Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Came across this article... a little unsettling, not so much the notion but why. It's become very convienent for those to cite certain circumstance of how Israel came to be that support their, but ignore issues like the fact that the Arab world kicked a half million Jews out of their respective countries with no one to hold them responsible for their actions.

Israel simply has no right to exist - Peace might have a real chance without Israelis' biblical claim

More crucially, the promise limits Israel's capacity to seek models of coexistence based on equality and the respect of human rights. A state based on so exclusivist a claim to legitimacy cannot but conceive of separation as a solution. But separation is not the same as lasting peace; it only pulls apart warring parties. It does not heal old wounds, let alone redress historical wrongs.


For all the damage being done by Modern Orthodox Jews who have lived in Brooklyn their whole lives who now settle into the Occupied Territory based on biblical claims, further antagonizing an already abused and downtrodden Palestinian people, none of the blowhards like Faisal can seem to remember all the abuses handed down by the Arab nations pre-1948.

All I ever hear from others who observes methods like suicide bombers and respond by saying "what do you expect?" based on Israel's conduct. The Jews have been persecuted, ghettoized, imprisoned, ransanked and killed for I don't know how many years. I respond in tow - "For those who have had a hand in oppressing a people for the better part of the last 1400 years: When these very same people finally have a nation of their own where your boots don't press down on their necks, what do you expect?" You have taught them well, and now you face a sliver of the force you have used yourself in return.

Friday, October 10, 2003

The Conspiracy to keep you Poor and Stupid

Spending On Iraq Sets Off Gold Rush - via Washington Post

http://www.ospolitics.org/worldview/archives/2003/09/25/bloggers_p.php

It's ideas like this, and the Left Coaster's Truth Squad ideas that have the potential to gain traction:

Lawn Ornaments for God No More Mister Nice Blog shows us some religious hypocrites

Trying to Explain One More Time Late Night Thoughts points out some basic differences in presidential scandal

More Tax Cuts fir the Unemployed Ethel the Blog tells us those tax-cutting Republicans aren’t done yet.

Bush’s Tax Increase Max argues that deficits are actually taxes.

A killer one liner containing the quintessential PigBoy joke, and some Bears dissection from a long suffering fan

Energy Plan: No Visionaries, Please Meteor Blades, new guest poster at the Daily Kos, examines the administration's energy policy.

The Illegal Supreme Court Decision of Bush v Gore No, some of us aren't "over it."

until the violence stops... It's domestic violence awareness month, you know.


Letter to Ashley - Some hope for the next generation, which is already despairing

http://www.untelevised.org/archives/
2003_09_23_antiwar_vs_antibushs_war.php
Anti-War vs. Anti-Bush's War Matt Langer says what I'm thinking.

http://www.northwestern.edu/commencement/ryan.html
McGaw Hall map

http://www.kennethdickerman.com
photojournalist for Tribune online / Metro.com.

http://www.ospolitics.org/worldview/archives/2003/10/03/adding_to_.php

http://www.freewayblogger.com/


Why Are These Men Laughing? - Esquire, January 2003, ©2002 Reprinted with Permission

Maybe it’s because the midterm elections went so very well. Maybe it’s because at the White House, politics is the best policy. Maybe it’s because it’s the reign of Karl Rove. An inside look at how the most powerful presidential adviser in a century does what does so well.


The White House on Monday denied that President Bush's chief political strategist was involved in revealing the identity of a CIA operative, in possible violation of the law. A Democratic senator has asked Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to probe the matter. The naming of the intelligence officer's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak came shortly after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, undermined Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Friday, October 03, 2003

My post on OSP

The Freeway Blogger
http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html

Why Are These Men Laughing?
Esquire, January 2003


Maybe it’s because the midterm elections went so very well. Maybe it’s because at the White House, politics is the best policy. Maybe it’s because it’s the reign of Karl Rove. An inside look at how the most powerful presidential adviser in a century does what does so well.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Bush_Administration

The White House on Monday denied that President Bush's chief political strategist was involved in revealing the identity of a CIA operative, in possible violation of the law. A Democratic senator has asked Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to probe the matter. The naming of the intelligence officer's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak came shortly after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, undermined Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

From this post in Atrios;

That didn't actually happen of course, but people are telling me that Grover Norquist just compared taxes to the Holocaust on NPR's Fresh Air.

Grover calmly segued into a moral argument: that is was immoral to discriminate against one group of people just because they were different, ie, rich. He said something like, "It's like the Holocaust, people saying, 'Oh, it's okay, they're just going after those people there... not me.' Something is immoral no matter who they're doing it too."

Terry, who is very kind of all sorts of guests, interrupted: "Excuse me... did you just compare taxes to the Holocaust?"

"No," said Grover, and then did it again. He repeated that whether or not you're taxing someone, or "shooting" someone, its immoral for you to accept it just because it's happening to someone else. He also then threw in a comparison to the Apartheid regime of South Africa.

Briefly: this interview was actually disturbing. Norquist laid out ridiculous arguments and nebulous facts with the calm, reasoned manner of a Lyndon LaRouche: someone who believes that only he has the truth, and everyone else is deluded or evil.

The interview started with him responding to Terry's question: "How do we pay for the war in Iraq, etc." by him saying, "Interesting use of the word 'we.' We are the people. The government is THEM. THEY have to pay for it; we don't."

And this man talks to the President and his senior advisers on a regular basis.

Can't wait for the transcript...

UPDATE: Sadly No kindly provides the transcript:


Norquist [Discussing the death tax] I think it speaks very much to the health of the nation that 70% plus of Americans want to abolish the death tax because they see it as fundamentally unjust. The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and class division will say it's only 2% or 5% in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax. I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust, it's only a small percentage, it's not you it's somebody else. And this country, people who may not make, earning a lot of money, at the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just, if you've paid taxes on your income government should leave you alone, not tax you again.

Q. Did you just compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?

Norquist: No, the morality that says it's ok to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population, is the morality that says that the Holocaust is ok because they didn't target everybody. It's just a small percentage what are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you, it's them. And arguing that it's ok to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them, and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us it should treat us all equally. And the argument that Bill Clinton used when he wanted to raise taxes in 1993 is I'm only going to tax the top 2%, so this doesn't affect the rest of you, I'm only going to get some of these guys, not you, others.

The challenge there, when people use that rhetoric, in addition to the fact that I think it's immoral to separate the society, by, uh, when South Africa divided society by race, that was wrong. When East Germany divided them by income and class, that was wrong. East Germany was not an improvement over South Africa. Dividing people so when you can mug them one at a time is a bad thing to do. Whether you do on racial grounds, religious grounds, whether you work on Saturdays or not grounds, economic grounds.

Q. So you see taxes as being, the way they are now a terrible discrimination against the wealthy, comparable to the kind of discrimination of say, the Holocaust?

A. Well, when you pick, when you use, you can use different rhetoric, or different points for different purposes, and I would argue that those who say don't let this bother you I'm only doing it, the government is only doing to a small part of the population, that is very wrong. And it's immoral. they should treat everybody the same. They shouldn't be shooting anyone. And they shouldn't be taking half of anybody's income or wealth when they die.

-Atrios 3:37 PM