I'm going to give the nutshell version of the Jerusalem Post's "Road to the White House" blog's redacting of some of the presidential candidates' responses to the question, "Which Assad do you believe? The one who threatens war or the one who says he wants to make peace?"

The candidates all gave responses which alluded to their future plans on how to deal with Syria's Hezbollah links, and with Syrian President Assad in general.

First, the Democrats:
Obama: "I would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks."
Clinton: "I have long argued that diplomatic discussions with Syria can aid our efforts..."
Edwards: "We must reengage Damascus today with tough diplomacy..."
Biden: "There could be real benefits to hard-headed diplomacy..."

McCain on the other hand does not use the word "diplomacy" (or any variant thereof) in his statement. He said "the US and the international community must face Syria from a position of strength". McCain being a known warmonger hell-bent on not bringing American troops home, I can only hope that he doesn't mean "position of strength" as being the military opposite of "diplomacy."

McCain said that Hezbollah must be disarmed "one way or another" - I fear that his "or another" means deploying more American troops or American weaponry.

Then again, maybe America does need McCain -- how else are we supposed to spend a whole $2 trillion on Iraq by 2016?

Posted by Y-Love at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

David Frum of the horribly right-wing National Review lamented this week about "kids" and the Republican Party. Apparently the right isn't doing so well with those of us who are under-30: Democrats have a full 19-percentage point lead among young voters, and this is even more sharply pronounced when broken down by race and ethnicity.

David Frum suggests that this explains the whole Democratic lead:

Maybe you've heard about the recent polls showing a huge Democratic advantage among young voters. The latest , conducted by Stanley Greenberg for the Democracy Project, shows (among other dismal tidings) a 19-point party identification lead for Democrats among voters younger than 30...

Read the report in full, however, and you come across an interesting nugget on page 6: White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points. The Democrats owe their advantage among youth to a huge lead among young African-Americans (78 points) - and a very large lead (43 points) among Hispanics.

In the past, Republicans could win elections despite their unpopularity among ethnic minorities. But with the huge surge of immigration since 1980 - and especially since 2000 - the voting map of the United States has been redrawn in ways inherently deeply unfavorable to the GOP...

Frum says explicitly, "[the] legacy that will damage [Bush's] party is the legacy of immigration non-enforcement." As Frum says, the growing Latino population is being enlarged by "[a] large new community of people who are both economically struggling...but who lack deep attachment to the American nation." (As Rick Perlstein notes, once upon a time, this exact same thing would have been said about Jews.)

Not to mention, as Digby's Hullabaloo points out, this was a partisan voter survey. Illegal immigrants can't vote and therefore were not surveyed. So the whole "immigration non-enforcement" line is really a moot point, this survey only surveyed people who could vote. However they got here, they're here legally now with voting rights (after a median wait of eight years from immigration to citizenship).

This is not about immigration or even psychographics per se. This is no more than yet another cloaking of the same old racism. Indeed, as Digby continues:

The sheer numbers of non-whites are changing things, and that has the rightwingers working themselves into a full blown panic. The Bushies were right on this one. They needed to cool the racist ardor of their base, but they couldn't get it done. And now you see neocons like Frum trying to join the wingnut populist bandwagon with thinly veiled racist appeals to solidarity...

(His conflation of "illegal immigrants" who allegedly have no stake in the country with the large numbers of young Hispanic Americans who were born here gives the game away.)

AGS [Alesina, Glazear and Sacerdote] report, using the World Values Survey, that "opinions and beliefs about the poor differ sharply between the United States and Europe. In Europe the poor are generally thought to be unfortunate, but not personally responsible for their own condition. For example, according to the World Values Survey, whereas 70 % of West Germans express the belief that people are poor because of imperfections in society, not their own laziness, 70 % of Americans hold the opposite view.... 71 % of Americans but only 40% of Europeans said ...poor people could work their way out of poverty."

Our bottom line is that Americans redistribute less than Europeans for three reasons:
[1] because the majority of Americans believe that redistribution favors racial minorities,
[2] because Americans believe that they live in an open and fair society, and that if someone is poor it is his or her own fault, and
[3] because the political system is geared toward preventing redistribution.

Posted by Y-Love at 03:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think this is just a sign of things to come. The Kansas Republican Party is creating a loyalty committee to "discipline" officers who support Democrats.

This weekend, state committee members amended the party's constitution. It now says that any officer who publicly endorses or contributes to a Democrat can be stripped of his or her office.

The committee's decisions can be appealed to the state committee. The change won't take effect until the end of next January, when the party has its annual Kansas Days convention.

Backers of the change say party officers shouldn't be helping Democrats.

Maybe the Republican party no longer makes sense?

Posted by Y-Love at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Henry G. Brinton, pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church, wrote this blog for USAToday saying, succinctly, that one need not feel compelled to "leave G-d out of the workplace." On the contrary, employers are beginning to see the benefit of allowing employees to incorporate faith into their daily professional lives. One does not have to leave "beliefs at home".

Most of us don't make a strong connection between Sabbath spirituality and weekday work. But religious people need to practice their faith in the workplace if they are going to pursue their vocations with integrity. This means stopping work to pray at appropriate times, as faithful Muslims do. More broadly, it includes finding ways to integrate faith and work, create a more inclusive workplace and tap the resources of great religious traditions for ethical guidance.

