the pro-Trump argument. . .

Ran across this. The Facebook feed is not a place you want to be from here til November.

To The “Never Trumper”- A Biblical Case For Trump
https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

The title itself is enough to get you chuckling, I'm sure. We all thought this was a joke, a funny blip in the history of failed presidential candidacies. Now that the dust has settled, we see there actually are people who want a racist fascist misogynistic narcissist blowhard in power. There are various reasons, apparently. I could not for the life of me figure out why this election in particular would not simply be about who is qualified, period, so I've been reading. 

So the reasoning goes- ignore the misogyny, his tweets, his racism and narcissism and egomania- these are the media's inventions!! They essentially take Trump's way out- just say it, don't provide any evidence or support for your claim and IT IS SO. Whether it is or not. Reality be damned. People will believe you. Not kidding. Look at Trump.

One of the first things that caught my eye was an argument I've put to my Republican friends when they insist sins must be legislated or that one must vote Republican/Christian/capitalist/pro-gun/pro-fetus/anti-gay rights/anti-equality/anti-welfare to be a real Christian. It gave me a laugh to see a Republican arguing this. Bookmark this and save it for next time!

"  “But Trump is NOT for us!” you object, “his essence oozes the opposite of Christian values!” I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to apolitical office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.  "

An apolitical office! This sounds like separation of church and state! It's a position I can assure you doesn't sit well with many conservative Christians I know! (In any other time.) I'm now remembering many conversations about putting prayer back in public school, trying to get intelligent design in schools if you can't get a Bible class in there, fussing about God on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments displayed in or around the courthouses. . . 

I should also insert here some links and arguments that demanded their candidate be the moral choice in years past. . . This is their schtick and now they have to abandon it to elect a demagogue. This should prove it has never been about values and always about politics!! Their moral high ground is GONE- if they ever had any.

As a side note, I am appalled at the way the Body has treated the members of this committee and other evangelical heavy hitters who have endorsed Trump. We are willing to let Dr. Dobson dictate the way we raise our children, yet the instant he speaks out on a political issue, we mock him and call him a coward? We make Kirk Cameron our Hollywood hero, pay big bucks to go see his films, and then call him a sell out when he makes a comment about where we should place our vote? Maybe we should let our ruffled egos settle down for a moment and consider that we would willingly adhere to the wisdom of these men on any other issue. Even if you disagree with their political choice, please have the decency to treat them with the respect that their years of faithful service to the Kingdom have warranted.

And here we have a very condescending parental reprimand to treat these famous Christian people with respect by implying that if you read their book or saw their movie, you MUST vote they way they do or you are disrespecting them and possibly are a hypocrite to boot. And ruffled egos are the problem?? Donald's ego is eclipsing everyone's ego and this guy/girl is worried about Republicans' egos who don't want the misogynistic racist Trump to be leader of the free world for many very good and explicit reasons. Respect their faithful service?? If you are FOR Trump and call yourself a Christian, there is a very definite problem in supporting hatred of women, immigrants and people of color, among many others

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-these-evangelical-leaders-are-firmly-against-trump_us_578d0d14e4b0fa896c3f6fc2

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/articles/a-christian-case-against-donald-trump.aspx

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-case-against-donald-trump-158733/

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2016/03/03/pastors-take-trump/81277810/


This bit is also pretty hilarious and is dripping with something. . .

I believe that a lot of the discontent over Trump is due to his brash nature, yes, but also because of the blow that was dealt to your pride when an outsider was able to come in and usurp the leadership of your party. This may not be true of you at all, but I am certain that it is a large part of the driving force behind the Never Trump movement. I am simply asking that you examine your motives. If you detect pride as a motivator factor, please pray to be released from it and follow the example of Ben Carson. If anyone had a bone to pick with Trump, it was Dr. Carson, but as he so wisely stated in a Fox interview when asked how he was able to get over the personal insults dealt him by Trump, “If this was about me, I could never get over it. This is about the future of our country.”
Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

The call to examine yourself and pray about it is dripping with that familiar slimy sentiment you may have experienced when in a theological argument and the person on the other end says "I'll pray for you" in the same way you'd give someone the finger.

Again, the attempt is made at sidestepping (or just telling you to dismiss it entirely) who Trump is, what is his character, what qualifies him to lead in anything and especially the presidency of the United States with this 'examine yourself, a blow was dealt to your ego because MY candidate beat YOURS' nonsense.

