Where did my vacation go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Check out the chart. Us and Australia are the only countries without significant paid parental leave. The developing world’s parents have it better than we do. The “value voters” (or any voters) don’t really take on this issue from what I can tell, but it would make sense. More sense than some other issues they champion. I mean, more time with your kids and family-wouldn’t that translate to well- or better-adjusted kids? Stronger families? Oh, but it conflicts with the almighty market system, so mothers, pop that baby out and back to work! Pronto!
I look forward to the day when I can quit and take care of the kids. Only problem is, that is more likely to occur by the time they’re in college. Then what’s the point? At that point, we need to work to have something to do with ourselves. We need the year or so off when they are young and they need us most (and we need it most), but no one can afford to do that. Except the very fortunate. It’s so backwards.

As it is now, we get 3 months to take, provided we have the vacation time to do it and your boss doesn’t pressure you to return. Mine didn’t, but it happens. By law, you can’t lose your job. If it disappears, they have to provide an equal one or something like that. From the point of view of mothers, though, 3 months is nothing. You spend most of it hormonal, fat, hair falling out, in pain, and trying to get the hang of breastfeeding and caring for a being that totally depends on you. On my first leave, I was in pain and uncomfortable the entire time-the first half from the c-section and the second from the surgery to fix the breast abcess I had gotten after the antibiotics didn’t work on the mastitis. Having the year off would send women back to work who actually had their minds on their work, instead of worrying about the 6 week old or 3 month old they left behind, trying to stay awake every day on 3 hours of sleep, trying to find time and place to pump every few hours, etc.

Anyway, look at the chart. Sad.

***
The End of Summer Vacation
http://www.slate.com/id/2193389/

We don’t get as much vacation time as other nations. Surprise! Surprise! We would much rather drop dead of a heart attack that take a few weeks off of work to enjoy ourselves and our family. The American dream. Thanks again market economy! You work so you can have more money, then you have no time to enjoy it. If you take the time off, you won’t have the money.
A week or less at Christmas, a few days at Thanksgiving, several days for child care issues and… POOF! No vacation left. People have asked me what I’m doing for summer vacation. I’d love to say we’re going to the Bahamas or even the beach 3 hours away, but no. Summer vacations ended in high school really.

It is also said that Americans don't take the time they have off anyway. Maybe that's why it's disappearing. I saved my leave so I could take a "decent" (by American standards) maternity leave. Some may feel like they can't take off because they'll lose customers or look like a slacker to their boss. Mine accumulates (within a certain limit), so I'm constantly saving it so I can take more than a day off to see family, etc.


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS130132+15-Apr-2008+PRN20080415
U.S. 14
Canada 17
Great Britain 26
Germany 27
France 31
Spain 37
Italy
Netherlands 28
Austria 28

Poop...and coffee

Picture from: http://www.carlspackler.com/archive/cs_183.jpg

When I heard about the coffee described below, I thought about this scene from Caddyshack. (It's a Baby Ruth bar, if you haven't seen the movie.) Even some fairly innocuous items in different settings can cause a degree of panic...

My husband keeps talking about this coffee. There is a really expensive coffee that is pooped by weasels. Imagine that! Would you pay $48 a cup for civet poop coffee?? I think I’ll pass. Pretty crazy stuff. Chock Full of Nuts or Starbucks will do just fine! Maybe you can get it cheaper "unprocessed". Ew.

But this is funny...
http://www.ravensbrew.com/NewFiles/kopiluwak.html

And Wikipedia comes through with this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

Bush sewage plant!

This is for real. Some Californians are pushing to rename a sewage plant after Bush in commemoration of his policies and legacy. This is great. I kind of hope it passes. Only in California! Too funny.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html

The Dark Side

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals by Jane Mayer

This is the latest book I want to read. We'll see if it happens. It seems like I only read a small fraction of the ones I want to read. Some of it is due to the fact that a lot of the books are political and become less relevant 5 or so years down the line. Part of the joy of reading things like the Bush Tragedy is seeing researched and in print what was dismissed as fiction by the neocon right for the longest time (poor Cheney still hangs on to much of it).

This one is great. It's the story of the interrogation debacle(s) and the evolution of policy on these issues. What the intel agencies/Bush admin did was use a program (SEER) designed during the Cold War for our people to resist interrogations and use it in reverse to interrogate "suspects". Torture is known to produce forced confessions. Cold War Soviet use of the tactics wasn't even designed to gain real intel; false confessions were fine with them--and we are using and have used these same tactics!

Also interesting is 1/3 in Gitmo were mistakenly picked up. One anecdote is a student identified his teacher as a terrorist for giving him a bad grade. Since we got rid of the Geneva Conventions, we no longer had to check into or even ask about such things. Half of those held are thought to be guilty.

Terror And The Unraveling Of America's Moral Fabric

Fresh Air- NPR 7/15/08- awesome interview

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92528583

McCain and Iran

McCain singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.

US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html

McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc

Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.

Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on

Politics and the pulpit

2019 edit: Interesting how even at this early stage, how I was putting things together. If abortion was truly murder, then rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. I didn't quite come round to the full thought put forward in  Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice - that the fact that they allow for those exceptions shows they aren't interested in the zygote so much as the woman's behavior...

Back to 2008...
It’s an election year again and I’m reminded of my unending personal debate. I’m fairly conservative religiously compared to the general population, but fairly liberal otherwise. I grew up listening to my dad, my parents’ friends, and even sermons in church say and imply that the Republican party offers the most Godly platform and positions and candidates and so we Christians should vote that way. The sermons generally wouldn’t say vote Republican explicitly, but you could tell what they were getting at. In my parents’ house, with their friends and to some degree among the Christians I grew up with, liberal was a dirty word- used almost like a slur.