And such behavior doesn't mean proselytizing on the job.

Since the 1980s, spirituality has begun to move into the workplace. The shift includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, as well as people who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. Though only about 50 workplace ministries existed in the early 1990s, more than 900 are in place today, says Os Hillman, a Georgia businessman who has written The 9 to 5 Window: How Faith Can Transform the Workplace. Such ministries encourage people to see work as a calling from God.

Dozens of companies — from Coca-Cola to Microsoft — are becoming more "faith-friendly" as they welcome the spirituality of their employees, allowing groups to meet for Bible study or to discuss business ethics with a religious twist. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has a Christian Fellowship Group, and the management at Bear Stearns, a Wall Street finance house, endorses and funds a weekly Torah class.

This faith at work movement is grounded in "desire for integration," says David Miller, a Yale professor and author of the book God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. Business people now want to bring their whole selves to work — mind, body and spirit — instead of having to "leave their soul with the car in the parking lot," says Miller, a former investment banker.

One commenter on the blog, hawki1, in his initially pro-diversity comment, lent his irrational voice to the discussion:

Would it be ok if a Wiccan or Satanist or other brand of religion leaves their book on the coffee table, or would that be offensive to many in the workplace? With Christian fundamentalists around, these books would not be around long!

How would known atheists be treated in the workplace? Should an atheist be allowed to be offended by the Bible or any other religious article sitting around? Or should an atheist just SHUT up and accept it or look for another job?...NO religion in the work place is NOT a good idea. If one person wants to practice in their office, fine but not as discussed here.

This is just another example of trying to incorporate religion into the workplace. Just happens to be that CHRISTIANS make up 90% of society so of course CHRISTIANS are all for it...The example of the Jew is just a smokescreen because in a primarily CHRISTIAN workplace (with fundamentalists) the Jewish banner and other religious banners would be QUICKLY REMOVED, don't kid yourself.

Yes, religion in the workplace IS a good idea. It makes for better employees -- who now don't have to leave the office to pray or find kosher food or learn Torah -- and it makes for, ostensibly, a more ethical work environment. (Granted, as we know, "religious/secular" and "righteous/wicked" are two drastically different, independent dichotomies.) Incorporating religious coercion into the workplace is something else entirely, and as Michael Newdow showed the world, atheists' concerns are valid in courts of law.

The atheist of hawki1's case would be able to sue. The Jewish employees would also be able to sue. As would the Satanist whose books got forcibly thrown away. Those actions would be illegal.

What is not illegal is allowing employees to freely fulfill their religious responsibilities and exercise their religious freedom. Why is a "G-d-free" (ch"v) environment instantly the preferable one, the one which must be fought for and preserved at all costs?

Coercion and expression are two different things. No one in the above article is forcing, or even attempting to convince, anyone to do anything. Equating religious expression with religious coercion gets people like hawki1 up in arms and eventually people become unable to pray in public. Eventually people get thrown off of entire airlines for saying G-d's Name in public.

Bring G-d to work. Today and everyday.

Posted by Y-Love at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

"I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." -- from "Ship of Fools" by Johann Hari

Johann Hari, writing for The Independent (UK) gives us a startling insight into many of the neocon minds which are lamentably in vogue in the Capitol Hill circuit these days. Mr. Hari went aboard the National Review cruise, and the conversations he was unfortunate/fortunate enough to overhear were brimming with racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia so virulent that it should make any progressive person shudder.

I am travelling on a bright white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, a casino – and 500 readers of the National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success". Global warming is not happening. The solitary black person claims, "If the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights, then God bless them." And I have nowhere to run.

From time to time, National Review – the bible of American conservatism – organises a cruise for its readers. I paid $1,200 to join them. The rules I imposed on myself were simple: If any of the conservative cruisers asked who I was, I answered honestly, telling them I was a journalist. Mostly, I just tried to blend in – and find out what American conservatives say when they think the rest of us aren't listening....

I would be remiss if I didn't quote the following:

Ward Connerly is the only black person in the National Review posse, a 67-year-old Louisiana-born businessman, best known for leading conservative campaigns against affirmative action for black people. Earlier, I heard him saying the Republican Party has been "too preoccupied with... not ticking off the blacks", and a cooing white couple wandered away smiling, "If he can say it, we can say it." What must it be like to be a black man shilling for a magazine that declared at the height of the civil rights movement that black people "tend to revert to savagery", and should be given the vote only "when they stop eating each other"?

I drag him into the bar, where he declines alcohol. He tells me plainly about his childhood – his mother died when he was four, and he was raised by his grandparents – but he never really becomes animated until I ask him if it is true he once said, "If the KKK supports equal rights, then God bless them." He leans forward, his palms open. There are, he says, " those who condemn the Klan based on their past without seeing the human side of it, because they don't want to be in the wrong, politically correct camp, you know... Members of the Ku Klux Klan are human beings, American citizens – they go to a place to eat, nobody asks them 'Are you a Klansmember?', before we serve you here. They go to buy groceries, nobody asks, 'Are you a Klansmember?' They go to vote for Governor, nobody asks 'Do you know that that person is a Klansmember?' Only in the context of race do they ask that. And I'm supposed to instantly say, 'Oh my God, they are Klansmen? Geez, I don't want their support.'"

