The following are my reactions to a variety of news stories I've recently read on-line. Any quotations below are not cited as to source, but did appear in the original news stories or in comments posted by others.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
"This man [my confessor] forgave the sins of all the priests of Buenos Aires, but not a single flower ...?" - Pope Francis. Men cannot forgive sins except those visited upon themselves. At least Pope Francis had the decency to admit his theft, when he stole his confessor's cross from his cold, dead hands.TWO:
"[Ronald Reagan] confronted a two-party establishment..." No, he didn't. The only way to confront a two-party establishment is by campaigning for independents to replace all of these party animals. As long as party considerations factor into our politics, our legislators will never work toward a consensus as to what the really good ideas are. They'll only care about what gives their party an advantage.
THREE:
"If you mean the self-defense units created by residents of Crimea, we [in Russia] give them no orders..." But you did provide land vehicles, helicopters, and jets. Or were those items old Russian surplus which these "self-defense units" purchased on the open market?
FOUR:
"You win elections by standing for principle and inspiring people that there is a better tomorrow," said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Then Cruz must be the first to admit that's how Obama won two terms. Or is there something I'm missing?
FIVE:
“Right now, there's a terrible intolerance... against people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs" - Michelle Bachmann. And who gets to judge which religious views are “sincerely held?” I know! Let the government decide! Is that what MB wants?
SIX:
Bibi is asking for something that states bestow upon each other (should they decide to do so) - diplomatic recognition. Palestine isn't a state yet. And why should Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when Palestine achieves statehood? He might choose to recognize Israel, but why as a Jewish state? He might say something like, "I would never presume to tell the Jewish citizens of Israel that they must always remain Jewish, for they night decide to convert to Buddhism."
Then what would Bibi do, pass a law forbidding Jews from converting or revoking their citizenship if they do? For if the majority of Israel were to become Buddhists, wouldn't that invalidate any recognition that might have been made of Israel being a Jewish state? That could, in turn, be construed as a voiding of any such recognitions of Israel period, since it was only recognized as a Jewish state - that is, only as long as it remained Jewish. I would like to see a good example of Jewish scholarship deal with these questions, which fail to register in Bibi's mind.
SEVEN:
Herminator,
You wrote, “Why not let Israel define what it means to be a Jew?” By “Israel,” do you mean all of Israel, including its Muslim/Christian Arabic citizens, or do you mean “the Jews of Israel?” If you go strictly by allowing only the Jews themselves to define “what is a Jew,” then the ultra-conservatives would find themselves outvoted – and they turn out to be pretty sore losers when it comes to stuff like that. I recommend a book you might find useful, “Jew vs. Jew,” when it comes to Jews fighting each other for the soul of Judaism.
There's a distinction to be made concerning “a Palestinian state” vs. “the state of Palestine.” The people living in the Occupied Territories (minus those Jews transplanted into illegal settlements) are trying to achieve statehood. Above and beyond the fact of residency, they don't care how the word “Palestinian” is defined. They care about self-determination of the people living in Palestine – minus the occupiers.
Bibi, on the other hand, is demanding recognition (in advance, before Palestine is granted statehood) as the Jewish state of Israel. First things, first: Once Palestine becomes a state, then it can behave like one – by granting or withholding diplomatic recognition. If they grant it, it should be to “the state of Isarel,” rather than “the Jewish state of Israel.”
EIGHT:
Ali,
Bibi's meaning was clear enough when he told the AIPAC: “I will do whatever I must to defend the Jewish state of Israel.” With that statement, Bibi ignores the sizable minority who are Christian and Muslim Arabs who are also citizens of Israel. That would be similar to Reagan saying, “I will do whatever I must to defend the White Man's United States of America.”
As for your French example, if the US had recognized the French state of France, that recognition could be called into question if the French did indeed become a minority in that country. That's why we recognize countries, rather than characteristics - makes things less complicated.
NINE:
RE: Alabama lawmakers consider abortion ban:
"...[a pregnant woman] would be required to learn about perinatal hospice options." She would be required to learn, eh? Well, you know the old saying about ignorance of the law being no excuse. She could claim to know she's required to learn about this, so by virtue of that fact, she should know that such a thing as "perinatal hospice options" exists. If she wants to learn about that on her own, more power to her. If not, that's her choice.
Someone might be required to teach her, but she could simply stuff cotton in her ears and close her eyes - and that would be her CHOICE. It seems ignorance of the law is no excuse never prevented the more intellectually-challenged among us from passing ignorant laws.
TEN:
Ted Cruz, within a few short years, will become, "No problemo." He'll travel to other states trying to sell his snakeoil to at best a lukewarm reception. Then he'll mutter to himself, "Looks like I'm not in Kansas, er, Texas any more." Enjoy your fame while you can, Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham. And of course write and sell some books and collect those speakers' circuit fees. And then, retire to Mexico to give the locals some laughs and have your money go even farther than it could here.
ELEVEN:
$1B in aid? Give them nothing. If Germany wishes to make a donation, fine. Or France or Britain or any in the EU. Ukraine is in their backyard, so they'll have plenty of motive. Now imagine what would have happened if Ukraine had been a member of NATO. We - the USA and the NATO allies - would have been obligated by treaty to respond militarily: "Any attack on a NATO member is an attack on all of NATO." NATO itself is an example of unionism run amok.
