This isn't a comprehensive list of pros and cons. Some I haven't written (and may never, as is my blog track record!) yet and some items I've already written about in other posts.
I want to look at other candidates, too. Nader, McKinney, and Kucinich (so he's not a candidate...) are interesting to me for various reasons, but I can't say I agree with them 100% or even 75%.
McCain
He attacks Obama for being "me first," rather than "country first" like McCain says he is, which is unsubstantiated especially given is many, many references to his handling of his POW experience.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/08/15/cnn-forwards-idea-mccain-ad-hints-obama-antichrist
He and others say he's a maverick and lobbyists' enemy- over 150 run his campaign or are big contributors
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/politics/21bundlers.html
Votes against his party less often than others, maverick is more like an empty campaign slogan; he votes with Bush most of the time. I don't know how he got the maverick nickname, except maybe the times he did go with the Democrats, it was covered by the media (yes, the same one that is so out to get Palin!)
Conservatives bashed the hope/change theme of Democrats and now they’re trying to steal it. Guess it wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Maybe they realized that all running for office are putting country first, so they’d better change it up.
Said to be reluctant to talk about POW experience, yet he talks about it every campaign and it seems to be substitute for record in foreign policy/veterans
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559
Said he voted for the troop surge when it was unpopular, right thing to do
-BUT surge didn't cause decrease in violence
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403160.html?hpid=topnews
He was wrong to support the Iraq invasion and is in opposition to Iraqi and our interests in keeping troops there.
Supposedly wants to get rid of pork barrel spending, yet chose Palin?
Values candidate married to his mistress?? No one cares, apparently. This sort of thing destroys Democratic campaigns. So would teenage pregnancy, but when on the Republican side, it makes them more real, they live out their pro-life values, etc. Doesn’t say much for abstinence only, though. There is a double standard where Republicans' sins make them more real or are needless attacks on their private life, but Democrats' sins are grounds for dumping from public service, impeaching, banning, etc. Another example of the double standard is the Bush/ Clinton drug use- Republicans react by saying don’t listen to vicious attacks, however true they are; this ruins reputations/campaigns for Democrats. Also, the wealth of Cindy McCain isn’t really emphasized the way Kerry’s wife’s was (except for the “how many houses do you own” debacle)- may or may not matter, but it is part of the double standard. Another is Bristol's teen pregnancy, though we can only speculate on the Democrat side.
Less government spending? See Palin
Chose Phil Graham of Enron troubles for economic advice- ouch. He may have since distanced himself from that.
Didn’t take Rove’s suggestion on VP (Romney); distance from Rove is good news for bringing integrity back to the Presidency
Age and health-PTSD- which leads us to take a closer than usual look at the VP pick-and there is a lot to look at since her name really wasn’t floated like some others were.
Palin
The fact that she has governed for 2 years longer than the 2 Dems and even McCain counts for something, but there are a lot of “cons” compared with that “pro”.
troopergate, though touted as tough on corruption
Pregnant daughter- if Palin were democrat, this would be issue number one for Republicans; it would probably be said “if you can’t lead your house, you can’t lead the country; family values would be made the centerpiece without specifically mentioning the daughter so as to subtly make a contrast-me, good; them, bad.
Alaskan Independence Party- Palin spoke at its 2008 convention and spoke about Alaska’s self-sufficiency. If she means economic, then her earmark history (bridge to nowhere story, increasing them for zero to $27,000, hiring the first lobbyist, asking Ted Stevens for $200,000 in earmarks) proves that wrong. If she means secession, then what about country first? This would be more serious than a flag pin, IMO.
Book banning effort-need more info on that... will she be like Bush and feel a need for more control than is good for the office?
Earmarks- bridge to nowhere, good at pork barrel
Foreign policy- her state borders Canada and Russia (qualification given by Cindy McCain and John Bolton)
Mayor-Wasilla didn't have a budget, left town with $22 million deficit
Iraq- Soldiers sent on task "from God", former minister's other fundamentalist views.
Yes, we should talk about it as it could affect the way she would govern or lobby McCain (is she worse than Bush??). If anyone at all entertained the “Obama’s a Muslim” rumor, then we should definitely talk about this. Since we talked about Wright, then we should talk about what her preacher preaches and what she said in a speech to her former congregation (praying for a pipeline, etc).
