This petition has been brought to my attention and I figured I had to act. I have been looking for an excuse to resign and this killed two birds with one stone. I didn't mean to use a pun when I referred to throwing stones.
To Whom It May Concern:
It has come to my horrified attention that my Union, and therefore me by extension, has signed onto a petition denouncing the courageous stand taken by British Unions to boycott the State of Israel. That there is a basic level of Human Rights seems self-evident and it is painfully obvious to anyone, who reads non-American newspapers, that Israel violates even the most basic Human Rights of the Palestinians continuously. I could go into detail but that seems unnecessary since it is has been well documented and from the looks of it, irrelevant to you. So if the UFCW is against a boycott of the State of Israel it is easy, even if incorrect, to follow a logical path to the point where one says, “British Unions are using one of the only effective incentives for change, economics. The UFCW doesn’t think that boycotting Israel is right, therefore the UFCW does not think that Israel should change and grant even the most basic Human Rights, like freedom of movement, control of one’s borders, what roads one can travel on, even whom one can marry, etc., to the Palestinians.” Well I do, and I strongly disagree with the Unions stance on basic Human Rights, as does nearly the entire world.
Israel is a First World nation and should have to play by its rules not those of the Third World. Israel’s Human Rights record is, at the moment, the worst in the First World with its legal torture, detention without charges, use of F-16 fighter jets to shoot missiles into densely populated neighborhoods, kidnapping family member to use as “bargaining chips”, complete control of movement with a series of hundreds of checkpoints, extra-judicial targeted assassinations, illegal settlements, and many other violations of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights record of Israel is so well documented it is amazing that it is even mentioned in the same breath, as Palestinian Human Rights violations, which, of course, do exist.
The statement signed onto argues not enough attention is given to other Arab Governments, but that is a red herring. This conflict is between the Israelis and the Palestinians and, no matter what the government of Yemen does, it is irrelevant to Israel’s Human Rights record. The statement also questions the motives of singling out one country when there are so many other conflicts and repressive regimes around the world. Here the writers are using the logical fallacy To Quoque where one argues that since the Unions are not actively trying to stop all the world’s conflicts then therefore the idea of stopping the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is flawed or of questionable motives which is a sly way to imply Anti-Semitism as its root. Anyone with even a minor understanding of the conflict has heard these all ad nauseam.
Many people over thirty years of age remember the name Checkpoint Charlie, the famous checkpoint separating East Berlin and West Berlin. Most also remember Ronald Reagan’s famous speech in which he called on Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Eventually Walls always come down and repression comes to an end, history has proven this true time and time again. People were on the wrong side of Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, abolition, Universal Suffrage, and one could go on. By signing this statement it seems as if the leaders of the UFCW haven’t read history and will end up on the wrong side of history like so many before them.
People have to be able to look themselves in the mirror each day, and as much as my deep-seated political and economic views make it hard to terminate my position as an advocate for my fellow workers, I must. Otherwise looking at myself in that mirror would be impossible. So therefore I must hereby resign my post as Union Steward.
Sincerely,
Justin Loper
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
"Higher Taxes" is a Red Herring.
Our country is a Democracy in name only. Our leaders do not follow the public’s wishes or opinions. One prime example is our health care. Virtually every poll taken, asking if people think their government should provide health care, shows that at the least 60% believe that it should. It seems self-evident that it is the job of our government to protect our citizens from harm but many powerful interests would prefer that not to be the case. So they attempt to frighten people with talk of higher taxes. It is true that taxes would have to increase but in the end you wouldn’t notice the difference on your paycheck because your insurance premiums would disappear.
On pay day I open my check to see that the amount of money I am paid is different then the amount I receive. Damn those evil taxes, which go to fix potholes, educate our youth and launch cluster bombs, have been removed but wait that isn’t all I’m missing. Nearly 30% of my money is gone. Of that, 23% went to my government and almost 7% went to an insurance agency. So would it be correct to say I’m taxed at a rate of 23%, or is it 30%? All I am concerned about is that 30% of my money is being taken.
The insurance industry, the Pharma industry and the Doctor industry have used their proxies for years to convince the people of the fact that their taxes would increase if a national health care system was implemented. Factually correct their statement is but it is also deceiving. So for instance, continuing to use me as the example, it is true that my tax rate of 23% would increase. Whether it would reach 30% is doubtful.
This is a world of pluses and minuses but not blacks and whites. The perceived negative part of the equation is that your taxes may increase, though it is doubtful your paycheck will decrease. The truly positive aspect is living in a society that takes care of its most vulnerable especially its children. It should be shameful for all Americans, and a negative, that 30 million children have been punished with a lack of health care because of their parents, and it would be a positive for that to change.
In order for our country to do what is right and protect its citizens, especially the ones in the most dire straits, we need a national health care system. To achieve the health care system this country deserves our taxes will invariably increase, yes. Will your paycheck be affected, no. Removing the outrageous health care premiums and moving that money into the Medicare tax makes it a wash. As a result we, as Americans, can have one less aspect, of our great country, to be ashamed of.
On pay day I open my check to see that the amount of money I am paid is different then the amount I receive. Damn those evil taxes, which go to fix potholes, educate our youth and launch cluster bombs, have been removed but wait that isn’t all I’m missing. Nearly 30% of my money is gone. Of that, 23% went to my government and almost 7% went to an insurance agency. So would it be correct to say I’m taxed at a rate of 23%, or is it 30%? All I am concerned about is that 30% of my money is being taken.
The insurance industry, the Pharma industry and the Doctor industry have used their proxies for years to convince the people of the fact that their taxes would increase if a national health care system was implemented. Factually correct their statement is but it is also deceiving. So for instance, continuing to use me as the example, it is true that my tax rate of 23% would increase. Whether it would reach 30% is doubtful.
This is a world of pluses and minuses but not blacks and whites. The perceived negative part of the equation is that your taxes may increase, though it is doubtful your paycheck will decrease. The truly positive aspect is living in a society that takes care of its most vulnerable especially its children. It should be shameful for all Americans, and a negative, that 30 million children have been punished with a lack of health care because of their parents, and it would be a positive for that to change.