And the idea that you should do ANYTHING like Dr. Carson is pretty darn amusing to say the least!! Do you remember that guy?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/05/ben-carson-believes-joseph-built-egypts-pyramids-to-store-grain-and-it-just-may-get-him-some-votes/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-holocaust-gun-control_us_5616a7aee4b0082030a185c2

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/ben-carson-conspiracy-theory-cleon-skousen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-2016_us_563cba9be4b0307f2cad0ea7


The main takeaway from this article is vote your party this election and REPENT NOW for saying things against Donald Trump and his famous supporters. 

Go on and leave your conscience and values and opinions at home this November. So say pro-Trumpers.


I would like to end by saying I don't want to imagine a world in which Donald Trump is leader of the free world, but we should, as this article below says. I offer it as an alternative to the approach taken in the blog post above and as an answer.


http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/07/26/trump-putin-fallacy-failure-of-imagination/

From the end of the article:

Still, it is unlikely (or I simply cannot imagine) that Trump will do enough damage to democracy in the course of four years to secure a second term. After he is defeated, institutions will begin to recover. Culture, however, will sustain much more lasting damage. Our failure to understand this—and our effort to find foreign explanations for Trump’s rise—may be blinding us to the real threat he poses.

Remembering Bernie

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/clinton_v_bernie_debate_as_turmoil

A lively discussion about the Democratic Party divide- see the link above from Democracy Now.
I enjoyed Solomon's responses to McIntosh. One of the best was when he said, "We’ve got to oppose all of these Wall Street and militaristic policies that are embodied, frankly, in what Hillary Clinton is saying and doing." Her response was about a reason the campaigns were coming together and doing exciting things and putting families first. The last two ended up being more like fillers or empty buzzwords for me since it's not clear what exactly she's talking about- I mean, being a woman, one would hope she'd understand these two challenges, but for me her very troubling record on Israel, militarism and support for Wall Street and corporations stand out as areas she's been more actively involved and interested in. If she weren't Hillary Clinton, Republicans would probably love her. 

So it was pretty hilarious to hear Trump say:

"We're going to get a lot of the Bernie voters by the way, because they didn't treat him right," he told volunteers in Cleveland Friday. "He ran a very, very good campaign and Hillary's people just swamped him."

Bernie Sanders' response was right on target as usual. As frustrating as this change in direction is from farther left and more progressive to politics as usual- and he should feel it the most- he didn't lose sight of the bigger picture.

"Those who voted for me will not support Trump who has made bigotry and divisiveness the cornerstone of his campaign. ‪#‎RNCwithBernie‬," Sanders tweeted Thursday during the Republican nominee's speech.

First Gentleman, anyone?

The Awkward Etiquette of Bill Clinton as ‘First Lady’

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/bill-clinton-awkward-first-lady-214101

In thinking of Bill as a first lady, I thought it'd be funny if his hair and wardrobe and each outfit choice were scrutinized and he was reduced to choosing dinnerware, flowers and seating charts- not to mention choosing a noncontroversial advocacy issue and being sent to schools and hospitals while the president made deals and ironed out the big issues of the day. . .

From the article:

"It might just finally expose how out-of-date the “feminine” expectations of the office have become. And there’s a real prospect that Bill might genuinely rethink the role—a long-overdue change to what has become a strange purgatory for a wife who’s often extremely accomplished in her own right."


All joking aside, maybe he could change things for that "office". I'm always disappointed when a first lady doesn't dive into the political issues in her speech and make solid cases for the candidate and chooses only to talk about kids as though this is all a woman is supposed to think about and this is the only experience and knowledge she can possibly bring to the table.

The Evils of political correctness (?!)

I grew up hearing about the evils of humanism, moral relativism and political correctness in church at least once a week. Hidden in there, but not necessarily stated was a contempt for social justice and all things Democratic Party leaning (for example- you are AGAINST social justice because Democrats are generally FOR it, you don't need to examine the merit of individual issues.)

