Israel-Palestine: a tortured land. No other place on Earth has so much history and so many events and places important to so many people as this small slice of land. This place is home to both peace and strife, love and hatred, kindness and violence. There is no single truth here.
As visitors to Israel-Palestine, our group sought answers. What are the issues? What are the solutions? Who can move things forward? Why do things seem to be moving backwards? After 10 days on the ground we only have more questions.
One of the presenters to our group told us that the vast majority of problems in this country have no solutions, and people need to find ways to live with them. He suggested that as Americans, we can't accept this answer because, I suppose, we are solution-oriented. Perhaps he is correct. I find this difficult to accept, but I also find that the problems here have defied solutions for decades. And I also know that there are no simple answers; nothing here is black and white, everything here is a shade of grey.
The people we've met in Israel and the West Bank have to a person been friendly, gracious and appreciative of our interest in their lives and issues. At the same time that we've heard tales of anger, violence and fear, we've also heard stories of friendship, collaboration and kindness. Perhaps it is most telling that for every issue that divides Arabs and Jews, we find Arabs and Jews working together to find solutions.
I finish this journey with over 70 pages of hastily scribbled notes from at least 14 presentations and visits. During the next week of traveling through Israel on our own, I plan to comb through these notes to solidify thoughts and ideas, and post more to this blog. But I also plan to enjoy being here, visiting friends and relatives, taking in the visual beauty of the land, and enjoying the wonders of this troubled place.
Whatever is on my mind: politics, the news, philosophy, poetry and satire. VISIT MY WEBSITE (click on The Some Times button, below) PRIVACY NOTICE/GDPR: SEE JAN. 4, 2019
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
JOURNEY OF PEACE: OCTOBER 27, 2006
What does Judaism say about war (or, is there such a thing as kosher casualties)? This was the topic of the talk given to our group by Matthew Wagner, the religion reporter for the Jerusalem Post. Matthew discussed with our group the morality and ethics of war from the perspective of interpretation of Jewish law (Halacha). He began with the following anecdote:
A man sitting on a hill in southern Lebanon observes, through binoculars, a peaceful scene at a farmhouse below, with a group of children playing near the house. A truck drives in and parks, and the driver goes inside the house. Soon after, a rocket is launched from the area of the farmhouse. The man on the hill is a miliary observer in the Israeli Defense Force whose job is to direct IDF fire to missle launch sites. But the man hesitates - if he calls for an artillary strike, the children will certainly be killed. After a few moments of deliberation, he decides not to call for the artillery strike in order not to harm the children.
This story was told to Matthew by an IDF soldier he was interviewing during the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah; the man telling the story was the observer on the hill. The story illustrates an ethical dilemma of war - should military personnel do everything they can to not harm non-combatants? What if such action puts one's own life at risk? This was a heated topic of discussion during the recent war, including opinions expressed by various rabbis in Israel. Some rabbis justified killing based on biblical content such as "he who stands to kill, kill him first" and "there is no guilt if you are following God's will." Civilian casualties are, after all, secondary to winning the war.
The issue of ethics in war, and the "purity of arms," was heightened during the recent war in Lebanon. The IDF knew that Hezbollah fighters and missles were hidden throughout civilian areas, essentially using the civilian population as "human shields." Was killing civilians necessary and acceptable (morally and ethically) in order to protect Israeli civilians who were the targets of Hezbollah missles?
Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish scholastic philosopher and rabbi, one of the major theologians of Judaism, wrote rules for war, including these: when laying siege, only array your forces on three sides of the target city; those who want can escape, those who want can make peace, and those who want to fight will be defeated. The IDF used a tactic similar to the rules of Maimonides in southern Lebanon by warning the civilian populations in specific areas, using radio, leaflets dropped from aircraft, and even phone calls, to evacuate because the areas would be bombed. Three major questions need to be asked prior to an action in which non-combatants could be harmed: 1) is the purpose of the action to protect Israeli civilians, 2) is there intelligence and proof that the action will save lives in Israel, and 3) is there an alternative that will cost fewer civilian lives?
War is not something to be taken lightly, and the killing of civilians raises moral and ethical questions that can be looked at from many angles. Jewish morality and ethics require the asking of these questions.
A man sitting on a hill in southern Lebanon observes, through binoculars, a peaceful scene at a farmhouse below, with a group of children playing near the house. A truck drives in and parks, and the driver goes inside the house. Soon after, a rocket is launched from the area of the farmhouse. The man on the hill is a miliary observer in the Israeli Defense Force whose job is to direct IDF fire to missle launch sites. But the man hesitates - if he calls for an artillary strike, the children will certainly be killed. After a few moments of deliberation, he decides not to call for the artillery strike in order not to harm the children.
This story was told to Matthew by an IDF soldier he was interviewing during the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah; the man telling the story was the observer on the hill. The story illustrates an ethical dilemma of war - should military personnel do everything they can to not harm non-combatants? What if such action puts one's own life at risk? This was a heated topic of discussion during the recent war, including opinions expressed by various rabbis in Israel. Some rabbis justified killing based on biblical content such as "he who stands to kill, kill him first" and "there is no guilt if you are following God's will." Civilian casualties are, after all, secondary to winning the war.
The issue of ethics in war, and the "purity of arms," was heightened during the recent war in Lebanon. The IDF knew that Hezbollah fighters and missles were hidden throughout civilian areas, essentially using the civilian population as "human shields." Was killing civilians necessary and acceptable (morally and ethically) in order to protect Israeli civilians who were the targets of Hezbollah missles?
Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish scholastic philosopher and rabbi, one of the major theologians of Judaism, wrote rules for war, including these: when laying siege, only array your forces on three sides of the target city; those who want can escape, those who want can make peace, and those who want to fight will be defeated. The IDF used a tactic similar to the rules of Maimonides in southern Lebanon by warning the civilian populations in specific areas, using radio, leaflets dropped from aircraft, and even phone calls, to evacuate because the areas would be bombed. Three major questions need to be asked prior to an action in which non-combatants could be harmed: 1) is the purpose of the action to protect Israeli civilians, 2) is there intelligence and proof that the action will save lives in Israel, and 3) is there an alternative that will cost fewer civilian lives?
War is not something to be taken lightly, and the killing of civilians raises moral and ethical questions that can be looked at from many angles. Jewish morality and ethics require the asking of these questions.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
JOURNEY OF PEACE: OCTOBER 25, 2006
This Journey is a lot more intellectual work than I think any of us imagined. Each day is packed with visits, lectures and discussions that tend to overload one's brain. But, that's why we're here.
In this short post I want to try to summarize some points about the issue of civil equality in Israel. As I wrote in the previous post, we visited and met with people at organizations that are working for civil equality - read that as civil rights for Arab Israelis.
We've learned some basic facts:
1. About 1.3 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens.
2. Palestinian Israelis live inside the borders of Israel; these are not the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
3. Palestinian Israelis face discrimination in both personal and institutional ways.
4. There appears to be general agreement within the Jewish community of Israel that discrimination exists and it is an issue that will need to be dealt with.
We met with people from three different groups working on issues of civil equality. Givat Chavivah is a center that conducts educational programs, including face-to-face experiences for Jewish and Arab teens. Neve Shalom~Wahat Al Salam is a community of Arabs and Jews that live and work together, including a shared school where children are taught in both Hebrew and Arabic. Sikkuy, Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel, is an advocacy group that works at the government and business levels on institutional issues of discrimination.
As Americans, these dicsussions were meaningful at several levels. Our understanding of Israel in regards to the issues of Arab citizens has been heightened. But we have also thought and talked about issues in the United States regarding discrimination against our fellow citizens.
From the information we've received on this issue, it appears that a variety of organizations are working to improve the situation for Palestinian Israelis in education, employment, and greater inclusion in society. I see this as more than a civil equality issue. I see direct connections to national security, international relations, and Israel's strength as a nation.
Like everything in the Middle East, the issue of Palestinian Israelis' status in Israel is complex and not easily resolved. One need only look at the United States, where civil rights issues took center stage several decades ago, and yet today there is much progress to be made in the area of civil rights for ethnic groups within our society.
In this short post I want to try to summarize some points about the issue of civil equality in Israel. As I wrote in the previous post, we visited and met with people at organizations that are working for civil equality - read that as civil rights for Arab Israelis.
We've learned some basic facts:
1. About 1.3 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens.
2. Palestinian Israelis live inside the borders of Israel; these are not the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
3. Palestinian Israelis face discrimination in both personal and institutional ways.
4. There appears to be general agreement within the Jewish community of Israel that discrimination exists and it is an issue that will need to be dealt with.
We met with people from three different groups working on issues of civil equality. Givat Chavivah is a center that conducts educational programs, including face-to-face experiences for Jewish and Arab teens. Neve Shalom~Wahat Al Salam is a community of Arabs and Jews that live and work together, including a shared school where children are taught in both Hebrew and Arabic. Sikkuy, Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel, is an advocacy group that works at the government and business levels on institutional issues of discrimination.
As Americans, these dicsussions were meaningful at several levels. Our understanding of Israel in regards to the issues of Arab citizens has been heightened. But we have also thought and talked about issues in the United States regarding discrimination against our fellow citizens.
From the information we've received on this issue, it appears that a variety of organizations are working to improve the situation for Palestinian Israelis in education, employment, and greater inclusion in society. I see this as more than a civil equality issue. I see direct connections to national security, international relations, and Israel's strength as a nation.
