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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Homes

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

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

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

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

Odd political attack ad- youtube link


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

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

Summer 2014 Israeli Gaza invasion recap

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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



List of op-eds calling for the elimination of Gaza

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



Collective Punishment In Gaza

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defending Men's Rights ?!

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

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

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

Rape Nail Polish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkish coffee and Freedom Fries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny article.

A little break

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

"unexpected sad trip"

A recent scam...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things that didn't add up...

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

Google search for the text of the email:

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

IP address lookup:

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

To coexist or not to coexist...

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

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


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

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

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

Palestinian UN bid a reality??

Today we will find out if this thing is really going to happen. And if it happens, what will the fallout or result be? It's been talked about for some time. This country and that country want to sanction Palestinians for the move, say it is unilateral and unwise, threat to peace, etc. Spain will back it, Germany will abstain, the US of course will do anything to block it and Britain has conditions. Some really want to prevent it and most say it is virtual or symbolic. If it's symbolic, what's the big deal, then?

The US, for one, oddly seems to be more emphatic on blocking this apparently symbolic UN bid than on ending the very real Israeli settlement and wall building on Palestinian territory, which is ACTUALLY a threat to a solution, justice and peace (and violation of international law, UN resolutions, etc) as there will soon be no land left with which to "negotiate."Which brings us to the interesting question of when someone has forced you from city to city and finally moves in on your yard and into your house, kills your family and "generously" lets you live in the closet, controls your comings and goings, what/if you eat etc, what can you negotiate? There needs to be some context and justice in this whole situation. You can't just tell both sides to cooperate. If someone's got their boot on someone's neck, you can't just ask them to come to the table and be friends and tell the guy on the ground that he's got to respect the right of the boot to kick him around if he wants to get up again.

I don't understand the opposition whatsoever. It's past time for recognition and they won't be able to vote anyway. This whole thing started when Britain washed their hands of it and gave it to the UN. Why not take it back to the UN? (besides the fact that they haven't been able to get Israel to abide by any resolutions except the portion of the one that gave them statehood) The original partition gave a minority of Jews half of Palestinians' land. (not exactly fair to begin with...) The original idea was to protect both peoples' rights to have a homeland and have the right to live there, but that has shifted to Palestinians having to accept a Jewish majority, which is translated as Israel's "right to exist," accept being an unarmed entity, accept Israel's right to barge in and arrest and kill whomever they want and demolish whatever they want in order to get a tiny measure of freedom.

I think getting this status upgrade could only help to try and balance the imbalance of power. I don't buy that it will hurt chances for peace- if Israel's settlement building isn't considered to hurt chances for peace, then this certainly doesn't. But on the other hand, I don't know that it will be enough to balance out those military facts on the ground and the fierce opposition to the bid itself from the US and Israel.

Francis Boyle weighed in with some possible benefits for Palestinians as UN non-member observer state:

1. “Palestine can join the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and file a Complaint with the ICC against the illegal settlements and settlers, who are committing war crimes;
2. “Palestine can join the Statute for the International Court of Justice, sue Israel at the World Court, and break the illegal siege of Gaza;
3. “Palestine can join the Law of the Sea Convention and get its fair share of the enormous gas fields lying off the coast of Gaza, thus becoming economically self-sufficient;
4. “Palestine can become a High Contracting Party to the Four Geneva Conventions [this deals with the laws of war];
5. “Palestine can join the International Civil Aviation Organization and gain sovereign, legal control over its own airspace;
6. “Palestine can join the International Telecommunications Union and gain sovereign legal control over its own airwaves, phone lines, bandwidths.”


Other links:

http://news.linktv.org/videos/israeli-embassys-viral-video-attempt-mocks-palestinian-statehood-bid

http://www.cfr.org/palestinian-authority/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1128/Who-backs-Palestine-UN-bid-Ehud-Olmert-among-others-video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/hanan-ashrawi-palestinian-un-recognition-bid_n_2203714.html

Gaza 2012

I guess I have a few things to say about this, though I haven't had a ton of blogging time lately.

