Mr. Romney goes to Israel; Jewish voters say "Meh"....

Cross posted at Daily Kos

In the last week Mitt Romney has gone on what can be best described as an "around the world train wreck". In one week he has managed to piss off our strongest ally (the British) and then turn around and completely insult and anger the Arab World and any erstwhile ally or friend we have in the region outside of Israel.

All of this has been covered to the nth degree so there is no real need to rehash the information, HOWEVER, it is worth noting that in his shameless pandering to the Evangelical and Right wing voters (Including the hard fringe of the Jewish Right both here in the U.S. and in Israel) he manages to completely get in the way of the alliance that President Obama is building to counter Iranian hegemonistic interests in the region.

How did he do this? With his typical attempt to play both sides of an issue. First, he told the Israelis that he would call:

Jerusalem "the capital of Israel," ignoring their own claims to the city and most world opinion.

but when questioned on this issue he refused to say if he would actually do that. As the Egypt Gazette reported:

In an interview with CNN, Romney refused to be pinned down on whether he would recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital if he beats Obama and wins the White House. 

"A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital," he said.

"I think it's long been the policy of our country to ultimately have our embassy in the nation's capital, Jerusalem. The decision to actually make the move is one, if I were president, I would want to take in consultation with the leadership of the (Israeli) government which exists at that time. So I would follow the same policy we have in the past (vb1 emphasis)."

In other words... "I plan to do nothing, but, I want gullible American voters and their allies in other nations to think that I might do something AND in the meanwhile I will get any alliances the President Obama might be building and put them in jeopardy". 

Now, hopefully other nations seeing this, as well as the debacle that Romney made out of the British leg of his trip, will hopefully understand that Romney is NOT the President of the United States and does not speak for our nation.

But back to the main point of this diary...

Last week Gallup released yet another poll showing the race in terms of President Obama vs. Mitt Romney with Jewish voters. Following along with most polls of the Jewish American electorate in the words of The Forward:Obama Thumping Romney Among Jews: Poll GOP Candidate Trails 68%-to-25% as He Heads to Israel:

On the eve of presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel, a new Gallup poll reveals that Jewish American voters continue to support his rival, President Barack Obama, by a wide 68%-25% margin.

Now these numbers have been fairly consistent and that has led many Republicans and their ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) flacks to crow about how the President is "bleeding" Jewish support. Why do they do this? Well in the 2008 election, President Obama won the Jewish vote approx. 78%-22%. So, when they see the 68% number they immediately try to spin the information in their favor to feed the meme that the President is losing support amongst Jewish voters. 

BUT, hold the phone (as they say)... Is the President REALLY "bleeding" support from Jewish voters? The answer is... "Not so much". Let's look at the Gallup polls prior to the 2008 election at this time in fact... Quite the opposite seems to be happening. According to Gallup in July of 2008 then Senator Obama led John McCain 61%-31% NOW President Obama leads Mitt Romney 68%-25%.

As Mitt Romney tacks harder to the Right he risks losing even MORE Jewish support as Jewish voters tend to be more liberal voters. His continued gaffes including refusal to speak out on the conversion of Holocaust Victims to the LDS Church, or scheduling a dinner on Tisha B' Av, or basically showing himself to be completely unversed in Middle Eastern politics are not "confidence builders' to say the least. Let's also not forget that his domestic agenda (which as far as anyone can see is "Bring back the Bush team" and cut taxes for the super wealthy and not a whole lot else) is hardly inspiring to anyone outside the far-right and the lunatic fringe.

To the International Olympic Committee, "Jewish blood is cheap"

Or so went the headline just a week-and-a-half ago, when noted historian Deborah Lipstadt (who knows a thing or two about antisemitism) criticized the IOC for making all manner of excuses to avoid giving some long overdue respect to 11 Israeli participants in the 1972 Munich Olympics who were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. As Lipstadt wrote:

Why the IOC refusal? The Olympic Committee’s official explanation is that the games are apolitical. The families were repeatedly told by long-time IOC President Juan Samaranch that the Olympic movement avoided political issues. He seemed to have forgotten that at the 1996 opening ceremony he spoke about the Bosnian war. Politics were also present at the 2002 games, which opened with a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11.

Very interesting, yes? It's somehow "political" to pay respect -- beyond insincere lip service -- to Olympic athletes who were murdered by terrorists in the Olympic Village, but not political to... um... uh... delve into politics that don't ostensibly have to do with the Olympics.

Even more interesting: tonight, during the 2012 London Olympics' Opening Ceremonies, there were moments of silence for fallen soldiers (because there's nothing political about the Iraq War, right?) and the victims of another terrorist attack, this one in London on July 7, 2005. Neither of which had anything to do with the Olympics either, though you might quibble on the latter -- it was just the day before that London was awarded these Games, though it doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that London would have been attacked that day no matter which city was announced as the host.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with the moments of silence the IOC has held. It seems to me that all of the groups they've recognized with moments of silence have deserved that respect. What troubles me is that the one group they refuse to recognize is the one group of victims of terrorism who were murdered on their watch, in no small part due to their shoddy security.

But I also have some sympathy for the argument that the Games should be free of politics, that they should be about bringing people together from all nations, setting aside any conflicts, and celebrating all that is good about sports.

So I'm left to wonder again why it is that the IOC thinks it's too "political" to commemorate Israeli athletes murdered at the Olympics, in the Olympic Village, but somehow a "reasonable accommodation" to do this:

The Lebanese judo team at the 2012 London Olympics refused to practice next to the Israeli one on Friday afternoon, and a makeshift barrier was erected to split their gym into two halves...

Organizers accepted the Lebanese coach’s demand to separate the teams, erecting a barrier so that the Lebanese team wouldn’t see the Israeli one.

Are we all clear on that? It's too "political" to commemorate Olympic athletes murdered at the Olympics, in the Olympic Village by terrorists, but it's a "reasonable accommodation" to set aside the Olympic creed of not being political, of bringing athletes of all nations together to compete, of protecting the delicate eyes of the Lebanese judokas from having to recognize the existence of Israelis.

At a minimum, that's hypocrisy. And it sure seems like cowardice, that Jacques Rogge, the head of the IOC, and his minions are so worried about the "political implications" of acknowledging that Olympic athletes were murdered at the Olympics by terrorists that they can't be bothered to give a damn about the political statement they're so clearly making.

I think Deborah Lipstadt identified that statement quite well:

This was the greatest tragedy to ever occur during the Olympic Games. Yet the IOC has made it quite clear that these victims are not worth 60 seconds. Imagine for a moment that these athletes had been from the United States, Canada, Australia, or even Germany. No one would think twice about commemorating them. But these athletes came from a country and a people who somehow deserve to be victims. Their lost lives are apparently not worth a minute.

Shame on you, Jacques Rogge, and shame on the IOC for sacrificing your proclaimed ideals in favor of antisemitic politics.

 

Is the Bulgarian Bomber a Western Caucasian? If So, It Would Be Very Significant Moment in Terrorism.