In order for our country to do what is right and protect its citizens, especially the ones in the most dire straits, we need a national health care system. To achieve the health care system this country deserves our taxes will invariably increase, yes. Will your paycheck be affected, no. Removing the outrageous health care premiums and moving that money into the Medicare tax makes it a wash. As a result we, as Americans, can have one less aspect, of our great country, to be ashamed of.
More Crap
This is the other piece I submitted the the local paper. Unfortunately when I opened the file I realized that the spacing between paragraphs was all fucked up. That can be my excuse when I get denied because the "white man" excuse is a tad bit weak.
There is a huge problem with our elections, we are told, so rampant that it may destroy the whole process. What is this emergency? Voter fraud, yes, there is widespread voter fraud being committed, they say. Though when one actually looks at the numbers there doesn’t really seem to be much fraud at all. The real crisis, which these people ignore, is not that one guy, here, tried to vote twice or one woman, there, didn’t realize she was disenfranchised and tried to vote. The crisis with our democracy is that the people don’t vote.
The last time that over 60 percent of voters turned out to the polls in a Presidential Election was 1968. Of the nine Presidential elections held since then, 2004 had the highest turnout with a little over 55 percent voting. Contrast that with the latest elections, for heads of state, in France where nearly 74 percent went to the polls, Bolivia where 84 percent voted and Finland which had 74 percent show up to the polls.
It becomes worse in off year Congressional Elections. In our most recent Congressional Election, which switched control from one party to the other, just under 37 percent bothered voting. If we take a look around the world we find similar differences as we did before. We can look across the pond to Austria where 78 percent came out and if we gander southward to Peru we should be ashamed since they turned out 88 percent of their voters.
Ralph Nader sold tens of thousands of tickets, at 7 bucks a piece, in 2000, to people who wanted to hear his message. His main thesis, right or wrong, was that the Democrats and the Republicans have become too much alike and control all political debate.
Ross Perot’s message of how terribly irresponsible our national debt was, got airtime because people were looking for another voice. Before Ross Perot no one talked about our National Debt but now it is commonplace in political speak.
I offer up two suggestions that, though they won’t fix the problem, could help move us in a direction that brings out more voters to the polls. It is true that we may never reach the levels of countries like Peru but we should and could get at least 2/3 or 3/4 of the population to care enough about elections to vote in them.
We should allow more voices into the debates, Presidential and Congressional. There are two common arguments for why this should not be the case and both are very flimsy. The most common is that it is just too hard to have debates with a stage full of candidates even though we do it for the Presidential Primary debates and it seems to work.
The other argument is that anyone could become a Presidential candidate even if they couldn’t feasibly win and this would allow anyone and everyone to be in the debates. Right now there is a threshold of 15 percent in the polls that must be crossed to gain entry into the debates. What could be done is to make it so that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states, in which it is theoretically possible to get enough Electoral College votes, to win, they get entry into the debates.
The one thing the countries listed above and their elections have in common with each other but differ with America is that they are all held on Sunday when a larger percentage of the general public is off from work. The reasoning behind the 1845 law making our elections fall on the second Tuesday in November is gone. America is no longer an agricultural society who can’t vote while the crops are in the field and need time to travel into the city.
We, as Americans, need to find ways to fix our elections and democracy. We have so many intelligent citizens in this country with a myriad of ideas. We need to stop fearing change and see that there is a crisis in American democracy. If this is the Democracy we are trying to sell to the world, I fear we won’t be finding too many takers.
There is a huge problem with our elections, we are told, so rampant that it may destroy the whole process. What is this emergency? Voter fraud, yes, there is widespread voter fraud being committed, they say. Though when one actually looks at the numbers there doesn’t really seem to be much fraud at all. The real crisis, which these people ignore, is not that one guy, here, tried to vote twice or one woman, there, didn’t realize she was disenfranchised and tried to vote. The crisis with our democracy is that the people don’t vote.
The last time that over 60 percent of voters turned out to the polls in a Presidential Election was 1968. Of the nine Presidential elections held since then, 2004 had the highest turnout with a little over 55 percent voting. Contrast that with the latest elections, for heads of state, in France where nearly 74 percent went to the polls, Bolivia where 84 percent voted and Finland which had 74 percent show up to the polls.
It becomes worse in off year Congressional Elections. In our most recent Congressional Election, which switched control from one party to the other, just under 37 percent bothered voting. If we take a look around the world we find similar differences as we did before. We can look across the pond to Austria where 78 percent came out and if we gander southward to Peru we should be ashamed since they turned out 88 percent of their voters.
Ralph Nader sold tens of thousands of tickets, at 7 bucks a piece, in 2000, to people who wanted to hear his message. His main thesis, right or wrong, was that the Democrats and the Republicans have become too much alike and control all political debate.
Ross Perot’s message of how terribly irresponsible our national debt was, got airtime because people were looking for another voice. Before Ross Perot no one talked about our National Debt but now it is commonplace in political speak.
I offer up two suggestions that, though they won’t fix the problem, could help move us in a direction that brings out more voters to the polls. It is true that we may never reach the levels of countries like Peru but we should and could get at least 2/3 or 3/4 of the population to care enough about elections to vote in them.
We should allow more voices into the debates, Presidential and Congressional. There are two common arguments for why this should not be the case and both are very flimsy. The most common is that it is just too hard to have debates with a stage full of candidates even though we do it for the Presidential Primary debates and it seems to work.
The other argument is that anyone could become a Presidential candidate even if they couldn’t feasibly win and this would allow anyone and everyone to be in the debates. Right now there is a threshold of 15 percent in the polls that must be crossed to gain entry into the debates. What could be done is to make it so that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states, in which it is theoretically possible to get enough Electoral College votes, to win, they get entry into the debates.
The one thing the countries listed above and their elections have in common with each other but differ with America is that they are all held on Sunday when a larger percentage of the general public is off from work. The reasoning behind the 1845 law making our elections fall on the second Tuesday in November is gone. America is no longer an agricultural society who can’t vote while the crops are in the field and need time to travel into the city.
We, as Americans, need to find ways to fix our elections and democracy. We have so many intelligent citizens in this country with a myriad of ideas. We need to stop fearing change and see that there is a crisis in American democracy. If this is the Democracy we are trying to sell to the world, I fear we won’t be finding too many takers.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Save What?! Revised
Here is one of my two pieces I wrote for the local paper in an attempt to land a job as a community columnist.