This empathy for Klansmen first bubbled into the public domain this year when Connerly was leading an anti-affirmative action campaign in Michigan. The KKK came out in support of him – and he didn't decline it. I ask if he really thinks it is possible the KKK made this move because they have become converted to the cause of racial equality. "I think that the reasoning that a Klan member goes through is – blacks are getting benefits that I'm not getting. It's reverse discrimination. To me it's all discrimination. But the Klansmen is going through the reasoning that this is benefiting blacks, they are getting things that I don't get... A white man doesn't have a chance in this country."

He becomes incredibly impassioned imagining how they feel, ventriloquising them with a shaking fist – "The Mexicans are getting these benefits, the coloureds or niggers, whatever they are saying, are getting these benefits, and I as a white man am losing my country."

But when I ask him to empathise with the black victims of Hurricane Katrina, he offers none of this vim. No, all Katrina showed was "the dysfunctionality that is evident in many black neighbourhoods," he says flatly, and that has to be "tackled by black people, not the government. " Ward, do you ever worry you are siding with people who would have denied you a vote – or would hang you by a rope from a tree?

Posted by Y-Love at 05:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Washington Post "Media Notes" blog, a collection of right-wing inability to, in short, "keep it in their pants".

Now, on the one hand, this is another irrelevant hum-drum expose of "look at what this candidate did years ago", collections of things with no bearings on the politicians' actual ability to perform their jobs. However, what I find particularly disturbing is how the article begins:

Does the Republican Party have a zipper problem?

And if so, how much will voters care?

Now that Larry Flynt has claimed David Vitter as his latest quarry, there's plenty of chatter about whether one too many family-values champions of the GOP has been caught not quite walking the walk.

Let's stipulate right up front: There's been no shortage of Democratic politicians caught doing something with women not their wives....But the Mark Foley scandal put the hypocrisy question on full display. The ex-congressman was, you may recall, co-chair of the caucus on exploited children even as he was sending nasty IMs to young men in the House page program. Newt, of course, was doing it with a House aide while demanding Clinton's impeachment over Monica. And the reason that Hustler was happy to out Vitter for playing speed-dial with the D.C. Madam's operation is that the Republican senator from Louisiana was an outspoken proponent of the sanctity of marriage and other moral causes.

Chances are, you're clutching a Bible, or are speaking to people who are (or who will when they get home). Chances are, some Scripture has gotten mentioned as a proof.

A 2004 press release from David Vitter shows the candidate calling himself "a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values", and as one angry blogger notes, bringing his proof from a 2004 Time Magazine piece, Vitter owes much of his political life to a 1999 adultery scandal in which then-Representative Bob Livingston resigned, vacating the House seat.

I am all for people accepting repentance of a public figure as valid. But when you're someone like Vitter or Newt, branding yourself as the "moral compass", and you know that you're doing something completely against Scripture (I mean, things which are written literally right there in black and white IN the 10 Commandments, "do not commit adultery"), calling out other people on their sins (for instance, women who have abortions, which, according to Evangelicals, is a sin) is a horrible move.

I think the GOP would be well served by a positive moral campaign. Instead of concentrating on what other "liberal" people are doing wrong, why not concentrate on what could be done right, for a change. Advocate charitable donation. Advocate child welfare. Advocate morality without condemning.

Otherwise, your house gets shown -- by Larry Flynt of all people -- to be made of glass, and you will come to regret all the stones you've thrown.

This is the wing that we Orthodox Jews are supposed to align ourselves with?

Posted by Y-Love at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Anwar Hussain in last week's Baltimore Chronicle:

President Bush is in Europe flaunting, in a hard sell pitch, his brand of democracy to the world at large and to Russia in particular. He is known to have said: “We believe that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy, because we believe in democracy.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is as fallacious a statement as any that the President of United States has been giving since he took over the reins of his great country. Fallacious too because the American President is selling a product that America does not have....

The President’s statement is fallacious because corporate corruption of American politicians and government has shredded to bits whatever semblance of democracy America was left with.

Fallacious too because instead of having democracy in the decision making institutions of America it is rather the fine art of corporate corruption that now stands democratized and institutionalized with all now having a chance at equal opportunity corruption. All it takes is money.

Corporate corruption in America is now at a stage where it has become a bipartisan, open, and legal practice with Americans finally coming to accept it as a status quo, an integral part of a dollar-driven, cheating culture.

The American President is selling a product that America does not have.

The President’s statement is fallacious because it is now plain for all to see that misrepresentative government and corporatism has oppressed American citizenry to the extent that their democracy has become nothing more than a corporate theocracy, a fascist feudal state in which “the serfs” serve the corporate state as voiceless workers, voracious consumers, submissive citizens and pliant subjects.

The President’s statement is fallacious because we the world can see that for us at least, American democracy has boiled down to nothing more than that of a lynch mob who vote on the fate of their victims even as the rope is being readied to carry out the inevitable verdict.

If that's how we look from Dubai, I can't imagine how we must look from Baghdad.

