Another Large Misconception.
10.31.03 (11:04 am) [edit]I was inspired to address another issue that I felt was of the highest importance.
Common misconception: "It is Israel that is the cause of Middle East tensions because of its refusal to make compromises for peace."
Well, in 1967, immediatly after the Six-Day War, Israel offered to return almost all the land it had won in that war of self-defense in exchange for peace. The Arab world responded to this offer in Sept. 1967 with the three famous "No's" of Khartoum; "no peace with," "no negotiations with," and "no recognition of" Israel. As Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban commented: "This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace, and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender."
More than a decade later, when Egyption President Anwar as-Sadat promised that his country would recognize Israel's right to exist and establish diplomatic relations if it returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, Israel, under the leadership of the right-wing prime minister Menachem Begin returned the Sinai in its entirety. That territory alone, three times as large as Israel, made up 91% of the land the Jewish state had captured in the Six-Day War. As part of handing over land that served as a potential protective buffer in case of war with Egypt, Israel also gave up the oil feilds it had developed in Sinai, which would have saved Israel billions of dollars each year on oil and enabled it to become largely energy independant.
And this was only one of many times Israel was willing to make compromises for peace. At Camp David in the summer of 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians more than 95% of the West Bank and part of Israel proper (to make up for the % of the West Bank it was not returning) in which to establish a Palestinian state. Arafat not only rejected the offer, he then launched the second [i]intifada[/i], during which the Jews of Israel, civilians especially, were targeted for death by suicide/homocide bombers.
Thus, in Israel's often desperate persuit of peace, it has returned, or offered to return, more than 97% of the land it captured in 1967 (in addition to much of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, lost by Syria in its war with Israel, remains in Israel's hands). So much for the charge that Israel has not been willing to make compromises for peace. Rather, neighbors, who have never stopped dreaming of conquering all of Israel. That is why the Palestinian Authority maps of the region depict Palestine as comprising Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all the rest of Israel.
One final thought: When discussing Israel's security needs, few of its opponents, and even many of its supporters, are aware of just how small the country is. Israel's area is about the same as New Jersey's. In 1869, Mark Twain, after a visit to the Holy Land, wrote: "The word Palestine always brought to my mind a vague suggestion of a country as large as the United States...I could not conceive of a small country having so large a history."
In fact, Israel occupies less than one-six hundredth of the land occupied by the 21 Arab states. Thus, its willingness to cede more than 97% of the land it captured in a war of self defense is truly remarkable.
You can look up my sources in:
[i]Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East[/i], pp. 313-14
[i]Mark Twain, The innocents Abroad[/i], pp 385, 398
I[i]srael and the Arab World[/i], p 238
[i]Why the Jews: The Reason for Antisemitism[/i], p 161-63
So, what about this wall in Israel?
10.30.03 (3:53 pm) [edit]I figured now would be an excellent time to address the issue of this "great injustice to the Palestinian people."
Got your attention did I? Well wouldn't you like to know that the only injustice that this wall's existance is imposing is it's location? An injustice that I would hardly go too far to label as such.
As they say in real estate: "Location, location, location!" The only problem I see with this wall is that it seperates [i]*some*[/i] farmers from their land. That's it. It's not the best thing for Israel to do, and they are wrong for that. But that's all I'll fault them. I have no doubt in my mind that the Palestinians will later have it made up to them with a land deal or something.
How about something positive about this wall?
First off, imagine the California/Mexican border. Has any of my readers ever been to TJ? Well, when you take this trip from the US to Mexico, note what the boarder looks like. A fence? A wall? Does it contain barbed wire? Hmmmm...does any body talk about the injustice that the Mexican people suffer from the wildly hard restrictions on illegal, non-US citizen work forces? No. Why? Because in America, we feel that what we do is exempt because we do it. "Do as we say, not as we do."
What about the squalor that is Tiajuana? People want to work in the US because of better wages and opertunity. Yet, to live in Mexico and work in the US, you need a special permit. Hmmmm. Where have I heard this before? (And Mexicans don't even waltz into bars, or McDonalds' and blow themselves up along with civilian men, women and children!)
Thing is, what Israel is doing really isn't too far in violation of the "Road Map." That's right, I said it! Before you have a heart-attack, allow me to further explain.
The Palestinians supposidly want their own country, right? Fine. So does Israel. Israel also wants protection and insurance for its citizens. Given the Palestinian track record, history has shown us that some of these folks don't like "infadels" (ie: Jews, Christians, all non-Muslims--in this case, especially Jews!). What would you do if you were Israel? I see a lot of people admonishing, but not a whole lot of people with better ideas. Anyone reading this have a better idea??
