Confederate flag fight

I've been seeing a lot of posts on this confederate flag business, cheering for the flag, disparaging the flag. So. . .

First I'm going to say I personally don't put any stock in any flag. Pledging allegiance to any thing, especially a flag, is ridiculous to me. *takes cover* Taking pride in your particular neighborhood, state, country, etc to the extreme that you are ready to fight if someone states an opinion or looks at you funny- this over an accident of your birth in a particular place? Why?? An arbitrary border is more important than people starving, people being mistreated by other people, trashing the environment we ALL depend on to live?

On one hand, it's just a flag and it's your right to fly anything you want. Fine. And it's in the past and who cares about flags anyway. They're meaningless. Not to mention, taking down a flag isn't going to get rid of racism, racial profiling, police brutality, poverty and the rest of the inequalities slavery helped entrench. . .

On the other hand,
Why are we up in arms over our "right" to fly this flag that represents division of this country that I'm guessing a lot of people upset over the contentious flag coming down will say they will fight and die for, are so proud to be citizens of, are ready to kick people out of if they aren't sufficiently loyal to ( remember 'love it or leave it'?). It represents to so many the allowing of people to hold others captive and say they are property by law and fighting for this "right".. Like drawing Muhammad, sure, you have the right and it's no big deal to you, but do you really want to be the lout who finds the one thing most hateful and throws it in someone's face simply because you have the right to do it? Your "freedom" to do this trivial thing trumps another human being's right to live in peace? It reminds me of kids all trying to be the first through the double doors in college when we're all going to the same place and have plenty of time to walk several feet to a seat- or adults tailgating and cutting people off on the road- you'll get there, don't be a baby, your time is no more or less important than anyone else's. Your rights and "rights" are no less important than anyone else's. You are not special. I am not special. With all this claiming of trivial rights we are becoming a nation of people to take offense too easily. And I say "becoming" like this is new. . . but that's another soapbox. A nation of babies. We are children. I mean, you can blame Muslims for getting offended at cartoons and black folks for being offended by cloth, but you don't see it's equally stupid or more so to claim your rights are being violated when you can't put cloth anywhere you want or make everyone (not to say all confederate flag supporters are religious, just an example) abide by your religious law (abortion, gay marriage opposition) or say and do hateful things simply because YOU have the right. I know what the response will be. I agree, you can go too far bending over backwards for people, making allowances for all the quirks, but lets have some balance and common courtesy and respect and introspection. And grow the heck up.

7/26/15 edit- I heard a great comparison in the last few weeks on possibly the BBC's World Have Your Say, but maybe Democracy Now or the Diane Rehm Show because I've been listening to all of them and they're mixed up in my head. Some folks want to say the Civil War was more about states' rights than slavery, though this represents a shift from the actual event. Or they want to say that individual soldier's reasons were protection of home, family, farms, their state and not necessarily slavery. A guest on the show pointed out that the same was true for the Iraq invasion. We used 9/11, WMD and terrorism to go to war, those were the reasons (never mind that they turned out to be wrong!). Individual soldiers' reasons for going can be very different- freedom, protection of family or country, responding to a stated need, or because it's their job. It would be false to use those reasons as the reason we attacked Iraq. Ignoring the bigger picture is not accurate or helpful in understanding that time period as in the case of the Civil War.

Dual citizenship debacle- or mountain out of a molehill

There was a big stink about Diane Rehm's interview with Bernie Sanders. Maybe because she so rarely makes mistakes and is so far above other people doing this job. Maybe because she's part of the "liberal media" people love to hate. Maybe people love Bernie Sanders that much??? Well, I kind of hope it's the latter.

She did state rather than ask at around 24:20 on her show, you're a dual Israeli citizen, or something to that effect, but I was under the impression she was floating that out there with a pause for him to respond, refute, agree, disagree, etc. I would hardly call it bungling the interview, a massive oops or an accusation, as so many headlines read.

She was just moments before that "accusation" tossing him questions from Facebook, so I wasn't clear as to whether this may have been part of that or not. I also read that an intern may have grabbed the list he is said to be on of dual citizens from a comment on Facebook, so the list has spurious origins/source. True, you shouldn't take these things as fact. But, if there is a rumor that you are a dual citizen, you need to clearly state whether you are or are not and shouldn't be offended unless you have already publicly addressed it, as with the Obama birth certificate issue. If it is legal to be a dual citizen and president, then it will still beg some questions and possibly conflicts of interest. I don't think it is anti-Semitic to ask questions to clarify how this would affect his foreign policy and other positions. Another good reason why I don't think it should be offensive to ask about a dual citizenship rumor given the office he wants to run for and he is in a period of public vetting is that it is so hard to get this information from other sources (also why Diane Rehm should have been skeptical. . .). See this Counterpunch article from a guy who tried.