There is a new wave of protest sweeping the nation and all the usual suspects are out calling for action. We have stars like George Clooney urging us to take action and most recently music artists from Aerosmith to Green Day have contributed songs for an album to raise funds to supply relief to the people in a war zone. Where is this war torn area they are so concerned about? It is the Darfur region of Sudan. My question is, why not Iraq instead?
The crimes against humanity going on in Sudan are horrendous, no doubt. The figures of dead in Darfur range from 200,000 to 400,000. Of those it is estimated that ten percent died from actual violent conflict with the remainder a result of the war going on around them. If a person dies due to starvation, disease or other factors related to the conflict then they are counted with the war dead.
A study conducted last year by Johns Hopkins University showed that around 650,000 people have died as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many critics argue the study was flawed. They argue that the method used, referred to as “cluster sampling”, can’t be an accurate measure of deaths. This “cluster sampling” is the same technique used, by the U.S., to find out how many people had been killed in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And the U.S. continues to spend millions to train UN workers and non-governmental agencies to employ this exact same technique in other parts of the globe.
Since the end of the last Gulf War to the beginning of this latest, estimates show that at least 1/2 a million people died from the sanctions we placed on Iraq. If you add that to the 650,000 dead that Johns Hopkins University figured then you are looking at over a million citizens. Really, a million citizens died as a result of our government’s actions. America, the nation that we think is the greatest, is responsible for that many deaths?
A major obstacle preventing anything from being done in Darfur is China’s support for the Sudanese Govenrment. How is it that these activists plan to pressure the government in Beijing? Typically the best method for changing people’s behavior is through economic incentives or punishments, like boycotts. Though boycotting Chinese products would be virtually impossible since their products are ubiquitous in our society and it would hurt the Chinese workers the most.
In a perfect world the Chinese citizenry would rise up in support of the people of Darfur and demand their government take action. It is an unfortunate fact that the Chinese are not free to assemble and protest because they live under totalitarian rule. We, on the other hand, live in, most likely, the freest nation on the planet and we have shown, throughout history, the ability to change what it is doing.
That leaves us with the only option of pressuring our government to call out China or attempt to lean on them to change their backing of Sudan. There is a minor problem and that is we have no moral high ground for which to stand on. As we speak our government is engaged in a war against an enemy that never attacked us or could, for that matter.
So it seems quite obvious that the best way to stop the terrible atrocities happening in Darfur is to stop the actions of our government in Iraq. It has been said that it is almost cowardly to call out the crimes of someone else’s government while your own is committing massive crimes. We as citizens of a Democracy are responsible for the actions of our country and the predictable outcomes of those actions. That is not to argue that the people in Darfur don’t deserve hope or help, they truly do, yet so do the people in Iraq. We can and must force our government to do what is right because I doubt the centers of power in China are paying much attention to what happens on U.S. campuses.
There is a new wave of protest sweeping the nation and all the usual suspects are out calling for action. We have stars like George Clooney urging us to take action and most recently music artists from Aerosmith to Green Day have contributed songs for an album to raise funds to supply relief to the people in a war zone. Where is this war torn area they are so concerned about? It is the Darfur region of Sudan. My question is, why not Iraq instead?
The crimes against humanity going on in Sudan are horrendous, no doubt. The figures of dead in Darfur range from 200,000 to 400,000. Of those it is estimated that ten percent died from actual violent conflict with the remainder a result of the war going on around them. If a person dies due to starvation, disease or other factors related to the conflict then they are counted with the war dead.
A study conducted last year by Johns Hopkins University showed that around 650,000 people have died as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many critics argue the study was flawed. They argue that the method used, referred to as “cluster sampling”, can’t be an accurate measure of deaths. This “cluster sampling” is the same technique used, by the U.S., to find out how many people had been killed in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And the U.S. continues to spend millions to train UN workers and non-governmental agencies to employ this exact same technique in other parts of the globe.
Since the end of the last Gulf War to the beginning of this latest, estimates show that at least 1/2 a million people died from the sanctions we placed on Iraq. If you add that to the 650,000 dead that Johns Hopkins University figured then you are looking at over a million citizens. Really, a million citizens died as a result of our government’s actions. America, the nation that we think is the greatest, is responsible for that many deaths?
A major obstacle preventing anything from being done in Darfur is China’s support for the Sudanese Govenrment. How is it that these activists plan to pressure the government in Beijing? Typically the best method for changing people’s behavior is through economic incentives or punishments, like boycotts. Though boycotting Chinese products would be virtually impossible since their products are ubiquitous in our society and it would hurt the Chinese workers the most.
In a perfect world the Chinese citizenry would rise up in support of the people of Darfur and demand their government take action. It is an unfortunate fact that the Chinese are not free to assemble and protest because they live under totalitarian rule. We, on the other hand, live in, most likely, the freest nation on the planet and we have shown, throughout history, the ability to change what it is doing.
That leaves us with the only option of pressuring our government to call out China or attempt to lean on them to change their backing of Sudan. There is a minor problem and that is we have no moral high ground for which to stand on. As we speak our government is engaged in a war against an enemy that never attacked us or could, for that matter.
So it seems quite obvious that the best way to stop the terrible atrocities happening in Darfur is to stop the actions of our government in Iraq. It has been said that it is almost cowardly to call out the crimes of someone else’s government while your own is committing massive crimes. We as citizens of a Democracy are responsible for the actions of our country and the predictable outcomes of those actions. That is not to argue that the people in Darfur don’t deserve hope or help, they truly do, yet so do the people in Iraq. We can and must force our government to do what is right because I doubt the centers of power in China are paying much attention to what happens on U.S. campuses.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Save What!?
There is a wave sweeping across college campuses. Kids are starting to organize. There are teach ins, posters, rallies, marches, fliers, T-Shirts and they all are saying the same thing, "Save Darfur."
"Save Darfur" is now the hip thing to be a part of on college campuses while Iraq burns, badly. To them the real tragedy is in Darfur where it is estimated that around 200,000 have been killed, 20% violently. Iraq's violence, being caused by our own government, is far greater than anything going on in Darfur yet that is not worth a T-Shirt.