Note:  This post is, at the moment, idle speculation.

By now we've all seen the grainy security camera footage of a person suspected of being the suicide bomber behind the recent attack that killed five Israelis at an airport in Bulgaria.  Here's the image:

In addition, there is his fake Michigan Drivers License.  

If you asked me to read the fuzzy tea leaves, I would say that this person looks like a Caucasian Westerner -  i.e. a white person from Europe or North America not of Arab, Persian, or South Asian descent.  (He also looks like a total disgusting skeevy sleezeball who belongs in the back row of an Eagles concert in 1978, but that is besides the point here.)

If this bomber does indeed turn out to be a Western Caucasian, presumably a convert to Islam, then this would be a very significant development in the history of Islamic and anti-Israel terror.

There have been previous non-Arabs and even non-Muslims involved in carrying out in anti-Israel terror, for instance the Japaneses Red Army Faction-led attack at Israel's Lod Airport in 1972.  Also it has been documented that Germans helped the Munich Olympics terrorists in 1972 and the hijackers of the Air France plane in Entebbe in 1976.  Also, there are infamous cases of Caucasian Americans joining the Al Qaeda network, such as Adam Gadahn and John Walker.  


However, in the cases mentioned above, the perpetrators were either aligned with a supposedly secular, leftist cause (as in the case of the anti-Israel incidents in the 70s), or joined Islamists to fight on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Somalia, or Yemen.  In all cases, these perpetrators were not involved in suicide operations.  There have been other, non-Caucasian, converts to Islam who have been involved in suicide operations, such as shoe-bomber Richard Reid and Guantanamo inmate Jose Padilla, but these, in addition to not being Caucasian, were also not primarily targeting Israel, but rather the West from which they felt alienated.


If the Bulgarian bomber indeed turns out to be a white American or European convert to Islam, it will mark a watershed moment in terrorism and Islamist violence.  It will mean that Islamists have begun to successfully recruit white Westerners to their diabolical evil cause, not just to play soldier but as actual suicide bombers.  And it will mean that those converts are especially motivated by the the antisemitic - and not just the anti-Western - manifestation of their hate-filled ideology.  Such a thing would probably throw current counterterrorism strategy in the US, Europe, and even Israel for a huge loop, as they have focused traditionally on Arab and South Asian men, or black converts to Islam.  


And I would not discount the possibility that the Bulgarian bomber could turn out to be not a convert to Islam, but a white American or European secular far-leftist or Paulbot, who has been recruited to the anti-Israel and antisemitic cause as so many have been.  This too would be a watershed, for it would signal the first time that a secular Westerner would have been pushed by their Israel hate and antisemitism to the level of suicide terrorism.  I have written before about the unholy alliance between Islamists, secular far-leftists, and isolationists, so perhaps such a thing, if it did not happen in this instance, is only a matter of time.  


The sad reality is that there are more than 6 billion people in the world and among those will inescapably be a fraction prone to mentally unstable behavior manifesting in extremist ideologies and violence.  There is no reason to think that such plagues will not infest a number of White westerners to the point where they will be willing suicide pawns in service of extremist evil.  Counterterrorism strategies will have to be updated to recognize that the threat may come from all ethnicities, backgrounds, and even genders.  And those of us who abhor such hateful ideologies will have to redouble our efforts to reach out to our family and acquaintances to arrest, to the extent we can, the descent into madness.  Evil is coming to your community, most likely.

Will the Media Call Romney Camp Out on Its Racism?

Posted by Ian Reifowitz at Daily Kos

Now it's just getting ridiculous. After Mitt Romney characterized Barack Obama's ideas as "foreign" earlier this week as well as last week, one of his advisers stooped to a new low yesterday in London.
From the Telegraph (UK):

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special," the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

The Romney campaign has now directly cited Obama's race, his African ancestry, as a factor that makes him a bad President. Apparently a black man can't be as good a President as a white, Anglo-Saxon man simply because his race renders him unable to "fully appreciate" certain important facts.

This might be the most ridiculous comment yet made by a member of the Romney campaign (and that's a pretty high bar to clear). But it's far more than that. It's part of a distinct pattern and a purposeful strategy implemented by Mitt Romney to play on racial fears and the fear of Obama as "the other" in order to gin up votes and distract Americans from his own flaws.

Rather than come clean about his time about Bain Capital, or explain how he can claim to have "retroactively retired" but yet still collect a $100,000 annual salary from 1999 to 2002, or do what his father did during his presidential run and release a dozen years of his tax returns (as opposed to the one return, from 2010, Mitt has released thus far), Governor Romney would rather blow the dog whistle of racism.

There's some evidence that the American media is going to start holding Mr. Romney accountable for the bigotry his campaign is spewing.

But it will take a lot more than a couple of articles on one day. It is time for the media, the whole of the mainstream media, to call Mitt Romney and his campaign out for exactly what it is doing.
Because until the cost to his campaign is greater than the benefits he reaps, Romney will just keep on spewing it.

VFW Speech: MItt Romney Lies about President Obama... Yet Again

Cross posted at Daily Kos

In his speech to the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues along his trajectory of lies and deception about the Presidents policies in the Middle East.

Here is a full transcript of Romney's festival of distortions.

Most of it is fairly boilerplate as Mr. Romney continues to spin a foreign policy that is full of platitudes yet lacking in any substance. But here are some interesting things to point out.

The first thing that struck my eyes was the talking points concerning the adage "Loose Lips Sink Ships" where Mr. Romney is directly criticizing the White House for leaks involving the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden. Romney's comment:

Exactly who in the White House betrayed these secrets? Did a superior authorize it? These are things that Americans are entitled to know – and they are entitled to know right now. If the President believes – as he said last week – that the buck stops with him, then he owes all Americans a full and prompt accounting of the facts.

Now this is particularly rich coming from a man that counts as his "foreign policy experts" the same people that exposed an active CIA agent during wartime for political game due to the fact that her husband opposed the policies of the Bush Administration and had the nerve to do so publicly.  Given his advisors, his voice in this matter carries as much moral voice as an arsonist discussing the needs for fire prevention. It simply cannot be countenanced.

Meanwhile in the "real world" the President has addressed and IS ADDRESSING this. In discussions on June 8th, 2012 the President strongly denied these charges saying:

Obama said he will "root out" those responsible for revelations in the press about a joint US-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear programme using a computer virus known as Stuxnet, the role of the president in deciding a "kill list" of targets of drone strikes in Pakistan, and revelations about a CIA sting operation in Yemen that blocked an attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight.

"The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It's wrong," he said....

...."Since I've been in office, my attitude has been zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation," he said. "We have mechanisms in place where if we can root out folks who have leaked they will suffer consequences. In some cases, it's criminal. These are criminal acts when they release information like this. And we will conduct thorough investigations, as we have in the past."

The Presidents record of killing or capturing more leaders of al-Qaeda than the Bush Administration ever did and doing it with such effectiveness gives lie to the Republicans shameful exercise of rhetoric. Claiming that the White House would purposefully expose national secrets at this level is at best simple projection (given the Republican record on this front).

