Values Voting (?)

Love that code word. Values. You know exactly what people are talking about- banning abortion and gay marriage. And I just heard the other day that Israel is a values issue. What?? Obsequiously supporting and defending with all we have this nation that brutally oppresses/dispossesses another population and calls births of the occupied people a threatening demographic time bomb is a value, something God wants you to do?? Right off a cliff. Crazy.

Anyway, I was doing some more thinking on politics and religion as I always do. I don't think God is for one party/candidate or the other or that a vote will send you to hell, but I always re-think it since this is not a majority opinion where I am- or maybe it is a minority opinion (spoken of in code, like- "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth," "values," etc)  and I believe it to be in opposition to the Bible so it just bothers me that much. But I could be wrong. So I continue my exhausting thought process...

Some frame this as candidate A wants to ban abortion and gay marriage, these are "Biblical issues," therefore candidate A voters are doing God's will; while candidate B wants to let people make their own decision (on these particular Biblical issues), so he is for sin and if you vote for him, you are "approving of such" (Rom 1:32) and deserving of death (spiritual). I think this is a stretch in many ways.  If voting, say, Democrat is a sin because of the assumption above, then why is it ok to spend money in places that sell alcohol or support candidates who have had divorces or candidates who place an entire book of false doctrine ahead of the Bible? Why not say greed and giving is a Biblical issue, so how can you vote Republican when they want to cut aid to the poor, make it easier for the wealthy to make more money, support Paul Ryan who idolizes Ayn Rand, the atheist who preaches selfishness? 

So now both parties are out. Must you embrace everything the party does/says/is? Does voting mean you approve of such or just that you think A or B is the best person for the job? There are more problems with the assumption, but I'll get the that later.

I wonder if there is a difference between those who favor banning sin by law who don't sin and those who don't necessarily support sin being made illegal, yet who also choose not to sin. Is one more righteous, as some would have us believe? Are those who don't necessarily want sin banned by law guilty of the sin even though they believe, do and teach God's will. Is living a faithful life, choosing not to sin, refusing to say God approves of said sins not enough?

Then we go back to Jesus. Is this what he stood for? Did he overthrow Rome and put a government in power that made sins illegal or encourage anyone to do that? Was not the purpose of the old law to bring us to Christ, rather than the opposite or to construct a new law that was like the old one minus the ritual and animal sacrifice? Is the goal to teach people or to keep them from sinning? I guess it is opinion whether you think having laws banning sin teaches or inflames, provokes and hardens hearts. I know I need to spend less time on politics and more on spiritual matters to be more Christ-like, but Christ didn't have a political test you had to pass. Politicizing certain Bible issues and not others is cherry picking, inconsistent, divisive, and hypocritical when political positions are used as a test of faith for someone else-- especially while your own candidate/party's Biblical issues are ignored.

Speaking of inconsistency, conservatives are usually for people choosing, not government. Why should government dictate abortion and gay marriage? Should government be IN religion and NOT in your money- taxes, etc? This seems a bit backwards to me. I'd rather have them in my money and not my religion if I had to choose. The conservative position on wanting the government to dictate on certain moral issues gets a little more absurd when we factor in the current Romney-Ryan ticket. You trust a Mormon, who baptizes the dead without consent (from family, last wishes, etc), whose religion didn't allow African Americans in for a long time, believes in the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible (the former contradicts the latter) to have MORE of a say in your religion or to be the one to get the country morally on track? And Paul Ryan with his Ayn Rand problem- he idolizes her and gives her books out as gifts to his staff. She is an atheist who promotes selfishness, along with the totally free market, no regulation economics. These are the people you want in charge of your values at the government level?

And this is just religion and politics... maybe I'll post the problems with his foreign policy, immigration, health plan double talk, lies he's told about Obama's record, and the rest of why this Republican ticket is about as attractive and comical as McCain- Palin. Except McCain had a shred of integrity. Big difference actually.


And that's it for this edition of  "I'm probably going to wish I'd deleted this"  :)

Romney up in the polls? Really?

I can't believe the lack of questioning of Romney that's going on. There doesn't seem to be a lot of serious campaigning going on in general. It just seems like petty, not very well thought out attacks and no one's aiming to convince or dig deep. Maybe it's still early.

Aside from politics (but of course I won't avoid them...), there are some things that just don't sit right with me with Romney... and the politics in the church thing... again.

Here are my 2008 and 2010 posts about politics and the pulpit in which I've probably expanded on this a bit better than I have here:
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-and-pulpit.html
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-and-state.html

Romney and Trump- a question of integrity?

So it is said Romney was upstaged on his big day when he officially got the Republican nomination by appearing with Trump at a fundraiser that same day. (Why would you do that?)

It is true that Romney quietly affirmed that he believes Obama was born here, but he's willing to accept Trump's big bucks and let him spout his birther and whatever other crazy propaganda without doing a thing to publicly distance himself from this nonsense. Why, besides the money, can't he stand up for what's right- not just that, but known facts? What does this say about Romney who would rather accept the money than set the record straight and get elected on real issues. I guess in business, only the bottom line matters, not how far you bend the rules.

“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he told reporters. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

Yikes.

Romney's staffers paid to heckle? Another question of integrity?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120531

There are always hecklers at the opposing side's event, but not usually the actual campaign staffers that the Romney campaign sent (or decided to do on their own?). At least McCain had the decency to respond to an anti-Obama heckler, calling them off (unfortunately he in so doing mistakenly insinuated that Arabs aren't good citizens...but I guess he did his best...). Romney's response to his paid staffers doing this was that Obama supporters heckle him and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What about taking the high road? Integrity? Not to mention his paid staffers did this, not just supporters who don't represent him. What do they teach in his church- to do unto others as they do unto you (rather than as you would have them do unto you)? Maybe someone should get the appropriate sermons and soundbytes...