For the Christians, including my parents, that I speak of I have the utmost respect and I agree totally with them on matters of Scripture. I do take issue with when Bible and Christianity mix with politics, though, and I hope if any of them happen to read this that they don’t take offense or think me disrespectful. I’m still trying to muck out my political position exactly. There isn’t really a party that captures my beliefs perfectly, no candidate that I can feel passionate about supporting.

I have a problem with saying candidate or party A is against abortion and gay marriage and the Bible is against them, therefore I must support A. I believe and can provide Scriptural support for their (and my) position that abortion and homosexuality are sin, but I think the fact that you must support candidates that have that position is opinion because it’s not that simple. Let me explain my thought process.

What was and is Jesus’/God’s goal or desire? That all would come to Him, that is, believe and live faithfully. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 say this quite well. When we look at Jesus’ example, he didn’t want to change (inside or outside the set process of government) the government even though the Romans were quite harsh on Christians and it was far from Godly. His focus was on individual responsibility because that is how we’ll be judged- John 12:48 and Rom 2:6. While I can see some value to having Christian leaders of a country, there are problems, too. One being the issue of having religious influence in government such that laws would be specific to certain denominations or something like that-the slope is slippery and I fear that myself and those who believe like I do wouldn’t be in the majority, so we’d be at their mercy.

One way to accomplish this (Jesus’ desire), some might say, is electing Christian officials to enact Christian laws and ones that don’t violate God’s law. This seems a little backwards to me, though there is some truth to the expression “fake it til you make it”. Another, the opinion I hold for now, is to focus on spreading the gospel individually such that people choose not to have abortions, rather than go the more authoritarian route. I think everything has a moral issue to consider whether it’s the abortion stance, how well he will handle money (money God blessed me with and I am to be a good steward of), or whether he will attack countries at will, killing innocent people for no real reason. The point is, is that how to accomplish God’s desire is opinion. Sin is sin and there is Bible proof for that, but who you elect, whether you are pro separation of church and state or against, and other political issues are open for debate. There has been a movement in the past decade to politicize certain religious issues, which has removed the necessity to think for oneself. Not to say that those who disagree with me aren’t thinking for themselves-far from it-but the propaganda doesn’t help us talk intelligently and freely about these issues.

I also have an issue with the fact that the abortion ban poses some problems. It is murder when used as birth control and even in the case of rape and incest (on which most Republicans will take exceptions BTW), but what about ectopic pregnancy or other instances that I can’t think of where the question is to save the baby or mother or both are in danger? Will an abortion ban account for those, albeit, small number of cases? Should it, Biblically? Since I can’t answer that, I have a hard time with saying ban abortion absolutely and vote for those who will work to ban abortion. Never mind the fact that the so-called family values candidates are willing to murder a baby when the mother was raped. It’s a hard situation for sure. Would I make the right decision? I don’t know. But there is a right decision there and Republicans and Christians who support Republicans as the Godly choice have no problem with murder in those cases (or they must not because they say they can’t support a pro choice candidate because he leaves the door open on murder).

Also invoked in election years is how the country needs to get back to its Christian roots. I don’t think we want state established religion, do we? That’s how we started. If you didn’t attend twice on Sunday there were a set of consequences that involved the gallows at sea. And if you weren’t the “correct” denomination, there were harsh consequences including but not limited to prison. Founding Faith is an interesting book to read on this subject. The Founding Fathers and others of the time (who weren’t part of the state enforced denominations) tended to believe, with some exceptions, that separation of church and state would be good for both in different ways. Now, religious folks often look at separation of church and state as evil, worldly, and trying to take God out of schools, etc.

I hesitate to post this as some will probably think it heresy or worse, but this is a pet peeve of mine-politics from the pulpit- and I don’t always say what I want and don’t always have opportunity to say it, so I’ll write it here and move on. I hope you can do the same. I apologize if anyone reads it and it’s hard to follow or if I don’t explain myself clearly-I did my best with the time I have.

I guess I'll post it. Here goes...

Omer's beating: a lesson to innocent Palestinians??

This is something I posted at http://share.triangle.com (N&O). My fellow N Carolinians aren't much interested in foreign affairs it seems. I've got some in politics and current events and no one responds, so I'll turn it into a blog post. Not that anyone will read this, either!

Mohammed Omer was beaten (to put it mildly!) by Shin Bet on his way back to Gaza from London after receiving the Martha Gellhorn Prize for journalism.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/06/28/israelia_8217_s_beat_and_torture_returni

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/headlines

10th topic down

Is this proof that the oft repeated claim that if the Palestinians would stop doing x, y or z then Israel wouldn't have to use force is false?

When Palestinians who are obviously innocent and unarmed are treated in this way, what incentive is there for other not so prominent Palestinians to turn from violence or resist joining the violent fringe?

Was this a political statement by Israel? Are they trying to silence his reporting in Gaza?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/7/award_winning_palestinian_journalist_mohammed_omer

Shin Bet response to the issue: Omer “received decent treatment and no extraordinary measures were taken against him.” Read and decide for yourself. Should the US also institute these routine measures? We have learned a lot from Israel about torture-Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc. I wonder if these critical safety measures will accompany the taking off of shoes in our security procedure since they are routine and so effective.

Check this link if you want to know exactly what happened to this guy. It was obviously not in the name of security. The agent said we wouldn't have let you out if we knew you were coming back. The guy posed absolutely no threat and did nothing threatening except speak out at conferences, which in a democracy you'd think this would be respected to some degree. The agent reveals that the goal of so called security measures (entry policies, collective punishment, and torture) is ethnic cleansing. Pure and simple. Security is not part of it at all.