But let's look at some other distortions or lies in the Romney Speech (and there are really too many to count so I want to focus on a few regarding the Middle East).

I will tell you right here – before I leave – what I think of this administration’s shabby treatment of one of our finest friends.

President Obama is fond of lecturing Israel’s leaders. He was even caught by a microphone deriding them. He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was. And even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem.

Hmmmm aside from agreeing with former French President Sarkozy that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a "pain the ass" (something many Israeli political figures would agree is a "generous assessment"), here are some of the things Israeli leaders have said regarding the President. Here is Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak speaking of the President in November of 2011 in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria:

Ehud Barak: He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security. Traditionally, the president will support Israel in keeping its collective military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don’t think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel

Perhaps Mr. Romney is not familiar with the Israeli Defense Minister or what that position means. But here let's see what the President of Israel Shimon Peres (A U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient - something the President does normally to leaders of countries he wants to disrespect) had to say regarding this President:

"To receive it is an honor. And to receive it from you, Mr. President, is a privilege that I shall cherish forever," Peres said after receiving the medal. "It is a testament to the historic friendship between our two nations. I receive this honor today on behalf of the People of Israel. They are the true recipients of this honor. With this moving gesture, you are paying tribute to generations upon generations of Jews who dreamed of, and fought for, a State of their own. A state that would give them shelter. A state that they could defend. Mr. President, you are honoring the pioneers who built homes on barren mountains, on shifting sands. Fighters who sacrificed their lives for their country. On their behalf, I thank America for days of concern, for sleepless nights, caring for our safety, for our future."

Perhaps Mr. Romney is also not familiar with the Israeli President (and twice Prime Minister of the Country) Shimon Peres.

Finally, here is Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel talking about the President has "undermined" Israel (/snark):

"I would like to express my gratitude to the president of the United States, Barack Obama," Netanyahu said. "I asked for his help. This was a decisive and fateful moment. He said, 'I will do everything I can.' And so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us. We owe him a special measure of gratitude."

"This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States," the Israeli leader said. "This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East."

Binyamin Netanyahu Prime Minister USA Today 9/14/11

Apparently, Mr. Romney never heard of the vote at the U.N. when the U.S. stood in the face of unilateral Palestinian action and convinced the Security Council to vote against such an action. And let's not forget all the other votes at the U.N. where the President stood strongly with it's friend Israel.
Mr. Romney really needs to familiarize himself with the Presidents record here if he wants to criticize. Right now he seems ill-informed about the reality of the region.

And speaking of the U.N. where the U.S. has acted almost alone against the world in defense of it's friend. Romney had this to say:

The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world.

I guess Mr. Romney missed out on the Presidents pushing through of EXTRA funds for Israeli Missle Defense systems, Magic Wand, David's Sling, and Iron Dome (which just today intercepted a rocket from Gaza). Fortunately the people that Mr. Romney claims the President did not support understand the level of Mr. Romney's deception.

The joint US-Israel missile defense programs, including the Arrow and David's Sling are slated to receive $106.1 million in 2012. Congress normally increases this aid by tens of millions of dollars over the administration's request, but it is not certain that this will happen this year.

Global Business News 12/04/11

Unless that person is completely unfamiliar with this administration or the subject, like Mr. Romney seems to be it is easy to see how the ignorance of Mr. Romney's speech would be accepted here.

There were two other things in this speech that I feel it necessary to comment on.

The first was the strange fiction of Mr. Romney saying:

I have been critical of the President’s decision to withdraw the surge troops during the fighting season, against the advice of the commanders on the ground. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat.

and then saying

As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.

Ummm... this is EXACTLY President Obama's plan. I am just going to let that one sit as is.

But also:

Egypt is at the center of this historical drama. In many ways, it has the power to tip the balance in the Arab world toward freedom and modernity. As president, I will not only direct the billions in assistance we give to Egypt toward that goal, but I will also work with partner nations to place conditions on their assistance as well. Unifying our collective influence behind a common purpose will foster the development of a government that represents all Egyptians, maintains peace with Israel, and promotes peace throughout the region. The United States is willing to help Egypt support peace and prosperity, but we will not be complicit in oppression and instability.

So... basically Romney is adopting the Presidents position.  One might notice that though the President of Egypt is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization that absolutely despises Israel and he has said that he will respect all international treaties that Egypt had signed. Now, how does one suppose he got to that position? Hmm? But let's see what the The Obama administration has said in this matter:

She also said Morsi must stick by his commitment to uphold Egypt's international commitments, which include the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

Speaking alongside Clinton, Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr said Morsi had reiterated his commitment to Egypt's treaties.

Perhaps... Mr. Romney should put aside the lies and deceptions and get on with actually understanding what is happening in the region. His lack of knowledge AND honesty in this regard is frankly frightening.

Guns and Violence in America - A Personal Perspective

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

PERSONAL NOTE: I am a gun owner. I own a Glock 17 9mm pistol. I enjoy target shooting and recently I took a class in Tactical Point Shooting (which is learning techniques regarding safety and shooting in an urban environment including dealing with hostage situations, anti-terrorism and other things). I plan to take another more advanced class later in the year.

All this said, I am also in favor of extremely strict Gun Control Laws. I am completely in favor of a ten-day waiting period (and actually would make it 30 days if up to me). I also think that people should have to take a general licensing class (like getting a drivers license) to handle a deadly weapon. If anything, my shooting class taught me just how much I didn't know and just how lethal a weapon like a gun can be. However, I am "pro Second Amendment" and I do not favor a ban on either Assault weapons, or other types of weapons. So this is where I am coming from.

With the tragedy of the killings in Aurora, CO, America has embarked upon "kitchen debates" (because really, the candidates are not touching this one right now) about Gun Control and what role do they play in our society. It has gotten me thinking because I think that I can see both sides of the debate and honestly I think in this case both sides have merit. I also think both sides have their faults.

One thing about Guns is how easy they make it to settle things much more finally and directly. Shooting someone with a gun is much easier than beating someone to death or stabbing them with a knife. I practice a Martial Art (Krav Maga) which is both very aggressive and is designed for combat situations (rather than tournaments). I can say with some authority that fighting is never pretty and you never know how a fight will end. In fights, size, speed, age, agility all matter to varying degrees. Guns... well they take those elements out to a degree. Anyone can pull a gun and anyone can get really lucky. You don't risk firing a gun (or the risk is less) to settle a problem.

Same as with a knife. A gun is much easier to use than a knife. It simply takes certain elements of risk out of knife fighting. There is not that personal contact with the victim. Shooting someone from 20 yards away is very different than stabbing someone. It's a lot less "up close and personal" so to speak.