Yes there is tragedy in Darfur, there is no doubt, but what is the conflict's history? What will it take to stop it? WHo really knows, maybe the college kids could go to China and lobby that government.
Why is it that Darfur is to be saved but not Iraq. By some estimates three times as many people have been killed in Iraq.
The only government one can exert any control over is there own. Yet that is not happening? Why?
If someone wanted to protest against human rights violations going on in Africa they should look into the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Coltan.
"Save Darfur" is now the hip thing to be a part of on college campuses while Iraq burns, badly. To them the real tragedy is in Darfur where it is estimated that around 200,000 have been killed, 20% violently. Iraq's violence, being caused by our own government, is far greater than anything going on in Darfur yet that is not worth a T-Shirt.
Yes there is tragedy in Darfur, there is no doubt, but what is the conflict's history? What will it take to stop it? WHo really knows, maybe the college kids could go to China and lobby that government.
Why is it that Darfur is to be saved but not Iraq. By some estimates three times as many people have been killed in Iraq.
The only government one can exert any control over is there own. Yet that is not happening? Why?
If someone wanted to protest against human rights violations going on in Africa they should look into the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Coltan.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Israel Week was sidetracked in such an ironic way.
Dr. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure this weekend from DePaul. It wasn't surprising but absurd. Finkelstein is one of the pre-eminent scholars on the Jewish Holocaust and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Raul Hillberg, the world's leading scholar on the history of Jews in Europe, had this to say about the tenure.
Hillberg is no lefty, he is a right winger through and through.
Avi Shlaim, Professor of international relations at Oxford University, who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict, said this about Finkelstein.
Then there is Noam Chomsky. ptI
pt. II
How it all started. pt.I
If you watch this you will understand, outside of it being about Israel/Palestine, why I admire Finkelstein’s debating skills. He is like a pit bull constantly holding back. Remember too that he is debating Harvard’s head law professor, one of the men who got O.J. off. Notice how much Dershowitz tries to change the subject from his plagiarism. Finklestein’s research is meticulous and impeccable.
pt.II
Dershowitz wasn’t able to take down Chomsky, due to work in linguistics, so Finkelstein is his proxy.
"It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost." It must be mentioned that
Hillberg is no lefty, he is a right winger through and through.
Avi Shlaim, Professor of international relations at Oxford University, who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict, said this about Finkelstein.
"His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B'Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall -- the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal -- the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.
Then there is Noam Chomsky. ptI
pt. II
How it all started. pt.I
If you watch this you will understand, outside of it being about Israel/Palestine, why I admire Finkelstein’s debating skills. He is like a pit bull constantly holding back. Remember too that he is debating Harvard’s head law professor, one of the men who got O.J. off. Notice how much Dershowitz tries to change the subject from his plagiarism. Finklestein’s research is meticulous and impeccable.
pt.II
Dershowitz wasn’t able to take down Chomsky, due to work in linguistics, so Finkelstein is his proxy.
Friday, June 08, 2007
More Myths
Okay a few more myths about the Israel/Palestinian conflict
“Palestinians are anti-Semitic by nature.”
People like to claim that the real reason that Palestinians attack Israel and its citizens is because of a deep-rooted hatred for Jews. People will point to this fact over and over. “In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population.” Of course, there is truth to that but how does that tell us anything about the Palestinians today? To me it is irrelevant.
As Prof. Finkelstein likes to point out, Did the Native Americans fight the European settlers because of deep rooted anti-Europeanism? It would be laughable to claim that was the reason.
“These people have been fighting for thousands of years or this is a religious war”
At first the obvious truth is that the Jews weren’t in Palestine for the last couple thousand years. The Romans had kicked them out, in the first century and they didn’t start returning, in any real numbers, until the early 1900’s. These early Zionists had actually hoped to live in peace with their Arab neighbors and share the land and did.
Religion does play a role in the conflict but it isn’t a main factor. Suicide bombing mostly occurs in places on the globe were people feel that their religion is being attacked by another or when people are being ruled by another religious group. The fact is that the majority of all suicide bombing have occurred in Sri Lanka by the more secular Tamil Tigers. This group is not a highly religious organization but they are the minority religion in their land and have no rule.
In addition all one needs to do is go back and reread the latest Bertrand Russell quotes.
“The Palestinians left, in 1948, either as a result of their Arabs leaders telling them to or under their volition.”
There was no Arab leader to tell the Palestinians to leave.
Right-wing Israel Historian Benny Morris has shown that the Israelis ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from the West Bank. His only complaint is that it was done well enough.
Not to mention, I would have gotten the hell out too after this.
“The Arabs are/were going to ‘Push the Jews into the Sea’”
Israel has always had military superiority to all its adversaries combined.
“There is a lot of controversy about the conflict.”
Actually pretty much the entire world in is agreement about the conflict, the solutions, the history, what is happening, what is legal under international law and who are the victims. The only controversy is coming from Israel and the U.S. In fact there doesn’t seem to be any controversy in Israel if one reads the Israeli papers.
That is all I can think of off the top of my head.
Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to tackle one of the biggest myths of all; “At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barack, Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, made a generous offer, with huge concessions, to Arafat but Arafat just rejected it and started the Second Intifada (uprising in Arabic).”
“Palestinians are anti-Semitic by nature.”
People like to claim that the real reason that Palestinians attack Israel and its citizens is because of a deep-rooted hatred for Jews. People will point to this fact over and over. “In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population.” Of course, there is truth to that but how does that tell us anything about the Palestinians today? To me it is irrelevant.
As Prof. Finkelstein likes to point out, Did the Native Americans fight the European settlers because of deep rooted anti-Europeanism? It would be laughable to claim that was the reason.
“These people have been fighting for thousands of years or this is a religious war”
At first the obvious truth is that the Jews weren’t in Palestine for the last couple thousand years. The Romans had kicked them out, in the first century and they didn’t start returning, in any real numbers, until the early 1900’s. These early Zionists had actually hoped to live in peace with their Arab neighbors and share the land and did.
Religion does play a role in the conflict but it isn’t a main factor. Suicide bombing mostly occurs in places on the globe were people feel that their religion is being attacked by another or when people are being ruled by another religious group. The fact is that the majority of all suicide bombing have occurred in Sri Lanka by the more secular Tamil Tigers. This group is not a highly religious organization but they are the minority religion in their land and have no rule.