If this is how the innocent are treated, how can Palestinians believe that even if they had power over the militant groups to stop suicide bombing, that they would get rights, justice, respect, etc?? Collective punishment so harsh that it involves killing, torture, bulldozing homes, etc of innocents is not proportional or warranted in response to the threat. They have the wrong target and criticize suicide bombers for targeting innocents. Their weaponry is more advanced, precise, and plentiful and still they target or have A LOT of "accidents". Is Israel any better than those suicide bombers?

Israel and children

10-year-old subjected to torture by Israeli soldiers
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=811&CategoryId=1

How many times have you heard this story in the last week?? If this were an Israeli killed or injured by a homemade rocket, we'd hear it several times a day for several days.

We have very cozy relations with this country, one that we call the only democracy in the Middle East. WHY? It is debatable whether or not they have "democratic values" and respect for human rights. Ok, it's not debatable. They flout international law, continue to build settlements in defiance of international law and our restatement of international law on the subject, and think it's just fine to punish/torture a whole population for the crimes of a few.

McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton all made appearances at the AIPAC, trying obsequeously to win them over. Obama even abandoned his diplomacy theme (which is something that drew me in) for tough talk on Iran. Our Senators and House members preface their comments in the chamber with prolific praise and examples of how their constituents are friends of Israel. This is disconcerting to say the least, but I'll bet you won't hear them reprimanding their "friend" for this abuse, people that have died at checkpoints, use of human shields, settlement building, etc any time soon.

Why not? We hear about every injury and the periodic death by homemade Palestinian rocket. The Palestinian injuries and deaths mount in almost total silence, though they are almost triple the Israeli deaths. Are there just so many, that people would or have gotten tired of hearing about it? Is it because Israelis look and dress like "us" and Palestinians are brown? Are the Territories just too dangerous to report in, so they look to Israel, which has some action, but not too much? Conspiracy, carelessness, desensitization?

Congress can't speak out or they will lose their AIPAC funding or AIPAC will fund their opponent to get a more pro Israel candidate. Where are the journalists? Journalists seem to love covering hurricanes. They will stand there until they themselves blow away and seem to love every second of it.

Bulldozer attack

The big news is a Palestinian who went on a "rampage", killing three. Given that Israel, with the help of the company, Caterpillar, has bulldozed thousands of homes, made an average of 12 homeless per home, and killed indiscriminately, I'd say we should have expected this a lot sooner. You might call it ironic.

It's called a terror attack, but is it not possible that a Palestinian who's fed up with the Israeli oppression is driven crazy by possibly family being killed by IDF, lack of movement, Israel induced stagnant economy, etc? This one makes the news because the victims are Israeli. The 5000 homes demolished are not worth mentioning because Palestinians are losing everything, sometimes their lives; no Jews were harmed. Rachel Corrie made the news, but our government refused to hold Israel responsible, as it folded to Israel's wishes in the USS Liberty attack. I guess if we gave up our own servicemen to save Israel's rep, why sweat one young girl, right?

Here is the link for the Big Story- Palestinian bulldozes three in terror attack
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/02/israel.bulldozer/index.html?iref=nextin

Everyone is calling this a terrorist act, trying to find a group that will claim responsibility, etc. Israel's home demolitions and associated murders are just administrative moves- journalists don't mention terrorism, collective punishment, land grabs, or even do a follow up with the family ot find out what their next move is (as in other disasters) if they report it at all. The President doesn't call with condolences when Israelis are driving the bulldozers that crush homes, kill people, crush cars, etc. Mention "national security" and murder and destruction of property are immediately justified, no matter how unrelated it is to national security and how little sense it makes otherwise.

I heard a good point mentioned recently: Where were the bulldozers razing the family homes of relatives of the guy who assassinated Rabin? That's Israel's policy, right?

Here are some facts on home demolitions and other examples of Israel's continued commitment to human rights:

http://icahdusa.org/facts

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1

Terror watch uses local eyes
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077

This sounds scary. Or it could be. It doesn't look that bad in the article, but the fact that things you do and say that aren't even illegal are being recorded and could be pieced together in patchwork fashion to frame you if the need arose is crazy. This opens the door for abuse, big time. On one hand it's great they're being vigilant; on the other, we're all a bad picture away from Guantanamo.


Preparing the Battlefield
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh knows what's up. When he wrote about Iraq, I was thinking...naw...Bush isn't that crazy. It would be too hasty, there are too many former officials dissenting, the evidence doesn't seem to be there yet. And we ended up in a disaster there.

I didn't imagine it. I thought maybe I'd confused some news stories as I was listening to CNN while nodding off on the couch...

Mofaz said: "Israel would attack Iran "if it continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons". "

Mofaz criticised over Iran threat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7442471.stm

If this is true (and it probably is), who do you think will foot the bill? Who do you think will volunteer it's citizens gladly, without a thought to what's in its citizens' best interest? Israel won't even have to declare war. There will be some back door calls or visits to the White House by Israeli officials and we will happily sacrifice our sons and daughters for Israel's paranoid perceived existential threat because we have promised to protect Israel at all costs. It's in the oath of office for president and Congress. It must be. Why else would we hold to this even when it completely is at odds with our interests and security??

Israel's writing a check our American butts are going to have to cash. But that's never happened before, right? ;)

murder in Israel, scholarships revoked, Rachel Ray the terrorist, links

Pipe bombs or cell phone- Can you tell the difference? Israeli soldiers can’t.

http://www.mahsanmilim.com/fahmi_aldardukE.htm

This story makes you wonder how many more like this incident occur that we don’t hear about…

This boy was on a cell phone with a headset at a checkpoint and was shot several times. Israel officially maintains that the boy was a suicide bomber armed with pipe bombs with wires visible. The headlines in Israel for this were that an attack was “thwarted”. Other Israeli reports indicated the incident was an “accident”.