Statistics in America prove that gun violence is an "epidemic", particularly in poorer, urban areas. Guns have replaced the old "rumbles" where while people did get hurt and rarely killed and turned those fights into battles of life and death. Just a cursory look at statistics bears this out. According to Wikipedia, weapon caused deaths are overwhelmingly caused by guns and handguns in particular. And there is this:

"The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.^[41]"

Then there is this:



a cartoon that a Pro-Gun friend of mine posted on FB. And this to me is telling in how very wrong it is. It is true that if someone had had a gun in Aurora they might have been able to stop the massacre, but the key word here is might. More likely (as was mentioned here), Gun fire from the crowd would have probably caused MORE death and destruction than was already inflicted. (Again, as was mentioned here), Hitting an armored moving target in the confusion and gas would be a completely tough shot. Most likely there would have been more casualties from shooting in this crowded situation. How many more people would have had to die to justify shooting James Holmes.

ON THE OTHER HAND.... Holmes broke no laws in purchasing his weapons. He got things legally,  and given the maniacal, sociopathic nature of the shooting even strict gun control laws probably would not have stopped him. I say probably, because honestly, I don't know all of the details of this event. BUT, it does go to show that indeed the adage regarding "if criminals really want to get guns, they will" is true. It wasn't Gun Control Laws that failed us here.

Also, while people want to "blame" assault weapons, as the Wiki article shows, legally bought assault weapons are not a major percentage of gun deaths. Most people buy them because they are fun to shoot and in my opinion, they are fun to shoot. I don't own an assault rifle and I have no plans to ever do so, I don't really see how I have a need for one however, I do know people that own them and that is exactly how they feel about it.

I think rather than focus on Guns in this debate there is a discussion to be had about the de-sensitization that our society has towards gun violence and violence in general. "Shooter games" that glorify the destructive power of higher and higher caliber weaponry, movies that portray violence as the only way to solve problems (which granted is a lot more fun/escapist to watch than seeing people sitting around a table discussing non-violent conflict resolution), are pervasive in our society. Even in our language to each other. How many times, (and I am as guilty of this as anyone) do we resort to violent language to express ourselves? How many times do we excuse violence as a means to an end?

Violence only touches most of us in cursory ways. I spar for a hobby, yet it's just that. I get the occasional black eye, bloody nose, and have even broken a bone... but it never was "violent" (meaning that it was not done to inflict pain). It was never random, it was not meant with malice, and it is never uncontrolled. Aggresiveness lives in all of us, but violent, or uncontrolled aggressiveness is something that we keep at bay and see as an "outlier" (for good reason I might add).

So what do we do to make this better? I think education is the key. I think there is too much emphasis on violence as the solution and not enough on the short and long term effects of violence. For me, doing martial arts and taking shooting classes shows me the true power inherent in these things. Handling a gun gives you power, understanding the full effects of what you are doing or can do... is sobering IF you truly understand what those effects are. Causing pain, and mayhem is NOT a means in itself unless one is a truly twisted individual and "likes" to cause pain and suffering.

How does this manifest itself.. Society has to have a discussion just what this means. We go to war in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but we don't see the bodies come home or the injuries on T.V. All we see is the bravery and camaraderie and occasionally we see the toll that it takes. But unlike Vietnam we have really no understanding of what is happening. We don't want to see guys/gals coming home in body bags. We don't want to see the effect today's weapons have. It's much more fun to see people get shot up in a game and never have to worry what that really means. We don't want to know about the screams for mercy, the sighs of the dying, the smell of cordite, the burning. It's too inconvenient. I have never experienced that and I pray I never do. But I have a number of friends who have and when they talk about (on rare occasions) it is enough to make me understand that none of this is a joke. We have to be better at communicating this.

I am not proposing a radical shift for our society, what I am saying will take time and patience. I think as a society we have to get over the "bravado" that is enforced and be willing to say "it's ok... there has to be a better way." We have to get rid of the silly hyperbole around violence as it has pervaded our conversations and understand that when we speak the language of hate and violence we simply encourage it more. As we are human, there will be violence. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary. Sometimes it's absolutely needed. But I think it should also be completely understood what that violence means. Would I use my gun if I had too.... I don't know, but, I think I could. I THINK I could shoot someone if my life or the life of my friends and family were at stake. But that would only be as a last resort. It would only be in an actionable situation. I can say, though, that even if I could do it, I would not want to do it.

I only ask that people please discuss this with their friends and their family. Please discuss how hyperbole and the quick use of violent rhetoric can lead to violence. Then think about what the long term effects could be. Is it really worth it.

Peace... Shalom.

Anti-Semitism in Santa Monica?

It appears bigotry knows no geographic bounds, not even in the seemingly tranquil setting of Santa Monica, California as the LA Times reports today a gathering of young leaders of the Friends of Israeli Defense Forces were discriminated against during their planned charity event to raise money for the children of fallen IDF members to attend summer camp. The event was being held at the Hotel Shangri-La owned by Tehmina Adaya whom was quoted by an employee as stating:

In a deposition, Nathan Codrey, who was assistant food and beverage director of the Shangri-La at the time of the gathering, stated that Adaya told him the day of the charity event: "I don't want ... any Jews in my pool."  

Members of the group have sued the hotel for discrimination saying they were told

to take down our literature and banners. The hotel removed our rope and stanchions and guests' towels. Anyone wearing a blue wristband was asked to get out of the swimming pool and hot tub." "They were told they weren't allowed to have banners, that literature was not permitted in the pool area, that the pool was only for hotel guests and that the pool was overcrowded," said James Turken, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
...
"It was my intent and the group's intent that, as long as we were there and knew we belonged there, we were not going to be forced out because of who we were and what we believed in," (Ari) Ryan said.

A sad day in America it is when people believe they can discriminate without consequence. Let us hope this hotel owner learns otherwise.

The Dumbest "Both Parties Do It" Column Ever

By Ian Reifowitz - Cross Posted on Daily Kos

And that is saying something. But it's true.

The column in question, written by CNN's Ruben Navarette, Jr., starts by making the point that, with signs pointing toward Mitt Romney -- after floating Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and other non-white figures -- going with either Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty (T-Paw!) as his VP pick, the Republicans appear to be close to, once again, nominating two white people on the presidential ticket. Nothing out of the ordinary so far.

But then a hint of the "both parties do it" inanity shows up:

This looks like a familiar tease, one used by Democrats and Republicans alike when selecting vice presidential nominees. It starts with casting the net wide, and floating the most diverse set of names possible to give voters the impression that the campaigns put a high premium on diversity.

But you might be thinking: wait a minute, Mr. Navarette. Vice-presidential nominees? You're criticizing both parties equally on the lack of diversity in VICE-presidential nominees? Which party nominated an African-American for NON-VICE President -- also known as President -- you know, the top of the ever-loving ticket? And which party is about to do so again?

But maybe that was just a tic. Maybe Mr. Navarette just forgot about that fact. Let's let one slide and see how the rest of the column goes.

Navarette goes on to urge Romney to do something other than pick a white male, to show that his party isn't just the party of whites, and makes some other reasonable statements on that theme. Then he goes back to "both parties do it."

