacy speech. Political problems need political solutions, not threats of carpet bombing or worse. Peace won’t come without justice. Bush may be right that peace follows democracy, but there is a need for justice that the US is incapable of overseeing. Some may say it’s not our job, but our government seems to think it is. If they are going to do it, I say, do it right. Acknowledge both sides’ suffering, concerns, violations, progress, etc. Dish out criticism to whoever is doing wrong, not just the people you can’t identify with.


If I had just 3 words, they'd be: obstacle to peace.
Until later...

Election

I have been holding onto this post, so I'll just go ahead and post it. I guess it kinda defeats the purpose of a blog, huh?

Well, this post comes from a discussion at work about why people support one candidate versus another- I thought I should justify to myself my choice for Obama. Is he just more charismatic or do I like his policies? Another issue that plagues every election is Roe v. Wade. Should I vote on this issue alone? Some hard core Republicans I know and love would say yes. While I do think it is a life and death issue as well as a moral issue, there are other moral issues. Actually, a lot of Democrats I know are voting solely to uphold this court decision as well (the next president will have to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices most likely). They see it as too much church in the state.

The only quotes about what all the fuss is about with Jeremiah Wright is something about the US policies being partially responsible for 9/11 (which I agree with) and the US lying about HIV not being invented for genocide of black people (kind of crazy IMO). Maybe the fuss is about Obama’s reaction. I think a general distancing was bad, especially if he agrees with some of Wright’s ideas, as do I. He should have come forward to tell which things that were said that he does and doesn’t agree with to clarify, rather than clarifying that he renounces the statements, but not the man. I think and even hope that was the wrong distinction, but would be disappointed to find that he didn’t stand up for hard, yet truthful, statements. Overall, this "issue" is silly. As Bill Moyers has said, how would you like your long career of speaking to be summed up in 16-20 seconds of soundbytes from your work? Maybe we aren't getting the whole picture...

Clinton, on the other hand, is talking about attacking Iran if Israel is threatened. That should be more worrisome to people (especially people who opposed our action in Iraq at any point) that the Obama-Wright “controversy”. We should be worried that Hilary is showing the same tendencies as Bush, though she will not admit it. I do hope this won’t turn into a fight about who loves Israel more, though. Reading Congressional transcripts about the Middle East peace issue, even when criticizing Israel, the session turns into an Israel love fest or contest, with each comment being preceded by how much they love Israel or what their state does for Israel/Israelis.

Another silly thing Obama is being criticized for is not wearing a flag pin. I read some articles about that while I was Googling for something else. I heard a snippet on the radio last week about what I think was this very “issue”. They lady said something like “Why can’t he just say he loves the flag?”. She quoted him as saying he revered it, which I think is more descriptive and correct to say. Why is this even an issue. He’s had to refute the false accusations that he doesn’t say the Pledge and other assorted things as well as the fact that he’s Christian rather than Muslim. I think there was a recent Jerusalem Post article proving (or trying to prove) that he is Muslim. Silly. If the man says he’s Christian, he’s Christian. If he was Muslim, why not say it? What would that matter? It wouldn’t to me, but I guess there are those ignorant folks who say all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists (such as those at JPost…)… The facts on the ground just don’t support him being Muslim or lying about being Christian. Sorry, JPost. They’ll have to find a new way to slander the guy who’d rather use diplomacy first and who doesn’t want to automatically bomb Iran and Israel’s neighbors into oblivion if he becomes President.

I like that Obama has lived in another country and has exposure to Islam. I think this will help with diplomacy and foreign policy decisions in the region that has become a focal point for us. I think the fact that he is a minority could have given him different experiences from the typical white male we’ve always had and will influence him in a positive way, even in a position of power. On the cynical side, he is male and wealthy, though, so that similarity with his predecessors could cancel out the good, there.

Freedom to Unionize, protect striking workers, raise minimum wage, open internet

I like the (somewhat unavoidable) emphasis on mortgage fraud crackdowns. I guess he has to address it. I’m not sure he’s got a good plan, though. The fund for “innocent” homeowners could become abused. I’m not sure how many are innocent. Many, many people live beyond their means on credit cards and fall to peer pressure to get more, buy big, etc. People I know tell about their friends/acquaintances who put rims on their SUV’s and buy/rent flat screen TV’s or the latest gadget, yet have trouble making the rent or mortgage. These people aren’t innocent. They are living beyond their means. It is a problem in our culture for sure, but individuals have to take responsibility and sell some stuff or do something before everything gets repo’d and they are left with nothing to show. There are tons of things I’d like to have, sure, but you have to be realistic. You have to be content with what you have. If you buy it, your income won’t magically increase to cover it. And if it goes on a credit card, on the contrary, you will have less money to work with because of those insane and often “sneaky” interest rates. And then there are those sketchy check cashing and rental places that have unbelievably high interest. These places should get some attention, but the individual should take responsibility for these decisions. I don’t know that it’s the government’s place to bail people like this out and I don’t know how to distinguish between the “innocent” and who shouldn’t be helped.