Like everything in the Middle East, the issue of Palestinian Israelis' status in Israel is complex and not easily resolved. One need only look at the United States, where civil rights issues took center stage several decades ago, and yet today there is much progress to be made in the area of civil rights for ethnic groups within our society.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
JOURNEY OF PEACE: OCTOBER 22, OCTOBER 23
(Note: this post is one of a series about our experiences on "A Journey of Peace to Israel and Palestine" - a group of people from Portland, Oregon USA. The 22 people on the trip are Jews and Christians, the trip leaders are Rabbi Joshua Stampfer and Rev. Dr. Rodney Page who first organized and led a similar trip 20 years ago. I will post as often as possible summaries of our travels and experiences (not the tourist activities), things learned and questions raised.
The first two days of the trip (October 22 and 23) focused on Jewish and Arab Israeli relations and history, and efforts to build bridges between the two groups within Israel. On October 22 we spent the day at, and touring with the staff of, Givat Haviva Institute, which "educates and acts to promote the values of equality and human dignity." Givat Haviva was founded in 1949 as a national education center of the Kibbutz Artzi Movement, a federation of 83 kibbutzim throughout Israel. On October 23 we visited Neve Shalom~Wahat al-Salam (NSWAS), a village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship founded in the early 1970's. NSWAS residents/members are "demonstrating the possibility of coexistence between Jews and Palestinians by developing a community based on mutual acceptance, respect and cooperation."
It was helpful for us to understand that about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs (between 1.2 and 1.3 million people), and that among those, about 84% are Muslim, 10% Christian and 6% Druse. These people live primarily in Arab villages in Israel, with most of the villages in the northern area. About 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war of independence in 1948 that resulted in the State of Israel. These people chose to remain in Israel, as citizens, rather than give up their homes and live as refugees. Two Palestinian speakers each told how their parents or grandparents were criticized and considered traitors by those Palestinians who left Israel because they chose to remain and become citizens of Israel.
The "facts" of history depend on who writes the history, but it is clear that conflicts between Arab Palestinaians and Jews grew in the early decades of the 20th century as increasing numbers of Jews immigrated to Palestine, many as part of the Zionist movement. Serious violence erupted between Arabs and Jews during the period 1936 - 1939 while Palestine was under British rule. During the mid- to late 1940's, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel each declared independence from the British; the Israeli declaration of independence initiated a war between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. The armistice agreement of 1949 between Israel and it's neighbors established the Green Line demarcating the boundaries between Israel and adjacent nations, including Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Following the 6-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the areas of the West Bank and Gaza.
Against this backdrop of a very complex history, we heard from speakers at Givat Haviva and NSWAS about the status of Arab Israeli's and the programs and efforts of these institutions and communities to bring people together. The focus of these efforts is education, face-to-face experiences, community building and cooperation. Givat Haviva programs include the Jewish-Arab Center for Peace, within which are the Departments of Educaton, Community Involvement, Women and Gender Studies, Regional Cooperation, Teacher training, Institute for Arabic Studies, and Institute for Peace Research. Givat Haviva also has a Peace Library, Holocaust Study Center, Arts Center and International Department. A few of the many things we learned about the programs of Givat Haviva: 3,000 to 5,000 Jewish and Arab high school students participate in a "Face to Face" program every year; they operate the best school for teaching Arab spoken language ("language is a barrier or a gate"), they have published the story of the Holocaust in Arabic, and house the largest library in the world of Palestinian Israeli information.
The community of Neveh Shalom~Wahat al-Salam began with one family in 1979, had 8 families in 1984, and today consists of 50 families - half Jewish and half Arab. The village is governed democratically by community members, and has a small group of elected members who run the administrative aspects of the community. The community school is the only one in Israel where children are taught equally in Hebrew and Arabic, and learn about and participate in both cultures, while following the standard school curriculum of Israel. NSWAS is unlike towns in Israel where both Jews and Arabs live - NSWAS is a community where Jews and Arabs purposefully build community together in order to break down the barriers between people.
In a future post I will discuss some of the issues presented to us concerning Palestinian Israelis.
The first two days of the trip (October 22 and 23) focused on Jewish and Arab Israeli relations and history, and efforts to build bridges between the two groups within Israel. On October 22 we spent the day at, and touring with the staff of, Givat Haviva Institute, which "educates and acts to promote the values of equality and human dignity." Givat Haviva was founded in 1949 as a national education center of the Kibbutz Artzi Movement, a federation of 83 kibbutzim throughout Israel. On October 23 we visited Neve Shalom~Wahat al-Salam (NSWAS), a village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship founded in the early 1970's. NSWAS residents/members are "demonstrating the possibility of coexistence between Jews and Palestinians by developing a community based on mutual acceptance, respect and cooperation."
It was helpful for us to understand that about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs (between 1.2 and 1.3 million people), and that among those, about 84% are Muslim, 10% Christian and 6% Druse. These people live primarily in Arab villages in Israel, with most of the villages in the northern area. About 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war of independence in 1948 that resulted in the State of Israel. These people chose to remain in Israel, as citizens, rather than give up their homes and live as refugees. Two Palestinian speakers each told how their parents or grandparents were criticized and considered traitors by those Palestinians who left Israel because they chose to remain and become citizens of Israel.
The "facts" of history depend on who writes the history, but it is clear that conflicts between Arab Palestinaians and Jews grew in the early decades of the 20th century as increasing numbers of Jews immigrated to Palestine, many as part of the Zionist movement. Serious violence erupted between Arabs and Jews during the period 1936 - 1939 while Palestine was under British rule. During the mid- to late 1940's, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel each declared independence from the British; the Israeli declaration of independence initiated a war between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. The armistice agreement of 1949 between Israel and it's neighbors established the Green Line demarcating the boundaries between Israel and adjacent nations, including Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Following the 6-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the areas of the West Bank and Gaza.
Against this backdrop of a very complex history, we heard from speakers at Givat Haviva and NSWAS about the status of Arab Israeli's and the programs and efforts of these institutions and communities to bring people together. The focus of these efforts is education, face-to-face experiences, community building and cooperation. Givat Haviva programs include the Jewish-Arab Center for Peace, within which are the Departments of Educaton, Community Involvement, Women and Gender Studies, Regional Cooperation, Teacher training, Institute for Arabic Studies, and Institute for Peace Research. Givat Haviva also has a Peace Library, Holocaust Study Center, Arts Center and International Department. A few of the many things we learned about the programs of Givat Haviva: 3,000 to 5,000 Jewish and Arab high school students participate in a "Face to Face" program every year; they operate the best school for teaching Arab spoken language ("language is a barrier or a gate"), they have published the story of the Holocaust in Arabic, and house the largest library in the world of Palestinian Israeli information.
The community of Neveh Shalom~Wahat al-Salam began with one family in 1979, had 8 families in 1984, and today consists of 50 families - half Jewish and half Arab. The village is governed democratically by community members, and has a small group of elected members who run the administrative aspects of the community. The community school is the only one in Israel where children are taught equally in Hebrew and Arabic, and learn about and participate in both cultures, while following the standard school curriculum of Israel. NSWAS is unlike towns in Israel where both Jews and Arabs live - NSWAS is a community where Jews and Arabs purposefully build community together in order to break down the barriers between people.
In a future post I will discuss some of the issues presented to us concerning Palestinian Israelis.
Friday, October 20, 2006
JOURNEY OF PEACE: ITINERARY
Sherry and I begin our travels with a small group from Portland on the "Journey of Peace" to Israel and Palestine. The trip itinerary is shown below. Our goal is to post as often as possible with summaries and thoughts from our visits, meetings and discussions. The posts will be titled: "Jouney of Peace" and dated.
AN INTERFAITH JOURNEY OF PEACE TO ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
Oct 21, Saturday: arrive in Tel Aviv, travel to Givat Chaviva
Givat Chavivah is an institute that provides education to promote human dignity and equality
between Jews and Arabs living in Israel. We will tour the region of Wadi Ara and the Arab village of Barta’a.
Oct 22, Sunday: Givat Chaviva
Oct 23, Monday:
• visit Neve Shalom, the only joint Jewish-Arab community in Israel;
• visit Mini Israel;
Oct 24, Tuesday:
• meeting with representative of Sikkuy, Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel;
• visit Mt. Zion (David’s Tomb, Last Supper Room)
• go to old city
• Western Wall
. Temple Steps
. Davidson Center
Oct 25, Wednesday: organized by Yesha, settler's organization in West Bank
• separation wall in Mt. Gilo
• Gush Etzion settlements
• Yeshiva Har Etzion
• Kfar Etzion
• discussion in Judaica Center
Jerusalem: lecture by Dr. Ephraim Inbar
Oct 26, Thursday:
• Bethleham: Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem Bible College
• Jerusalem:Jerusalem Post meeting with Mati Wagner, correspondent
• meeting with Elias Zananiri, Palestinian journalist
Oct 27, Friday:
• Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial
• Mt. Herzl Military Cemetery
• Shrine of the Book
• Mea Shearim
Oct 28, Saturday:
• Jerusalem: Chaiphas House; Mount of olives; Church of the Ascension; Christian Quarter of the old city:
Pool of Bethesda, St. Anna Church, Lithostrothos at the Ecce Hommo Arch, Holy Sepulchre Church
• Garden Tomb
Oct 29, Sunday:
• joined by representatives of Kol Hashalom radio station
• Hand in Hand School
• meet with Peace Now members at hotel
Oct 30, Monday: organized by Rabbis for Human Rights
• meet with Seri Nuseiba, moderate Palestinian
• Wall Excavations
Oct 31, Tuesday:
• Tantur Ecumenical Institute: visit and meetings with Israelis, Palestinian Muslim, Palestinian Christian
AN INTERFAITH JOURNEY OF PEACE TO ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
Oct 21, Saturday: arrive in Tel Aviv, travel to Givat Chaviva
Givat Chavivah is an institute that provides education to promote human dignity and equality
between Jews and Arabs living in Israel. We will tour the region of Wadi Ara and the Arab village of Barta’a.