I'm all for religious freedom and the exercise of it, but when you are contrasting that with being politically correct or being in favor of social justice, that's where we have a problem. Not just a problem with me because I disagree, but there should be some cognitive dissonance there. I've written about this before, when I felt I was the only one talking about it. (I probably wasn't the only one, I was just growing into the realization and hadn't heard the other voices yet.) Plus, I just saw this article the other day that makes some of the same points:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/social-justice-is-a-christian-tradition-not-a-liberal_us_578cd7b3e4b05e7343a66564

Not to mention, I was always confused by the notion that in order to be a good Christian, you had to not only NOT have an abortion or engage in homosexual acts, but you had to support legislation banning them and oppose legislation supporting an individual's right to make a different choice than you just made- or, stated differently-  force all to make the same choice you just freely made. Tying these personal moral choices to not only a group but politics through religion seems to violate a number of God- given (for believers) and constitutional rights. But back to the PC problem. . . 

from Merriam-Webster
 conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Political correctness as I know it, is a basic standard of politeness, empathy and decency. As you learn more about race or sexuality or disabilities or whatever it is, you should definitely adjust your vocabulary and your behavior to respect others.

People like Trump and his followers enjoy this anti-PC movement as a way to spout racist and misogynistic insults and rhetoric because they may feel threatened by movements in favor of equality. They see equality as a finite quantity and if minorities are getting more, they will get less- this is how it looks to me. The anti-PC movement "speaks their mind" and "tells it like it is" without a second thought to the fact that conditions anyone else experiences might be different or more challenging than their own. It is a license to go on and say those racist epithets and outdated terms and express your white male frustrations under the guise of being in favor freedom or the Bible.


The two sides:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/04/white_male_temper_tantrums_in_defense_of_black_women_%E2%80%9Cfeminist_killjoys%E2%80%9D/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/25/political-correctness-is-destroying-america-thats-why-am-on-mission-to-destroy-it.html

The RNC. . . or a circus

***
A tiny plastic fetus replica was apparently put in the RNC goodie bags, yes, on purpose! To remind them that this is the only issue on the table? To say that yes Trump hates women, but since joining the Republican party, he loves fetuses? To say that it's cool to hate immigrants, illegal or no, slander people left and right, hate women and minorities, believe firmly in white male power, but if you like fetuses you're A-OK!

https://www.rt.com/usa/352728-rnc-goodie-bag-fetus/#.V5KtgXL9uP4.facebook


@@@
Hahahaha. Assault rifles are free to be carried, here's why tennis balls are banned. . . :

"MEDEA BENJAMIN: They told us this is not a game. You could open up a tennis ball and put feces inside, and it could get thrown at them, and it would be very dangerous."

Nothing could go wrong with a bunch of armed hatemongering nut jobs who feel threatened by anything from made up threats to the thought of white male hegemony disappearing!

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/20/ban_guns_not_tennis_balls_as


###
Less hysterically funny, but good large scale protest idea to build a wall around Trump:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/20/wall_off_trump_activists_erect_mock



***
Another creative protest at the RNC:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/07/18/everything_she_says_means_everything_installation_of_100_nude_women_at_the.html

Party Loyalty vs. Common Decency

This election underscores like no other that people will vote their party no matter what. It doesn't matter who you put up in that spot, nut job Ben Carson, egomaniac misogynist The Donald, or an actual politician with some idea of what's going on in the world and Washington, you have to unite behind your party because that matters more than any policy, mental stability or potential for disaster ever could. Get your team the win. All this is is a giant football game. Values? Future? Freedom? Nope!

Or maybe we are witnessing what historians will herald as the end of the 2 party system. The popularity of Bernie Sanders, the rise of Donald Trump and disgruntled people all over the map. I know, wishful thinking, there.

Back to actual recent events. . .

The RNC goers just appointed themselves judge and jury! 
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/20/headlines/lock_her_up_rnc_crowd_speakers_blasts_hillary_clinton

Forget about campaigning against Clinton, they've decided her fate like no proceeding in the real world could:

“Is she guilty or not guilty? Lock her up! Lock her up!”

Much like Trump's nomination, decided by screaming and the whim of the guy speaking.

Is this what values voting means? I know what the law says and she's had a hearing, but I think she's guilty, lock her up! Is this what limited government is all about? Deciding things on a whim? I've always wondered. I guess as long as Republicans can tell you what to do with your body and who you can marry and who should be in jail, all is right with the world and “values” are a priority. Values. Another word that is beginning to mean NOTHING. Empty words are a common occurrence with Trump though.

