Killing one bird with several stones...

I apologize for so many links, but on a story like this, you’re going to have to read from more than one angle to get any real details or anything that makes sense.

Edit: I apologize as well for not telling you what this post is about! There was a murder of a Hamas man in Dubai. About 4 actually did the deed. Apparently a cloud of 6-12 Israeli dual citizens have fake passport troubles (and may have helped in surveillance and other ways) in relation to this case.

Several birds, one stone
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/984/re63.htm
(Interesting and plausible idea that Israel is trying to provoke militants- Israel can claim they weren’t involved in this and so the attack would be “unprovoked” – little, tiny, innocent Israel remains the eternal victim)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150126.html

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168902

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518481.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35426268/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/


I wonder what the US response to this blow up will be? Hmm…

A) Not our problem. No comment. We’ve got an economic crisis to take care of.
(Look how little was done about the non-violent American protester, Rachel Corrie, the IDF killed, not to mention we can't really criticize the extra judicial killing of people we deem terror suspects given our current foreign entanglements)

B) Nothing publicly, but to Israel we tell them they’d better keep this stuff more secret because it has the potential to make us look really bad (like they care- we always assume they do)

C) A public statement that our position remains that both sides must take (keep taking) steps to achieve peace.


Mossad has to be responsible. They have targeted political leaders and those working on a peace deal for murder in the past. Look at who the victim is. Not exactly spotless. There's no question Mossad is involved.

Evidence is also said to point to a "European hit squad." I guess it could be a weapons deal gone wrong, but a Palestinian in weapons has an Israeli target on the back of his head from day 1. Israel will know where he is and want him dead, so I have no doubt that Mossad offed him. Intervening or aiding a weapons deal gone wrong would have provided the perfect cover, but the ID theft thing appears to be the cover. The independent European hit squad is highly questionable. I think either Mossad is the European hit squad, they formed the hit squad or they teamed up with them to do this hit. The Mossad has a hand (or at least a listening device) in everything.

Some will think I've lost it for saying Mossad is everywhere and sayanim help them stay (or appear) inside the law. It sounds unreal and conspiratorial, I know. If you’ve read anything about past Mossad operations, though, Ostrovsky’s book or accounts of Mossad encounters from US government officials, you’ll know I’m not delusional!


Here are a few ideas for possible explanations I had when I read about the faked passports:

“Stolen” identities

• The ID theft victims are sayanim and actually volunteered their old passports
• Members of the stolen identity victims’ families are sayanim and gave passports without the knowledge of the ID theft victims
• Mossad stole dual citizens’ (old?) passports
• If the identity theft victims are actually involved (Mossad ends up being not as amateur as they are looking) with Mossad in more than just a sayanim or helper capacity.

Here are my ideas on …

Why Mossad got caught:

• They aren’t as good as they used to be in the pre-1980s era
• They wanted to be caught on camera for some reason (i.e. to help with an ID theft conviction )
• They don’t care if they’re caught because, honestly, no one can or will really do anything about it
• It’s harder to fake passports than it used to be
• The ID theft victims are actually involved somehow, but that’s how the Mossad plans to get out of trouble- let some (possibly disgruntled or less than perfect) agents take the fall for ID theft rather than admit to being caught assassinating another Palestinian political or military “target” without charge or trial and committing illegal acts on foreign soil.
  

Several of the ID theft victims have spoken to the media. Laying the groundwork for the ID theft story. I wonder if what they say will shed any light on the situation. Probably not. They'll get whacked if they say anything useful. Or suffer the fate of Mordecai Vanunu.


Melvyn Adam Mildiner is widely mentioned and quoted:

"I don't know how this happened or who chose my name or why, but hopefully we'll find out soon,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100216/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_uae_hamas_israel


There are apparently at least 3 other dual citizens in Mildiner’s position: Michael Lawrence Barney and Stephen Hodes.


My blog posts about Israel spying and assassinating and such:


http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/10/israel-doesnt-spy-on-us.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-israeli-spy.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/04/american-accused-of-giving-nuclear.html


A Mossad hit from two years ago- not sure I wrote about this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514130/Did-Mossad-blow-Hezbollah-Master-Terrorist-kidnapped-Terry-Waite.html



You may remember other Mossad antics:

Lillehammer- oops we extra-judicially assassinated the wrong guy

The New Zealand passport debacle. NZ took it harder than the US does.

Israeli "art students" who got caught on Capitol Hill snooping in classified material. Oops.

No-brainers - but finally in print

I get Sam Bahour’s epalestine newsletter by email. He’s got a lot of good stuff, but I was really pleased and surprised to see some of these ideas in print.

Two very sensible points in this article. I was incredibly surprised to hear this was in the NYT. But in a good way.

Both points I highlighted below I have heard put forth in various discussions and in both cases the cry of anti-Semitism has been used to try to shut down the presentation of any POV but the one favorable to Israel. Hopefully, that won’t happen this time and maybe- just maybe- people can freely think about the subject at hand rather than whether or not they are an anti-Semite.


The article:
Hard Mideast Truths
By ROGER COHEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12iht-edcohen.html?th&emc=th


Point 1:

“It makes sense for America to assure Israel’s security. It does not make sense for America to bankroll Israeli policies that undermine U.S. strategic objectives. “

The first sentence is up for debate. The second is what we are doing. We need to ask ourselves why.



Point 2:

“And this: Obama needs to work harder on overcoming Palestinian division, a prerequisite for peace, rather than playing the no-credible-interlocutor Israeli game. The Hamas charter is vile. But the breakthrough Oslo accords were negotiated in 1993, three years before the Palestine Liberation Organization revoked the annihilationist clauses in its charter. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn, that destroy-Israel charter was intact. Things change through negotiation, not otherwise. If there are Taliban elements worth engaging, are there really no such elements in the broad movements that are Hamas and Hezbollah?”

People want Palestinians to demonstrate perfect democracy and society as a precondition for a state. I have said for awhile that this is backwards. Have we forgotten what negotiation is or what it is supposed to do? Seems so.

***

The following quote and article are along these same lines, but an Israeli politician is stating it, which is notable and interesting.

Usually just a mention of a non-Jewish Israel regardless of context will get you called anti-Semitic, so this is rather remarkable. I’m guessing this is a statement to support a two state solution, since both non-Jewish and non-democratic are equally unthinkable for Israeli Jews.

I still can’t believe I heard an Israeli leader break the situation down like this: “If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state.”