I like the fact that he wants to expand FMLA, but I think he needs to go further. Other countries have up to a year of paid leave and more weeks per year of paid vacation time as the standard. We generally get 2 weeks per year starting out, and other places get 3 or 4. Happy, rested employees make for a more productive work force. Talk about reducing the work day or week and that will be the day change is accomplished.

Some crackdown on lobbyists, but not enough to free us of AIPAC control (foreign interests ahead of ours)

More transparency.

On the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage, which will no doubt come into play when one of them is battling McCain, I’m more conservative. I am pro-life for sure and would even say I’d like to see abortion banned. I do have reservations about a total ban when the life of the baby and mother are endangered (ectopic pregnancy). I believe homosexuality is wrong, but unlike conservatives, I don’t think the government should be involved since it is not a matter of life and death. I have heard the abortion ban being called too much church in the state, but that’s a life/death issue- one that civil societies need to legislate, much like murder or theft. Life begins at conception and I just don’t see how you can argue differently. I mean, is it suddenly life in the 2nd trimester, the 3rd, at birth, when it gets fingernails, when it first cries or takes the first breath? If it is called alive at any point other than conception, then why is infanticide wrong? Not a bit of difference really, except culturally (Americans accept aborting a fetus if it is inconvenient for the mother). Gay marriage (giving the “right” or prohibiting it) legislation is more like no separation of church and state. I don’t know that I’m against civil unions. I need to think about that more.

Since I have delayed this post so long that my state's primary has come and gone this week, I will comment on that, too. Looks like Obama is gaining ground. Can't say I hate it, given the options. Of course, I would much prefer to do away with the electoral college and these party conventions and free it up for more than 2 parties to truly, viably be involved. I'd like more of a democracy, I guess. Call me crazy.

Also, Clinton said she broke the tie with Indiana?! She's taking a page out of Bush's playbook, here. Say what you wish happened, not what actually is happening. It's over, Hillary. Give it up. You're a drain on your party, now.

American accused of giving nuclear secrets to Israel

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKRA25614320080422

My first reaction is AGAIN?!! Any other country that does this to us (or keeps doing so) does not have such good relations with us. Spying and stealing secrets generally affects our relationship negatively with any country...except Israel. We keep coming back for more. We give an inch ... and , well, you know the rest. They are the little kid that keeps testing their parents' boundaries.

This quote I found particularly funny:

a senior Israeli defense official said "I find it hard to believe that, after the Pollard affair, we would recruit an American spy."

I LOL'ed. ROTFL, et al. Recruiting Americans to give info to Israel? Hard to believe?? What? This happens all the time. It's probably happening right now, as I write. Not all are as high profile as Pollard or this guy who got caught recently. The Mossad recruits tons of American Jews to do things to help Israel inside the US, whether it's set up a fake storefront to facilitate surveillance or actually pass classified material, it happens all the time. So, hard to believe? No. Not at all. Not that they'll admit it anytime soon. Until recently, they still referred to the facility at Dimona as the textile factory, long after the world knew the nukes were actually made and stored there.

Genocide and a Meeting With Terror

Carter wants US talks with Hamas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_carter

The Fox News headline, not surprisingly, is “Meeting with Terror”. They are always so over the top like an overly dramatic teenage girl. Their take on events is always entertaining. They never disappoint, there. Hope no one takes them seriously, though. It’s entertainment, not news, folks. Like the Daily Show, but different.

Anyway, our government should take a lesson from Carter. Meet with ALL involved. Hamas was elected in the democratic elections that the US and Israel demanded for peace talks to progress. When the results didn’t shake out like the US wanted, they took steps that got Gaza where it is today-in humanitarian crisis.

I was kind of disappointed that it sounds like a main goal of talks with Hamas is to get the Israeli prisoner released, not to do much else. Maybe that’s the reporting. I don’t know. Maybe Carter’s backing away from his position. Trying to make it less about Hamas and more about Israel.

