Chocolate and Roses. . .
08.24.05 (1:42 pm) [edit]
My favorite, too!
You are Dark ChocolateYou live your life with intensity, always going full force. You push yourself (and others) to the limit... you want more than you can handle. An extreme person, you challenge and inspire the world! What Kind of Chocolate Are You? Take This Quiz :-) Find the Love of Your Life (and More Love Quizzes) at Your New Romance. |  |
Your Scent is RoseDelicate, feminine, and soft Your personality is fresh and understated What Scent Are You? Take This Quiz :-) Find the Love of Your Life (and More Love Quizzes) at Your New Romance. |  |
For Kupov; The Dissolvement of Israel Myths
08.24.05 (12:22 pm) [edit]
In my recent post about the Gaza issue entitled "Palestinians fire mortar at troops during Gaza pullout," Kupov made the following comment
"[i]Yes but Isreal has taken much of palestinian land nad has erected a terrible wall, also it is wrong to call isreal the jews this is like classifying US as the Christians.[/i]"
While I like kupov and have respect for his ideas, I really feel I must correct this mistruth in favor of knowledge and history.
First, the myth that Israel "took" Palestinian land is incredible, as it is libelous and just plain incorrect.
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.
Israel captured the West Bank during the Six-Day War of 1967, a war of SELF-DEFENSE. In the days preceding the war, Hafiz al-Assad, the Syrian defense minister and later president, declared: "I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." A week later, on May 27,1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt proclaimed: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel." Three days after Nasser's speech, Jordan, which ruled over the West Bank, signed a defense pact with Eguyt to join in a war explicitly aimed at destroying Israel.
Knowing that it would have to fight against both Egypt and Syria, and desperate to avoid going to war on a third front, Israel sent a message to Jordan's king Hussein assuring him that tit would make no move against Jordan unless Jordan attacked Israel first. Shortly after the war began, the kingm told by Nasser that the Arabs were winning, ordered his army to begin shelling Israel. It was only then that Israel fought back and took control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Does Israel then have a legal, if not moral, obligation to return the West Bank?
No. Although Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan, Jordan itself had no right to this land. King Hussein's grandfather, King Abdullah, had occupied the West Bank during the Arab war to destroy Israel in 1948. After the war's conclusion, Abdullah annexed this territory to Jordan, an act that only two countries, Pakistan and England, recognized as legal. In the eyes of the rest of the world, Jordan had no legal claim to the West Bank.
As Stephen Schwebel, the former head of the International Court of Justice in Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized the territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes the territory in the lawful exercise of SELF-DEFENSE has, against that prior holder, better title."
In Nov. 1947, when the United Nations passed a partition plan, it designated the West Bank as part of what was to comprise a Palestinian state. However, the Arab residents of the West Bank, along with the rest of the Arab world, rejected the UN plan (because it also allotted land for a Jewish state). Moreover, during the nineteen years the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, both the Arab world and the residents of the WB made not effort to establish a Palestinian state there.
For these and other reasons U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright announced in March 1994: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."
Now, what about the argument that Israel has no right to the WB in light of UN Security Resolution 242, which Israel accepted and which demands that Israel return land it captured during the Six-Day War? In truth, the UN resolution spoke of Israel's rerurning "territories" captured during the war. The resolution deliberatly omitted the words "all the" territories, or even "the" territories. This omission was specifically intended to emphasize that Israel was not obligated to return all the territory it had captured. As Lord Caradon, Britain's then ambassador to the UN, explained: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and arificial."
Another clause in the resolution called for "the acknowledgement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundries free from threats or acts of force." To this day, these conditions essential to the resolution, remain unmet. Israel does not yet enjoy anything close to "secure and recognized boarders." Therefore, to call these territories "occupied," as notes William Safire, the Pulitzer Prize-winning culumnists, "reaveals a prejudice against Israel's right to what are supposed to be 'secure' defensible borders" (New York Times, March 25, 2002).
Because of a long-standing anti-Israel campaign conducted by Arab propagandists, it is widely believed in the West today that Israel has flouted Resolution 242's demand that it return the territories captured in 1967. Yet if one actually reads the resolution, it becomes apparant that its primary concern is a call for peace and for recognition of Israel's right to exist; and that only once that has occurred is Israel obliged to return much, but not all, of the captured territory. Resolution 242 was expressly meant to be implemented as part of a negotiated solution between the parties. There was never an expectation that Israel should withdraw from the teritories prior to the signing of peace agreements.
Dr. Dore Gold, Israel's former ambassador to the UN, notes: "It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as 'disputed territories' to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims."
It is rarely noted that, as of 2000, Israel had arranged for 97% of the Palestinian population in the WB and Gaza to live under Palestinian jurisdiction.
Israel has the moral, legal, and commonsensical right to maintain control over the West Bank. To give it up is potentially suicidal--which is why Israel's enemies insist that it do so.
As for this "terrible wall," I've wrote my feelings on the Security Fence in the past, but I'd like to share some more insight.
If anything, lets compair it to the Great Wall of China, designed to keep invading Mongols out. That sounds more credible for obvious reasons. But even that comparison is still unjust.
This wall actually helps the peace plan.
"WHAT? What's this you say Tigress?! You're insane."
Just hear me out:
In the past, our history has shown us that during every peace talk the Palestinians had this extra card that they'd pull if things didn't go exactly their way (ie. their wish for Israel proper to be dismantled legally doesn't come true). They always claimed to the American prestident that was involved and the rest of the world that they didn't have this card, but Israel knew that they did. What was this thing that they used as an instrument?
Eight letters: Violence.
After which Israel would be forced to retaliate and the problems would erupt all over again. With the wall, this is cut down upon. Why? Because this time, they can't just run in and kill people during negotiations and start another vicious cycle. This border keeps it safe for both Israeli and Palestinian.
If Hamas can't get through and spoil everything for the good Palestinian civilians who deserve their own space, then most likely talks will be productive.
As for the Jews as Israel vs the Christians as the US, that is a false analogy. There are far more countries in the world that are better candidates for "the Christian Country" title. The United States was founded as a country for all people. Israel was for Jews especially.
Israel is THE ONLY Jewish State run by Jews, for Jews. Israel is a Jewish state which has it's laws based in Jewish Law. Marriages are approved through a Jewish council, Kashrus is regulated by the state, and so on.
Because Israel is a free parlimentary democracy, there is a non-Jewish minority that are citizens such as Christians and Muslims who have political parties and seats in parliment, but the sole reason for the recreation of Israel in 1948 was so that it could be a Jewish state. The majority of Jewry feels tied to this state as it is their homeland and place of refuge.
According to a recent survey, the highest density of Jews used to be in New York, but this year they found that Israel now has the most Jews in the world. This is the first time this has happened since the Diaspora began.
I hope I have helped Kupov and anyone who has now read this to gain a little more perspective. I encourage everyone to research more into what I've stated here. Don't just believe me. Find out for yourself!
Peace.
Fletcher's Failure
08.24.05 (11:14 am) [edit]
[b]NBC misrepresents situation in Gaza.[/b]
Regardless of one’s politics or particular perspective on recent events, the Gaza Disengagement is a historic time for Israel. These fateful days are filled with emotion and angst among both supporters and opposition to the Disengagement Plan. Media around the world have focused their pens and lenses on Israel. With all of this attention, one might think that respectable media outlets would be working overtime to get the story right. In this regard, it seems that the team at NBC News has failed.