Posted by Y-Love at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So by now the news is the buzz of the gantze District of Columbia: Condi is going to Syria.

Her first meeting ever with her Syrian counterpart, the historic US-Syria meeting could take place as early as tomorrow (Thursday), the Wyoming-based Casper Star-Tribune tells us:

Preparations are under way for the United States to meet in high-level talks here with at least one of its fiercest Mideast enemies: Syria...

An Egyptian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak with the media, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could meet with her Syrian counterpart as early as Thursday...

If Rice meets with Moallem it would be the first such high-level talks since the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, for which many blame the Syrian government. Syria denies it had anything to do with the killing, but U.S. and European officials have since shunned the regime.

The U.S. also accuses Syria's leaders of allowing terrorists to use their country as a staging area for sending fighters, weapons and other material into Iraq _ allegations Syria denies.

Apparently I'm not the only one without short-term media memory loss, because ThinkProgress.org said the exact same thing I was thinking. Not six weeks ago, when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria, it "wasn't the right time", it was counterproductive, it was the wrong thing to do. Now, it seems that the W cabal have changed their tune, and now want to involve Syria in dialogue.

By the way, want to know how Nancy Pelosi was received in Syria? What did Syrians think about Ms. Pelosi's visit this March?

In short, they LOVE her.

Continue reading "Syria: The PR Game" »

Posted by Y-Love at 05:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just find John McCain hard to stomach sometimes:

Sinking in polls and struggling to reinvigorate his foundering presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a robust defense of the war in Iraq on Wednesday, declaring that President Bush and the conflict's supporters are on the right side of history in the struggle against terrorism and extremism.

Dismissing public opinion polls as offering nothing but "temporary favor" to the war's opponents, McCain directly confronted the biggest obstacle to his White House ambitions: his unyielding support of a war that more than two-thirds of the country has turned against.

"I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people," he told cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. "But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. It is the right road. It is necessary and just."

McCain offered a blistering critique of Democrats in control of Congress. He accused them of being reckless in their foreign policy by attempting to set a deadline for withdrawal in legislation intended to provide money for the war effort. And he said those who control the legislature are "heedless of the terrible consequences" of failing in Iraq.

"Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted," he said. "What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?"

What did he call this half-trillion-dollar war? Necessary? Just?

In the text of his speech given at VMI, one finds such vignettes we have come to expect from the neocons:

In the early days after 9/11 our country was united in a single purpose, to find the terrorists bent on our destruction and eliminate the threat they posed to us.

In the intervening years, we've learned the complexity of the struggle against radical Islamic ideology. The extremists, a tiny percentage of the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, are flexible, intelligent, determined and unconstrained by international borders. They wish to return the world to the seventh century, and they will use any means, no matter how inhumane, to eliminate anyone who stands in their way.

We're fighting for the soul of Islam? American troops are fighting a just war, in a key element in the struggle for the soul of Islam?

Support the troops, and not with PR-driven blatant lies. Bring them home alive from a region on its way to stability. How does McCain live with himself?

Posted by Y-Love at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"If you see oppression of the poor and deprivation of justice and righteousness in the state, wonder not about the matter, for the Highest over the high watches, and there are higher ones over them." -- Ecclesiastes 5:7

Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post brings down a bombshell today that many of us may not have been aware of.

In accordance with the Presidential Records Act, White House email correspondence must be preserved forever. Never deleted, and never tampered with after sent or received in order to ensure accuracy and transparency of records.

But this is not your average administration, and after the wiretapping, secret jails and deportations, and general political opacity we've been subjected to under this regime, this should just come as no surprise:

Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas -- due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.

The leading culprit appears to be President Bush's enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.

The White House yesterday said it has no idea how many e-mails have been lost.

In an afternoon conference call with reporters, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel spread the blame all around. "White House policy did not give clear enough guidance," he said..."I guess the bottom line is that our policy at the White House was not clear enough for employees."

But when I asked Stanzel to read out loud the White House e-mail policy, it seemed clear enough to me: "Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff," says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.

Another oppression of justice in the State.

Posted by Y-Love at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From today's Washington Post and with a hat tip to my favorite mujahid, Brian -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, has some stinging words regarding life under W's self-appointed crusade against "terror":

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us...

Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."...

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769.

The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.

The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia....

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

In whipping up the American populace into a frenzy of fear, W's "war on terror" (a war which, according to Hoax author Van Hoffman, is by definition unwinnable as it is a war against a tactic and not an enemy) began to alternatively flip between being the "War on Islam" and the "War on the Arab World", interchangeably.

Only by stopping the racism-driven hysteria can we really focus on who we should have been fighting against the entire time: the murderers, the actual terrorists who want to kill us, and not the millions of innocent humans who happen to look and pray like them.

Remember, all the Islamophobia and "ethnic profiling" in the world wouldn't have caught Timothy McVeigh.

Posted by Y-Love at 05:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This article's title, "How Bush Is Getting Jews To Give Up Judaism And Destroy Israel", perhaps the most sensationally-titled article currently making the rounds at Technorati, caught my eye today, and I would be remiss not to quote such quotables as:

Someone got the brilliant idea that if they could capture the hearts and minds of the evangelicals and other religious groups that they could rise to power in America. A corollary to this view is that if they could capture the hearts and minds of the Jewish political elite, it probably would be the tipping point. That probably was the tipping point....