But now we know it is irrelevant.

So all this for nothing really.

A non issue.

Riots and racism

I don't even know what or how to talk about what's been going on with the brutality/execution by police and recent riot in Baltimore after the funeral of a man there after being chased and apprehended by police, having his spine severed and dying as a result while in custody. 

I hear people say don't run from the police, and in general  that's good advice. If you're white. White people and black people have entirely different experiences and perceptions of even the simplest interactions with police. White folks have a very Sesame Street or muppet version of these interactions where they call them up if there's an intruder in their house or they have an accident or if they're a lost kid, find a policeman and they'll help him or her find the way home. Black folks, who are often assumed to be guilty unless they can prove innocence and routinely racially profiled have good reason to want to keep a safe distance from police to avoid unreasonable searches. I'm sure some white people will say well no, they've had plenty of complications and run ins with police, and while that may be true, I don't think this is helpful in understanding what is really going on. Segregation may have been struck down and we now promote equal rights outwardly, but there are historic wrongs and racism is institutionalized. I don't know how to fix it, but it certainly won't be by ignoring those facts and saying well I'm white and have suffered but I'm not angry like you. That's just self-righteousness and frankly, inexcusable ignorance.

There is a lot of condemnation of the riots for various reasons and I can see that on one level.  We want there to be a correlation. If I'm angry at news coverage, throw things at news bureaus. If I'm angry with large corporations, protest or loot those. 

A kind of funny response I heard was why can't people peacefully protest? Here's one reason. When I first heard about the riot in Balitmore, I heard nothing about the peaceful protests. The media showed up and only bothered to cover it when the violence erupted. Peaceful protests are ignored. And when it doesn't work (have we not seen peaceful protests about racism EVER??) and people who are supposed to be protecting you are killing you, THEN WHAT? Is rioting the answer, I don't know, I would say it's more of a result than a planned activity or solution. In the same way, the police killing these individuals recently isn't a planned policy, it's the result of the atmosphere, the profiling that isn't policy, but happens anyway, the broken system. 

And this is kind of what I just said but better. I heard it the day after I wrote this post:

When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." --The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates

Yes we want to say that violence is never the answer. We want to believe there's always a peaceful way. (What would Iraq war supporters say about that. . . ? Never mind.)

BUT

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

--Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Before cameras were on almost all phones, white people were able to explain away police brutality, say it was rare, that racism was over. There is understandable anger, now that there is visual proof that police statements of innocence on the killings are patently false after all this time of having these things easily swept under the rug for so many years.

There is another line of reasoning saying there were peaceful protests and thugs turned it into something very different. That may be true to some extent, but it doesn't mean we can or should ignore or explain away the cause or the riot. There is systemic injustice and racism and that needs to be addressed.


http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/28/national_guard_deployed_as_baltimore_erupts

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/29/you_can_replace_property_you_cant

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/25/riot_as_the_language_of_the  (old- Ferguson)

Volunteer cops?!?!

Another detail came out about the killing of Walter Scott (or details). Something called a reserve police officer in his 70's mistook his gun for his taser, going for the wrong hip to draw. And on top of it, the department falsified his training records so he'd be eligible. 

There are so many questions that need to be answered.

How does one become a volunteer- is it a large donation, is there an interview or application process, something that qualifies one besides desire to shoot people?

What are their duties- crowd control or making arrests and being issued a service weapon?

What SHOULD their duties be? Minimal I'd say! Be there for that old fashioned idea of asking directions, helping people with groceries or to cross the street. Maybe crowd control at festivals or road races or something. They should NOT be armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/13/the-73-year-old-reserve-cop-who-mistook-his-gun-for-a-taser/

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/21/401296066/too-often-some-say-volunteer-officers-just-want-to-play-cop

If you want to play cop, there should be a CrossFit for police where you can do physical tests, obstacle courses, shoot inanimate dummies, do self defense, but I guess that doesn't quite satisfy those who want to hunt down and arrest people whether they need it or not.

Walter Scott murder in SC

Since overall very little action is really taken (yeah, a point of contention) when police officers kill, one Congressman entered a list of recent victims for the record:

Hank Johnson: ‘It feels like open season on black men in America’

In one of the recent murders, a man who was late on child support was shot in the back 8 times. Police originally released a version of the story that included a struggle, the victim grabbing the taser and putting the officer in danger.

In other cases, this police version of a life or death struggle and the fact that the victim had committed an offense (late child support, shoplifting, smoking pot, holding a toy gun, or the very general "troubled"  in other cases) in the distant or recent past eclipses the main fact of a man being executed without trial for a crime (and there's not always a crime!) that doesn't carry the death penalty. 