The integrity issue is a recurring theme with Romney...as he showed the same bad judgment in rather enjoying support from particular people than standing up for what's right when crazy accusations are leveled: didn't deny the supporter who said Obama should be tried for treason and didn't say anything publicly about Limbaugh's rank porno/prostitute/slut comments about Sandra Fluke.

And then there are the Freudian slips or poor choices of words...or both that he has had to explain: etch-a-sketch, that he likes firing people, that's he' unemployed, $10, 000 bet with Perry over heatlhcare, he follows NASCAR in that he knows some owners, etc...

*** *** *** *** ***

On Facebook, I pondered, "Obama has had to answer for many things he isn't (minor, tangential issues that were overblown); when will Romney have to answer for what he is?"

I mean, if people were worried about how Islam (not relevant to Obama) was going to factor into Obama's policy, why aren't they concerned about The Book of Mormon (which is integral to Romney's beliefs) and how that will affect Romney's worldview/policy? Four years ago, I heard Christians say Romney and Mormons aren't smart enough to be President due to their beliefs. How has that changed I wonder? Can you really buy everything? Romney apparently can.

There has been much talk again already this election year about the abortion and gay marriage issues being THE issues that are the only Biblical considerations and the things that should decide the election. If you vote Democrat, you sin. Or more positively, vote your values, be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. The implications are the same. I have long had an issue with this traditional belief in the church. Are we electing a person to govern or be an elder in the church (or leader of the state church, as I have put it in a sarcastic moment). They are different jobs to fill, with different requirements and goals. And each issue to me (not just 2) involves moral choices. Whatever we do, we are faced with a question of right and wrong, doing it in a way that glorifies God or not. Not to mention whoever makes the case that because Romney is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is more godly or will rule in a more godly way despite the fact that he embraces an entire book of false doctrine is going to have a hard time proving that. (some scriptures for the false doctrine Matt 15:9, 1 Tim 4:16, and maybe Col 2:22 as well)

If people are going to use Romans 1:32 to say that Christians who vote Democrat are approving of homosexuality, why are Christians who are Republicans not approving of an entire book of false doctrine (Romney's Book of Mormon, other testament of Jesus Christ)? They often shrug off my point that these 2 issues don't factor into governing much except to appeal to the base and get votes, so saying that book won't factor into governing isn't going to hold water. If we're talking in principle for Democrats, let's do the same for Republicans.

Romneycare

Republicans make a big deal about Obama and socialism and "Obamacare," but why isn't anyone talking about the similarities between Romney's Massachusetts healthcare bill and Obamacare? If they are ok with Romneycare, why not Obamacare? Is it only the federal vs. state thing that people have their panties in a bunch over? If so, why not talk about that instead of clinging to the socialism nonsense?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Republican Christians often cite 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat- as their opposition to socialism and hence "Obamcare" and Obama.  I do think they work in socialist countries, so I don't know that that would even apply if we did "turn socialist," which is an irrational, manufactured fear and NOT going to happen anyway. It would be convenient to have direct scriptural proof (which may be why the socialism thing is so popular despite being 100% false), but this just doesn't fit, I'm afraid.

Foreign Policy

He's apparently got a lot of Bush people on tap and given his lack of prowess on the issues, you're going to be electing these characters, too. Beware. Or better, yet, don't do it. Been there. Done that. We are still recovering from it.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

McCain's campaign's assessment of Romney in 2008 was: “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”

I wonder if his foreign affairs resume has thickened any since 2008? His choice of advisers is troubling and lack of knowledge is worrisome (because he will rely to heavily on said advisers). Better hope there are no foreign policy issues to contend with (or that some won't be invented) in a Romney Presidency...

Powell is worried about Romney's war cabinet and having been in the middle of one of the biggest deceptions or blunders with the Iraq invasion, I trust his judgment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE84M16220120523

Everyone says this whole thing is going to be about the economy, though. That could be a real mistake, people. 


The foreign policy stuff on the false, mostly false and pants on fire sections is pretty scary:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
And in the previous article he says Russia's our biggest threat.


What should we be comparing current times with anyway? Pre-crash bubbles and the false sense of financial security or the 2008 crash Obama inherited? There are so many ways to spin the economic issues- what are we comparing, temporary fixes and immediate results vs long term reform, etc. 


That's scary that people would ditch the foreign policy issue so quickly after Iraq. I still remember how absolutely dumbfounded I was that A) we were actually attacking and B) no one was asking questions (in the post 9/11 atmosphere of revenge in place of justice, dissent is unpatriotic).


Romney's touting his business success and experience as governor as proof he's the best choice. The Obama campaign made a good point that Romney's experience in maximizing profit isn't necessarily going to translate to expertise in running the country. And then there are the fairly reckless promises Romney's already made...


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker

If I'm President, You'll Have a Job After College
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1167525.html

Romney promises 6% unemployment,  shockingly in line with the current economic forecast after stating anything over 4% was not worth celebrating (not a promise, but certainly a line, hastily redrawn, much like an etch-a-sketch)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

It seems there was also a promise of an insane number of jobs Romney would create as president that was blown apart the next day by commentators and compared with Presidents in good times and bad, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking about the unemployment at thing 4% thing...

Netanyahu on TIME's list of influential people

Several things are pretty funny about this...