She’s a woman-I like to think she can bring something new to the table that men can't-BUT in her speech and Cindy's intro, rather male qualities are emphasized and valued listed sports played, hunting, fishing, etc.
Will she address mom issues- more paid leave, vacation time- how else are value voters supposed to pass on the values but to be given more time to spend with children- or will she adopt the rich WASP issues.
Some things from moveon.org (I’m not a huge fan, but they made some good points here):
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
Valid concern.
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
I agree with her on this, but don't know about a total ban- mother vs. baby's life?
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
Scary.
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
I think it should be taught that evolution, big bang, etc is not absolutely true, discuss holes in the theory, even alternatives. I'm not sure about creationism specifically, unless it is a private institution, not getting state funding. The parents need to step up and teach the truth in matters relating to religion.
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
That's a bold statement and perhaps not informed. I don't know that climate change is solely human's fault or that it's as bad as Gore would have us believe. I'm open to the idea that the changes may be cyclical and that we haven't been recording data long enough to see a cycle or enough cycles to determine the cause, but that's not to say we shouldn't reduce, reuse and recycle and look for alternative energy sources.
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
Well here we can say she has experience--in protecting big oil in Alaska. On the national scene, big oil isn't our interest like it is Alakans'. Her husband is or was in big oil and her inauguration was sponsored by BP.
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
I think he vetted her more than it appears, but I’ve got concerns that he chose her to grab Hillary’s fans, pump up the Evangelical or Conservative base and because she’d be more popular than Lieberman or someone that would have made more sense. It seems to be a political choice rather than one based on experience (foreign policy, economy).
Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.
I'm all for abstinence, but not abstinence only. I think it’s fair to think about this in light of Palin’s daughter’s situation.
RNC observations:
Protestor arrests for no reason
Several at RNC poke fun at Obama's community organizing; yet "service" placards held by fans.
Giuliani was appalled that 9/11 wasn't mentioned much at the DNC?? Our biggest threat??
Why?? Shall we let fear rule us? We were scared into attacking Iraq for no reason the last time the 9/11 attacks were invoked on the national stage.
He’s known for handling it well and doesn’t want us to forget it!
We had support after than and blew it, so revisiting it isn’t going to bring that back in this country or others. 9/11 is now inextricably linked with how the administration handled it, which is very badly.
Obama
Either he or Biden originally supported an amendment to the Iraq invasion bill that would have added a second UN discussion among other things to further assess the actual threat Iraq posed. This was the sensible thing to do and shows good judgment.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee-worked on many issues, visited several hot spot regions, bipartisan work
More familiarity with Islam than other candidates, which would be helpful since we are entangled in a region where a knowledge (respect, etc) of this would be a big help.
Civil rights experience-personal and as a lawyer does bring something to the table.
Constitutional scholar and community organizing are belittled or overlooked, but I think it is worth a mention.
The community organizing is really an interesting background for a politician and presidential candidate. It's democracy at work and the opposite of Washington's way-sort of. People organizing to take unjust laws off the books, protect workers, or any other thing that government has failed to accomplish. I think this is a helpful thing for a politician to have been involved in. If Palin's daughter keeping her baby conceived out of wedlock is proof of her family's strong moral fiber, then community organizing is definitely proof that Obama stands for and can mobilize people and make positive changes and contributions. It's not something to be belittled at all.
Background could bring unique view of things the way Palin's being a woman may.
Emphasis on diplomacy I still like and think is important for a President.
Raise taxes for rich, lower for poor, instead of cuts for everyone but esp. the rich and big business.
Wants to be seen as not a part of the establishment, yet chooses Biden. To add experience, I guess?
Talks about diplomacy, freedom and rights yet chooses Biden, who thinks our interests and Israel's are the same and takes the neocon stance. Biden called a bus bombing where ten or so Israelis died a massacre and issued a statement, but said /says nothing when hundreds of innocent Palestinians are killed, arrested without cause, collectively punished.
Biden
He’s not all bad.
He does have good ties with many on both sides, Democrat and Republican
He’s been a long time member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has chaired it.
He was a part of several committees that stuck it to the President on several issues relating to (+ or-) Iraq, detentions, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc, which I appreciate.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
DNC blues
I wrote this around the tim eof the DNC...I emailed it to myself to finish, but forgot about it!