After mentioning Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008, Navarette rattles off a list of white male VP nominees, right up to Joe Biden in 2008 (conveniently ignoring the truly historic nature of Al Gore's selecting a Jewish running mate, Joe Lieberman, in 2000. I guess that doesn't count as diversity, even though we live in a country where conservatives run around talking about America as a "Christian nation.") Then Navarette offers this gem:

Talk about a wasted opportunity. What would it have meant if, after more than 50 years of happy talk from Democrats, when the time came to act, it was actually a Republican who put the first Latino or first African-American woman on a presidential ticket?

Happy talk? Happy talk? No, the Democrats didn't nominate a black or Latino woman for Vice-President. Do I really have to say this again? OK. Barack Obama. That's a hell of a lot more than "happy talk."

Then, finally, Navarette remembers the current President, and has this to say about the fact that one of the major parties nominated an African American for the top of the ticket:

For one thing, it would have meant that Democrats would have been put on the defensive, and forced to explain to some of their own liberal base why they hadn't broken those barriers years ago. Let's not forget that when the Democratic Party finally nominated an African-American for president, it did so only after a long and bruising primary campaign. It was a contest tainted by vicious race-mongering on the part of some supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Take a deep breath everyone. Yes, Mr. Navarette has just slammed the Democrats for not breaking "those barriers years ago," for not selecting (through an undemocratic choice made by one person) a non-white woman for Vice-President, while essentially dismissing the groundbreaking nomination of the first non-white American for President because it only happened after, wait for it, an actual election in which tens of millions participated.

That election was "long" and some people did say racist things. Because it wasn't easy or a landslide or because there is still racism in America, Mr. Navarette seems to think it wasn't that big an accomplishment in terms of diversity to nominate a black man for President. He thinks that if Mitt Romney picks Condi Rice or Susana Martinez as his running mate, then Barack Obama and the party he leads will be "put on the defensive" when it comes to diversity and the presidential ticket.
Think about the stupidity of that statement.

But stupidity is what you get when you try to to shoehorn a false, "both parties do it" equivalency into an argument where both parties aren't doing it.

Mr. Navarette, if you want to criticize the Republican party for the lack of ethnic and racial diversity on its presidential ticket over the decades, and put some subtle pressure on Mitt Romney to break that trend, then do that. By all means do so.

But don't be afraid of being accused of 'partisanship' or being 'pro-Obama' or even, heaven forfend, a 'liberal.' Sometimes it's true, both parties do it. And sometimes Democrats deserve to be criticized.
But trying to criticize Democrats on diversity in their presidential ticket makes you look stupid. Incredibly stupid.

And this is what happens when media commentators strive for 'balance' instead of truth. They end up looking stupid.

President Obama SUPPORTS moment of Silence for Slain Olympic Athletes

This just in from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA):

(JTA) – President Obama joined the campaign for a moment of silence (vb1 emphasis) at the London Olympics to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the massacre of 11 Israeli Olympians at the 1972 Olympics.

“We absolutely support the campaign for a minute of silence at the Olympics to honor the Israeli athletes killed in Munich,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News in an email.


The families of the victims of the 1972 massacre have mounted a global campaign to get the International Olympic Committee to hold an official moment of silence at the Games -- something IOC officials already have rejected for this year and have never done in the past. However, IOC representatives have attended Israeli and Jewish-organized commemorations....


Aside from Obama, the U.S. Senate, the German Bundestag, the Canadian and Australian parliaments, about 50 members of the British Parliament, the Israeli government, Jewish organizations worldwide and about 100 members of Australia's Parliament have urged the IOC to hold a moment of silence.

Apparently taking a break from cozying up to Nazi Based Jihadi's and "defaming" the Jewish People" (as the lunatic fringe of the Right Wing puts it), the President once again has shown that he is a true friend to both the Jewish and Israeli People.

Also at a campaign stop today in West Palm Beach the President had this to say regarding U.S. ties to Israel:

"And we’ve strengthened our alliances and stood with countries that shared our values. I know a lot of people in this community care about the state of Israel -- (applause) -- and we are heartbroken -- and it’s an important time to talk about this because of these barbaric attacks that happened in Bulgaria -- young people being killed because of this ruthless terrorist attack. And I want everybody here to know, under my administration, we haven’t just preserved the unbreakable bond with Israel; we have strengthened it.   (vb1 emphasis)(Applause.)


We’ve stood by Israel’s side in the face of criticism. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. And obviously this is a moment of great uncertainty in the Middle East given what’s happening in Syria and what’s happening in other places. So now is the time to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect Israel’s security. And I want you to know that that’s something that should transcend party. That’s not a Republican or a Democratic issue. That is an issue of how we work with one of our closest allies in the world that shares our values and believes in democracy. (Applause.)"

Of course, this goes hand in had with phrasing from President Shimon Peres as well as Defense Minister Ehud Barak who had echoed the Presidents words when they said:

(Peres) "To receive it is an honor (the Presidential Medal of Freedom). And to receive it from you, Mr. President, is a privilege that I shall cherish forever," Peres said after receiving the medal. "It is a testament to the historic friendship between our two nations. I receive this honor today on behalf of the People of Israel. They are the true recipients of this honor. With this moving gesture, you are paying tribute to generations upon generations of Jews who dreamed of, and fought for, a State of their own. A state that would give them shelter. A state that they could defend. Mr. President, you are honoring the pioneers who built homes on barren mountains, on shifting sands. Fighters who sacrificed their lives for their country. On their behalf, I thank America for days of concern, for sleepless nights, caring for our safety, for our future."

and from DM Ehud Barak:

Addressing the Home Front's state of preparedness, he noted that the "US is standing by us in an exceptional way and will help us purchase more Iron Dome and Magic Wand systems as well as cruise missiles which could dramatically improve Home Front protection."

Anyway... the most important thing is not only to let the President know we "have his back" in the coming 2012 elections but to support the move by the President to get the IOC to grant that moment of silence to the slain Israeli athletes in the Munich Massacre. Please read Reuven's article here and sign the petition asking that indeed we all support such a memorial.

FINALLY Please keep the families of the slain in the horrible attack in Bulgaria in your thoughts and prayers. YNET released their names. If anyone is in shul this shabbat please remember:

Itzik Kolengi (28) from Petah Tikva,
Amir Menashe (28), also from Petah Tikva,
Maor Harush (25) from Akko,
Elior Priess (26) from Akko
Kochava Shriki (44), of Rishon Lezion.

Obama as "Not American": Sununu's Only Echoing His Boss -- Romney

Reposted from Ian Reifowitz AND Daily Kos by Ian Reifowitz

Thanks to Jed Lewison, I'm sure most of you are aware of the remarks made on Tuesday by top Romney surrogate John Sununu, the former New Hampshire Governor.

"I wish this president would learn to be an American."

Let that sink in for a minute.

Granted, Sununu did mumble some sort of apology and talked about context and how he was referring to Obama's policies on business. Frankly, that's irrelevant. He said that Obama is not an American. There is no context where that is anything but disgusting and hateful.