Oct 22, Sunday: Givat Chaviva
Oct 23, Monday:
• visit Neve Shalom, the only joint Jewish-Arab community in Israel;
• visit Mini Israel;
Oct 24, Tuesday:
• meeting with representative of Sikkuy, Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel;
• visit Mt. Zion (David’s Tomb, Last Supper Room)
• go to old city
• Western Wall
. Temple Steps
. Davidson Center
Oct 25, Wednesday: organized by Yesha, settler's organization in West Bank
• separation wall in Mt. Gilo
• Gush Etzion settlements
• Yeshiva Har Etzion
• Kfar Etzion
• discussion in Judaica Center
Jerusalem: lecture by Dr. Ephraim Inbar
Oct 26, Thursday:
• Bethleham: Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem Bible College
• Jerusalem:Jerusalem Post meeting with Mati Wagner, correspondent
• meeting with Elias Zananiri, Palestinian journalist
Oct 27, Friday:
• Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial
• Mt. Herzl Military Cemetery
• Shrine of the Book
• Mea Shearim
Oct 28, Saturday:
• Jerusalem: Chaiphas House; Mount of olives; Church of the Ascension; Christian Quarter of the old city:
Pool of Bethesda, St. Anna Church, Lithostrothos at the Ecce Hommo Arch, Holy Sepulchre Church
• Garden Tomb
Oct 29, Sunday:
• joined by representatives of Kol Hashalom radio station
• Hand in Hand School
• meet with Peace Now members at hotel
Oct 30, Monday: organized by Rabbis for Human Rights
• meet with Seri Nuseiba, moderate Palestinian
• Wall Excavations
Oct 31, Tuesday:
• Tantur Ecumenical Institute: visit and meetings with Israelis, Palestinian Muslim, Palestinian Christian
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
SEEKING THE ANSWER TO ONE OF LIFE'S GREATEST MYSTERIES
About 4+ years ago, when we moved into our new home, we bought all new coffee gear: electric drip coffee maker, espresso machine, burr-type coffee bean grinder, and some accessories, all Starbucks brand from the corner store. (This became a shrine to Starbucks on a small counter in our kitchen.)
Every morning when I grind coffee beans for that fresh cuppa, I marvel and curse at the ground beans as they come leaping out of the little plastic drawer in the grinder when I pull it open. These fresh grounds are charged with static electricity and do their very best to get away from each other - and all over everything within a 6 to 8 inch radius. They stick to the metal measuring spoon, they stick to the grinder, they stick to the nearby espresso machine. Arghhhh!
Recently, a Peet's Coffee store opened across the street from our local Starbucks. We've been using Peet's roasted beans for a couple of weeks and, mystery of mysteries, the ground Peet's beans don't leap out of the grinder - they just sit there in an un-charged state waiting to be put into one of the machines that will douse them with boiling water.
This is truly one of the Great Mysteries of Life and, quite honestly, has me completely stumped. Any and all theories to explain the coffee grounds mystery will be gladly accepted.
And now, the pot is ready and I need that cuppa....
Every morning when I grind coffee beans for that fresh cuppa, I marvel and curse at the ground beans as they come leaping out of the little plastic drawer in the grinder when I pull it open. These fresh grounds are charged with static electricity and do their very best to get away from each other - and all over everything within a 6 to 8 inch radius. They stick to the metal measuring spoon, they stick to the grinder, they stick to the nearby espresso machine. Arghhhh!
Recently, a Peet's Coffee store opened across the street from our local Starbucks. We've been using Peet's roasted beans for a couple of weeks and, mystery of mysteries, the ground Peet's beans don't leap out of the grinder - they just sit there in an un-charged state waiting to be put into one of the machines that will douse them with boiling water.
This is truly one of the Great Mysteries of Life and, quite honestly, has me completely stumped. Any and all theories to explain the coffee grounds mystery will be gladly accepted.
And now, the pot is ready and I need that cuppa....
Monday, October 02, 2006
THIS IS NOT MY AMERICA
This is not my America!
My America stands for freedom, democracy, human rights, and justice.
My America doesn’t hold people prisoner for years without due process. My America doesn’t run secret prisons all over the world. My America doesn’t torture people, and outsource torture of prisoners. My America doesn’t have a President who pushes for laws that allow torture, abuse, secrecy, and violation of international conventions.
My America doesn’t stifle free speech, labeling those who speak out, those who question, those who criticize as “traitors” or “offering comfort to the enemy.” My America doesn’t ignore the law and spy on its own citizens without due process. My America doesn’t have an administration that considers itself above the law. My America doesn’t have a President who signs a large number of bills into law with a “yes, but” statement that allows him to ignore the law.
My America doesn’t build huge fences to keep people out, symbolically placing a blindfold on the Statue of Liberty. My America doesn’t hate diversity of color, dress and language. My America doesn’t hate people of the same sex who love each other.
My America doesn’t give big tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting funding for education, health care, social services and public infrastructure. My America doesn’t ignore public safety, let poor people fend for themselves and die in a natural disaster, and then break promises to assist with recovery.
My America doesn’t ignore and subvert science, particularly when the environment of the planet is at risk. My America is a leader in science and technology, not an ostrich with its head in the sand. My America doesn’t have a President who fiddles while the Earth burns.
And my America doesn’t invade and occupy other nations, using false pretenses, lies and selected information to pose an enemy. My America doesn’t declare “mission accomplished” while the killing continues unabated under a failed strategy (or no strategy at all). My America doesn’t claim success in a “war on terror” at the same time it has created conditions for even greater terror.
What is my America? I dream of an America where freedom, democracy, human rights and justice are the foundations upon which we help build a better world. Poverty, disease, hate and ignorance are swept away by my America. The people of my America have honest dialogue about who we are in the world, and where we are heading. We use our freedoms, our creativity, our wealth and our amazing spirit of “can do” to work cooperatively with all people of the world, building towards the true fulfillment of human potential.
Unfortunately, the present America is not my America, or yours. And we all should say “Enough!”
My America stands for freedom, democracy, human rights, and justice.
My America doesn’t hold people prisoner for years without due process. My America doesn’t run secret prisons all over the world. My America doesn’t torture people, and outsource torture of prisoners. My America doesn’t have a President who pushes for laws that allow torture, abuse, secrecy, and violation of international conventions.
My America doesn’t stifle free speech, labeling those who speak out, those who question, those who criticize as “traitors” or “offering comfort to the enemy.” My America doesn’t ignore the law and spy on its own citizens without due process. My America doesn’t have an administration that considers itself above the law. My America doesn’t have a President who signs a large number of bills into law with a “yes, but” statement that allows him to ignore the law.
My America doesn’t build huge fences to keep people out, symbolically placing a blindfold on the Statue of Liberty. My America doesn’t hate diversity of color, dress and language. My America doesn’t hate people of the same sex who love each other.
My America doesn’t give big tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting funding for education, health care, social services and public infrastructure. My America doesn’t ignore public safety, let poor people fend for themselves and die in a natural disaster, and then break promises to assist with recovery.
My America doesn’t ignore and subvert science, particularly when the environment of the planet is at risk. My America is a leader in science and technology, not an ostrich with its head in the sand. My America doesn’t have a President who fiddles while the Earth burns.
And my America doesn’t invade and occupy other nations, using false pretenses, lies and selected information to pose an enemy. My America doesn’t declare “mission accomplished” while the killing continues unabated under a failed strategy (or no strategy at all). My America doesn’t claim success in a “war on terror” at the same time it has created conditions for even greater terror.
What is my America? I dream of an America where freedom, democracy, human rights and justice are the foundations upon which we help build a better world. Poverty, disease, hate and ignorance are swept away by my America. The people of my America have honest dialogue about who we are in the world, and where we are heading. We use our freedoms, our creativity, our wealth and our amazing spirit of “can do” to work cooperatively with all people of the world, building towards the true fulfillment of human potential.
Unfortunately, the present America is not my America, or yours. And we all should say “Enough!”
Saturday, September 30, 2006
POLITICS OF THE AUTOMOBILE: ARE HYBRIDS AND BIODIESEL THE ANSWER? (THE AUTOMOBILE, PART 2)
Here in Portland, Oregon, the self-proclaimed green capitol of the world (a lot of which is true), the politics of the automobile are in plain sight. Hordes of Toyota Prius and other hybrid cars glide silently by on the streets (as one friend says, decreasing the smog but increasing the smug). A growing number of gas stations sell locally-made biodiesel, and some businesses and government agencies have/are converting their fleets to this fuel. These are positive trends for the environment and the economy, and they demonstrate that individuals can make choices that are "correct." What troubles me, however, is that these correct trends might also be ignoring the real issues, what I call the politics of the automobile.