I was excited for Obama to be running at one time. With Biden as runningmate, I am significantly less enthused. Biden the proponent for war. Biden the guy who thinks it’s ok we’re not an honest, unbiased broker for peace in the Middle East and who thinks ours and Israel’s interests are one and the same.
Also troubling was the sponsorship of AT&T for the DNC. This not long after immunity was given to telecoms. Obama said he’d filibuster any bill that gave immunity and he suddenly changes his tune. Sounds a little suspicious.
Also, Obama has done some talking about the economy and has tried his best to identify with the shrinking middle class. I remember this as I watch coverage of the DNC and see the huge amount of money wasted on extravagant decorations, security, and lavish parties.
Rather than giving millions to campaigns so that they can use the money to make attack ads and ride around to campaign stops in gas guzzlers I’d rather they use the money to design a program, help education, or healthcare in this country. I know they’d figure out a way to use that for their gain or to buy votes or something, but it’d be nice to see all that cash go to something useful and beneficial rather than horrible campaign ads, conventions and parties that don’t do us ordinary Americans a bit of good.
I was excited for Obama to be running at one time. With Biden as runningmate, I am significantly less enthused. Biden the proponent for war. Biden the guy who thinks it’s ok we’re not an honest, unbiased broker for peace in the Middle East and who thinks ours and Israel’s interests are one and the same.
Also troubling was the sponsorship of AT&T for the DNC. This not long after immunity was given to telecoms. Obama said he’d filibuster any bill that gave immunity and he suddenly changes his tune. Sounds a little suspicious.
Also, Obama has done some talking about the economy and has tried his best to identify with the shrinking middle class. I remember this as I watch coverage of the DNC and see the huge amount of money wasted on extravagant decorations, security, and lavish parties.
Rather than giving millions to campaigns so that they can use the money to make attack ads and ride around to campaign stops in gas guzzlers I’d rather they use the money to design a program, help education, or healthcare in this country. I know they’d figure out a way to use that for their gain or to buy votes or something, but it’d be nice to see all that cash go to something useful and beneficial rather than horrible campaign ads, conventions and parties that don’t do us ordinary Americans a bit of good.
Obama and McCain, the same but different
Where is a good 3rd party candidate when you need him/her??
This is a "Presidential Report Card" I was sent by a relative. I come from a conservative background, so I see a lot of this sort of thing. While I agree with some points "value voter" Republicans make, I don't see it quite the way they do. Some of them say they pick the candidate based on what the Bible says and that's good, but when you conclude that Christians can only vote for the pro-life, gay marriage banning (Republican) candidate, I just don't agree. My disagreement isn't about what the Bible says. I'm right there with them on that. I believe that a Christian's duty is to teach and put the information out there. People have to decide for themselves. We can't legislate them into heaven.
There aren't just two issues to be considered. There is a moral aspect to just about all the issues. I think abortion and gay marriage have been over-politicized and too much weight given to them.
Click here to see the original document:
www.savecalifornia.com/PresidentialReportCard.pdf
Interesting how out of all the issues, 8 are chosen and 5 or 6 of them are abortion/gay marriage related. If they’d asked about supporting Roe v. Wade repeal, both candidates would say no, so I guess we have to dig a bit deeper to find the pro-lifer in McCain.
Human life is said to be valued with the abortion issue, but there is dead silence on the Iraq invasion, how we rushed to war without a credible threat so that we were proven WRONG in our reasons for going. In taking this course of action, Bush and his supporters didn’t sufficiently value our soldiers who are being sent to Iraq and come home changed and usually not for the better- physically or mentally. Then there’s the whole issue of abuse and torture of detainees, do they have rights as POWs or shall we revoke human rights as they are actually illegal combatants, etc. This is a problem for me as a pro-lifer, yet I never hear pro-life Republicans talk about this. You apparently can’t be for human rights, against the Iraq invasion, and against abortion in this country.
Support Partial-Birth Abortions
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is one of those issues that McCain can use to define himself as pro-choice and so the Democrat must be pro-choice to pick up the other votes. Obama doesn’t so much say that he supports abortion, but that he thinks doctors and women should make the decision rather than the courts. Not quite the same thing. He seems to question a ban more than support abortion rights, which I think is something to consider. I am pro-life, but a total ban concerns me, so I lean Democrat. And the Republican rape and incest exception might as well be pro-choice, so I don’t think they have the moral market cornered, either.