Take law and order, which he repeats half a dozen times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-rnc-speech.html?_r=0

By the last time, you start to wonder what does he MEAN? Martial law? State of emergency dictatorship style? Is he planning to go in personally- or send some thugs- to kill anyone he thinks is the problem? He has no idea though, so it'll be up to the thugs. Is THIS how he'll fix things as only he can? What's the plan??

The RNC comes at a moment the nation is in crisis? Isn't it always? But this is nothing like 2008 and the collapse of the economy and John McCain used it as an opportunity to try and get out of a debate and rescue the nation. That was also idiotic, but that was a time of actual uncertainty. I would say the Republican party is in crisis- evidence being Trump's nomination due to lack of any viable candidates.

Winning abroad!! :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-top-example-of-foreign-experience-a-scottish-golf-course-losing-millions/2016/06/22/12ae9cb0-1883-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html

Fun experiment guys. You CAN get someone elected on money alone and without actually detailing a solid plan for governance. Now, lets get a real candidate somehow.


Trump is not only a Liar (business deals- check out Scotland, reporting of business deals, any speech he's given, under oath in court, you name it!), but also a huge Fraud (see the Trump University scam, among many others)- and even more troubling- a misogynistic egomaniac racist fascist delusional bully who thinks he'll be appointed king, accountable to no one, not a president elected, beholden to voters.

*Trump University
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

His only real qualification seems to be businessman, but he's pretty terrible at that. . .

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188

Is Donald Trump racist?

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-prez-white-people-responsibility-trump-20151230-story.html

Is Trump fascist?

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_not_hitler_hes_mussolini_how_gop_anti_intellectualism_created_a_modern_fascist_movement_in_america/

On women:

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/23/the_general_election_opposition_that_will_finally_stop_trump_women_voters/

I'm sure this isn't every one. . .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/07/14/mike_pence_fits_right_in_with_donald_trump_s_anti_woman_worldview.html

And another. . . don't vote for this guy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html 

Melania Trump, plagiarism, and counterattacks

Melania Trump 'Plagiarised' Michelle Obama ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36832095?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

So Hannity and Breitbart want us to think this latest plagiarism case is like Obama "copying" from Deval Patrick. . . 

Hahaha! Doubt they have the same political consultant or friendship or permission and Melania admits nothing, unlike Obama, but yeah totally the same thing.


And then for both sides we could talk about the phenomenon of hearing something and incorporating it into your own work unintentionally as happens in writing. . .

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/the-ecstasy-of-influence/



The Melania Trump Plagiarism Case Is Nothing Like Obama and Patrick’s

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/07/19/melania-trump-obama-patrick/


Some conservative answers:


http://dcgazette.com/2016/melania-trump-plagiarize-michelle-obamas-speech/#


http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/flashback-obama-was-busted-plagiarizing-governor-14922331/

Women against women?

So I've just been looking for a better way of explaining an aspect of inequality. So there's the explicit type, but there's also implicit bias and the effect on the present of past inequality.


The article touches on an argument that is made that women perpetuate sexism against themselves (Their own fault! Men are absolved! ). While true to some extent in that women do discriminate against other women, blaming women is not correct. This is the culture created by past concrete and widespread inequality.


The same kinds of things could be said of racism, how it's become institutionalized, but I just read this article on the other topic. . .


Everyone's A Little Bit Sexist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-knepper/everyones-a-little-bit-se_b_11005180.html

Palestinian flag to fly at the UN- progress?

I went in the edit my post and my wonderful computer due to an annoying quirk has caused me to delete it. So here we go again. I'll try and reconstruct.


The UN voted to fly the Palestinian flag with 119 out of 193 votes, 45 abstentions and 8 very predictable no votes. Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Tuvalu, United States- looks a little like the coalition of the willing in the Iraq debacle. I think it's a step in the right direction whether it's symbolic or meaningless or whatever you want to call it. To be clear, the motion was for the permanent observer states to fly their flags alongside member states with the only other being the Holy See, who didn't really want to be involved, though it does recognize the Palestinian state.

There were many opinions, harsh and a little contradictory coming from the US and Israel, mostly positive elsewhere.

Some Palestinians are not encouraged by the resolution and given the history of these resolutions calling on Israel to follow international law and such, I can see why. Also, I can see the argument that the flag flying won't bring peace or rights right away. But I think it could do something to keep the issue in the consciousness of the international community and possibly help guide them to Tamimi's last point there in the quote.



Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian British academic and author, told Al Jazeera that the gesture was "meaningless"."What the Palestinians need from the UN is an acknowledgement of its historic role in dispossessing the Palestinians," Tamimi said. -- Aljazeera

Of course I agree with this being a historic vote, if nothing else, and also a sign of support for the Palestinian people that the UN has been powerless to protect against Israeli aggression. It is always good to see expressions of support on the world stage for human rights and equality. There was a very good rebuttal to this being "just symbolic" : 

Bolivia’s speaker said that although the vote was symbolic, symbols were important and the Palestinian flag would be a reminder of occupation and injustice.

 The US reaction was pretty standard and unemotional, unlike the Israeli one we'll see in a minute.

US state department spokesman Mark Toner called it a "counterproductive" attempt to pursue statehood claims outside of a negotiated settlement. --Aljazeera

Well that one was right out of the Israeli script, but standard, nothing new.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said raising the Palestinian flag will not bring Israelis and Palestinians any closer together.

This one is kind of funny, making this kind of statement about a flag, a symbol for the struggle for freedom and justice of an entire people. Meanwhile, the people you are coming out in support of are occupying the land meant for this state everyone is allegedly committed to, committing crimes against humanity, starving and imprisoning the population, imposing curfews, closures, incusions, making life impossible so that they'll "transfer" themselves or die. Does THAT bring the two sides together?? Does she find these things preferable to a flag? It sure sounds that way.

The Israeli envoy, Ron Prosor had a lot of irrational and insulting things to say. He went after the UN for alleged duplicity and hypocrisy. He went after the resolution calling it an empty gesture, a photo op, a charade. He also included the overused and untrue refrain that Palestinians aren't taking the necessary steps for peace. Israel is continuing to build and enlarge settlements (illegal under international law) on land that is to be the Palestinian state, but you know, Palestinians just aren't taking necessary steps. Israel has only one image of a Palestinian state- demilitarized (right to self defense nullified), Jewish state recognized (denial of rights to Palestinians living there), and settlements stay (no fixed borders)- essentially occupation enshrined in law- but you know, Palestinians just won't come to the table to negotiate (which means accept what Israel demands) this. 


And displaying the kind of tired perpetual victimhood rhetoric we were waiting for (drum roll please):

Ron Proser, Israel’s UN ambassador, criticised the assembly for adopting the resolution, saying “the assembly would vote to declare the Earth is flat if the Palestinians proposed it” -- The Guardian

Boo hoo. And interestingly, even though the vote was put down as insignificant, it was significant enough to move the Israeli Foreign Ministry to go on an international campaign to get the entire EU to abstain, as reported by Haaretz. But that failed. Some countries were brave and used their own good sense. 

Alongside France, EU members Sweden, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Malta and Poland voted yes.

Oh this guy was on a roll. He also said:


". . . rather than flying the Palestinian flag, it might as well just wave a “white flag” and surrender its principles."

++++++++

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11676.doc.htm

http://www.jpost.com/International/Prosor-Instead-of-flying-Palestinian-flag-UN-can-wave-white-flag-in-surrender-of-principles-415921

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/vote-palestine-flag-fly-headquarters-150910060007023.html

Jared and porn, more celebrity worship

Jared's in possession of child porn. Or something of that nature.

(Note: I don't want to seem flippant about sex crimes and crimes against children, but my rant might appear that way, so just a warning - this rant is about celebrities and the undeserved love and adoration they receive from us, the public, who  should know better and channel  it into something more useful than complaining about their hair or their butt or whatever crime or indiscretion they are now involved with. I am not downplaying the nature of the crime, only highlighting how silly we should feel for idolizing these people at all, regardless of what they do or do not do.)

 There is a shocking amount of outrage- people can't believe he did that, he seemed so wholesome and achieved his goal or why didn't Subway vet him better, who is responsible? Uhhh. I was at a loss for words about the reaction to this. I mean who cares?? Who is he really? Was he such a big role model anyway? We know pedophilia exists, so that's not a shock. Priests were involved and they were at least bound by a moral code you can look up. Should we be shocked about Jared, a guy you don't know? Not to dismiss this crime at at all, it  is horrific, but why are we seemingly more bent out of shape about it than when it happens to ordinary people? Is everyone who loses weight and signs on with an ad campaign of such a stellar moral character that we can't expect such a thing from them? Do we honestly revere him or Subway to such an extent that we believed such a “fall” impossible? This kind of crime is always unacceptable, but to be so disappointed as though you knew the guy seems a bit much for me. 