The lead story in today's newspaper Autos section reads: "Lexus brings GS hybrid up to speed." The article, about the 2007 Lexus (Toyota) GS 450h, is about, in the writer's words, "the world's first luxury hybrid hot rod." For only $55,000 or more, you can get a hybrid car that does 0-60-miles per hour in just 5.2 seconds!! Great - a totally luxurious car that goes real fast, and is a hybrid, meaning it's also a "correct" car. Well...not exactly. Like a lot of the new hybrids on the market, both Japanese and American, this automobile has the hybrid technology primarily for one reason, greater acceleration. The Lexus GS 450h is EPA rated at 25 city/28 highway gas mileage. That's what we get with our 1993 V6 Toyota Camry XLE (see my Automobile Part 1)! A quick look at a government site about fuel efficiency reveals the following:
2006 Lexus GS 300/GS 430 (non-hybrid): 22/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus ES 350 (non-hybrid): 21/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus GS 450h (hybrid): 25/28 MPG, $1507 annual fuel cost.
So the new Lexus hybrid uses slightly less fuel in the city and more on the highway than last years non-hybrid model, and saves about $60 a year in fuel costs; now that's progress! To be fair, the new hybrid has a much better EPA rating for air emissions - a good thing.
What am I trying to say here? While hybrid technology and alternative fuels are good things, let's not overlook the basic fact that these are all variations on a theme - the automobile as the basic mode of transportation. I've often thought that if we had to do an Environmental Impact Statement for the automobile, we might not be driving them in the future. The automobile has been the driving force (pun intended) behind a lot of our urban design and many other social and economic aspects of our culture. Too many of us define ourselves by the car we drive, hence the development of the fast luxury car and the monster SUV - machines that really don't make a lot of sense.
Meanwhile, back in Portland, the green capitol of the world, it seems like a growing number of people are thinking about the politics of the automobile. During the daily commute, some streets look like the photos we used to see from China, with hundreds of bicyclists peddling to and from work. Buses and light-rail commuter trains are filled with people. Urban development in and around the downtown is booming, attracting many new city dwellers away from the burbs. Streetcars, once the norm in Portland as well as most American cities, have reappeared. And people seem to be (gasp!) walking more than before. So maybe there's hope after all that we'll understand the politics of the automobile and make informed choices.
The lead story in today's newspaper Autos section reads: "Lexus brings GS hybrid up to speed." The article, about the 2007 Lexus (Toyota) GS 450h, is about, in the writer's words, "the world's first luxury hybrid hot rod." For only $55,000 or more, you can get a hybrid car that does 0-60-miles per hour in just 5.2 seconds!! Great - a totally luxurious car that goes real fast, and is a hybrid, meaning it's also a "correct" car. Well...not exactly. Like a lot of the new hybrids on the market, both Japanese and American, this automobile has the hybrid technology primarily for one reason, greater acceleration. The Lexus GS 450h is EPA rated at 25 city/28 highway gas mileage. That's what we get with our 1993 V6 Toyota Camry XLE (see my Automobile Part 1)! A quick look at a government site about fuel efficiency reveals the following:
2006 Lexus GS 300/GS 430 (non-hybrid): 22/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus ES 350 (non-hybrid): 21/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus GS 450h (hybrid): 25/28 MPG, $1507 annual fuel cost.
So the new Lexus hybrid uses slightly less fuel in the city and more on the highway than last years non-hybrid model, and saves about $60 a year in fuel costs; now that's progress! To be fair, the new hybrid has a much better EPA rating for air emissions - a good thing.
What am I trying to say here? While hybrid technology and alternative fuels are good things, let's not overlook the basic fact that these are all variations on a theme - the automobile as the basic mode of transportation. I've often thought that if we had to do an Environmental Impact Statement for the automobile, we might not be driving them in the future. The automobile has been the driving force (pun intended) behind a lot of our urban design and many other social and economic aspects of our culture. Too many of us define ourselves by the car we drive, hence the development of the fast luxury car and the monster SUV - machines that really don't make a lot of sense.
Meanwhile, back in Portland, the green capitol of the world, it seems like a growing number of people are thinking about the politics of the automobile. During the daily commute, some streets look like the photos we used to see from China, with hundreds of bicyclists peddling to and from work. Buses and light-rail commuter trains are filled with people. Urban development in and around the downtown is booming, attracting many new city dwellers away from the burbs. Streetcars, once the norm in Portland as well as most American cities, have reappeared. And people seem to be (gasp!) walking more than before. So maybe there's hope after all that we'll understand the politics of the automobile and make informed choices.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
THE SAME OLD BU(LL)SH(IT)
"The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush told a convention-center audience of over 2,000 people. Does anyone agree with this man? Does anyone not see the spin dribbling out of his mouth? What the hell is he talking about, anyway?
First of all, what does "cut and run" mean?
An old nautical expression. In an emergency, it was sometimes necessary to cut the anchor cable, instead of going through the time-consuming business of winching up the anchor, in order to get away quickly ('run' before the wind, at full sail).
So "cut and run' is not a coward's business, "cut and run" is a deliberate strategy employed when faced with impending danger. A very worth-while article on using this strategy for the Iraq war is "Cut and Run? You Bet!" by Lt. General William E. Odum, published in the journal Foreign Policy earlier this year.
The facts speak for themselves: the Bushies have lost their war in Iraq; the "War on Terror" is a dismal failure; the U.S. intelligence agencies all agree that the Iraq war has made us less safe, and has been a huge success for the jihadists; Americans other than the very wealthy are worse off now than we were thirty years ago; U.S. debt is huge - we're owned by China - and getting bigger; global warming is a reality; and the United States of America has chosen to take the moral low ground with the President's law allowing torture, secret jails, and kangaroo trials.
But hey, it's an election year, so the R's roll out the Rove robots and smear everyone in sight who dares be critical of them, using lies, deception, inuendo and spin, spin, spin.
Isn't it time that we all realized that the bullshit is eyeball-high, and do something about it? Let's see what November brings.
First of all, what does "cut and run" mean?
An old nautical expression. In an emergency, it was sometimes necessary to cut the anchor cable, instead of going through the time-consuming business of winching up the anchor, in order to get away quickly ('run' before the wind, at full sail).
So "cut and run' is not a coward's business, "cut and run" is a deliberate strategy employed when faced with impending danger. A very worth-while article on using this strategy for the Iraq war is "Cut and Run? You Bet!" by Lt. General William E. Odum, published in the journal Foreign Policy earlier this year.
The facts speak for themselves: the Bushies have lost their war in Iraq; the "War on Terror" is a dismal failure; the U.S. intelligence agencies all agree that the Iraq war has made us less safe, and has been a huge success for the jihadists; Americans other than the very wealthy are worse off now than we were thirty years ago; U.S. debt is huge - we're owned by China - and getting bigger; global warming is a reality; and the United States of America has chosen to take the moral low ground with the President's law allowing torture, secret jails, and kangaroo trials.
But hey, it's an election year, so the R's roll out the Rove robots and smear everyone in sight who dares be critical of them, using lies, deception, inuendo and spin, spin, spin.
Isn't it time that we all realized that the bullshit is eyeball-high, and do something about it? Let's see what November brings.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
REACTING TO HURTFUL REMARKS
(from the New York Times, August 18, 2006) The civil rights leader Andrew Young, who was hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image, resigned from that post last night after telling an African-American newspaper that Jewish, Arab and Korean shop owners had “ripped off” urban communities for years, “selling us stale bread, and bad meat and wilted vegetables.” (see full article)
So what are Jews, Arabs and Koreans doing about this insult? Has any rabbi declared a jewhad against Ambassador Young and Wal-Mart? Have former governors and ambassadors been gunned down in the street? Have Wal-Marts been firebombed? Well, no, not in this country. Mr. Young has been roundly criticized by Jewish-, Arab-, and Korean-American leaders, as well as by Wal-Mart, his former employer. Mr. Young has issued a public apology. And that's it, although there will be collective memory of his unfortunate remarks for a long time.
And this is what I call civilized behavior.
So what are Jews, Arabs and Koreans doing about this insult? Has any rabbi declared a jewhad against Ambassador Young and Wal-Mart? Have former governors and ambassadors been gunned down in the street? Have Wal-Marts been firebombed? Well, no, not in this country. Mr. Young has been roundly criticized by Jewish-, Arab-, and Korean-American leaders, as well as by Wal-Mart, his former employer. Mr. Young has issued a public apology. And that's it, although there will be collective memory of his unfortunate remarks for a long time.
And this is what I call civilized behavior.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
HUMOR IN THE NEWS
OK, one thought I had while lounging around Italy last month was that my posts tend to be very serious, and I take that input serious - - - ly.
So, a new feature is being added to Read My Opinion - Humor in the News.
From the headlines of September 18, 2006:
Conservationists have petitioned the federal government to have the Palouse Giant Earthworm listed as an endangered species. - Special interest groups are already weighing in on both sides. An anti-listing petition is being widely circulated by the political committee of the largemouth bass association.
President Bush wants US intelligence and military personnel to be allowed to use torture techniques on terrorist prisoners. - The President expressed surprise that there are objections to the use of some forms of questioning, such as water-boarding: "Heck, we always enjoyed water-boarding behind Poppy's muscle boat in the summertime!"