Support Parental Notification
of Abortion
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
McCain’s abortion position clarified:
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
Sounds like he’s essentially pro-choice, but trying to keep those further right happy.
McCain sounds more pro-choice than he votes and Obama sounds more pro-life than he votes, so both are involved in pandering to the extremes of their parties and taking polar opposite positions to get a certain sector’s votes. That’s something that really annoys me about the Republicans and Democrats. The other is that they are pretty much the same while being polar opposites. Politicians!
And if McCain’s going to be making exceptions, the only morally questionable area would be life of the mother (ectopic pregnancy, etc-whose life to save, etc). If he’s going to exclude rape and incest, he is pro-choice in my opinion.
Protect Man-Woman Marriage on the Ballot
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
I don’t even think this should be on the ballot. People have the right to choose how to live. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe people have the right to decide how to live-to choose Christ or to reject him. Christians have the right and duty to teach, but I think legislation goes too far. It is a step toward forcing people to live by the Bible even where it doesn’t infringe on others’ life, liberty, etc.
Require Schoolchildren to Think Favorably About Homosexuality
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
The comments cited don't really say that Obama wants to require schoolchildren to think favorably about abortion. He says that he'd be ok with the story being read to his kids so they know about that possibility. I think being educated about it is fine. It is the parents' job to further teach the child that it is a sin. That's not the teacher's job. I hope as a parent that I will keep up with the school curriculum to further teach my kids, but I don't expect the teachers to do my job if I don't have the time or energy at a given time.
Support Adoption of Children by Homosexuals
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
Of course my opinion is that it is best if Christians adopt children so that they will get the opportunity to be taught the gospel; that’s why Agape of NC is great. BUT- if children need a home, they shouldn’t be denied that because of homosexuality. As the children grow up, they will think for themselves and they will be able to see if their parents/guardians are living according to the Bible or not. Again, Christians are to teach and put the information out there. It is up to the individual to act on it or not. Forcing compliance is not the Christian’s job. I can understand the point of view that Christians take when they support banning homosexuals from adopting and marriage, i.e., standing up for Biblical principles, but I have a different take because I disagree with what action to take, I guess.
Allow Local Governments to Ban Gun Ownership
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
I really don’t care about this issue, myself. I don’t want to own or shoot guns. I don’t think there should be a ban, but wouldn’t care if there were. I don’t think it would help with crime prevention. I do have an opinion on one aspect, though. I do think local governments should be able to decide what’s best for their community- Washington isn’t going to know what’s going on in each city and state.
Nominate Strict Constructionist Judges
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
Raise Taxes
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is a bit misleading. Obama will decrease taxes on lower incomes and increase on higher incomes. It’s about time those with the ability to pay actually paid, instead of received all the breaks.
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
So many thoughts, so little time...
This is a "Presidential Report Card" I was sent by a relative. I come from a conservative background, so I see a lot of this sort of thing. While I agree with some points "value voter" Republicans make, I don't see it quite the way they do. Some of them say they pick the candidate based on what the Bible says and that's good, but when you conclude that Christians can only vote for the pro-life, gay marriage banning (Republican) candidate, I just don't agree. My disagreement isn't about what the Bible says. I'm right there with them on that. I believe that a Christian's duty is to teach and put the information out there. People have to decide for themselves. We can't legislate them into heaven.
There aren't just two issues to be considered. There is a moral aspect to just about all the issues. I think abortion and gay marriage have been over-politicized and too much weight given to them.
Click here to see the original document:
www.savecalifornia.com/PresidentialReportCard.pdf
Interesting how out of all the issues, 8 are chosen and 5 or 6 of them are abortion/gay marriage related. If they’d asked about supporting Roe v. Wade repeal, both candidates would say no, so I guess we have to dig a bit deeper to find the pro-lifer in McCain.
Human life is said to be valued with the abortion issue, but there is dead silence on the Iraq invasion, how we rushed to war without a credible threat so that we were proven WRONG in our reasons for going. In taking this course of action, Bush and his supporters didn’t sufficiently value our soldiers who are being sent to Iraq and come home changed and usually not for the better- physically or mentally. Then there’s the whole issue of abuse and torture of detainees, do they have rights as POWs or shall we revoke human rights as they are actually illegal combatants, etc. This is a problem for me as a pro-lifer, yet I never hear pro-life Republicans talk about this. You apparently can’t be for human rights, against the Iraq invasion, and against abortion in this country.