***
Israel and the US punish the type of people they claim they want running a new Palestinian state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/world/middleeast/30gaza.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The New York Times
May 30, 2008
U.S. Withdraws Fulbright Grants to Gaza
By ETHAN BRONNER

Irresponsible moves like this contradict our peace rhetoric. Israel’s interests seem to trump our own in a variety of ways. This is merely one example. Why are we making moderate hardworking Palestinians pay for the crimes of extremists?? Perhaps this is why we don’t hear the voices of moderates (or so the neocons say); they are drowned out by the media recording our and Israel’s tunnel vision that’s focused only on extremists. We refuse to question Israel’s policies, even when they are in opposition to our interests or just plain absurd. Israel tells these students to change their government and then we’ll let you travel, trade, and eat. This is like telling a man stuck in a deep well to climb out and then we’ll give you a rope. Absurd, but why change? It’s been policy for so long…


Let the responsible parties know that you insist that the Fulbright scholarships be reinstated, and that Israel be pressed to allow the awardees to travel:

Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board Chair
Ms. Shirley Moore Green 202.453.8189 greenm@state.gov

Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs
Political Affairs Office
Matthew Rosenstock (202) 647-1481 rosentstockms@state.gov

Deputy Secretary of State for Visa Services
Stephen A. "Tony" Edson (202) 647-9584 tonye@state.gov

My letter:
Dear Ms Green,

I was outraged and extremely disappointed to hear that you are revoking the scholarships earned by 7 deserving Palestinian students.

The US claims to support a two state solution, academic freedom, and moderate Arabs. This refusal to help these Palestinians get to the US to study flies in the face of all these noble goals. Support for Israel is popular in the US, but we really need to re-examine our unconditional support, especially when it interferes with our national interests. It is in our best interest to get these moderate, educated Palestinians to the US to study so that they can help build a Palestinian state, learn about our democratic system, and so we can encourage moderate political discourse in the region.

What's more, Israeli officials claimed to be surprised to find that these students received scholarships and couldn't get to the US and were having the earned scholarships revoked. It just feels like we didn't even try to persue any dialogue with Israel on this issue of students leaving Gaza. Even if it is your policy to leave the travel arrangements up to students alone, this is a special case that warrants intervention as it is well known that Gaza is under lock down and conditions in Palestinian areas are difficult in every aspect of life to say the least.

Please make an effort to get these 7 students to the US and to give future students freedom of movement.


***
Rachel Ray’s a Terrorist!

This shouldn’t even be an issue. Rachel Ray wore a paisley scarf for a Dunkin Donuts ad. Far right or neocon bloggers complained that it looked like a keffiyeh and henceis a symbol of terrorism. At first DD just stated the facts, that the scarf has no meaning and is paisley and was chosen by a stylist, then they pulled the ad under pressure of a right wing boycott. A) It wasn’t a keffiyeh and B) the Palestinian scarf isn’t a symbol of terrorism (all Arabs aren’t terrorists).

And I thought Ann Coulter was an idiot…
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/28/the-keffiyeh-kerfuffle/

This guy has it right. He points out that she wrote a book supporting internment, so that should discredit her as far as rational thought goes.
http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2008/06/keffiyeh-pseudo-controversy-blogger.html

The head of marketing at Dunkin Donuts is Frances Allen; her e-mail address is frances.allen@dunkinbrands.com

The Dunkin Donuts Customer Care service line: (800) 859-5339. Be patient calling this number, it takes some time to get through.

You can e-mail your concerns to customerservice@dunkinbrands.com or send a letter to:

Dunkin' Donuts Public Relations Department
130 Royall Street
Canton, MA 02021
Tel: 781.737.5200

My letter:
Dear Ms Allen,

I was encouraged to hear you dispel the rumor that Rachel Ray was wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh.

Then, I was amazed and miffed that you would cave to the extreme far right fearmongers in this country who want us to believe that all Arabs are terrorists. I thought we had come farther in our understanding of Arab culture, but that is apparently not the case. This is aside from the fact that Ray was not actually wearing a hijab, headdress, Arab scarf, etc at all.

I am extremely disappointed because I love Dunkin Donuts (until now), but I regret that you have made a political decision to side with fearmongers and promote fear of Arabs and Islamophobia and so me and anyone that I and many organizations contact will not be buying anything Dunkin Donuts. You could have stuck to your guns (scarf was paisley) and stayed above the fray (remain apolitical), but you didn't.


***

Archbishop Tutu meets devastated Gaza family
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/archbishop-tutu-meets-devastated-gaza-family-835867.html

Jimmy Carter for the first time exposes Israel as having 150 nuclear weapons
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987703.html

Body of 15 year old Palestinian boy found mutilated in Israeli settlement
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m43179&hd=&size=1&l=e

Israeli occupation forces continue the economic genocide
http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/27/eighteen-years-of-work-destroyed-in-less-than-four-hours/

Palestinian Suffering Dampens Israel Celebration by Bessy Reyna
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-reyna0516.artmay16,0,3405837.column

Sixty Years of Dispossession, Humiliation, and Oppression in the Middle East by Susan Abulhawa
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/05/14/02348.html

Dancing on graves – Israel celebrates 60 years
http://palestine.org.nz/phrc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1

Australia may be close to a paid maternity leave, as I heard on the BBC today. That would leave us, the US, dead last, trailing even developing nations with zero paid leave for working mothers. Almost makes me want to move to Sweden. They get 18 months. Wikipedia has all countries. It's interesting. It made me mad, but it's interesting nonetheless.