It’s true. I agree. I agree with Ehud Barak. And I can’t believe I just said that.


The article:
A retractionist-retentionist discourse
By Daniel Levy
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149369.html


The quote:

“In his keynote address at last week's Herzliya Conference, Ehud Barak summoned up the most dramatic case for changing the status quo: "If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic ... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state." “

And just to ground you... No, Israel hasn't rejected discriminatory attitudes and policies... They recognize the apartheid- and embrace it.

Israeli poll: 75 percent favour deporting fellow citizens; Netanyahu favours birth control

http://jnoubiyeh.blogspot.com/2010/02/israeli-poll-75-percent-favour.html

Obama's First Year

I guess I was more hopeful that Obama would deliver on fundamental change in Washington since he worked at the grassroots, was a community organizer and so knew what the problems in Washington are, and he was a Constitutional law professor, so he would know how and what to do to fix (or improve) things in a way possibly never seen before. He didn't talk like Sabato (see previous post) in calling for amending the Constitution and adding Congressmen, so I guess I shouldn't have expected anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps I and others read things into Obama that he never promised at all.

On the other hand, I think he’s not been a failure, like many are writing him off to be after just one year. He’s accomplished quite a lot. We get bogged down with the economic situation and wars, both of which he inherited and had no way to solve in a year (4 years is rather optimistic).

He’s not passing things left and right due to his pragmatism and respect for both sides, rather than ineffectiveness or bad leadership. Other folks in his position might present big and far left ideas to Congress. Republicans can whittle it down a bit and he can still come out with something. Instead, presents what he thinks is fair and can pass (he’s playing nice) and it gets whittled down to nothing. He’s not rolling over the minority like other presidents might. He has no plan to push things through despite Republicans who have promised not to work with him and try their best to make him fail. For this fairness he is judged a failure and disappointment.

I’m not a fan or even a “real” Democrat, but Obama’s done some things.

This particular list is campaign promises- he's kept 90 and almost 300 are in the works. Hopefully I'll get a list together of of things he's done that I like. Until then:


PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg Times, are as follows:

* No. 6: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
* No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
* No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
* No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
* No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
* No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
* No. 50: Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
* No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
* No. 76: Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
* No. 77: Increase funding to expand community based prevention programs
* No. 88: Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
* No. 110: Assure that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as 'must-pass' legislation
* No. 119: Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
* No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
* No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
* No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
* No. 154: Strengthen and expand military exchange programs with other countries
* No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
* No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
* No. 182: Allocate Homeland Security funding according to risk
* No. 184: Create a real National Infrastructure Protection Plan
* No. 200: Appoint a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
* No. 208: Improve relations with Turkey, and its relations with Iraqi Kurds
* No. 212: Launch an international Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA)
* No. 215: Create a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
* No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
* No. 224: Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
* No. 225: Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
* No. 239: Release presidential records
* No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
* No. 247: Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
* No. 266: Encourage water-conservation efforts in the West
* No. 269: Increase funding for national parks and forests
* No. 270: Increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
* No. 272: Encourage farmers to use more renewable energy and be more energy efficient
* No. 277: Pursue a wildfire prevention and management plan
* No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
* No. 284: Expand access to places to hunt and fish
* No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
* No. 300: Reform mandatory minimum sentences
* No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
* No. 325: Create an artist corps for schools
* No. 326: Champion the importance of arts education
* No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA
* No. 332: Add another Space Shuttle flight
* No. 334: Use the private sector to improve spaceflight
* No. 336: Partner to enhance the potential of the International Space Station
* No. 337: Use the International Space Station for fundamental biological and physical research
* No. 338: Explore whether International Space Station can operate after 2016
* No. 342: Work toward deploying a global climate change research and monitoring system
* No. 345: Enhance earth mapping
* No. 346: Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
* No. 356: Establish special crime programs for the New Orleans area
* No. 359: Rebuild schools in New Orleans
* No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
* No. 380: Bolster the military's ability to speak different languages
* No. 391: Appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer
* No. 394: Provide grants to early-career researchers
* No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
* No. 420: Create a national declassification center
* No. 421: Appoint an American Indian policy adviser
* No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
* No. 435: Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
* No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year
* No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
* No. 459: Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
* No. 460: Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity
* No. 475: Require states to provide incentives for utilities to reduce energy consumption
* No. 480: Unprecedented expansion of funding for regional high-speed rail
* No. 483: Invest in public transportation
* No. 484: Equalize tax breaks for driving and public transit
* No. 494: Share enviromental technology with other countries
* No. 498: Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
* No. 500: Increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
* No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy
* No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
* No. 506: Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
* No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
* No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

***

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june10/obama_01-19.html

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/10/01/20.php

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

http://www.france24.com/en/20100119-accomplishments-setbacks-stalemates-obama%E2%80%99-first-year-review-0

http://themoderatevoice.com/57560/obamas-first-year



***
Some more things- may have been mentioned above- not sure:

ERIC ALTERMAN: Net neutrality. Government--

BILL MOYERS: That's really big in Massachusetts.

ERIC ALTERMAN: Government trans-- well, they're not the kinds of things that excite people. But he--

MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Lily Ledbetter Equal--

ERIC ALTERMAN: Releasing the torture memos.

BILL MOYERS: But not closing Guantanamo.

ERIC ALTERMAN: Canceling the F-22. I mean, these are all things that President McCain would never have done. Sonia Sotomayor.

from: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01222010/watch.html

--

Constitutional Convention?

I just wrote about the Tea Party movement. The big complaint there is that no one is listening to us and government is broken. Progressives often say the same things at times. Seems like the answer is not to get one or the other in office via new groups or new parties, but maybe we should all consider radical change to a government that hasn’t seen an amendment in quite some time and hasn’t responded to our growing population with more representatives to make those new voices heard. One Congressman used to represent 60,000 people; now one represents some 670,000. No wonder we feel like no one is listening!

Sabato in this book below and Lessig in a podcast (farther below) both mention Constitutional Convention. The Tea Party movement just held a convention, but perhaps we need something bigger and more bipartisan than that movement can offer?


http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm

A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato

A rather boring book, I just couldn't get through it. If I wrote a book, that’s probably how mine would turn out- too long and super boring! ☺ There are some really good points made, though! I don't agree with everything, but it is interesting stuff.

Here are Sabato’s suggestions:

Congress:
1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.

2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”

3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.



Presidency:
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.

10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.

11. Give the President a line-item veto.

12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.