===

More public calls for Palestinian genocide….and silence.

Genocide announced
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/892/re72.htm

This is a must read. It’s about those racist rabbis calling for genocide of Palestinians. It also references Avigdor Lieberman. On both, I am surprised that our government has not addressed the messages. Or am I?

It doesn’t seem like there is any public outcry or call to dissociate from these rabbis or the call to kill Palestinians. After 9/11 and throughout the war on terror, Arabs have denounced terrorism on TV, in mosques, in newspapers, etc. There is a deafening silence here, though.

There is no attention being drawn to the fact that there is no public outcry against such racist calls to action, unlike when an Arab extremist proclaims such things. Instead, in this case, people ask where is the denunciation of terror by Arabs when it is all around in all media forms.

====
Manifest Destiny?
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1208037443/
Uri Avnery
12.4.08


====

A first-hand report on current conditions in the "Holy Land" from Ed Abington, a former U.S. Consul-General in Jerusalem, for those unable to believe Palestinians themselves.

This is an excellent account of the situation in the Palestinian territories. I'm not sure of it's source, exactly, though. This is a blog. I saw "salon" in brackets, but couldn't find it there.

alternate universe- planet Bush

Again, I'm late in commenting on "current" affairs. I would make such a bad reporter. My "news" would always be a month old.

Anyway, I just had a few things to note about Cheney and Rice's visit to the Middle East a few weeks ago.

Settlement Plans Eclipse Rice Talks

Surprise, Surprise. Israel's building more settlements. What happens? Virtually nothing. They flout international law, the roadmap, and other agreements as well as our stated position on the matter and we still have this special love for them. Not so for the Palestinians. It is just the opposite there. Whatever strides they make toward peace and democracy are dismissed because a small fraction of the population exists and has radical beliefs.

Rice still dares to say that we are on track for peace in 2009. Whaaa? Did she visit the same region I know as the Middle East? She definitely took a page from Bush's playbook. It is either super optimistic (bordering on delusional) or delusional to say such a thing. You can change your attitude by this method. Smile and you'll be happier. I buy it. I've done it. It just won't work with world events, though. Sorry, Condi. Even if you say we're on track, we won't be until some things change. The US position being one of them.

***
Hamas 'wrecking Mid-East peace'

If you thought Rice was delusional, this guy's unbelievable. Cheney. Why would we believe anything he says. He was the guy who stuck to his guns about the 9/11 -Al Qaeda link long after that myth had been debunked (on 60 minutes I think).

At least we know Condi is trying. She at least mentions the fact that Israel is building settlements in violation of international law and the US position and that this may pose problems for peace. Cheney just parrots whatever the Israeli spokesperson says, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds in light of facts. He toes the party line- and it's not even an American party! Sometimes I wonder if he's a US government official or Israeli. You really can't tell most of the time. Israel's interests seem to trump American ones for him. Invade Iraq? Done.

non-violence

Click here for a quick primer on the Palestinian struggle.

I was listening to a piece on Tibet and the recent unrest or potential unrest there. It seems they have employed nonviolence in their struggle for years. Many people say, including US government officials, that if only the Palestinians would renounce or end all violence, then Israel would ever so graciously let them move about freely and maybe even have their own country on a tiny sliver of land in the region. Dare to dream. That just wouldn't happen. If there's no violence, the conflict would get less publicity than it gets now and Israel would feel free to grab more land and collectively punish in silence. Well, the nonviolent approach hasn't worked so well for Tibetans. They are still in a struggle with China and some want to reconsider the nonviolent approach. I have always said the Palestinian struggle is not a matter of terrorists vs democracy or Muslim vs Jew; it is a political struggle that needs a political solution which is occasionally hijacked by fanatics, unfortunately for the Palestinians. Any attempt to call it anything different is an attempt to put off discussing actual solutions: statehood, one state vs two, boundaries, and so called "final status issues".

I'm not advocating violence. I'm saying that political struggles need political solutions. You can't wait on all parties to stop the violence or make up reasons for the violence. While that's great for the population in a sense, it is not a solution. If the US would abandon the "smoke 'em out of their holes", "I'm not talking to terrorists (or people I deem terrorists or people who look at me funny or those who had WMD 10 years ago)" bit, we might be able to be an effective mediator. Maybe those things will die with Bush's presidency. No more cowboy "diplomacy"!!