But this is about far more than remarks made by one Romney surrogate speaking out of school. What the media needs to report is this: Sununu is merely echoing language coming from Mitt Romney himself. Right now.

At an event in Pennsylvania on the same day that Sununu made his remarks, Romney spoke about his own approach to business, thus employing that same 'context' that Sununu used to justify what he said. Romney praised his "course" for the country, and then asserted the following about Barack Obama:

"His course is extraordinarily foreign."

There is no denying that Sununu and Romney, surrogate and boss, are on exactly the same page here. There is no question that, on the very same day, they both used language that seeks to "other" Obama, to paint him as "not American."

And Romney has done this before. On December 7, 2011, again in part of a discussion about the economy, he said of the President:

"I don't think he understands America."

A New York Times editorial had this to say about Romney's statement:

It’s not quite Newt Gingrich’s saying Mr. Obama has a “Kenyan” worldview, but it’s close.

On January 2, 2012, in Iowa, Romney once again used a discussion ostensibly about the economy to "other" Obama. Romney stated that the President will:

"Poison the very spirit of America and keep us from being one nation under God."

This kind of language acts as a dog whistle for bigots. It is a more subtle version of birtherism, and reflects the kind of exclusionary definition of American national identity embraced by far too many on the right. It is the exact opposite of Barack Obama's conception of our national identity, one that emphasizes national unity as well as inclusion, and seeks to strengthen ties among Americans across lines of race, culture, and religion.

When John Sununu said that President Obama was not an American--and make no mistake, that's what he said--he wasn't saying anything his boss hadn't said before. Mitt Romney has made the same kind of remark on too many occasions to be able to deny that his campaign has made a clear decision to do what John McCain refused to do, and what any politician with a sense of honor and patriotism would refuse to do.

Mitt Romney is running on hate.
-----------
Because it is directly relevant to the content of this diary, I'd like to mention that for more on Barack Obama's conception of Americanness, as well as an analysis of the exclusionism coming from Romney and others on the right, please see my book, Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, which is being published by Potomac Books later this month.

Bain: Aren't We Glad Obama Didn't Listen to Cory Booker?

Another Gem from Ian Reifowitz.... Originally posted at Daily Kos

Remember a couple of months ago, when Cory Booker said this:

“It’s nauseating to the American public,” Booker said on NBC's "Meet the Press." “Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.”“As far as that stuff, I have to just say from a very personal level I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity,” he added. “To me, it’s just we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses [and] to grow businesses. And this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.”

And then remember the hand-wringing (oh, the hand-wringing), as described in this article from the L.A. Times:

WASHINGTON -- The fallout from Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s criticism of the Obama campaign’s use of Bain Capital against Mitt Romney continues, with Booker objecting to "being used by the GOP" to help the Romney campaign.

To give credit where credit is due, Daily Kos's own David Nir presented us with polling data in early June that showed the attacks on Bain were going to work, and referring to the aforementioned hand-wringing as a "phony media-created phenomenon."

But the real credit, of course, goes to the Obama campaign. They knew they had a winner on their hands and understood the importance, when you're an incumbent, of defining your opponent early (see Dole, Bob, 1996).

This is a relatively simple diary, so let me answer my rhetorical question with a simple answer.
Yes, we are.

Republicans PROVE President Right about the Economy - Again

Cross Posted at Daily Kos

For a former White House Secretary of Education and Director of National Drug Control Policy, William Bennett is surprisingly uninformed and uneducated on the way an economy works. It is a amazing that a man who gets to write CNN columns and has worked at the highest levels in government can be this way. I mean, one would think that the man who ran the Dept. of Education would you know... actually either have one or use the one he has.

Anyway... In a piece of serious propagandizing (trying to pass as concern for America) Bennett commits a number errors in an Opinion piece on the economy over at cnn.com.

In this obvious hit piece: Obama's running out of excuses on economy Bennett shows that not only should he not have a job in government at any level above Dog Catcher, but that no one in their right mind should hire him to do anything but write cheap propaganda.

So the article starts out with dire notes on the economy and how it has been stuck at over 8% unemployment for 41 straight months. And he furthers his commentary about the "doom and gloom" by talking about the last quarters job numbers being "anemic" with the lowest levels of job growth since 2010.

Now, all of this seems pretty bad. I mean who could be happy with unemployment being over 8% particularly for 41 straight months. Not only that, but poor quarterly numbers... Well....

Of course this is just a cursory look at things. Looking just a tad deeper into the numbers and the analysis, one can see that indeed yes the President has not fully gotten the job done but, in my opinion (and I think that in the opinion of any reasonable person) it is not for the reasons Bennett lays out in his piece.

Bennett goes on to take issue with the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers Alan Krueger who said: ""There are no quick fixes to the problems we face that were more than a decade in the making," and then added: "The economy has now added private sector jobs for 28 straight months, for a total of 4.4 million payroll jobs during that period," A pretty reasonable thing to say and again an effort by the Obama team to present a realistic picture of what is happening. Unlike Mitt who promises to a quick fix on day one and so far from what I can tell has a jobs plan consisting of cutting taxes on "job creators" (Large Corporations, Excessively Rich People, and U.S. based companies that outsource jobs to foreign nations), cutting workplace safety and environmental regulations, and outsourcing Emergency Services to the the highest bidder.

Anyway, and here is where Bennett in his short piece starts to get everything completely wrong. First he says:

In other words, any chances for economic recovery before the fall elections look slim. More importantly, there is a profound lack of urgency from the White House for any large scale, serious reforms.

Really? Unless by "reforms" one means gutting the social safety net, and cutting jobs, as well vital programs in the Public Sector all while continuing the economic destructive policy of continually reducing taxes on the richest Americans while running a war in Afghanistan and continued military presence in Iraq OFF the books (as President Bush did). So in that case he is right... President Obama is certainly guilty of NOT seeing those "reforms" as urgent. And in my opinion, nor should he.

Of course I wonder if Mr. Bennett also realizes that Congress and his party are the main obstructions to any job creation policies the President/White House do propose? One has to wonder if Mr. Bennett did not get the memo that the Republicans have become "the Party of NO" to anything that the President proposes unless those job proposals include massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (whoops, I mean "job creators") and keep tax loopholes for major corporations open.

But just for Mr. Bennett and his supporters, here is the Presidents Jobs Act presented Sept.12th 2011. This was voted on in the Senate in October of 2011 and was filibustered by.... guess who? THE REPUBLICANS - that's who.. and the Bill never made it to the House. As this report in the Nation Shows. Meanwhile the Republican controlled House of Representatives has voted 33 times for to repeal the Affordable Care Act while NOT VOTING AT ALL on the Jobs Bill. I think one can ask Mr. Bennett, who is it (which party) that does not have a sense of urgency about the job creation?
But here is where the "train leaves the tracks". Bennett says:

The obvious problem here is that Obama has been president for more than 40 months. The White House conveniently blames Republicans for decades of lost jobs, but forgets to mention the United States lost 4.3 million jobs in President Obama's first 13 months in office.