The Palestinians want to live in their "Palestine" and work in Israel. Well, here in the US, we issue permits to non-citizen, non-resident workers. Israel wishes to do the same. How is that apartied??? :?
Palestinians can't have it both ways. They supposidly want their own country, but they want to move freely into Israel at whim. I say, create jobs in your own country and start your own economy, if statehood is really your true intention. If you want to work in a foreign country, you'll have to abide by the rules of that country: You will carry a work permit and don't blow up our children.
Is that really too difficult for them that they have to cry the blues to the media?
What's even more disturbing is how the media and its viewers eat it up and admonish Israel and its actions. When did we become puppets that only believe people who say one thing but their actions show another.
And how quickly we forget the imfamous 9-11. Terrorism is the plague of our time, except when it comes to Israel. There, the evil Zionist pigs are the agressors; not the ones blowing up babies on busses. How soon we all forget the Palestinians dancing in the streets on that terrible day in US history. I wasn't the only one who saw that footage, was I?
I'm sure Bin Laden was a real sweet guy to talk to. I'm sure he must have cried the blues on his broadcasts about how the "infadels" are a perversion before Allah. I guess it's a different story when we're on the defensive end and not Israel.
:idea: "Do as we say, not as we do."
:evil:
Mel Gibson's 'The Passion.' How will it effect the Jewish community? Rabbi Shafran comments. . .
10.28.03 (6:15 pm) [edit]Religious Pornography
By Rabbi Avi Shafran
Am Echad Resources
No, I haven't seen it, but yes, I have the right all the same to comment on Mel Gibson's movie about the execution of Jesus.
Because all I need to know is what people who have seen the film had to say. Those would be members of the audiences before whom Mr. Gibson previewed his work, mostly conservative Christian groups (requests for previews by groups and individuals, including Jewish ones, with concerns about the film have been rebuffed).
According to "The New York Times," viewers reported that the movie "is brutally graphic, dwelling at length on a scourging scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh before he is even nailed to the cross."
"Audiences wept" at showings, according to the paper, "and many were awestruck." The president of the National Association of Evangelicals hailed Mr. Gibson as "the Michelangelo of this generation."
Mr. Gibson produced the film as a labor of faith. He is a member and a proponent of a "traditionalist" Catholic church, one that rejects, among other things, the reforms of Vatican II, which included a statement absolving contemporary Jews of responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. (If that absolution sounds rather unremarkable, well it was quite remarkable in 1965.)
It is not clear whether Mr. Gibson considers Jews today to be blameworthy for the crucifixion; he strongly denies that he is anti-Semitic. All the same, though, some of us Jews are, well, somewhat...apprehensive about the effect his film might have. We possess, you see, a sort of exquisitely sensitive historical radar--and its scanning antenna has been lubricated, often and well, with our relatives' blood.
The film cannot help but portray Jews as players in the crucifixion; various gospels do no less. But leaving aside entirely the questionable historicity of those accounts, the graphic imagery that viewers have described can all too easily be imagined as dry kindling for hearts sparking with hatred.
Do we protest too much? Is Mr. Gibson's film any different from motion pictures that present Mafia types as Italians or Holocaust-era villains as Germans?
Perhaps not. But no one seeks to harm or kill the Italians or Germans because of what some of their relatives did, yet many, many people the the world over since time immemorial have sought (all too often, successfully) to harm and kill Jews for any of a host of entirely imagined crimes. Forgive us our paranoia if we take our history lessons seriously. And many more people, we can sadly assume, are quietly gestating anti-Jewish hatred, waiting only for the right emotional cue to expel their ugly spawn.
So while Mr. Gibson may himself have not a Jew-hating bone in his body, he cannot escape the fact that the imagery he has so vividly and movingly portrayed has over the course of millennia yielded the maiming and murder of countless Jews. His technicolor resurrection of that imagery will surely bring solace to Jew-haters everywhere--if not things considerably worse.
Jew-hatred seems to morph from time to time. For centuries it was most prominent in Christendom, where Jews were routinely accused of poisoning wells and murdering children for their blood. Today it is most prominent in the Islamic world, a majority of which, it has been reported, believes "the Jews" were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. If it one day swings back to the Christian sphere, religious pornography like Mr. Gibson's new offering will likely have played a role. Blood libels have thrived on even flimsier fodder than movies.