A good interview  What if There Was No Video

This time, there was a continuous video and the police had to recant that story:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/9/after_cops_shooting_of_unarmed_walter

A handy guide to your rights in filming police officers publicly:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers?redirect=kyr-photo

Republicans succeed in getting Obama to capitulate to Israel on Iran

This is late, but I've been wanting to say something about it for awhile.

The whole ridiculous letter to Iran from Senate Republicans is here:

Letter From Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran

It's condescending, ostentatious, threatening, egotistical and pretty much a pack of lies. But Obama folded anyway. The Republicans intended to conduct diplomacy on behalf of a foreign power (ISRAEL, in case you missed it) with Iran outside of diplomatic and official and presidential channels, but they ended up crippling the president more directly (and helping their bedfellow, Israel). Why do liberals have to be so darned reasonable?? I don't expect a stunt like this from Democrats when the Republicans gain control of the White House. And not only because they'll go to war at the drop of a hat and before trying any kind of diplomacy!

Here is the best rundown on all the lies and implications of the Republican letter to Iran:

http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/

Also, 10 Frightening Facts About Tom Cotton, the architect of the stunt.

Netanyahu's win and other antics

Interview with Netanyahu

He's one of those people I generally don't want to listen to because I know I'll be pretty upset by the end. Bush 43 was one, but at least there was a good chance he'd say something unintentionally funny as well.

Netanyahu can win an election by saying he will not accept a two state solution, let him stroll on over to our Congress to conduct diplomacy right under our noses outside of proper diplomatic channels, slap the leader of the free world in the face* and still be considered a partner for peace. Palestinians want equal rights and compensation for past wrongs and fair dealings and they are considered not a partner for peace, terrorists absent from the negotiating table while Israel is allegedly sitting patiently, eternally, faithfully with many a generous offer.

*Why was that stunt even necessary? Obama still panders to them and our stances toward Israel haven't changed one bit. Link added 3/23/15. They are still violating human rights with the same reckless abandon as during Republican administrations. I guess they'd rather not get that occasional verbal slap ion the wrist- Uh. excuse me kind sirs, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't deprive people of food and build illegal settlements. You're being unhelpful. 

So the two state solution is off the table for him. What now? One state where he has to concede and give not just human rights, but equal rights to Palestinians as Jewish Israelis have. Good. Now we're closer to the actual definition of apartheid and we have a precedent for dismantling that and making reparations. Can it be that easy?

Oh he claims to still be in favor of a two state solution of sorts, only that it is unachievable. What a relief! How generous! He dictated the terms of his two state solution in a 2009 speech to Bar-Ilan University. Your partner for peace dictated the terms and if he doesn't get his way, he'll pack up and go home and claim you left first. You want equality and human rights, he wants to ethnically cleanse "his" land of all of you and for you to recognize this as his God given right. And oh by the way- you also cannot have any armies or weapons to defend yourselves. Because he cannot have that, you are the problem and obviously not fit to be at the table. Come back when you are ready to unconditionally accept this subjugation we started with the occupation of your land.

That is exactly what he wants- the status quo, occupation. He says in the interview that he doesn't want a one state solution or a no state solution and he's put such unreasonable terms on his two state solution that no sane person will accept it, so he wants to continually subjugate an entire population with all the human rights and international law violations, settlements, mass arrests, closures, checkpoints, embargo, illegal settlements, wall, denying of medical care and education, visa complications, family separations and generally making life as miserable as possible.

His apparently urged Jews to vote because he heard Arabs were voting in droves. He claimed this was an attempt to topple his government, then corrected himself saying it was foreign money he was concerned about. This from the guy who has AIPAC and the Republican party pouring money and propagating whatever propaganda and lies he wants them to!! Israel was built on foreign money and is sustained on foreign money and support. Imagine- well don't. Remember. Remember 50 years ago or yesterday, white people being urged to vote because black people are voting in droves. You can smell the stench now, can't you?

His reaction to the charge of Israel's growing isolation was predictable and totally without substance. The one thing he did say is an out and out lie. He's done a lot for peace and frozen settlements. Here's a little on the latter. The former would take up too much space and I've probably already covered it elsewhere on the blog anyway. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/netanyahu-west-bank-settlements-israel-election.html?_r=0

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/27/premier-israel-willbuildinallofjerusalem.html

The graph in this link shows how "frozen" settlements managed to spike in population and records numerous announcements of settlement building, calling into question the meaning of frozen. Maybe halting new construction on them for a month or two qualifies in his book. The legal requirement is for all settlements to be dismantled and settlers to go back home to Israel or Europe or wherever they came from (Israel has been known to recruit specifically for settlements and even convert people to Judaism for that purpose.) or feel free to stay and suffer the consequences of squatting illegally on someone's olive groves or farm land or back yard.
http://passblue.com/2014/07/11/israeli-settlements-a-timeline-from-1967-to-now/

After that, the interview kind of devolves, with Inskeep trying to catch Netanyahu in his double speak, or at least clarify his position, which is impossible and Netanyahu insulting him after dodging the question of course.