Martin Fletcher
“Settlers believe evacuation betrays God’s will”, Martin Fletcher of NBC News describes the Disengagement:
But, the screaming, the shooting, and cursing, that’s from everyone. All the settlers have been screaming and shooting at the army...
In fact, the Disengagement was remarkable in that neither side – the evacuees nor the soldiers – bore weapons. And certainly no evacuees fired guns.
Perhaps this NBC report was a typo: In an updated online version of this article, one (but not the other) of the references to “shooting” was changed to “shouting”. But why such sloppy editing in the first version? And why only a partial correction in the second version?
Further into Fletcher?s report:
These youngsters who are living by themselves in these small settlements – playing the guitar, singing songs, half of them are probably smoking dope, praying, and they are violent.
“Dope”? “Half of them”? Fletcher brings no evidence for this characterization. If a similar baseless charge were leveled against another group, would it be stood for?
Fletcher appears absent from reality in describing Palestinian activity during this period:
How have the Palestinians helped ease the process?
So far they have helped... The fact that the Palestinian leadership promised calm, and so far has been the case, that is a major contribution by Palestinians to the smooth function of this process which so far has been very smooth indeed.
What about the multiple sets of mortars fired by the Palestinians at Gaza evacuation sites (on Monday and Thursday), or the Palestinian shooting of an Israeli soldier? Or the attempted suicide bombing by Islamic Jihad of Israelis in Gaza? This is all in addition to the rhetoric of those like Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal who stated that the disengagement is ”the beginning of the end for Israel.”
At this very sensitive time, journalists have a duty to be extra-cautious in presenting this story in a fair and accurate manner. In this instance, Martin Fletcher and NBC News have failed.
Comments can be sent to letters@msnbc.com
Palestinians fire mortar at troops during Gaza pullout
08.18.05 (11:53 am) [edit]
[b][i]Masked Palestinian militants of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) march during a rally to celebrate the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza settlements, in the outskirts of Gaza City, near the Israeli settlement of Netzarim, Thursday, Aug. 18, 2005. Palestinian militants are portraying the Israeli pullout from Gaza as a victory for their suicide bombings and rocket attacks, and some Israelis fear they will resume their violence once the withdrawal is complete. (AP Photo/Adel Hana http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...)[/i][/b]
Dare I say that this is a window into the future? I certainly hope not. I can not stress to you how much I hope that this kind of thing will stop now that Gaza is withdrawn. But my pessimisim is overrun by my realism. As the Jews evacuate, these thugs throw lethal salt into the wounds. All you jubilant supporters of this pullout who optomistically drone on that this can be nothing but a good thing might want to think about it again. I first heard this on [url=http://www/debka.com]DebkaFile[/url]. I went and searched the other news wires for confirmation. It seems the Asian and Indian wire services are reporting heavily on this. There are little to no reports on this from the US. Perhaps because someone doesn't want you to know that this was actually a bad idea.
As Israel leaves, these people are winding up to do more damage. And someone will say that this is somehow the Jews' own faults, right? We deserve to be fired on as we evacuate the gift we give to these assasins! Once again, the Jewish people make steps towards peace and those steps are met with violence from the Arabs.
Just keep on diluding yourselves into thinking this is really a step towards peace rather than sealing a horrible fate for Israel in the next few days.
[line]
Wednesday, 17 August , 2005, 23:33
Jerusalem: Palestinian militants on Wednesday fired a mortar shell at an Israeli army post near the Gaza Strip settlement of Morag where troops were taking part in the evacuation of settlers, military sources said.
"Palestinians fired a mortar shell near an IDF (Israel Defence Forces) post where soldiers were securing the community of Morag," the source said.
There were no reports of injuries, she added.
Shortly afterwards, Palestinian gunmen and Israeli troops had traded fire in the area around the radical Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom and the neighbouring Palestinian town of Deir al-Balah, Israeli radio reported.
[url=http://sify.com/news/fullstor...]Source[/url]
MAZAL TOV, GERENDASH!
08.18.05 (9:33 am) [edit]
This is a shout out to my good friends the Gerendash family on the birth of a new baby boy this morning in San Diego, California! MAZAL TOV, everyone! God willing, the bris will be this thursday (a week from today -- exactly eight days from now!) and I'm very excited for everyone! May your son grow up to be everything you wish, want and hope for, as well as grow in the Torah Derech. May he grow to be a Talmud Chachum and an all around great Mensch!
Tears For Gaza
08.17.05 (3:58 pm) [edit]
As I watched the television footage from my homeland, I could not help but cry as many of my people are left with no place to go and my country has now gotten a lot smaller.
As I cried, I asked myself; what is this all worth? This is the cost of what some hail as peace to come. If that land is used to fire rockets on innocent civilians, will it still be a jump towards peace?
As I'm sure many of my readers have figured by now, I'm very unhappy with the way things turned out here. Israel has made many attempts in the last ten years for peace. The largest one was at the 2000 Camp David summit where Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat a major land concession which included pretty much all of the "occupied" territories and parts of Israel proper (Tel Aviv) in exchange for the Golan which was not being given up. It was turned down and the second intifada began.
What does history like that show us? That we, the Jewish people, should not always have to be the first ones to make nice. When will the Arabs be charged with making that first step? They claim that it is us that must do right by them while they continue to smear hate to their children and encourage their fellows to murder us.
During the news cast there were soldiers dragging off residents and tears from everyone involved. Many wore the orange shirts that said in Hebrew "No disengagement!" I saw a resident and a soldier who had gone to school together. The soldier was now charged with ensuring his friend vacated the only home he'd ever known in his entire life. Both embraced and cried. All the soldier could say through his own tears was, "I'm sorry. I must follow orders. You understand?" Of course his friend replied through his own tears that he understood but it in no way made anything all the more easier.
A farmer burned his own fields because he didn't want someone else to reap the benefits of what he'd worked so hard for over many years. "I don't want the men who will seek to kill me to not only take my home, but also use the food I cultivated to build strength in doing so," he stated to Israel National Radio this morning. I can't blame him for feeling that way. Here in the US (and I'm sure abroad as well), that same farmer was spoken of in harsh tones of indignant disgust. They made it sound like he was racist for burning his own fields. I can only look down in sadness at that which others do not understand.
Over time, I've come to realize that many who are looking at this conflict as an outsider really don't understand. People want to be fair. They want to be evenhanded. That is commendable. But if this is being even handed, in the end, they see nothing. This to me is very clear.
The news reported from Gaza where Islamic Jihad was celebrating. Masked men with bullets and guns that shot into the air. They waved flags and banners. The songs they touted in celebration stirred fear into my soul. They held children dressed like the adults with mini plastic guns in their little arms. They held speeches and said that this is not where they will stop. This is not enough, they said. This is only part of what they want from us. They claimed they would not stop until they got the full Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem! They see it as they will have it for their capital and their's alone. They will not stop with Jerusalem, they said. They will not stop until every last Jew is in the sea!