One cannot help but wonder why his faith didn't lead Mr. Gibson to portray instead one or another of the New Testament's stories of kindness or love. And even if he wanted the sort of blood-and-guts violence so popular with audiences these days, he could have recreated other religious events for the camera--entirely historically verifiable ones, like the Crusades. Or the Inquisition. Or he could have presented audiences with the depiction not of Romans and Jews but of Christians in more recent times whose theologies inspired the Polish and Russian pogroms that preceded--and some say helped inspire--the Holocaust.
But he made his choice, and seems determined to proudly offer his film to the public in several months' time. the buzz is already loud. As the marketing director for the production company remarked about the controversy: "You can't buy that kind of publicity."
The problem--though it doesn't seem to greatly concern Mr. Gibson--is who may end up having to pay for it.
Cosmo
10.28.03 (1:09 am) [edit]Well, all right. This works for me!
Congratulations!! You're a colorful and
sophisticated Cosmopolitan!!
What Drink Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
A Common Misconception.
10.27.03 (8:47 pm) [edit]In response to: "I figure whoever was the individual owner of the private property before it was stolen from them by the state of Israel should get it."
This is a common misconception: Israel stole the land from the Palestinians.
I mean no offense to the writer of this comment (as it is my policy not to mud-sling or name call or what have you; but rather to address the issues), I'm just addressing the facts. :)
To clear up this misconception, I have this answer:
The area of Palestine was regarded by its Turkish rulers and by its Arab residents as a part of Syria, southern Syria to be precise. Even after Israel's creaton, Ahmed Shukairy, the founding head of the PLO and Arafat's predecessor, told the UN Security Council, "It is common knowlege that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
Those who speak of the Jews of Israel as having stolen the land from the Arabs living there might believe that tens of thousands, if not millions, of Arabs had their lands confiscated and taken away by Jews, but that was not the case. In the late nineteenth century, at the time of the rise of Zionism, the Arab population in Palestine was under 250,000, and the "great majority of the Arab population. . .were comparative newcomers--either late immigrants or decendants of persons who had immigrated into Palestine in the previous 70 years" (Israel and the Arab World, p238).
Furthermore, few of the quarter of a million residents were landowners. 80% of the Arabs living in Palestine were debt-ridden peasants, seminomads, and Bedouins. Turkey held ownership of about 72% of the land; most of the rest was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. Sovereignty over the land was transferred to England after Turkey's defeat in WWI, and ownership passed to Israel, under international law, when it became a state in 1948. Of the remaining land, 8.6% was owned by Jews, 3.3% by Arabs who lived in Israel. and 16.5% by Arabs who had left the country, many of them years earlier.
The land that the Jews had acquired prior to the 1948 war was purchased, often at exorbitant prices: In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 an acre in Palestine, mostly for arid and semiarid land; in the same year, rich, black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre. These purchases were made mainly from large landowners, including the Arab mayors of Jerusalem, Gaza City, and Jaffa.
In 1947 UN partition resolution offered the Arabs living in Palestine a state alongside the Jewish one. The Arabs of Palestine and the surrounding countries rejected the UN offer, and on May 14, 1948 (the day of Israel's establishment), five Arab nations invaded in an effort to destroy the Jewish state. Thus, it was not Israel that tried to steal the land from the Palestinians; rather, it was the Palestinians and five Arab countries that tried, by destroying the Jewish state, to steal the land from the Jews.
Quick Update!
10.27.03 (7:42 pm) [edit]School was out today due to the fires all over SoCal. Looks like tomorrow will be the same. A proper update about the response from the News Paper should be available on Wed! Keep checking!
8)
The Firey Pheonix
10.27.03 (6:47 pm) [edit]I see a theme here. . .
You are Form 0, Phoenix: The Eternal.
"And The Phoenix's cycle had reached
zenith, so he consumed himself in fire. He
emerged from his own ashes, to be forever
immortal."
Some examples of the Phoenix Form are Quetzalcoatl
(Aztec), Shiva (Indian), and Ra-Atum
(Egyptian).
The Phoenix is associated with the concept of life,
the number 0, and the element of fire.
His sign is the eclipsed sun.
As a member of Form 0, you are a determined
individual. You tend to keep your sense of
optomism, even through tough times and have a
positive outlook on most situations. You have
a way of looking at going through life as a
journey that you can constantly learn from.
Phoenixes are the best friends to have because
they cheer people up easily.
Which Mythological Form Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Response
10.26.03 (6:33 pm) [edit]"There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian', not ethnically. 'Palestine' is the term for the 'Holy Land', where Arabs, Hebrews, etc. all lived. Arabs that lived there became 'Palestinians' to help their cause, which is to drive the Jews into the sea. Being anti-Palestinian is not being anti-Islam, for being a Palestinian means that you just live in that area, not that you are Islamic. Such ignorance regarding this conflict."
Thank you once again JamesYerian for that comment. For the most part, you are very correct in this statement you have made. However there are a few falsehoods that I must address and make clear to readers. I mean no offense.*
Thing is, the name "Palestine" goes back to the Roman occupation of the kingdom of Israel. When they destroyed the second temple and made Israel a Roman commonwealth, in order to pose the ultimate insult to the native Jews, they re-named the area [i]Palestine[/i]. This is an insult because it is a name in reference to the Philistines, a people long since wiped out and whom were generally known to be barbarians. Today, there is even a term in the english language where one refers to someone as a [i]Philistine[/i] as an insult.
Later, the area was taken and put under Turkish and Syrian rule (they split the territory). When the "Palestinians" of today, migrated from Turkey proper (where they were cast out) to Israel, since the area was still being called Palestine, they were then known as Palestinians.
On a side note, the "Palestinians" of today are actually decendents of Turkish refugees long since cast out. Hence one of the many reasons why they do not have a legitimate claim to the land of Israel.
Fire!
10.26.03 (5:32 pm) [edit]Well, it does fit. . .
Your element is Fire. Wild and free. Your emotions
lead you everywhere. You are a very passionate
person, though sometimes forceful and
destructive you have a goal in life, even if
that goal is just to make it another day. Fire
consumes and purifys, it also protects. There
is always caution with fire because once it is
started on something there is no telling how
much it can destroy. Fire people have the same
tendency when mad you could be a candle burning
but if someone tips you over...
What's your element
brought to you by Quizilla
An explanation: Anti-Zionism as Antisemitism in theory!
10.26.03 (12:19 pm) [edit]*Excerpt from "Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism" By Dennis Prager & Joseph Telushkin.*
Can someone deny that Italians are a nation, work to destroy Italy, and all the while claim that he is not an enemy of the Italian people because he does not hate all Italians? The question is obviously absurd. If you deny Italian nationhood and any Italian rights to their homeland, and seek to destroy Italy, no matter how sincerely you may claim to love some Italians, you are an enemy of the Italian people. The same holds true for those who deny Jewish nationhood and the Jews' right to their state, and who advocate the destruction of Israel. Such people are enemies of the Jewish people, and the term for their attitudes, even when espoused by people who sincerely like some Jews, is antisemitism.
An Anti-Zionist would likely respond that the analogy between Italy and Israel is invalid, because Italian has meaning as a nationality, while Judaism has meaning only as a religion. And since Judaism is only a religion and Zionism is a national movement, one can oppose Zionism without being an enemy of the Jews or Judaism.
...This argument is false on four scores.
First, it makes the extraordinary assumption that non-Jews can tell Jews what it means to be Jewish. As a prominent Orthodox Jewish theologian Rabbi Emanuel Rackman wrote: "I am a Jew and a Zionist. For me the two commitments are one. Furthermore, I hold this to be the position of historic Judaism...I must firmly ask [non-Jews] to respect my religious convictions as I see them an not as they see them."
Throughout its long history, Judaism has held that Jewish nationhood is, along with God, Torah and chosennes, a pillar of Judaism. In the words of an ancient Jewish text, "God, Torah and Israel are one." The Jews' self-definition as a nation with a homeland in Israel is not some new political belief of contemporary Jews but the essence of Judaism since biblical times.
Second, the contention that anti-Zionist are not enemies of the Jews, despite their advocacy of policies that would lead to the mass murder of Jews, is, to put it as generously as possible, disingenuous. If anti-Zionism succeeded in its goal of destroying Israel, nearly all of Israel's more than five million Jews plus an untold number of non-Israeli Jews would die in their effort to maintain Israel. Both the Israelis and their Arab enemies know this. Arab leaders, come Western oriented propaganda notwithstanding, have repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jews in Israel during a war with Israel. The Israelis, for the most part, would fight to the last, both to keep Israel alive and because they have reason to believe that death is preferable fate to capture by their Arab enemies. In the words of the Israeli leftist writer Amos Kenan, written in the aftermath of the Six-Day War: "Shukairy [the head of the PLO before Yasir Arafat] used to say that the Jews should be driven into the sea. After the 1967 defeat, it became apparent that a slogan of this sort was not good public relations for the Arab cause. So today, only the Zionists are to be thrown into the sea. The only trouble is that when the Arabs get through pushing all the Zionists into the sea, there won't be a Jew left in Israel. For not a single Jew in Israel will agree to less than political and national sovereignty."
Given, then, that if anti-Zionism realized its goal, another Jewish holocaust would take place, attempts to draw distinctions between anti-Zionism and antisemitism are simply meant to fool the naive.
Third, it was possible before the establishment of Israel in 1948 to oppose the Zionist movement and not be an enemy of the Jews, just as prior to 1776, one could have opposed American statehood without being an enemy of the Americans. Once the United States was established, however, anyone advocating its destruction would obviously be considered an enemy of Americans. So, too, once Israel was established, anyone advocating its destruction is an enemy of the Jews.
Fourth, anti-Zionists would be hard put to find any affirmatively identifying Jew who would not view them as mortal enemies. Studies and opinion polls have shown that over 95% of American Jewry identifies with the right of Jews to the Jewish state. For the overwhelming majority of religious Jews, Israel and Jewish nationhood are part of their religious creed. An anti-Zionist is therefore an enemy of religious Jews. As for secular Jews, anti-Zionists oppose the one aspect of Judaism that they most affirm--Israel.
Quick thought.
10.24.03 (4:14 pm) [edit]:idea:
I thought of a new bumper sticker today on my ride home.
"Anti-Zionism [i]IS[/i] Anti-Semitism!"
I want to get that for my car! If I get them printed, would anyone else want it, I wonder?
The week from Hell.
10.23.03 (4:38 pm) [edit]:evil:
This has been the week from Hell. Thank G-d it's over! I've had a paper due every friggin' day this week. EVERY FRIGGIN' DAY! Now I can rest and recharge in order to prepare for next week. Thing's will be better then. All I really have to do is prepare my speech for that class. I'm doing it on whisky, that entertaining elixer. S'all good.
I witnessed some of the other students in the class' speaches and most of them sucked. They mostly were unprepared because they had to do their so soon. There's one guy in that class that I absolutly can not stand. He did his today. Rastafarian religion. You know what I hate? Dumb punk-ass white boys who like to smoke dope and bring up things like the Rastifarian religious practices as some kind of way to legitimize their rampant drug use. I'm sorry, but in less you're really killing brain cells in the name of a god rather than "just 'cause it's cool er it makes you feel all warmy and stupid inside," shut the fuck up. Aight? You ain't no Rasta and you aint even Jamaican. You don't even believe in organized religion! Don't make excuses like that for the reason why YOU are breaking the law. Yes, that's right. I said it. Marijuana is illegal. That means, by law, you can't use it. If it were legal, maybe that'd be a different story. But for now, it's illegal. Cope.
:idea: Oh, you want to bring up the whole Alcohol should be illegal then too argument. WEAK! Alcohol=legal; Ganja=illegal. Wanna see that again? Alcohol=legal; Ganja=not so much the legal. Of course alcohol sholdn't be abused. When you abuse any substance you run into trouble. People abuse desserts all the time. That's why Americans are a bunch of fatasses. But hey, Mary Jane is even worse than cigarettes because it doesn't even have a filter. It kills your brain and makes you stupid. It's illegal for a reason. Alcohol is legal for a reason. One is the lesser of two evils. If you want to try and change the law, go for it. But you better obey the current law until your's prevails. I have no sympothy for anyone who gets time for possession. None. I'm not a hypocrite either. I try and follow the law as best I can. That's all I'm saying everyone should do.
It amazes me how much people don't think these days about stuff like this. They do things because they like it and it feels good to them. Not because it's necissarily the best thing to do. Hopefully I made someone think. I like to try and do that.
If you don't agree with anything I've said, that's your right. It is America. If anyone would like to share a comment on this, feel free. I'd love to hear it, whatever it is. :D
Letter to the Editor update:
10.22.03 (8:05 pm) [edit]There has still has been no response from the school paper. The new issue should come out some time next week. More to come!
Anti-Semitism and so on. . .
10.22.03 (8:03 pm) [edit]:roll:
So I was reading some stuff on the internet tonight (any sentance that starts this way probably prepares the reader to cringe!) and I realized how stupid some people can be. Not that it was really surprising nor was it like I wasn't already aware of this, but I read various things on the net every once in a while in order to remind myself of what is out there.