Supreme Court:
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.



Politics:
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.

20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.



Universal National Service:
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.



National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.

***

I listened to Lessig talk about a constitutional convention on Democracy Now at the time I was trying to read Sabato’s book calling for a constitutional convention.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/5/how_to_get_our_democracy_back

Lawrence Lessig, professor of law at Harvard Law School. Co-founder of the nonprofit Change Congress. His cover story in The Nation is titled, How to Get Our Democracy Back

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig

This guy’s focus seems to be more campaign finance reform or maybe he was just responding to the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that allows corporations to spend more to influence campaigns. The discussion made me think of Sabato’s stuff.

Tea Party, but not the fun kind.

We will occasionally have a tea party with the kids and everyone loves those, but that's not what I'm talking about, here...


From Tea Party Nation website:

Who are we? Our members have joined us from all over the nation, from every state and even from foreign countries!

Tea Party Nation (or TPN) is a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!

Please join us, make and form strong bonds, network, and make plans for action. We are doing what we could not do alone, to preserve that which we value.

http://www.teapartynation.com/


***

What is the tea party movement? It seems to be a far right fiscal conservative movement given the name and fact that it started around tax time, but what is the goal? Are they a real revolution or lunatic fringe?

It seems to want to remain leaderless and not affiliated with a party, but I don’t think either of those are a success.


***

Some issues, comments, questions about the movement:

Why do the tea party thing when you’ve got Steinhouser’s FreedomWorks whose goal is ‘Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom’ ? Is it not anti-Obama enough for them? In an interview, the representative from that group seemed far more reasonable than what I've heard from the tea party elites and supporters.

Once it went national, doesn’t that mean it isn’t grass-roots?

Tea Party Nation is for profit

Tickets are $549 and $349- lobster and steak on the menu
(kind of funny since there was some Obama bashing at this gathering and during the campaign, some Republicans said Michelle had room service deliver lobster and caviar for over $500- NY Post retracted the story after it was found to be totally false.)

Said to have no leader/head; it’s about everyone- Judson Phillips seems be, though. It’s not like everyone just sent out a text message and met all together.

“Not having a leader”- is it populist or is it just an easy way out when you invite people and they say something (crazy) that’s either not in the scope of the event or that could hurt momentum or seriously bigoted that makes all look bad

They claim that their voice is not being heard and the democracy is not working. I’d give them that if the popular vote didn’t match the electoral college result. I think we all feel that way. I think my post about Sabato’s book provides better suggestions (Sabato’s suggestions, not mine). The tea partiers are all about getting a conservative in the White House; Sabato outlines some real fundamental changes.


***

Here are some interesting (as in offensive) points I heard in reports about this tea party convention:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html

Tom Tancredo said and Judson Phillips agrees:

"people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.

(also mentioned literacy tests- possibly in a Spanish accent (???)- which incidentally were once used to keep blacks from voting… he claims to have meant more of a civics literacy test...hmm)

In another bit of irony- Sarah Palin wrote notes on her hand. She poked fun of Obama’s teleprompter during the campaign.

Phillips added that he thinks "Tancredo doesn't feel like a lot of people who supported Barack Obama understand the basics of this country."
This (condescendingly) echoes exactly what a McCain supporter (equally condescendingly) emailed me when I responded (replied all) to a ‘don’t vote for Obama unless you hate America, freedom and don’t want planet Earth to implode!’- type email I got during the campaign. If you only knew or were educated, then you wouldn’t vote for him- as though I didn’t do research or wasn’t educated.

I looked at that email again and had forgotten someone I am related to told me to wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid- Obama’s a Muslim, not born in this country, a socialist, friend of terrorists, and a few other myths. I’m crazy for not believing already debunked myths!

Anyway…

***

Tancerdo also talked about "Islamification" and the "cult of multiculturalism"

I heard this but have yet to get a reference to see what the deal was. I still don’t see what is so evil about respecting other cultures. And sorry, the US is not being “Islamified.” Whatever that means.

***
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily was a speaker at the convention and spent a quarter of his speech on birther “questions” (Still, people? Really?) This kind of thing delegitimizes the movement IMO by promoting these urban legends, previously debunked myths and such.

http://washingtonindependent.com/75949/birther-speaker-takes-heat-at-tea-party-convention

***
Objectionable placards- don’t know that it needs much comment…
On the Diane Rehm Show about the Tea Party movement, Phillips said he didn’t see anything offensive except from one Democrat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html

***

Friday's planned sessions at the Convention featured such titles as "Defeating Liberalism Via the Primary Process" and "Why Christians Must Engage."

Good title in the latter, but I can only suspect that it is about getting conservatives elected, not about actually governing in a Godly manner or behaving in a Godly manner toward the President and Democrats as well as those we agree with.

A Saturday Session: Speaker, ANA PUIG-“Correlations between the current Administration and Marxist Dictators of Latin America”

I’m only going to say: ??????


*** *** ***
Sites weighing in on the Tea Party Movement:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/10/02/09.php
Great points are made and Diane Rehm tames unruly guests in her tea party feature. One guest points out similar movements throughout history. Another interesting point is made about Republican (and Focus on the Family) control Colorado Springs

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123221091&ft=1&f=1014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/06/sarah-palin-goes-obama-tea-party-convention/




Tea Party the movie was featured at the convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJ6dSyohCc

Polls about how people feel about the tea party movement:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/boiling-tea_b_451306.html

Church and State

The previous post on the Blackwater book talking about abortion as a "culture of death" and the whole political Christianity thing with The Family and Blackwater stirred up more (or the same?) thoughts on the topic I continually think about - politics in religion and religion in politics. Church and state.

I always think about the big 2 - abortion and gay marriage and wonder how these got to be political issues. Why not go after a divorce ban- except in the case of death or infidelity? Surely that's of equal moral concern as homosexual marriage? Why choose these 2 and claim them as "Republican values"?

There is a strong sentiment in the Church (less so in the greater religious world) that unless you vote Republican you are not doing everything you can to stop or oppose abortion and gay marriage. I, on the other hand, don’t know that that’s the most effective or best way to oppose it. Let’s say we banned abortion and gay marriage in this country. Would those sinners be any closer to knowing the gospel? Would we as a nation or individually?

I think in our zeal to oppose these things politically, we can lose sight of the real goal.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t preach and listen to sermons against abortion and homosexuality- not at all. I’m only saying I think we go too far when we say or imply that voting Republican (or supporting candidates and laws against these) is the only solution or only way to be faithful.