My purse...or is it a diaper bag?

Well, what can I say about my purse. I do need a new one. And a a new haircut, but that's another story.

Something cute, maybe bigger than I usually get- I'm a sucker for a really small bag. I did see a few I liked. They were "on sale" for over $50, though, and were good sized and not the standard brown. I'm not sure I'm ready to splurge on a bag, though. At the beginning of the year I payed more for shoes -more than one pair, too- than I normally do. I'm surprised I found that many I even liked.

Anyway, I need something bigger to hold all the kid stuff I accumulate. Or I need to clean it out occasionally. No, let's just get a bigger one. Not the dreaded "mom purse"!!
I've been hauling around:
2 toddler utensils
red, yellow, and green crayons
5 or so of my daughter's hair bows and clips
a baby nail clipper shaped like a bumblebee
a doll diaper
some wires from unentangling a new toy from packaging
Tide pen
etc

Ok, I'd have the Tide pen for myself since I can make more of a mess than my kids, actually. I didn't think I would put all the kid stuff in my purse. I always thought that's what a diaper bag is for. I don't know how all the stuff migrates in there, but I just realized it as I was looking for something today. So, if someone baby doll wants to eat or pee, I'm all set. If I want to write a check, though, I'm out of luck!

McCain and Rabbis

This stuff is from last week, but I've got a few things to say about them.

McCain Backs Israeli Actions In Gaza

Ok. Can McCain be any more obvious? He's not visiting the Palestinians at this time. Hmmm. Who's he courting?? Could it be the Jewish vote?? Foreign policy credentials. That's embellishing a bit. You could get by with that if you met with both sides. He's kissing up to American Jews by making nice with Israel and telling them what they want to hear. You are the victims, we'll protect you no mater what, of course you are justified in killing Palestinians etc, etc.

"That is not a way for people to live," McCain said. "No nation in the world can be attacked incessantly and have its population killed and intimidated without responding. That's one of the first obligations of government, to provide security for its citizens."

This quote is absolutely ridiculous in light of facts on the ground. Israel routinely harasses and kills the Palestinian population and that's ok. When Israel faces any sort of retaliation for their actions, suddenly they are being intimidated and justified in a violent response. It has been going on for 30+ years!! Innocents under attack by the Israeli military are in much more danger than those facing crude, homemade Palestinian rockets.

I guess the key is the last statement. Palestinians have no state and so they have no government whose job it would be to provide security for them. I guess if you don't have a state, you have no rights and don't matter. You are invisible. Or might as well be.

***
Arab MK to chief rabbis: Slam rabbinic calls to harm Arabs

Some rabbis are encouraging repayment for the seminary shooting- "measure for measure".
Whenever the radical Palestinians say something like this, it gets broad coverage on every major news network here in the States and is reinterpreted as the whole Palestinian population's view. I heard nothing about this except for this article. When rightist rabbis say these things it is the exception rather than the rule. When Palestinians say them, it is the rule rather than the exception. The news broadcasters (or their company) extrapolate and superimpose the views of extremists onto the whole Palestinian population.

kids

Yesterday, leaving for work was especially hard- and not just because I'd only gotten ~3-4 hrs of sleep, either! My two-year-old, still in pajamas, runs to get her shoes and socks as I'm picking up my keys and lunch to go out the door. She half says/cries, "wanna pop in the car? wanna put on your shoes and socks?" It's hard to leave my two kids on a normal day, but that was almost too much! She says pop in the car and hop goes the weasel. Too cute! She also picked up the word "president" this weekend.

She loves a 3 syllable word, that's for sure. And commercials. She doesn't watch a lot of kids shows, but LOVES commercials. The one with the dog at camp-"there may be bugs on some of you mugs, but there ain't no bugs on me". The Campbells ones that say "pos-si-bil-ities". The Goodwill one with the cartoon girl and boy- "Opportunities for a better life". She's mezmerized by the cell phone one with Chad and his gang of competitors. There are more I can't remember right now. One funny or not so funny thing is that she could hum the little McDonald's jingle before she had such a great vocabulary. It must have been somewhere between 1 yr and 18mos. A little embarassing, as we probably ate a little too much Mickey D's around that time if we were too lazy to cook, which we were, a lot.