Well, you wanna know what's out there? "Good" Christian people. An individual on a message board, who identifyed as such, posted talking about Holocaust Museums being "Jew Worship." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not rediculous? This person went on to say that Jews weren't the only ones who died in WWII. (Of course!) Russian Protestants died and if a Museum was erected for their memory, this person feels everyone would be upset. "Not true," I thought to myself. Being an avid museum frequenter, myself, I would go to a museum that was devoted to such an interesting topic. Furthermore, the Holocaust museum in L.A. isn't committed to solely talking about Jewish tragedies. On the contrary, they talk about everyone that the Nazis tortured and murdered. They also talk about other genocidal tragedies in other countries at other times! Obviously this individual has never even visited that museum (and I can speculate that this goes the same for other museums as well). He also went on a rant that basically illuded to the "fact" that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy. Silly, no? That's like saying the capital of the U.S., Washington D.C., is just a movie set.
Also, last time I checked, Christianity is based off of Judaism AND Jesus was a Jew. So if you hate Jews, you might as well hate your "god" as well.
:arrow: As I always like to say, Lennon was wrong. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses, ignorance is. Some religions breed ignorance. Others incurage learning and thought. Which ones am I talking about? You'll just have to figure out what I'm referring to, dear reader. It's not that hard. Trust me.
However, to reject religion in general, organized or otherwise is wrong. It is the true intellectual that is able to understand which religion is logical and truthful. That must be researched. It is also very hard for some people to come to understand how to differentiate bullshit from truth. Lets put it this way; if there's a question that you ask and no one can answer it legitimatly, there's a problem. If you're the kind of person that enjoys lies and stuperstition. Fine. Enjoy. But if you're gonna take a very important event in modern history (or even the not so modern) and deny its existance, you've got another thing comming.
I don't know why I get so angry and passionate about this stuff. Maybe it's because of who I am and where I've come from. Who knows.
What I do know is, if you're slinging your bullshit, you better watch out for me. I've got a match to ignite your shit that you'd never believe would hit so hard.
Technical difficulties.
10.15.03 (3:31 pm) [edit]Errg. I hope I figured out all the bugs to this blog thing.
Did you ever wonder what a Reeses PB cup would be like if the PB was on the outside? Well I have the answer: Delicious! I got one of those fun packs at the grocery store and it was limited edition PB cups. PB on the outside and chocolate on the inside. Mmmmm.
I responded today to an article in the Com. College news [toilet] paper. The article was about threats of nuclear powers. How conveinient for a school (that is mostly Muslim) to condemn Israel in an article? Too conveinient. They put Israel in the same catagory as N. Korea. Fuck that. I wrote a response and I challenged them to write one pro-Israel article and I told them that, given their track record, I won't be surprised if my letter doesn't get printed because it is too pro-Israel in nature for their refuse-like tastes. We'll see what happens.
I wonder if they'll even reply!
I'll keep y'all posted. :twisted:
Ah!
10.15.03 (3:21 pm) [edit]So I've signed up today for this free blog. So this is it! A few things first and foremost: This is my life, welcome to it (as the header so unimportantly suggests). People's real names will not be used here, so if anyone was momentarily upset, fear you not. I prefer to keep my friends (as well as myself and those I loathe) completely anonymouse (Well, maybe not the ones I loathe).
My life has been not so interesting lately. I have TWO friggin' midterms tomorrow and I'm in a state of disbelief. That is, I'm denying this truth for the moment because I don't want to think about it! PROCRASTINATION--makes it NOT happen! (Who saw that old skool Sesamie St. back in the day where they did that song about "cooperation?" The song went, "Cooperation--Makes it happen. Cooperation--WORKING TOGETHER! DIG IT!" No one? Anyone? Ok. . .Moving on. . .) I have to get up at the ass crack of dawn in order to take these tests too. One of them is a make-up because I was absent on Yom Kippor. That would be the first one. The one at the ass crack of dawn. I'll be in school, ultimatly, until a good 9pm tomorrow. Hooray.
I was reading someone else's blog the other day and I thought to myself, "Man, their grammer is atrocious." It bugs the fuck out of me when people don't know where to place punctuation. Of course, I can't spell very well, myself, most of the time and I make typos and I'm sure that makes someone out there crazy. Oh well.
I went shopping with my gal pal today. Clothing good! I wanted to get a shirt for M, but they didn't have it in his size. It was yummy. Deep blood red dress shirt: ONLY 10 bucks! Unfortunatly, it was too small for him. He's supposed to call at 10pm or so which is about 12 mins from now. Which means I must get off the computer soon. :D
