A bit o' wit

Here's a chuckle.

Tonight President Obama makes a major speech to the gay community at the Human Rights Campaign dinner in D.C. Many are hoping that he will announce, or at least reaffirm, his commitment to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Bill Maher says:

"Forget all the good arguments for repeal, like, because it's the right thing to do, or because it was promised in the campaign," Maher said. Instead:

"Do it because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter," he said. "Do it because it will make Sarah Palin go rogue in her pants."

For whatever reasons, just do it !!!

It's way, way past time. If Truman could order the Army to desegregate, then surely Obama can end DA/DT. Yes, Congress will need to repeal the actual law; but, with the stroke of a pen, the Commander in Chief could at least tell them to stop processing discharges of valuable service men and women until it can be repealed.

Just do it, Obama. You've "Got the Whole World in Your Hands."

Ralph

Obama's message

This message came from President Obama. It is essentially what he said in his news conference yesterday morning, reframed a bit and addressed to his supporters:

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

Once again, Barack Obama fielded an unexpected curve ball -- it was totally a surprise, I'm convinced -- and turned it into a moment of humility and grace, but also one of resolve and hope.

Maybe he doesn't walk on water, but he still stands ten feel tall in my mind.

Ralph

Compromise

There's talk of compromise on the public option that might actually work to bring conservative democrats and progressives together -- and could even bring in a few Republicans, if they can get over their knee-jerk, just-say-no stance.

The plan: have a public option plan on a national scale -- which gives progressives what they want -- but have it be something that individual states can opt-out of. Apparently, like Medicaid, the plan would be administered through state agencies, so any state that didn't want to participate could opt out.

The advantage, as I see it, is that instead of a watered down co-op, which we know doesn't work, those states that participate will provide a solid proving ground for how well this could work.

And at the same time, no one can say that big government is shoving it down people's throats; so it somewhat undermines conservatives' opposition. It seems less like something they can demonize as "socialism."

If this flies, it could be the silver bullet that gets this whole thing moving toward Obama's desk for a signature.

Ralph

Nobel Obama

Perhaps the surprise of the year: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

Reactions are all over the map. "What's he done to deserve it?" "He's a good man but it's premature so early in his presidency."

Absolute blind fury that "The Anointed One" has been handed something else without deserving it. Simple blind fury at anything Obama wins and absolute glee if he loses -- whether it's health care or the Olympics.

My initial reaction was: this is not good. It will just give the haters something else to focus on.

But my second reaction was to realize that he has already accomplished a lot, simply by setting a new tone for the U.S. in the world. And I think that is what the Committee recognized. You could be cynical and say it was simply an award for being the not-bush. It's more than that.

Obama has restored the world's opinion of what the U.S. stands for. Is it not a great accomplishment that following his election and his first few months in office, the standing of the U.S. in the world's respect has jumped from 27th to 1st?

Most Americans simply do not realize how much damage george bush, dick cheney and their crowd did to this country in the eyes of the world. When he was elected a second time, the world thought we had lost our ever-loving minds.

Obama's comments this morning were pitch perfect: starting with a bit of humility about his daughters' keeping it in perspective: reminding him that it was also Bo's birthday and a holiday weekend coming up as being on a par with the big announcement.

And then saying he did not feel he deserved to be included with those who have truly been transformative of the world -- but that he would accept the award as "a call to action."

The only thing I wish they had done would have been to award the prize to President Obama and the American People who elected him.

Ralph

Israeli conflict

My good friend Alan, a Canadian who lives in Vancouver and who happens to be Jewish, as I presume is the writer of the article from The Jerusalem Post, sent this response to my post from yesterday, featuring that article by Larry Derfner:

So what would happen in the U.S.A. if ONE missile landed in San Diego?..., how about two?...or two thousand - which is reportedly what happened in Israel prior to the invasion. How would the U.S.A react?

I think this is a very important question for us to ponder. It's hard to live, as Israelis do, under the constant threat of terrorist bombs and rocket attacks. It's hard for us to really know what that is like. What I took Larry Derfner's stance to be -- as presumably a Jew living in Israel himself -- was "yes . . . but is our response appropriate? What about the Palestinian people"

Here's my answer to my friend Alan's question of what would the U.S.A. do?:

The U.S. has been attacked: in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 in the single most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world. And for a time we did all experience that fear that terrorism causes, wondering when and where the next attack will come. The terrorists achieved their goal: they instilled fear where there had been none.

But I was not in favor of our military response even then when we attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I felt we should have dropped humanitraian supplies for the people (food, medicine, clothing, agricultural supplies, building materials) instead of bombs and then have concentrated on aid to help this impoverished nation resist the take-over of their country by militant anti-western forces. Think what could have been done with those billions and billions of dollars we have spent on military force, and the people on both sides killed.