Facebook makes foreign policy, opposes international law, and supports brutal occupation

Facebook gets entangled in Middle East conflict

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080317/wr_nm/settlers_palestinians_facebook_dc

So, it looks like Facebook rightly had been calling the place where illegal Jewish settlers live, Palestine. They whined quite loudly, I'd guess, and got Facebook to call illegal Jewish settlements Israel. Facebook is now determining our foreign policy. Great!

Ok, so maybe they don't determine the policy, but they aren't halping matters when they mkae "rulings" in opposition to international law (Geneva Convention) and the US's own foreign policy positions. Our obsequeously pro-Israel government even admits that these settlements and expansion of such is not ok, so for Facebook to call settlements part of Israel is overstepping it's bounds to say the least.

Now, I will go easy on them if they allow me to say I'm from the moon or Mars or Neverneverland. If I can say I'm from those places, then settlers can equally say they are from Israel. Same difference.

Well, I can see how Facebook may have gotten confused. The US disagrees with Israel expanding/building settlements and as far as I know, considers such illegal under the Geneva Convnetion, but only sporadically says anything about it. Even when officials speak on it, it is only to make suggestions or slap on the wrist. Other nations would and do face sanctions, harsh language and maybe even threats of invasion for lesser crimes/actions. Not Israel! We continue to fund their illegal and brutal occupation, land grabs, extrajudicial assassinations, closures, and other collective punishment to the tune of $3 billion or more a year. (at teh expense of our own populations' needs)

Politicians would rather keep their high paying jobs where they can legislate themselves pay raises than stand up for peace and justice and serve the public.

Scam-Residential Email/ESBI: semi-legal, totally shady internet scam!!

This is one you can't really recognize, unlike the 419 scams which have a hallmark ring to them or even just print at all! So, this one isn't one you fall for really, knowingly, but one more like identity theft where you just notice it one day if you are one to examine bills before forking over your money.

On our bill this past month for our local phone carrier,EMBARQ, my husband noticed a $14.95+$1.01tax charge for "Residential Email Mo Fee" on a separate page labeled "ESBI" with an explanation of 3rd party billing. Whaaa?? Our email is cable, for one thing. For another, WE DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR ANYTHING! Well, my husband called them (Residential Email, number provided), cussed them out and told them we weren't paying. They said ok. No arguments. Someone backing down that easily knows they are shady and in the wrong. Apparently, while he was yelling, the rep kept trying to tell him about the "service" to get him to "keep" when he'd take a breath. She mentioned something about $1000 in coupons she claims he signed up for on the internet or some idiotic thing. I called the next day to ask what she had on file and she had our phone and home address and my husband's email. (So it was him and not me!) She wanted to give me her sales pitch while she was bringing up our record (we have a record for something we didn't order?), but I cut her off and said I don't want to hear it, I think you are scamming people, and I just want to know how to avoid this so please tell me how we got on this list. As a matter of fact, when you call in, they ask you to type in your phone number like you are inquiring about a legitimate phone company charge before you speak with a representative.

You local carrier is allowed to pass on 3rd party charges, so that's legal. I think you can get that "feature" blocked-we're looking into that today. The companies, or at least one I saw while researching this situation, has a "F" rating with the BBB. Go figure!

From what I can gather, you "sign up" for this by entering sweepstakes, filling in your info for a free this or that, taking online surveys, etc. Some people found that the email address on file wasn't even theirs. All, like us, didn't directly sign up for this garbage. Apparently it is in the Terms and Conditions when you are filling online forms (generally for stuff unrelated to this Residential Email company) that they are allowed to bill you, etc. I find it incredibly unfair and shady to advertise one thing, have your sign up window below that, then in fine print (or separate link) to Terms which have nothing to do with what you think you are signing up for, but really are other opportunist, scum charging you for a bogus service.

Here are some links to blogs and info about this:
The first is the BBB thing I found, the second is an account similar to ours.

http://www.spokane.net/stay_connected/PressReleases.aspx?prid=1139

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/309/ripoff0309103.htm

http://momminitup.com/?cat=29

http://www.portlandtn.net/2005/11/scam.html

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/284/RipOff0284153.htm

http://pintmaster.com/20060524/answerstop-voicemail-monthly-fee-voicemail-you-didnt-sign-up-for/

http://tiredcynic.blogspot.com/2007/08/watch-out-for-residential-email-fraud.html

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/residential-email-c44904.html#comments

***********************************************
Here's my Rip Off Report for McDonald's:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Fast-Food-Restaurants/Mcdonald-s-Monopoly/mcdonald-s-monopoly-playatmcd-7e478.htm

Call me a complainer, but I won a Shell Gas Card in the 2008 McDonald's Monopoly online game (Free Parking space) and never saw it. They said they sent it (surprise), so I guess that makes me a liar. True, I didn't lose any money, but it still deserves some sort of mention.