This is the road to peace? These are the people we are rewarding? Does anyone really expect reciprocation on their part? What happens now? What happens after Gaza has been withdrawn? Will the terror end? Will Hamas be expelled? Will Islamic Jihad be dismantled?
Israel needs Hamas and Islamic Jihad outlawed. Terror must stop completely before land concessions like this are made. I fear that we are in for some troubled times ahead.
I can only think to myself that it is a jump towards peace if it means more trouble for Israel and undue rewards for terrorists. This is insanity.
What kind of peace is this?
What kind will it be?
I can only pray to the almighty God that Israel be safe and that He protect the innocent from whatever may come. May the rightious merit justice for Israel. May HaShem grant us all peace.
Cindy Sheehan: A Woman On Edge
08.14.05 (2:07 pm) [edit]
A few days ago when I had first heard of Cindy Sheehan, I didn't seem that interested in the story. Yes, her son had tragically been lost in the Iraq War and she was protesting that war that took her son away. She has every right to do so, by the way. I admire her conviction in standing for what she feels is right.
However, as I've watched this story develope, I felt I should put in my two cents, especially after reading this morning that she feels "Israel [needs to be] out of Palestine." Naturally, after hearing this, my ears perked up.
The loss of her son compels her to fight what she feels is wrong. But all the fighting in the world will not bring her son back. That is the thing she needs to realize. I hope she does. And commenting about exteranious circumstances (like the Israel/Arab conflict), of which she hasn't a clue about, shows that she really is on the edge of insanity.
Which leads me to question what exactly is driving this woman. Well, lets look at a few things.
She feels George Bush killed her son. "You killed my son, George Bush..." she states, however, is that really true? In fact, no. No it is not. George Bush didn't even know Casey Sheehan, let alone ever really get close to him. Who really killed Casey? The day after Casey Sheehan arrived in Iraq, he was killed by terrorists who fired at him and his fellow soldiers.
About her feeling that Israel needs to be out of Palestine, if she really knew a thing about what was coming out of her mouth, she'd know it was the Arabs that need to be out of Israel. The Jews are the indiginous people to that place. That would be like saying the Native Americans need to get out of the United States and stop invading with their Casinos! What a load of bunk!
But I fear that in her greif, she fails to see the bigger picture. Yes, her son died. It's very tragic. But her son isn't the most important person on this planet. There is no such person. There are thousands of other soldiers, like Casey, who have died in the same manner or even worse ones. Why did they die? Because Muftis and Islamist facist killed them. Why is that? Because these people are filled with hate. Hatred for anything that isn't like them. Hatred for infidels, hatred for people like Cindy Sheehan. The goal of these people is the creation of a super Islamist State that incompases the entire world. Don't believe me? Just listen to their Mosque sermons.
In "Palestine" Cindy would be stoned for A. not covering her hair and B. for speaking her mind as a female.
Under the laws of this country, she is free to become insane due to heatstroke if she so wishes.
It becomes more and more clear to me that this isn't about poor Casey Sheehan. This is about a political agenda. This is about a woman who wants to use her sons death as a means to stand on a soap box.
Why was her son in Iraq? He joined the army willingfully, for there is no draft. What did she tell her son when he joined up? Did she discourage it? Did she let him just go? What was her son's wishes? What did she think would happen? Didn't he and she both know the risks? Does she even care? Or does she just want to use him as a posterchild excuse to become famous?
I'll leave that up to you.
In my opinion, I feel for her loss. What I do not feel for is her irresponsible assignment of blame where it isn't due.
If she wants to hate anyone, she should hate the people that truly got us into this war. No, they don't live in Washington. They live in the Middle East and they speak Arabic. She should hate the people that actually killed her son. She should hate the people that continue to kill soldiers. She should hate the people that killed more than 3,000 of her countrymen on 9-11. Hate the people who bombed Madrid and London. Hate the people who kill 3 year old Jewish children.
But it's easier to condemn those who wish to stop the terror. It's easier to submit to the real killers demands.
Sure, let "Israel out of Palestine" get the troops out of Iraq. What then, Mrs. Sheehan? What then? We open ourselves up to be at the mercy of her sons murderers. Is her wish to aid these monsters?
Is this woman so self-rightous that she thinks she can tell us what is better for all of us, as if she is the only one who ever lost a loved one? How dare she. How dare she be so insensative but at the same time demand we be sensative to her for her loss. How dare she be so myopic.
Cindy, go home and heal. Go home and be with your family. Show them you still care for the living. Show them you're still here. Show them you are better than what you are becoming. For the sake of yourself and yourself alone.
That seems to be the only person you care about anyhow.
Matisyahu
08.10.05 (2:39 pm) [edit]
Matisyahu is one of the freshest new artist available right now. I'm a major fan. His style of Chasidic Jewish Reggae is so orignial and so beautifully moving, you'll be amazed.
He is a Chasidic Rabbi that sings songs about Torah in a reggae style. His new album "Live At Stubbs" features the song "King Without A Crown" and I have it in my video playlist to the left.
I you want to learn more about Matisyahu and his music, please check out ChasidicReggae.com to see his bios and listen to some more tunes.
This is my music suggestion for the month of August. :)
Immigration
08.10.05 (8:49 am) [edit]
When my family came to this country a few years back, we came because of persecution and we came because we knew there would be a better life in store for us in the United States. We came in through checkpoints and through red tape. We submitted the proper paperwork and we gave it to the proper channels. We legally immigrated.
I can well understand why anyone would risk their life just to enter this great land. What I can not understand is why anyone would not do so in a lawful manner. And this isn't about race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else of the sort. Please don't make that mistake. For me, it's a question of ethics. Not just the ethics of the immigrant, either. The ethics of the people who employ or sponser illegal immigration is something that makes me wonder, as well.
According to the State Department, about 5.0 million undocumented immigrants were residing in the United States in October 1996. This is not just from Mexico alone, I would like to point out. However, living in Southern California, much of the talk here is about undocumented Mexican immigrants. Between January 2000 and March 2002, 3.3 million additional immigrants have arrived here, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
Why?
Due to worsening conditions in Mexico, there has been more pressure on families to emigrate elseware. There is rampant poverty, poor health coverage, and of course a lack of jobs. Not to mention, currupt government is not looking out for the folks. Police officers need to be bribed in order to do their job. Citizens are abused and exploited by government officials all the time. This is what drives many people to come to the United States from Mexico. And I'm glad that people come here for that.
But there's always the option to do things legally. Many immigrants from Mexico do. In fact, according to Americans for Legal Immigration, the majority of people against illegals are legal immigrants from Mexico. They feel insulted by the illegal activities of their former countrymen because they worked hard to come here the right way and it angers them when people do it the wrong way. They claim it's a slap in their face, as well as the country's. They state that there is no excuse why they can't register and immigrate properly.
However, there are many reasons why (in my opinion) illegal immigration is unethical, among other things.
Firstly, it enables. The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, has his own interests in mind. Allowing illegal immigration only allows his government to do further diservice to the Mexican people. No changes take place. The people do not solve their countries problems. They are just encouraged to run away. This causes the country to be even more saturated with depravities and wrongful behavior towards the remaining citizens. In a sentance, illegal immigration makes life worse for people who continue to live in Mexico.