****
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_mcclellan_book

Condi's commenting on Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened. She sure is saying a lot for someone who's not going to comment on a book she hasn't read!

Interesting to me is that the White House and others quoted aren't really saying McClellan's making false statements. They are just "puzzled" and think it's "sour grapes". Condi is trying to take issue. She says WMD was the fundamental reason; McClellan says the primary reason was spreading freedom, etc. The way I remember it was McClellan's point, then that faded to the WMD focus. Regime change was cited after the invasion as a primary reason, I think. WMD was bogus, so they had to think of something else.

She also backpedals a bit and cites excuses:

'It wasn't just us who was concerned about WMD'

'Those skeptics should have stood against UN sanctions/oil for food'

'If you believe he wasn't a threat to international community, then why allow Iraqis to suffer under oil for food'


There WERE critics of the admin's approach! All the former officials speaking out is what made me seriously doubt Bush & Co's plan. They just chose to ignore them and dismiss them as unpatriotic, etc. There were also critics of oil for food speaking out. I read things about Hussein getting rich while the people starved. None of those things Condi cited justify the invasion of Iraq. AND, Hussein was pitched as an imminent threat against the US, not just the international community in general. He was implicitly linked to 9/11 more than once by Cheney and Bush, etc.

Soup Nazi

Norman Finkelstein was arrested at the airport in Israel on his way to the Occupied Territories.
He's banned for 10 years. It's almost funny. Except it's real. It's a bit comical like the soup Nazi. No entry for you! Come back 10 year! Next!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/23/headlines

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1700

----------

If you think US support for Israel is remotely a good idea, have ever thought- why do they hate us, are American or Jewish or a politician... well... just read it.

It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence From Israel
http://www.alternet.org/story/55827/

Ok, you've heard my rant, now here's someone more eloquent :


Bush in Israel

Refugees are the Key

By SAM BAHOUR

“[When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence it] was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David: a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

“You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth.”

- President George Bush, May 15, 2008

President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset to mark Israel’s sixtieth anniversary. The President’s speech was absent of any real insight or policy. Instead of addressing the politics of a region that can only be equated to a powder keg about to explode, he assumed the other worldly role of bestowing on Israel a religious right, one dangerously terrifying because it represents the views of the most rabidly extremist Jews, similar to the Jewish law student that assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the gun-toting Israeli settlers (many holding dual U.S./Israeli citizenship) that populate Israel’s Jewish-only settlements across the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

President Bush used the out-dated words “Eretz Yisrael” [biblical Land of Israel] to depict the Israeli state. This sort of usage was, and is, exactly what most right-wing Jewish fundamentalists use to refer to an Israel that reaches from the Euphrates River, in what’s left of today’s Iraq, to the Mediterranean Sea.

Adding insult to injury, he went on to praise Israel’s welcoming of immigrants from around the world to populate the newly created State of Israel. It meant absolutely nothing to President Bush that the indigenous Palestinian population, lingering for 60 years only hours away from where he was standing while addressing the Knesset and on whose ruins Israel was built, remains today’s longest standing refugee community.

The Palestinian refugees symbolize the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The refugee problem has its roots in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which ended in the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (approximately half of the Arab population). According to historical accounts of the War, including from recent Israeli historians, Jewish Zionist forces precipitated the flight of the Palestinian Arabs as part of a campaign of population transfer. The nascent State of Israel subsequently enacted laws to expropriate the refugees’ property and bar their return. The refugees were left homeless and destitute, mostly dependent on foreign aid for survival. The subsequent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in the further displacement of around 200,000 Palestinians.

Today there are over 5.5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who have never been allowed the choice to return to their homes or given redress for their losses. The continued denial of their rights encapsulates the decades-long strife, disenfranchisement and dispossession the Palestinians have suffered.

With the advent of the peace process in the early 1990s, hopes were ignited that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip would end and the plight of the refugees would be resolved. These hopes were dashed as the negotiations reached an eventual deadlock, leading to a stalemate and Israeli military onslaught on Palestinian areas that continues to plague the region.

Following the breakdown of the talks there was much debate about who was to blame for the failure. But this debate obscures the larger problem stoking the flames of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: Israel’s unwillingness to comply with rules of international laws, including the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and third party failure to enforce them.

Taking the Palestinian refugee issue as a case in point, the State of Israel, who controls the key to solving their problem, has refused to recognize the right of the refugees to choose whether to return to their homes and denied any responsibility for the problem since 1948. Israel has adopted this position in violation of international law, including UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation. The General Assembly has affirmed this most basic human right of the Palestinian refugees every year since 1948. Additionally, admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948. At the time, Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.

Israel has defended its refusal to concede the right of return on the grounds that the massive return of Palestinian refugees would spell the death of the Jewish state. But admitting its historical responsibility to the Palestinian people and recognizing the rights of the refugees could in fact deliver security and prosperity to Israel. Indeed, Israeli recognition of these basic principles would improve the atmosphere on the ground, help create more parity between the parties, and provide a fair framework for working out the details of a peace plan for resolving the conflict.

Israel’s first Prime Minister said that “the old [refugees] will die, and the young will forget”. A few days ago, Israel’s current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explicitly stated that Palestinians must, “relinquish your demand for the realization of the right of return.” Following these ill- fated desires, Israel has sought to deny or delay addressing the refugee issue. However, the amount of blood shed since 1948 proves the fallacy and the immorality of the Israeli position. Adhering to it will only lead to more bloodshed.

The rights of the Palestinian people, and in particular the refugees, should be recognized alongside any legitimate rights of the Israeli people. Ultimately, it is through the evenhanded application of international legitimacy that we may be able to get out of the current stalemate and reach real grounds for peace. Otherwise, the failed Israeli practice of “might is right” will prevail and prolong needless death and destruction on all sides.