"I'm saying I don't think that's the obstacle for a peace deal. I don't think it ever was. In effect, if you followed this election, which you may have if you were here."

He alternately speaks of not removing settlements and freezing them, being a partner for peace and removing some and instead moving borders to accommodate settlements and that didn't really clear anything up.

Asked again point blank if he's a two stater, Netanyahu again says he doesn't want one state as an answer to this. Erekat has recognized Israel and the media is actually noticing and not letting Israel say Palestinians want to throw them into the sea so why should we sit down at a table with them. Now they actually have to answer some questions. (Or not.) He repeats his demand that the Palestinian state is to be demilitarized, now,  not just recognize Israel, if it is to exist. Funny how recognition used to be the sticking point. Now that it is common knowledge that Palestinians and Arabs recognize Israel, up crops another condition. Demilitarization. The right of a sovereign nation, but not for you. You can't defend yourselves. Can you accept that? Didn't think so. We'll wait here being generous at the table and you greedy Arabs can come back when you're ready to be a sucker-- uh-- partner, I mean partner.

And they end with a discussion of "actual" recognition versus what Netanyahu thinks Erekat is doing in recognizing Israel. Actual recognition apparently means Palestinians are to drop the right of return demand which is their right and part of any just solution. If we accept that Jews get the right of return after 2000 years in a more philosophical or religious concession, Palestinians absolutely deserve the right of return to houses and lands they and their fathers remember. 

And of course our friend Bibi ends with:

"We want to see an end to the conflict and that's something they are never willing to say."

By end to the conflict, Netanyahu means, accept our terms for your "state" and stay outside of the borders we choose for ours, drop all claims and grievances in exchange for. . . what did you think,  freedom, autonomy, sovereignty? Nooo, a kinder, gentler occupation provided you stay under our thumb properly.

I just love how he caps off the lies and question dodging with the ever popular dis-proven childish refrain--  we want peace and they don't (so there).

Loss of Religious Liberty? Or Something Else?

In my area, a lot of Democrats were unseated by Republicans in the recent elections. Among reasons cited for why conservatives were especially driven to vote was of course the health care law and various other things they see as Obama failures. One of the most unlikely, yet emotional, issues is the perceived threat to religious liberty.

There is a Houston, TX incident where the city demanded all sermons and communications of certain preachers. In a certain light, namely that of Fox News, this almost looks like news. The linked article uses terms like  bullying, intimidation, abuse of authority, making an example or and shaming pastors. If you dig a little deeper, however, you get a few other details and realize the city isn't actually limiting religious liberty. but enforcing a tax issue that prevents non profits receiving a tax exemption from endorsing candidates and campaigning. It's kind of an epidemic or trend to hint at the most godly choice already, but the active political organizing from the tax free pulpit is a violation of law.


And then of course there was the whole Hobby Lobby situation. People cheering on this company for deciding for people what is the right birth control option, deciding things in an area of the employee's life that is none of their business. Besides the fact that women use contraception for things other than pregnancy prevention, preventing implantation is far from abortion. The science just doesn't support many of these complaints against IUDs and the ruling opens the door for people to chuck out any government regulation if they can put forward an argument, it doesn't even have to be that compelling.


The Idaho ministers. Again, it sounds like - oh my, they are forcing Christians to marry same sex couples, just like the thought this gay rights activism would come to! But actually, the issue is the non-profit vs for-profit and equal rights vs. religious objection. The business in question is not a church or religious organization, but a for-profit business, a wedding chapel. I wonder if an exception of some sort like the Hobby Lobby loophole will be made for wedding chapels or will we see the end of the wedding chapel, leaving religious ceremonies to religious organizations who are tax exempt and free to marry people according to their particular religions stipulations.

In West Bank, Israeli troops still escort Palestinian children to school

InWest Bank, Israeli troops still escort Palestinian children to school

Now if Palestinians had an illegal settlement, they would all be hauled off to jail where they'd be beaten and held indefinitely. They get chased and bombed out of their legitimately owned homes and have been since the 30's. No, that's wrong, they wouldn't be jailed, they'd be bombed into oblivion. So, there's your solution, Israeli army, bombs! Call them up (or don't, whatever you are feeling like that day) and tell them they have 5 minutes to gather belongings, evacuate children, elderly and handicapped or else they will be bombed off the face of the planet.

The Israeli army claims the settlers are crazy and they can't do anything about the attacks on Palestinian farmers, children and everyone else. It's good they recognize the settlers are wrong, but it's not that they CAN'T do anything, they simply WON'T.