Seconly, employing illegal immigrants for work in this country not only encourages what I mentioned above, it also encourages poverty in this country.
Whaaahh???
Oh I've heard the arguments of "At least here they get a job and make money" and "Well Americans don't even want to do these jobs. Someone has to do it! These people are willing!" No, I'm not saying it takes jobs away from Americans, necissarily. What I am saying is this. Yes, they make money here. However, that money is usually WAY below minimum wage. I've heard of people picking strawberries out here for 35 cents an hour. THIRTY FIVE CENTS AN HOUR!
I've also heard stories of people doing nastier jobs, like cleaning toilets, for less than that. Because these workers are undocumented, the employer can pay them whatever they want, without regulation. There is a word for such practices, it's called EXPLOITATION! This causes poverty for illegals living in the U.S. because they can't make enough to live here. The employers who eploit immigrant workers in this way are not far different from the slavemasters of the confederacy, if you ask me.
What's more racist? Encouraging someone to come here legally so that they can get their fair share of the American Dream or encouraging them to come illegally so as to exploit their hard work for pennies on the dollar? This allowance is simply unacceptable as it is incredibly unethical. Many of the peope who come here illegally are hard working, honest people. To exploit them in this manner is simply outrageous. It will continue because there are no standards (and will never be) for salaries of illegal immigrants!
On the flip side, illegal immigration can be dishonest on the part of the immigrant for another reason besides simply being undocumented: school and health care. In the United States, as many are aware, we have a public school system. Who pays for this system of education? Why, the taxpayers, of course! In many cases, including some in the county I live in, immigrants will bring their young children with them to the U.S. In many of those cases, they'll send their children to the public schools to get an education. Meanwhile, the parents work for peanuts and don't pay taxes. The workers are exploited so they can't make enough money to put in their fair share. What the result is, is that their children get a free ride on the taxpayer's dime.
What if someone needs to go to the hospital? Thankfully, this country won't turn anyone away who needs health care. But what happens if someone is too poor to pay their medical bills? The insurance and hospital rates raise for those of us who can afford it (to some degree) in order to componsate. Insurane companies also take fewer people into their care because they do not wish to lose money because of existing problems that the aplicants posess. It becomes harder for average American citizens to get health insurance because of the higher rates and tougher restrictions.
Thus, the American people suffer and a spiral downward where we can no longer afford our own health benefits is created. This, in turn, becomes bad for the American economy because doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are losing money rather than gaining and circulation of capital goes down.
If these people are so honest as well as hard-working, why don't they think about the implications of their illegal actions?
The final argument here is, of course, drug traffic and terrorism. Now stop and think for a moment before you go nuts on me. . .
In California alone, drug trafficing from Mexico is BIG BUSINESS. Substances like heroin, crack cocain, and maijuana are brought in, illegally, every day on a large scale.
According to the United States Factbook (administerred by the CIA), Mexico is "illicit[ly] cultivat[ing] opium poppy (cultivation in 2001 - 4,400 hectares; potential heroin production - 7 metric tons) and of cannabis (in 2001 - 4,100 hectares); government eradication efforts have been key in keeping illicit crop levels low; major supplier of heroin and largest foreign supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine to the US market; continues as the primary transshipment country for US-bound cocaine from South America, accounting for about 70 percent of estimated annual cocaine movement to the US; major drug syndicates control majority of drug trafficking throughout the country; producer and distributor of ecstasy; significant money-laundering center," (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact book/geos/mx.html" title="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact book/geos/mx.html" target="_blank"http://www.cia.gov/cia/public...).
In many cases, illegal immigrants are once again exploited by the Mexican governement and Mexican drug lords as well. The Mexican government takes bribes and does not crack down on drug lords, thus allowing them to use hard working people as drug mules into the United States. In many cases, families are held hostage in order to get a member to swallow packages of drugs and bring them to the other side for distribution.
In other cases, drug employees willingfully trafic these illegal goods accross the border, but many times they are detected because of drug sniffing dogs at checkpoints. It's far easier for them to skip the checkpoints and jump the fense at the expense of the people in the United States and the person they use (either willingfully or otherwise) to jump the boarder.
As for terrorists, if there are open borders, who's filtering the people that come in here? According to many news outlets, including the Washingtong Times, Chechen Terrorists have come into this coutnry by way of Mexico in the past. Not only that, there is much documentation from intelligence that suggests Al Quaida has infiltrated through Mexico in the past. Legal immigration and checkpoints simply say, "Hey, welcome to the US. Before we give you the keys, we just want to run a background check and find out who you are and what exactly your goal is in coming here."
I realize the majority of people coming here are hard working people looking for a better life. This in no way infringes on their rights. In fact, it's further protecting them because once they're in this country, they're just as suseptable to terrorist attack as the rest of us. It's in everyone's best interests!
So what's the solution? We have laws. Let's inforce them.
To do that, we need a more secure border with more checkpoints. The more checkpoints we have, the more oppertunity for people to come in legally. Not only that, the less chance of people dying from heatstroke, dehydration, or starvation in transit to the US. The more checkpoints and the more secure the border, the more border patrol we need. The more border patrol we need, the more jobs we have created for citizens. The more jobs for citizens, the more oppertunity for immigrants to be employed and the more oppertunity they have of getting paid fairly! We get better healthcare and education system because people need to be trained for work. We also force Mexico to have higher standards in their government.
With legal immigration and proper enforcement, everyone wins!
Jewish Wit
08.10.05 (7:00 am) [edit]
These are funny because they're mostly true. . .
* If you can't say something nice, say it in Yiddish.
* If it tastes good, it's probably not kosher.
* WASPS leave and never say goodbye, Jews say goodbye and never leave.
* Israel is the land of milk and Honey, North London is the land of Milk of Magnesia
* Never pay retail
* Its always a bad hair day if you are bald.
* No one leaves a Jewish wedding hungry, but then again no one leaves sober.
* The high holidays have absolutely nothing to do with marijuana.
* Always whisper the names of diseases.
* If you don't eat, it will kill me.
* Anything worth saying is worth repeating a thousand times.
* Where there's smoke, there may be smoke salmon.
* Never leave a restaurant empty handed.
* A bad matzah ball makes a good paper weight.
* If you're going to whisper at the movies, make sure it's loud enough for everyone to hear.
* If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.
* But if you can afford it, make sure you tell everyone what you paid.
Cookies Anyone?
08.09.05 (12:06 pm) [edit]
Last week, I got bored but felt creative so I went to the Ceramic Cafe'. I figured we were in need of a cookie jar because I was tired of baking and having to put cookies into a ziplock bag. So why not MAKE one? I searched the store shelves until I found the perfect peice. This was the result. . .
My new cookie jar!
Here's a view of the lid.
This is the inside that corresponds.
I covered the outside with painted on lemon cream oreos and chocolate chip cookies.
This weekend, I'm going to fill it to the brim. :wink:
Blogflux, In Partnership With Hate
08.09.05 (9:01 am) [edit]
Recently, I tried to join another blog directory in order to further publicize my little space on the net here. The blog directory I joined was [url=http://www.blogflux.com]BlogFlux[/url]. Like anyone else, I went through the motions of signing my blog up for this search service. I filled out all of the information properly. I went back a couple days later to make one more update and I noticed that where I had filled out my url in my listing, there now was no url. I thought this was simply a glitch in the system so I emailed their help. My full email is as follows:
control panel isn't
holding onto that information and it shows a
blank where it is
supposed to list my blog url. Help! :/[/i]
The full reply followed from a Mr. Ahmed Farooq:
If its gone, it means it was rejected (you
should have gotten an
email).
What was your URL?
Regards,
Ahmed Farooq[/i]
I was not concerned because I was more than sure now that it was a glitch because I had gotten no notification email, whatsoever. So I gave him my url:
http://redtigress.tblog.com I have an account, it
just doesn't like my
weblog? [/i]
A few days went by. Almost a week. Then, this morning, my email was greated with this "warm" reply:
to be of poor
taste, and against the blogflux directory rules. We
not list blogs that
support such views.
Regards,
Ahmed Farooq[/i]
I was flabbergasted. First off, he is referring to the "Just say no to Islamo-facism" button on the lower right of my blog. That is the kicker. I didn't associate Nazism with Islam. I associate it with ISLAMO-FACISM! Should we say yes to Islamo-facism? If Islamo-facism is what Mr. Ahmed Farooq feels to be true Islam, I can understand his outrage. But, at least according to the moderates in what I'm guessing are his people, ISLAMO-FACISM IS NOT THE WORD OF ISLAM! TERRORISTS ARE NOT TRULY FOLLOWING ISLAM! Or at least they would have you think that.
Let's be truthful here, the real reason why my site was rejected was because Mr. Ahmed wants to censor everything. If he finds something even the slightest bit unsightly to his tastes, he wants to distroy it. What's next at blogflux? No "coloreds" allowed? Maybe in their office there are seperate drinking fountains? Or perhaps there is no need for that because they only hire people of "like minds" into their company.
This is discrimination. Not only that, it's a violation of my free speech. Mr. Ahmed Farooq is suggesting that I change my blog and my views to get into their stupid little directory. I must be censored in order to be acceptable. For this he, and the rest of his cohorts, should be ashamed. Well, I responded to Mr. Farooq. This is what I had to say:
Best regards[/i]
And so let the searching their site begin. Please note that as of when I did the search in the blogflux system, these were my findings. If something in the system has changed since then, perhaps it's because someone called them on their stupidity. I did a search on Israel first at blogflux. I found a grand total of two (that's 2!) blogs that came up. I'll show you those blogs now. This first is this blog: http://www.jacobshwirtz.com/i... and the second has only the blogflux profile: http://dir.blogflux.com/weblo... there offers no url currently on their listing so I can't give you the direct blog. Why might that be? Perhaps because the writer has something contraversial to say? Her profile states that she's a feminist who talks about gay rights and is as she put it "culturally liberal, politically conservative." Perhaps Mr. Farooq sent her an email about how she's in poor taste. Maybe to his blog search, women's rights is poor taste and against their rules.
The next search I did was on the word Jewish. The above blog came up again but the first one I mentioned did not. Another one came up in that search and it is this: http://www.thiswomanswork.com...
A blog where the writer is a mother and writes about motherhood. Maybe Mr. Farooq is pleased with women being in the home as a mother and a mother only. Perhaps women with ideas get their url's deleted while women who profess motherhood are widely advertised. Don't get me wrong, I give great respect to the woman who writes "This Woman's Work." This is the life that she hopefully chose and I can't think of anything more noble than being a mother. My point here is the determined censorship of this search engine and in no way am I upset with this great blogger who made the tough blogflux cut.
The next search was fun. I searched the word Muslim. We got this: http://www.planetgrenada.blog... which featured this "tasteful" photograph:
That blog also offers a link to a "wonderful" Noam Chomsky site. I'm so glad the Officer Farooq of the Taste Police is on the job. What a relief!
Also this blog was found on the search I made: http://maryam-blog.blogspot.c...
And also this: http://misssnaz.blogspot.com/...
And this: http://www.backtoislam.com/
All had working links and full discriptions. All entries existed. There were no problems with any of it. That is, except the problem that I have here. This blogsite is obviously being censored to fit an agenda.
Not to mention, when you do a search on [url=http://dir.blogflux.com/searc...]Politics[/url], you are greated with many sites that are sympathetic to liberal or Islamic causes. I do not feel this to be any kind of coincidence.
And don't get me started on the search for socialism!
And please know that I do understand they have the right to accept or reject anyone they feel unfit for whatever reason. But to parade as a free blog search engine and make it seem that they're alloweing just about anyone is not only wrong, it's disgusting. Furthermore, the pictures that some of these blogs had in which the blog search did allow are worse than anything I've ever posted on my blog in the entire 3 years I've been blogging and I refuse to even post them here. Blogflux may have the "right" to discriminate, but we have the right to boycott.
I would also like to say that I in no way think that these blogs should have to change in order to fit what [i]I[/i] feel to be acceptable. I disagree with many of them, but I feel they have the right to blog as they wish. Blogflux, on the other hand, is completely unprofessional.
Please do not register with blogflux. They are bigots, hypocrites, racists, and favoritists. Is that the precedent you want? Do you want to submit to how blogflux thinks you should run your blog or is that solely your own right? Maybe if blogflux had their way, all the blogsites would be in Arabic. Who knows.
But I do know that blogflux isn't worth it's weight in camal excriment.
[line]
*UPDATE*
With lightning speed after the last email I sent, I recieved this from Mr. Farooq of blogflux:
on our end.
In regards to anti-Israel/anti-Jewish sites - if you
see any listed on
our directory, please email me. Until then, you are
playing yourself to
be a victim. 'Islamo-fascism' is hate, and and I
will not tolerate any
form of hate linked from our directory.
Cheers.
-Ahmed Farooq
So, I calmly have written him a reply now.
I guess that's all people like me do, Mr. Farooq. We play a victim.
Islamo-Facism is hate. You're correct. That's why I say just say no to it. Islamo-facism isn't the word of Islam and it's peaceful teaching. Should we say yes to Islamo-facism? Islamo-facism is like nazism as it surpresses ideas and freedom as well as advocates killing those who disagree, unlike the teaching of true Islam. Or at least that is what I was taught.
But I guess you wouldn't know that because if you don't like or understand something, you surpress it rather then find out what it's about. I guess free thought and intellect are lost. Dare I see any connection here. And I have found at least one distasteful blog, that is the exact opposite of mine, on your search. You can find it yourself. While I disagree with them, I won't move to surpress them either. At least one of us believes in freedom.
But your site that you're looking for has an offensive and representation of Prez Bush and it also has a palce for anti-Zionism and links for Noam Chomsky. Enjoy looking for it.
I've also found that the majority of blogs on your site fit what would seem to be your criteria for taste. There are few that are pro-Israel or any similar stand my blog takes.
I think we know where blogflux's bread is buttered.
Good Day.
This is nihilism at it's best. I can't judge Islamo-fascists, but this jerk-off can judge me and my blog that has existed, with the said "offensive material," for 3 years longer than blogflux itself.
I hope he chokes on his coffee.
Ask me again why I believe in the death penalty?