In addition all one needs to do is go back and reread the latest Bertrand Russell quotes.
“The Palestinians left, in 1948, either as a result of their Arabs leaders telling them to or under their volition.”
There was no Arab leader to tell the Palestinians to leave.
Right-wing Israel Historian Benny Morris has shown that the Israelis ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from the West Bank. His only complaint is that it was done well enough.
Not to mention, I would have gotten the hell out too after this.
“The Arabs are/were going to ‘Push the Jews into the Sea’”
Israel has always had military superiority to all its adversaries combined.
“There is a lot of controversy about the conflict.”
Actually pretty much the entire world in is agreement about the conflict, the solutions, the history, what is happening, what is legal under international law and who are the victims. The only controversy is coming from Israel and the U.S. In fact there doesn’t seem to be any controversy in Israel if one reads the Israeli papers.
That is all I can think of off the top of my head.
Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to tackle one of the biggest myths of all; “At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barack, Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, made a generous offer, with huge concessions, to Arafat but Arafat just rejected it and started the Second Intifada (uprising in Arabic).”
Thursday, June 07, 2007
The History of the Six Day War
I think it would be best for Norman Finkelstein to explain the history.
It is 50 minutes long.
Six Day War
It is 50 minutes long.
Six Day War
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Recognition of the Right of Israel to Exist.
Ever since the Palestinians exercised their right to vote and voted in Hamas there have been demands placed on them in order for the Palestinians to get assistance from the world community. One of the main demands is that “Hamas must recognize the Right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State.” There are a few problems with this demand, which has been made numerous times against numerous Palestinian leaders. These problems are so obvious and elementary that they seem to show us that it is the Israeli Government, not the Palestinians, who never want peace and are willing to sacrifice their citizens for the expansion of their State.
What exactly does “recognize the right to exist” mean? Does the state of Mexico recognize the right of America to exist in parts stolen from them? Should they? To many onlookers the state of Israel exists and it seems very silly to deny its existence. To others it means that Hamas should not call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country with nuclear weapons being threatened by crude rockets. As usual though these things are not as plain and simple.
What constitutes a state? One of the main parts of any state is their border. If a state has ever-evolving borders then what is to be recognized? Israel has ever changing borders. For instance the borders today are not the same as they were in 2000, 1982, 1966 or 1948. With the addition of the euphemistically called “security fence” more and more land is being confiscated by Israel.
The next question is, “Does Hamas need to recognize the State of Israel even though its borders are always in a state of flux?” By recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a state with ever encroaching borders, will this then recognize the right for Palestinians to be forcibly removed from their land the next time Israel wants some aquifer? It would lead that yes, Hamas agreed to recognize and ever expanding state of Israel and has no right crying when Israel continues to expand.
Most people who even remotely know anything about the conflict are aware of what is called the “two state solution”; the most famously negotiated settlement became the Geneva Accords. Both sides have basically agreed in theory to this plan. If Israel, the most powerful state in the region, agrees that there should be a Palestinian state then why don’t they recognize Palestine’s right to exist as a state? I beg any of you to find any Israeli politician who has ever called for a Palestinian state inside the Internationally recognized borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. It just has never been said.
In March of 2002 the Arab League came up with a detailed peace plan for the region. The participants agreed to full recognition of a secure Israel and diplomatic relations if Israel would do three things. They must pull back to the pre-June ’67 borders, agree to a just solution to the refugee problem and recognize a sovereign Palestine in all the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refused to accept those conditions, all of which are required of Israel under international law, and the conflict rages today.
It is very true that Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and replacing it with an Islamic State but this document is old and so much has changed. Hamas has called for a Hudna, or truce in Arabic, to last for 10 years while issues are negotiated. A Hudna is a Koranic idea and Hamas is strongly religious so it leads that they would follow their religion. Yet Israel refused. The current Prime Minister told Ha’aretz, the most influential paper in Israel, "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a cease-fire [hudna] for many years." To no avail.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that Israel is making demands of the Palestinians that they refuse to do themselves. On top of that it tells us that Hamas cannot, as the representative of the Palestinians, accept a neighboring state whose borders are always creeping in stealing land for the state you recognized. No country would accept that. Which means in the end that the Israeli Government has no desire for peace with its neighbors and will continue to steal more and more land from the native population with the hopes that things will become so desperate for the Palestinians that they will just leave. It is a sort of “soft” ethnic cleansing.
What exactly does “recognize the right to exist” mean? Does the state of Mexico recognize the right of America to exist in parts stolen from them? Should they? To many onlookers the state of Israel exists and it seems very silly to deny its existence. To others it means that Hamas should not call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country with nuclear weapons being threatened by crude rockets. As usual though these things are not as plain and simple.
What constitutes a state? One of the main parts of any state is their border. If a state has ever-evolving borders then what is to be recognized? Israel has ever changing borders. For instance the borders today are not the same as they were in 2000, 1982, 1966 or 1948. With the addition of the euphemistically called “security fence” more and more land is being confiscated by Israel.
The next question is, “Does Hamas need to recognize the State of Israel even though its borders are always in a state of flux?” By recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a state with ever encroaching borders, will this then recognize the right for Palestinians to be forcibly removed from their land the next time Israel wants some aquifer? It would lead that yes, Hamas agreed to recognize and ever expanding state of Israel and has no right crying when Israel continues to expand.
Most people who even remotely know anything about the conflict are aware of what is called the “two state solution”; the most famously negotiated settlement became the Geneva Accords. Both sides have basically agreed in theory to this plan. If Israel, the most powerful state in the region, agrees that there should be a Palestinian state then why don’t they recognize Palestine’s right to exist as a state? I beg any of you to find any Israeli politician who has ever called for a Palestinian state inside the Internationally recognized borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. It just has never been said.
In March of 2002 the Arab League came up with a detailed peace plan for the region. The participants agreed to full recognition of a secure Israel and diplomatic relations if Israel would do three things. They must pull back to the pre-June ’67 borders, agree to a just solution to the refugee problem and recognize a sovereign Palestine in all the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refused to accept those conditions, all of which are required of Israel under international law, and the conflict rages today.