I know some will think I’m a sentence away from falling away from the church or supporting or condoning abortion and gay marriage, but I just think we need to be careful to preach what the Bible teaches and nothing more or less.

First, we are to spread the gospel, not necessarily to keep people from the physical acts of sin. The latter would be nice, but that alone won't save their soul. Just like we can get caught up in the head count of congregations or the number of baptisms per week rather than making sure we are active and faithful, I think we can get caught up in number of laws passed to gauge how Christian our nation is. Numbers won't tell you the group is faithful and a heap of 'moral legislation' won't tell you how Christian the nation is or how hard we have tried to spread the gospel.

Who is to say that teaching people about the gospel, when life begins and that abortionis murder is less effective than assaulting people with pictures (and gory details) of aborted fetuses and telling them to vote Republican. I agree that a picture can say a thousand words, having seen my share of pictures and videos of blown up and bleeding children and bloody stumps traded back and forth in discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I have reservations and issues with using this as a primary tool of persuasion. I think it appeals too much to emotion and can displace reason and logic. I also feel bad about using someone's child and pain in a campaign (albeit a worthy one) to end the conflict or abortion.

Second, voting for a candidate or party lumps a whole lot of other issues together that could have equal or different spiritual concerns.

Sometimes in the fight against abortion and gay marriage it appears we forget that Christ came teaching individual, not national responsibility and salvation.

Some will think me contrary, confrontational, wanting to sit on the fence, not having a desire to fight for right – I will respectfully disagree.

Blackwater: Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Blackwater: Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

By Jeremy Scahill

These are just some notes on the book so far. If I finish it, I may summarize or review it.

***

I found some people and some policies of confidentiality and secrecy to be reminiscent of The Family. I need to look at the foot notes to see if he references it. So far, he hasn't mentioned them in the text.

P 16 Council for National Policy - started 1981 by Rev. Tim LaHaye to oppose Council on Foreign Relations

***Red flag- this guy is the same LaHaye of the Left Behind novels that promote the false doctrine of premillennialism. Christians would do well to take note and be careful of throwing their support behind such people just because they "appear Christian" or support other right wing causes that Christians tend to support!

Council for National Policy

-Members are told to keep when and where and who attends meetings (before or after) secret from media

-“to strategize about how to turn the country to the right” 102

***Interesting. I have had conservative friends proudly say this is a center right country. Is it that way because people have Republican leanings or because they were manipulated by this and other groups like it that may have politicized and made divisive certain issues or however else they "turned the country to the right"... ?

Erik Prince is unconfirmed as a member of this group, but he has given money to it and is close with other attendees such as: Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, Holland Coors (beer), Wayne LaPierre (NRA), Richard and Dick DeVos, Oliver North, Grover Norquist, Frank Gaffney, GWB- addressed group in 1999. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Ashcroft, Dan Senor (top aide to Bremer), DeLay, Frist (given an award by them) - Many of these are in The Family...

***

P18 Chuck Colson (also influential in The Family)

Prison ministry

2002 speech - praised Erik Prince, talked of need for political and religious alliance of Catholics and evangelicals

P. 20 Colson, Richard Neuhaus and others - document Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT)

Common missionary cause “all people will come to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”

(This doesn't sound bad- it sound good- but I disagree strongly with where they take it.)

“The document recognized the separation of church and state, but “just as strongly protest[ed] the distortion of that principle to mean the separation of religion from public life…The argument, increasingly voiced in sectors of our political culture, that religion should be excluded from the public square must be recognized as an assault upon the most elementary principles of democratic governance.” “ (p20)

(Again, I agree that separation of church and state shouldn't mean religion is banned in public life, but I also disagree with how much and what kind of religion is put into public life and how it is done. I also take issue with branding those who disagree with the way, say Republicans, aim to use or keep religion in public life, you are un-American, undemocratic and un-Christian)

Religion is “privileged and foundational in our legal order”

Need to defend “the moral truths of our constitutional order”

(This is a religious declaration- or so I thought. What is the constitution doing in it? God doesn't care what type of government we're under. The teachings are the same. This phrase seems to put the Constitution on the level of the Bible in the minds of some or that we should legislate all Bible truth in order to be faithful.)

Abortion was a big topic in ECT- called “culture of death”

(Abortion is murder, but "culture of death"?? This is Bush-style hype.)

Advocates “moral education” - giving future generations our cultural heritage, that is, Christianity and Judaism.

(Why a Christian would put Judaism on the level Christianity is beyond me. Given other moral issues they take a stand on, it seems they would want to make the Biblical distinction that Jews are in the same boat as Muslims today- they need to obey Christ. But, instead, they uphold Israel and it's war crimes as honorable and Muslims as incapable of anything good.)

“We contend for a free society, including a vibrant market economy.”

(Again, I'm fine with a religious statement. I'm not saying I'm going to endorse it, but go ahead if it reduces animosity between Catholics and Protestants. Help people find Christ. That is truly a great goal. Now, what on earth does salvation have to do with the economy???)

“We affirm the importance of a free economy not only because it is more efficient but because it accords with a Christian understanding of human freedom” (also something I can’t wrap my brain around- is there some Biblical example or preference or word on type of government or economy we should advocate for?? Total garbage. The Bible is about teaches one to be faithful and teaching others about Christ) “Economic freedom, while subject to grave abuse, makes possible the patterns of creativity, cooperation, and accountability that contribute to the common good.” (Sounds like more of a nod and help to the billionaires that started The Family, CNP, etc, but putting a Biblical spin on it so everyone else can voluntarily help them stay rich at their own expense.)

“renewed appreciation of Western culture”

(Sounds like a bit of American hubris, but what comes next is much more sinister...)

“We are keenly aware of, and grateful for, the role of Christianity in shaping and sustaining the Western culture of which we are apart.”

“Multiculturalism” most commonly come to mean “affirming all cultures but our own”

(Scary as a similar sort of thing appears in white supremacist type rants. Perhaps black folks are meant to be included in "our culture", but like I said, this is unsettling. Even if this does include African Americans, I disagree with the statement and think adopting a French style culture protection is wrong- especially given that most of us aren't Native American and so don't really have the right.)