Support Partial-Birth Abortions
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is one of those issues that McCain can use to define himself as pro-choice and so the Democrat must be pro-choice to pick up the other votes. Obama doesn’t so much say that he supports abortion, but that he thinks doctors and women should make the decision rather than the courts. Not quite the same thing. He seems to question a ban more than support abortion rights, which I think is something to consider. I am pro-life, but a total ban concerns me, so I lean Democrat. And the Republican rape and incest exception might as well be pro-choice, so I don’t think they have the moral market cornered, either.
Support Parental Notification
of Abortion
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
McCain’s abortion position clarified:
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
Sounds like he’s essentially pro-choice, but trying to keep those further right happy.
McCain sounds more pro-choice than he votes and Obama sounds more pro-life than he votes, so both are involved in pandering to the extremes of their parties and taking polar opposite positions to get a certain sector’s votes. That’s something that really annoys me about the Republicans and Democrats. The other is that they are pretty much the same while being polar opposites. Politicians!
And if McCain’s going to be making exceptions, the only morally questionable area would be life of the mother (ectopic pregnancy, etc-whose life to save, etc). If he’s going to exclude rape and incest, he is pro-choice in my opinion.
Protect Man-Woman Marriage on the Ballot
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
I don’t even think this should be on the ballot. People have the right to choose how to live. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe people have the right to decide how to live-to choose Christ or to reject him. Christians have the right and duty to teach, but I think legislation goes too far. It is a step toward forcing people to live by the Bible even where it doesn’t infringe on others’ life, liberty, etc.
Require Schoolchildren to Think Favorably About Homosexuality
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
The comments cited don't really say that Obama wants to require schoolchildren to think favorably about abortion. He says that he'd be ok with the story being read to his kids so they know about that possibility. I think being educated about it is fine. It is the parents' job to further teach the child that it is a sin. That's not the teacher's job. I hope as a parent that I will keep up with the school curriculum to further teach my kids, but I don't expect the teachers to do my job if I don't have the time or energy at a given time.
Support Adoption of Children by Homosexuals
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
Of course my opinion is that it is best if Christians adopt children so that they will get the opportunity to be taught the gospel; that’s why Agape of NC is great. BUT- if children need a home, they shouldn’t be denied that because of homosexuality. As the children grow up, they will think for themselves and they will be able to see if their parents/guardians are living according to the Bible or not. Again, Christians are to teach and put the information out there. It is up to the individual to act on it or not. Forcing compliance is not the Christian’s job. I can understand the point of view that Christians take when they support banning homosexuals from adopting and marriage, i.e., standing up for Biblical principles, but I have a different take because I disagree with what action to take, I guess.
Allow Local Governments to Ban Gun Ownership
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
I really don’t care about this issue, myself. I don’t want to own or shoot guns. I don’t think there should be a ban, but wouldn’t care if there were. I don’t think it would help with crime prevention. I do have an opinion on one aspect, though. I do think local governments should be able to decide what’s best for their community- Washington isn’t going to know what’s going on in each city and state.
Nominate Strict Constructionist Judges
Obama: NO
McCain: YES
Raise Taxes
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is a bit misleading. Obama will decrease taxes on lower incomes and increase on higher incomes. It’s about time those with the ability to pay actually paid, instead of received all the breaks.
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
So many thoughts, so little time...
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Camera or weapon? Who can tell the difference?
Cameras and guns alike are dangerous to Israel. The difference is they have to act like they believe free press and cameras are ok with them; they don't with weapons on suspected terrorists.
A journalist was killed by Israel recently. This is much more newsworthy than the thousands that die (including kids) who aren't famous or journalists, unfortunately. Israel appears concerned...
Oh, wait. Not so fast...
Israel has a lot of these "mix ups". Perhaps they aren't as accidental as they want us to think...
A journalist was killed by Israel recently. This is much more newsworthy than the thousands that die (including kids) who aren't famous or journalists, unfortunately. Israel appears concerned...
Government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel understood the role of an independent, free press in a free society.
"These are situations that are faced internationally and we have got to find a better way to try to make sure journalists are not caught up in crossfire," he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7560672.stm
Oh, wait. Not so fast...