International Space Station astronauts implemented emergency measures after detecting a "foul odor." - The situation was resolved when they discovered that one of them had tried a new 6-bean chili recipe for dinner the previous day.
Pope insults Muslims..... - [blogmaster notice: this "joke" has been deemed not funny, and has been removed after reading press releases by Al Quada in Iraq about "chopping necks"....]
So, a new feature is being added to Read My Opinion - Humor in the News.
From the headlines of September 18, 2006:
Conservationists have petitioned the federal government to have the Palouse Giant Earthworm listed as an endangered species. - Special interest groups are already weighing in on both sides. An anti-listing petition is being widely circulated by the political committee of the largemouth bass association.
President Bush wants US intelligence and military personnel to be allowed to use torture techniques on terrorist prisoners. - The President expressed surprise that there are objections to the use of some forms of questioning, such as water-boarding: "Heck, we always enjoyed water-boarding behind Poppy's muscle boat in the summertime!"
International Space Station astronauts implemented emergency measures after detecting a "foul odor." - The situation was resolved when they discovered that one of them had tried a new 6-bean chili recipe for dinner the previous day.
Pope insults Muslims..... - [blogmaster notice: this "joke" has been deemed not funny, and has been removed after reading press releases by Al Quada in Iraq about "chopping necks"....]
Sunday, September 17, 2006
A MONTH OFF
I haven't posted since late July. A month in Italy was great (except for landing at Heathrow on August 10 in the middle of a terrorism alert, not getting to Rome when planned, and not getting one suitcase back until September 12!).
A lot has happened in the world since my last post, and yet nothing seems to be all that different from before. Lots of things to write about, so I'll be back on-line soon.
A lot has happened in the world since my last post, and yet nothing seems to be all that different from before. Lots of things to write about, so I'll be back on-line soon.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH: THE BIG, SCARY PICTURE
Since my last posting, I've had a daily e-mail exchange with a friend about the situation in Israel-Lebanon. His opinion is that if Israel would give to the Palestinians 100 percent of the West Bank in addition to Gaza, and a corridor connecting the two, all of this fighting in Israel and Lebanon would be over because the Palestinian people would have what they want, and they would not tolerate the terrorists anymore. Unfortunately, I think this proposed solution misses the bigger picture, and ignores a brutal reality about geopolitics and the future.
Look at a map of the midddle East: http://www.uark.edu/depts/globmark/middeastmap.jpg
A few simple facts: Iran and Syria are supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a Shiite-dominated country. In Iraq, a dominant figure is the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, an ally of Iran and in solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas. al-Sadr controls more than 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament and 5 cabinet positions. He is linked to death squads that have acted brazenly to murder Iraqis and Americans since early 2004. The Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is also a Shiite with close ties to Iran and Syria.
Going back to the map, we can see a large arc of territory either controlled by Shiite extremists or with large and growing elements of Shiite extremism - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This "group of folks" has clearly stated goals that include bringing their brand of Islam to a place of power in larger and larger portions of the world.
This is very scary to think about. We are in a global power struggle between democratic societies and Islamic theocracy. The focal point this week is the no-holds-barred battle between proxies for the United States and Iran - Israel and Hezbollah. I can't help but think that the U.S. first fell into the trap of invading Iraq, under the very wrong theory of the neocons that we could sweep Saddam out and pour in instant democracy. What we have instead is a no-win situation that gets worse by the day for democratic ideals, and just keeps getting better for the Iran-supported extremists. I also think that Israel walked into a set-up. They, too, are in a no-win situation that is getting worse by the day. No matter what Hezbollah does, they will come out the winners, even if they lose (which I now think is not very likely).
Iraq and Lebanon are the battle fields where radical Islam is writting a different history than any of us in the West imagined. They are showing that the United States and it's proxies are over the hill and in decline. They are winning the public relations war, and growing in strength with every day. We can't beat them with our kind of military and our kind of strategies (see the excellent article in the July 30 NY Times about network warfare, or net war, by Thom Shanker).
It's easy to see the Israel-Hezbollah war as just another chapter in the long Middle East conflict over the plight of the Palestinian people. But reality isn't that simple. The goal of Hezbollah/Iran isn't Palestine replacing Israel; the goal is regional dominance, replacing existing governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab countries with Iranian-type theocracy. Viewed in this way, Israel is suddenly not just in a battle for its life, but a battle for the future of democracy.
Quite frankly, as I've put this together this week, it has scared the shit out of me. I hope the realization of the stakes in Lebanon scare you too, scare you enough to take a look at the bigger picture and not focus on the minute-by-minute pictures of the pain.
Look at a map of the midddle East: http://www.uark.edu/depts/globmark/middeastmap.jpg
A few simple facts: Iran and Syria are supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a Shiite-dominated country. In Iraq, a dominant figure is the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, an ally of Iran and in solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas. al-Sadr controls more than 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament and 5 cabinet positions. He is linked to death squads that have acted brazenly to murder Iraqis and Americans since early 2004. The Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is also a Shiite with close ties to Iran and Syria.
Going back to the map, we can see a large arc of territory either controlled by Shiite extremists or with large and growing elements of Shiite extremism - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This "group of folks" has clearly stated goals that include bringing their brand of Islam to a place of power in larger and larger portions of the world.
This is very scary to think about. We are in a global power struggle between democratic societies and Islamic theocracy. The focal point this week is the no-holds-barred battle between proxies for the United States and Iran - Israel and Hezbollah. I can't help but think that the U.S. first fell into the trap of invading Iraq, under the very wrong theory of the neocons that we could sweep Saddam out and pour in instant democracy. What we have instead is a no-win situation that gets worse by the day for democratic ideals, and just keeps getting better for the Iran-supported extremists. I also think that Israel walked into a set-up. They, too, are in a no-win situation that is getting worse by the day. No matter what Hezbollah does, they will come out the winners, even if they lose (which I now think is not very likely).
Iraq and Lebanon are the battle fields where radical Islam is writting a different history than any of us in the West imagined. They are showing that the United States and it's proxies are over the hill and in decline. They are winning the public relations war, and growing in strength with every day. We can't beat them with our kind of military and our kind of strategies (see the excellent article in the July 30 NY Times about network warfare, or net war, by Thom Shanker).
It's easy to see the Israel-Hezbollah war as just another chapter in the long Middle East conflict over the plight of the Palestinian people. But reality isn't that simple. The goal of Hezbollah/Iran isn't Palestine replacing Israel; the goal is regional dominance, replacing existing governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab countries with Iranian-type theocracy. Viewed in this way, Israel is suddenly not just in a battle for its life, but a battle for the future of democracy.
Quite frankly, as I've put this together this week, it has scared the shit out of me. I hope the realization of the stakes in Lebanon scare you too, scare you enough to take a look at the bigger picture and not focus on the minute-by-minute pictures of the pain.
Friday, July 21, 2006
ISRAEL, LEBANON, TERRORISM, THE WORLD
OK, full disclosure first so there are no questions about my potential biases: I am a secular Jew, second generation American, with relatives living in Israel, and I've been to Israel twice. I'm not a knee-jerk "Israel can do no wrong" supporter; I'm often critical of Israeli government policies and actions. I believe strongly that Palestinians should have sovereign lands (Gaza, West Bank) and self-government. I don't like the settlement movement that has taken land in the West Bank. The security wall bothers me, but I understand the need for it.
I also try to look at every situation objectively, searching out different opinions and information that might give me insights into the truth behind an issue.
So, with those caveats out of the way, you can now "read my opinion;" however, I have to warn you, my opinion on this issue is dynamic and changes daily in subtle ways.
I agree that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself from attacks. Israel has exercised this right continuously in response to attacks within it's borders by a variety of terrorist groups. (Note: I don't buy the "freedom fighter" tag for terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Quaida and their ilk - they are murderers and criminals.) Hezbollah has been firing missiles into Northern Israel for several years since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, and I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint during this time. The recent cross-border incursion by Hezbollah militia, and the increased intensity of missile launches into Israel was an escalation by Hezbollah, one that was condemned by a large number of governments, including many Arab states.
Some facts are in order here:
1. U.N. Security Council Resoultion 425 established the "Blue Line," internationally recognized as the border between northern Israel and southern Lebanon.
2. Israel completed it's withdrawal from Lebanon, in respect to the Blue Line, in 2000.
3. U.N. S.C. Resoultion 1559, adopted in September, 2004, called on Syria to withdraw it's forces from Lebanon, and for all Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, to disband.
4. Syrian troops completed their withdrawal from Lebanon in April, 2005. Hezbollah has not disbanded, and continued to fire missiles into Israel.
5. Hezbollah has an arsenal of at least 10,000 missiles in Lebanon, supplied to them by Iran and Syria.
6. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government refer to Israel as "the enemy."
7. A remaining point of contention between Israel and Lebanon - Hezbollah is the Shabaa Farms area that is under the control of Israel. Lebanon claims the area; however, the United Nations, and even Israel agree that the area is part of Syria. (As an aside, Syria does not recognize the independence of Lebanon, Jordan or Israel, by law, considering all of them to be part of "Greater Syria.")