I was listening to David Ignacius talk about Gaza on NPR yesterday- update, who will win, etc. Of course I heard some things that made me think and get a little angry...

(Here is a much better explanation of events, in my opinion... http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/11/16/john-mearsheimer/a-pillar-built-on-sand/ )

Who will win?? Such a stupid way to describe it- no one wins in war. Have you not heard that quote about winning a war being like winning an earthquake? 

And anyway, you know who will win. Who is the 4th strongest military power and backed unconditionally by a superpower? Uh, yeah. No contest. And the winners write history. So that was easy.

Now let's talk about facts. Here are some links to help you out if you like facts and context like I do:

5 Lies the Media Keeps Repeating About Gaza
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/5-lies-the-media-keeps-re_b_2160239.html

Israel's 'right to self-defense' - a tremendous propaganda victory
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/israel-s-right-to-self-defense-a-tremendous-propaganda-victory.premium-1.478913?localLinksEnabled=false


When the Smoke Clears in Gaza
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html



Back to the radio-- a truce is spoken of, but not the one Israel interrupted with bombing in the first place...

Ignatius did mention that Clinton will only be talking to Israeli officials, PA (who have nothing to do with Hamas), and Morsi in Egypt. Congress has declared Hamas a terrorist group, so we "can't" talk to them... I think it's a good point on why our policy is messed up, but others will of course see it as why Palestinians are wrong, not a partner for peace, pick your own cliche...

Rocket attacks from Gaza are said to be the cause of this conflagration. Funny how Israel is always responding, never ever starting anything. Yeah, that's believable. Everything happens in a vacuum over there. I keep forgetting!

I've been told I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, when in fact, I just want to shake people and get them to stop drinking it. I guess it's easier to be strong in your convictions the fewer facts (context, etc) you bother yourself with.
 
NPR also mentioned how Israel wants a respite for its elections. Boo hoo. How about not putting all those innocent people in an open air prison, limiting movement, raiding them, limiting food by arbitrary embargo, counting calories so they are "put on a diet, but not killed" (sounds familiar, no?), and creating a pressure cooker situation where you keep putting the lid on and it keeps blowing up in your face. Find the solution, don't just keep putting the lid back on!

Oh by the way, Gaza doesn't have bomb shelters or sirens like Israel- they aren't allowed to dig (?!?!)- and their infrastructure is targeted in bombing. What comes to my mind is that Romney theory on why Israel is more prosperous than Palestinians- he said culture when in fact it was the occupation and Israeli boot on their necks. It's kind of the same here. It is Israeli policies that get in the way of development and, uh, not starving to death, not whichever group you want to label terrorists in this particular decade.

Think freedom, whether one state or two, reparations, reconciliation; not "surgically" targeted political assassinations in which hundreds or thousands of innocents also happen to perish, too. Let's face it, it's closer to policy than accident to kill more Palestinians. Extra-judicial assassination is not a long term solution. Compete for power the way democracies do it- not with walls, occupation, and guns.

Some of the articles above address the thorny issue of self-defense, how people play fast and loose with this term, so I won't say much more than is only one side allowed the right of self defense, existence and freedom?

Another phrase that gets thrown around in these discussions is Israel's right to exist. I have a few words to say about existence. That has also become a code word of sorts...

If you are talking about living, living in peace, fine. Existence is great. Jews have a right to exist. Palestinians have a right to exist. But what you may not realize is that when the Israeli government and many others speak of Israel's right to exist, they are talking about a very different concept. Existence to these people means a Jewish majority at any cost (research demographic threat- Arab birthrate being higher than the Jewish one)- killing, "transfer", raids, assassinations, visa trouble, family reunification trouble, building permit trouble, general daily harassment (checkpoints, closures, settler attacks, availability of goods) that makes people want to move if they have the means. 

This type of existence is code for ethnic cleansing and it is wrong. Everyone should be against it.

an Israeli soldier's story

I love The Story with Dick Gordon on NPR. This week, there was a particularly interesting one since it intersected with my interest in Israel/Palestine.

http://thestory.org/archive/20121113_The_Story__Soldier_Breaks_Silence.mp3/view

There were good and not so good points. I don't think the segment was long enough, personally. I know the point is for him to tell his story, but there were things left unaddressed. Maybe they needed a visit from Diane Rehm. She would go there! :) 

I'll have to see about the book that is mentioned- I've heard a lot of good things about Breaking the Silence.