It does not come as a surprise to Palestinians, and an ever-growing number of non- Palestinians, that President Bush’s speech reflected blindness to the plight of Palestinian refugees. Those Palestinians from the Diaspora, not refugees, but Palestinians with their homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with non-Palestinian foreign nationals trying to assist Palestinians by working and serving in the occupied territory, have become the latest category of victims of the most recent application of the Israeli “might is right” mindset. Israel has been denying entry to scores of foreign nationals, Palestinians and others, trying to enter the occupied territory. The mass majority of these foreign nationals are U.S. citizens and the Bush Administration, although acknowledging that Israel is discriminating against U.S. citizens based on their ethnicity, have done very little in standing up to its “eternal” ally Israel in order to resolve this latest problem.

If U.S. citizens are left to vie for themselves in the face of Israeli intransigence, Palestinian refugees are absolutely correct in not believing that any U.S. mediated “peace process” will lead to the realization of their inalienable rights, including the right of return.

Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism and the author of the infamous novel The Old New Land (Altneuland) and the book The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat), who Bush was keen on recalling in his speech, is surely laughing in his grave at Bush’s visit to Israel and his being more Zionist than Israeli extremists.

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the besieged Palestinian City of El-Bireh in the West Bank. He co-edited with Staughton and Alice Lynd HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and can be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.

http://www.counterpunch.com/bahour05172008.html

Nakba

Bush's speech to Knesset
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text_1

Two very disturbing themes emerged from this obstacle to peace. One was the specific and repeated references to Israel's "historic" "right" to be there, going back to Abraham. The other was the militaristic pep talk that faded to obsequious silliness towards the end. Had it ended on that note, I would have fully expected Bush to lead the Knesset-army out marching and take over Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the speech.

As usual, I couldn't believe what came out of Bush' mouth. His speech writer must be a member of the AIPAC and a big Zionist bigot.

A reference to Ariel Sharon, man of peace - A moniker that still puzzles me. At least he got the warrior part right. Dude loved a fight.

In one paragraph, he hits on two contentious points.
1. "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate."This is a quote from their Declaration of Independence. The Jews have this right and no one else does, apparently. Why not say all people do, if that's what you believe. They don't believe that, that's why. Israel is a state for Jews, not its citizens and has been since its inception.
2. "...redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael."The previous was a political opinion. Now, here, Mr. Bush, you're messing with the Bible. Not only is this unhelpful in our quest as an unbiased mediator, but it is Biblically incorrect. Bush repeats this misconception that in 1948, a Biblical prophecy was fulfilled about Jews returning to a homeland. At one time, the Israelites were God's chosen. With Jesus' death, resurrection and acension, that is no longer the case. Not to mention that the Israelites and today's Jews aren't the same. God did promise the Israelites land and they obtained it, but keeping it was conditional on following God and they turned away. God told them in detail what would happen if they turned away- kicked off the land, pestilence, wars, etc. Bad stuff. A lot of that happened in AD70 when Jerusalem was invaded and temple destroyed. This was symbolic of the fulfillment of the old and coming of the new (Christianity/Jesus). Talk in the prophets of the returning of God's people to Zion after their rejection is symbolism for everyone coming to God through Christ, rather than literal Jews coming to literal Israel. The language is clear if you read it (also Hebrews discusses it).

"unbreakable alliance", "friendship", "shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul" - more obstacles that prevent the US from helping in any way. In fact, it is detrimental to any peace, justice or positive development in the region. And there is more still of Bush bestowing on Jews the religious right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the name of freedom and democracy.

In a mention of the holocaust, Bush again, wrongly, references the “promise of God,” or Israel.
He quotes Golda Meir. This deluded woman has also said there is no such thing as Palestinians.
In a paragraph about the “struggle” for independence, Bush makes them sound heroic-”in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats”. The part about welcoming immigrants is a half truth. They are welcome if they are Jewish. The Arabs that have lived there since the beginning and who are citizens aren’t even welcome. I found this lie particularly funny and out of place, seeing how many Americans are aware of Israel‘s war crimes: “love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity”. Yeah, imprisoning people for political reasons, denying fair trials to Arabs, and treating people like cattle at the many checkpoints, and generally oppressing and collectively punishing an entire population for the crimes of a few. That sounds like liberty and dignity, all right. I guess the Iraq disaster has taught us Israel and the US share a desire to carpet bomb Israel’s neighbors and torture “suspects”. We do have that in common, at least. Worked for peace and fought for freedom?? I’m just not buying it. I’d buy state sponsored terrorism. That fits. Aparthied. I’d buy that. Worked for peace? No. It just doesn’t match the facts on the ground.

He mentions an agricultural miracle?? Whaa??? He’s totally buying into the old myth that Israelis made the desert bloom. What happened was that they expropriated the most fertile land, then diverted most of the Palestinians’ water resources to the dry areas they stole. Today, Palestinians have a serious water crisis and have to look thirstily at the green yards and full swimming pools in illegally built settlements. No miracle there. Palestinians were left with a lot of rocky areas they had to work hard to get any use of- that is more of a miracle, but since it is a positive Palestinian development, it is totally ignored by the US.

Bush mentions several Jewish tourist attractions he visited and said that he’s seen Israel’s character. He didn’t visit any Israeli Arab or Muslim sites (that he mentioned)-guess they don’t factor into Israeli character. Only Jews matter and Bush is applauding and supporting this racist view. He says this, then wants to talk peace and compromise. It is easy to see who will be expected to compromise.

He speaks of moral clarity, value of life, right to a peaceful life, without so much as a nod toward Palestinians.

He says he’s ashamed of the UN for trying to do what no one else dares- to put Israel in it’s racist, oppressive place.