Two

You know you eat out too much when your 2 year old beats the drive through person to the punch with "the straw's in the bag" !

She also goes around saying "no more buffets", which is what my husband and I say after we end up at the GC or CiCi's.

We gotta stop eating out!

Some other sayings:
Dinner cookie - treats on the kitchen island, whether eaten after dinner or not. I sometimes eat a cookie or just a little something sweet after dinner, so I guess she put a name on it.

Daddy's fixing his credit- she says when my husband shreds old bills and credit card offers.

Open this for Rashad- she says when she need help opening one of Rashad's toys that she has no intention of letting him play with. It was cuter when he was way too young for toys. He's just getting to an age where he can sit up and play, so we are going to have fun learning to share...

Baby Sue wants some Craisins- Sometimes her baby doll takes on her own personality...

Have a good one- She came out with that as we were leaving her grandparents. She was between and year and 18 months, just starting to put sentences together, so it was really really funny and cute. And unexpected. Bye-bye, yes; but have a good one?

Obama email forward

I don't mean any disrespect to the people who sent it to me, I just want people to think. And I get on a bit of a soapbox with regards to these issues... A family member sent it to me most recently, so I don't want this taken the wrong way at all.

Here is the text; my response follows:

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start

to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it.

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . .. . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.

* * * You had better believe it.

* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?

You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America!

Obama even says if he wins the election, he will

be sworn in on the Quran (Koran)---not the Bible!

***
My response:
***
Absolutely Muslims can be good Americans. The rebuttal is in the "facts on the ground". Talk to the Muslims you know.
In our Declaration of Independence—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

This is a good link for those who don’t know much about Islam…
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/features/islam/islammyths.html

When you point to bad Muslims, you will no doubt name various well known terrorists. The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers were in a bar drinking before their crime, which is against Islam and they killed innocents, also against Islam. The evil Muslims this uses to generalize about all Muslims are extremists who aren't following the Quran. They follow some tenets and modify others to suit their purposes.

About Barak Obama- First of all, he’s Christian. Second of all, so what if he wasn’t? The president’s allegiance is to the US and he vows to uphold our laws, not convert us all to his religion (regardless of the book he swears upon). If a Muslim swore on a Bible, that wouldn’t make much sense as it has some things he doesn’t believe (but a lot he does)…but again, Obama’s a CHRISTIAN and has NOT said at any time he will swear on a Quran. (The guy who used Jefferson’s Quran for swearing in was Keith Ellison, Congressman)

See this for more rumors proven false about Obama:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

The first three things in the list say or imply that there are theological, religious, scriptural and spiritual requirements to being an American. That is ludicrous. Shall we evict atheists and all who don’t believe as this person, too? They wouldn't meet these requirements at all. The "intellectual" statement also deals with religion. Only Christians can be good Americans? That is what this implies here, and that is wrong and does not promote freedom of religion or expression, unlike our country’s founding documents.

Being an American is simply to be a citizen of the US. Being a good American is subjective. You believe good is Chrisitan, so no, a Muslim American is not going to be a Christian American. Both Christians and Muslims have the freedom to practice their religions in this country. That is one of the virtues of this country.

Now for the other "qualifications" listed:
Geographically- This one is funny. Kind of invokes a thought police picture in my mind. Just because they pray toward Mecca doesn’t mean their allegiance is to Mecca; that isn’t what they are taught, either. If I think about a foreign country five times a day, I myself am no less American!

Socially- They are not forbidden from making friends with Christians and Jews (people of the book, according to the Quran).
http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0608-3072
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=179

Politically- you are quoting extremists as I have said. This does not represent Islam itself or what the majority of Muslims believe.
http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/AntiTerrorism.htm
A thing about Israel, though- they DO need to be stopped from committing collective punishment, international law violations and humanitarian atrocities and the US should not send them any more money until they behave. There won’t be peace til there’s justice in the region.
Only extremists and fanatics want the destruction of the US and Israel, not the majority of Muslims, especially ones that live here.