It is very true that Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and replacing it with an Islamic State but this document is old and so much has changed. Hamas has called for a Hudna, or truce in Arabic, to last for 10 years while issues are negotiated. A Hudna is a Koranic idea and Hamas is strongly religious so it leads that they would follow their religion. Yet Israel refused. The current Prime Minister told Ha’aretz, the most influential paper in Israel, "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a cease-fire [hudna] for many years." To no avail.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that Israel is making demands of the Palestinians that they refuse to do themselves. On top of that it tells us that Hamas cannot, as the representative of the Palestinians, accept a neighboring state whose borders are always creeping in stealing land for the state you recognized. No country would accept that. Which means in the end that the Israeli Government has no desire for peace with its neighbors and will continue to steal more and more land from the native population with the hopes that things will become so desperate for the Palestinians that they will just leave. It is a sort of “soft” ethnic cleansing.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Israel Week
This Sunday, June 10th, marks the 40th anniversary of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. In case you have noticed, I haven't been posting much of my own writing. I had absolutely no inspiration, but now there is an anniversary that deserves attention.
I will be writing a series of essays about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this week. Mostly I will be writing about the myths and red herrings. I have spent a few years arguing with Liberal Jews who support Israel, in varying degrees, and have come up with some fake roadblocks, propaganda and some intelligent debate. So in the next days I will deal with these issues that Israeli policy supporters use to end debate. The first installment will be on the line that "Hamas/PA/Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
SInce I have yet to write my first essay I will post my piece I did for my writing class. It deals with the conflict also.
On March 26th 1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter brought together the leaders of two countries, which had been in a perpetual state of war for twenty-nine years, for a historic moment. After nearly three decades of on again off again war, the two countries, Israel and Egypt, came together to sign a peace treaty, Israel’s only peace treaty until the 1996 treaty with Jordan, which has lasted to this day. So how could it be that 28 years later Carter, a man who helped Israel create some peace in its neighborhood, would be branded an anti-Semite?
Menachem Begin, a former guerilla fighter who fought to free his country from British Occupation, was Prime Minister of Israel at the time. Begin’s legacy is controversial, some say he was a war criminal for his attacks against the British and the killing, terrorizing and displacement of the Arab natives while others view him as a champion of their dream for a Greater Israel, without the original Arab inhabitants. Begin went into the diplomatic dialogue knowing that it would be in his country’s best interest to attempt to negotiate in a one on one setting as opposed to Israel negotiating with the entire Arab world.
Anwar Al-Sadat, the third President of Egypt, also fought against British domination of his country, much like his Israeli counterpart. In 1977 Sadat made a bold and, amongst his fellow Arabs, unpopular move and became the first Arab leader to travel and speak to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Sadat had hoped that this gesture, of essentially recognizing the state of Israel, would please America with the hopes that maybe the US could help the beleaguered Egyptian economy.
In September of 1978 President Carter invited both leaders and their respective negotiating teams to Camp David for secret talks that lasted 13 days. At numerous times, during those 13 days, both sides had wanted to end the peace process each time President Carter brought them back to the table. Carter would shuttle back and forth between the cabins of the two sides and then relay the information to a third party, whom would then inform either side of what has transpired.
Out of these 13 days of tense and trying negotiations came, what is now known as, the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in Washington by Sadat and Begin, a peace treaty that has lasted for almost 28 years without incident. Sadat would later be assassinated for creating peace with Israel by many of the same people who would later fight the Russians in Afghanistan and finance the attacks perpetrated against the U.S. on September 11th 2001.
Since leaving office Former President Carter has become one of the world’s leading champions of human rights and democracy. His Carter Center has monitored 67 elections in over twenty-five countries and he personally won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his humanitarian work around the globe.
Four years after winning the Nobel Prize, President Carter released a book entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” in which he is critical of the Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians. The book was condemned even before it was published by future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” Another fellow Democrat, John Conyers, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said he called the Former President “to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed. President Carter does not build upon his career as a proponent of peace in the Middle East with this comparison and I hope he and his publisher will reconsider this decision.”
The Anti Defamation League wrote a letter to Carter telling him, “using the incendiary word "Apartheid" to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful” and “Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies.” But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now." Later the ADL went on to claim “[Carter has] been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.”
Some of Carter’s supporters point out that the word “apartheid” is a regular part of Israeli discourse. DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, reminds us to “take the case of Ha’aretz, Israel's leading newspaper….in their editorials, they routinely refer to the apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories.” He then goes on to ask, “so why is it illegitimate for a former American president to use a term which is a commonplace? Why are you in the United States disqualified from participating in what in Israel is part of the mainstream discourse?”
The few book reviews that were published also attacked Carter. Martin Peretz of the New Republic claimed, “Now, I have read this book. Or as much of it as I could stand. It is a tendentious, dishonest and stupid book.” Deborah Lipstadt of the Washington Post said of the book, “It trivializes the murder of Israelis.” She went on to say that by “almost ignoring the Holocaust, Carter gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality” and that “Carter has repeatedly fallen back … on traditional anti-Semitic canards” Jeffrey Goldberg, also writing in the Washington Post says that “One gets the impression that Carter believes that Israelis -- in their deviousness -- somehow mean to keep Jesus from fulfilling the demands of His ministry.”
Though leading the charge in the criticism of the former President is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz has written several articles attacking Carter and his book for “His use of the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa”.
UCLA English Professor, Saree Makdisi, thinks differently. “Israel maintains two sets of rules and regulations in the West Bank,” he tells us, “one for Jews, one for non-Jews. The only thing wrong with using the word ‘apartheid’ to describe such a repugnant system is that the South African version of institutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart -- nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans.”
Professor Dershowitz has compared Carter to Nazi sympathizers. “In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.”
In the early part of 2007 Carter was invited to speak at Brandies University, a university founded by American Jews but is secular in nature. Though there has been debate surrounding the various invitations, according to The Brandies Hoot, the college’s paper, Carter had been invited three times. According to the Hoot, “The first invitation, extended by Faculty Senate Chair Harry Mairson, was declined by Carter after Carter advisor and Brandeis trustee Stuart Eizenstat told Carter he was uncertain if the professor had an agenda behind his invitation.”