Netanyahu being called influential, rather than a criminal.

The title of the mini-article is "Israel's loyal servant"... written by Eric Cantor, a US Congressman and another of Israel's loyal servants.

Netanyahu's and other Israeli leaders' "oversized challenges" were mentioned without elaborating. Could he by chance be talking about maintaining a Jewish majority in a majority Arab area by any and all means necessary, even ethnic cleansing and getting people to criticize the people being "cleansed"??

On the not so funny side, Cantor used half the article as a petition to gain support for attacking Iran and support for Israel. Both things Americans need to seriously call into question and analyze with a clear head and knowledge of what has happened-- not since the last Israeli tragedy, but since 1948 and before.

Maybe someone could have convinced me Netanyahu deserved to be on this list if they had spoken honestly about his crimes and shortcomings, as we do when discussing the leadership skills of other evil dictators and people of that ilk, but I remain unconvinced by this obsequious, half blind representation.

Married to Another Man

Married to Another Man 

by Ghada Karmi

I did actually read this just after Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. They are very similar, but from slightly different perspectives. Pappe gives a lot of background on the Israeli failings and Karmi gives more background on Palestinians that is typically known or acknowledged.

Karmi discusses Arab peace overtures that are often overlooked or totally dismissed. She also touches on the issue of connection or association (or lack thereof) between Israelites of the Bible and Jews of today. A very interesting part of the book was the discussion of the various peace efforts- we rarely heard what Arabs offered or thought, so it was fascinating to read something other than the US/Israel filtered news. Finally, the thing that drew me in was the promised discussion of a one state solution.

One thing that I vaguely remember and couldn't find when I went back to look for it in the book was that Soviet Christians were let into Israel as Jews. That would be interesting to find more about. I knew about them going to remote areas in Peru and things and converting people to bring into the country to "combat the demographic threat".

The vicious cycle was alluded to- The US calls Israel a strategic interest in the region, but if Israel weren't there or tried to integrate, those problems the US deals with wouldn't be there.

We are conditioned to assume that Palestinians won't stop terror, won't come the the peace table, and Israel has no partner for peace and that's why negotiations stall and the conflict isn't solved. This book can help you understand the whole picture and why things tend to stall.

At the beginning of chapter 7, she lays out all the advantages of two states versus two that I have listed in the past about settlers not having to go anywhere and refugees and Jewish immigrants being able to all be citizens, everyone has access to holy sites, everyone has freedom of movement, etc. I really hadn't thought much about the type to state, but she really goes into detail on different one state models, which was very interesting.

A binational state would imply some degree of separation. This would apparently be more palatable, but she also suggests it could be a phase on the road to a secular democracy (one person-one vote). I know very little of the Belgian, Czech and Swiss models, but it is interesting how they blend these on state models to fit the needs of their population.

Palestinians have advocated for one state before the renewed push of the 90s or 2000s. At that time, Israel accused them of trying to commit genocide or the equivalent when Palestinians should have been commended (by the international community) for wanting to share versus desiring a fair solution where the invaders/colonizers were sent packing. I myself have said something like this. I like this Karmi :)

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

See also:
Bab al Shams Elias Khoury- epic novel about Nakba
Possibly called Gate of the Sun?

This is a fascinating, but not necessarily easy read. Everything Israel has said Palestinians have done or wanted that is evil and immoral, Israel has actually done to the Palestinians. It's kind of an eye opener. I have always heard the counter claims to the Israeli myths or standard line, but I honestly didn't know what was true or not, so I took it with a grain of salt... but this book makes one take a hard look at what many people consider to be Palestinian propaganda--you'd be surprised how much of it is in fact true.

Americans maybe won't believe Pappe, or will call him a self hating Jew or a traitor, but he dispels Israel's founding myths (of victimhood especially) and leaves no doubt that Israel was and is engaged in ethnic cleansing and has even succeeded in cleansing history. The proof of the latter you sill find in talking to Israelis and Americans about the likelihood that ethnic cleansing or war crimes were committed by Israel in it's founding or currently. The proof of the former is apparently readily available in diaries and other historical records, yet everyone seems to ignore these. With operations named Broom and Scissors and your ethnic cleansing operations are referred to like tihur (cleansing), biur (as in get rid of the leavening agents for Passover) and nikkuy (and cleaning), the intent is obvious. Co-existence and peace were never really in the plan.

The first similarity that struck me between Israel's past and present crimes was how the leaders told one story of a second Holocaust and existential threats to the public and another story, one of knowledge of a superior military might and confidence was written in diaries, correspondence between leaders and private meetings. It essentially does the same today with complete success with the "Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea" myth and reference to it's offensive moves as retaliation.

There is apparently a pervasive Israeli history myth that April 1948 was a turning point in the so called "war" where Israeli troops switched from defense to offense after a near annihilation. In reality, Dec 1947- end of March 1948 saw the completion of the first stage of Plan Dalet and the attacks on Palestinians were more widespread than before.

It is commonly said that the Hagana was the regular army and wasn't privy to any ethnic cleansing- that was the splinter groups of the Irgun and Stern Gang who differed with the Hagana. This is to enforce the myth of "most moral army in the world". That's only part true- in the beginning. At the start, the Irgun would go off and do more than requested (attack rather than retaliate for a small offense or get additional villages not on the list) and maybe there would be an apology, but later it would be included in the Hagana's list of victories, so there was approval after the fact. The more extreme methods were even adopted by the Hagana and ethnic cleansing was spoken of openly as they encountered less resistance and the British left and Jordanians neutralized.