Bush’s tactics are not subtle. He has the consciousness of a brutal dictator. He will lie, cheat, steal, murder, torture… whatever it takes… to accomplish his ends. I don’t have to prove this. I am only describing strategies Bush has used consistently in accumulating power and in pursuing his wars.

Bush has the same consciousness that Hitler had...

But before this guy is lambasted by every able-bodied index finger G-d has graced to touch a keyboard, let's examine what strikes me as the key point of veracity, if one can find no other:

By aligning with Bush, these Jews have acquired the power they needed to ‘defend’ Israel. The problem is that the power that was acquired was a political payoff. It was a payoff that said, “I will give you the power you are asking for as long as you do not get in my way as I pursue my own goals.”

No, I feel as if this is something much more potentially harmful. Have the right-wing Jewish pundits and their respective populations come to the conclusion of "they won't screw US over"?

Such conclusions almost prove themselves to be hubris -- the proverbial "famous last words" -- in hindsight.

Posted by Y-Love at 05:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ain't it about time?

The New York Times today reports:

A Democratic candidates’ debate sponsored by Fox News set for August from Reno, Nev., was abruptly canceled Friday night with a statement from the Nevada Democratic Party and Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate.

But the reasons given for the cancellation — anger over comments about Barack Obama made the night before by Fox News chairman Roger Ailes — give short shrift to an ongoing online campaign by activists at MoveOn.org and by influential blogs like the Daily Kos to have candidates shun the Fox News Channel, which they accuse of being too conservative and too closely allied to the Republican Party.

Fox is not a credible news outlet and their deception needs to be stopped...

Fox isn't a legitimate news channel. It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report--repeating false Republican talking points to smear Democrats.

Posted by Y-Love at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post today reported, on page A5, a story which is rocking the evangelical Christian leadership. Global warming is a hotly debated issue among evangelical circles, and now Rev. Richard Cizik, Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, has taken an opposing view to Rev. James Dobson, the president's pastor long seen as an authoritative voice for the evangelical population:

Rebuffing Christian radio commentator James C. Dobson, the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its position that environmental protection, which it calls "creation care," is an important moral issue.

Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, and two dozen other conservative Christian leaders, including Gary L. Bauer, Tony Perkins and Paul M. Weyrich, sent the board a letter this month denouncing the association's vice president, the Rev. Richard Cizik, for urging attention to global warming.

[Dobson's] letter argued that evangelicals are divided on whether climate change is a real problem, and it said that "Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

If Cizik "cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE," the letter concluded.

The Jewish perspective on this is relatively clear: "Anyone who ruins any thing that could be used by others" potentially transgresses the Biblical prohibition of bal tashchit, literally "you shall not destroy" (source), ultimately derived from Deuteronomy 20:19 and expounded Talmudically in Avoda Zarah 11b and Bava Metzia 32b. As this is potentially a scriptural prohibition, the Talmudic principle of s'feka d'Oraisa l'chumra -- when one is confronted with the potential of transgressing a scriptural law, it is better to act stringently (and err on the side of caution) -- would ostensibly be enough to forbid driving one's gas-guzzling 7-passenger ozone destroyer any further than one's corner.

One rabbi even said in 2002:

To idly rip off a single leaf from a tree, for example, is a needless act of destruction, and one that would greatly upset tzadikim (righteous individuals) among our people who had worked to develop their sensitivity to all of G-d’s creations...

"...[destruction] also means trying to attain a certain aim by making use of more things and more valuable things when fewer and less valuable ones would suffice...(Horeb: p. 280)"

I don't understand how a religious person can honestly say that protecting G-d's creation, which we call our "environment", is a non-issue in the grand scheme of a G-dly way of living. While we may not be perfect, and yes we are still clinging to our styrofoam, but to not at least acknowledge that it's on the agenda? At some point?

Dobson, granted, did say, in a nutshell that there were more pressing issues to concentrate on. And who could disagree? Can we really put Darfur on hold much longer to concentrate on the long-term plight of the polar bears?

But, those people who are in the "debate" as to whether or not it's even an issue, I think would be well served to ask their local rabbi.

Posted by Y-Love at 08:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One columnist, Barrie Dunsmore, wrote a brilliant piece summing up news events of last week which appeared in the Rutland (VT) Herald:

During a 24-hour news cycle last week there were these major stories:

1. Six of the eight recently fired United States Attorneys told Congressional committees that they believed they lost their jobs because they wouldn't play partisan politics in their handling of high profile political corruption cases. Some also claimed they'd been threatened by the Justice Department not to go public with their complaints.

2. Nine American servicemen were killed in action Iraq.

3. More than 100 Iraqi Shiites making a religious pilgrimage were killed by suicide bombers. At least 200 were injured.

4. Seriously wounded soldiers told Congress about the neglect, bad housing and bureaucratic nightmares they suffered as outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington while two top army generals accepted responsibility and apologized to the soldiers and their families.

5. According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, six in 10 Americans want Congress to set a time table to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

6. And, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and a national security aide to President George W. Bush, was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003.