If Palestinians throw rocks (or if an Israeli undercover throws rocks to instigate) at settlers or any other Israeli, they are beat, hauled in to prison, beat up and left to rot there. Every incident is counted and there are statistics, some 3000 times. Since Israelis are allowed to do whatever they want without so much as a harsh word, curfew, closure, beating, bombing, prison, there are no statistics except by humanitarian groups who can occasionally catch some of these incidents and record them.

There is a more than 99% conviction rate for Palestinians and they get actual sentences and hauled back in if released, so it is clear that they have the resources and procedures in place to so something, they just refuse to equally arrest and prosecute Israeli Jews. Israeli settlers throwing rocks or painting racist graffiti and threats on mosques or murdering Palestinians get nothing- no jail time, not trial, not even a chase through the street or arrest.

From a settler:

The Palestinians “don’t want us here, and we don’t want them here,” Tor said. “That’s the problem.”In general, “the Muslims, they like blood,” Tor said. “Even if we give them Tel Aviv, they will continue to attack us. The leaders can say they want peace, but it’s not the truth.”

The stream of lies never ends. They make up things like the Arabs pushing Jews into the sea myth and they are just violent, it's in their genetics and stick to it as fact and as though it doesn't go both ways. Not to mention when you're sitting Palestinian land and even ISRAEL says you're there illegally, you kinda deserve what you get. You're asking for some kind of consequence. You have NO right to be there. They don't hate you, that's not it. If the Israeli army would do its job and remove these people, other people would not feel the need to defend their rights and land.

Those Closed Minded Liberals, Why Don't They Just Watch Fox Like Us?

This is most likely an ultra conservative publication, but I happened to see it and had quite a few thoughts on the suspect logic of the thing.


Liberals Will Defriend You and Seek Variety; Conservatives Will Forgive and Stay in Theor Own Little Bubble


This little article was no doubt written (using an actual study, mind you) to say liberals are more likely to unfriend and end personal friendships over political differences and conservatives are naturally so much more open minded even though liberals say they are open minded.

Never mind that I didn't get how much more likely are liberals to end friendships than conservatives, like 1% (I apologize if that comparable figure is actually in there). Is it significant? Is it only slightly more? And if unfriending is equal to ending a personal real life friendship, I have serious doubts that it was actually a friendship. So you don't want to see their political screeds or constant reposts of some conservative talking head or a barrage of racial slur memes from a group calling itself Patriot something or other. Does that mean you aren't friends? They don't talk like that in person after all.

What really stuck out to me, rather than the statistic about unfriending, was 47% of conservatives listen to Fox News and liberals were "splintered," meaning they listen to several sources. The language here obviously meant to demean, as though conservatives are unified and so Fox News is more right because the masses say so. Logically, though, listening to a variety of sources is of course the way to sort out what is actually happening when you hear about a headline which is generally meant to conceal info to get you to read the story.

Conservatives are more likely to (from study/article):Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

And perhaps liberals unfriend conservatives because they only listen to and parrot Fox News (see the graphic in the article, showing the 47% Fox News) and we already heard that point of view and they annoyingly stick only to that source and take on the facts they chose to recognize like it is a fresh revelation from God which stops them from actually discussing anything. And when you are more likely to have friends who share your political views and you all watch Fox News, it doesn't mean you are more open minded or forgiving or virtuous because you don't unfriend said friends for political posts!

On the Facebook post comments section for this article (possibly a Heritage Foundation group post?), there is some truly wonderful boastful self- aggrandizement there for your amusement. I'll try and grab some and put it here later.

Homes

This is just the beginning of the hilarity. Penises are on loan and God made women so His penis would have a home?!?! 

The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may seem, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

The article goes on to address masturbation and homosexuality further burdening the already stressed real estate analogy.

Local politics, not a liberal strong point, but look at this nonsense

Odd political attack ad- youtube link


So this is supposed to be an attack ad of our liberal candidate for the Senate. I guess it could be an ad FOR the conservative guy, but it's really just about premature birth or something. She CHOSE to have the baby when she thought she was miscarrying. Good for her. And great for science! Look how far we've come and don't you want to go out and fund some more? No, that's not what they want you to take away from this. You get the idea it's anti-abortion when she describes seeing her 24 week old baby and wondering at the fully formed body and individual fingers and toes. . . not exactly real first thoughts when you see your beloved infant you thought could have been dead- those are talking points. There is a rather hilarious sentence about the fetus WANTING to be born.And then at the end we get Kay Hagan's cartoonish exaggerated and probably misquoted position and Tom Tillis' CORRECT position.

 This woman chose to have the baby despite complications. Fantastic. I fail to see how this is an effective argument against giving others the right to choose what to do for their situation and with their bodies. Many conservatives will try and say that the fact that safe abortions are legal or that marriages between two people of the same sex is legal infringes on their rights and / or affect them in some way. This is absurd. If we start mandating that you have to get an abortion or that you have to be gay (or straight?!) to get married, we have something to talk about. Until then, these issues shouldn't even be issues.