The Israeli military will not take action against a tank crew that killed a Reuters television cameraman and eight other Palestinian civilians in Gaza and has defended the decision to shoot as "sound". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/israelandthepalestinians.reuters?gusrc=rss&feed=mediaSo it wasn't concern so much as lip service.
Israel has a lot of these "mix ups". Perhaps they aren't as accidental as they want us to think...
Saturday, August 16, 2008
boycotts
Ok. Bush and others discouraged an Olympic boycott of China because its not fair to the athletes to bring politics into the sports competitions. Great. Human rights, sweat shops, Tibet, and a bunch of other stuff. We'll ignore it.
An Iranian wants to sign with the NBA now. Guess what? It's ok to punish athletes in this case.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=aw-nbairan081608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
A flow chart of Bush policy would be a total web of confusion and contradiction, except if you map presidential power. That one's very simple, ballooning from 2000-2008.
An Iranian wants to sign with the NBA now. Guess what? It's ok to punish athletes in this case.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=aw-nbairan081608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
A flow chart of Bush policy would be a total web of confusion and contradiction, except if you map presidential power. That one's very simple, ballooning from 2000-2008.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Irony and double standards
"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," George W Bush said in Washington.
"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century."
Hmmm…In which century did we invade Iraq? True, the people didn’t exactly elect Saddam Hussein, but it was a sovereign nation and relatively stable, unlike now. It is interesting to hear that come out of his mouth. I think I’m not surprised anymore by such irony. He once said bring ‘em on in talking about terrorists – that one surprised me. Why even joke about that as leader of the free world in a public setting??
*** *** ***
John Edwards has admitted to adultery. That’s disappointing, as I have favored him for Presidential and VP runs. This will no doubt ruin political aspirations. Not that that's all that matters. Adultery is serious and I don't condone it at all. My issue is that the private lives ruined or at least tainted the careers of Edwards and Clinton, but Bush will apparently bear no responsibility (he certainly won't admit he's wrong, let alone guilty) for questionable, not-so-transparent, and possibly illegal things he's done as President.
This seems a bit funny as you put Edwards’ and Bill Clinton’s marital issues in contrast to what Bush has done politically on the world stage. He invaded Iraq for essentially no reason. At best, we acted too hastily, without the whole story (no WMD, no 9/11 link, “spreading democracy is a legit reason to bomb, etc); at worst, he or the administration flat out lied. Ron Suskind has a new book out that may expose that we knew Iraq had no WMD and fabricated a letter coming to the opposite conclusion--impeachable offenses. We’re holding people indefinitely in Guantanamo and even if they do get a trial, and aren’t guilty, we can still hold them indefinitely as long as this nonspecific, broad and general so-called war on terror goes on. We’ve sanctioned harsh interrogation methods (torture) and kidnapped people and tortured them in 3rd party countries. We even made up a new name for POWs, so we wouldn’t have to deal with the Geneva Conventions under this administration. Going to war so hastily or under a lie is absolutely reprehensible, yet Bush will encounter no consequences, unlike Edwards and Clinton for their private affairs (pun intended?). War has effects that range from monetary cost to the extensive human cost- the dead, the injured, the psychologically injured, soldier suicide, and the families and friends that have to bear this cost. And the military doesn't really take care of it's own. PTSD doesn't really exist to them. I have heard that some who admit to this to a military doctor are told that the cure is to go back over and kill more Iraqis. Nice. The military can break people down and turn them into killing machines, but does nothing to help bring them back to civilian life as a functional, happy human being bearing some resemblance to who they used to be.
Bush will remain blissfully ignorant of the effects of war (personally) and untouched by any number of consequences that should go along with such offenses as he has committed. War should be a last resort and it is becoming clearer that Bush doesn't have the same opinion- unless of course the country in fact DOES actually have nukes, like N. Korea- then, proceed with caution.
There is a good quote that you can win a war no more than you can win an earthquake.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Where did my vacation go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
Check out the chart. Us and Australia are the only countries without significant paid parental leave. The developing world’s parents have it better than we do. The “value voters” (or any voters) don’t really take on this issue from what I can tell, but it would make sense. More sense than some other issues they champion. I mean, more time with your kids and family-wouldn’t that translate to well- or better-adjusted kids? Stronger families? Oh, but it conflicts with the almighty market system, so mothers, pop that baby out and back to work! Pronto!