Let me start with an explanation the guest, Oded Na'aman, gave about checkpoints. He said they aren't meant to be walls; they are supposed to let people go through and keep some out.

He begins by saying how at first, he wants to be compassionate and use good judgment, but then there was an incident that made him feel differently. His boss tells him the checkpoint must be closed indefinitely (for what reason, who knows- real reason- or some vague mumbo jumbo excuse, how often does that happen- every day- for how long- if unpredictable, how does that impact people). 

A 10 year old kid comes crying to him because he's on his way home from school and can't get back home because his checkpoint is closed, so he lets him through. An hour later, there are a bunch of crying kids- maybe they are lying, maybe not- because they heard this was the way to get through the checkpoint when all other ways out of the village are blocked. Then families send the kids to soften him up so maybe they can get through. He said letting that boy through was a mistake and he felt manipulated. This is why they feel a need to let their presence be known, he claims, so people won't even think about disturbing this (im)balance of power.

There was no discussion of why the people are that desperate to get out- the fact that checkpoints are more like walls in practice- and innocent people shouldn't be held in open air prisons. There is no stepping into their shoes and wondering if we would tolerate decades of being at the mercy of the whim of an 18 year old kid (possibly drunk with power- see later points) or occupying power- only allowed to go in and out at certain times, the unpredictability of closings, the hours long wait to get through for work, shopping, and all those simple errands we don't give a second thought to when we hop in the car, etc.

There was some good discussion of how it is easy for people to get drunk with power in this situation and how he did horrible things to people (no elaboration for him specifically) because you don't see them as people. He did say that those drunk with power can ask them to sing, dance, play violin, whatever they want because the people want so badly to get out and through that soldier is the only way to do it.

He makes some good points about anti-semitism then makes a point that I didn't agree with about having to accept Israel's existence. I agree with him that it is patriotic to speak out against your country's policies that are destructive, but you should define existence before we make the determination that you have to accept it. I agree that you shouldn't want to massacre Jews, so in that way, I accept Jewish Israelis' existence. But, if maintaining a Jewish majority is inherent in your definition of Israel's existence, this is by definition institutionalized, legal ethnic cleansing. I will not support that, nor should anyone else.

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805095373

post-election drama

Some 30-45 states want to secede from the United States?!? I didn't think that was real when I heard it. Maybe Republicans do drama better than Democrats who generally say they will move to Europe or Canada if a Republican is elected :) Crazy talk.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548572/states-petition-to-secede-from-union/

And that infamous CEO who said there may be "consequences" if people vote for Obama...is keeping that promise.


Virginia Republicans, armed rebellion and the election- I don't have a follow up on that...  What can one say to that?

Karl Rove can't believe Ohio's (and the US) called for Obama...


Fox News tells Romney supporters exactly how to get to Canada.



a little of the Facebook pre- and post-election feel:

(though my recent purge probably prevented me from getting the ones that would have really made your jaw drop...)

This is just a sample of things I disagree with, not meant to single anyone out- it was rampant.

 "It is clear in the Bible that God is an angry God when we don't follow him, He is a jealous God when we worship others over Him, and He wants us to stand up for what is right. Now is the time! Now is the time to stand on the rooftops and shout that this is NOT OK! Babies dying in their mother's belly because they are an inconvenience in NOT OK! Gay marriage is NOT OK! It is NOT OK to take God out of our schools! Christians, it is ok to be mad! It is ok to make your voice heard!"
-God's chosen were the Israelites and they had a purpose- to bring us Christ who established the church which was accomplished in his death and resurrection. I seriously cannot believe God will be mad if a Democrat is elected or happy if a Republican is elected. We are saved through Christ, not the government. We should act like it.


"Christians losing their rights." Really?
Obama Admin Tells Court: Hobby Lobby Must Obey HHS Mandate-We still have the right to assemble, worship, pray, disagree with the President, same as when Republicans ran things.