Then the university suggested the former president, the first to visit since the 1957 commencement speech by the late Harry Truman, debate Alan Dershowitz. Many saw this as puzzling. “I don’t think you ask a President of the United States to come and debate anyone. It’s just not dignified,” said Brandeis Professor Gordon Fellman. Carter turned down the invitation saying “I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz… there is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.” Dershowitz fired back arguing, "President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate. Then why won’t he debate?”
Carter responding to a caller on CSPAN, who called him a racist, bigot and anti-semite, said, “The pre-eminent goal that I have had in my mind is to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
In the end all of these attacks against the former President have taken a toll on him. "I've been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction," Carter said. "This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me."
I will be writing a series of essays about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this week. Mostly I will be writing about the myths and red herrings. I have spent a few years arguing with Liberal Jews who support Israel, in varying degrees, and have come up with some fake roadblocks, propaganda and some intelligent debate. So in the next days I will deal with these issues that Israeli policy supporters use to end debate. The first installment will be on the line that "Hamas/PA/Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
SInce I have yet to write my first essay I will post my piece I did for my writing class. It deals with the conflict also.
On March 26th 1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter brought together the leaders of two countries, which had been in a perpetual state of war for twenty-nine years, for a historic moment. After nearly three decades of on again off again war, the two countries, Israel and Egypt, came together to sign a peace treaty, Israel’s only peace treaty until the 1996 treaty with Jordan, which has lasted to this day. So how could it be that 28 years later Carter, a man who helped Israel create some peace in its neighborhood, would be branded an anti-Semite?
Menachem Begin, a former guerilla fighter who fought to free his country from British Occupation, was Prime Minister of Israel at the time. Begin’s legacy is controversial, some say he was a war criminal for his attacks against the British and the killing, terrorizing and displacement of the Arab natives while others view him as a champion of their dream for a Greater Israel, without the original Arab inhabitants. Begin went into the diplomatic dialogue knowing that it would be in his country’s best interest to attempt to negotiate in a one on one setting as opposed to Israel negotiating with the entire Arab world.
Anwar Al-Sadat, the third President of Egypt, also fought against British domination of his country, much like his Israeli counterpart. In 1977 Sadat made a bold and, amongst his fellow Arabs, unpopular move and became the first Arab leader to travel and speak to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Sadat had hoped that this gesture, of essentially recognizing the state of Israel, would please America with the hopes that maybe the US could help the beleaguered Egyptian economy.
In September of 1978 President Carter invited both leaders and their respective negotiating teams to Camp David for secret talks that lasted 13 days. At numerous times, during those 13 days, both sides had wanted to end the peace process each time President Carter brought them back to the table. Carter would shuttle back and forth between the cabins of the two sides and then relay the information to a third party, whom would then inform either side of what has transpired.
Out of these 13 days of tense and trying negotiations came, what is now known as, the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in Washington by Sadat and Begin, a peace treaty that has lasted for almost 28 years without incident. Sadat would later be assassinated for creating peace with Israel by many of the same people who would later fight the Russians in Afghanistan and finance the attacks perpetrated against the U.S. on September 11th 2001.
Since leaving office Former President Carter has become one of the world’s leading champions of human rights and democracy. His Carter Center has monitored 67 elections in over twenty-five countries and he personally won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his humanitarian work around the globe.
Four years after winning the Nobel Prize, President Carter released a book entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” in which he is critical of the Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians. The book was condemned even before it was published by future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” Another fellow Democrat, John Conyers, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said he called the Former President “to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed. President Carter does not build upon his career as a proponent of peace in the Middle East with this comparison and I hope he and his publisher will reconsider this decision.”
The Anti Defamation League wrote a letter to Carter telling him, “using the incendiary word "Apartheid" to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful” and “Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies.” But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now." Later the ADL went on to claim “[Carter has] been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.”
Some of Carter’s supporters point out that the word “apartheid” is a regular part of Israeli discourse. DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, reminds us to “take the case of Ha’aretz, Israel's leading newspaper….in their editorials, they routinely refer to the apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories.” He then goes on to ask, “so why is it illegitimate for a former American president to use a term which is a commonplace? Why are you in the United States disqualified from participating in what in Israel is part of the mainstream discourse?”
The few book reviews that were published also attacked Carter. Martin Peretz of the New Republic claimed, “Now, I have read this book. Or as much of it as I could stand. It is a tendentious, dishonest and stupid book.” Deborah Lipstadt of the Washington Post said of the book, “It trivializes the murder of Israelis.” She went on to say that by “almost ignoring the Holocaust, Carter gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality” and that “Carter has repeatedly fallen back … on traditional anti-Semitic canards” Jeffrey Goldberg, also writing in the Washington Post says that “One gets the impression that Carter believes that Israelis -- in their deviousness -- somehow mean to keep Jesus from fulfilling the demands of His ministry.”
Though leading the charge in the criticism of the former President is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz has written several articles attacking Carter and his book for “His use of the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa”.
UCLA English Professor, Saree Makdisi, thinks differently. “Israel maintains two sets of rules and regulations in the West Bank,” he tells us, “one for Jews, one for non-Jews. The only thing wrong with using the word ‘apartheid’ to describe such a repugnant system is that the South African version of institutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart -- nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans.”
Professor Dershowitz has compared Carter to Nazi sympathizers. “In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.”
In the early part of 2007 Carter was invited to speak at Brandies University, a university founded by American Jews but is secular in nature. Though there has been debate surrounding the various invitations, according to The Brandies Hoot, the college’s paper, Carter had been invited three times. According to the Hoot, “The first invitation, extended by Faculty Senate Chair Harry Mairson, was declined by Carter after Carter advisor and Brandeis trustee Stuart Eizenstat told Carter he was uncertain if the professor had an agenda behind his invitation.”
Then the university suggested the former president, the first to visit since the 1957 commencement speech by the late Harry Truman, debate Alan Dershowitz. Many saw this as puzzling. “I don’t think you ask a President of the United States to come and debate anyone. It’s just not dignified,” said Brandeis Professor Gordon Fellman. Carter turned down the invitation saying “I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz… there is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.” Dershowitz fired back arguing, "President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate. Then why won’t he debate?”