Summer 2014 Israeli Gaza invasion recap

These are posts from August I did on Facebook and should have put here on the blog instead . .

Democracy Now: Decrying "Brutal Operation Taking Place in Our Name," Israeli Military Reservists Refuse to Serve

This is an Israeli soldier who is refusing to serve, his illustration of the conflict, rather good, if graphic, but that's genocide too, ugly:

"And forgive me for using this hard language, but when you have a group of people raping someone, and this person that is being raped starting to scratch, the first thing you want to do in order to stop the scratches is to stop the rape. And what Israel, official Israel, is trying to do is to continue the rape and deal with the scratches. And I say, stop the rape, stop the occupation, stop the apartheid, stop this inhumane ghettoization of Palestinians, and then—then—we can start talking, and we can reach peace agreements and all these beautiful words that now don’t mean anything for us."

***

Just like spring break! Yay! Except with war crimes... Right to defend themselves. Ha! Never again (to us).

Bob Schiffer Has Some Very...Strong Opinions About Gaza

Bob Schieffer?!?! I had thought of him as a pretty reasonable guy. He's joined the dark side, the majority, the Israeli propaganda machine, those who want the rape victim to stop scratching rather than the rape to stop.



List of op-eds calling for the elimination of Gaza

I think  this was prompted by someone asking me to prove Israel was stealing land, THEY want to push Israel into the sea, Israelis only want peace, or one of the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong lines of "reasoning."



Collective Punishment In Gaza

One of the best I've read lately. Facts are hard to come by in this conflict as we are blindly and recklessly supporting the oppressor. Rashid Khalidi, thank you!



U.S. Jewish Leader Henry Siegman to Israel: Stop Killing Palestinians and End the Occupation

HENRY SIEGMAN: ... And this is why I say there are several reasons for the Israeli action. A primary one is to prevent this new government from actually succeeding. It’s an attempt to break up the new unity government set up by the Palestinians.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why would they do that? Why would they want to do that?

HENRY SIEGMAN: They want to do that, for the first time—for years, I have been suggesting and arguing that they want to do that because they are intent on preventing the development of a Palestinian state. To put it bluntly, they want all of it. They want all of Palestine.

Now, this is something that Netanyahu said openly and without any reservations when he was not in government. He wrote about it, published a book about it, his opposition to a Palestinian state, that Israel couldn’t allow that. The difference between the time that he—and he, incidentally, opposed not just Palestinian statehood. He opposed peace agreements with Egypt. He opposed peace agreements with Jordan. Any positive step towards a stabilization and a more peaceful region, Netanyahu has been on record as opposing.

My over 6 foot sunflower. Maybe I'll rename the blog sunflowers and genocide.

The shoe doesn't go on the other foot in Palestine

As always,  a great show for Democracy Now, great points made by the guest, Henry Siegman. Here are two:

What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish population were locked into, were told, "Here, you have less than 2 percent of Palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest"? Is there any Jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a Jewish state, at least on one-half of Palestine, which is authorized by the U.N.? Nobody would agree to that.

He quoted a Hebrew saying in the Talmud here about putting oneself in another person's shoes. A proposition like his gets you called anti-semitic- or in his case, a self-hating Jew no doubt. I've proposed similar scenarios or tried to describe the land grabs in other terms and have been called some things.

Why hasn’t our government or anyone said, "Like Hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as Hamas does"? So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mind-boggling.

Such a good question! One we all want to know the answer to. He was talking about parties in Israel's government, mainstream ones, not on the fringe, whose platform does not allow for a Palestinian state anywhere in Palestine.

Defending Men's Rights ?!

Ok, I talked about the overblown rage in the rape nail polish affair, but I think this one deserves a bit of rage. Men's rights. That's right. In the rush to help women get a fair shot, equal pay, catch up after decades of being pushed to the back, we have forgotten men's rights to rule over everything and own everything. How dare us. (Roll your eyes here)

Not that they don't have issues. Some valid problems were mentioned like unfairness in custody hearings and higher suicide rates. Sure, these are things that need addressed, though probably not at the top of the list when you think of men's rights or likely when those men get together. I expect more what goes on to be blaming women for things, saying they are ok with helping women get equal pay and other things, but they need to be afforded the same breaks and "opportunities" (so they can stay ahead I guess).

When I read the complaint on not having a White House council on men and boys and having Womens' Studies, but not Mens' Studies, I felt like I was listening to white supremacists talk about white rights being violated by affirmative action or some other absurd argument.

Rape Nail Polish

Everyone's talking about this, so I'll say something too.