Any one of these stories would have been bad news for the Bush White House. As a group they represent a devastating political "perfect storm" because they paint a vivid picture of corruption, neglect and incompetence even while things continue to go badly in a war that a significant majority of Americans no longer supports and wants to end.

In lying to the FBI and the grand jury, Libby was simply being the good soldier in taking the bullet to protect Cheney. It seems most probable that he will eventually be rewarded for his loyalty with a presidential pardon.

That doesn't really bother me. Whether Libby actually has to do prison time is much less important than the fact of the trial, the details about White House machinations it revealed, and its clear-cut verdict.

Together they prove what we have long suspected – that for the past six years, the most toxic influence on the American body politic has been Vice President Dick Cheney.

Posted by Y-Love at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times (subscription required) today reported about Hillary's doing a tried-and-true political tactic.

She's reinventing herself. Again.

And, to be sure, this is neither the only, nor the last, time we will see a candidate say or do the political equivalent of "no, y'all, I was just kidding before, for real, I believe..." on the campaign trail. But Hillary has a secret weapon in her arsenal: us.

Yes, it's Campaign 2.0. It's YouVote. Hillary, in her own words, is accenting something long neglected in American politics: what she calls the "conversation".

To watch Mrs. Clinton up close during these "rollout" weeks of her presidential campaign is to see a familiar political figure try to reclaim her name.

"I’m Hillary Clinton, and I’m running for president," she says at campaign appearances. Lamenting that her public image has been distorted by caricature, she often says, "I may be the most famous person you don’t really know." In the cliché of contemporary politics, Mrs. Clinton is "reintroducing herself to the American people."

She is, in this latest unveiling, the Nurturing Warrior. She displays a cozy acquaintance (“Let’s chat”) and leaderly confidence (“I’m in it to win it”). She is a tea-sipping girlfriend who vows to “deck” anyone who attacks her; a giggly mom who invokes old Girl Scout songs and refuses to apologize for voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Her aim, of course, is to show that she is tough enough to lead Americans in wartime but tender enough to understand their burdens.

Over the years, Mrs. Clinton has evolved through a series of female personas. Her outspoken feminism and perceived putdown of cookie-baking mothers provoked fierce criticism...

In Mrs. Clinton’s campaign now, her operative conceit is "the conversation."

It is impossible to attend a Hillary-for-president event and forget you are joining a "conversation," instead of hearing a conventional political speech. Mrs. Clinton relentlessly repeats the catchword, and for those who missed it, there are huge "Let the Conversation Begin" signs on the wall.

I'm sick of the fact that faith-based initiatives have been rife with so much corruption and mismanagement that secular institutions have ended up being screwed, but conversely, I'm sick of secular institutions using "the separation of church and state" to make our country a place where you have to be rich to be religious.

I'm sick of racism and racial discrimination, and I'm sick of hate crimes. But I'm also sick of anti-white discrimination and anti-white hate crimes.

I am sick of the existence of the America that Borat and Kramer forcefed me this past year, the America "right underneath the skin" reeking of racism, evidence of not enough education -- and I wonder what happened to all the benefits of educational initiatives I was raised to revere.

I'm sick of anti-Semitism and my heart breaks at the sight of dismembered Israelis -- my fellow Jews, but I'm also sick of Palestinian people living on UN crackers and the subjugation of Gazans.

And my mind boggles at even attempting to think about what happened to all those millions of dollars earmarked for Katrina victims -- sent to an inept FEMA leadership which would eventually turn up with nothing to show for all of its funding and efforts.

Voters today are so "torn" -- we see images of dead US soldiers and dead Iraqis, Abu Ghraib scandals and American beheadings; images put together to make us have emotional outbursts.

My conversation with Hillary isn't going to fit neatly into too many platforms. Neither will most of ours. But if she's willing to have it with me, I'm more than willing to speak. Even if it is only for 20 seconds.

And if she truly has taken upon herself the task of "having a conversation" with us, the American people, then she will truly be a leader worth listening to.

Keep on talking, Hillary, and keep on listening. (crossposted to MySpace)

Posted by Y-Love at 04:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This beautiful op-ed piece (look at the tone of voice, I'd like to call it "news", but the reality is, it's basically an op-ed piece) from ABC News tells us what we already suspected, and what many of us already knew: the people don't want no stinkin' war.

Sixty-four percent now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, up six points from last month to a new numerical high. (It was 63 percent in October.)

A majority hasn't said the war was worth fighting since April 2004, and it's been even longer since a majority has approved of how Bush is handling it. Sixty-seven percent now disapprove; 55 percent disapprove strongly.

In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.

Among those who do support a deadline, 85 percent said it should be within the next year (including 46 percent who said it should be within the next six months), essentially unchanged from previous polls.

Bush himself is also taking a beating in the ring of public opinion:

Continue reading "Public Approval of Dubya's Iraq War Hitting New Lows" »

Posted by Y-Love at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Pew Forum, at people-press.org, released their study of current opinion surrounding the War in Iraq. Among the breakdowns among party lines, one thing jumped out to my attention:

Republicans Remain Confident of Success

Despite their widespread concerns about the current state of affairs in Iraq, most Republicans remain upbeat about the prospects for the future. More than three-quarters (77%) of Republicans believe the U.S. will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals in Iraq.