The bigger question is why do people hold up these sports figures, reality TV stars, commercial stars (whatever he was) in the first place? I don't understand the rat race, the never ending quest to get rich and famous, always wanting a bigger house, luxury car, fleet of luxury cars. I want a car that works, shelter that's low maintenance and books. I read that this was because I'm an introvert and we don't care about that stuff. Or maybe I'm trying to minimize disappointment. But I've always been that way. In 5th grade we had to write about a role model. I struggled with who to pick because I didn't have any. Parents are the obvious choice, but didn't fit the image I had when I thought role model. I don't want to be exactly like anyone. I picked Jim Davis because I loved Garfield and he can draw and make people laugh and I thought those were nice skills to have. But even then I felt disingenuous calling him a role model. I didn't want to be him or model my life after him, I wanted to be me. 

Famous people are just people. Not exceptional, not more moral, not superhuman, not born with more talent, just stinking "lucky" (a good word only if you want to be famous) most of the time. So they were in the right place at the right time or they had connections. Is that deserving of our praise and fawning? So they can do something better than you and you admire that work ethic that got them there- why not work on your skills instead of sending them fan mail, falling in love with them and never missing an event they are involved with- how will that improve your game?? People you put up on a pedestal will always disappoint you anyway. You couldn't change them if you wanted to make them conform to your standard for hero anyway. You do, however, have control over yourself, so I'd recommend putting our energy there. Why don't we put all this money and energy that we put into idolizing famous people into bettering ourselves and helping others? We could reverse this upside down or backwards culture of ours and focus  on making education and health care accessible to all instead of buying self help books that tell us how to be successful, buying into the latest absurd celebrity trend whether it be eating placenta, keeping the colon completely empty, wearing transparent dresses or necklines that plunge to the pelvis. We could reorder things so that teachers would make more than professional athletes. 

Fight to defund Planned Parenthood a la ACORN hoax

There is a new development in the abortion fight. If you remember the ACORN video during Obama's presidential campaign, you might feel a sense of deja vu.

Before we get into the controversy, let me say that this war on Planned Parenthood (as you know, this is not the first attempt to defund or shut it down) makes no sense to me. Besides the whole problem I have with others being involved in your choices affecting your family, sexuality, and body and NO ONE ELSE'S, there are other absurdities. Planned Parenthood offers many services to low income people as well as sex education, birth control, and treatment and aid when women are raped. Why would you want to block other people's access to these, in some cases, life saving services?? Sure, you may have a great health care plan and insurance, low co-pay, first rate doctors you can call as soon as you get the sniffles, but many people don't. Supporting movements to block access to that is heartless and hypocritical, especially since many who support this are SUPPOSED TO BE CHRISTIANS and should want to 'do unto others' and love their neighbors, love the adults as much as the fetuses.

The sources on the right, predictably led by Fox News, have cast this as 'OMG Planned Parenthood is selling babies!!!' But of course the truth is quite a bit less sensational. They want us to believe Planned Parenthood is either pressuring women to have abortions or pressuring women to sell fetal tissue so either they or the organization can make money. So instead of examining the sketchy video and submitting the rookie sting to any kind of scrutiny, Republicans want Planned Parenthood shut down (big shocker, as they have been trying to do this for ages) and a massive investigation be conducted. Makes sense, right? No.

Here is Planned Parenthood's statement:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-statement-hoax-campaign

So if you want to see the slant and the videos, you can probably find some here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/21/new-planned-parenthood-video-shows-top-doc-haggling-over-price-fetal-body-parts/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-women-betrayed/article/2568758


There were highly edited clips released (making the employee sound cavalier, making it sound as though something illegal might be going on) then the full versions were released, where it was made clear there is no trafficking in fetal tissue and in which some jokes in bad taste were made. Probably not the best way to talk about it, but not illegal. Also, when you are talking about something difficult, you sometimes make jokes, so this could have been the case. Doctors and professionals who deal with these things on a daily basis have a much greater ease in talking about them than the general public and this could be interpreted as callousness to the uninitiated. And not to mention, if we broke down every medical procedure to this level, we can make any of it sound extremely gruesome.