So, with the above facts in mind, one begins to understand the incredible complexity of the situation. Clearly, the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and the European nations knew that thousands of missiles were being shipped into Lebanon to Hezbollah forces by air, ship and road. And yet, everyone seems to have turned a blind eye to these activities. With this understanding, it seems reasonable for Israel to bomb the Beirut airport, port facilities, roads and bridges to stop or slow the resupply of weapons to Hezbollah. It is also understandable that Israel would destroy fuel depots to make it more difficult for Hezbollah to fuel the vehicles that move these weapons around the country. It is also reported in the Western press that Hezbollah has many of their weapons positioned in areas where people live.
The majority opinion from world governments seems to be that, while Israel has the right to defend itself, it should show restraint. While I agree with that in principle, I also understand that on-the-ground reality is very different during war.
One of the things that disturbs me most about this situation is the outpouring of hatred I'm seeing towards Israel by people in the United States, including many of my liberal friends. In my view, too many people are always too ready to blame Israel for every situation because they are "the oppressors," "occupiers," "agressors," etc. Certainly Israel has occupied territory "won" during wars with its neighbors. Many (not all) Israelis have contempt for or hatred of Arab people; even Arab Israelis are in many ways second-class citizens. And a number of the tactics used by the Israeli government and military forces have been questionable. But it is important to put all of this into the context of history and politics, and not rush to judgement unfairly.
I see Israel in a very tenuous position right now in terms of world politics, and in the court of public opinion. When attacked by Hezbollah, Israel did not have the option to appeal to the United Nations for resolving the conflict - just look at places like Darfur where people are still waiting, and dying, for the U.N. to do something. And while the U.S. and the European governments pay lip service to Israel's right of self defense, I think they are more than happy to let Israel deal with Hezbollah, and by proxy Syria and Iran, and take the political and public relations heat for these military actions.
Finally, to those Americans who are so quick to lambast Israel, let me pose a scenario. Let's say that a group of extremist members of a political party in Mexico or Canada, or of an Indian Tribe with sovereign treaty lands inside the U.S., crossed their border and attacked a U.S. Army base, and then started firing missiles into U.S. towns and cities. Would we, the U.S., have the right to defend ourselves? And what would "restraint" look like on our part? If recent history is an example, let's say Afganistan following the attacks on September 11th, I think the U.S. would bomb someone back to the Stone Age - in a heartbeat.
Some key readings for your enjoyment:
Good summary of issues re: UN Resolutions 425 and 1559 in Wikipedia
The Innocent Bystander Myth, by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
Disastrous Miscalculations, by Alon Ben-Meir in the Turkish newspaper Zamon (online edition)
I also try to look at every situation objectively, searching out different opinions and information that might give me insights into the truth behind an issue.
So, with those caveats out of the way, you can now "read my opinion;" however, I have to warn you, my opinion on this issue is dynamic and changes daily in subtle ways.
I agree that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself from attacks. Israel has exercised this right continuously in response to attacks within it's borders by a variety of terrorist groups. (Note: I don't buy the "freedom fighter" tag for terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Quaida and their ilk - they are murderers and criminals.) Hezbollah has been firing missiles into Northern Israel for several years since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, and I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint during this time. The recent cross-border incursion by Hezbollah militia, and the increased intensity of missile launches into Israel was an escalation by Hezbollah, one that was condemned by a large number of governments, including many Arab states.
Some facts are in order here:
1. U.N. Security Council Resoultion 425 established the "Blue Line," internationally recognized as the border between northern Israel and southern Lebanon.
2. Israel completed it's withdrawal from Lebanon, in respect to the Blue Line, in 2000.
3. U.N. S.C. Resoultion 1559, adopted in September, 2004, called on Syria to withdraw it's forces from Lebanon, and for all Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, to disband.
4. Syrian troops completed their withdrawal from Lebanon in April, 2005. Hezbollah has not disbanded, and continued to fire missiles into Israel.
5. Hezbollah has an arsenal of at least 10,000 missiles in Lebanon, supplied to them by Iran and Syria.
6. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government refer to Israel as "the enemy."
7. A remaining point of contention between Israel and Lebanon - Hezbollah is the Shabaa Farms area that is under the control of Israel. Lebanon claims the area; however, the United Nations, and even Israel agree that the area is part of Syria. (As an aside, Syria does not recognize the independence of Lebanon, Jordan or Israel, by law, considering all of them to be part of "Greater Syria.")
So, with the above facts in mind, one begins to understand the incredible complexity of the situation. Clearly, the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and the European nations knew that thousands of missiles were being shipped into Lebanon to Hezbollah forces by air, ship and road. And yet, everyone seems to have turned a blind eye to these activities. With this understanding, it seems reasonable for Israel to bomb the Beirut airport, port facilities, roads and bridges to stop or slow the resupply of weapons to Hezbollah. It is also understandable that Israel would destroy fuel depots to make it more difficult for Hezbollah to fuel the vehicles that move these weapons around the country. It is also reported in the Western press that Hezbollah has many of their weapons positioned in areas where people live.
The majority opinion from world governments seems to be that, while Israel has the right to defend itself, it should show restraint. While I agree with that in principle, I also understand that on-the-ground reality is very different during war.
One of the things that disturbs me most about this situation is the outpouring of hatred I'm seeing towards Israel by people in the United States, including many of my liberal friends. In my view, too many people are always too ready to blame Israel for every situation because they are "the oppressors," "occupiers," "agressors," etc. Certainly Israel has occupied territory "won" during wars with its neighbors. Many (not all) Israelis have contempt for or hatred of Arab people; even Arab Israelis are in many ways second-class citizens. And a number of the tactics used by the Israeli government and military forces have been questionable. But it is important to put all of this into the context of history and politics, and not rush to judgement unfairly.
I see Israel in a very tenuous position right now in terms of world politics, and in the court of public opinion. When attacked by Hezbollah, Israel did not have the option to appeal to the United Nations for resolving the conflict - just look at places like Darfur where people are still waiting, and dying, for the U.N. to do something. And while the U.S. and the European governments pay lip service to Israel's right of self defense, I think they are more than happy to let Israel deal with Hezbollah, and by proxy Syria and Iran, and take the political and public relations heat for these military actions.
Finally, to those Americans who are so quick to lambast Israel, let me pose a scenario. Let's say that a group of extremist members of a political party in Mexico or Canada, or of an Indian Tribe with sovereign treaty lands inside the U.S., crossed their border and attacked a U.S. Army base, and then started firing missiles into U.S. towns and cities. Would we, the U.S., have the right to defend ourselves? And what would "restraint" look like on our part? If recent history is an example, let's say Afganistan following the attacks on September 11th, I think the U.S. would bomb someone back to the Stone Age - in a heartbeat.
Some key readings for your enjoyment:
Good summary of issues re: UN Resolutions 425 and 1559 in Wikipedia
The Innocent Bystander Myth, by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
Disastrous Miscalculations, by Alon Ben-Meir in the Turkish newspaper Zamon (online edition)
Thursday, July 20, 2006
THE MEDICAL/INSURANCE COMPLEX(ITY)
I read with interest in the Portland, Oregon newspaper this morning that Legacy Hospitals has agreed to settle a class action suit concerning the higher prices paid for services by the uninsured. As a recent surgery patient, I am witnessing first-hand the intricacies and complexities of the Medical-Insurance Complex.
As a consumer of medical services, I have several problem with the billing procedures of the medical providers and the insurance companies. My three main concerns are the following:
1. Consumers should know the cost of the services they are buying prior to purchase. I have made a point of asking what the cost of a medical procedure or service will be when I check in at the reception desk. I have never gotten an answer, except a couple of times when the receptionist did me a favor and called someone to ask. Medical services might be the only commercial enterprise for which consumers agree to a purchase without knowing the price they will be paying.
2. I won't pay for something without first seeing an itemized bill. The typical process for the expenses related to my surgery has been that I never get a bill from the medical service provider (there have been 1 or 2 exceptions). Instead, I get an Explanation of Benefits from the insurance company showing how much was charged, how much the insurer will accept as a charge for the service (see number 3, below), how much the insurer will pay, and the balance left for me to pay. Then I get a statement from the medical provider for the amount the insurance company didn't pay. In many cases, I have received statements from medical companies (doctor groups or laboratories) that I have never heard of, and I have no idea what they did to or for me. After some investigation, I find that doctor so-and-so read an MRI, doctor such-and-such looked at my freshly removed tumor, and company xyz ran the CT scan. My message to these folks: "Send me an itemized bill so I know what you did and I'll think about paying you."
3. The pricing agreements of the Medical-Insurance Complex are amazing! My understanding is that every insurance company negotiates a price list with the providers on their list. This is truly amazing stuff. Here are some examples gleaned from the Explanation of Benefits documents I have received:
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital semi-private room (2 days, 1 night): $1,171; Great West Insurance "covered expense" (the amount they have negotiated): $175.
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital "hospital extras": $12,872; Great West Insurance covered expense: $1,225.68.
- Oregon Anesthesiology Group "anesth inpatient": $780; Great West Insurance "covered expenses" $572.
- medical supplies and equipment: $156; "covered expense" $69.11
The medical providers list the reduction in price on their bill (if you get one) as a discount or insurance allowance. I assume that patients without insurance pay the full meal deal, hence the class-action lawsuit.
Here is what I would like:
1. When I go for a medical service, I am told prior to receiving the service a) the cost to me of the service, and, b) the names of all providers who will be providing service and then billing me. The cost I want to see is the amount negotiated with my insurance company; this information is certainly in the medical providers computer databases.
2. An itemized bill from every medical service provider who provides services to me, not just a statement of the balance after insurance payments.