The methods haven't changed over the years either. Recently, settlers have been caught poisoning the water supply and there are known issues with the supposedly shared water supply getting mostly diverted to Israel and the settlements. In Acre and Gaza in 1948, they began that method. (p100)

Israel commonly contends that Palestinians left their land on their own. Pappe notes that the Hagana and other groups would blare such things from loudspeakers as "surrender or commit suicide" and "we will destroy you to the last man". With this and rumors of massacres, summary executions and waves of refugees/witnesses passing through various towns, I don't know how one could really call this a voluntary move. One of so many lies.

Another common Israeli myth is that is that Palestinians want to (or can) push Jews into the sea. What is tragic is that Israelis stole this, too. You see, in an effort to escape the massacres and "clearing" operations of the time, Palestinians were actually pushed into the sea and drowned by Hagana and other forces who would close in on 3 flanks and leave only one way open (when they chose to let people live). The population of 50,000 (plus refugees from other cleansed areas) tried to escape by the only route left open under heavy fire in small fishing boats.

One of many reasons Israel charged ahead with ethnic cleansing unchecked was that it decided to subdivide the Palestinian portion of the "spoils" and "share" with Jordan. That reminded me of the peace treaties Israel has made with Jordan and Egypt more recently than 1948. On both occasions they took out the main military force that could possibly match Israel. Then as now they felt free to broadcast inflammatory rhetoric, discuss transfer of Palestinians openly and threaten countries with military action with no adverse consequences whatsoever.

p111
Nasr-al-Din massacre near Tiberias
Tirat Haifa near Haifa
Ayn al-Zaytoun near Safad

p136
Tantura massacre- large city, 230 dead. They simply rounded up Palestinians and shot them dead because a soldier said lost a brother, cousin, etc. That is what we would call terrorism today. That's justice Israeli style- do unto others as is your whim today and others must abide by laws and international standards. The same double standard exists today.

p156
Count Folk Bernadotte stands out as one UN emmisary who stood up for justice. He insisted on the Palestinians right to return under international law and for Palestine to be re-divided more fairly. Israel initially agreed to let him mediate because he helped many Jews under the Nazis; when he tried to do the same for Palestinians, Israel assassinated him. Justice, Israeli style.

p162 Another bit of sad irony is that the peace camp took care of some old Arab houses surviving from ethnically cleansed villages, but instead of allowing Palestinians back or advocating for justice, they made an artists' colony out of them.

p196 Dawaymeh massacre was worse than the famous Deir Yassin and worst one until 1956 Kfar Qassim. Tantura, Safsaf, Sa'sa also had large numbers of atrocities. One observation I had here was that Jordan often gave Palestinians' land to Israel for peace and Israel kept cleansing it of Palestinians. A common Israeli refrain has been that land for peace doesn't work. I wonder if this is how it knows?

p202 The two realities- the same then and now. This really stuck with me:
Yisca Shadin's situation was given as a case in point for two reasons because people indicted for crimes against Palestinians aren't brought to justice and remain in power to afflict them. (Example: In 2000, Israeli police killed 13 Palestinians.)

p221 Several myths were created as Israeli towns were built on freshly removed rubble of Arab homes. This rubble, by the way was cleared by Arabs in labor camps. I was surprised to learn Jews employed this tactic. Again I am reminded that "never again" must not be inclusive... The myth of Israeli concern for the environment was spawned while planting on top of Arab villages and gardens. The popular "making the desert bloom" myth was also born while building on top of destroyed mosques, demolished architectural sites.

Near the end, Pappe tells how peace depends on recognition of 1948 and Israel's block of this and peace. He also offers insight into so-called peace negotiations like Oslo and the infamous Gaza pullout, how these are a way to sidestep the refugee issue, while continuing ethnic cleansing.

The last chapters offered some hope and said what many know, that the problem isn't Judaism, it is Zionism.

Guenter Grass, Israel and freedom of speech

April 9, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/08/gunter-grass-barred-from-israel

Someone is Israel has said Guenter Grass is "fanning the flames of hatred" with his political poem. I say Israel- with its policies that if not are by definition ethnic cleansing or apartheid, closely resemble them- fans the flames of hatred quite effectively. The hatred is about policies, not anti-Jewish sentiments. It is a reflex to call someone anti-Semitic when they disagree with Israeli policies against Palestinians.

An Israeli on the PRI program I caught on the radio today said there is no silence, that people in Israel are talking about this and about not wanting to invade Iran. Maybe. I think it depends on how you look at it. I'm sure Israelis have many points of view. But, there is a sort of effort coming from somewhere- Zionists, American Jews, the hardline right, some combination- that seeks to paint anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies or who wants to tell the Palestinian point of view as anti-Semitic (banning people from Israel, getting American profs fired for saying Palestinians deserve rights, too, etc). And let's talk about America. You can't talk about the Palestinian point of view or say Israel might be wrong in its approach to Palestinians and Arab countries without a high probability of people thinking you are anti-Semitic or crazy. If you write to Congress to oppose specific illegal or unfair actions Israel is taking against Palestinians, they will write you a letter about how great Israel is. On the floor of Congress, Senators and Representatives preface any remarks that could be construed as trying to get Israel to respect settlement freezes, for example, with how great a friend their state is to Israel and how awesome it is. In these types of actions and bias, there is a kind of silencing going on. So, while I get that Israelis discuss things and this is great and free, there is still a kind of silence surrounding these things that prevents anyone from being able to make progress on pressuring Israel to comply with UN resolutions and other standards everyone else has to comply with.