So of course what follows is that there is a rally in a few days in support of defunding Planned Parenthood, a long fight, not specific to this new video hoax or all new.

http://studentsforlife.org/womenbetrayed-rallies-happening-july-28th/


Now here are some sources that can shed some light on the situation, or tell the other side of the story, if you want to look at it like that. Apparently, Planned Parenthood is reimbursed for travel and transport of the tissue donations and this was cast as "illegal sale" and trafficking, which would be quite the scandal. If it had any basis in fact.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/planned-parenthood-video_n_1552672.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/02/its_hard_out_here_for_a_pimp.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/16/what_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_really_proves_right_wing_extremists_have_no_qualms_about_destroying_peoples_lives/

The racist disclaimer, decoded

I've seen a lot of good things about equality through the discussions of shooting of unarmed black men, the Charleston massacre and the confederate flag fuss*. And I've also seen some bad. So here's another rant.

I don't like talking about race. I'm a much better listener anyway. I don't have the experience to talk fluently about discrimination, but even I can see some of it and it's disgusting. I mean sure, people assume things about me because I'm quiet, we all have these types of struggles, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about real discrimination based on something arbitrary and seen immediately (like skin color, duh).

One meme making the rounds of social media says white people are not responsible for things their ancestors did.

 Hmm. Ok. . . That may be true on the surface. You don't own slaves, good on you. But sometimes you need to look a little deeper and break the code. (Side rant, excuse this- Like when you are told to be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. Are they telling you to be a Christian or are they telling you to vote Republican- or I'm sorry- not Republican, how dare I assume!, but rather the candidate, whatever party (see how open minded I am!), who opposes abortion and gay marriage and is for making the Bible our civil law) This kind of thinking not only exonerates them from crimes of their ancestors (they assume), but kind of (they hope) gives them a blanket amnesty from any racist thought or action on their part today. They are trying to disengage and wash their hands of this matter, racism, as though it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. They don't experience it, so why bother. They won't be pulled over for being black or searched in a normal traffic stop or be considered suspicious for walking home with too many people, so we are post-racial.

Black people are dealing with the consequences of slavery (even though they are not slaves currently) still and yet white people bear NO responsibility because they don't currently own slaves?? There is something seriously wrong with that thinking. Racism is learned and passed down. Racism is alive and well unfortunately. I certainly WANT to be fair and impartial, but am I consistent in that? I have no idea. Probably not. But I'm trying. That's an important difference. Your parents and grandparents may have had racist ideas, but you can break out of the bubble and decide you want to contribute to making the world better. Doing nothing encourages the status quo, the broken system.

You can't wash your hands of this and say I'm not responsible for your misfortune. We need to be asking instead how we all can succeed. We need to be striving for equality and justice FOR ALL. And to do that we might need to ask what it's like to be driving while black or what it's like to explain to your kids the injustice that exists that is part of life, that they will have to work doubly hard to succeed or be doubly "non-threatening" (using this as I have heard it used, hoping I can get the point across and not be offensive) to be heard, the things they have to be aware of so as not to be shot- not by criminals- but by the police.

[7/26/15 edit- In recent events, at the Netroots Nation conference, it was said black lives matter, all lives matter, which is kind of the same - though more of an attempt at solidarity - as the 'I don't own slaves meme.' Of course all lives matter, but the issue we are having very obvious problems understanding in actions if not ideology is that black lives in particular matter as much as everyone else's and that is the reason for the hashtag and movement. If that was an attempt at solidarity, we need to try something else.]

Also included in this self righteous racism are the political games, like the anti affirmative action argument- we just want real equality, why do black people get all the breaks? What do you even say to that kind of ignorance??

And then there are black comics like Bill Cosby (I guess he's lost some credibility, but there are probably dozens who fit the mold) who tell boys to pull up their pants and tell white people they should be able to say the "n word" too and any number of more offensive actions. See? He's black! It's ok to be racist- or- it's not racist because I'm quoting a black guy!! Wrong.

I know you don't own slaves, but you still have to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own garbage TODAY.

Silence is complicity. I don't know who said that.

