Overheard on the subway...

I was on the subway this morning, when I overheard a very telling comment. It is the very picture of 'liberal fascism.'

I cannot believe the Republicans are even running a candidate in this election. They should be taken out and shot for how they have ruined this country.

That is an exact quote I overheard. This person think she is the height of morality and superiority, in comparison to ChimpyMcHalliburton.

Illiberal liberalism at its 'finest.'

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

Continuing the theme of getting OUR OWN house in order first...

A few days ago, the Jerusalem Post wrote of a Canadian court case that upheld the ban on listing the birthplace of Canadian citizens born in Jerusalem as "Jerusalem, Israel." Feel free to read more about this case right here.

A federal policy that bans Canadians from listing Jerusalem, Israel, as their birthplace on their passport does not violate the Charter of Rights, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.

In 2006, Eliyahu Veffer, a 19-year-old Canadian citizen born in Jerusalem, requested that the minister of foreign affairs list Israel as his country of birth on his Canadian passport. His request was rejected, and last week a three-judge panel ruled against his appeal.

"Mr. Veffer has not been discriminated against in that his human dignity has not been invaded," the judges wrote. "Mr. Veffer still maintains the freedom to express his faith and his subjectively held views as to the status of Jerusalem, he is just not able to do so in his Canadian passport."

The decision maintains that the ban on listing Israel as the birth country alongside Jerusalem is not discriminatory, despite the fact that Israel is the only country that is banned from being listed when cities in disputed territories are concerned.

It is easy to be mad at Canada. I was ready to get in line to sing the "Blame Canada" song with everyone else, but then I thought...how can I blame Canada when in fact the same situation exists in the United States? How can I blame Canada when this issue receives so little attention to begin with, and any concern about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and U.S. passports has pretty much been swept under the carpet?

I was researching this issue, and I found a wonderful article concerning the U.S. legal status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Please read this. An excerpt:

In his first campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush repeatedly promised to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital city of Jerusalem - a move long sought by the Jewish state.

Moreover, he said, he would do this immediately upon assuming office. He was courting the Jewish vote, to be sure - but he was also following an overwhelming mandate from Congress, where, as far back as 1995, an almost-unanimous bipartisan majority had voted in favour of the transfer.

Whether Bush's actions amount to a flip-flop is for the political pundits to decide, but it is a fact that Bush has never made good on his promise. For a president who appears to be uncompromising when it comes to refusing to coddle Palestinians, the question remains: why?

The article goes on...

Even then the department pushed a stubbornly biased policy of refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

One bizarre result was that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem have never been able to carry passports showing their birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel - only Jerusalem.

The situation continues today, even after G.W. Bush signed a law explicitly to change this, because, you guessed it, Bush flip-flopped on the matter. Surprisingly, the BBC has a great article on this issue. (maybe because Bush does not look so favourable?)

There is the political will to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and change the place of birth for US citizens born in Israel (or at least was at various points during Bush's presidency). And yet, nothing happened.

The status quo remains, and yet many American Jews have the gall to blame Canada???

No. As an American, I say that we need to clean our own shop before we lecture ANYONE about theirs.