Domestically-
Not all Muslims have or are encouraged to have 4 wives. They are only permitted to have more than one if they can equally provide for all and it is not encouraged nor is it mandatory. On beating… see these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_obligations_of_spouses_in_Islam
http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html

Philosophically-this makes no sense. Why would any religion promote freedom of religion? Christianity doesn't (Jn14:6); (and I agree with that as well because I am Christian!).
Freedom of Expression- http://www.crescentlife.com/spirituality/freedom_of_expression.htm


Never called love or Heavenly Father- Allah is called love in the Quran, see http://www.faizani.com/articles/names.html, not that it matters to me since I am a Christian and follow the Bible and I love all people and hate the sin.

***
More thoughts on our "Christian nation":
***
As far as electing people who put God into every public thing... of course I think that is good on one level (as a Christian myself), but perhaps we should realistically be more in favor of freedom of religion in case someone is in power who doesn't believe as we do? If what religion the president is starts to matter in our daily lives, we have a problem, since not many members of the church run for office. That would be more of a theocracy, not democracy anyway. Chances are, if a president started putting his take on God in schools, etc, the members of the church would not be well represented and we'd be listening to a bunch of stuff that is considered "Christian", but that is totally false.

About the intent of the first Americans--"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion
It seems some were Christians, they look favorably onreligion in general, but separation of church and state was emphasized. I think that's a good principle for a state. (A Christian should act according to scripture, a state doesn't have that obligation or else Jesus would have come down hard on the Roman government and other powers of his time instead of teaching people.) That way, all can choose the set of beliefs they follow, like you or I chose to follow Christ. You can't legislate someone into heaven or force them to become a Christian. It is a Christians responsibility to put the Word out there, not the State's as I see it. If we leave it to the state, it won't be done or won't be done right. I don't think God expects us to have Christian governments throughout the world, as salvation is based on what one person does, not whole nations. He would have installed Christians as leaders in the world at that time, replaced the Roman ones who persecuted Christians had he wanted Christian leaders. The only way to have true Christian leaders is to hope/work that people are added to the church. I think it's backwards to elect Christian (or pseudoChristian) leaders in hopes that all will be added to the Lord's body.

I hope that makes a little sense. It's my 2 cents anyway.

It's election season. Let the debates begin!

The illusion of choice in US elections

While I'm not ready to go that far...this is a really good article. The destruction of the US? I don't think so. Still, it lays out some basic truths and wrongs in the system.

I agree that the results and candidates that emerge are pretty predictable. I personally would like to see more choices. Two parties aren't enough. The two democratic candidates are too polished, too superstar for lack of a better way to describe it. They are clearly pandering to special interests even if they don't take money from all or many of them. They have to do it to get elected.

The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?
Mazin Qumsiyeh
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/illusionofchoice/

Dovi

The Strangulation of Gaza

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/makdisi

Dov Weisglass, explained that

"the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."

This says so many things. This guy is full of ...well ...garbage. First, to have Weisglass saying this and that the disengagement from Gaza was to be political formaldehyde proves that Washington doesn't really listen (or care?) what Israel says/stands for. That's good because maybe we don't actually support apartheid and collective punishment, etc. That's bad because we are funding these horrible things and tacitly supporting them so that our elected officials can keep their grip on power, be it the presidency or congressional seat. Second, we have from the horse's mouth what Israel's intent really is. They don't hide their sinister motives, yet we in the US tend to cloud these issues in order to make Israel sound righteous and downtrodden so that we are justified in supporting them.

Maybe both things come down to the influence of the AIPAC, the Israel lobby, in the US or perhaps Christian Zionists. The latter are interesting. I have read and chatted online with regards them. I can tell you where they draw from the Bible and what their reasoning is for the most part, and I can tell you it's not Biblical and doesn't make a lick of sense.

Reading that quote just made my blood boil. Why do we Americans continue to think Israel has any real interest or intent in helping us? Saying "they are the only democracy in the Middle East" may be soup for the neoconservative soul, but isn't an answer. It doesn't justify the collective punishment they dish out and roadblock to peace they have become. It doesn't justify the illegal acts, extra-judicial assassinations, imprisonments on false or no charges, fake trials, "mistakes" that can either only be carefully planned or the result of an extremely careless, inefficient, inexperienced, inhumane military machine. Fire from homemade rockets which rarely does any real damage is not grounds for starving an entire population, imprisoning them in their homes, and knocking out power so they are in the dark in winter--especially for a military as well-funded and equipped and trained as they are. It is more like ethnic cleansing than a response to "provocation" (...then there's who provoked whom...).