*fuss= 7/26/15 edit= looking back, this seems not a serious enough word. I only meant that it is a no brainer to me that if something is as offensive as a flag under which slavery was fought for, we should take it down immediately, why was it flying anyway, especially since it doesn't represent the US or the unity we seek even aside from slavery and especially considering it.

Israeli politics and a soapbox

The Trouble With Israel
http://harpers.org/archive/2015/08/the-trouble-with-israel/

I don't know that I want to quote everything behind the pay wall; I don't know the rules there. I will put in a plug for supporting the forms of media, radio and print that are as intelligent and delve into the issues you care about, like Harpers is for me. Free is great, but supporting the musicians and media doing good things is also pretty sweet.

This article may help you if you are as confused as I am how Netanyahu got elected AGAIN, even though he seems to be bad for the times and his people.


He also nailed an assessment of US Republicans and made a fun observation of Netanyahu:

"They know that they cannot say they are for keeping things as they are, which would make them advocates for plutocracy and inequality, for which there is no majority. So instead they say that they are only against “government,” and act in ways to resist or sabotage the workings of the state apparatus. Ordinary people start saying that Washington is broken, journalists flock to valorize the voice of the frustrated citizen — and Republicans win. It’s the perfect con."

"He may fancy himself a new Churchill given another chance to preempt Hitler in 1938. But he sounds more like Curtis LeMay, the Air Force general who headed the Strategic Air Command and said in 1965 that China would have the capacity to deliver bombs as soon as twenty-five years in the future, and that therefore the United States should entertain the “destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse.”

What is propaganda?

Haaretz: Close encounters: A glimpse of Palestinian reality few American Jews ever see
http://epalestine.blogspot.com/2015/07/epalestine-haaretz-close-encounters.html?m=1
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.664542


This explains the problem with educating people on the conflict!  

"I think the instinct to talk to Palestinians is important, but I find the propaganda spin artificial to the point where you can't know anything like the real story because what they are saying is clearly not the whole story."  

When Americans hear the Israeli side, we sympathize, think about their struggle, accept it as fact and value it as a person's experience. When Americans hear the Palestinian perspective, they moan about balance, why are we only getting one perspective, why don't you write about other human rights issues (I used to get that one a lot), they consider it propaganda, and immediately explain away Israel's role in Palestinian hardships.

The answer given in the article was perfect and one I have given, too, in a way, when asked about my "one-sided" blog or writing. I always tell them you already have access to the Israeli Jewish perspective whether you are Jewish and visit there or just listen to the news here, so I have read a lot about this and know a Palestinian and this is the other side of the story. Not to mention, why should a program designed to educate about the Palestinian perspective be "equal"?? - and you can take equal to mean pro-Israel. If you didn't actually want to know the Palestinian perspective, you should have stayed in your little bubble and and not signed up for such a trip that doesn't promise you pro-Israel bias and apologetics sold as equality and justice!

Christians, separation of church and state is like your veggies- hard to swallow, but GOOD for you!

I noticed and collected a lot of memes with emotional posts on Facebook after the historic SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. The funny thing is, they are posted in proud defiance or opposition, when everyone already knows and agrees that the SCOTUS isn't the supreme being and it can't change God's laws.

 (Like screaming WATER IS WET!! And we're all waiting for the punchline, the point of difference, the reason for the outrage, while crickets chirp.)

That is PRECISELY the beauty of the separation of church and state. BOTH institutions are protected this way. When/ if we have a Christian president who rules strictly from the Bible and not for the general public well being and freedom, that is when Christianity is threatened MOST (unless we install him as supreme leader/dictator, ditch democracy and go totalitarian, only THEN can rule stay in the hands of Christians. ...well if Christians can muscle through coups, constant civil war and instability...) because with every election you could get a brand of Christianity you think is evil, or Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or Muslim and all the laws would change.

As long as we value separation of church and state, our right to worship- or not- the way we want is protected, no matter who the top guy is.

It is often said the church is not a democracy- so, if you want to live in a democracy, why do you want to have a Christian president making laws as though he were ruling the church, making church and state one? It might be convenient and simpler for you (if you are Christian) to live in a land ruled by the Bible and have all sins be legislated against, to jail liars and murderers alike, give the death penalty to gossips and homosexuals alike, but that land is not, and I hope will never be, the United States of America.

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.