That would have been politically impossible, however; our leaders had to show their strength and strike back, they felt. I was in a tiny, tiny minority that felt there had to be a better way of responding than war.

And what good has come of it, eight long years later, as we risk being mired down in the dreaded quagmire of can't win/can't leave?

Then george bush essentially left Afghanistan and went after his preferred target, Iraq and its oil supplies -- even though they had nothing to do with the attack on us. I knew without a doubt that this was the wrong thing to do.

It's easy to sit here, safe and cozy at my computer, and say I think the Israelis should choose a different way than military strikes and bulldozers. Would I feel differently if I lived there? I don't know.

But I do know that, if I lived in Gaza and experienced the prolonged blockade and the destruction of homes and non-military buildings, I would probably turn from my anti-war stance and begin throwing rocks at tanks myself.

I would like to see the Israelis take Derfner's questions to heart and think about whether their retaliatory response is even in their own best interests, or -- like our presence in Iraq -- just creates more terrorists who will attack more and more. What if, instead of tanks, they had removed the blockades and gone in with food, medicine, building supplies, etc. and actually helped these impoverished people rebuild their homes, schools, and hospitals?

My tendency is usually to side with the oppressed and against the oppressors. Historically, that puts me on the side of the Jews. That's been harder lately, because Israel is so much stronger and because I feel their retaliation has been disproportionate to the feeble attempts of Palestinians to stand up for themselves. I begin to think of Israel as the oppressor.

Both peoples have been oppressed, displaced, and attacked. Two wrongs don't make a right. Who owns the land? It depends on how far back in history you go. Each side has its own legitimate grievances and its evidence that the other side is more wrong than they are. There is never going to be a consensus on who is right.

I do not see a solution to the problem unless a different calculus is applied. If enough Israeli Derfners are joined by counterparts among the Palestinians that speak out against their own leaders' refusal to negotiate a peace -- then maybe something can happen.

And now that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a call to action, maybe it will spur him and his representatives on to greater determination to bring peace to the Middle East.

Ralph

Another outrage from the right

An Oklahoma law set to go into effect on November 1 requires that demographic data about women who have abortions must be reported to the state health department, which will then post the data on a public website.

They claim that, since no names will be posted, it does not violate women's privacy. Opponents, who are trying to stop implementation of the law, say that in small communities it will be easy to identify women.

Data required to be reported are: date of abortion, county in which it was performed; age, marital status, race, and level of education of the mother, and total number of previous pregnancies.

I cannot think of any public health usefulness of posting this data on a public website. It can only be another attempt to shame and deter women who have a perfectly legal medical procedure.

I know that they think they are preventing the murder of actual children; but to me it is the creeping movement toward the theocracy that they would really like to turn this country into.

I am just as opposed to the murder of actual children as they are. We differ only in when we think an embryo becomes a human being.

Ralph

A dissident voice from Israel

OK, folks, this is going to be another long article from someone else. But, for anyone interested in Mideast peace and in a more balanced view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, this is an important voice. In an article published in the Jerusalem Post, this is a very hard-hitting challenge to the prevailing governmental position.

The Goldstone Report mentioned here is the report of an investigation of the Gaza conflict, which has apparently concluded that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Israel has denounced the report; the initial plan to have it brought to the UN Security Council was somehow blocked.

Here's the article by Larry Derfner in The Jerusalem Post on Oct. 7, 2009:

Rattling the Cage: Our exclusive right to self-defense

Virtually all of Israel is now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report, against any attempt to blame us over the war in Gaza. We've honed our message to a sharp point and, inspired by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's performance at the UN, we're delivering it with just the right tone of outrage:

How dare anyone deny us the right to self-defense! How dare anyone deny us the right to fight back against terrorism!

Very nice. Puts everyone else on the defensive. The right to self-defense is up there with motherhood and apple pie - who's going to come out against it, especially for us, for Israel, for the Jews, for the people of the Holocaust?

The right to self-defense - perfect.

But I'd like to ask: Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-defense?

We probably wouldn't admit it out loud, but in our heads we would say - again, in one voice - "No!"

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We're entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

That's the way it's always been, that's the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

And there are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as "disproportionate." We can blockade Gaza, we can answer Kassams with F-16s and Apaches, we can take 100 eyes for an eye.

We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

Deliberately.

After all, we're acting in self-defense. By definition.

And what right do the Palestinians have to defend themselves against this?

None.

Why? Because we're better than them. Because we're a democracy and they're a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they're out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

One look at the ruins of Gaza ought to make that plain enough.

Here is our idea of the "laws of war": When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism.

The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.
I don't regularly read The Jerusalem Post, but I have heard before that you are more likely to read this kind of dissident voice there than in major papers in the U.S.

Ralph