As for Putin, I hope he doesn't hope to reinstall the deposed President Yanukovych. I hope Putin's only goal is to convey to the West that, at times, it is important to make a show of force in one's own back yard. As for Obama's sanctions, Putin could respond by denying gas and oil to Europe or by raising their prices. Putin is not entirely without resources. Tread carefully, Mr.Obama.
TWELVE:
There was a time when the union movement was a vital necessity. However, at least in the case of the USA, that was because the government refused to do its job in terms of providing for the general welfare. The oligarchs were all it cared about. However, it didn't want to be on the wrong side of history. There was a very real chance that the international socialist movement would win. So, to hedge its bet, the government decided to act as a “neutral” referee and set up a legal structure for collective bargaining.
The downside was, for example, if the steel industry workers won a big contract, the costs were passed on to me, the consumer. But I wasn't at that negotiating table, so I wasn't represented but I ended up paying a price. And nobody minded because times were good and, hopefully, my union (if I had one) could win a contract that would cover my losses from the steelworkers' contracts. That was inflationary, of course. And then, as had to happen, times turned sour and the US steel industry ended up pricing itself out of the world market – not to mention our own domestic market.
The solution, as I see it, is to get away from polarizing, us v. them thinking. Start off by electing only independents to the legislature, ones who promise in the form of a written contract, to serve at most 8 years in office. Other promises could be put in this contract, the violation of which would cause forfeiture of office and payment of a stipulated fine. This can be done. I offered such a contract when I ran for US president in 2008 and 2012.
It's not so much that I'm anti-union, it's more that I'm for the most level playing field that an independent legislature can offer.
THIRTEEN:
"The Israeli people expect me to stand strong against criticism and pressure," Netanyahu told the president. Surely, this statement says it all – since it's obvious that Bibi isn't including the citizens of Israel who happen to be Muslim Arabs. They should be considered to be part of “the Israeli people,” since they are citizens of Israel.
Be assured, though, that Bibi meant exactly what he said, for one day there will be a Great Expulsion during which all such non-Jews will be stripped of their citizenship (at the very least) or (more likely) outright expelled from Israel by Jewish tribalists. However, that will not be without Great Cost. For the day will come when young schoolchildren the world over will ask, “What's Judy-ism?” The innocence of their question and what they'll be thinking when they'll ask it will show how irrelevant to the cultural heritage of the world “Judy-ism” shall have become.
And blame for that can only be laid directly on the doorstep of the Jews wielding power who thought only of themselves and forgot one of their own crucial commandments: “Love the stranger as you would love yourself.” And since the Israeli Jew couldn't even bring himself to treat his own half-brother, the Palestinian Arab, with decency, let alone love, how could the world even pretend to treat “Judy-ism” as being credible? [Note: Half-brother: Same father (Abraham), different mother (Sarah/Hagar).]
FOURTEEN:
It would have been interesting if the Ukrainian army had actually opened fire on these invaders-without-insignia. What would we have done then? You know? Having the world's most expensive military isn't everything it's cracked up to be.
FIFTEEN:
RE: “Israel's ultra-orthodox plan huge anti-draft protest”
"Enough is enough, you must stop this persecution." I don't understand this attitude among the super-duper Orthodox.They must surely know that God will protect them in battle because they are so pious. So not only will they be safe, but their regiments will also be granted victory by virtue of their participation.
SIXTEEN:
If I were going to be a juror in this case [against the accused Boston Marathon bomber] and the prosecution said, "We want to introduce as evidence these words overheard by an FBI agent," I wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough. I would immediately dismiss any such "evidence" and think: "Let's move on. If the state has evidence, let it be presented. But this is not evidence."
SEVENTEEN:
RE: GOP picks 8 cities to compete for 2016 convention:
"...but the hosts also must raise tens of millions of dollars to stage the three or four-day event." Let's say "no" to this practice. If the parties, which have us by the short hairs anyway, can't manage to pay for their own shindig, why should taxpayers?
EIGHTEEN:
AW,
You wrote: “Listen, Arab neighbors attacked Israel within hours of it being declared an independant state by world!” This would be more accurate: “Arab neighbors attacked Israel within hours of Israel declaring its independence.” “The world” didn't declare Israel's independence, Israel did. As for “the world,” obviously you don't think the Arabs are part of the world since they objected to the UN resolution.
There are Jewish claims that God promised them this land. But, truth be told, God had nothing to do with the United Nations' resolution which laid the groundwork for setting up an independent Israel and Palestine.
A far more equitable solution was readily available. Since the Nazis and, to a lesser extent, the collaborative French (who have their own shameful history of anti-semitism) should have been made to atone for their past sins. To wit, the new Israel should have been carved out of existing parts of Germany and France. I'm thinking of the border area Alsace-Lorraine in addition to some neighboring German territory.
NINETEEN:
Jeff,
My personal opinion on Jewish claims to the land of Israel? Yes, I believe God gave this land to the Jews, but (and here's the kicker) this gift was a test. Once a gift is given (even by God), it belongs to the recipient to do with as he pleases. Or else, it's not a gift. The test: If the Jews cannot manage to share this land with their half-brother the Palestinian, then they are violating the Commandment to “love the stranger.” If they manage to treat their half-brother so shabbily, how could they love the stranger? Bottom line? Only the Jews can destroy Judaism – and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of doing just that.
Jews might argue, “Do I have to love someone who's trying to kill me?” The answer: Yes, for God didn't place any conditions on this love. The Holocaust exacted a terrible price, which included desensitizing the Jews to the pain felt by others. Jewish pain is all that too many of them can manage. And that single-mindedness is not the way to become a “light unto all nations.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment