PEACE ON EARTH
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Cracking God Up
God has a brilliant sense of humor. Where do you think you got yours from?
The below interchange between God and Isaiah is one example where if you listen closely you can see God
first possibly amused, then setting the record straight. Isaiah is basically telling God- hey Lookie Me, down here- can't you see us starving ourselves fasting skinny sitting in the ashpile? Isaiah is spiritually waving his hands in the air as if to flag down a medicopter come to save him. God must be laughing. Kids, kids, kids. Look. Of course I am here. You think I didn't notice you all melting the pounds away like anorexics? That's not what I want- let me tell you what I want. Get off and over yourselves- there is a world to feed, people to free, people who need shelter, people who are left for dead by the side of the road. Stop your damned fighting and get busy cleaning up now.
I don't want to see any more silly debates. I want to see all the Presidential guys stop debating theology and out feeding people, finding housing and creating dignified work that doesn't make slaves. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to snipe at each other on paid advertising and news build some lasting enterprise that hires people at basic living wages, create opportunity not strife and contention. That's for starters. Then you will be half on the right road to anywhere meaningful.
Good Intentions Gone Awry
When Off the Mark is off the Rocker
The scripture we heard yesterday had to do with a conversation God and Isaiah had. The conversation went something like this:
You think you are fasting so well? Let me tell you something- here is the fasting I desire:
Isaiah 58: 3-7 (Is this the fast I desire?)
3 Why, when we fasted, did You not see? When we starved our bodies, did You pay no heed? Because on your fast day you see to your business and oppress all your laborers!
4 Because you fast in strife and contention, and you strike with a wicked fist! Your fasting today is not such as to make your voice heard on high.
5 Is such the fast I desire, a day for men to starve their bodies? Is it bowing the head like a bulrush and lying in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call that a fast, a day when Adonai is favorable?
6 No, this is the fast I desire: To unlock the fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free; to break off every yoke.
7 It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor into your home; when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to ignore your own kin."
------------------
So God is saying, you are violent so I am not listening to you. You are full of fighting- strife and contention. (Hard to categorize the political american election climate as anything other than this)
You are oppressive to people, you enslave them. I want you to share your bread with the hungry- feed people. I want you to house the homeless- even in your own home. And do not ignore your relatives-especially those needy ones.
That is the kind of action God wants rather than looking all morbidly head bowed. You call that a fast??
---------------
And there are other times when God's people got it wrong- and he kept having to tell them. Look people. I desire MERCY not sacrifice or the burning of sacrifices. MERCY. What is that? Other translations say it is something like Pity, or Forgiveness. Others construe it to mean charity or love. I desire Love not Sacrifice. God says also essentially - all your burnt offerings make me wretch.
Why is he saying this? Because piety for its own sake can be self-laudatory and self-righteous and self-congratulatory. It is worse than naval gazing. It is a presumptous sin of self-satisfied self justification which negates Jesus. I did this thus I made myself holy. No, you are required to Love your neighbor as yourself as an outpouring of God's love for you. You are required to do unto others as you want them done to you. That means you are required to get off your laurels and help someone. Just like the Good Samaritan who was not like the Priest who looked the other way and did nothing to help the guy left for dead, abandoned, injured and helpless. You are required to help. No excuse you are a Priest or holy person. The holiness comes from helping someone else not contemplating your holiness and all your burnt sacrifices. There's nothing God hates as much as pride- and self-righteousness is full of pride. Can't you hear God saying 'get over yourself and go help someone!'
Jesus washed feet- even of Peter, his chosen to be the Rock upon which the church is founded. Jesus got his hands dirty. He did the wash- your wash. Jesus would tell you that you have to get your hands dirty even if it means you have to stoop low to the ground to reach the filth to clean it up. We have a footwashing God. Not one perched upon
some remote celestial treetop gazing down. He says help me do the laundry. And for God's sake clean up all this violence and strife-mongering.
When Love
Is More Than Campaign Rhetoric
It looks like what happened last night at Holy Trinity's Mass and dinner for their El Salvador twin sister parish, Maria Madre de Los Pobres.
Father Evelio Menjivar, the Parochial Vicar of the Cathedral of Saint Matthews was the guest priest homilist who gave a talk on what kind of fasting the Lord really requires- it has something to do with justice, freeing oppressed people, and serving the poor. That's what Love looks like. He spoke about having to flee his village which turned into a ghost town where only one elderly couple was left after the civil war in the early 1980s and how he was raised then in a parish that now has a sister parish with one in Bangor, Maine. He came to this country in 1990 and subsequently entered Seminary.
In his talk he stressed that Solidarity means something other than hand-outs. It is not charity dropped condescendingly from above, but a sense of compassion and empathy that says we are all one, we are one family in Christ through the sacrifice of Christ. Indeed, when people come back from experiences where they 'helped the poor' they often come back more blessed for having received more than they could monetarily give in the way of profound joy that comes from a taste of the simple living with gratitude.
The dinner was a feast wherein everyone potluck style brought in dishes which included not only standard rice and black beans but papoosas, quesidillas and fresh corn salads in tribute to latin cuisine. At the dinner a short film on the great peace and development style work being done with the children was shown after which most everyone wanted to visit.
Loving Mercy and doing Justice done right creates Love of an other worldly kind- and it's only a plane ride away. Special thanks to the Holy Trinity Social Justice Ministry for hosting such a wonderful event and of course to the E-Padre, Father Evelio.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Wrong Fight
And the Massive Political Fallout Likely to Ensue
Contrary to popular belief, some women love their catholic leaders- not all of them, but lots of them. Even some Jesuit leaders don't love all of them but they are working on it.
The issue with forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide contraception is still something that irks people even if the consortium of jesuit colleges thinks it is OK.
Recently there was a lively discussion regarding whether the health care plan Georgetown Law Center offers its students should, as Sandra Fluke wants, cover contraception in the health plan.
First, let me state that 'contraception' is not 'health care' and it misframes deceptively the argument to call it that. Even the National Cancer Institute has noted the link between oral contraceptions and liver cancer. As the liver regulates a lot of other health functions, like removal of fat lipids from the body, prolongued use of the Pill can also increase risks of Type II diabetis (adult onset) and other health complications. It's use statistically increases risks of blood clots, heart disease, strokes and related malfunctioning. So no, ingesting chemicals that so dramatically alter one's cycle have hormonal implications that are profoundly negative to ones overall health.
Any simple google search of 'wrongful death' and contraception will demonstrate that there has been and continues to be litigation on the point.
Forcing a school to offer such an intrinsically dangerous product is nonsense of an orwellian absurdity magnitude. Just not wise.
Additionally, a Catholic school that has as its founding mission statement a decidedly Catholic identity which promotes catholic values for what it views as spiritually healthy development of students as part of its educational mission should not be forced to act against its mission whether the government agrees or not with the mission. The mission is legitimate. Georgetown is incorporated properly as a non profit educational institution in the District of Columbia under a religious and educational mission. The law school is not incorporated separately from the main University in that regard.
The law school is often hailed as not having much of a catholic identity. I beg to differ. There is a Chapel in the middle of the lower level of the main building where daily Mass is offered. This is at the Center of the main building of the school where prayers are offered every day. There is a statue of a prophet outside the Chapel. There are aspects of the curriculum also that can be found to be catholic inspired. There is a full time Priest on staff in campus ministry. There is a graduation Mass celebrated for graduating persons who wish to attend (or at least was when I graduated.) When I went there the most famous Jesuit in the country Father Drinan was on faculty. The entire school is profoundly Jesuit, and is the oldest Catholic college in the country founded by a Bishop named John Carroll whose statue sits front and center in the main campus to greet everyone coming in the main gate. The Jesuit residence which houses Jesuit faculty is just off main campus. It has priests teaching and priests in the administration. There is an office of ministry and mission headed by a Jesuit priest. It is a very Catholic school. There are several chapels on campus.
The Hospital is on the campus and not separate from the school. There is a chapel in the hospital.
There are statues of the Blessed Mother all around the place and crosses in examining rooms. This is unmistakably a catholic hospital.
Forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide something that they have a well thought out deliberate objection to on moral grounds is not something that the government should be doing. It should be doing it less when the 'health care' they are talking about isn't really. I survived 50 years without being on 'the pill' and it didn't hurt my health any. I can honestly say that not being on the Pill has never landed me one day in a doctor's office with any issue caused by my not taking the pill.
In fact I have statistically less liklihood of developing heart disease, stroke, blood clots, liver cancer, type II diabetis and other health problems than women who took the pill for prolonged periods of time.
This has been a ridiculously bad political miscalculation which is not based on clear science.
It is not based on anything other than an agenda that disguises itself as a women's reproductive freedom 'health' issue when it is not really.
If the Commerce Clause can be extended to force these sorts of mandates what's next? What is the limiting principle here? The government can force everyone who sees a doctor anywhere to get a chip implanted under their skin with their medical records into which signals may be electronically transmitted for mind control? Forcing anyone to pay for or provide or promote contraception is just Orwellianly absurd.
Contrary to popular belief, some women love their catholic leaders- not all of them, but lots of them. Even some Jesuit leaders don't love all of them but they are working on it.
The issue with forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide contraception is still something that irks people even if the consortium of jesuit colleges thinks it is OK.
Recently there was a lively discussion regarding whether the health care plan Georgetown Law Center offers its students should, as Sandra Fluke wants, cover contraception in the health plan.
First, let me state that 'contraception' is not 'health care' and it misframes deceptively the argument to call it that. Even the National Cancer Institute has noted the link between oral contraceptions and liver cancer. As the liver regulates a lot of other health functions, like removal of fat lipids from the body, prolongued use of the Pill can also increase risks of Type II diabetis (adult onset) and other health complications. It's use statistically increases risks of blood clots, heart disease, strokes and related malfunctioning. So no, ingesting chemicals that so dramatically alter one's cycle have hormonal implications that are profoundly negative to ones overall health.
Any simple google search of 'wrongful death' and contraception will demonstrate that there has been and continues to be litigation on the point.
Forcing a school to offer such an intrinsically dangerous product is nonsense of an orwellian absurdity magnitude. Just not wise.
Additionally, a Catholic school that has as its founding mission statement a decidedly Catholic identity which promotes catholic values for what it views as spiritually healthy development of students as part of its educational mission should not be forced to act against its mission whether the government agrees or not with the mission. The mission is legitimate. Georgetown is incorporated properly as a non profit educational institution in the District of Columbia under a religious and educational mission. The law school is not incorporated separately from the main University in that regard.
The law school is often hailed as not having much of a catholic identity. I beg to differ. There is a Chapel in the middle of the lower level of the main building where daily Mass is offered. This is at the Center of the main building of the school where prayers are offered every day. There is a statue of a prophet outside the Chapel. There are aspects of the curriculum also that can be found to be catholic inspired. There is a full time Priest on staff in campus ministry. There is a graduation Mass celebrated for graduating persons who wish to attend (or at least was when I graduated.) When I went there the most famous Jesuit in the country Father Drinan was on faculty. The entire school is profoundly Jesuit, and is the oldest Catholic college in the country founded by a Bishop named John Carroll whose statue sits front and center in the main campus to greet everyone coming in the main gate. The Jesuit residence which houses Jesuit faculty is just off main campus. It has priests teaching and priests in the administration. There is an office of ministry and mission headed by a Jesuit priest. It is a very Catholic school. There are several chapels on campus.
The Hospital is on the campus and not separate from the school. There is a chapel in the hospital.
There are statues of the Blessed Mother all around the place and crosses in examining rooms. This is unmistakably a catholic hospital.
Forcing catholic hospitals and schools to provide something that they have a well thought out deliberate objection to on moral grounds is not something that the government should be doing. It should be doing it less when the 'health care' they are talking about isn't really. I survived 50 years without being on 'the pill' and it didn't hurt my health any. I can honestly say that not being on the Pill has never landed me one day in a doctor's office with any issue caused by my not taking the pill.
In fact I have statistically less liklihood of developing heart disease, stroke, blood clots, liver cancer, type II diabetis and other health problems than women who took the pill for prolonged periods of time.
This has been a ridiculously bad political miscalculation which is not based on clear science.
It is not based on anything other than an agenda that disguises itself as a women's reproductive freedom 'health' issue when it is not really.
If the Commerce Clause can be extended to force these sorts of mandates what's next? What is the limiting principle here? The government can force everyone who sees a doctor anywhere to get a chip implanted under their skin with their medical records into which signals may be electronically transmitted for mind control? Forcing anyone to pay for or provide or promote contraception is just Orwellianly absurd.
Too sick for words
If you think that there is no market for fetal body parts and tissue fueling this abortion industry take another look:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035276_Pepsi_fetal_cells_business_operations.html
I prefer
The French
The movie below, Jesus Camp, should be watched by every politico who is railing against Secularism in America. I prefer the French version of Secularism. It should be obvious after watching why.
It it still wierdly very popular in America to rail against the French. I heard it again from someplace you would not expect it from someone you wouldn't expect it. But the republican meme (fueled in part by people who wrongly think the French to be antisemetic) is that the laws the French have to neutralize the public space of religious expression violate our freedom of worship or free exercise of religion.
The French experienced in WWII an occupation by Germany at a time when their Reicht claimed a National Church as it coopted the religion, theology and coffers of the Lutheran church making one State church Lutheran Synod, and misusing the theology militaristically to suppress to death one religion where Jews were put on trains and sent cross border to concentration camps. No wonder they want to neutralize government of religious expression.
The misuse of religion for militaristic purposes is not alien to our soil. Look at the movie below, Jesus Camp. Neither is the extreme wingnutty misappropriation of religion for political agendas.
In the Jesus Camp movie at the end there is an interesting sequence in which Ted Haggart is condemning homosexuality. Interesting sidenote for those who don't recall- this is the disgraced pastor who subsequently confessed to gay affairs, and a long term one with a gay prostitute while married.
Anyone who thinks that separation of church and state is a bad idea needs to watch this. It's free to watch, the entire thing is posted below. Every Bishop needs to watch it. Really. Mandatory. Especially for Cardinals.
The movie below, Jesus Camp, should be watched by every politico who is railing against Secularism in America. I prefer the French version of Secularism. It should be obvious after watching why.
It it still wierdly very popular in America to rail against the French. I heard it again from someplace you would not expect it from someone you wouldn't expect it. But the republican meme (fueled in part by people who wrongly think the French to be antisemetic) is that the laws the French have to neutralize the public space of religious expression violate our freedom of worship or free exercise of religion.
The French experienced in WWII an occupation by Germany at a time when their Reicht claimed a National Church as it coopted the religion, theology and coffers of the Lutheran church making one State church Lutheran Synod, and misusing the theology militaristically to suppress to death one religion where Jews were put on trains and sent cross border to concentration camps. No wonder they want to neutralize government of religious expression.
The misuse of religion for militaristic purposes is not alien to our soil. Look at the movie below, Jesus Camp. Neither is the extreme wingnutty misappropriation of religion for political agendas.
In the Jesus Camp movie at the end there is an interesting sequence in which Ted Haggart is condemning homosexuality. Interesting sidenote for those who don't recall- this is the disgraced pastor who subsequently confessed to gay affairs, and a long term one with a gay prostitute while married.
Anyone who thinks that separation of church and state is a bad idea needs to watch this. It's free to watch, the entire thing is posted below. Every Bishop needs to watch it. Really. Mandatory. Especially for Cardinals.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Holy Smokes
Screen
What is going on in Sudan. Is there another genocide about to happen. Is there a blockade of humanitarian aid. Are ethnic groups getting 'cleansed?' e.g. wiped out? Is there a planned starvation
systematically about to take place and a blood bath the likes of which we have not seen since Rwanda.
OK George et al. You got my attention.
What is going on in Sudan. Is there another genocide about to happen. Is there a blockade of humanitarian aid. Are ethnic groups getting 'cleansed?' e.g. wiped out? Is there a planned starvation
systematically about to take place and a blood bath the likes of which we have not seen since Rwanda.
OK George et al. You got my attention.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Jesus
And the Herods
When Jesus was born there was a homocidal genocidal infanticidal maniac named King Herod who ruled the region in which he was born, who killed all the males under the age of 2 trying to kill off Jesus. Jesus was born with enemies. What other child do you know comes into the earth with the ruler out to kill him off before he could lift a finger against him?
Another Herod for the pleasure of a dirty dance from the daughter of woman with whom he had an adulterous liason, beheaded Jesus' cousin. He had imprisoned him for speaking against the adultery and for Jesus. Herod killed John the Baptist- the person who heralded Jesus' coming, the person who baptized him.
There was murder all around Jesus. He was born into it, it oppressively surrounded him, it touched him personally in his family. Did Jesus kill either Herod? Did he plot to assassinate either one or any Roman?
Sometimes I think we have a view of Jesus as a happy boy scout troop leader surrounded by hugging children and little lambs as if he popped out of a Hallmark card, complete with highlighted hair and blue eyes. We forget the grittiness of his life, and the struggle for existence of his people under Roman rule. It was brutal. It was ugly. It was painful. It was daily terror.
The first conversion story written in the New Testament is that of a Roman soldier Cornelius. A Roman Soldier whose job it was to keep the order however necessary, even if it meant killing Jews. A Roman oppressor- a soldier, a man of violence trained in war. Jesus converted him. His way is conversion, not killing off the killers. He never killed one soldier while he could have brought mountains of bolders on their heads. He could have spewed volcanos on Herod's palaces.
Who is Jesus?
Who do you say he is?
Why is he so radically insistent about Peace?
Think about it.
When Jesus was born there was a homocidal genocidal infanticidal maniac named King Herod who ruled the region in which he was born, who killed all the males under the age of 2 trying to kill off Jesus. Jesus was born with enemies. What other child do you know comes into the earth with the ruler out to kill him off before he could lift a finger against him?
Another Herod for the pleasure of a dirty dance from the daughter of woman with whom he had an adulterous liason, beheaded Jesus' cousin. He had imprisoned him for speaking against the adultery and for Jesus. Herod killed John the Baptist- the person who heralded Jesus' coming, the person who baptized him.
There was murder all around Jesus. He was born into it, it oppressively surrounded him, it touched him personally in his family. Did Jesus kill either Herod? Did he plot to assassinate either one or any Roman?
Sometimes I think we have a view of Jesus as a happy boy scout troop leader surrounded by hugging children and little lambs as if he popped out of a Hallmark card, complete with highlighted hair and blue eyes. We forget the grittiness of his life, and the struggle for existence of his people under Roman rule. It was brutal. It was ugly. It was painful. It was daily terror.
The first conversion story written in the New Testament is that of a Roman soldier Cornelius. A Roman Soldier whose job it was to keep the order however necessary, even if it meant killing Jews. A Roman oppressor- a soldier, a man of violence trained in war. Jesus converted him. His way is conversion, not killing off the killers. He never killed one soldier while he could have brought mountains of bolders on their heads. He could have spewed volcanos on Herod's palaces.
Who is Jesus?
Who do you say he is?
Why is he so radically insistent about Peace?
Think about it.
Non Violence
And the Nature of Christ
Who did Jesus kill? There were Romans in his day who were indiscriminately murdering and raping women of his nationality in an oppressive occupation of his homeland. Who did he kill? He told Peter to put away his sword when he himself was being captured in the Garden of Gethsemene that we are going to hear a lot about this Easter season. The radical call to non violence challenges us even today, as it runs counter-intuitively against the grain of human impulse.
A talk was given by the author of the book Bonhoffer about Dietrich Bonhoffer, whom he calls a Martyr and Saint essentially for his opposition to Naziism. He spoke at this year's National Prayer breakfast and brags he gave a copy of his book to Obama "no pressure" he says, to read it (as if Obama isn't familiar with the story.)
Bonhoffer lost his life in a Concentration camp arrested for either his involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler or his writings against the Nazi regime as a Christian pastor and theologian who opposed the political philosophy and its murderous manifestations. He felt he had to act to stop the madman.
Does it undermine a Christian witness to plot assassinations of evil people? He argued, no, we applaud people like David who slew the Philistine Goliath.
Did Jesus kill anyone who was evil? Let me ask it again. Did Jesus kill anyone who was evil?
"I came that you would have life and have it abundantly." He wishes that no man should die but that all have eternal life.
The book author noted that Bonhoffer said abortion was murder.
So if it is right to assassinate an archevil guy like Hitler for murdering innocent people, is it right to murder abortion doctors who are murdering innocent people? He found the question either non analogous or simpleminded and rather than answer it, he insulted the questioner as not grasping the depth of evil of Hitler, as head of state. Well then, what about Cheney and Bush mass murdering over 100,000 innocent collaterally damaged Iraqis who didn't ask for bombs and foreign troops to stormtroop them from half across the world. Should we say that it is morally justified to assassinate Bush-Cheney while this attrocity was going on in the misnomer of national security? No, he argued, you can't just say its OK to kill leaders of countries because you disagree with them. How about if they kill off without the slightest hint of repentence hundreds of thousands of innocent people in foreign countries without provocation or justification? No, of course not, but why? He didn't have any answer to that- if it was OK to do it to Hitler, it's not OK to do it to anyone else. Because Hitler is just lightyears worse a demon?
I am not advocating assassination of leaders- and in fact official policy is that we don't do it to foreign leaders. Unofficially, I don't want to know. Nor am I saying Hitler shouldn't have been stopped- of course he should have been. But the point is that what is the 'limiting principle' or dividing line between when it is OK to violate the basic Jesus Non Violence principle and when is it not. The guys waging misnamed national security protection (fueled by the vicious paranoia of neocons like Feif whose father is a Holocaust survivor) who rigged intelligence with Cheney to such a degree he was investigated by a Spanish Judge's tribunal for possible War Crimes Indictment (and yet freely walks the streets of think tanks in Washington like killing over a hundred thousand people on a lark is no big deal)should be wondering- why am I allowed to get off so easily? .There have been saner psychopaths than the people who ran the last Administration into mass murdering wars that were justified only by oil profits and fuled by ancient Holocaust paranoia, whose strategies actually harmed Israeli security interests.
The non-thinking republican right that want to argue for the right to commit violence under the banner of holier than thou Jesus flag carriers are not thinking through clearly who Jesus actually was and is and ever shall be. They may sell a bunch of books but get us no closer to the Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. Conversion not murder was what Jesus was about. Conversion doesn't allow just nuking people off the planet, especially when they didn't do anything to suggest they are about to attack you.
You convert by love. Fierce, strong, love. This is the Jesus strategy. Do you or do you not believe him? If you don't you can't really call yourself a Christian.
Who did Jesus kill? There were Romans in his day who were indiscriminately murdering and raping women of his nationality in an oppressive occupation of his homeland. Who did he kill? He told Peter to put away his sword when he himself was being captured in the Garden of Gethsemene that we are going to hear a lot about this Easter season. The radical call to non violence challenges us even today, as it runs counter-intuitively against the grain of human impulse.
A talk was given by the author of the book Bonhoffer about Dietrich Bonhoffer, whom he calls a Martyr and Saint essentially for his opposition to Naziism. He spoke at this year's National Prayer breakfast and brags he gave a copy of his book to Obama "no pressure" he says, to read it (as if Obama isn't familiar with the story.)
Bonhoffer lost his life in a Concentration camp arrested for either his involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler or his writings against the Nazi regime as a Christian pastor and theologian who opposed the political philosophy and its murderous manifestations. He felt he had to act to stop the madman.
Does it undermine a Christian witness to plot assassinations of evil people? He argued, no, we applaud people like David who slew the Philistine Goliath.
Did Jesus kill anyone who was evil? Let me ask it again. Did Jesus kill anyone who was evil?
"I came that you would have life and have it abundantly." He wishes that no man should die but that all have eternal life.
The book author noted that Bonhoffer said abortion was murder.
So if it is right to assassinate an archevil guy like Hitler for murdering innocent people, is it right to murder abortion doctors who are murdering innocent people? He found the question either non analogous or simpleminded and rather than answer it, he insulted the questioner as not grasping the depth of evil of Hitler, as head of state. Well then, what about Cheney and Bush mass murdering over 100,000 innocent collaterally damaged Iraqis who didn't ask for bombs and foreign troops to stormtroop them from half across the world. Should we say that it is morally justified to assassinate Bush-Cheney while this attrocity was going on in the misnomer of national security? No, he argued, you can't just say its OK to kill leaders of countries because you disagree with them. How about if they kill off without the slightest hint of repentence hundreds of thousands of innocent people in foreign countries without provocation or justification? No, of course not, but why? He didn't have any answer to that- if it was OK to do it to Hitler, it's not OK to do it to anyone else. Because Hitler is just lightyears worse a demon?
I am not advocating assassination of leaders- and in fact official policy is that we don't do it to foreign leaders. Unofficially, I don't want to know. Nor am I saying Hitler shouldn't have been stopped- of course he should have been. But the point is that what is the 'limiting principle' or dividing line between when it is OK to violate the basic Jesus Non Violence principle and when is it not. The guys waging misnamed national security protection (fueled by the vicious paranoia of neocons like Feif whose father is a Holocaust survivor) who rigged intelligence with Cheney to such a degree he was investigated by a Spanish Judge's tribunal for possible War Crimes Indictment (and yet freely walks the streets of think tanks in Washington like killing over a hundred thousand people on a lark is no big deal)should be wondering- why am I allowed to get off so easily? .There have been saner psychopaths than the people who ran the last Administration into mass murdering wars that were justified only by oil profits and fuled by ancient Holocaust paranoia, whose strategies actually harmed Israeli security interests.
The non-thinking republican right that want to argue for the right to commit violence under the banner of holier than thou Jesus flag carriers are not thinking through clearly who Jesus actually was and is and ever shall be. They may sell a bunch of books but get us no closer to the Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. Conversion not murder was what Jesus was about. Conversion doesn't allow just nuking people off the planet, especially when they didn't do anything to suggest they are about to attack you.
You convert by love. Fierce, strong, love. This is the Jesus strategy. Do you or do you not believe him? If you don't you can't really call yourself a Christian.
Must See Movie
THERE BE DRAGONS
Last night I watched a movie that should be a lot better viewed and known about the founder of an organization within the Catholic Church called
"God's Work" better known by it's Latin 'OPUS DEI'.
It is based on the true story of the life of the priest who survived the Spanish Civil War, and traces his friendship with a boyhood friend and fellow Seminarian for a time. It is told through the eyes in part of his friend's son. It is a story that teaches forgiveness- very appropriate this Lent- even in the midst of murder, war and vengence.
All thumbs up. Great film- even if you aren't particularly religious.
Really Beautiful
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Santorum's Appeal
Puzzles People
If you google "Santorum's Appeal" you will see there are a number of articles of commentators who can't figure it out. How is this guy winning after all the nuttified things he says? He sounds actually like something out of a fifties sit com sometimes. Some of it sounds downright bigotted- the anti-gay marriage stuff just sounds flatly unacceptable. His views on working women frightening. After he explained his working grandmother I was a bit more relieved, but still wondering. Then there was the whole college kids are snobs thing-or maybe just Harvard kids. Really silly. So why is he winning? Well the states with low college attendance might explain it. And the places where 'traditional values' means no working women might explain it also.
I can however see the appeal to a few other people- Those who think a massive mind-F was done on the country on this pro-abortion business find him appealing. How convenient that guys with no sexual morals can now just tell the people they want to sleep with without commitment to 'get rid of it.' Turning fetuses with human DNA into 'its' is not something that sits comfortably with even people who call themselves Democrats. How does this turn bad boys into monsters? Some women wish that wasn't an option for them so easily. This is probably Santorum's greatest strength- he is a good and kind decent man. A guy who took care of his wife and seven kids and stayed married. Nice. Even liberal democrats have to applaud that. A good and kind decent man.
And his wife looks like she doesn't spend three hours with a blow dryer fixing her hair. She looks like she may even have picked up a bottle of Clairol root touch up highlights at the CVS for fun. She looks just like a person you would want to grab a Starbucks with or someone you could see jogging with a toddler in a stroller on a tree lined street. She just looks nice- and normal. As they say in the land of Wobeggon, a little better than average, but not so much better to be a 'snob' perhaps. Someone who didn't go to Harvard, but got a pretty good law degree anyway. It's a big country and most of it didn't go to Harvard.
They are relatable, this couple. They still love each other and you can see them ushering in grandchildren into the White House.
The Santorum's appeal comes from the dignity they give the ordinary. Kind of like Saint Therese's way of making the ordinary a place with capacity of great Love to manifest. Perhaps she could be the patron saint of their campaign- so they show people that ordinary people from Pennsylvania can Love their Neighbors in ordinary ways to make collectively an extraordinary country.
The rising tide will raise all boats if we all aspire to help each other be a little better than average.
Even the poorest of the poor that Mitt wants to ignore.
If you google "Santorum's Appeal" you will see there are a number of articles of commentators who can't figure it out. How is this guy winning after all the nuttified things he says? He sounds actually like something out of a fifties sit com sometimes. Some of it sounds downright bigotted- the anti-gay marriage stuff just sounds flatly unacceptable. His views on working women frightening. After he explained his working grandmother I was a bit more relieved, but still wondering. Then there was the whole college kids are snobs thing-or maybe just Harvard kids. Really silly. So why is he winning? Well the states with low college attendance might explain it. And the places where 'traditional values' means no working women might explain it also.
I can however see the appeal to a few other people- Those who think a massive mind-F was done on the country on this pro-abortion business find him appealing. How convenient that guys with no sexual morals can now just tell the people they want to sleep with without commitment to 'get rid of it.' Turning fetuses with human DNA into 'its' is not something that sits comfortably with even people who call themselves Democrats. How does this turn bad boys into monsters? Some women wish that wasn't an option for them so easily. This is probably Santorum's greatest strength- he is a good and kind decent man. A guy who took care of his wife and seven kids and stayed married. Nice. Even liberal democrats have to applaud that. A good and kind decent man.
And his wife looks like she doesn't spend three hours with a blow dryer fixing her hair. She looks like she may even have picked up a bottle of Clairol root touch up highlights at the CVS for fun. She looks just like a person you would want to grab a Starbucks with or someone you could see jogging with a toddler in a stroller on a tree lined street. She just looks nice- and normal. As they say in the land of Wobeggon, a little better than average, but not so much better to be a 'snob' perhaps. Someone who didn't go to Harvard, but got a pretty good law degree anyway. It's a big country and most of it didn't go to Harvard.
They are relatable, this couple. They still love each other and you can see them ushering in grandchildren into the White House.
The Santorum's appeal comes from the dignity they give the ordinary. Kind of like Saint Therese's way of making the ordinary a place with capacity of great Love to manifest. Perhaps she could be the patron saint of their campaign- so they show people that ordinary people from Pennsylvania can Love their Neighbors in ordinary ways to make collectively an extraordinary country.
The rising tide will raise all boats if we all aspire to help each other be a little better than average.
Even the poorest of the poor that Mitt wants to ignore.
Calling CATO
Privacy Anyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/dna-database-pensions-and-redistricting-are-part-of-talks-on-major-albany-deal.html?_r=1&v=2
If they have your DNA they can clone you.
Just sayin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/dna-database-pensions-and-redistricting-are-part-of-talks-on-major-albany-deal.html?_r=1&v=2
If they have your DNA they can clone you.
Just sayin.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
YankeeLand
Is the place for her.
107 year old Irishwoman born on Saint Patrick's day. Emigrated to America through Ellis Island in the 20s.
Still has her sense of humor and walks around- goes dancing on St. Paddy's day.
God Love the Irish.
http://www.aol.com/video/luck-of-the-irish-woman-turns-107-on-st-patricks/517300834/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdaily-buzz6%7Csec7_lnk2%7C143239
107 year old Irishwoman born on Saint Patrick's day. Emigrated to America through Ellis Island in the 20s.
Still has her sense of humor and walks around- goes dancing on St. Paddy's day.
God Love the Irish.
http://www.aol.com/video/luck-of-the-irish-woman-turns-107-on-st-patricks/517300834/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdaily-buzz6%7Csec7_lnk2%7C143239
Don't push your Luck
Is Fluke a Fluke?
Or mainstream? She supposes and proposes she speaks for the majority of women, at least at Georgetown and catholic schools like it.
But really, who does she speak for?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/sandra-fluke_n_1341449.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D143227
Her argument applies to those who (a) have a medical condition for which contraception was prescribed- who ALREADY have it covered if for a legitimate need like a hyperplasic endometrial condition- and (b) those who want to avoid unwanted pregnancy while having sex at the same time. She is not married. All those who are not having sex (either they don't want to for reasons of prudence, principle or availability) , all those who don't have a prescribed medical uterine or female reproductive related condition, all those who are married and actually want children, please raise your hand. How many of you are those? Because I am guessing that this number at school is greater than the Fluke alleged majority. Like anyone who actually listened to your mother or anyone who decided law school was hard enough without sleeping with someone who didn't want kids- I am guessing Georgetown admits pretty smart women. And I am guessing that a lot of them fall in the hand raised category. So be careful there- you may be misanalyzing the demographics detrimentally. Some of us are actually insulted by the argument. (I am Georgetown Law class of 87)
Her argument applies to those who (a) have a medical condition for which contraception was prescribed- who ALREADY have it covered if for a legitimate need like a hyperplasic endometrial condition- and (b) those who want to avoid unwanted pregnancy while having sex at the same time. She is not married. All those who are not having sex (either they don't want to for reasons of prudence, principle or availability) , all those who don't have a prescribed medical uterine or female reproductive related condition, all those who are married and actually want children, please raise your hand. How many of you are those? Because I am guessing that this number at school is greater than the Fluke alleged majority. Like anyone who actually listened to your mother or anyone who decided law school was hard enough without sleeping with someone who didn't want kids- I am guessing Georgetown admits pretty smart women. And I am guessing that a lot of them fall in the hand raised category. So be careful there- you may be misanalyzing the demographics detrimentally. Some of us are actually insulted by the argument. (I am Georgetown Law class of 87)
Credit Where Credit is Due
And How Not to Look Like You Did The Right Thing.
Reports are varied concerning what happened to the Priest in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC who rudely denied communion to the person he found too sinful because she is a lesbian openly living with her partner (which is legal now in the state where she lives-Maryland.) The shocking thing about this encounter was that it was at her mother's funeral. As I know a woman or two who has a gay son (and one that had one before he died of AIDS)I have a strong reaction of disgust at such an act- as if the Archdiocese is not happy to collect checks from gay Knights of Columbus or ones working at the World Bank or lay ones serving on the Altar. This woman was attending her mother's funeral and giving an eulogy and the priest was just a jerk. Sorry- no other way to express it- jerk. Such a jerk it undermines the good perceptions generally clergy should enjoy. Just not a nice guy. Random A-hole priest.
The Archdiocese made an apology, through a junior bishop which at first looked politically too saavy. Like, well, the pastoral thing to do is talk to the person first before deliberate humiliation in front of all her friends and her mother's family friends -at her mother's funeral.
And now, it looks like it finally put the priest on 'administrative leave' pending investigation.
You would have thought this would be the end of the controversy. But oh no, because the wingnuts want to downplay this -which was actually a good move for that and apparently other reasons having to do with his ticking off more than the lesbian- there is sort of a denial of the administrative action with the American Papist punk shouting My Daddy the Canon Lawyer says it wasn't really a suspension. No, it was reported as an Administrative Leave and so what's the difference kiddies. The point is that the Priest Jerk (no, I don't care how much clerical education he has or who laid hands on him) needs to understand that Jesus is not a weapon of political destruction. Jesus is a healer who came to everyone who wanted a piece of him.
And if we are counting sins, lets start with slander and bile that oozes from wingnut commentary and just basic delusional quasi- truth bending gymnastics that don't want to call an Administrative leave a 'Suspension.' Only in some canon law wingnut world does- do not report to work today - get a positive bill of health.
The Archdiocese looks like it actually did the right thing by Administratively bootkicking him to the sidebench. American papist punks should quit while they are ahead.
Monday, March 12, 2012
CONCORDIA D.C. CONCERTS AND LECTURES 1920 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006
Concerts and Lectures at The United Church / Die Vereinigte Kirche
in cooperation with the
Cultural Department of the German Embassy in Washington
Dr. David Montgomery, Director
______
SECOND SEASON 2011-2012
All events are free to the public.
Unless otherwise marked, each event starts at 7:30 PM and is followed by a reception.
* Events marked with an asterisk are sponsored by the German Embassy.
SPRING 2012
Friday, March 23 / Prince William Symphony Players : Histoire du soldat
[Extra event] Friday, March 30 / Amalia Laborde, soprano; Magdalena Duhagon, guitar
Friday, April 20 / Kim Cook, cello; Marylène Dosse, piano
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 09, 2012
This one is for Finfer
Sign them up.
They are going viral. This is a better song than their Santorum Girl song. They will be more famous than Celine.
Could be the best thing that came out of the Santorum campaign.
They are going viral. This is a better song than their Santorum Girl song. They will be more famous than Celine.
Could be the best thing that came out of the Santorum campaign.
Daniel My Brother
Food for Thought
Lets talk about it.
The Levy Look :
After a week with a lot of focus on Israel and Iran, I wanted to share with you a curtain-raiser essay that I wrote for foreignpolicy.com prior to Netanyahu’s visit (the full article is pasted at the bottom of this note). Having followed developments this week closely, and now having had a chance to review the weekend Israeli press, I’m still sticking with my assessment from that essay entitled “Netanyahu Won’t Attack Iran (Probably.)”
On Wednesday morning, we held a post-mortem panel at NAF looking at the visit, how this is playing out in America and Israel, and also in Iran, bearing in mind Iranian parliamentary elections. That panel discussion can be viewed here in its entirety, and featured Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network, Ali Nader of the RAND Corporation, in addition to myself. It was moderated by Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress. A transcript of the event will also be available shortly on the NAF website.
Just a heads up that I will be discussing some of these issues on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show this Sunday on CNN (airing at 10am and 1pm EST and at various times on CNN International on Sunday and Monday). Also, look out for Chris Hayes’ show UP this Sunday morning at 8am EST, devoted to this topic and featuring my NAF colleague Leila Hilal and J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami, and for the CBS’s 60 Minutes interview with ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan.
Finally, to bring to your attention to what Israel’s leading columnist Nahum Barnea had to say today in the Yedioth Aharonoth Newspaper (his column has not appeared in English translation yet online at Ynetnews.com). “Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that more than the Israelis who pushed for action were thinking about Iran, they were thinking about the US administration. Israel was in a similar situation in the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein’s Scuds were launched at Israel, and the director of IDF Intelligence, Ehud Barak, was sent to Washington to explain to Secretary of Defense Cheney that there would be an Israeli military strike, that this was the government’s obligation to its citizens. Israel cannot place its security in the hands of others. The Americans sweated: they knew that an Israeli operation was liable to dismantle the coalition and to turn Saddam Hussein into the darling of the Arab nations. They asked for a 48-hour extension, and then sent a commando to attack the launchers that were troubling Israel…Netanyahu knows that he cannot force Obama to act, not before the elections in America and not afterwards. He can only try to persuade. That is what he tried to do at the White House. Then he went outside, to his friends on the Republican Right, and waved his papers from the Holocaust.”
It is an assessment that quite closely tracks my own analysis from the aforementioned scene-setting piece: “perhaps this has been the Israeli intention all along: to checkmate the United States by locking it into a logic of confrontation down the road. Israel's position has, after all, been relatively clear in preferring a "stars and stripes" rather than a "blue and white" label on the military taming of Iran.” Barnea then unleashes on Netanyahu’s Holocaust-centric speech from Monday night in DC. “His audience got up and cheered. Any speech about the poor, lost, attacked Israel reminds them of how well off they are: their ancestors immigrated to the right place. There, in the Middle East, oh my God, Auschwitz is lurking around every corner; here in America, we can live safely. They sat down and cheered Netanyahu: he was one of them.” It is a theme that has been repeated elsewhere in the Israeli media.
Last word, Paul Pillar, makes a very compelling case against any military action, Israeli or American, and for a different approach on Iran in a long article in The Washington Monthly magazine. It can be read here.
Netanyahu Won't Attack Iran(Probably.)
BY DANIEL LEVY | MARCH 2, 2012
The intensity of background spin emanating from Washington and Jerusalem threatens to leave very little to the imagination in advance of the March 5 meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Various U.S. officials, current and former, named and anonymous, have shared their skepticism regarding Israel's ability to inflict decisive damage on Iran's nuclear-enrichment program, as well as their trepidation at the costs, consequences, and retaliatory attacks that might follow from an Israeli strike. These same officials have intelligence-driven doubts as to whether Iran even has any intention of crossing a nuclear threshold to weaponization. Their Israeli counterparts, meanwhile, push home the need for the United States to draw red lines beyond which there will be an American commitment to military action (with former Israeli intel chief Amos Yadlin taking the case to the New York Times' op-ed pages) and suggest that Obama would be to blame in the event of an Israeli strike. Subtle it isn't.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is holding its breath, convinced that yet another military confrontation in the Middle East will have disastrous consequences, especially during such a tumultuous period in the region, including for the global economy, with energy prices already hitting new and unexpected highs. Even those regional leaders who might privately welcome a military poke in the eye for Tehran do so against the wishes of their own publics and with uncertainty as to what else might unravel in the wake of a strike.
Curiously missing in this flurry of coverage has been a more considered assessment of the internal dynamics in play for Israeli decision-makers and how those might be most effectively influenced. Too often, the calculations of Israel's leaders are depicted as if this were a collection of think-tankers and trauma victims given a very big and high-tech army to play with. Netanyahu represents the latter, guided by his "existentialist mindset" and his 101-year-old historian father. (The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg drew heavily on the father-son relationship in his assessment 18 months ago that an Israeli strike on Iran was imminent.) Peter Beinart has written, "Benjamin Netanyahu has only one mode: apocalyptic." And the prime minister often depicts contemporary realities as akin to 1938.
In Shalom Auslander's new novel, Hope: A Tragedy, the lead protagonist, Solomon Kugel, discovers a living and elderly Anne Frank in his attic, at one level seemingly a metaphor for the identity politics of contemporary American Jewry -- we all carry Anne Frank around with us in our heads. Bibi Netanyahu can sometimes sound like an Israeli version of Solomon Kugel, the difference being that in the Israeli "attic" we keep both Anne Frank and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the two apparently merging when it comes to the prime minister's depiction of the threat posed by Iran and how it should be handled.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, by contrast, is portrayed as the rational, calculating calibrator of the "zone of immunity" when it comes to Iranian technical progress on the nuclear front and the precision of Israeli bombing thereof. When Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, in a lengthy and splashy New York Times Magazine essay, answered in the affirmative his own question of whether Israel would attack Iran, his assessment relied overwhelmingly on conversations with Barak.
The case for the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran largely rests on these twin pillars: Bibi's sense of existential danger and Barak's calculating military mind. But though it is not unreasonable to suggest that historically driven angst and national security considerations will factor significantly in Israeli decision-making, it is wholly misleading to ignore and factor out of the equation Israeli politics, as is consistently the case in media coverage.
Netanyahu operates in a highly political environment. Israel is a rambunctious (though certainly imperfect) democracy, in which reelection is a matter of more than passing interest for any prime minister. While Defense Minister Barak may be a serial risk-taker whose days of electoral viability are behind him, those things are certainly not true of Netanyahu. Bibi has served twice so far as Israel's prime minister and is close to becoming the second-longest-serving PM in Israel's history.
A tendency characterizing Netanyahu's long term in office, and a counterintuitive one at that, is the degree to which he has been risk-averse, not only in matters of peace, but also in matters of war. No Operation Cast Leads, Lebanon wars, or Syria Deir ez-Zor attack missions under his watch. In fact, he has no record of military adventurism. What's more, Netanyahu hardly appears to be in need of a Hail Mary pass, military or otherwise, to salvage his political fortunes. Polls consistently show that he is a shoo-in for reelection. The right-wing block in Israel currently has a hegemonic grip on Israeli politics, something that seems unlikely to change. Netanyahu secured his own continued leadership of the Likud party in Jan. 31's primary. His primacy on the right faces few challenges from either within the Likud or beyond it. Despite never winning favor with much of the mainstream media, the messy management in his own office, and the challenges of coalition balancing (particularly over issues of religion and state), Netanyahu maintains solid approval ratings with a relatively strong economy and can even now bask in Israel's lowest unemployment numbers in 32 years.
Although it is fair to speculate that a successful, daring mission to the heart of Iranian airspace would be domestically popular and a boost to the prime minister, such a mission is anything but risk-free. Not only would the specific military action be fraught with uncertainty and potential hiccups, but the fallout from a strike, even one successful in immediate terms, could have far-reaching repercussions and consequences for Israel in the security and diplomatic arenas and by extension, of course, in the domestic political domain. The Hebrew expression she'yorim shotkim ("silence when shooting") is used to describe the phenomenon whereby domestic criticism of the government is suspended when military action is under way. The problem for Netanyahu is that all signs point to that rule not applying in this case. Former security establishment figures at the highest levels have mounted an unprecedented campaign warning Israel's leader and its public of the follies of launching a solo and premature Israeli military action against Iran. Most outspoken has been recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who has described a strike on Iran as "the stupidest thing I have ever heard." But he has not been alone. Other former IDF chiefs of staff, as well as Shin Bet and intel leaders, have joined the cautioning chorus. Many are unlikely to shut up if Bibi defies their counsel. And in the public arena, these voices cannot be dismissed as just so many self-serving chickenhawk politicians. The fallout from an attack on Iran is possibly the biggest threat to Bibi serving a third term.
Another oft-overlooked aspect is the absence of public pressure in Israel for military intervention or of a supposed Iranian threat featuring as a priority issue for Israelis. The pressure to act is top-down, not bottom-up. And to the extent to which there is trepidation among the public, that is a function of fear at the blowback from Israeli military action, rather than fear of Iranian-initiated conflagration. Also to be factored in is the possibility of 2012 being an election year in Israel (though technically the current parliament could serve until October 2013). If Netanyahu does pursue early elections, as many pundits expect, then the political risk associated with an attack increases, heightened by the likelihood of a strike being depicted as an election ploy. What's more, prices at the pump are an issue for Israeli voters, just as they are in the United States.
Especially noteworthy is the extent to which the elements of Netanyahu's coalition further to his right have not embraced or promoted military action against Iran. In fact, they tend to demonstrate a lack of enthusiasm at the prospect. This applies to both the ultra-Orthodox and the greater Israel settler-nationalists. One reason is that they view the Iran issue as peripheral when compared with, say, the pursuit of settlements and an irreversible presence in all of greater Israel. In fact, a strike on Iran is sometimes depicted as presenting a threat to the settlement enterprise, in as much as there is an expectation that part of the fallout would be enhanced pressure on Israel to tamp down resulting regional anger by displaying more give on the Palestinian front. With so many in the settler movement convinced that the irreversibility of 40-plus years of occupation is within touching distance, the last thing they want now is to rock the boat by creating new and unpredictable challenges to their cause. From the outside, that may seem a stretch, given the American and international timidity with which every new settlement expansion is greeted. Yet concern is voiced in settlement circles when the likes of Haaretz Editor in Chief Aluf Benn makes the case for an Itamar (a hard-core ideological settlement) in exchange for Natanz (an Iranian nuclear facility) -- an idea that has led some errant Israeli peaceniks to flirt with joining the pro-war camp on Iran.
The more settler-centric right is also cognizant of the distraction value served by the Iranian nuclear issue in deflecting attention from its land grabs and entrenchment in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Chances are, settlements won't be making any headlines in next week's Obama-Netanyahu meeting. Thus, removal of Iran from the agenda is a losing proposition for the settler lobby. Netanyahu himself surely appreciates the extent to which this comes in handy, in that focusing on Iran (although not attacking Iran) allows Israel to line up together with the West in the camp of the "good guys" for once, as opposed to in the doghouse on the Palestinian issue. Want a sense of just how well this distraction serves the greater Israel cause? Take a look at Goldberg's latest interview with Obama for the Atlantic -- 4,561 words and not one of them mentions the Palestinians or settlements.
Finally, in the "maybe Netanyahu won't attack after all" column, Israel's leadership is aware that its nonmembership in various nuclear accords and its assumed weapons-of-mass-destruction capacity will be dragged more harshly into the spotlight following an Israeli strike -- not something that is likely to lead to precipitous Israeli disarmament, but unwanted, unpleasant, and unpredictable, nonetheless.
So, an Israeli strike is far from inevitable. But let's go a step further. A more granular appreciation of the Israeli scene may help identify points of influence to focus on if war opponents are to diminish the prospect of precipitous Israeli action.
First there is the role of Barak. The above political considerations do not apply to him. He is the antidote to Netanyahu's risk-aversion and, in this instance, strengthens all of Netanyahu's worse tendencies. Alongside Barak, Israel's three security agencies (the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet) have undergone changes at the top over the past year. The previous chiefs were (according to reports) outspoken in their opposition to a strike on Iran. The new chiefs are apparently less robust in asserting that position. Israel might consider that not acting in the current circumstances will lead to a sense of "crying wolf" and that Israeli threats down the line would begin to lose credibility. And to take military action now would be in keeping with Israel's response posture to date toward the Arab Spring -- a porcupine-like hunkering down and displaying of quills and, in this case, a reaffirmation of what Israel likes to call its power of deterrence.
Obama might opt for developing a strategy that confronts all this head-on. He should begin by focusing his political calculations and risk-avoidance instincts laser-like on March 5's guest -- Netanyahu. Even the most junior politician in Israel knows that Netanyahu is a character who can be pressured, especially when he is anyway uncertain, as in this instance. So, keep making the case for the downsides associated with military action, how dicey and perilous the consequences could be, especially in the context of regional turbulence. Drive that message home in the military-to-military dialogue (as seems to be happening), thereby strengthening the collective spines and anti-solo-strike predilections of Israel's new security chiefs, and pursue a carefully calibrated freezing out of the troublemaker Barak.
At the same time, work Netanyahu's coalition allies by encouraging all their pre-existing neuroses about where a strike might lead on other fronts, notably in the Palestinian arena. Given the intensity of traffic between Jerusalem and Washington, have those U.S. senior officials, especially the uniformed ones, briefing the other members of Israel's security cabinet and, if necessary, their rabbinical sages. Finally give maximum impetus to renewed nuclear talks, following Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili's recent letter to EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton. (Israel is already trying to sabotage renewed negotiations via enrichment-suspension preconditions.) If a diplomatic avenue is shown to have some traction, then this will be an additional factor complicating any immediate Israeli move to action. Ultimately, the U.S. narrative on Iran should shift gears more comprehensively by right-sizing the Iran threat, de-emphasizing the nuclear issue, and acknowledging Iran's diminished status post-Arab Spring -- but that is a project for after Nov. 6.
The other alternative is for the president to give the Israeli leader what he is apparently clamoring for -- a deeper U.S. commitment to act militarily if Iran crosses certain red lines. That might look like a win-win at first glance. Obama avoids the prospect of another war or cleaning up after an Israeli strike during this reelection season, gets Congress and Republican candidates off his back on Iran, and can even wrap his newfound belligerence in the claim that he has consistently promised that all options are on the table. Netanyahu, meanwhile, stays within his comfort zone -- no hard choices, no risks, and a smooth reelection, while driving U.S. policy further in his direction and claiming a win in Washington (again). Obama appears to have set off on this path in that new interview with Goldberg, emphasizing that U.S. policy on Iran "includes a military component," adding for good measure "I don't bluff."
If indeed Netanyahu is less keen on a strike than his posturing would have us believe, and if 2012 for Israel's leadership is in fact less about "zones of immunity" that Iranian facilities may acquire and more about "zones of impunity" that a U.S. election year confers on Israeli policy toward Iran, then perhaps this has been the Israeli intention all along: to checkmate the United States by locking it into a logic of confrontation down the road. Israel's position has, after all, been relatively clear in preferring a "stars and stripes" rather than a "blue and white" label on the military taming of Iran.
If Obama pursues such a formula and this helps avoid war in the tricky months ahead, it is not to be sneezed at. But at the same time, there is a very real downside to this approach. It carries the promise of greater problems and escalation ahead -- making a negotiated solution ultimately less likely, possibly provoking Iran, and placing Israel in the very unwise position of cheerleading America into a war.
Lets talk about it.
The Levy Look :
After a week with a lot of focus on Israel and Iran, I wanted to share with you a curtain-raiser essay that I wrote for foreignpolicy.com prior to Netanyahu’s visit (the full article is pasted at the bottom of this note). Having followed developments this week closely, and now having had a chance to review the weekend Israeli press, I’m still sticking with my assessment from that essay entitled “Netanyahu Won’t Attack Iran (Probably.)”
On Wednesday morning, we held a post-mortem panel at NAF looking at the visit, how this is playing out in America and Israel, and also in Iran, bearing in mind Iranian parliamentary elections. That panel discussion can be viewed here in its entirety, and featured Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network, Ali Nader of the RAND Corporation, in addition to myself. It was moderated by Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress. A transcript of the event will also be available shortly on the NAF website.
Just a heads up that I will be discussing some of these issues on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show this Sunday on CNN (airing at 10am and 1pm EST and at various times on CNN International on Sunday and Monday). Also, look out for Chris Hayes’ show UP this Sunday morning at 8am EST, devoted to this topic and featuring my NAF colleague Leila Hilal and J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami, and for the CBS’s 60 Minutes interview with ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan.
Finally, to bring to your attention to what Israel’s leading columnist Nahum Barnea had to say today in the Yedioth Aharonoth Newspaper (his column has not appeared in English translation yet online at Ynetnews.com). “Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that more than the Israelis who pushed for action were thinking about Iran, they were thinking about the US administration. Israel was in a similar situation in the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein’s Scuds were launched at Israel, and the director of IDF Intelligence, Ehud Barak, was sent to Washington to explain to Secretary of Defense Cheney that there would be an Israeli military strike, that this was the government’s obligation to its citizens. Israel cannot place its security in the hands of others. The Americans sweated: they knew that an Israeli operation was liable to dismantle the coalition and to turn Saddam Hussein into the darling of the Arab nations. They asked for a 48-hour extension, and then sent a commando to attack the launchers that were troubling Israel…Netanyahu knows that he cannot force Obama to act, not before the elections in America and not afterwards. He can only try to persuade. That is what he tried to do at the White House. Then he went outside, to his friends on the Republican Right, and waved his papers from the Holocaust.”
It is an assessment that quite closely tracks my own analysis from the aforementioned scene-setting piece: “perhaps this has been the Israeli intention all along: to checkmate the United States by locking it into a logic of confrontation down the road. Israel's position has, after all, been relatively clear in preferring a "stars and stripes" rather than a "blue and white" label on the military taming of Iran.” Barnea then unleashes on Netanyahu’s Holocaust-centric speech from Monday night in DC. “His audience got up and cheered. Any speech about the poor, lost, attacked Israel reminds them of how well off they are: their ancestors immigrated to the right place. There, in the Middle East, oh my God, Auschwitz is lurking around every corner; here in America, we can live safely. They sat down and cheered Netanyahu: he was one of them.” It is a theme that has been repeated elsewhere in the Israeli media.
Last word, Paul Pillar, makes a very compelling case against any military action, Israeli or American, and for a different approach on Iran in a long article in The Washington Monthly magazine. It can be read here.
Netanyahu Won't Attack Iran(Probably.)
BY DANIEL LEVY | MARCH 2, 2012
The intensity of background spin emanating from Washington and Jerusalem threatens to leave very little to the imagination in advance of the March 5 meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Various U.S. officials, current and former, named and anonymous, have shared their skepticism regarding Israel's ability to inflict decisive damage on Iran's nuclear-enrichment program, as well as their trepidation at the costs, consequences, and retaliatory attacks that might follow from an Israeli strike. These same officials have intelligence-driven doubts as to whether Iran even has any intention of crossing a nuclear threshold to weaponization. Their Israeli counterparts, meanwhile, push home the need for the United States to draw red lines beyond which there will be an American commitment to military action (with former Israeli intel chief Amos Yadlin taking the case to the New York Times' op-ed pages) and suggest that Obama would be to blame in the event of an Israeli strike. Subtle it isn't.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is holding its breath, convinced that yet another military confrontation in the Middle East will have disastrous consequences, especially during such a tumultuous period in the region, including for the global economy, with energy prices already hitting new and unexpected highs. Even those regional leaders who might privately welcome a military poke in the eye for Tehran do so against the wishes of their own publics and with uncertainty as to what else might unravel in the wake of a strike.
Curiously missing in this flurry of coverage has been a more considered assessment of the internal dynamics in play for Israeli decision-makers and how those might be most effectively influenced. Too often, the calculations of Israel's leaders are depicted as if this were a collection of think-tankers and trauma victims given a very big and high-tech army to play with. Netanyahu represents the latter, guided by his "existentialist mindset" and his 101-year-old historian father. (The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg drew heavily on the father-son relationship in his assessment 18 months ago that an Israeli strike on Iran was imminent.) Peter Beinart has written, "Benjamin Netanyahu has only one mode: apocalyptic." And the prime minister often depicts contemporary realities as akin to 1938.
In Shalom Auslander's new novel, Hope: A Tragedy, the lead protagonist, Solomon Kugel, discovers a living and elderly Anne Frank in his attic, at one level seemingly a metaphor for the identity politics of contemporary American Jewry -- we all carry Anne Frank around with us in our heads. Bibi Netanyahu can sometimes sound like an Israeli version of Solomon Kugel, the difference being that in the Israeli "attic" we keep both Anne Frank and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the two apparently merging when it comes to the prime minister's depiction of the threat posed by Iran and how it should be handled.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, by contrast, is portrayed as the rational, calculating calibrator of the "zone of immunity" when it comes to Iranian technical progress on the nuclear front and the precision of Israeli bombing thereof. When Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, in a lengthy and splashy New York Times Magazine essay, answered in the affirmative his own question of whether Israel would attack Iran, his assessment relied overwhelmingly on conversations with Barak.
The case for the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran largely rests on these twin pillars: Bibi's sense of existential danger and Barak's calculating military mind. But though it is not unreasonable to suggest that historically driven angst and national security considerations will factor significantly in Israeli decision-making, it is wholly misleading to ignore and factor out of the equation Israeli politics, as is consistently the case in media coverage.
Netanyahu operates in a highly political environment. Israel is a rambunctious (though certainly imperfect) democracy, in which reelection is a matter of more than passing interest for any prime minister. While Defense Minister Barak may be a serial risk-taker whose days of electoral viability are behind him, those things are certainly not true of Netanyahu. Bibi has served twice so far as Israel's prime minister and is close to becoming the second-longest-serving PM in Israel's history.
A tendency characterizing Netanyahu's long term in office, and a counterintuitive one at that, is the degree to which he has been risk-averse, not only in matters of peace, but also in matters of war. No Operation Cast Leads, Lebanon wars, or Syria Deir ez-Zor attack missions under his watch. In fact, he has no record of military adventurism. What's more, Netanyahu hardly appears to be in need of a Hail Mary pass, military or otherwise, to salvage his political fortunes. Polls consistently show that he is a shoo-in for reelection. The right-wing block in Israel currently has a hegemonic grip on Israeli politics, something that seems unlikely to change. Netanyahu secured his own continued leadership of the Likud party in Jan. 31's primary. His primacy on the right faces few challenges from either within the Likud or beyond it. Despite never winning favor with much of the mainstream media, the messy management in his own office, and the challenges of coalition balancing (particularly over issues of religion and state), Netanyahu maintains solid approval ratings with a relatively strong economy and can even now bask in Israel's lowest unemployment numbers in 32 years.
Although it is fair to speculate that a successful, daring mission to the heart of Iranian airspace would be domestically popular and a boost to the prime minister, such a mission is anything but risk-free. Not only would the specific military action be fraught with uncertainty and potential hiccups, but the fallout from a strike, even one successful in immediate terms, could have far-reaching repercussions and consequences for Israel in the security and diplomatic arenas and by extension, of course, in the domestic political domain. The Hebrew expression she'yorim shotkim ("silence when shooting") is used to describe the phenomenon whereby domestic criticism of the government is suspended when military action is under way. The problem for Netanyahu is that all signs point to that rule not applying in this case. Former security establishment figures at the highest levels have mounted an unprecedented campaign warning Israel's leader and its public of the follies of launching a solo and premature Israeli military action against Iran. Most outspoken has been recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who has described a strike on Iran as "the stupidest thing I have ever heard." But he has not been alone. Other former IDF chiefs of staff, as well as Shin Bet and intel leaders, have joined the cautioning chorus. Many are unlikely to shut up if Bibi defies their counsel. And in the public arena, these voices cannot be dismissed as just so many self-serving chickenhawk politicians. The fallout from an attack on Iran is possibly the biggest threat to Bibi serving a third term.
Another oft-overlooked aspect is the absence of public pressure in Israel for military intervention or of a supposed Iranian threat featuring as a priority issue for Israelis. The pressure to act is top-down, not bottom-up. And to the extent to which there is trepidation among the public, that is a function of fear at the blowback from Israeli military action, rather than fear of Iranian-initiated conflagration. Also to be factored in is the possibility of 2012 being an election year in Israel (though technically the current parliament could serve until October 2013). If Netanyahu does pursue early elections, as many pundits expect, then the political risk associated with an attack increases, heightened by the likelihood of a strike being depicted as an election ploy. What's more, prices at the pump are an issue for Israeli voters, just as they are in the United States.
Especially noteworthy is the extent to which the elements of Netanyahu's coalition further to his right have not embraced or promoted military action against Iran. In fact, they tend to demonstrate a lack of enthusiasm at the prospect. This applies to both the ultra-Orthodox and the greater Israel settler-nationalists. One reason is that they view the Iran issue as peripheral when compared with, say, the pursuit of settlements and an irreversible presence in all of greater Israel. In fact, a strike on Iran is sometimes depicted as presenting a threat to the settlement enterprise, in as much as there is an expectation that part of the fallout would be enhanced pressure on Israel to tamp down resulting regional anger by displaying more give on the Palestinian front. With so many in the settler movement convinced that the irreversibility of 40-plus years of occupation is within touching distance, the last thing they want now is to rock the boat by creating new and unpredictable challenges to their cause. From the outside, that may seem a stretch, given the American and international timidity with which every new settlement expansion is greeted. Yet concern is voiced in settlement circles when the likes of Haaretz Editor in Chief Aluf Benn makes the case for an Itamar (a hard-core ideological settlement) in exchange for Natanz (an Iranian nuclear facility) -- an idea that has led some errant Israeli peaceniks to flirt with joining the pro-war camp on Iran.
The more settler-centric right is also cognizant of the distraction value served by the Iranian nuclear issue in deflecting attention from its land grabs and entrenchment in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Chances are, settlements won't be making any headlines in next week's Obama-Netanyahu meeting. Thus, removal of Iran from the agenda is a losing proposition for the settler lobby. Netanyahu himself surely appreciates the extent to which this comes in handy, in that focusing on Iran (although not attacking Iran) allows Israel to line up together with the West in the camp of the "good guys" for once, as opposed to in the doghouse on the Palestinian issue. Want a sense of just how well this distraction serves the greater Israel cause? Take a look at Goldberg's latest interview with Obama for the Atlantic -- 4,561 words and not one of them mentions the Palestinians or settlements.
Finally, in the "maybe Netanyahu won't attack after all" column, Israel's leadership is aware that its nonmembership in various nuclear accords and its assumed weapons-of-mass-destruction capacity will be dragged more harshly into the spotlight following an Israeli strike -- not something that is likely to lead to precipitous Israeli disarmament, but unwanted, unpleasant, and unpredictable, nonetheless.
So, an Israeli strike is far from inevitable. But let's go a step further. A more granular appreciation of the Israeli scene may help identify points of influence to focus on if war opponents are to diminish the prospect of precipitous Israeli action.
First there is the role of Barak. The above political considerations do not apply to him. He is the antidote to Netanyahu's risk-aversion and, in this instance, strengthens all of Netanyahu's worse tendencies. Alongside Barak, Israel's three security agencies (the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet) have undergone changes at the top over the past year. The previous chiefs were (according to reports) outspoken in their opposition to a strike on Iran. The new chiefs are apparently less robust in asserting that position. Israel might consider that not acting in the current circumstances will lead to a sense of "crying wolf" and that Israeli threats down the line would begin to lose credibility. And to take military action now would be in keeping with Israel's response posture to date toward the Arab Spring -- a porcupine-like hunkering down and displaying of quills and, in this case, a reaffirmation of what Israel likes to call its power of deterrence.
Obama might opt for developing a strategy that confronts all this head-on. He should begin by focusing his political calculations and risk-avoidance instincts laser-like on March 5's guest -- Netanyahu. Even the most junior politician in Israel knows that Netanyahu is a character who can be pressured, especially when he is anyway uncertain, as in this instance. So, keep making the case for the downsides associated with military action, how dicey and perilous the consequences could be, especially in the context of regional turbulence. Drive that message home in the military-to-military dialogue (as seems to be happening), thereby strengthening the collective spines and anti-solo-strike predilections of Israel's new security chiefs, and pursue a carefully calibrated freezing out of the troublemaker Barak.
At the same time, work Netanyahu's coalition allies by encouraging all their pre-existing neuroses about where a strike might lead on other fronts, notably in the Palestinian arena. Given the intensity of traffic between Jerusalem and Washington, have those U.S. senior officials, especially the uniformed ones, briefing the other members of Israel's security cabinet and, if necessary, their rabbinical sages. Finally give maximum impetus to renewed nuclear talks, following Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili's recent letter to EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton. (Israel is already trying to sabotage renewed negotiations via enrichment-suspension preconditions.) If a diplomatic avenue is shown to have some traction, then this will be an additional factor complicating any immediate Israeli move to action. Ultimately, the U.S. narrative on Iran should shift gears more comprehensively by right-sizing the Iran threat, de-emphasizing the nuclear issue, and acknowledging Iran's diminished status post-Arab Spring -- but that is a project for after Nov. 6.
The other alternative is for the president to give the Israeli leader what he is apparently clamoring for -- a deeper U.S. commitment to act militarily if Iran crosses certain red lines. That might look like a win-win at first glance. Obama avoids the prospect of another war or cleaning up after an Israeli strike during this reelection season, gets Congress and Republican candidates off his back on Iran, and can even wrap his newfound belligerence in the claim that he has consistently promised that all options are on the table. Netanyahu, meanwhile, stays within his comfort zone -- no hard choices, no risks, and a smooth reelection, while driving U.S. policy further in his direction and claiming a win in Washington (again). Obama appears to have set off on this path in that new interview with Goldberg, emphasizing that U.S. policy on Iran "includes a military component," adding for good measure "I don't bluff."
If indeed Netanyahu is less keen on a strike than his posturing would have us believe, and if 2012 for Israel's leadership is in fact less about "zones of immunity" that Iranian facilities may acquire and more about "zones of impunity" that a U.S. election year confers on Israeli policy toward Iran, then perhaps this has been the Israeli intention all along: to checkmate the United States by locking it into a logic of confrontation down the road. Israel's position has, after all, been relatively clear in preferring a "stars and stripes" rather than a "blue and white" label on the military taming of Iran.
If Obama pursues such a formula and this helps avoid war in the tricky months ahead, it is not to be sneezed at. But at the same time, there is a very real downside to this approach. It carries the promise of greater problems and escalation ahead -- making a negotiated solution ultimately less likely, possibly provoking Iran, and placing Israel in the very unwise position of cheerleading America into a war.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Redeploy
Troops out of Afghanistan
And Capture KONY.
No. 1 International War Criminal indicted by the Hague International Criminal Court.
Child abductor and child sex trafficker. Get him. Now.
And Capture KONY.
No. 1 International War Criminal indicted by the Hague International Criminal Court.
Child abductor and child sex trafficker. Get him. Now.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Unseemly and Insulting
There they go again.
Can the elders of the church please stop attacking each other. It makes you all look like schismatics. And it demeans the unity of the church, and it makes me want to send you all packing back to Rome for good.
People who disagree are not 'poorly catechized.' So insulting. They disagree because they have a different biblically based viewpoint on how to exist in a more Christian way in a plurality governed by a Constitution which mandates equality. They view the role of church in government or society differently perhaps. Nothing to do with their catechesis. The Society of Jesus, more commonly known as The Jesuits, are the best educators of biblically based christianity in the Catholic world in this country. They run most of the catholic schools- every school called Loyola is named after their founder, Georgetown everything is them, founded by French Jesuits from Paris originally, and everything Ignatius or Fordham is them. Give me a break.
The equality over religious supremacy debate is one with nuance Bishops are not getting. Some would argue that it is a conflict of varying intellectuals with varying capacity to grasp nuance. Please get over yourselves. It's lent.
http://www.cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubsectionID=19&ArticleID=5024
Can the elders of the church please stop attacking each other. It makes you all look like schismatics. And it demeans the unity of the church, and it makes me want to send you all packing back to Rome for good.
People who disagree are not 'poorly catechized.' So insulting. They disagree because they have a different biblically based viewpoint on how to exist in a more Christian way in a plurality governed by a Constitution which mandates equality. They view the role of church in government or society differently perhaps. Nothing to do with their catechesis. The Society of Jesus, more commonly known as The Jesuits, are the best educators of biblically based christianity in the Catholic world in this country. They run most of the catholic schools- every school called Loyola is named after their founder, Georgetown everything is them, founded by French Jesuits from Paris originally, and everything Ignatius or Fordham is them. Give me a break.
The equality over religious supremacy debate is one with nuance Bishops are not getting. Some would argue that it is a conflict of varying intellectuals with varying capacity to grasp nuance. Please get over yourselves. It's lent.
http://www.cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubsectionID=19&ArticleID=5024
Monday, March 05, 2012
Welcome
to the World ELLIOT! Who was born Christmas Day this year to my cousin/godkid Becky and Tim (who are about the same age as Ms. Fluke but don't tell her.)Speaking of Liability
What's Next Then
Suing the providers of birth control for the various complications and side effects like
stroke, liver tumors, breast and uterine cancers, heart disease? Because they should have known better. Some believe that the exponential increase in breast cancer has to do with the fact that now about 130- Million women are on 'the pill' -
http://bodyecology.com/articles/dangers_birth_control_pill.php
No, it's crazy on a lot of dimensions to make any catholic college or catholic hospital provide contraception coverage. They know better. Really.
Not gonna happen in a million years.
oh- been there done that- just google Litigation, Birth Control, Wrongful death (or get a Lexis account) http://www.charlottencmedicalmalpracticeattorneys.com/2011/05/wrongful-death-suit-brought-against-birth-control-manufacturers.shtml
http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/section-unsafe-medical/medicines/birth-control-stroke.html
Shouldn't any private institution have the ability to do its own liability risk analysis and decide it wise not to offer a risky product? Regardless of religious freedom- isn't this just a basic point of anybody's freedom to be able to responsibly not offer guests, invitees, clients or customers something deemed intrinsically dangerous??? Birth control is medically scientifically dangerous as well as spiritually dangerous- heck, it has smart women so hoodwinked into thinking that they cannot exist in law school without this 'medicine'- drugs-. Crazy, really.
Suing the providers of birth control for the various complications and side effects like
stroke, liver tumors, breast and uterine cancers, heart disease? Because they should have known better. Some believe that the exponential increase in breast cancer has to do with the fact that now about 130- Million women are on 'the pill' -
http://bodyecology.com/articles/dangers_birth_control_pill.php
No, it's crazy on a lot of dimensions to make any catholic college or catholic hospital provide contraception coverage. They know better. Really.
Not gonna happen in a million years.
oh- been there done that- just google Litigation, Birth Control, Wrongful death (or get a Lexis account) http://www.charlottencmedicalmalpracticeattorneys.com/2011/05/wrongful-death-suit-brought-against-birth-control-manufacturers.shtml
http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/section-unsafe-medical/medicines/birth-control-stroke.html
Shouldn't any private institution have the ability to do its own liability risk analysis and decide it wise not to offer a risky product? Regardless of religious freedom- isn't this just a basic point of anybody's freedom to be able to responsibly not offer guests, invitees, clients or customers something deemed intrinsically dangerous??? Birth control is medically scientifically dangerous as well as spiritually dangerous- heck, it has smart women so hoodwinked into thinking that they cannot exist in law school without this 'medicine'- drugs-. Crazy, really.
OH MY
GOD
I confess, it has been a while since i turned on diatribe radio. I am too busy practicing some semblance of law. I researched a Habeus petition, did some Section 1983 research and clocked in a document production. Such is the life of a 'Georgetown Woman"- a working woman I might add.
It appears from briefly scanning the e-news and commentary that Ms. Fluke's fame spreads further than fifteen minutes and she met Barbara Walters and the crew at the View.
Good for her. She saw that half-non apology of Rush catering to his defecting sponsors.
My natural instincts want to cheer her on- you go girl. With 129 or however many faculty sponsors, expect to be Valedictorian or something.
Then I listen to her. Did you hear her say that she needs that 'medicine' and lost of women need that 'medicine' called contraception.-that was a freudian slip- i said 'lost of women when I meant "lots of women.' Because I must think in some sense they are a bit lost.
Am I the only woman over the age of 22 who has never been on 'the pill?"
Contraception is not 'medicine' unless you are one of about fifteen or so percent for whom it is prescribed for various specific conditions. In fact I once was prescribed it wrongly for one such misdiagnosed condition-took it for three days, made me sick and beloted and I stopped. It is a drug. It is so widely prescribed in fact I think gynos must be getting a cut of every prescription they dish out. It is a strong drug- it can totally alter your female biology. Why on earth would you want to do that?
Here is my concern- and I am not going to moralize like I did my godkiddies and niece (who is an out of wedlock mother and I hope not because of my overmoralizing about pro life issues but because she adores her child)-
Women should not be taught that they need medicine to socially exist. Men should not be telling unwed women they have to have sex to be in relationships with them.
Chastity is an age old virtue and it still is a virute. Virtues are attractive. Really attractive. Wouldn't you rather be married than having drugged sex?
I bet Georgetown would agree with me- at least the 'main campus' where the priests tend to hang out.
If you want to be a strong woman, you should not be convinced that you cannot exist in a socially happy plane of life without drugging yourself up. Do you know what sort of chemicals in 'the pill' can actually do to your body? Do you know that your chances of getting blod clots, infertility, strokes, and heart conditions increase exponentially for being years on the pill? Some of us didn't want to risk it and thought men must not care about us very much if they made us.
Who profits from a society where half the population is drugged perpetually? Who profits?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/sandra-fluke-sits-down-for-first-tv-interview-on-the-view/2012/03/05/gIQAdPJUtR_blog.html
Should Georgetown have to be forced to cover contraception- or any catholic college be forced to provide it through insurance - no. Really, no. Sorry. No. If they think it is crazy, (and it is a bit crazy to insist that all female students have some necessity for it) and against their principles as guardians of virtue, they absolutely should not be made to have to provide it through the student insurance plans that they select- even if they do not underwrite it.
The 'what's next' argument has a point.
Really. What if I believe my digestion is improved substantially by greek yogurt- that should be free then at the school cafeteria too. While we are at it, my mood greatly improves with mint chocolate chip ice cream.
I confess, it has been a while since i turned on diatribe radio. I am too busy practicing some semblance of law. I researched a Habeus petition, did some Section 1983 research and clocked in a document production. Such is the life of a 'Georgetown Woman"- a working woman I might add.
It appears from briefly scanning the e-news and commentary that Ms. Fluke's fame spreads further than fifteen minutes and she met Barbara Walters and the crew at the View.
Good for her. She saw that half-non apology of Rush catering to his defecting sponsors.
My natural instincts want to cheer her on- you go girl. With 129 or however many faculty sponsors, expect to be Valedictorian or something.
Then I listen to her. Did you hear her say that she needs that 'medicine' and lost of women need that 'medicine' called contraception.-that was a freudian slip- i said 'lost of women when I meant "lots of women.' Because I must think in some sense they are a bit lost.
Am I the only woman over the age of 22 who has never been on 'the pill?"
Contraception is not 'medicine' unless you are one of about fifteen or so percent for whom it is prescribed for various specific conditions. In fact I once was prescribed it wrongly for one such misdiagnosed condition-took it for three days, made me sick and beloted and I stopped. It is a drug. It is so widely prescribed in fact I think gynos must be getting a cut of every prescription they dish out. It is a strong drug- it can totally alter your female biology. Why on earth would you want to do that?
Here is my concern- and I am not going to moralize like I did my godkiddies and niece (who is an out of wedlock mother and I hope not because of my overmoralizing about pro life issues but because she adores her child)-
Women should not be taught that they need medicine to socially exist. Men should not be telling unwed women they have to have sex to be in relationships with them.
Chastity is an age old virtue and it still is a virute. Virtues are attractive. Really attractive. Wouldn't you rather be married than having drugged sex?
I bet Georgetown would agree with me- at least the 'main campus' where the priests tend to hang out.
If you want to be a strong woman, you should not be convinced that you cannot exist in a socially happy plane of life without drugging yourself up. Do you know what sort of chemicals in 'the pill' can actually do to your body? Do you know that your chances of getting blod clots, infertility, strokes, and heart conditions increase exponentially for being years on the pill? Some of us didn't want to risk it and thought men must not care about us very much if they made us.
Who profits from a society where half the population is drugged perpetually? Who profits?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/sandra-fluke-sits-down-for-first-tv-interview-on-the-view/2012/03/05/gIQAdPJUtR_blog.html
Should Georgetown have to be forced to cover contraception- or any catholic college be forced to provide it through insurance - no. Really, no. Sorry. No. If they think it is crazy, (and it is a bit crazy to insist that all female students have some necessity for it) and against their principles as guardians of virtue, they absolutely should not be made to have to provide it through the student insurance plans that they select- even if they do not underwrite it.
The 'what's next' argument has a point.
Really. What if I believe my digestion is improved substantially by greek yogurt- that should be free then at the school cafeteria too. While we are at it, my mood greatly improves with mint chocolate chip ice cream.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
zero tolerance
for hate speech
against women.
In France every other day some woman dies from domestic violence.
In this country women professionals are called egoists, selfish and 'feminazis' just because they are educated with professions- nevermind they may even be educated by catholic institutions.
Anyone who disagrees with the right of women to work to maintain a degree of independence feels free to insult them using terminology that would never be tolerated in the race context. It is really stunning. Even the people they love the most can hurt them the most.
That is why those Limbaugh advertisers need to stick to their guns and not ever go back to endorsing his brand of mysogeny.
against women.
In France every other day some woman dies from domestic violence.
In this country women professionals are called egoists, selfish and 'feminazis' just because they are educated with professions- nevermind they may even be educated by catholic institutions.
Anyone who disagrees with the right of women to work to maintain a degree of independence feels free to insult them using terminology that would never be tolerated in the race context. It is really stunning. Even the people they love the most can hurt them the most.
That is why those Limbaugh advertisers need to stick to their guns and not ever go back to endorsing his brand of mysogeny.
GERMANY
TO THE RESCUE
Iranian Pastor with a death sentence hanging on his head has an ally in the German Government who has summoned a diplomat to talk Iran out of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/berlin-summons-iran-diplo_0_n_1318331.html?ref=religion&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140379
Shall we all please pray now.
Iranian Pastor with a death sentence hanging on his head has an ally in the German Government who has summoned a diplomat to talk Iran out of it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/berlin-summons-iran-diplo_0_n_1318331.html?ref=religion&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140379
Shall we all please pray now.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
God is
NOT
rude or boastful. When you read Paul's description of the indescribable in his letter to his friends in Corinth- the Corinthians, you see him searching for words to try to explain how LOVE is, which is a way of describing how God is, as John tells us God is Love. So if Love is kind, patient, long suffering, forebearing, etc. so is God tautologically.
God is NOT rude or boastful, self absorbed, quick to take offense, etc.
If Paul were alive today, he would likely add a few- because there does appear to be a misunderstanding about his nature even in high places.
God is not mean, he is not petty, he is not politically vindictive, he is not spiteful. So why does the church get that way?
Anything not Love is not God. Not God doesn't belong in the church. That comes from some other place.
rude or boastful. When you read Paul's description of the indescribable in his letter to his friends in Corinth- the Corinthians, you see him searching for words to try to explain how LOVE is, which is a way of describing how God is, as John tells us God is Love. So if Love is kind, patient, long suffering, forebearing, etc. so is God tautologically.
God is NOT rude or boastful, self absorbed, quick to take offense, etc.
If Paul were alive today, he would likely add a few- because there does appear to be a misunderstanding about his nature even in high places.
God is not mean, he is not petty, he is not politically vindictive, he is not spiteful. So why does the church get that way?
Anything not Love is not God. Not God doesn't belong in the church. That comes from some other place.
What Genius
Created this.
Look at the aerodynamic beauty of this eagle owl flying in slow motion- look at the way his wings move- and imagine how angel wings work. What genius created this masterpiece (and how many millions of years before the wright brothers took an object to the skies). We are dealing with a God of massively greater intelligence than we can fathom. The best part is at the end when the owl gets so close it looks like it wants to pick up the camera.
http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8/
Look at the aerodynamic beauty of this eagle owl flying in slow motion- look at the way his wings move- and imagine how angel wings work. What genius created this masterpiece (and how many millions of years before the wright brothers took an object to the skies). We are dealing with a God of massively greater intelligence than we can fathom. The best part is at the end when the owl gets so close it looks like it wants to pick up the camera.
http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8/
Thank You
Jack DeGoia
The President of Georgetown comes to the defense of law student Ms. Fluke and "Georgetown Women."
Dear Rush
Thank you for the offer of buying as much aspirin as I need. I will take you up on that.
I won't however put it between my legs because it will be hard to walk to court or Mass that way.
I will however pop one every time I hear your voice or read of it reported anywhere because you give me a headache. Ignorance does that to me. I can't believe you are allowed to be on the airwaves. In fact every word you utter gives me a headache and you are quite verbose so I will need quite a lot of aspirin. Please send a box of pill bottles of baby Bayer to me, Cynthia, care of Jack DeGoia at Georgetown. I will share with all the other Georgetown women who get headaches when listening to you.