08.08.05 (1:19 pm) [edit]
Ask me again why I'm for the death penalty after you read about what happened here. I hope these men die. Unfortunately, the UK abolished the death penalty. And as far as I know, if this were in the US, they'd not be tried for a death penalty offense. These men deserve to die for what they've done to this poor girl. Her life is in ruins. Her family distroyed. She will never get her life back. Why should they? Rapist gloated to victim's mother A gloating rapist called his teenage victim's mother on a stolen mobile phone to tell her about the depraved attack. Armed with a screwdriver, he subjected the 15-year-old girl to two sickening sex assaults in west Belfast. A second thug used a metal bar to batter three boys she was with and stop them rescuing her. The girl, who is from the north of England but was holidaying in Belfast, has been left severely traumatised by the double rape. Police chiefs shocked by the brutality of the attack have launched a major hunt for the men, both in their late teens. Chief Superintendent Ken Henning said: "This was horrendous and disgraceful. It has caused untold distress to the victims and their families." The girl and her friends were confronted by the pair as they walked along Blacks Road just before 3am. Cash and mobile phones were stolen before the girl was dragged into a BP petrol station forecourt and raped. The boys, two 15-year-olds and one aged 14, were ordered to strip to the waist and beaten repeatedly. The terrified youngsters were then taken up a driveway at the nearby Colin Valley Golf Centre where the girl was raped again. "The individuals who carried out the attack took her mobile phone, rang her mother and told her what they had done," Mr Henning added. Mum tells of rape victim's ordeal | ||||
The girl was with three teenage boys when they were confronted by two young men. One raped the girl on Blacks Road while the other threatened her friends. Her attacker then used the girl's mobile phone to call her mother. The girl's mother said her daughter had been confident when she went on holiday to NI but was now withdrawn and scared. "She's not the same girl we sent over here," she said. "She went over a lively, confident, bubbly teenage girl and now she's withdrawn and clingy and scared." The woman said she just wanted to bring her daughter back home. "I want these people to pay for what they've done," she said. "They are very distinctive. The descriptions are very detailed, somebody must know who they are.
"What sort of people would know who they are and say nothing? It's not like they've done something minor. They put her through it twice and the boys she was with were forced to watch that. "Where's the humanity, what sort of people are they?" The victim's mother has appealed for anyone with information to contact the police. "Nothing that gets done is going to help these kids get back what they've lost. "All four kids involved have lost their confidence, they've lost their dignity, they've lost a lot more, mobile phones, jewellery. "I'm asking anybody that knows anything: 'Just give them something back and give any information that's going to help'."
Police have described the girl's attacker as being in his late teens with bleached blond hair, five foot eight or nine inches tall and with a chipped front tooth, which is decaying. The second youth, who held back her friends and threatened them, is described as being about 17, with a short, bleached fringe, an earring in his left ear and wearing one or more sovereign rings. Chief Superintendent Ken Henning described it as an horrendous crime. "We are dealing here with a crime against four young people and I want to re-emphasis the impact of that crime against the young girl specifically," he said. "She will have to live with this and bear the scars of this for the rest of her life. "That's why it is so important that people do contact us with information. Someone out there, somewhere knows, suspects who these people are." A man arrested in connection with the attack has since been released. | ||||
She will have to live with this and bear the scars of this for the rest of her life 
Right, Left: In Conservative Defense
08.08.05 (12:53 pm) [edit]
Only a fool would presume to speak for the whole of a group. That is not my goal here. In this writing I shall try to purely speak for myself on my grounds and stances. However, if I do speak in generals, know that it is in the presumption that a few others are in agreeance with my thoughts.
That said, I would like to speak about some statements I saw floating around a fellow blogger's post. I am aware that the post was in no way directed at my person. However, I found it somewhat slanderous to the group in which I associate, with all due respect to the writer.
In speaking about rules and classifications, some generalizations were made. Yes, rules can help and can hurt. However, in an ethical society, the emphasis on rules is in place to only be helpful. Those rules deemed unhelpful or unethical are cast out and rejected from law.
The need for law is of all importance because, as others have noted, without it, we sink into chaos and our societies suffer for it. Ancient laws do have some bearing. Not all of them, but many. Ancient laws also evolve to fit the times and new contexts they meet. Conservatives, or traditionalists, do not cling but rather implement these laws because of the wisdom they hold. Things as old as murder, rape, theft -- all of them have prohibitions in order to make our world safe for young and old. Traditional views are valuable because they not only can help to foster a safe society, they teach us how to be better people as we evolve.
Change is iminent. And due to that fact, at least this conservative does not fear it. No matter what happens to either side of the political spectrum, change will happen. Liberal change or conservative change. The issue is, who will win out in the end. Liberals want to push the envelope and see how much they can change that belongs to the conservatives. In many cases, conservatives do the same.
Look at Roe V. Wade. Liberals changed the face of what we consider legal. The idea that a child is not yet alive and thus may be terminated came into play with that famous ruling. This upset conservatives, at the time. It continued to do so. Now, conservatives are trying to change things once more.
This time, many feel there needs to be a balance. If there is to be abortion, let's not be able to go crazy with it. With power comes responsibility. There must be moderation. There must be rules. Abortion on demand is seen as bad for the society for many reasons that I won't go into here but have gone into many times in the past. This regulation is driving liberals crazy. They do not want things to change. They do not want moderation.
Or at least it would seem so. A balance must be struck in order to acheive a kind of harmoney. Problems arise when either side is not willing to budge. Those who think it should be outlawed completely are not in the majority of the right as much as those who think it should be completely unregulated are on the left. A balance must be struck. The liberal fear of change is unwarrented but only to continue to hold power.
People in their right mind (pardon the pun) are those that seek to change the rules for the better of the individual but also for society. Those who are opposed to such regulation only care about the individual. They are not looking at the big picture. These are the so called progressives. These are the ones actually stopping the progress with their fear.
A quote from a blog I looked at goes as follows:
[i]In general, conservatives favor stronger rules because they value order over chaos. Liberals and progressives favor fewer rules because they favor creativity in solving the problems in our society.[/i]
I must say I found this rather insulting. To paraphraise, it is the conservatives that seek rules because they don't care about people, they care about not having chaos. It is us lax progressives who want to really help you and really make things better. With all due respect to the writer of this, I find it silly to say the least.
As I've already noted, rules are there to help people. Through moderation comes freedom. Pushing the envelope for less regulatory action is simply irresponsible. Making statements like the above to make progressives sound cooler than conservatives is also irresponsible, at least in the manner in which I took it. Both sides, I would hope, want to make things better. Either side just have different ideas. The logical implications of these ideas are the way they win out in the eyes of the public and the powers that be.
Another myth floating around is that those who claim to be pro-life are really pro-punishment. Conservatives are not megalomaniacs who seek to punish people for zero wrong doing. The conservative culture is a culture that emphasizes the need for self responsibility. Being pro-life does not punish the mother by making her pregnant. It does not punish her for having sex. She chose to take the risk of pregnancy when she chose to have sex.
To punish the unborn with death simply for no action at all is far worse than asking that a mother, with no health risks, take responsibility for her actions as a person and as a new mother. I think people who take this stance are the true pro-punishment. They fail to see the big picture and to disreguard people's prior actions in order to make excuses for unwarranted execution. Individuals only matter if they can speak for themselves and hold a rally. They also only matter if they can make excuses for bad behavior.