Brilliant! First of all anyone who is even dimly aware of the way an economy works (and Mr. Bennett given his credentials and stature SHOULD know this) is that the economy in the first year or two of a Presidency is really the result of the last administrations policies. So by pointing out that the first 13 months of the Obama administration featured 4.3 million jobs lost... well ok then, who is he blaming? Why the Bush administration and his own party.

But even better is this, Bennett freely admits that the President has added 4.4 million Private sector jobs in only 28 months. So does that mean he is admitting that actually the Presidents economic policies have resulted in recovery from the Bush Administrations disastrous policies? It sure looks that way to me.

Then Bennett goes a bit further in defeating his own party and rhetoric when he says:

It's not so clear the president does (understand the issues - vb1 adds for context). On Monday, he again called to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the highest earners, a contentious partisan issue that the public knows will not be solved before the elections. In his weekly address he continued to push for more construction projects and increased financial aid for college students.

Wait... WHAT?? Does Bennett mean that the President is trying to PUSH FOR MORE CONSTRUCTION JOBS? That somehow, pushing for more infrastructure is bad thing? Really now... You don't say. So basically the President has added Private Sector jobs and now wants to get back both Private and Public Sector jobs (mostly cut by Republican Governors) back and that is something that shouldn't happen? I could swear I read that Bennett was pushing for more jobs.

In this case the Republicans fail at messaging and once again prove the Presidents words when he said:

....that the jobs report is "a step in the right direction" and that "it's still tough out there."

One thing Bennett does get right and that is the messaging regarding the economy. The President SHOULDN'T blame the Bush Administration anymore. He should run on his record of SAVING THE ECONOMY and the Republican irresponsibility of political gamesmanship. Nothing illustrates this more than Bennett's failed "hit piece".

Obama's America: How Progressives Talk About July 4

Article by Ian Reifowitz - cross Posted from Daily Kos

As I always do, I really enjoyed Meteor Blades' post about July 4, which centers on Frederick Douglass's iconic speech "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro," delivered in Rochester, NY in 1852. As many of you know, the speech delineated the alienation slaves, and African Americans in general, felt from July 4 specifically but from America more broadly as well.

Although the most often quoted section is about that sense of alienation, it is also important to remember Douglass's conclusion to the speech:

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.

Even in this speech, Douglass remained optimistic about the future, despite the reality that the present in 1852 was so awful for blacks in this country. That's important to note as well.

President Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008, called "The America We Love," which bears some resemblance in terms of approach to Douglass's speech. It wasn't a speech about the meaning of America for blacks as a whole, but of what America meant to him as an individual. Also, only one of the speakers was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Nevertheless, we can fruitfully compare the two speeches. In fact, Colbert I. King of the Washington Post did so just after Obama made his.
King noted that Obama, even in this speech, even while running for President and having his patriotism questioned, did not whitewash America's history by ignoring the dark chapters therein. Although as a boy he had expressed a childlike love of our country, his patriotism remained strong even as he gained more knowledge and a fuller understanding of our past:

Obama said that as he got older, that instinct, "that America is the greatest country on earth -- would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections."Racial strife, poverty and the political corruption revealed by Watergate, Obama said, were outweighed by the "joys of American life and culture, its vitality and its freedom."

King then neatly summarized the differences between Douglass's and Obama's speeches:

While Douglass noted his estrangement from America's experiment with democracy, Obama claimed America as his own and the Fourth of July as a time to rejoice.

My suspicion, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that were he alive today Douglass would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama (not only in the above cited speech but in the body of his public remarks over twenty years) in the broadest sense. (My forthcoming book, Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, examines Obama's public rhetoric on the meaning of America.)

Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate for the descendants of the victims in the present. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans and members of other groups today. But both would also present a narrative that is, while full of struggle, one of hope and of gradual progress. That's a narrative that is both accurate and far more likely to be accepted as consensus by a broad swath of Americans of all backgrounds. That matters, in political terms, and Douglass, even though not running for office, was a political figure and activist of great importance.
In terms of black Americans specifically, I believe both Obama and Douglass would characterize black Americans' relationship to their country as follows: Blacks have both dreamed of a better future in America and fought to make it happen over time.

We progressives must emphasize that our responsibility as a country is to make those very American dreams of equality and justice come true for members of every group that make up our people.
Frederick Douglass was a hero, and his speech of 1852 was heroic. It's also very appropriate in 2012 to remember that speech, especially on July 4. My comments here do not imply in the slightest that I believe we should not. What I am doing is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping off point for a different discussion.

MB was right, we do too much "heroification" in the U.S. And he's right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero, maybe even the greatest hero in American history. I'll only add that sometimes, we on the left have to be wary of focusing too much collectively on feelings of alienation from this country. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel, no one can or should do that. I'm talking about what we publish, our public rhetoric, and it's strategic value. What we cannot do, what Douglass himself did not do as seen in the conclusion to his 1852 speech, is cede patriotism and an embrace of America to the right wing.

Even in writing this, I feel reluctant because I know how these comments can be construed. I'm emphatically NOT saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down criticizing this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am NOT saying that black or brown or red or gay people or anyone should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight white folks. I'm saying that there has to be a way we can shine a light on the problems in our country that need attention while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across successfully.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, and in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the opposite, one that presents our history as one solely bathed in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle of the road Americans are likely to be more attracted to the former simply because it sounds more familiar and feels better.

We have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes to remember them and to commit to reversing their effects, rather than dismiss us as "anti-American" or some other such nonsense because we talk only about the negatives in America. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast those to the values of those whom we oppose.

This is the way Barack Obama speaks about America's past, present, and future, and connects his vision of America to policies he is proposing going forward. We can see it in his remarks of July 4, 2012:

On that July day, our Founders declared their independence. But they only declared it; it would take another seven years to win the war. Fifteen years to forge a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Nearly 90 years, and a great Civil War, to abolish slavery. Nearly 150 years for women to win the right to vote. Nearly 190 years to enshrine voting rights. And even now, we’re still perfecting our union, still extending the promise of America.That includes making sure the American dream endures for all those -- like these men and women -- who are willing to work hard, play by the rules and meet their responsibilities. For just as we remain a nation of laws, we have to remain a nation of immigrants. And that’s why, as another step forward, we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from serving -- from deserving young people who were brought to this country as children. It’s why we still need a DREAM Act -- to keep talented young people who want to contribute to our society and serve our country. It’s why we need -- why America’s success demands -- comprehensive immigration reform.

Because the lesson of these 236 years is clear -- immigration makes America stronger. Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century. And these young men and women are testaments to that. No other nation in the world welcomes so many new arrivals. No other nation constantly renews itself, refreshes itself with the hopes, and the drive, and the optimism, and the dynamism of each new generation of immigrants. You are all one of the reasons that America is exceptional. You’re one of the reasons why, even after two centuries, America is always young, always looking to the future, always confident that our greatest days are still to come.