Lets say that every Georgetown woman takes you up on that. That would be an offer and acceptance which makes a contract (plus a few other elements like 'consideration' but lets leave that aside now). I learned that at Georgetown law school. So you owe me now a box of aspirin which costs what? Lets say conservatively about $50. a box depending on how many pill bottles fit into a box. Lets say all Georgetown women out there number (hypothetically until we get the records) 10,000 women alive with Georgetown degrees (you didn't specify law did you). So that means you owe georgetown women now about half a million dollars should we decide to bring a class action to enforce your contract. I offer to be the lead plaintiff. You did say as much as we wanted, right? For a lifetime? So double that. You now owe Georgetown women a million dollars. Where do you live so I can tell the process servers? Or do you prefer to be served while verbally flatulating on the bloviating air?
The Wonderful
Mulatto World
We don't live in a black and white world. We live in beautiful mixed shades of browns, bronzes
grays, chocolates, and caramels. We live in a multicolored wonderful world where anyone with a nuanced sense of fairness appreciates that broad ideological proclamations don't fit real life in all cases and facts should inform and challenge broad ideological brush strokes.
Take for instance that woman who testified before Pelosi after being denied the opportunity to speak before the Republican run congressional panel. She is thirty years old. Does anyone who chastises her know if she has been in a relationship with her boyfriend/partner for ten years or more? Does anyone know if they are college or high school sweethearts who are waiting until she graduates until they get married? Does anyone know whether he is perhaps Jewish or another religion? Does anyone know what the reasons are why they may not yet be married?
Has anyone even bothered to ask?
Would this change the moral tone of your insult?
We don't live in a black and white world. We live in beautiful mixed shades of browns, bronzes
grays, chocolates, and caramels. We live in a multicolored wonderful world where anyone with a nuanced sense of fairness appreciates that broad ideological proclamations don't fit real life in all cases and facts should inform and challenge broad ideological brush strokes.
Take for instance that woman who testified before Pelosi after being denied the opportunity to speak before the Republican run congressional panel. She is thirty years old. Does anyone who chastises her know if she has been in a relationship with her boyfriend/partner for ten years or more? Does anyone know if they are college or high school sweethearts who are waiting until she graduates until they get married? Does anyone know whether he is perhaps Jewish or another religion? Does anyone know what the reasons are why they may not yet be married?
Has anyone even bothered to ask?
Would this change the moral tone of your insult?
When Ideology
Trumps Jesus
Can you imagine Jesus doing anything hurtful and offensive to anyone grieving the loss of a loved one? I can't. Whenever we see someone grieving the loss or potential loss from illness of a loved one or relative Jesus is there to heal and even raise from the dead. He resurrects to life. It is a basic central tenet of our faith that the dead arise and we are in resurrection season. The only time he wept was with Mary over the death of her brother and his friend Lazarus.
So when I heard about a Maryland priest denying a daughter communion at her mother's funeral in a suburb of DC in Maryland I was shocked and outraged.
The mother probably was a parishioner or would not get a catholic service in that church in all likelihood with a priest presiding. There was a Mass at the funeral so it was not simply a remembrance or memorial service. The mother was in all likelihood and the family in all likelihood catholics in good standing there.
Perhaps the elderly mother, I thought, might have been one of those daily communicants- one of those elderly who can barely walk out of their condos making their way to the altar every morning to start the day with the Word of God and a little sunshine and smile of the friendly neighborhood cheerful priest with a tip of the cane to her fellow elderly neighbors. Maybe she was a member of some society like the Christ Child society knitting or crocheting blankets for babies in her senior years, or some sodality society where she baked muffins and banana nut bread for the annual bake sales. Who was this woman who lived around eighty years on this good earth and what did she do? Her daughter was there with a loving tribute to her mother to tell the good people who showed up to pay respects.
And her daughter, when she presented herself for communion after her tearful eulogy was deliberately and most unexpectedly humiliated and insulted by the priest in front of her friends and her mother's friends.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/barbara-johnson-maryland-lesbian-denied-communion-funeral_n_1316869.html
Wrong, Just Wrong. So Wrong I can't begin to say how Wrong.
The Archdiocese has issued a sort of disclaimer in stating that before that happens there is a pastoral obligation to discuss privately first what is up. My question is- who gave the order
to deny homosexuals communion at all- because they are 'in sin'?? As if there are not Knights of Columbus who are gay, or is it just that she is openly gay living with a woman?
If you start denying people communion who are in "sin" you might as well lock the doors and
keep Jesus locked in the tabernacle because we all are 'in sin' in some manner. People who don't give a full ten percent tithe are 'in sin' which is most of the church, people who are so greedy that they don't give anyone who asks something of them their coat also are in sin, people who are greedy, people who stay angry, people who lie, cheat, defraud, get drunk, slander are all in sin- and so you have maybe a saint or two still sitting in the pew after all those are eliminated. Who is to say Gay is a greater sin (if indeed it is) than any of those enumerated that lock one out of heaven according to scripture? In fact Gay is not listed among those enumerated sins at all. So this appears to be a political agenda in the wake of the gay marriage defeats that are slapping the Archdiocese in the face- Maryland being the latest giving full legalization after both houses of Senate and Delegates passed it despite massive lobbying efforts of the Archdiocese. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/maryland-gay-marriage_b_1314982.html
Lets start denying communion to everyone who speeds in traffic breaking the law, or who gets parking tickets in DC, everyone who bought more expensive christmas presents for themselves than for their kids, everyone who gossipped, everyone who lusted after anyone, everyone who ever had sex outside marriage (fornication) everyone who ever took contraceptions (98 percent of all women just left the building with Elvis) and everyone who ever got drunk. Does the bible have some sort of sin score card where you get weighted demerits and so many add up and - no more Jesus for you.
I thought church was for sinners because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Including Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinali. That priest owes this woman an apology- and because he deliberately humiliated her publically, he should be made to issue an apology publically also from the pulpit.
Can you imagine Jesus doing anything hurtful and offensive to anyone grieving the loss of a loved one? I can't. Whenever we see someone grieving the loss or potential loss from illness of a loved one or relative Jesus is there to heal and even raise from the dead. He resurrects to life. It is a basic central tenet of our faith that the dead arise and we are in resurrection season. The only time he wept was with Mary over the death of her brother and his friend Lazarus.
So when I heard about a Maryland priest denying a daughter communion at her mother's funeral in a suburb of DC in Maryland I was shocked and outraged.
The mother probably was a parishioner or would not get a catholic service in that church in all likelihood with a priest presiding. There was a Mass at the funeral so it was not simply a remembrance or memorial service. The mother was in all likelihood and the family in all likelihood catholics in good standing there.
Perhaps the elderly mother, I thought, might have been one of those daily communicants- one of those elderly who can barely walk out of their condos making their way to the altar every morning to start the day with the Word of God and a little sunshine and smile of the friendly neighborhood cheerful priest with a tip of the cane to her fellow elderly neighbors. Maybe she was a member of some society like the Christ Child society knitting or crocheting blankets for babies in her senior years, or some sodality society where she baked muffins and banana nut bread for the annual bake sales. Who was this woman who lived around eighty years on this good earth and what did she do? Her daughter was there with a loving tribute to her mother to tell the good people who showed up to pay respects.
And her daughter, when she presented herself for communion after her tearful eulogy was deliberately and most unexpectedly humiliated and insulted by the priest in front of her friends and her mother's friends.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/barbara-johnson-maryland-lesbian-denied-communion-funeral_n_1316869.html
Wrong, Just Wrong. So Wrong I can't begin to say how Wrong.
The Archdiocese has issued a sort of disclaimer in stating that before that happens there is a pastoral obligation to discuss privately first what is up. My question is- who gave the order
to deny homosexuals communion at all- because they are 'in sin'?? As if there are not Knights of Columbus who are gay, or is it just that she is openly gay living with a woman?
If you start denying people communion who are in "sin" you might as well lock the doors and
keep Jesus locked in the tabernacle because we all are 'in sin' in some manner. People who don't give a full ten percent tithe are 'in sin' which is most of the church, people who are so greedy that they don't give anyone who asks something of them their coat also are in sin, people who are greedy, people who stay angry, people who lie, cheat, defraud, get drunk, slander are all in sin- and so you have maybe a saint or two still sitting in the pew after all those are eliminated. Who is to say Gay is a greater sin (if indeed it is) than any of those enumerated that lock one out of heaven according to scripture? In fact Gay is not listed among those enumerated sins at all. So this appears to be a political agenda in the wake of the gay marriage defeats that are slapping the Archdiocese in the face- Maryland being the latest giving full legalization after both houses of Senate and Delegates passed it despite massive lobbying efforts of the Archdiocese. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-martin-omalley/maryland-gay-marriage_b_1314982.html
Lets start denying communion to everyone who speeds in traffic breaking the law, or who gets parking tickets in DC, everyone who bought more expensive christmas presents for themselves than for their kids, everyone who gossipped, everyone who lusted after anyone, everyone who ever had sex outside marriage (fornication) everyone who ever took contraceptions (98 percent of all women just left the building with Elvis) and everyone who ever got drunk. Does the bible have some sort of sin score card where you get weighted demerits and so many add up and - no more Jesus for you.
I thought church was for sinners because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Including Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinali. That priest owes this woman an apology- and because he deliberately humiliated her publically, he should be made to issue an apology publically also from the pulpit.
Friday, March 02, 2012
The Bum
Rush
As a Georgetown Woman (Law) let me express in the strongest possible terms how disgusting, inappropriate, outrageous and offensive Limbaugh's remarks were concerning the person who testified on the Hill on the HHS mandate.
Truly a new low in faux radio talking idiot journalism. Rush, the epitome of flatulent ego dripping conservative drivel now takes to calling a law student in her last year a 'slut' for stating fact after fact to support an argument that is held true by a majority of Americans, e.g. contraception stops unwanted pregnancies, and can also aid in health issues.
Limbaugh wants to get paid to speak hate, so should we call him a neo- Nazi?
Every Republican who hopes to hold on to his seat and hat should be loudly denouncing the lout for these sorts of remarks. Did my Republican father pay tens upon tens of thousands of dollars for me to be so finely educated only to be so insulted by such a lout whose own pharmacological abuse is historic and of record.
I may disagree on policy grounds in part or whole or I may not. But I may not, and nor may you, engage in the sort of anti-female hate speech that calls all women who differ with you "Feminazis" or "sluts" or "whores." You, pathetic oxycotin poster boy should be fined by the FCC for hate speech and soon. No, you LIMBAUGH, should just be driven off the air for good this time.
As a Georgetown Woman (Law) let me express in the strongest possible terms how disgusting, inappropriate, outrageous and offensive Limbaugh's remarks were concerning the person who testified on the Hill on the HHS mandate.
Truly a new low in faux radio talking idiot journalism. Rush, the epitome of flatulent ego dripping conservative drivel now takes to calling a law student in her last year a 'slut' for stating fact after fact to support an argument that is held true by a majority of Americans, e.g. contraception stops unwanted pregnancies, and can also aid in health issues.
Limbaugh wants to get paid to speak hate, so should we call him a neo- Nazi?
Every Republican who hopes to hold on to his seat and hat should be loudly denouncing the lout for these sorts of remarks. Did my Republican father pay tens upon tens of thousands of dollars for me to be so finely educated only to be so insulted by such a lout whose own pharmacological abuse is historic and of record.
I may disagree on policy grounds in part or whole or I may not. But I may not, and nor may you, engage in the sort of anti-female hate speech that calls all women who differ with you "Feminazis" or "sluts" or "whores." You, pathetic oxycotin poster boy should be fined by the FCC for hate speech and soon. No, you LIMBAUGH, should just be driven off the air for good this time.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Update
on the Persecuted Pastor in Iran- maybe.
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2012/02/iran-puts-off-execution-of-christian-pastorunconfirmed.html
http://www.persecutionblog.com/2012/02/iran-puts-off-execution-of-christian-pastorunconfirmed.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)