Most of the links when I searched this were very critical of this new product, accusing the creators of putting the blame on the victims, how dare them, etc. I definitely agree the victims of rape are not to be blamed. No question there. The perpetrators are criminals and something should be done to change that attitude or culture that makes men think rape is ok or that women ask for it in the way they dress and things like that.

I think some things are being overlooked in this aggressive opposition though. We aren't going to eradicate rape. That's as silly as a war or drugs or terrorism. It will always be the case that people do bad things, break the law, violate the rights of others. And, yes, we should work to stop that from happening, but during that rather slow process, we shouldn't make it seem like any attempt by a potential victim to protect themselves is wrong. The nail polish is just one more thing to put more power in the hands of the victims- at least that's how I looked at it- like learning self defense or carrying pepper spray. 

We can talk about how impractical it is- just let me stir my drink with my finger vigorously for approximately 30 seconds (or whatever the instructions happen to be) and then I can accept this drink you bought me- or I can check your drink for roofees, just let me stick my finger in your drink and stir it around some, of course I washed my hands after using the bathroom. But I don't think inventing things women can do to try and stay safe while they wait on the culture to change or all criminals to stop committing crimes is putting the blame on them.

Not to mention these are 4 college kids, undergrads maybe, so the fact that they did this is actually pretty cool. Just the fact that they invented it is newsworthy. And it's my alma mater. In the article I reference above, they even say

“We hope this future product will be able to shift the fear from the victims to the perpetrators, creating a risk that they might actually start to get caught,” co-founder Tyler Confrey-Maloney explained on Wednesday in a Facebook post.

So I don't really think a charge of victim blaming is really warranted. Anything that women can do to try and prevent this from happening to them I see as a good thing. The effectiveness and practicality are another matter. . . Some will say my cautious approval of this new tool is similar to me saying women should be paranoid about how they walk and dress lest they bring rape on themselves. That is going to the extreme, reductio ad absurdum. I'm saying use common sense, use the tools available to you and crime will always exist. The fault is always the rapists', yes, but if I see a possibility to do something to stop that from happening, I'll try it. It doesn't mean it's my fault if my effort fails or if I can't do anything about it.

That said, I probably wouldn't use it- it seems rather clunky and awkward, but if people want to, go for it. I think it would be fantastic if rapists were more afraid of being caught. If the nail polish helps with that, awesome. The laws really aren't doing that effectively either.

And I should mention again that these are college kids who designed something to use their new chemistry skills to try and solve a real world problem, something generally advocated in colleges. Maybe it solves nothing, but you have to at least try different things before you create something useful.

Note: My computer is possessed currently and insists on deleting furiously when I edit. I think I fixed this post, but am not sure if I found everything.

Turkish coffee and Freedom Fries

Some Israelis find the name 'Turkish coffee' too bitter to swallow

Not that there aren't more important things to talk about, but this struck me as extremely funny. Their solutions to this "problem" might give you déjà vu.
 

They want to BOYCOTT the drink because of the NAME and because they hate Turkey for supporting Palestinians in some actions  against their genocide and collective punishment by Israel. Israel wants to boycott. They who consider Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against THEM tantamount to anti-semitism. Very similar to their stance on collective punishment and genocide- never again TO US, totally acceptable for someone else. 

Another solution? Change the name! Call it Israeli coffee! They've never done that before. Eye roll. Judea and Samaria. Falaffel is Israel's national food. An Eastern European favorite no doubt. Ethnic cleansing is transfer. Targeting civilians is collateral damage from hitting a military target surgically. Oh and a more comprehensive list was in a Counterpunch article here.

Of course, Israeli coffee companies are panicked, saying oh, but the beans aren't Turkish, Turks don't even drink it like this anymore. 

The last paragraph mentions Israelis' high consumption of turkey meat and the fact that the Hebrew word for turkey is also the word for India and those relations are fine. A perfect reflection of the absurdity of this Turkish coffee outrage.

Funny article.

A little break

I've been using Facebook to comment on recent events in the Middle East. I'll probably try and come back here :) It's why I made the thing in the first place. Please stand by..........

"unexpected sad trip"

A recent scam...

This one actually grabbed me for a minute because I knew a family member was on a cruise, but I quickly regained my senses.....

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

      I'm writing this with tears in my eyes,my family and I came down here to  Philippines for a short vacation and unfortunately we got mugged at the park of the hotel where we stayed,all cash,credit card and cell were stolen off us but luckily for us we still have our passports with us.

We've been to the embassy and the Police here but they're not helping issues at all and our flight leaves in few hours from now but we're having problems settling the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't let us leave until we settle the bills,

I'm freaked out at the moment and i need your help.

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

Things that didn't add up...