The document says that now is the time for Catholics and Evangelicals to be Christians together in a way that prepares the world for the coming of Christ. It is a noble enough goal, but in the context of the political and economic goals also mentioned, it really doesn’t have much to do with this goal. And another issue is the differences in doctrine between the two and more importantly, how much should we in the Lord’s body be involved with these two. Should we use them to the extent that they follow the Bible, or just blaze a new trail?

I vote for the latter since I have no use for either the Republican or Democratic party.

Nisour Square

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/vice-president-joe-biden-us-appeal-blackwater-ruling/story?id=9645950

I hope this is true that Biden will make sure this case is revisited. If we're lucky, it will lead to more investigations and banning or at least making very little use of private security contractors AKA contract killers AKA mercenaries...

I have pretty well been able to keep out of the 'human interest' side, but this week I read the account of the Nisour Square murders. Horrifying. I cannot imagine being those parents. It's bad enough when you just look at the victims' stories, but when you look at the fact that we're not supposed to be in Iraq, Blackwater wasn't supposed to be at that place that day, it was most likely deliberate and not in response to anything. It didn't have to happen.

Here's an exerpt from Scahill's new article about the event:

Blackwater's Youngest Victim

ByJeremy Scahill

January 28, 2010

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100215/scahill

"But this past New Year's Eve, federal Judge Ricardo Urbina threw out all the criminal charges against the five Blackwater guards. At least seventeen Iraqis died that day, and prosecutors believed they could prove fourteen of the killings were unjustified. The manslaughter charges were dismissed not because of a lack of evidence but because of what Urbina called serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.

Then, a few days after the dismissal of the criminal case, Blackwater reached a civil settlement with many of the Nisour Square victims, reportedly paying about $100,000 per death.

Blackwater released a statement declaring it was "pleased" with the outcome, which enabled the company to move forward "free of the costs and distraction of ongoing litigation." But Mohammed Kinani would not move on. He refused to take the deal Blackwater offered. As a result, he may well be the one man standing between Blackwater and total impunity for the killings in Nisour Square."

***********
Here is Democracy Now's report, featuring Scahill:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/29/exclusiveblackwaters_youngest_victim_father_of_9

**********

On a similar note....

I still don't know what the most recent news of the Haditha "incident" is. It looks like most of the charges were dropped.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973_page6.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Holocaust Day lessons

Should the lesson be attack Iran or Never Again?

After the speeches, I was a little confused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8483017.stm


I think it is a good thing to remember the Nazi Holocaust and its victims and to vow that nothing like it should ever happen again.

There is, however, a certain irony that is becoming increasingly inescapable- especially with the one year "anniversary" of the Operation Cast Lead (Gaza siege and blockade) last month.

What I found rather strange in reading bits of Netanyahu's speech was that Holocaust Day was used by Israeli leaders speaking that day to stoke anger against Iran. It seemed inappropriate to me. A day to remember suffering (and to vow not to let it happen again) used to incite people to support an attack while oppressing another entire population.

If any comparisons are drawn to the Nazi Holocaust, it should be to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians or the Nakba or something. Instead of Iran, people should reflect on their nation and what the Occupation is doing to society and democracy. I cannot believe there are Holocaust survivors who have lived to see their own people do similar things to others. Is the slogan 'never again' or 'never again to Jews'? Some Jews do argue that the Occupation is doing far more damage to Israeli society already than anything else.

A quote from the article at the top:

August Kowalczyk spent two years at Auschwitz and survived.

"This place determined who I am today, aged nearly 90," he said.

"I still have one mission - to pass on to the next generation knowledge of what happened here."

It is more than ok to remember Jewish suffering and learn about the Holocaust- for Jews and Gentiles alike. In American schools, we read Anne Frank and do special projects and have guest speakers to learn more about this horrible tragedy. I enjoyed hearing the stories of perseverance myself. I just wonder when it will be ok for Palestinians to talk openly about their tragedy and when others will openly want to learn about it. How long will it take for people to stop calling you a terrorist sympathizer for wondering why Palestinians can't have equal rights and self-determination and aren't entitled to live free and defend themselves? How long will it take for Israeli leaders to acknowledge their role in Palestinian suffering and death and express remorse and sympathy as the leaders embrace, as Germany and Israel do? I wonder when (some) Israelis and others who deny Palestinian suffering or Israeli crimes will be treated as Holocaust deniers are- marginalized and shunned instead of as one presenting valid points to consider.

Maybe you will think me horrible or an anti-Semite to suggest a similarity between Nazis and Israel. It is indeed a sick irony. I don't think I am to blame, though. I read a book last year that told of the intersecting of two lives in the past and present- a Jewish family who came in 1948 and an Arab refugee family who was forced to in 1948. The historic descriptions of the Jewish march to the trains and death camps was so strikingly similar to the descriptions of the Arabs being forced on long marches to one city and then the next, farther and farther from home. In both cases, people died on the way, had babies on the way, the women strapped gold to their bodies in the same way and for the same reasons, and both peoples left with virtually nothing but the clothes on their backs. One group, however, is allowed to remember their dead and prosecute their killers; the other isn't.


Random opinions:


The Jewish left on Holocaust remembrance:

'Holocaust remembrance is a boon for Israeli propaganda'

Finkelstein's book


An Arab opinion:

Arab MK slams Holocaust denial

54 people with guts - thank you!

I often talk junk about Congress people and how they want to keep their jobs so they bow to the Israel lobby, but if just for a day, there is hope.

They used the words "collective punishment." I really am impressed!

Representatives, unlike most senators, won't let you write them unless you are a constituent, so I'll have to thank them here on my turf:

I want to thank you for your letter to President Obama to ask him to help pressure Israel to act according to international law and respect human rights and basic needs of Palestinians. My own representatives have failed miserably in taking this stand (or any on this issue), so I say a special thank you for stepping up in the absence of their moral stand for representing my interests and bringing them before our President.

The right would have us believe that they represent the interests of Christians in supporting Israel unconditionally. On the contrary, such abused and marginalized people as the Palestinians under brutal Israeli control are the very people Jesus went to. As a Christian, I applaud you for taking this stand.

AIPAC has tried to silence voices like ours who desire more balance in our approach to the Israeli Palestinian problem so as a voter (though not in your district) I thank you for risking your seat doing what is right.

Thank you for your courage and your understanding of the real situation in Israel/Palestine.

Please continue to stand for human rights and international law for the betterment ourselves, the country and our security.


Sent January 21, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for your ongoing work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for your commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals.