I look forward to the day when I can quit and take care of the kids. Only problem is, that is more likely to occur by the time they’re in college. Then what’s the point? At that point, we need to work to have something to do with ourselves. We need the year or so off when they are young and they need us most (and we need it most), but no one can afford to do that. Except the very fortunate. It’s so backwards.
As it is now, we get 3 months to take, provided we have the vacation time to do it and your boss doesn’t pressure you to return. Mine didn’t, but it happens. By law, you can’t lose your job. If it disappears, they have to provide an equal one or something like that. From the point of view of mothers, though, 3 months is nothing. You spend most of it hormonal, fat, hair falling out, in pain, and trying to get the hang of breastfeeding and caring for a being that totally depends on you. On my first leave, I was in pain and uncomfortable the entire time-the first half from the c-section and the second from the surgery to fix the breast abcess I had gotten after the antibiotics didn’t work on the mastitis. Having the year off would send women back to work who actually had their minds on their work, instead of worrying about the 6 week old or 3 month old they left behind, trying to stay awake every day on 3 hours of sleep, trying to find time and place to pump every few hours, etc.
Anyway, look at the chart. Sad.
***
The End of Summer Vacation
http://www.slate.com/id/2193389/
We don’t get as much vacation time as other nations. Surprise! Surprise! We would much rather drop dead of a heart attack that take a few weeks off of work to enjoy ourselves and our family. The American dream. Thanks again market economy! You work so you can have more money, then you have no time to enjoy it. If you take the time off, you won’t have the money.
A week or less at Christmas, a few days at Thanksgiving, several days for child care issues and… POOF! No vacation left. People have asked me what I’m doing for summer vacation. I’d love to say we’re going to the Bahamas or even the beach 3 hours away, but no. Summer vacations ended in high school really.
It is also said that Americans don't take the time they have off anyway. Maybe that's why it's disappearing. I saved my leave so I could take a "decent" (by American standards) maternity leave. Some may feel like they can't take off because they'll lose customers or look like a slacker to their boss. Mine accumulates (within a certain limit), so I'm constantly saving it so I can take more than a day off to see family, etc.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS130132+15-Apr-2008+PRN20080415
U.S. 14
Canada 17
Great Britain 26
Germany 27
France 31
Spain 37
Italy
Netherlands 28
Austria 28
Check out the chart. Us and Australia are the only countries without significant paid parental leave. The developing world’s parents have it better than we do. The “value voters” (or any voters) don’t really take on this issue from what I can tell, but it would make sense. More sense than some other issues they champion. I mean, more time with your kids and family-wouldn’t that translate to well- or better-adjusted kids? Stronger families? Oh, but it conflicts with the almighty market system, so mothers, pop that baby out and back to work! Pronto!
I look forward to the day when I can quit and take care of the kids. Only problem is, that is more likely to occur by the time they’re in college. Then what’s the point? At that point, we need to work to have something to do with ourselves. We need the year or so off when they are young and they need us most (and we need it most), but no one can afford to do that. Except the very fortunate. It’s so backwards.
As it is now, we get 3 months to take, provided we have the vacation time to do it and your boss doesn’t pressure you to return. Mine didn’t, but it happens. By law, you can’t lose your job. If it disappears, they have to provide an equal one or something like that. From the point of view of mothers, though, 3 months is nothing. You spend most of it hormonal, fat, hair falling out, in pain, and trying to get the hang of breastfeeding and caring for a being that totally depends on you. On my first leave, I was in pain and uncomfortable the entire time-the first half from the c-section and the second from the surgery to fix the breast abcess I had gotten after the antibiotics didn’t work on the mastitis. Having the year off would send women back to work who actually had their minds on their work, instead of worrying about the 6 week old or 3 month old they left behind, trying to stay awake every day on 3 hours of sleep, trying to find time and place to pump every few hours, etc.
Anyway, look at the chart. Sad.
***
The End of Summer Vacation
http://www.slate.com/id/2193389/
We don’t get as much vacation time as other nations. Surprise! Surprise! We would much rather drop dead of a heart attack that take a few weeks off of work to enjoy ourselves and our family. The American dream. Thanks again market economy! You work so you can have more money, then you have no time to enjoy it. If you take the time off, you won’t have the money.