Which leads me to wonder why people so bent on being able to terminate an unwanted person are so eager to come to the defense of criminals who are the ultamate unwanted. A child is innocent, born free of sin. A person who breaks the law and even takes other human life in cold blood is not. Those are the people that deserve to answer for themselves. The unborn should not have to answer for others.
And yet conservatives are pro-punishment because they feel people should have to answer for their wrongdoings. There should be jails. There should be penalties including death. There should be consequences. However, those do not include the kind that are cruel and unusual because that is deemed unethical and rightfully so.
Of course, the quote that I found most alarming as well as insulting:
[i]The radical right however wants to erase the progress that liberals have made over the last 100 years. [/i]
Is that so? How arrogant. Liberals are the only ones that evolve. Liberals are the only ones for change. Liberals are the saving grace of humanity.
Tell me what the radical left has really acomplished that is so great over the past 100 years? Lack of self responsibility. War. Unlawful execution. Genocide. The list goes on and on.
But there is no point in pointing fingers. There is no point in name-calling. The point is that rules and laws must be balanced to insure the rights of ALL people, be they Black, White, Jewish, Arab, Asian, Latino, or still in the womb.
And if that is a bad conservative idea, then we've truly lost all of our humanity.
Do You Know The Facts About Gaza?
08.08.05 (11:11 am) [edit]
I received this via email and took the quiz. Even I got 6 out of 9 correct! I highly recommend taking this quiz to see if you know what you think you know about this issue.
Art?
08.08.05 (8:20 am) [edit]
"I never paint dreams or nightmares. I paint my own reality." --Frida Kahlo
In the many contexts that art originates from, in most cases, art as seen as a liberating medium. The artist, free to express themself offer up beauty, ideas, and sometimes ugliness to prove a point. Art has been used to shock. Art has been used to glorify different living forms of life. Art has been abused in order to insult and to anger.
All and all, it can be a touchy subject. Many artists crave criticism, while others shun it of any kind because who are other people to judge their genius. Traditionally, the artist can be characterized as a lunatic, a narcessist, or a pioneer. The eternal question is what drives people to create things the way they do. For each artist, there are different reasons.
Since the donning of time, there have been artists. And ever since artists emerged, art critics as well.
When you see a work, you automatically drum feelings for your personal past and who you are in order to judge. Everyone judges everything, no matter how much we try to be impartial, it is in our nature to judge. From a work of art to an incident that inspired such a work. So that, when you see a piece, you have an instant opinion about it. You either love it or you hate it, initially. Sometimes it can grow on you over time. Most of the time, your gut instict tells you all you need to know.
Art has evolved over the ages. From information about herds of livestock to statements of beauty to statements of political offiliation. Art lives on and changes with the times.
In the days we live in, art has taken on a new order. And the art critic is almost obsolete. If you don't like a piece, it's not because you as a human have a right to dislike it, it's because you're an idiot, you don't get it, or you're a fascist who wants to regulate everything.
When did this happen?
Some of us may remember a few years back in New York where an artist painted the Virgin Mary in dung. Then Mayor Rudolf Giuliani found it insulting to his religion, of which other people besides him follow, and decided to cut government funding as a result because the taxpayers should not have to pay for what he felt to be hateful. Mr. Giuliani was widely criticised for that. Everything from censorship to fascism was he accused of.
That would be like me taking an enormous crap on a plate and sticking the Koran right in the middle of the mound and calling it art. I would feel it was art. My intent would be to exibit it. Don't think for a moment the ACLU would be not all over my butt. Not only that, there would be a fatwa out for my beheading.
Since that incident in New York, it has opened the flood gates for people to "fight back," push the envelope and come up with even more disturbing pieces of "art" in order to shock. Now don't get me wrong, I think art is a freedom of expression that we all are endowed with the capabilities for. We can no less silence the artist any more than we can silence the KKK rallies.
But should the government have to pay for KKK rallies?
I'm all for art being free, but why do The People have to foot the bill if they may or may not like it? Private donations are one thing. Mandatory donations are quite another.
Case in point, the new "art" credits being offered at universities. In the [i]San Francisco Weekly[/i], a Johnathan Yegge discribed his "work" at the San Francisco Art Institute. He got full course requirements for this exhibition and I wonder how many parents, alumni, and other contributers feel about how their money is being spent. What he discribes of his "artwork" is as follows:
[i]He [Yegge's student volunteer] was tied up. He had a blindfold and a gag, but he could see and talk through it. He had freedom of movement of his pelvis. I engaged in oral sex with him and he engaged in oral sex with me. I had given him an enema, and I had taken a shit and stuffed it in his ass. That goes on, he shits all over me, I shit on him. There was a security guard present. There was an instructor from the school present. It was videoed, and the piece was over.[/i]
This is the new art. This is what the future holds for the art world. We as a people have gone from the Venus De Milo to this. This is getting public funding. This has gone too far.
[i]But who am I to judge? [/i]Some might say. What I call art may not be art to others and what others call art may not be art to me. This is a free society. Bunk.
That might very well be, but I sure as heck don't want to pay for it. I sure as heck don't want my children to be exposed to this when they get to school and I really sure as heck don't want this to be the social norm. should it be banished completely? No. If the public (myself included) doesn't like it there's nothing wrong with us hating it. It can find another place where we don't have to sponser it.
As a society, we hold the key to standards of conduct. We are responsible to ourselves, but we also have a responsibility to eachother. If we are to thrive, if we are to make this world a good place for our children to live, we must feel free in our free society to openly discuss things we don't like or approve of.
Art is many things, but the consensus decides what art is. The consesnsus always decides what we are to accept into our world. If we take a stand to ban racism, that means all racism. If we take a stand to ban certain public practices, that means all unworthy public practices.
The power of the artist resides in all of us.
So does the power of the art critic.
Under the Media Radar
08.07.05 (7:21 am) [edit]
Yet important developments in those areas routinely slip under the western media radar: The official Palestinian Authority newspaper continues to glorify terrorists, flouting the PA's obligation under the road map for 'all official Palestinian institutions [to] end incitement against Israel.' These two men recently murdered an Israeli couple visiting Gaza, yet the official PA paper described them as Shahids ― 'holy martyrs': All Palestinian journalists, moreover, have been banned from covering internal Palestinian conflict or the PA security forces (violators face 'personal and legal consequences of their deeds'), and urged to celebrate Israel's Gaza 'retreat'. This clearly fails the all-important 'town square test' recently endorsed by Condoleeza Rice, citing Natan Sharansky: Meanwhile, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter visited a Hamas summer camp, where he found this disturbing scene: While the Chronicle should be commended for this coverage (on the heels of its recent, HR-documented slipup), this story ― along with the continued lionizing of the first Palestinian woman suicide bomber as a popular hero ― demands far greater awareness. For more on the problem of Palestinian incitement, visit HR affiliate Teach Kids Peace, and sign the TKP petition calling on world leaders to demand reform in Palestinian education, and media outlets to greater publicize the issue. Why so little western coverage of these disturbing events? Martin Peretz, Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic, explains: The PA has so many times obliged itself to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and the Israelis to stop official incitement against Jews and Israel. But the most grotesque and genocide-provoking hatred for the Jewish people and their state continues to flood the official marketplace of what you might not want to call ideas. I've known this for years, and American journalists have known it for years, but it has gone largely unreported. It's not their kind of story because it ruins the story of Palestinian moderation, to which so many reporters, columnists, and editorialists are wed. As Israel prepares for its painful withdrawal from Gaza, HonestReporting calls on western news outlets to recognize the ongoing media restrictions, incitement and education to hate in Palestinian culture ― which threaten Israel's voluntary effort to generate peace with its Palestinian neighbors.