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas:

* Movement of people, especially students, the ill, aid workers, journalists, and those with family concerns, into and out of Gaza;

* Access to clean water, including water infrastructure materials,

* Access to plentiful and varied food and agricultural materials;

* Access to medicine and health care products and suppliers;

* Access to sanitation supplies, including sanitation infrastructure materials;

* Access to construction materials for repairs and rebuilding;

* Access to fuel;

* Access to spare parts;

* Prompt passage into and out of Gaza for commercial and agricultural goods; and

* Publication and review of the list of items prohibited to the people of Gaza.

Winter is arriving and the needs of the people grow ever more pressing. For example, the ban on building materials is preventing the reconstruction of thousands of innocent families’ damaged homes. There is also a concern that unrepaired sewage treatment plants will overflow and damage surrounding property and water resources.

Despite ad hoc easing of the blockade, there has been no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza. Both the number of trucks entering Gaza per month and the number of days the crossings have been open have declined since March. This crisis has devastated livelihoods, entrenched a poverty rate of over 70%, increased dependence on erratic international aid, allowed the deterioration of public infrastructure, and led to the marked decline of the accessibility of essential services.

The humanitarian and political consequences of a continued near-blockade would be disastrous. Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions.

Your Administration’s overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region. The people of Gaza, along with all the peoples of the region, must see that the United States is dedicated to addressing the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and to ensuring that the legitimate needs of the Palestinian population are met.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

Arizona

* Raul Grijalva D-AZ7

California

* Lois Capps D-CA23
* Sam Farr D-CA17
* Bob Filner D-CA51
* Barbara Lee D-CA9
* Loretta Sanchez D-CA39
* Pete Stark D-CA
* Michael Honda D-CA15
* Lynn Woolsey D-CA6
* Jackie Speier D-CA12
* Diane Watson D-CA33
* George Miller D-CA7

Connecticut

* Jim Himes D-CT4

Indiana

* Andre Carson D-IN7

Iowa

* Bruce Braley D-IA1

Kentucky

* John Yarmuth D-KY3

Maryland

* Elijah Cummings D-MD7
* Donna Edwards D-MD4

Massachusetts

* Michael Capuano D-MA8
* William Delahunt D-MA10
* Jim McGovern D-MA3
* John Tierney D-MA6
* John Olver D-MA1
* Stephen Lynch D-MA9

Michigan

* John Conyers D-MI14
* John Dingell D-MI 15
* Carolyn Kilpatrick D-MI13

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison D-MN5
* Betty McCollum D-MN4
* James Oberstar D-MN8

New Jersey

* Donald Payne D-NJ10
* Rush Holt D-NJ12
* Bill Pascrell D-NJ8

New York

* Yvette Clarke D-NY11
* Maurice Hinchey D-NY22
* Paul Tonko D-NY21
* Eric Massa D-NY29

North Carolina

* David Price D-NC4

Ohio

* Mary Jo Kilroy D-OH15
* Marcy Kaptur D-OH9

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer D-OR3
* Peter DeFazio D-OR4

Pennsylvania

* Chaka Fattah D-PA2
* Joe Sestak D-PA7

Vermont

* Peter Welch D-VT

Virginia

* Jim Moran D-VA8

Washington

* Jim McDermott D-WA7
* Adam Smith D-WA9
* Jay Inslee D-WA1
* Brian Baird D-WA3

West Virginia

* Nick Rahall D-WV3

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin D-WI2
* Gwen Moore D-WI4

Virginia

* Glenn Nye D-VA2

"Hebrew slogans" and another reason settlements should be razed

Maybe not razed- if they want one secular democratic state where all Jews and all Palestinians everywhere are welcome and have equal rights...


I read a BBC article and they referred to "slogans" written by students (more accurate= suspected terrorists). I mean ynetnews even recognized them as slurs.

The BBC is usually pretty good and brings out points critical of Israel where the US media fails miserably. For example, in many stories, this appears at the end:

"All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this."

This time the BBC was way off.


Anyway- the slogans.

One was "We will burn all of you." A slogan? Really? If this slur is in fact a slogan or mantra, then they've got a terrorist cell on their hands and heads need to roll.

When Palestinians- or anyone for that matter, says these types of things, we call them threats or worse. When accompanied by an attack, such as the arson here, it's attempted murder, except in this case.

I'll go along with "Price Tag" being a slogan (grafitti also defacing the building). Taking into account what it means, though, I'm going to have to go with slur or threat:

"Price tag" is the slogan adopted some months ago by extremist settlers who carry out reprisals against Palestinians in response to the evacuation of settlement structures by Israeli defense forces.

"Rabbi Shapira published a controversial book last year which includes discussion of interpretations of the circumstances under which Jewish law permits Jews to kill non-Jews."

"The rabbi has been condemned for writing a book called "The King's Torah" that says it is permissible to kill non-Jewish children if they pose a threat or as a deterrent for the future. It states that only a Jew who kills a Jew violates the commandment against murder."

Hmmm. Now what do we think of and do with Muslims who teach (or support those who teach*) this type of thing? I probably don't need to tell you.
*=seminary students and a Knesset member were protesting for his release

He refused to cooperate and is suspected of withholding information. He's getting off pretty easy. Ask a Palestinian what happens when they are suspected of knowing anything about a person they suspect might become a suspect. Ask a police officer what they think of someone who refuses to cooperate. I'm guessing they think that is a sign of guilt. Not, here, though.

What are they doing with this guy? Releasing him, of course! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a cow. Now at least they can say they "looked into it" and we in the US can feel good again about our support for normal life and natural growth in illegal settlements.

3 more reasons why the settlement freeze means nothing

This is news of the recent temporary “settlement freeze”. It is hailed as a great step toward peace by the US and Israel for which the Palestinians are now significantly indebted. Never mind that this is only a partial freeze on something that is completely illegal in the first place…

If there is any doubt that a settlement freeze means nothing, Israeli officials will spell it out for you:


***
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/25/content_12868104.htm

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday planted trees in West Bank settlements, in a move which he said sent a clear message that Israel would retain major settlement blocs under any peace deal with the Palestinians.”

The absurdity of that quote blows my mind.

Planting trees means you aren’t giving the land back?? If trees have so much meaning that way, what about those Palestinian olive and fruit trees that were uprooted by Israel to build those settlements?? If the US pushes some settlers out of the way, occupies a hill over there and plants some trees, can we get in on this action, too??

Planting trees in Israel. I've seen the ads. It sounds rather benign and eco-friendly, right? I never thought about it as engaging in breaking international law, but that's what you're doing.