He condemns anti-Semitism (the Jewish kind), which is good, but stops just short of repeating another lie, that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Why don’t free people have the right to examine and question a state’s right to exist, or right to oppress, right to extra-judicially assassinate, right to demolish homes, right to cause a humanitarian disaster, right to influence or control another population’s elections, right to collectively punish?

“On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.”

Ok…I know where Bush is going with this, but Israel’s definitely in the latter category. I think Bush is of the opinion that terrorists are different than Palestinians in general, but with this speech (and other sentiments like it), you’d never know it. In speeches like this, you’d think all Palestinians or Arabs are terrorists or that there are no Palestinians-just Israeli Jews and the Terrorists.

As for breaking ties with Israel, Bush gives no real reason why we reject it. We just do. He says it’s propaganda, so he must be right. He was right about WMD’s, so, let’s all get on board with this, ok?

He leaves an opening for attacking Iran-home run in Israel. Israelis are ready to elect him PM now. Maybe Bush is trying to get elected over there. Maybe this is a stump speech. It would explain a lot.

“to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope”

He just said a few paragraphs ago that he doesn’t expect anyone to talk to those they deem terrorists and here we are extending tolerance? Extend our vision and offer tolerance?? Seems like everyone has to do it our way and anyone who has a different idea is a terrorist.

A rather anti-diplomacy speech. Political problems need political solutions, not threats of carpet bombing or worse. Peace won’t come without justice. Bush may be right that peace follows democracy, but there is a need for justice that the US is incapable of overseeing. Some may say it’s not our job, but our government seems to think it is. If they are going to do it, I say, do it right. Acknowledge both sides’ suffering, concerns, violations, progress, etc. Dish out criticism to whoever is doing wrong, not just the people you can’t identify with.


If I had just 3 words, they'd be: obstacle to peace.
Until later...

Election

I have been holding onto this post, so I'll just go ahead and post it. I guess it kinda defeats the purpose of a blog, huh?

Well, this post comes from a discussion at work about why people support one candidate versus another- I thought I should justify to myself my choice for Obama. Is he just more charismatic or do I like his policies? Another issue that plagues every election is Roe v. Wade. Should I vote on this issue alone? Some hard core Republicans I know and love would say yes. While I do think it is a life and death issue as well as a moral issue, there are other moral issues. Actually, a lot of Democrats I know are voting solely to uphold this court decision as well (the next president will have to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices most likely). They see it as too much church in the state.

The only quotes about what all the fuss is about with Jeremiah Wright is something about the US policies being partially responsible for 9/11 (which I agree with) and the US lying about HIV not being invented for genocide of black people (kind of crazy IMO). Maybe the fuss is about Obama’s reaction. I think a general distancing was bad, especially if he agrees with some of Wright’s ideas, as do I. He should have come forward to tell which things that were said that he does and doesn’t agree with to clarify, rather than clarifying that he renounces the statements, but not the man. I think and even hope that was the wrong distinction, but would be disappointed to find that he didn’t stand up for hard, yet truthful, statements. Overall, this "issue" is silly. As Bill Moyers has said, how would you like your long career of speaking to be summed up in 16-20 seconds of soundbytes from your work? Maybe we aren't getting the whole picture...

Clinton, on the other hand, is talking about attacking Iran if Israel is threatened. That should be more worrisome to people (especially people who opposed our action in Iraq at any point) that the Obama-Wright “controversy”. We should be worried that Hilary is showing the same tendencies as Bush, though she will not admit it. I do hope this won’t turn into a fight about who loves Israel more, though. Reading Congressional transcripts about the Middle East peace issue, even when criticizing Israel, the session turns into an Israel love fest or contest, with each comment being preceded by how much they love Israel or what their state does for Israel/Israelis.

Another silly thing Obama is being criticized for is not wearing a flag pin. I read some articles about that while I was Googling for something else. I heard a snippet on the radio last week about what I think was this very “issue”. They lady said something like “Why can’t he just say he loves the flag?”. She quoted him as saying he revered it, which I think is more descriptive and correct to say. Why is this even an issue. He’s had to refute the false accusations that he doesn’t say the Pledge and other assorted things as well as the fact that he’s Christian rather than Muslim. I think there was a recent Jerusalem Post article proving (or trying to prove) that he is Muslim. Silly. If the man says he’s Christian, he’s Christian. If he was Muslim, why not say it? What would that matter? It wouldn’t to me, but I guess there are those ignorant folks who say all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists (such as those at JPost…)… The facts on the ground just don’t support him being Muslim or lying about being Christian. Sorry, JPost. They’ll have to find a new way to slander the guy who’d rather use diplomacy first and who doesn’t want to automatically bomb Iran and Israel’s neighbors into oblivion if he becomes President.

I like that Obama has lived in another country and has exposure to Islam. I think this will help with diplomacy and foreign policy decisions in the region that has become a focal point for us. I think the fact that he is a minority could have given him different experiences from the typical white male we’ve always had and will influence him in a positive way, even in a position of power. On the cynical side, he is male and wealthy, though, so that similarity with his predecessors could cancel out the good, there.