• Hello is used, not a more casual greeting, and there is no use of family names of any kind.
• Grammatical errors- could be attributed to being freaked out, but the quantity and types raise a red flag.
• The username is that of a family member, but the provider after "@" was not the right one.
  
• The IP address, 41.58.56.13, points to (sent from) Nigeria.
• Another oddity being the sending of a distress email, when you could call from the embassy or hotel any number of people, one of which would probably be home so that you wouldn't have to send an email...

Google search for the text of the email:

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/distress/family.asp

IP address lookup:

http://www.dnsstuff.com/
whois.net/ip-address-lookup/

To coexist or not to coexist...

Recently I have been thinking about the conservative disdain for both political correctness and the famous (infamous?) coexist bumper sticker.

The recent Prayer Breakfast with the rising Republican rock star (or Messiah as Republicans joked about Obama?) Dr. Carson hit all those familiar high notes that energize the conservative base. Not to say that he's another Palin, but the atmosphere reminds me of the excitement after her debut (but before The Fall). I was personally a little puzzled as to why he did that speech at a Prayer Breakfast and not as a press conference, op-ed, or announcement to run for office. I had guessed these things were supposed to be about prayer and both parties coming together to share a common belief in God or something of that sort, not about "standing up to the president" and turning it into a one sided policy debate. 

But ever since I learned that that invisible organization, The Family, is responsible for these things, I think Carson's probably more in keeping with the goals of this thing than people thinking about prayer and unity and common beliefs innocently over coffee.

Speaking of him not being another Palin, something doesn't sit well with me. That violent streak as a kid where he would grab the nearest stone or brick to bash someone's head in and would have stabbed someone had it not been for the belt buckle- then he prays and suddenly the anger issues are gone. I just don't know if I buy that. Not that I don't think God has the power to do anything, but those kinds of issues usually need extensive therapy, medicine or something... Something just doesn't seem right. And the way he talks like Bush and Palin about God- in his case- grabbing him and telling him to run for President. That worries me, should he get any more involved in politics. You can then justify anything. God told me to do it. (I'm strangely reminded of N. Korea and Juche- there is no rule of law, man determines his fate) Maybe it's a lie or maybe you actually believe God wants you to bomb a country into the stone age, but that is scary to me. People like that are every bit as dangerous (or more so) as those who conservatives say are wrecking our moral fabric.


Dr. Carson's famous, viral, "bold", cure-all 2013 National Prayer Breakfast speech
Real Clear Politics on the Hannity special with Carson

And to balance out the love and excitement of that link:
Fox News loves Benjamin Carson

Dr. Ben Carson turns National Prayer Breakfast into shameful right-wing ambush

 

I found this while searching for why exactly do republicans hate political correctness. I really don't get it. It's generally about respect and righting wrongs and I've always thought those were good things. Or course, you can go overboard into the absurd, but that's true with everything. I was going to make a point about conservatives being politically correct about their own pet issues, but this guy already said it... Conservatives blame PC and moral decay, liberals say the government's talking away rights-- same muzzle, different times and views.


So the coexist bumper sticker is controversial. I didn't realize it until years after I'd seen the first one. I didn't really think about it much except in passing to say, hmm, wouldn't that be nice. When I got on Facebook, saw it being bashed and then in other places as well. I have been aware of a conservative problem with diversity in the same vein- smirking and comments dripping with disdain. Maybe the sticker is just a more recent manifestation.

I don't really know why these things are bad. Maybe I'll ask when I'm in the mood to fight or at least have some swings taken at me. Getting along with people of different faiths, opinions, and philosophies seems like a good idea, seeing as how we are all in the same country and basically have the same goals, without going into specifics that will take us into the different ways of going about it- freedom, respect, justice, career, raising a family, etc. If they think it means we have to believe all of those religions and accept them as truth, that would be a problem, but I don't see the sticker as advocating that. Like demanding you accept all planks of a political party to vote for it's candidate. I find both pretty ridiculous. Diversity is good. The more you get to know someone, the more you find similarities, the less likely you'll think about doing something mean. Maybe you are wary of Muslims until you find they have a strong faith similar in ways to yours, keep family close, and find humor in things kids and husbands do just like you. Now, you're thinking about something other than faceless people who probably "hate you for your freedom". Kind of thinking about countries and war, here, but I guess it fits for individuals. If you don't know your neighbor and they do something that annoys you, maybe you want to go yell at them or take them to court, depending on what it is. But if you talk some and know where they come from or what they are going through, there may be an explanation that would make you less likely to react like a jerk.

Anyway, that is kind of rambling, but I'm curious about people. I probably don't seem like it, because I generally don't talk. I think diversity if good whether we're talking other cultures or politics here. Why can't we just pick the best ideas and not bother with annoying baggage, party loyalty, pandering and other nonsense with political parties entail. I guess that's another post...