About a third of Democrats (34%) believe the U.S. will succeed, while 61% say it will definitely or probably fail; somewhat more independents think the U.S. is likely to achieve its goals in Iraq.

Consistent GOP Support for Bush Policy

Just as Republicans remain confident of success in Iraq, they also have consistently supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Roughly three-quarters (76%) say the war was the right decision, which is unchanged from January and virtually the same as in August 2006. Last February, GOP support for the decision to go to war was only modestly higher (81%).

Similarly, stable majorities of Republicans believe U.S. troops should remain in Iraq until the situation there is stabilized; 71% say that now, which also is about the same as in last August (72%) and February (73%).

Moreover, the number of Republicans who say more troops are needed in Iraq increased sharply after Bush announced the surge plan last month. Currently, 42% of Republicans say more U.S. forces are needed in Iraq; that is a bit lower than last month (47%). But twice as many Republicans now say more troops are needed than did so last August (42% vs. 21%).

We've seen death. We've seen bombs, we've seen civilians, we've seen mutilated children. We've heard car bombs, we've listened to "The Angry American" and then, seen more IEDs. What could be making Republicans -- over 75% of them -- still think that Iraq is a good idea, and that we should send more troops?

As Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Emeritus Professor of Social Psychology at Stanford University, notes, there was a 27 percent increase in terrorist incidents and a 56 percent increase in casualties during a time (pre-Iraq-early-Iraq) when there was "unprecedented spending by the United States to wage a war on terror." Military maneuvers are not a panacea for terrorist incidents.

Dr. Harry Triandis, in 1989 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, in his article entitled "The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts", noted that in collectivist social structures (like the current PR-driven GOP) people can develop a "conformity to ingroup goals, which leads to internalization of
the ingroup goals. Thus, people do what is expected of them, even if that is not enjoyable."

To connect this to our context, for many American Republicans, "W's goal became my goal." Do we know what W's goal is? No. To many American Republicans, perhaps, "W is fighting for me. W wants what I want."

Yet this is the same administration which has slashed veterans' benefits, left hundreds of thousands of children "behind", and balked at raising minimum wage to livable levels. The goals of this cabal are "not enjoyable" for many of the people backing it.

Yet they still seem to be supporting him in large numbers.

Insane.

Posted by Y-Love at 01:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

First it was Goode, now it's Hargrove.

A certain variant of Bigots' Foot-in-mouth syndrome is apparently affecting some politicos in the Virginia State Legislature. Not only do bigots in this particular legislature seem unable to conceal their prejudice, but they refuse to back down.

The Washington Jewish Week reports:

A Virginia legislator under fire for comments regarding slavery and Jews said this week that "the New Testament does say the Jewish people crucified Christ."

But Del. Frank Hargrove (R) assured a reporter that "I don't fault you for it" or blame any Jews of today.

Hargrove made his comments Monday in a phone interview in which he was asked to explain why, in a discussion involving whether Virginia's legislature should apologize for slavery, he had said, "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"

(...)

"I don't know who killed Christ I wasn't there," said Glen Allen's Hargrove, 79, adding that all he knows is what the Christian Bible says. Asked later what the Bible does say, the delegate said that "the New Testament does say the Jewish people crucified Christ."

John Schol, bishop of the UMC Washington Episcopal Area Baltimore-Washington Conference, said that while the church doesn't have an official teaching on the death of [JC], "most Methodists understand that the death of Jesus came about in large part because of the very challenging stances that [Christ] took in his day that created conflict for people of his day and religious leaders of his day."

Apparently Christian scholars are not on the same page as Mr. Hargrove.

Mr. Hargrove needs some sensitivity training, and perhaps some good old-fashioned Bible study.

Posted by Y-Love at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From Yahoo!News this past Monday:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of American voters say they're willing to vote for an African-American presidential candidate. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 55% believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same.

...Seventy-eight percent (78%) say they'd vote for a woman but just 51% said their peer group would do the same.

These questions assume a special relevance in Election 2008 as the top two candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination are Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama ...Clinton has consistently led the competition, but Obama is viewed more favorably by American voters.

As with the question about women, younger Americans are more likely to vote for an African-American President than their elders. While 73% of voters under 30 say that their family, friends, and co-workers would vote for an African-American, just 35% of those over 65 say the same.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of American voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that an African-Americans will be elected president in the next 25 years. For women, that figure is 79%.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) believe a woman will be elected President before an African-American. Thirty-eight percent (38%) take the opposite view, while 23% are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of African-American voters say their family, friends, and co-workers would vote for an African-American President. Just 51% of White Americans say the same.

Posted by Y-Love at 02:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush has quietly signed legislation into law which would give the government the right to go through your mail, the New York Daily News reported today:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.

Continue reading "Bush Pushes The Envelope: Warrants No Longer Required To Read Your Mail" »

Posted by Y-Love at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a member of the hip-hop community, I feel almost a duty to repost this.

Powerful words from Mos Def.

A hat tip and one love to Islamohemian for this video.