Freedom to Unionize, protect striking workers, raise minimum wage, open internet

I like the (somewhat unavoidable) emphasis on mortgage fraud crackdowns. I guess he has to address it. I’m not sure he’s got a good plan, though. The fund for “innocent” homeowners could become abused. I’m not sure how many are innocent. Many, many people live beyond their means on credit cards and fall to peer pressure to get more, buy big, etc. People I know tell about their friends/acquaintances who put rims on their SUV’s and buy/rent flat screen TV’s or the latest gadget, yet have trouble making the rent or mortgage. These people aren’t innocent. They are living beyond their means. It is a problem in our culture for sure, but individuals have to take responsibility and sell some stuff or do something before everything gets repo’d and they are left with nothing to show. There are tons of things I’d like to have, sure, but you have to be realistic. You have to be content with what you have. If you buy it, your income won’t magically increase to cover it. And if it goes on a credit card, on the contrary, you will have less money to work with because of those insane and often “sneaky” interest rates. And then there are those sketchy check cashing and rental places that have unbelievably high interest. These places should get some attention, but the individual should take responsibility for these decisions. I don’t know that it’s the government’s place to bail people like this out and I don’t know how to distinguish between the “innocent” and who shouldn’t be helped.

I like the fact that he wants to expand FMLA, but I think he needs to go further. Other countries have up to a year of paid leave and more weeks per year of paid vacation time as the standard. We generally get 2 weeks per year starting out, and other places get 3 or 4. Happy, rested employees make for a more productive work force. Talk about reducing the work day or week and that will be the day change is accomplished.

Some crackdown on lobbyists, but not enough to free us of AIPAC control (foreign interests ahead of ours)

More transparency.

On the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage, which will no doubt come into play when one of them is battling McCain, I’m more conservative. I am pro-life for sure and would even say I’d like to see abortion banned. I do have reservations about a total ban when the life of the baby and mother are endangered (ectopic pregnancy). I believe homosexuality is wrong, but unlike conservatives, I don’t think the government should be involved since it is not a matter of life and death. I have heard the abortion ban being called too much church in the state, but that’s a life/death issue- one that civil societies need to legislate, much like murder or theft. Life begins at conception and I just don’t see how you can argue differently. I mean, is it suddenly life in the 2nd trimester, the 3rd, at birth, when it gets fingernails, when it first cries or takes the first breath? If it is called alive at any point other than conception, then why is infanticide wrong? Not a bit of difference really, except culturally (Americans accept aborting a fetus if it is inconvenient for the mother). Gay marriage (giving the “right” or prohibiting it) legislation is more like no separation of church and state. I don’t know that I’m against civil unions. I need to think about that more.

Since I have delayed this post so long that my state's primary has come and gone this week, I will comment on that, too. Looks like Obama is gaining ground. Can't say I hate it, given the options. Of course, I would much prefer to do away with the electoral college and these party conventions and free it up for more than 2 parties to truly, viably be involved. I'd like more of a democracy, I guess. Call me crazy.

Also, Clinton said she broke the tie with Indiana?! She's taking a page out of Bush's playbook, here. Say what you wish happened, not what actually is happening. It's over, Hillary. Give it up. You're a drain on your party, now.

American accused of giving nuclear secrets to Israel

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKRA25614320080422

My first reaction is AGAIN?!! Any other country that does this to us (or keeps doing so) does not have such good relations with us. Spying and stealing secrets generally affects our relationship negatively with any country...except Israel. We keep coming back for more. We give an inch ... and , well, you know the rest. They are the little kid that keeps testing their parents' boundaries.

This quote I found particularly funny:

a senior Israeli defense official said "I find it hard to believe that, after the Pollard affair, we would recruit an American spy."

I LOL'ed. ROTFL, et al. Recruiting Americans to give info to Israel? Hard to believe?? What? This happens all the time. It's probably happening right now, as I write. Not all are as high profile as Pollard or this guy who got caught recently. The Mossad recruits tons of American Jews to do things to help Israel inside the US, whether it's set up a fake storefront to facilitate surveillance or actually pass classified material, it happens all the time. So, hard to believe? No. Not at all. Not that they'll admit it anytime soon. Until recently, they still referred to the facility at Dimona as the textile factory, long after the world knew the nukes were actually made and stored there.

Genocide and a Meeting With Terror

Carter wants US talks with Hamas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_carter

The Fox News headline, not surprisingly, is “Meeting with Terror”. They are always so over the top like an overly dramatic teenage girl. Their take on events is always entertaining. They never disappoint, there. Hope no one takes them seriously, though. It’s entertainment, not news, folks. Like the Daily Show, but different.

Anyway, our government should take a lesson from Carter. Meet with ALL involved. Hamas was elected in the democratic elections that the US and Israel demanded for peace talks to progress. When the results didn’t shake out like the US wanted, they took steps that got Gaza where it is today-in humanitarian crisis.

I was kind of disappointed that it sounds like a main goal of talks with Hamas is to get the Israeli prisoner released, not to do much else. Maybe that’s the reporting. I don’t know. Maybe Carter’s backing away from his position. Trying to make it less about Hamas and more about Israel.

===

More public calls for Palestinian genocide….and silence.

Genocide announced
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/892/re72.htm

This is a must read. It’s about those racist rabbis calling for genocide of Palestinians. It also references Avigdor Lieberman. On both, I am surprised that our government has not addressed the messages. Or am I?

It doesn’t seem like there is any public outcry or call to dissociate from these rabbis or the call to kill Palestinians. After 9/11 and throughout the war on terror, Arabs have denounced terrorism on TV, in mosques, in newspapers, etc. There is a deafening silence here, though.

There is no attention being drawn to the fact that there is no public outcry against such racist calls to action, unlike when an Arab extremist proclaims such things. Instead, in this case, people ask where is the denunciation of terror by Arabs when it is all around in all media forms.

====
Manifest Destiny?
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1208037443/
Uri Avnery
12.4.08


====

A first-hand report on current conditions in the "Holy Land" from Ed Abington, a former U.S. Consul-General in Jerusalem, for those unable to believe Palestinians themselves.

This is an excellent account of the situation in the Palestinian territories. I'm not sure of it's source, exactly, though. This is a blog. I saw "salon" in brackets, but couldn't find it there.