The part about Israel wanting to annihilate Iran is being debated as well. Many Israelis don't want to, if the much publicized messages of love to Iran are any indication. But the government is terrorizing Palestinians, preventing their return and normal life, and advocating attacking it's neighbors on a regular basis. It goaded the US into attacking Iraq. It's trying to do the same (and would succeed under and Republican administration) with Iran currently. 

Some say the Iran comparison is unfair. I'd say not entirely. Obviously, one is democratically elected and the other not so much. That is a difference. But I think the point is that Israel with its policies to deny Palestinians rights is less democratic than one would think. Also, the rhetoric coming from each of these entities is, at times, equally bellicose and divorced from reality.

This article from above also says some are angry about the moral equivalence shown between Iran and Israel, but if Israel would let refugees come back and adopt a one state strategy in which all had equal rights and freedom of movement, I bet Iran would change its tune or set the Arab world against it. If Israel started following the law, no one would have any reason to have anything against it. They want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

I think the only debate is whether one can call it poetry. Maybe the German translation would qualify, I have no idea, but I'd guess it's more of an editorial.

The etch-a-sketch man calling out Obama??

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/politics/romney-says-obama-is-hiding-his-true-policy-aims.html

Romney says Obama hides his agenda. 

Hmm. Two things come to mind, the first being Obama foreign policy successes and contrast with the dismal republican foreign policy we recently experienced.

He's going to question (I don't have a problem with questioning, but rather going on and on when you don't really have a firm basis in fact...) Obama on his foreign policy? Really? After he's done quite a bit to restore our image abroad after Bush dragged us through the mud?

These two pieces on Obama I quite enjoyed:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2012/1/19_The_Strategist.html

http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/19/inside-obamas-world-the-president-talks-to-time-about-the-changing-nature-of-american-power/


The second issue I have with Romney's calling out of Obama is-- isn't this a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black? 

Romney or his aide or whomever said:

"You hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."


 And Romney's positions on guns, abortion, taxes, gay rights and healthcare have undergone quite the 180 over the years.

So...who's hiding what? Well, I guess we know Romney's going to erase everything and start over, but who knows what his positions will be. That's comforting...to both sides!  ??

And this is equally entertaining, but not new, from John McCain (on Romney)...

He says the etch-a-sketch comment was blown out of proportion, much like his "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" during the campaign in which the bottom dropped out.

That might be a point to argue, except he's ready to jump on Obama for something that's well known in politics- you can't take risks, even to achieve something positive, right before the election. (Obama was "caught" on mic saying his position would be more flexible toward Russia after the election. Never mind that he was referring to having talks ahead of both leaders' campaigns- if one started now, and either leader loses, you'll have to start over. So why start now?) It isn't done. I wish it was done- both sides are to blame. A republican wouldn't do it. And, more troubling, I guess we know the republican position toward "those foreigners"- they have to do what we want or we'll invade or freeze them out- bellicose threats, 48 hour ultimatums, diplomacy's for sissies, bring 'em on. 

I'll take Obama's statement of the obvious over that any day, please!

Obamacare (cue the Halloween/scary music)

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare as Republicans call it.

They oppose the individual mandate by calling it socialism. The funny thing is that it was their idea in the '90s and it was all good- a way to protect small businesses--- then. What was that other thing they call socialist? Oh. Taxes. I'm sure there are more.

Making everyone opt in is not a new concept. Car insurance is the same. You are required to have this if you have a car. I realize this is regulated by the states and not federal, so this may make all the difference to a Republican, but it is the same concept to me. Everyone pays who may have to use it at some point to cover the costs of those that do. If you choose to go without and then have an accident, no one is required to cover your cost, unlike in a medical situation where doctors are required to treat you, so the need for the individual mandate seems to be greatest in this case. Why so little complaint about car insurance and so much about everyone being required to have health insurance, something that you'll probably use more than car insurance and for something you're guaranteed service for?

Republicans are against welfare and other social programs because it is a free ride. They have no problem with people who don't get insurance while they're healthy or apparently healthy, then go when the problems can't be ignored and have ballooned into something uncontrollable at everyone else's expense because- hey- I didn't see this coming- I'm healthy- I can't afford this- I need help. Is that not the point of insurance, to pay into it before you need it? Take for example life insurance or car insurance. (Yes, I realize life insurance is totally optional and car insurance is regulated by the state, but I'm talking about the allegedly strange new socialist concept of pooling resources.) I would think Republicans would be for something that prevents people from gaming the system and getting services they never intended to pay for (either because they couldn't or because they thought they didn't need it just yet).

Or maybe I have it wrong and Republicans would like to do away with the concept of doctors helping those who can't pay. I admit I don't know their position on that. I'd be curious to find that out.

Or I wonder if the individual mandate gets struck down if people who opt out could carry a card that says- I waive my right/wish to be treated- so the cost wouldn't be incurred. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't affect the doctors' responsibility to treat people, though. Besides it makes me feel kind of horrible just writing that. I definitely believe those who can't afford it should be subsidized and treated, but those who opt out because they're feeling fine now or oppose it ideologically or opt out for another reason than financial need...maybe I don't feel that bad writing it.

Children's literature about Palestinians/ Arab culture

We had considered attending a Girl Scout event at school where admission was a new or gently used book to donate to the school district. Other things intervened, so we didn't go, but I thought about what I would have liked to donate and may yet still. 

Arabs are under represented in literature and human interest stories and over represented in coverage of terrorist acts and war, so this got me thinking and searching. I didn't come up with a ton, but I suppose I could still donate to the school district or public library. Or just get for my own kids for summer or supplementary reading...

Elementary:

One City, Two Brothers by Chris Smith......................ages 6 and up

The Butter Man by Elizabeth Alalou & Ali Alalou .....Kindergarten and up

Sitti's Secrets by Naomi Shihab Nye .........................ages 5 and up

Snow in Jerusalem by Deborah DeCosta ...................ages 6-10

Mystery Bottle by Kristen Balouch ............................K - grade 3

Late Elementary- Middle School:

Figs and Fate (5 short stories) by Elsa Marston ......grades 4-8

A Little Piece of Ground by Elizabeth Laird ....... grades 4 and up (ages 9 and up)

The Grand Mosque of Paris: A Story of How Muslims Rescued Jews During the Holocaust ............................................................ grade 3 and up (age 8 and up)

---

Running on Eggs by Anna Levine .......................grades 5 and up (ages 10 and up)

Habibi by Naomi Shihab Nye ...................................grades 5-9

A Bottle in the Gaza Sea by Valerie Zennatti ............grades 6-8

If You Could Be My Friend by Mervet A. Sha'ban.....grades 6-10

A Stone in My Hand by Cathryn Clinton ...........grades 6 and up (ages 11 and up)

Also interesting for a classroom, maybe...

http://www.adc.org/education/arab-contributions-to-civilization/

I guess high school suggestions might be the same as adult suggestions? I have no idea.

Mornings In Jenin by Susan Abulhawa

Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak

maybe Miral... you could do a movie compare/contrast...

Crescent by Diana Abu-Jaber (The Language of Baklava or Aarbian Jazz may also be good)

Sharon and My Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries by Suad Amiry

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street: A Jerusalem Memoir by Emma Williams

The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan

***

Edit 3/12/12: Some very good points recently were made with regard to the wrong and right way to do things of this nature. I agree completely. 

If I'm (or you're) going to donate, I will definitely have to go about it in the correct way so as not to just drop books in administrators' lap for them to possibly interpret as some sort of a sinister agenda. I don't know that I necessarily have the tools for this, so maybe I will just buy some for my own kids...


The donation(s) would, I suppose, need to be in the context of a dialogue about diversity (in a broader sense than maybe we tend to think about). We need to discuss and read about Arabs who aren't engaged in terrorism -get beyond the stereotype- since we have been engaged in the Middle East more prominently since ~2001. A general trend with various wars we have been engaged in  is that we tend to see more people from those regions in the US in later years. I think it would benefit everyone to get a complete picture of the people we generally see portrayed in only one way in this country.

I don't know that donating one book would have an ill effect- which was more in line with my original thought that kind of turned into... what if all these were available for kids and teachers... Oh well. I will keep brainstorming I guess- I can't stop thinking sometimes. They aren't all good ideas, but maybe I'll hit on something one day.

Obama Netanyahu meeting

So, these guys met again yesterday. Why do we agree to meet and grovel to a war criminal?? I don't know. That's American politics. I won't quote Churchill with the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but ...  :)

A link for the meeting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17260083

I don't know if it was supposed to be a general meeting on all issues, but if it was, Netanyahu succeeded in steering the conversation away from Palestinians to focus on Iran. Very convenient, given how someone involved in ethnic cleansing may not be in a strong position to demand we make good on our pledge to always support Israel - they are on the verge of "annihilation". When is the existential threat lie going to go the way of the boy who cried wolf? How many times will it take? There has not been an existential threat against Jews since Hitler, yet Israel cries wolf all the time- Palestinians Iraq, Iran, etc. Very interesting it is that Israel always berates us for not being "Johnny on the spot" whenever it perceives an "existential threat" (we actually are, but since we aren't pre-emptively striking everyone who talks dirty and we occasionally express concern about illegal settlements, they perceive it differently) while being involved in Judaizing neighborhoods, fixing visa laws such that Palestinians can't come back home, refusing to allow refugees back since 1948, and built their state on ethnic cleansing campaigns that involved blowing up innocent peoples houses and killing women and children intentionally to scare others away.

Aside from ignoring Israel's war crimes and treating them like a nation that deserves normal relations and our blind and full support, Obama did a good job repeating his desire for diplomacy and establishing our position that the time for war has not yet come. Netanyahu was ready for war a long time ago. They are always ready for war. They are a military society. I don't even know if they have any diplomats or know what that is.

I think it was wrong not to talk about the Palestinians because the Iran "problem" ties into it. I mean, if Israel had let refugees back after 1948 and all of the conflicts and was a democracy for it's citizens and not just for Jews, Iran would feel less like attacking a state in which Arabs were participating. And perhaps the Arabs would help moderate Israel's rhetoric and positions and would be able to conduct diplomacy with Iran instead of just threatening war all the time. Israel as it is today is really no better or more rational than Iran. They kind of mirror each other in a kind of weird way. They both threaten war all the time and support terrorism in indirect ways and tolerate extremism in government. The only difference is we accept Israel as a normal, Western nation and see Iran for what it is.

Israel as a state for Jews rather than ALL of its citizens is kind of a common denominator for conflict in the Middle East. They are either fighting with another country, exchanging heated rhetoric, or selling arms and info to both sides to keep other parties fighting. It all boils down to "defending" (and I use the term very loosely as they do with demographics) a majority Jewish state in a predominantly Arab area on a land they ethnically cleansed to create. Israel uses the term defense interchangeably for life and the Jewish majority it works hard to keep by illegal and lethal means, which makes some of their cries of annihilation a bit ridiculous, sadly, because that kind of thing shouldn't be spoken of so lightly.