Recent media coverage of the Mideast conflict has focused almost entirely on internal Israeli tension as Israel's 'disengagement' from Gaza approaches. It's broadly recognized, though, that Israel's sacrifice of its Gaza communities will only foster peace if accompanied by deep cultural reform on the other side ― including Palestinian education for coexistence, and a free, moderate press. 
if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. And we cannot rest until every person living in a fear society has finally won their freedom.
"In this camp we learn the important things of life ― good behavior, respect," said Osama, who was spending the summer at a Hamas-run camp on the beach outside Gaza City. They also learn how to sing "intifada songs," including one urging them to "kill Zionists wherever they are, in the name of God."
Here's a sample camp activity: 
At one beach camp, attended by approximately 100 kids, an instructor wore a heavy flannel shirt under which a webbed belt could be seen strapped to his stomach. Asked by a reporter what it was, he answered, with a broad smile, "Boom!"
Web Picks
08.04.05 (6:22 pm) [edit]
I was surfing around the net tonight, for lack of anything better to do, and I came upon two very interesting things that I'd thought I'd share.
Firstly, I found a site that appealed to me greatly. . .
I used to be a goth when I was in highschool (I know some of you are pretending to be shocked, while some of you who don't know me genuinely are shocked) and I thought this site was great because it appealed to my senses. They are represented by both Republican Goths and Libertarian Goths. Pretty neat if you ask me!
The second thing I found came from [url=http://protestwarrior.com]ProtestWarrior.com[/url]. It's one of their Tshirts in which I was compelled to order one for myself.
I think everyone should have a look at these picks. Even if you don't necissarily agree with what they have to say, it's good to expand your horizons. And if ya do, well then have a good time anyhow! :)
Organic, Free Range
08.03.05 (10:37 am) [edit]
Some would say that keeping a strict Kosher diet would be restriction enough. So why is it that I'm more compelled to further "restrict" my diet to include only organic and free range meats? Why would I only want to buy organic, free range eggs? What about veggies? Just say no pesticides! Kosher food is expensive enough. Why go further into the expense by only using stuff that is "all natural?"
In the Torah, we are commanded to be good to our bodies and we also should keep ourselves clean and healthy. It's a Mitzvah! Keeping Kosher keeps the Jewish soul healthy. That being the case, eating clean foods that are free of toxins and hormones, must fall into that same commandment. We are also commmanded to not only be good to other humans, but also to animals. We act with should respect and act in a humane fashion in regard to lower living beings.
Well, believe it or not, I've decided to take this challenge on as best I can. Crazy, you say? Perhaps. Silly? I don't think so. Pointless? Absolutely not.
Before I go any further in my explanations, I'd like to share with you a website that has a short movie.
The Meatrix is a clever knock off of that other, more popular movie. They also have information on free range and organic foods on their main page. I had been toying with this idea for some time, but this little movie finally sealed the deal for me. Don't worry, it's not gory or inapropriate. It's not like some PETA horror flick. In fact, it's just a cute little cartoon with a pig named Neo and a cow named Moofeous. I won't show gory or disgusting fottage like that, so rest assured.
Now, mind you, I don't agree with everything this site stands for. However, their original premis and their entertaining flash film and some of their information is a very good place for one to start.
That said, I would also like to say that I am not against eating meat. I think that meat is an essential part to the human diet. Meat is good. Meat is good for you. I like meat!
In fact, what's compelled me towards this was meat. That's the thing that really makes me want to do this.
You see, I believe in not being cruel to the animal while it's alive. In fact, that is one of the reasons for my keeping Kosher. You see, when an animal is killed in a Kosher manner, it is the most humane way, by law. It is quick, virtually painless, and the animal should not be made to suffer one bit. Also, the animal must be healthy, without broken bones or disease. For non Jews, you still are commanded to be humane, not necissarily keeping Kosher, but humane as far as animal meat is concerned.
In examining that point, why is it that we as people would not allow an animal to suffer while we kill it, yet we'd mistreat it during it's life? Why would we feed an animal bad food or even ground up peices of its own kind (resulting in things like mad cow disease)? I'll tell you why. It's because we don't care. We're going to eat it, so why should we make it comfortable for the short time before we do that? In my opinion, that is neither humane, Kosher, or even right on a moral level.
Likewise, these animals deserve to not be stuck in a stall, unable to move. Free range livestock move about and exercise as well as eat the right kinds of food. This, in turn, is not only good for the animals, it is also good for us. This is because when that animal eats, we injest with it when we eat it. It helps to keep us healthy because if the animal isn't sick, surprise, we don't get sick from eating them!
Animal cruelty aside, every year approximately 25 million pounds of antibiotics and related drugs are administered to animals for non-therapeutic purposes (i.e. boosting growth rates and preventing disease). This is more than 8 times the amount used to treat disease in humans. I don't want to eat something that has a poor immune system and has been given growth hormones to make it larger and thus more productive. YUCK!
This is the part of the Organic Kosher diet that I stress the most. You can have you cakes, cookies, oreos and Krispy Kremes, but if you eat meat, eat Free Range. And try and keep it to be Kosher Free Range if you can.
Take it a step further with veggies and produce. Most comercial farms use pesticides that not only hurt the environment, they also go into your body. If we eat to stay alive and healthy, why would we want to put poisen into our body? Even if it has been proven "safe" by government agencies.
Does anyone remember hearing about DDT?
DDT was a pesticide used on farms up until the late 70s. It has a VERY long halflife and it basically never goes away. It also can pass into your system causing anything from health problems to birth defects. It has been outlawed in the United States, but countries in South or Central America still use it today. Guess where a lot of out produce comes from!
The solution, locally grown, organic produce and Free Range (also Kosher for me) meat. You can find it at places like your local farmer's markets, to Henrey's to Whole Foods. Yes, it's a little bit more in the price depot, but what's your health worth?
And I am not one to be against progress. But when progress poisons our food supply, then I don't think it's progress anymore. If factory farms could be healtier for both animals and humans, we'd not be talking about this here. The fact of the matter is that family farms and non corperate machine grocers care more about quality, not quantity. And I'd venture to say that if we had more quality than quantity in our foods that would probably help significantly to reduce obesity and heart disease (as well as other problems) in our country.
It furthers cleanliness, humanity, and happiness of all species.
That is why I have deccided to try and keep to an organic and Free Range diet as much as I an in addition to keeping Kosher.
Please check out the website above and at least think about what I've covered here today.
Peace.
Quote For Today: Again Dedicated To tBlog's Politics Section
08.01.05 (7:48 pm) [edit]
[b]"[i]Everyone has a purpose in life. Perhaps yours is watching television.[/i]" --David Letterman[/b]