And of course that's what successful progressives have long done. Frederick Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above. So did Martin Luther King in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," where he predicted that the Civil Rights Movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his "I Have A Dream" speech, where he proclaimed the dream of which he spoke that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk, when he said, "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about.” So did Barbara Jordan, who noted, "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."

Progressives must criticize, that is crucial. But we also need to inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action.

Laying Down with Dogs

As many readers of this blog may be aware there is an old adage "He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas". As much as we see the truth in this everyday, one place that it is particularly appropriate is how this applies to headline news of the day. For instance, we see this: Mitt Romney to visit Israel. According to the Ynet Story:

Republican US presidential candidate Mitt Romney is planning a trip to Israel this summer, the New York Times reported on Monday.
An aide to Romney confirmed that a trip is being planned. No details were immediately available about exactly when and where the candidate will visit.... 

This will be Romney’s fourth visit to Israel. His first visit was on a Mormon Church trip, and his second visit was in 2007, when he served as a keynote speaker at the Herzliya Conference. In January 2011, Romney spent three days in Israel during a tour of the region.

So, Romney has been to Israel 3x in the past and as late as last January. Why the need to go back there in the middle of a campaign? Because Israel is a strong ally? Perhaps it would it be a cynical ploy to get Jewish voters in Florida and Pennsylvania to reconsider their vote? And while trying to influence Jewish voters, perhaps it would also be an attempt to shore up his support with Evangelical and Hard Right Voters who want nothing more than to bomb Iran and take the fight to "Teh Mooslims"?

Now on the surface, it is an interesting move. I mean President Obama has NOT made a visit to Israel
 (something I think he should do in his second term). And if he so much as casts an unsavory glance at Ron Prosser or Benyamin Netanyahu than the Republican noise machine kicks into high gear and with it's little army of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) suffering drones they spread out through the Intertoobz whining and using the slighest excuse to portray President Obama as an enemy of Israel AND the Jewish People.

Now, if Romney's intention is to shore up his support with Jewish Americans (78% of whom voted for President Obama in 2008 - and still has a support the President at a rating of 15-20 pts. higher than the general American public) then this trip is an odd way to do it. Of course it has the cheap point that President Obama has not visited Israel but, that is a small issue. In fact if this is his reason, then it shows just how out of touch Romney is with the American Jewish Political Community. American Jews have always been at the forefront of the Liberal and Progressive movements. Our long history of oppression has taught us to use our political power to help society NOT to turn our back on it in some Randian frenzy of greed.

Jews voted for and support Democrats (and President Obama) because of this. Romney with this trip assumes Jewish Americans will vote for him because they care about Israel MORE than they care about their fellow countrymen/women and that his cheap publicity stunt will somehow prove this. NOT ONLY THAT, but it's a fail of a move politically. According to the AJC poll of 2012 only 4% of American Jews put Israel as their #1 priority when it comes to voting. Of course, in my mind those people that put another country ahead of their own should simply move there but that argument is for another day. With this cheap stunt Romney assumes the old "Dual Loyalty" canard. He assumes that our community will simply forget our liberal and progressive roots and will "lie down" with some trickster who's closest connection to Jewish people is converting dead Holocaust victims to the Church of Latter Day Saints.

In making this assumption, Republicans actually think Jewish voters are stupid enough (well some are dumb enough / uninformed enough to fall for this) that they will ignore the following glaring shortcomings of the Romney campaign.

• Their candidate is dedicating his campaign to tearing down the new healthcare reform act that will provide 50 million more Americans with healthcare. Not to mention providing coverage to millions of people with pre-existing conditions and many other sweeping benefits.
• The Republicans stand for gutting the Social Safety Net, including removing protections for seniors, and privatizing (because you know the Market is such a safe place for investors) their retirement accounts.
• The Republicans further stand for gutting our environmental laws, drilling in protected areas, INCREASING our dependence on fossil fuels, denying climate change and a host of other horrible positions regarding the environment.
• They ignore the fact that conservatives want to do away with important civil rights protections for all Americans including voting rights for African Americans, and marriage equality rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans. That Republicans are moving forward trying to get DOMA revisted.

These blockheads actually think that Jewish Americans would overlook ALL of this because Mitt Romney is making a trip to Israel and that President Obama did not make one. Somehow they think this will magically transform the Romney candidacy for Jewish voters and that all of a sudden Jewish voters will completely sellout their own political ideals and countrypeople because they secretly value Israel over America.

Of course, what they don't realize is that Jewish voters have every reason in the world to support President Obama and as President he has been one of Israel's and the Jewish people's greatest friends. See, it is not the little things, like the President ragged on PM Netanyahu, or that the U.S. didn't cast a veto at some point in time when the hard right would have liked him too. When push comes to shove the President has always, and I mean always been there for us.

He is the first President in the history of the U.S. to host and introduce Passover Seders to the White House. He is the first President in the history of the U.S. to name a month in honor of Jewish History. He has been a consistant supporter of all things Jewish in the U.S. and is knowlegable about our community and its needs.

As for Israel, well... I can't think of a better friend. He has increased U.S. aid to Israel. American aid pays for anti-Missle systems that save Israeli (both Jewish and Arab) lives. His administration has been huge in supporting the development of the Iron Dome, Magic Wand, and David's Sling anti-Missle defense. At the U.N. he has supported Israel up and down the line but really all of this is neither here nor there.

His domestic agenda MATCHES that of our general community. Just a short list of accomplishments:

• The Affordable Care Act - which protects millions of Americans from calamity and provides benefits to almost every American.
• Ending discrimmination against Gay and Lesbian soldiers and bravely speaking out in favor of marriage equality
• Introducing sanity to our immigration issues and showing kindness to people who were otherwise outlaws due to no fault of their own
• Increasing environmental standards for automobiles and working to develop American clean energy sources
• Supporting Women's rights in the workplace
• Defending the rights of the unemployed.

All of these things are what Mr. Romney and the ODS drones want us to ignore. Instead, they that some cheap photo op. will change peoples reality so that they don't see all of the good that President Obama has accomplished and instead will fall for a "one off" trick. But most people (with the exception of a few morons) see through this. Most people understand that if they "lie down" with the Republicans and vote for them they would wake up the next morning with a huge case of "fleas". They would wake up to an America that doesn't value it's citizens health, that doesn't value the environment or education or equal rights. They would wake up to an America that is nothing more than pursuit of individual greed.

This is why the American Jewish Community supports the President by much larger margins than the general populace. We know what this President means to us. We know the good things that he has accomplished for our country and as Americans that is what is most important. We are also thankful for his real and practical support of our brothers and sisters in Israel. How America's alliance with Israel has never been stronger. It is a nice bonus. Overall, we KNOW the President has "our back" as he has proven time and time again.

As a community we know we do not need lie down with the "dogs" to get what we want or need. We should continue on the high road and ignore the incesssant whining and actual bullshit that spews from the failure that is the right wing and the Republican Party.