There has always been a discrepancy between the facts and what Israel tells the public to rile them up. Even before 1948, in public, leaders spoke of annihilation and death and destruction and second Holocaust; in private meetings and military planning, they knew they had the advantage militarily and politically. Things have not changed one bit. They are the world's 4th largest military power and yet continually say they are under an existential threat, people want to push them into the sea, and all manner of doomsday scenarios. Particularly disgusting, though, is not just that discrepancy in facts, but that they are actually at the same time engaged in threatening others' existence and expunging them from the history of the region

(For more on Israel's intent and plans in and around the 1900s, read Ilan Pappe, Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.)

While I know that Obama is obligated to state the obvious (we support Israel- if you write to Congress on any Middle East issue, you will clearly learn that, if nothing else) and grovel and reassure Israel that we have their back even amid accusations by the right, AIPAC, and Israel that America under Obama isn't supporting Israel the way they want. How they can make such demands coming from a state built on ethnic cleansing and still engaging in illegal and immoral acts absolutely defies logic. I realize presidents have to do that to get elected, but why don't politicians get together and stand up to Israel in a effort to do right by our own citizens? That way, no one would be standing out on a limb election-wise and the American people would get money for our health care and education rather than supporting ethnic cleansing and apartheid overseas. It's a win-win.

Other nations with human rights issues and UN violations, we maintain a workable but frosty relationship with. In the case of Israel, they accuse us of not supporting them, and we seemingly have no choice but to promise greater love and support despite illegal activity (both the acts we acknowledge and oppose and those we tend to ignore...). What is wrong with us? Why can't we see how backwards this is??

The ONLY thing under existential threat is possibly the myths that Israel was ever under existential threat of a second Holocaust, that it didn't actually make the desert bloom, that it didn't expel, kill and terrorize most Palestinians to seize a state for Jews only, that it didn't engage in ethnic cleansing or doesn't today, etc as people gradually wake up and read for themselves about history and the issue instead of trusting famous pastors and politicians to draw conclusions and think for them.

pen pals... not just for kids

I have written a few times about starting some kind of activism that involves Americans and Palestinians talking...

I'll repost the second half of this fair trade post here, since I should have separated them in the first place:

*** *** ***
I'm not exactly the go-getter type, but I think from time to time about stuff like this or getting something going. Petitioning the government is certainly (or seems so) one way to influence policy, but if Americans are talking to Palestinians and start to see them as people with perhaps more in common with themselves than they think (rather than The Others, terrorists, etc), maybe this will make people re-think the "Israel's way or the highway" mentality that holds us captive and causes common sense to escape us.

Here goes:
I have heard of (and have been inspired by) various efforts lately to aid Palestine like Galloway's convoy, Kite Gang (NPR), Gaza Surf Relief, etc:
http://www.vivapalestina.org/events.htm,
(edit 7/2009- A convoy actually left the US on July 4 and went to Gaza July 13)

http://www.kitegang.org/what_we_do/jordan
(http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_496_Kites_and_Plastic.mp3/view ),

http://www.gazasurfrelief.com/Start.html ,

https://www.canaanfairtrade.com/about ,

various programs among elementary students/schools from the US and Palestine exchanging letters, pictures, goodies, etc (why don't cities or peace groups in the two areas do the same sorts of things?)
*Facebook comments about Flat Stanleys around that time kind of re-inspired that one. I thought- what if Flat Stanley went to a Free Gaza event or protest...

and even http://www.provoforpalestine.org/ (go figure!)

And with that, I'm all brainstormed out. Maybe something will come of it one day. If not from me, then from someone reading this. I feel less cluttered having put all this on "paper", so I guess I've accomplished something.

*** *** ***

And recently, I signed up with postcrossing, which is really cool, but you just can't choose what country you write to (though I wouldn't want to change the randomness of that particular site). It is kind of the thing I had envisioned finding or starting for US-Palestine.

There are programs for student pen pals on this site:  http://www.twinningwithpalestine.net/ , that I linked to in my BDS post.

And I found this one, Pen Pals for Peace, for students as well: http://www.ippnw-students.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=59&Itemid=65

This one sounds great, but I do believe it's only for students.

I had wanted my chapter of Al-Awda or other group to maybe start a subgroup that would write (men to men, women to women) letters and postcards (actual, not electronic) to tell about life, news, and whatever else in their country (Palestine- US exchange).

If that worked, I had wanted to try and get people who don't know or think much about the conflict on a daily basis involved for the educational and outreach experience. People in the US sometimes just buy into the "Israel is always right" (or Arabs are always wrong) line of thinking simply because they don't hear anyone or anything challenging that and causing them to evaluate it.

time magazine- the upside of being an introvert

I posted a bit on this in November. 

Time Magazine - 'The Upside Of Being An Introvert.' 

I hear others talk about being shy or how we must get out of our comfort zone, but I don't think they know the half of it sometimes. These things mean entirely different things to introverts and extroverts. Not that we introverts shouldn't try and get out of the comfort zone once in a while, but our culture is such that we are often expected to live outside of it- and the thought of being expected to go even further out of it sometimes makes me want to blow a gasket. Ok. More realistically, it makes me want to disengage.

Maybe I'll start with the quiz. Of course there is a quiz! 

Some of the items made me smile. You let calls go to voicemail. I hate to admit it, but can't deny that one. I don't do the phone thing unless I have to. 

Prefer writing to talking, enjoy solitude, etc. Of course! This is one of the main reasons this blog exists. The usual suspects when you're talking about introverts.