This must be proof that if you say something enough times, it can in fact be true. Gold Meir said there are no Palestinians. Others have said Palestine was uninhabited before 1948. Prime Ministers after her have said, hinted, and acted the same way. The US pretty much believes it, given the way we're letting Israel ethnically cleanse the area.

***

http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0446.htm#Top

A new college in the Territories. Should be good news. I'm all for education. Except Palestinians aren’t allowed to attend or go near it. Chances are, they have been pushed off the land it sits on (and the surrounding area needed for Jewish only roads and "security" trenches, barbed wire, guard towers, etc).

The apartheid analogy is looking more valid each time Israel takes action.

It’s just one more thing that makes settlements look less and less temporary or negotiable. The only thing we can hope is that it doesn't sabotage the peace process and Palestinian self-determination. Maybe it will force the binational state idea back onto the table.

***

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=57750

Soldiers Get “Free Space In Settlements” For Military Service

Giving soldiers land to thank them for their service. Sounds nice. And it is, given that you’re not the one it’s being taken from to thank soldiers for killing your family and stealing yours and your grandparents land.

Free space indeed! Like the whole land without people for people with no land lie.

“It is the second half of an initiative granting free higher education to soldiers who chose to study in colleges in the Negev and the Galilee.”

If it’s an issue of being able to visit and see the land they view with religious significance, fine. Let them visit. If they want a University or neighborhood on Palestinian soil, they should be paying Palestinians, following Palestinian laws and regulations, asking permission from Palestinians, working with Palestinians and allowing Palestinians access. Anything else is theft and should be a big problem for US-Israel.

kids say...

A few kid things before I forget to write them down...


My daughter is at the stage of 1000 questions- age 4.
Yes, I'd guess that's probably literally thousands.

The most common by far are:
-"Who gave you/me/us that?" - for quite possibly every toy and object in the house
-"What does (fill in the first 100 animals that come to mind) eat?" - I have to admit I've made some answers up...
-"What are we on?" - As in road. I imagine she'll know how to get anywhere in a one or two hour radius from the house, which is more than I could say for myself until at least college!

Next is 'how do you like me, mom?' The correct answer is a lot. I answered her the first time that I love her (I do, that's a good answer, right?) and so the next time she asked, she said, 'you don't like me, you love me?' I said yes, afterward regretting it because that sounds like I don't like her. She continued over the week to ask do you like me or how do you like me, so I said I like you a lot, more than anything, I love you. She eventually told me and her dad that I like you a lot means I love you. That was pretty neat to watch her sort through this problem and come up with something that makes a lot of sense.

Thankfully, "why" is not popular at this time! Can't wait for that one! :)

***

R is two.

At the doctor's, both kids had to get shots and R went first. He was crying and making his sister nervous, so the nurse explained that he was just a little boy, but that she'll be fine, etc and in the middle of sobbing, R yells - I'm - not - little - I'm - big !! The nurse nearly hit the floor laughing.

When I punish him or something doesn't go his way, he tells me he's a little baby, which means he wants extra hugs and kisses, to be carried, etc.

Another pretty entertaining thing about him is when he's describing something in a few sentences (a toy needs a battery, for instance), he looks so serious and expressions cross his face like he's defending his thesis or something.


They are both in a dance class now. R's is mom and tot, so that is interesting... S really likes hers. I wasn't sure if she liked it at first, but maybe she was worn out. When you ask her about it, she smiles shyly. I catch her pointing her toes or doing a little ballet move sometimes. Last week, she told me she was going to show Daddy what she learned, so I think she likes it. R doesn't follow directions as well as the little girls in his class, but he is always ready to go first, unlike the girls (and S at age 2). They all get tired and lose interest at times. R didn't ask me if he could go to sleep during his second class, though. Progress!

The kids like to play together a little now. They will throw a ball to each other, play with their nurf bowling set, or play more abstract things like they're cooking or driving. Most of the time they are "driving" to pick up food at McD's- they always ask me "burgers or nuggets"- that's always our question to them when we go. I try and add 3 or 4 extra things to their "list". They usually remember it all, too!

The kids have always had good verbal skills and were well above the recommended number of words, sentences, etc. This is good and I have always enjoyed it... but they have recently added a wide variety of cuss words, which is mortifying. Of course, as my luck or Murphy's Law would have it, they most like to practice these in worship services. I'm sure everyone thinks I must say these things every other word! Oh well. Maybe they won't be as interested in them when other kids discover them. Or other parents will blame me for their kids discovering them...


We were watching Lord of the Rings and wondering if R was paying attention or if he'd be ok. S was fine with it, but R calls Gollum the bald monkey and doesn't want to watch 'the bald monkey show'.

Similarly, S used to call Yoda a monkey when she was about 2. In a scene where he gets thrown backward and flies through the air, she said "uh-oh monkey".

Denialism

I like NPR, but this segment bothered me:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=122857703

The topic isn't a bad one. Denialism is apparently when popular opinion goes in the opposite direction from scientific evidence due to emotion or who know s what.

I'll start with what I agreed with. I did like the talk about the actual denialism - organic food, some homeopathic medicine (I did think he was too critical, but to put all your eggs in that basket I'll agree is gambling with your life), all herbs are good, vaccines are bad, etc.

I have been shocked by the number of people who have bought into weight loss gimicks, the idea that it's herbal, therefore it is safe and side-effect free, or all dietary supplements do something and things like that. There is so much evidence that says this stuff is garbage and in some cases harmful, but it still sells. If people listened to scientific evidence instead of emotion or whatever drives these trends, GNC (and many an infomercial product) would be out of business!

I can't really blame people for the herbal supplement thing. The research can be confusing or conflicting. More significantly, most people assume they are regulated by the FDA or under an obligation to tell the truth on product labeling. If you think that, you'd be wrong!



I liked where the guy was going with this:

“Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldn’t actually call it denialism.”

I thought that was a good approach. It makes sense. … but what these two said and did next annoyed me big time. They didn't go off on creationsts, like I thought they were going to do. People that say they value science over religion have to be the denialists, there, though. The public seems to reject that scientific evidence can or might suggest a higher power at work because of a bias or closely held belief that religion/God is not scientific or not logical or that concepts are either faith based (a guess, a shot in the dark) or science based. I think the more we discover about the earth, the more we'll find evidence of Deity. Back to the abortion thing, though...


OK. Keep in mind what he said:

“And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue.”