"I don't understand why if all these people wanted to live in a socialist country, why didn't they just go to Europe? There was absolutely no need to ruin this one!"
-I just don't get the socialism thing. I know people are trying to make a point and that's probably how it took off, but I think some have actually started believing the massive exaggeration. I'm still not sure how.

2nd Presidential Debate

Again in progess... maybe I'll finish this time? Who knows.
 

Obama was definitely more on top of things this time around, though both talked over the moderator at times and were tough on each other.

Conservatives say Obama danced around the questions. I, like progressives, thought Romney seemed to care about coming back to "you had 4 years, I can do better" rather than answering with specifics on his plans- or dancing around the question. The slow recovery thing is a bad argument, but one they try and push- I mean, we're recovering, not free falling- why should I believe Romney would make us recover faster (after Obama recued us from the abyss (yes, I know, that's overdramatic)) because he says so?

I am a little tired of people saying turn off the sound or only listen to the audio to figure out who REALLY won. In a debate where both people are not totally making fools of themselves or at least both making points and making rebuttals, each party is going to see what they want, and ignore the other stuff. And now I will tell you what I see :)

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate

Jeremy: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can — what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

R:  1.Make it easier to afford college and 2. create jobs for when you get out. Answered the question yes I can assure you, but lacking on HOW. As usual. 
Brought up Mass. top quarter of class gets John and Abigail Adams scholarship for 4 yrs tuition free- didn't promise that or say who pays for it. He said he would grow Pell Grant program, but there has been back and forth on details- plan would or wouldn't grow it? Brought up 4 yrs of middle class squeeze and blamed it all on Obama, as though the recession didn't start before he took office. Instead of details on how to create jobs, he keeps saying he "has what it takes," is a businessman, etc. Kind of a non-answer. Don't even have to fact check that!

O: Cites 5 million jobs created. That's one of those things that is true, he's a net job creator, but we have lost a lot of jobs to the recession, so it's not a number to brag about. But he didn't cause the recession...
Brought up Romney and his let Detroit go bankrupt op ed. Good point.
Education- talks about record on student loans
Energy- invest in the current natural gas and also the future- solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars
Deficit- Make wealthy pay more,  invest war money into infrastructure and education... that money is borrowed, though.

*Both candidates mention poor Jeremy in the questions to come. He's the new stump speech example of "I care"! A little funny.

Crowley: Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romley

R: Obama's policies haven't put Americans back to work, fewer Americans working (jobs numbers spun the other way) . Says his 5 point plan will make 12 million new jobs...The problem is that people have said 12 million will be created even if Obama stays in office and things stay the same...And 5 point plan seems to be 5 more generalities/goals rather than actual specifics, though saying you have 5 points sounds better than - I have what it takes. He tried to refute teh Detroit thing saying the President did what he actually suggested in his op ed and it worked- bankrupt them... except the President helped them back up again and Romney would not have and the necessary loans wouldn't have been there and the companies would have been sold piece by piece.

O: Rightly refuted Romney's Detroit response. Called out his 5 point plan as favoring wealthy...not sure...I think it's just too general. Equated Romney's plans with Bush's that got us into the recession.

Romney tries to talk over Crowley with more on Detroit...

Phillip: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

 Neither of them really answer the question, but I don't know that the question's answer is related all that much to the election, so I guess the candidates made it relevant in not answering it directly.

O: Production is up, coal production and employment up. Continue drilling, but tweak/ regulate for efficiency and also focus on future, clean energy equally.

Crowley: Governor, on the subject of gas prices.

R: Brings up that production is down on federal land, up on private in ND, but forgets to tell the whole story - what about the 2010 oil spill- had to shut things down, really no choice.

When the president ran for office, he said, if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. (Did he and what does it mean?)

Claims Obama isn't Mr. Oil, Mr. Gas, Mr. Coal, wants clean energy, but claims Obama is holding us back. 

Promises energy independence, but again doesn't say how.

They're already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy.
(If manuf jobs are coming back under Obama, why do we need you?)

Crowley: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up, and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?