It was interesting to find that being "less concerned with wealth, fame and status" is a trait of introverts. I have spent a lot of time thinking about why these things are important and tempting to so many and why I am so uninterested in them (i.e. What's wrong with me?? Where's my ambition??). 

Dislike small talk, but enjoy talking in depth about what matters to me. 

This was a point of confusion I had growing up. I have been described and have even described myself as not liking to talk. This clarification (in the quiz) of this generalization is kind of perfect. 

Prefer to not show my work until it's finished. That one stuck out big time! I have thought I was a perfectionist, but sometimes that doesn't fit. I can relate to this whether it was school work, an informal note, or even this blog.

I feel drained after being out, even if I've had fun. 

This one is one that stuck out. It was hard for me to accept or took a long time to understand. I always wanted to love parties and social gatherings as much as everyone else seemed to. And easy solution is to not participate, but that can be lonely. And then you think it's your fault you are lonely because you made the decision not to go. This conundrum isn't recognized all that much. You either like people or you don't. Be decisive! 

I am reminded of when I was a teenager and my poor mom flipped out when I said out loud that I hated people. I don't think I meant that exactly. I was probably just frustrated with this supposed dichotemy and feeling like I was living in a world made for someone else. Why don't I like to have fun (as everyone else defines it) and why does no one value what I'm good at? I was made to question a lot of good traits I had/have (not just the typical good girl, good listener stuff) and I imagine I didn't articulate it well. Ok. So it did sound pretty horrible. 

I don't enjoy multitasking. Now there's an understatement. I guess I didn't really think of that as a trait of introverts, either. That probably got me in trouble at work more than once. :) I wonder what would be my perfect career. This isn't the first time I've wondered this. I would say law because I could pay attention to details and would have the passion to be a voice for the voiceless since I could relate. Then there's the public arguments and all that... An introvert (former) lawyer is mentioned in the article as having a personality not fitting the career, but I think there were parts that fit quite well...

 I said I'd start with the quiz, but I probably hit on some points of the article that struck a cord with me, so I'll probably just end with it as well. They also talk about a study that more of less predicted the introverts out of a group of 5 month olds. Interesting stuff.

Just after it is an article by Dr. Oz that is not worth reading at all. Well, he does eventually make the point that you shouldn't force your kid to be what they aren't. That's a good point. I'll give him that.

But, he concedes that it's ok to be an introvert in some cases, but shyness ("genuine maladaptive shyness" as he calls it) is usually a sign of disease (not enough blood to the brain), autism, anxiety disorders, OCD, etc. It's possible that's not what he's saying, but in a one page article, at least half, maybe more, was talking about these cases and ways to medicate. From the title (Charms of the Quiet Child), I guess I assumed it would be a little more on the benefits of shy/introverted personalities than about when one should worry or seek medical intervention.

And he generalizes that it's easy to cheer for extroverted athletes, but the introverted math and science inclined should be equally cheered on. I think he's trying to make a good point, but ends up being too specific. Maybe he's talking about his own family, but it came off like painting with a broad brush, like he doesn't get it.

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad
by Suad Amiry

I read Amiry's "Sharon and My Mother-in-law" first and loved the mix of explaining the Palestinian situation and humor and resilience. The first part of this one didn't hook me like that book, but the second part more than made up for it.

In chapter 10, she realizes they have been in the West Bank all this time (they are about to cross at The Wall) and the dangers, fear of arrest, running, bullets, hiding, etc happened on what is supposedly their own turf. Even for Amiry, who knows about things like this, the shock is palpable.

Chapters 11 and 12 struck me as out of place at first, but after some thought, they capture the situation perfectly. Chapter 11 is a fable or a few fables and 12 is about The Wall and a particular graffiti artist. I didn't realize at first that most of these images are actual Banksy "paintings" on the Wall; I only had seen a few in pictures. This chapter, like the art, is profound.

In chapter 14, this quote was great:

"I don't know what it is about Palestinians; they all believe they can pass for an Israeli, regardless of how typically Arab they look, the second they put on sunglasses."

It comes amid the various adjustments the workers are making to their appearance as they prepare to "blend" in with Jewish Israelis. I was aware of the plight of Palestinian workers, but not so much with this aspect. Very interesting.

Last sentence of chapter 14: 

"Only then did I realise that for me, and many others, Israel was virtual. For Murad, Israel was 'home.' Israel was a reality; a harsh reality."

At a cafe (deciding whether or not to continue), she defines the ultimate love-hate relationship, being out of ones' skin, out of place and history as being in her homeland Palestine.

Nearing the decision to quit the search for work for the day and distance themselves from the actual workers who they have slowed down some, they rest in a park and she tells a bit about what an Israeli park actually is- a peaceful green space that, by contrast, was taken by force from Arab villagers. For instance, most Palestinians are referring to Petah Tikvah as Mlabbis, it's original name.

This several pages long daydream about Mlabbis/ Petah Tikvah is brilliant. I wonder if she knew or researched the history, heard bits from Murad, or simply recounted the familiar 1948 Palestine or Nakba memory shared by many people and villages and retold by more.

In chapter 16, she talks about missing the Tel-Aviv (Lod) airport and the firman Sharon issued that no Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza could use this airport. Also on this portion of the bus ride she remembers various Palestinian villages while looking for the rubble.

At the end, she takes off her worker's clothes and steps back into her life and reflects on the situation- real risks and dangers- that they face every day just to get a day's work. And the author's note! It is an article she reads the day she gets home about a worker getting shot doing what she just did.