These are simple and reasonable requests for a consumer to make, and it would help get the Medical-Insurance Complex into line.
As a consumer of medical services, I have several problem with the billing procedures of the medical providers and the insurance companies. My three main concerns are the following:
1. Consumers should know the cost of the services they are buying prior to purchase. I have made a point of asking what the cost of a medical procedure or service will be when I check in at the reception desk. I have never gotten an answer, except a couple of times when the receptionist did me a favor and called someone to ask. Medical services might be the only commercial enterprise for which consumers agree to a purchase without knowing the price they will be paying.
2. I won't pay for something without first seeing an itemized bill. The typical process for the expenses related to my surgery has been that I never get a bill from the medical service provider (there have been 1 or 2 exceptions). Instead, I get an Explanation of Benefits from the insurance company showing how much was charged, how much the insurer will accept as a charge for the service (see number 3, below), how much the insurer will pay, and the balance left for me to pay. Then I get a statement from the medical provider for the amount the insurance company didn't pay. In many cases, I have received statements from medical companies (doctor groups or laboratories) that I have never heard of, and I have no idea what they did to or for me. After some investigation, I find that doctor so-and-so read an MRI, doctor such-and-such looked at my freshly removed tumor, and company xyz ran the CT scan. My message to these folks: "Send me an itemized bill so I know what you did and I'll think about paying you."
3. The pricing agreements of the Medical-Insurance Complex are amazing! My understanding is that every insurance company negotiates a price list with the providers on their list. This is truly amazing stuff. Here are some examples gleaned from the Explanation of Benefits documents I have received:
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital semi-private room (2 days, 1 night): $1,171; Great West Insurance "covered expense" (the amount they have negotiated): $175.
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital "hospital extras": $12,872; Great West Insurance covered expense: $1,225.68.
- Oregon Anesthesiology Group "anesth inpatient": $780; Great West Insurance "covered expenses" $572.
- medical supplies and equipment: $156; "covered expense" $69.11
The medical providers list the reduction in price on their bill (if you get one) as a discount or insurance allowance. I assume that patients without insurance pay the full meal deal, hence the class-action lawsuit.
Here is what I would like:
1. When I go for a medical service, I am told prior to receiving the service a) the cost to me of the service, and, b) the names of all providers who will be providing service and then billing me. The cost I want to see is the amount negotiated with my insurance company; this information is certainly in the medical providers computer databases.
2. An itemized bill from every medical service provider who provides services to me, not just a statement of the balance after insurance payments.
These are simple and reasonable requests for a consumer to make, and it would help get the Medical-Insurance Complex into line.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM" COMES HOME
The Bush & Co. Global War on Terrorism - code words primarily for the on-going military action in Afganistan and the invasion/occupancy of Iraq - was upstaged this week by the arrest of seven wannabe terrorists in Miami. Were the arrests part of this "global war?" Well, the "global war" seems to be focused on al-Qaida, but these apparent home-grown bozos in Miami weren't associated with al-Qaida. They, like similar suspects arrested in England and Spain, seem to be disaffected youth who fall sway to internet-based terrorist preachings and see the United States as "infidels" and "devils."
"Left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaida" according to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales reminds us that local, independent "cells," not any international organization, were responsible for the train station murders in Madrid and the subway and bus bombings in London.
The arrests in Miami were, as far as I can tell, the result of good criminal investigation work by local and federal law enforcement agencies. During the early days of the Bush War on Global Terrorism, there were a number of national security and law enforcement experts who went on record to say that a "war" was not the correct response to the events of September 11th. They urged the Bush administration to view the attacks of September 11th as criminal acts, not acts of war, and to use good, solid criminal investigation and enforcement work, the stuff our federal and local law enforcement agencies have long been good at, to identify, investigate and arrest terrorist criminals. The U.S., working closely with the law enforcement agencies of our allies around the world, could deal with international terrorist criminals. But this was not the Bush & Company plan.
So here we are, spending ever-growing billions of dollars on un-winable "wars" in Afganistan and Iraq, providing the best-ever training grounds for terrorists where they can learn murder and barbarism in real time against real people. The "Global War on Terrorism" is a sham, and it's a war that can't be won.
I'm proud of the law enforcement agencies that reeled in the seven men in Miami; this is the kind of anti-crime work we need, both in the United States and abroad. The British, Spanish, Canadians and many others seem to understand that local law enforcement is the front-line defense against terrorism (why Tony Blair hooked up with Bush remains a mystery to me). The ideology of "global war" in this country needs to be abandoned and replaced with good police work that fights crime.
"Left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaida" according to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales reminds us that local, independent "cells," not any international organization, were responsible for the train station murders in Madrid and the subway and bus bombings in London.
The arrests in Miami were, as far as I can tell, the result of good criminal investigation work by local and federal law enforcement agencies. During the early days of the Bush War on Global Terrorism, there were a number of national security and law enforcement experts who went on record to say that a "war" was not the correct response to the events of September 11th. They urged the Bush administration to view the attacks of September 11th as criminal acts, not acts of war, and to use good, solid criminal investigation and enforcement work, the stuff our federal and local law enforcement agencies have long been good at, to identify, investigate and arrest terrorist criminals. The U.S., working closely with the law enforcement agencies of our allies around the world, could deal with international terrorist criminals. But this was not the Bush & Company plan.
So here we are, spending ever-growing billions of dollars on un-winable "wars" in Afganistan and Iraq, providing the best-ever training grounds for terrorists where they can learn murder and barbarism in real time against real people. The "Global War on Terrorism" is a sham, and it's a war that can't be won.
I'm proud of the law enforcement agencies that reeled in the seven men in Miami; this is the kind of anti-crime work we need, both in the United States and abroad. The British, Spanish, Canadians and many others seem to understand that local law enforcement is the front-line defense against terrorism (why Tony Blair hooked up with Bush remains a mystery to me). The ideology of "global war" in this country needs to be abandoned and replaced with good police work that fights crime.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
I THINK I'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE
It's sometime in the future. The setting is in a nation that has intrusive communication technology and a huge, hi-tech military. The majority of citizens live in either a) cramped, bustling, dangerous ground-level urban areas, or b) utopian conditions where everthing is seemingly perfect and the people are doped-up on government-sanctioned, government-supplied drugs that promote happiness and good sex. Meanwhile, the elites live somewhere above it all, kept safe by both government and their own security forces. Big business and government are one and the same, manipulated by the very wealthiest of the wealthy. The large TV screens everywhere stream fast-moving images of sexy women, fast cars and newsertainment. The leaders of the country fly in and out of important meetings via sleek black airships, being careful to only go where they have absolute control of their own safety. The President's image appears often on the large, ubiquitous screens, proclaiming; "We have always been at war with Eurasia" one day, and "We have always been friends with Eurasia" the next day. "Life is good" he often proclaims, "Go shopping," "We have a Plan," "Mission Accomplished." Those who dare to question this faux stability are whisked away by men in black.
Yes, it's a fairly common sci-fi theme that we've seen many times in the movies. And we've always thought, "gee, that could happen sometime in the future if we're not careful." Or maybe we've thought, "wow, that's highly unlikely, but it's good science fiction." But we now live in the age of Reality T.V., where real life and fiction are somehow blurred. The news isn't as much about news as it is about entertainment and ratings. Our elected leaders use carefully selected words to tell us things that are somewhere between reality and fiction, where they try to get us to accept fiction as reality, and reality as fiction.
Why do I feel more and more that I'm living in this movie I've seen before? I see the President on TV and it's just like a scene from some sci-fi film. He sneaks in and out of some "New Democracy" that he's created, but he's really sneaking in and out of a high-security "Green Zone" fortification so he and his elite followers can meet with other elites to spin up some new "realities" to feed to the big screens.
So what's the difference between the movie and the reality? Well, for one thing, the movie always has a hero, someone with vision, a mission, and something called "leadership." Neo, Snake Pliskin, Mad Max, some other schlub-turned-hero who can differentiate between fact and fiction, and has the balls to do something about it. (OK, these are all male gender references, so I'll include AeronFlux, Princess Leah, etc.) The only problem with this script is that these characters are able to turn things around using violence, and their incredible ability to be shot at ten billion times without ever being hit, while killing ten billion of the enemy single-handedly.
The point of all this is that we're in The Movie We've Seen Before, and we desperately need to find a new ending. We need a citizenry that is informed and can differentiate between fact and fiction. We need a citizenry that casts more votes in real elections than they do for American Idol. And we need real leaders with real ideas who believe in truth and justice to point us in a better direction.
I don't watch reality TV because reality itself is bad enough. But honestly, as I look around me every day, I wonder how I got cast in The Movie I've Seen Before.
Yes, it's a fairly common sci-fi theme that we've seen many times in the movies. And we've always thought, "gee, that could happen sometime in the future if we're not careful." Or maybe we've thought, "wow, that's highly unlikely, but it's good science fiction." But we now live in the age of Reality T.V., where real life and fiction are somehow blurred. The news isn't as much about news as it is about entertainment and ratings. Our elected leaders use carefully selected words to tell us things that are somewhere between reality and fiction, where they try to get us to accept fiction as reality, and reality as fiction.
Why do I feel more and more that I'm living in this movie I've seen before? I see the President on TV and it's just like a scene from some sci-fi film. He sneaks in and out of some "New Democracy" that he's created, but he's really sneaking in and out of a high-security "Green Zone" fortification so he and his elite followers can meet with other elites to spin up some new "realities" to feed to the big screens.