Carter responding to a caller on CSPAN, who called him a racist, bigot and anti-semite, said, “The pre-eminent goal that I have had in my mind is to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
In the end all of these attacks against the former President have taken a toll on him. "I've been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction," Carter said. "This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me."
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Mark Twain's War Prayer Animated
I just found this on the web and had to pass it on.
It is amazing, considering his opinions, that Twain is as celebrated today as he is. Maybe someday America will look back at people like Chomsky in a more positive light as they do with Twain.
Twain was a genius!
It is amazing, considering his opinions, that Twain is as celebrated today as he is. Maybe someday America will look back at people like Chomsky in a more positive light as they do with Twain.
Twain was a genius!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Ant-War Movement R.I.P. 2004-2007
On May 28th 2007, Memorial Day in America, the anti-war movement was pronounced dead. With Congressional Democrats falling all over themselves, to provide the President with whatever he wants, in order to keep this fucking war going after a very brief moment of opposition. And now, Cindy SHeehan, one of the two people who made up the anti-war movement, has called it quits. So thats that. The war will continue on....
The Democrats in Congress deserve condemnation. So many voted initially to go to war when there was so much evidence that contradicted the Bush/Cheney line. Democrats aren't thinking about the troops in war, they don't care about those people, the only thing politicians care about is re-election. Many Democrats remember how after ending the Vietnam War, like the public demanded of Congress, they were seen as defeatists, even though they did what the public wanted. Our Democrats today are thinking back and are afraid of their job security because, again, that is all they care about. They don't care about morals, international law, human beings, or anything that doesn't involve them. Hey David Obey, remember when you told those stupid liberals that they didn't understand anything, that your bill was going to end the war and if they couldn't see that then they must be smoking something illegal, go fuck yourself.
CIndy SHeehan has not only disavowed herself from the Democratic Party but she has gone all the way and just given up on the anti-war movement. This isn't good for a movement made up of only two people. Somehow I doubt that Medea Benjamin, trust fund kid, will be getting that much air play. Don't get me wrong, Medea and her CodePink are great but they were not enough. The mother of a dead soldier(SIde note: Casey was killed during an uprising in Sadr City. The uprising was caused because then Viceroy Paul L. Bremer decided that, in his position of supporting freedom, he would shut down a newspaper from the Shia Cleric Al-Sadr.) is always a great figure to protest a war.
Well now she is gone and the war can continue without a peep from the public. If the Democrats are lucky this War will cost the Republicans the Whitehouse. One must remember that we are losing nearly four soldiers a day and Jan. '09 is quite a few days away. So, in 2009, we may be talking about our Democratic President or we may be talking about the 1500 kids who died since CIndy SHeehan gave up.
The Democrats in Congress deserve condemnation. So many voted initially to go to war when there was so much evidence that contradicted the Bush/Cheney line. Democrats aren't thinking about the troops in war, they don't care about those people, the only thing politicians care about is re-election. Many Democrats remember how after ending the Vietnam War, like the public demanded of Congress, they were seen as defeatists, even though they did what the public wanted. Our Democrats today are thinking back and are afraid of their job security because, again, that is all they care about. They don't care about morals, international law, human beings, or anything that doesn't involve them. Hey David Obey, remember when you told those stupid liberals that they didn't understand anything, that your bill was going to end the war and if they couldn't see that then they must be smoking something illegal, go fuck yourself.
CIndy SHeehan has not only disavowed herself from the Democratic Party but she has gone all the way and just given up on the anti-war movement. This isn't good for a movement made up of only two people. Somehow I doubt that Medea Benjamin, trust fund kid, will be getting that much air play. Don't get me wrong, Medea and her CodePink are great but they were not enough. The mother of a dead soldier(SIde note: Casey was killed during an uprising in Sadr City. The uprising was caused because then Viceroy Paul L. Bremer decided that, in his position of supporting freedom, he would shut down a newspaper from the Shia Cleric Al-Sadr.) is always a great figure to protest a war.
Well now she is gone and the war can continue without a peep from the public. If the Democrats are lucky this War will cost the Republicans the Whitehouse. One must remember that we are losing nearly four soldiers a day and Jan. '09 is quite a few days away. So, in 2009, we may be talking about our Democratic President or we may be talking about the 1500 kids who died since CIndy SHeehan gave up.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
What's politics?
The other day at work I ran into a former co-worker of mine, a hip vegan kid who is attending college. He was a political science major at the University of Milwaukee so of course we talked quite a bit. He was young so he didn’t know much political history but he was passionate about the issues. So when I saw him recently I had to ask how his major was going. It turned out that he was now going to get a degree in I.T.. I gave him a strange look and he told me that he couldn’t do politics anymore. “Politics is great to discuss over a beer (most people polled said they would prefer to have a beer with Bush vs. Kerry) but to participate (at this moment he gave me one of those “you wouldn’t understand” looks) is not cool at all. It totally turned me off.” This made me realize something. Politics is not what the politicians do. Politics is not about elections or even what those politicians do in Washington. Politics is injustice, politics is economic tyranny, politics is black power, politics is equality, politics is direct action, politics is ACTUP, politics is the World Social Forum it isn’t about the bills on Capitol Hill like the cartoon used to tell us. If people think that what happens in the capitol is politics it is no wonder only half of Americans vote. Maybe, just maybe, if people understand what politics really is, change could actually happen.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Two Great Quotes
I was listening to a book on tape today and heard two awesome quotes. Both are by Bertrand Russell, in my opinion, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century. If you haven't read anything by him, you are doing yourself a big disservice.
The book I am listening to is "Religion and Science."
I just thought these quotes are totally relevent to today.
"The harm that theology has done, is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic and to confer an apparently sacred character upon the practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages."
"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that to many men there is something enjoyable in the sufferings of women, and that therefore there is a propensity in men to cling to any theological or ehtical code which makes it a woman's duty to suffer."
The book I am listening to is "Religion and Science."
I just thought these quotes are totally relevent to today.
"The harm that theology has done, is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic and to confer an apparently sacred character upon the practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages."
"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that to many men there is something enjoyable in the sufferings of women, and that therefore there is a propensity in men to cling to any theological or ehtical code which makes it a woman's duty to suffer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