Posted by Y-Love at 09:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

This guy refuses to let up and even let us think he's not racist. Staunchly defending his Constituional right to be an Islamophobic imbecile, Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-VA) stood by his words Thursday, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.) on Thursday stood by his demand for strict immigration controls that he said would prevent Muslims from being elected to Congress and using the Koran during swearing-in ceremonies.

Islamic groups in the United States called on Republicans to repudiate Goode's remarks, which he first made in a letter attacking the use of the holy book in a ceremonial oath-taking next month by the first Muslim elected to the House.

"I do not apologize, and I do not retract my letter," Goode said emphatically during a session Thursday with reporters in the southern Virginia town of Rocky Mount.

Continue reading "Islamophobic Virginia Representative Stands By His Words" »

Posted by Y-Love at 01:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

While unfortunately Republican (of course I'm going to say that), a refreshing new, bearded face is present in the New Hampshire state legislature.

Representative Jason Bedrick (R-Windham) was elected to the New Hampshire state legislature by a margin of only six votes in this past election. As The Union Leader reports:

Windham – A young man who does not shake hands with women was recently elected to the state Legislature, and the support of several members of the Salem Women's Club was instrumental in his victory at the polls.

"My faith out of respect for women does not allow contact between unrelated men and women," said Rep. Jason Bedrick, 23, R-Windham. He said he explains this on a daily basis to female colleagues who reach out their hands to him.

Usually, that's the end of the conversation, he says, but sometimes, when he senses the woman isn't convinced, he adds: "If every man in the world were to keep his hands to himself, would it be a better world for women or a worse world for women?"

Bedrick is the first Orthodox Jew to be elected in New Hampshire, a state that is home to fewer than 10 Orthodox Jewish families and where Jewish people account for 1 percent of the population.

Continue reading "First Orthodox Jew Elected in New Hampshire" »

Posted by Y-Love at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So my rabbi, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Etzion, which I continually laud for its integrated approach to Torah and life, sent me a number of emails. My rabbi I consider to be the "voice of Torah" on most issues, and I take his opinion quite seriously.

However, he is also a Republican. Many times we disagree quite fundamentally, and on some things, though I struggle, I find myself virtually unable to defer to his generally wiser point of view.

On this, my rav is completely correct -- far more correct than I could have even imagined -- and I apologize to him and G-d for not having taken the words of my teachers more seriously.

My rav sent me in an email:

One of the recommendations of the Baker report is the right of the Palestinians to return -in other words the destruction of Israel.

did any of you call or email or both (much better) to any of the right wing radio shows ? probably no !

did any of you email or call or both (much better) your Senators? probably no !

did any of you email or call or both (much better) your Statesmen? probably no !

did any of you email or call or both (much better) your Friends and family about this ? probably no !

DO YOU CARE? DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE JEWISH STATE? DO YOU CARE ABOUT JEWS? DO YOU EVER WANT TO GO TO VISIT ISRAEL? DO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE KOTEL? DO YOU WANT TO CARY A YELLOW BADGE ? DO YOU ALWAYS SAY "I DON'T KNOW HOW COULD THEY .............DURING THE SHOAH? OR IS IT ALL ABOUT YOU AND ABOUT THE NOW! CAN'T YOU SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL (OR AS IT SEEMS FROM BAKER'S REPORT) ? IT IS WRITTEN WITH ........YOUR BLOOD ! WAKE UP

And what I began to find, I find increasingly disturbing.

Continue reading "Words from my Rav on the Iraq Study Group" »

Posted by Y-Love at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Any blog which bills itself as being from a "liberal perspective" gets de facto love from me. (Most of humanity gets de facto love from me.) While I find some of the antics of my current left-wing brethren, to say the absolute least, off-putting at times (Hugo Chavez much?), in general I find that a common thread of love of equality and interpersonal unity squashes most differences.

But I can't just let this go.

Today's Kesher Talk decries the "mob rule" extant on college campuses. Speaking of "bullying behavior" rearing its "ugly head", the first case Cinnamon Stilwell brings up is:

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, one of the strongest anti-illegal immigration voices in politics, had his speech at Michigan State University of Law last Thursday disrupted by violent student protesters. They set off the fire alarm beforehand and when that didn't stop the event, proceeded to shout loudly throughout Tancredo's speech. Protesters also attacked members of the Michigan State University College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom, both of whom backed the event.

This is the same Tancredo who called Miami a Third World country. Un pais tercermundista. A vibrant Spanish-speaking populace equals Darfur to this man, and it is the students who are wrong for protesting?

I thought Stillwell was only decrying the use of violence -- as people in Michigan were, after all spit on, and tires were slashed. But then Stillwell continues:

This incident put me in mind of the treatment given to Chris Simcox, founder of the anti-illegal immigration group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, when he spoke at Georgetown University in November. Protesters, led by the ironically named GU Students Against Racism, Hate and Violence, set off the fire alarm (which, as I recall, is a tactic straight out of grade school) and managed to disrupt Simcox's speech briefly. They continued to chant outside the speech in an unsuccessful attempt to drown Simcox out.

David Horowitz was shouted down by an unruly mob at San Francisco State University last year, as was Daniel Pipes at UC Berkeley in 2004.

Unruly mob? Hardly.

Students -- especially in these repressive times of increasing right-wing control -- should not be taught that silencing themselves and editing their emotions is the answer. Ob