A week or less at Christmas, a few days at Thanksgiving, several days for child care issues and… POOF! No vacation left. People have asked me what I’m doing for summer vacation. I’d love to say we’re going to the Bahamas or even the beach 3 hours away, but no. Summer vacations ended in high school really.
It is also said that Americans don't take the time they have off anyway. Maybe that's why it's disappearing. I saved my leave so I could take a "decent" (by American standards) maternity leave. Some may feel like they can't take off because they'll lose customers or look like a slacker to their boss. Mine accumulates (within a certain limit), so I'm constantly saving it so I can take more than a day off to see family, etc.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS130132+15-Apr-2008+PRN20080415
U.S. 14
Canada 17
Great Britain 26
Germany 27
France 31
Spain 37
Italy
Netherlands 28
Austria 28
Poop...and coffee
Picture from: http://www.carlspackler.com/archive/cs_183.jpg
When I heard about the coffee described below, I thought about this scene from Caddyshack. (It's a Baby Ruth bar, if you haven't seen the movie.) Even some fairly innocuous items in different settings can cause a degree of panic...
My husband keeps talking about this coffee. There is a really expensive coffee that is pooped by weasels. Imagine that! Would you pay $48 a cup for civet poop coffee?? I think I’ll pass. Pretty crazy stuff. Chock Full of Nuts or Starbucks will do just fine! Maybe you can get it cheaper "unprocessed". Ew.
But this is funny...
http://www.ravensbrew.com/NewFiles/kopiluwak.html
And Wikipedia comes through with this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
When I heard about the coffee described below, I thought about this scene from Caddyshack. (It's a Baby Ruth bar, if you haven't seen the movie.) Even some fairly innocuous items in different settings can cause a degree of panic...
My husband keeps talking about this coffee. There is a really expensive coffee that is pooped by weasels. Imagine that! Would you pay $48 a cup for civet poop coffee?? I think I’ll pass. Pretty crazy stuff. Chock Full of Nuts or Starbucks will do just fine! Maybe you can get it cheaper "unprocessed". Ew.
But this is funny...
http://www.ravensbrew.com/NewFiles/kopiluwak.html
And Wikipedia comes through with this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
Bush sewage plant!
This is for real. Some Californians are pushing to rename a sewage plant after Bush in commemoration of his policies and legacy. This is great. I kind of hope it passes. Only in California! Too funny.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Dark Side
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals by Jane Mayer
This is the latest book I want to read. We'll see if it happens. It seems like I only read a small fraction of the ones I want to read. Some of it is due to the fact that a lot of the books are political and become less relevant 5 or so years down the line. Part of the joy of reading things like the Bush Tragedy is seeing researched and in print what was dismissed as fiction by the neocon right for the longest time (poor Cheney still hangs on to much of it).
This one is great. It's the story of the interrogation debacle(s) and the evolution of policy on these issues. What the intel agencies/Bush admin did was use a program (SEER) designed during the Cold War for our people to resist interrogations and use it in reverse to interrogate "suspects". Torture is known to produce forced confessions. Cold War Soviet use of the tactics wasn't even designed to gain real intel; false confessions were fine with them--and we are using and have used these same tactics!
Also interesting is 1/3 in Gitmo were mistakenly picked up. One anecdote is a student identified his teacher as a terrorist for giving him a bad grade. Since we got rid of the Geneva Conventions, we no longer had to check into or even ask about such things. Half of those held are thought to be guilty.
Terror And The Unraveling Of America's Moral Fabric
Fresh Air- NPR 7/15/08- awesome interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92528583
Saturday, July 12, 2008
McCain and Iran
McCain singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html
I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.
US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html
McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc
Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.
Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html
I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.
US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html
McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc
Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.
Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on
Thursday, July 10, 2008
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...
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...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
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.
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.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.
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.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
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". "
Israel's writing a check our American butts are going to have to cash. But that's never happened before, right? ;)
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? ;)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
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
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
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
****
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.
Monday, May 26, 2008
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.alternet.org/story/55827/
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
http://www.normanfinkelstein
----------
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.
http://www.alternet.org/story
Monday, May 19, 2008
Ok, you've heard my rant, now here's someone more eloquent :
Bush in Israel
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 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.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
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...
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...
Thursday, May 8, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
American accused of giving nuclear secrets to Israel
American accused of giving nuclear secrets to Israel
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKRA25614320080422My 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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
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
====
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
====
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, April 7, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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"!!
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"!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)