But after this, they tried to get the caller to say that she was against abortion (which she obviously was) and wouldn’t change her opinion if the science stated the fetus definitely couldn’t feel or sense anything and that that would be denialism.

I thought she did a good job of avoiding the trap and moving back to her point which was to say how science could help us understand the debate better (not necessarily solve it)- which is a moral one ultimately (and as such as Specter said, doesn’t fall under denialism!).

***

ELIZABETH: I wanted to thank your guest for the issue. I think denialism is an issue that's pretty important in a lot of social issues, too. And I think in some social discussions where there's a lot of disparity of opinion, denialism kind of derails the discussion on things a lot of the time.

One of the specific examples I was thinking of was related to the discussion over abortion. And one of the examples, I guess, I was thinking of is for years and years, it was thought that the unborn fetus was not aware of the abortion procedure when it was happening. And ultrasounds are already debunking that and illustrating that these unborn children are aware of the abortion as it happens. And I think science is actually going to be pretty useful in the discussion as we learn much, much more about unborn life.

FLATOW: Michael?

Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldnt actually call it denialism.

FLATOW: Elizabeth, if there was a research to show you that the unborn fetus at those age - at that time that you're speaking about it - was not in the state that you think it is, would you accept that?

ELIZABETH: I think that that - I was just bringing that up as one example of a discussion in which science could be helpful. (unintelligible)

FLATOW: Well, that's why I'm asking. If the science showed you that it was not like you thought it was, would you deny that?

ELIZABETH: I think that he is correct that it's a moral issue, also. But I think that if you bring science to the table, it at least helps to open the discussion and hopefully help people on both sides of the issue find some common discussion areas that could then move it beyond, you know...

Mr. SPECTER: Can I just ask one question?

ELIZABETH: ...whether or not, you know, the baby can feel it, too...

FLATOW: Yeah.

ELIZABETH: ...to the moral issue. But I think science could be very helpful in the discussion.

FLATOW: Good point. Go ahead. You wanted to jump in there, Mike?

Mr. SPECTER: I just wanted to ask a question. If science showed conclusively that an unborn fetus at a particular time couldn't feel anything, would you then change your mind? Because if you wouldn't, you are exactly what I'm talking about.

ELIZABETH: Well, I - what my point - that is an interesting point of view, and I do understand that. I think you're probably right that in moral discussions, people on both sides believe that either the viability of the baby or the rights of a woman would make the decision beyond science. But my point was just that you could bring science to the table to help find some common ground and discuss this as best as possible and lead to some progress.

I think that she was a good example, Michael, of bringing science - she made a point about bringing science to the table, and even bringing science to table didn't sway her one way or the other.

Mr. SPECTER: I mean, you know, I don't want to be rude because I do believe that that is a moral issue and it's very complex. But that really makes that's the example of what I'm talking about.

***

He was rude, though, and contradicted himself!

To be fair, (if I understand this made up term) denialism probably doesn't cover moral or social issues, so the caller really didn't have a point. But- I don't like how they went beyond the first statement on how it doesn't apply to have a conversation in which they tried to get her to say something so they could call her a denialist.

Abbas not as worthless as I thought...on this...

So Abbas's abandonment of common sense and decency this time was the result of a pretty good threat...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143038.html

At the October meeting in Ramallah, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin told Abbas that if he did not ask for a deferral of the vote on the critical report on last year's military operation, Israel would turn the West Bank into a "second Gaza."

Maybe he deserves a break on this one. Now, time ot persue the Goldstone Report!

Water and war crimes

There has been much negative talk about the Goldstone report in the US and Israel. It’s biased. So many pages are devoted to Hamas and so many more are devoted to Israel.

Goldstone himself has addressed these wrong interpretations of bias in the report:

(I will get this from one of my blog posts- no time now)


I saw this report about Israel restricting Palestinians’ water resources:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027

and thought about the “inordinate” amount of space given to Israeli vs. Palestinian war crimes in that report and in the general conflict. Many organizations (Amnesty International, HRW, the UN) and reports are condemned as biased because so many Israeli crimes are listed and equal space is not used to detail Palestinian crimes. I don’t think the issue is bias, as you can see when you look at the death toll, victims and the different types of crimes on each side.

Palestinian crimes are pretty straightforward. Suicide bombing, rocket attacks. And these done by armed wings of certain groups and not the general population as a whole.

Israeli offenses are myriad and both military and civilian. They don’t stop at militarily attacking when and where they were attacked and gathering intel and targeting those individuals as one would expect in actual self-defense. They are denying Palestinians proper amounts of basic necessities to stay alive- food (embargo, travel restrictions, burning and stealing land), shelter (home demolition, denying permits, raids), work and education. When evil dictators do these sorts of things, we want to sanction and maybe intervene. But when it is Israel, controlling a people it doesn’t or shouldn’t actually have any power over in the first place, we don’t care. They are “doing what they have to do.”

Are they attacking the whole population because any of them could become a militant? There is a similar argument (not generally accepted as legitimate) among some Palestinian militants- compulsory military service means all are military targets. Are they applying pressure on the population to effect democratic reform? This seems not to be the case as Palestinians have had democratic elections and have a legislature, never mind that it can’t do much as Israel is targeting many for imprisonment and Israel’s “security measures” make it nearly impossible to convene… Regardless of if they were trying to achieve democratic reforms or an Israel-friendly govt, it seems this might be the definition of terrorism in some cases. A more likely cause (but one that may get me labeled a conspiracy theorist) is that Israel is trying to force a voluntary transfer, so they aren’t accused of ethnic cleansing. “See? They left on their own!” We’ve heard this one before (1948)… Who knows why they do it. They are getting away with it, however, because when any organization details the crimes to try and hold them accountable, there are complaints: bias, equal space isn’t devoted to Palestinian crimes, little or no mention of Palestinian crimes means they are less wrong, etc.

It makes complete sense that there is far more space devoted to Israel’s crimes. They are doing so many things to the entire population that defy international law, democratic principles, common sense and common decency that have nothing to do with self-defense; while Palestinian crimes are fewer in number with fewer casualties. It doesn’t mean Palestinians are right to resort to violence, but I don’t think it means the report is biased or we should shun Palestinians until they embrace Israeli oppression (no rights, no food) with open arms.

On the other hand, if they did this, we wouldn’t focus on them, a state would disappear from discourse, and Israel may see to their end if certain parties rise to greater power.