So what's the difference between the movie and the reality? Well, for one thing, the movie always has a hero, someone with vision, a mission, and something called "leadership." Neo, Snake Pliskin, Mad Max, some other schlub-turned-hero who can differentiate between fact and fiction, and has the balls to do something about it. (OK, these are all male gender references, so I'll include AeronFlux, Princess Leah, etc.) The only problem with this script is that these characters are able to turn things around using violence, and their incredible ability to be shot at ten billion times without ever being hit, while killing ten billion of the enemy single-handedly.
The point of all this is that we're in The Movie We've Seen Before, and we desperately need to find a new ending. We need a citizenry that is informed and can differentiate between fact and fiction. We need a citizenry that casts more votes in real elections than they do for American Idol. And we need real leaders with real ideas who believe in truth and justice to point us in a better direction.
I don't watch reality TV because reality itself is bad enough. But honestly, as I look around me every day, I wonder how I got cast in The Movie I've Seen Before.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
IMMIGRATION, FARMWORKERS, POISON CHEMICALS
The lead editorial in the June 15, 2006 Oregonian newspaper was about the EPA finally phasing out the use of Guthion, a pesticide known to cause serious health risks to farmworkers. Guthion has been one of the most widely used pesticides in Oregon's fruit orchard industry. The Oregonian editorial chastises the EPA for waiting so long, likely the result of agriculture industry lobbying pressure. Right on.
The Oregonian editorial begins with: Imagine that the federal government learned that thousands of middle-class workers, say high-tech employees, were regularly exposed to a chemical known to cause vomiting, seizures, paralysis, loss of mental function and death. Would the government wait more than four years to order a liesurely phase-out of its use? Of course not, but that is exactly what the government has done in the case of farmworkers, the editorial continues.
Good point, but the rest of the story wasn't told. The large photo of a farmworker accompanying the editorial shows a man who is most likely of Mexican or Latino origin. According to the National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc., of the more than 3 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the U.S.A., 81% are foreign born. Of these, 95% were born in Mexico, 2% in Latin America, 1% in Asia, and 1% in other countries. The estimates of the number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their dependents in Oregon are: 1990 - 128,564; 1993 - 147,245; and 2000 - 103,453.
(http://www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Migrant%20Demographics.pdf)
Although the Oregonian editorial was about EPA regulation, or non-regulation of harmful chemicals, it is also an important story in the on-going debate about illegal immigrants to the United States. The numbers presented above debunk the lie that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans - you don't see American workers clamoring for low-paying, high-risk farmworker jobs. The agricultural industry, like a number of others, is very dependent on a cheap labor force that is willing to move around and follow the work, a labor force consisting of many workers who don't get paid well, don't get health care benefits, and who can be "disappeared" back to Mexico if they make any trouble.
So yes, the Oregonian is correct that the EPA has been lax, and has been guilty of classism - I would say racism - in choosing who to protect from exposure to harmful chemicals. It's an outrage, and it is really an important part of the larger conversation about who gets to reap the benefits of being American. As a citizen of Oregon, it concerns me that somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 of my neighbors are treated differently by the government because they are, after all, immigrants, and possibly illegal immigrants at that. This is not acceptable.
The Oregonian editorial begins with: Imagine that the federal government learned that thousands of middle-class workers, say high-tech employees, were regularly exposed to a chemical known to cause vomiting, seizures, paralysis, loss of mental function and death. Would the government wait more than four years to order a liesurely phase-out of its use? Of course not, but that is exactly what the government has done in the case of farmworkers, the editorial continues.
Good point, but the rest of the story wasn't told. The large photo of a farmworker accompanying the editorial shows a man who is most likely of Mexican or Latino origin. According to the National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc., of the more than 3 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the U.S.A., 81% are foreign born. Of these, 95% were born in Mexico, 2% in Latin America, 1% in Asia, and 1% in other countries. The estimates of the number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their dependents in Oregon are: 1990 - 128,564; 1993 - 147,245; and 2000 - 103,453.
(http://www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Migrant%20Demographics.pdf)
Although the Oregonian editorial was about EPA regulation, or non-regulation of harmful chemicals, it is also an important story in the on-going debate about illegal immigrants to the United States. The numbers presented above debunk the lie that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans - you don't see American workers clamoring for low-paying, high-risk farmworker jobs. The agricultural industry, like a number of others, is very dependent on a cheap labor force that is willing to move around and follow the work, a labor force consisting of many workers who don't get paid well, don't get health care benefits, and who can be "disappeared" back to Mexico if they make any trouble.
So yes, the Oregonian is correct that the EPA has been lax, and has been guilty of classism - I would say racism - in choosing who to protect from exposure to harmful chemicals. It's an outrage, and it is really an important part of the larger conversation about who gets to reap the benefits of being American. As a citizen of Oregon, it concerns me that somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 of my neighbors are treated differently by the government because they are, after all, immigrants, and possibly illegal immigrants at that. This is not acceptable.
THE IN-AND-OUT PRESIDENT
President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad the other day (actually, as The Guardian so rightly points out, he visited the Green Zone, not Baghdad). Our President slipped in, spent about 5 hours, and slipped out. Mission Accomplished.
In-and-Out is the M.O. of this President. Yesterday President Bush did an In-and-Out in the Seattle area to appear at a Republican fund-raiser (he raised $800,000) attended by the wealthy elites of Microsoft world. In - spend three hours - Out. Mission Accomplished.
The day after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, President Bush left his Texas ranch and flew directly to - San Diego - where he appeared at (can you guess?) a Republican fund-raising event. He then flew back to D.C. to check on the hurricane situation. In-and-Out. Mission Accomplished.
Oh how we yearn for the day when this President is just OUT.
In-and-Out is the M.O. of this President. Yesterday President Bush did an In-and-Out in the Seattle area to appear at a Republican fund-raiser (he raised $800,000) attended by the wealthy elites of Microsoft world. In - spend three hours - Out. Mission Accomplished.
The day after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, President Bush left his Texas ranch and flew directly to - San Diego - where he appeared at (can you guess?) a Republican fund-raising event. He then flew back to D.C. to check on the hurricane situation. In-and-Out. Mission Accomplished.
Oh how we yearn for the day when this President is just OUT.
Friday, June 16, 2006
LET'S RUN THIS ONE UP THE FLAGPOLE - AGAIN
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
This is the text of Senate Joint Resolution 12 - a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the flag of the United States. It must be an election year again!
Yes, it is. And our dear Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag. And guess what? Anyone, such as a Democrat, who votes against this resolution will therefore be unpatriotic, in favor of desecrating our dear flag. Oh brother - give me a break!!
A short anecdote. When George H.W. Bush (George I) was campaigning for the office of President, his first run, I attended a rally where he spoke, just out of curiosity (know thine enemy). As I and hundreds of others entered the outdoor space in a downtown Portland park, we were each handed a small paper U.S. flag on a wood stick that we could wave in the air as George pontificated. Once inside, I looked carefully at the setup. The back of the stage was a very large flag of the United States hung from above, and the end of our dear old flag, several feet, was lying crumpled up on the stage floor in the dirt and dust! This was the backdrop for George's speech. As we all left the park after the rally, almost all of the paper flags were tossed in trash cans conveniently placed at the exits. I sure wish we had a flag non-desecration amendment at that time so I could have made a citizen's arrest of George H.W. Bush and his campaign staff!
My wife and I have two flags of the United States of America; the first is a wool 48-star flag from the Navy ship on which my father-in-law proudly served during World War II; the second is a cotton/poly 50-star flag that we fly from our front porch on appropriate holidays. We fly our flag for two reasons: 1) we are proud to be Americans, and 2) we refuse to let the political right wing of this country claim that the flag belongs only to them. Since the election of George Bush II, I also display a small sign under our flag that says simply "Take Back America."
This is the text of Senate Joint Resolution 12 - a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the flag of the United States. It must be an election year again!
Yes, it is. And our dear Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag. And guess what? Anyone, such as a Democrat, who votes against this resolution will therefore be unpatriotic, in favor of desecrating our dear flag. Oh brother - give me a break!!
A short anecdote. When George H.W. Bush (George I) was campaigning for the office of President, his first run, I attended a rally where he spoke, just out of curiosity (know thine enemy). As I and hundreds of others entered the outdoor space in a downtown Portland park, we were each handed a small paper U.S. flag on a wood stick that we could wave in the air as George pontificated. Once inside, I looked carefully at the setup. The back of the stage was a very large flag of the United States hung from above, and the end of our dear old flag, several feet, was lying crumpled up on the stage floor in the dirt and dust! This was the backdrop for George's speech. As we all left the park after the rally, almost all of the paper flags were tossed in trash cans conveniently placed at the exits. I sure wish we had a flag non-desecration amendment at that time so I could have made a citizen's arrest of George H.W. Bush and his campaign staff!
My wife and I have two flags of the United States of America; the first is a wool 48-star flag from the Navy ship on which my father-in-law proudly served during World War II; the second is a cotton/poly 50-star flag that we fly from our front porch on appropriate holidays. We fly our flag for two reasons: 1) we are proud to be Americans, and 2) we refuse to let the political right wing of this country claim that the flag belongs only to them. Since the election of George Bush II, I also display a small sign under our flag that says simply "Take Back America."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)