I don't have all of your addresses, so here's a group Valentine's Day card to the people of Egypt to express my love and admiration for your miraculous and inspiring achievement.
Your heroic perseverance, poise and dedication showed us all that anything is possible.
That Facebook can be used for more than just promoting comedy shows and sharing with 1800 people how wasted you were last night. And that Twitter can mobilize rallies for democracy instead of just inform us what Shaquille O'Neal had for lunch.
It took the Egyptian people 18 days to bring down a dictator. It took me 18 days to decide which coffeemaker to buy on Amazon.com. Talk about using your time productively.
The road to democracy in Egypt will be difficult and messy. But the truth is our democracy is still difficult and messy after 234 years. The U.S. wants Egypt to be just the way we are. But Egypt can produce a democracy that's even more, well, democratic than ours.
First, your military. I know you love those guys and most of them are an admirable group. And they stood by you in the most trying of times. But once they guide your country through the transition to free and fair elections, make sure they don't decide to run the country. I'm not saying they would, but just in case. And when you prepare your first budget don't give them a crazy amount of money. We do that here and quite frankly it's largely a big waste of money that could be better spent on social programs here at home.
Now that you'll be able to criticize your government and speak freely on all issues, go ahead and enjoy! But don't create shows where people of opposing views yell at each other and talk in sound bites. We do that in the US and it just appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Have plenty of good, thorough news programs. And make sure all of your cable systems carry Al Jazeera. And The Daily Show.
And insist that your politicians be intelligent. And don't give them reality shows. In fact, don't have reality shows, period. There's nothing like a good half hour scripted comedy. But I digress.
I hope you can find a President like ours, who is worldly, really smart, thoughtful, and who understands what you're going through.
And try to make it possible for people to run for office who don't have a lot of money. And insist on a single payer health care plan. And keep trying to help bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
The truth is, I don't even have to be telling you this. If you can overthrow a dictator in 18 days, you can do anything!
And remember. Not only can your democracy be as good as ours, it can be even better.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
It's The Guns, Stupid
In the week since the shootings in Arizona, there have been many comments about Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and civility.
And comparatively very little has been said about guns.
And what limited discussion about guns there has been, has largely focused on how it's pointless to make guns laws more strict, and how we should make it easier for Americans to get their hands on a gun. How much easier could it possibly get? And yet, the NRA and its many followers in civilian life and Congress, keep making the most twisted arguments in favor of a Wild West gun mentality.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "Criminals will always find a way to get a gun, so why punish law abiding citizens with stricter gun laws?" Jared Loughner could easily have been prevented from getting a gun because a far more thorough and lengthy background check would have turned up many red flags. And even if, at the very least, he was forced to spend much more time in search of a gun, that might have given authorities the chance to catch up with him before he committed his crimes.
Why should gun background checks be instant when just about everything else we want in America takes so much longer? Anyone who has closed on a house, knows that process can often take several weeks, or even months, and require hundreds of pages of documents and records. On a smaller scale, when you order cable for your new place, it can often be at least a week before you can get an appointment. And then you still have to wait four hours waiting for the cable guy to arrive. Neither closing on a house or getting cable installed is a life and death matter, although some people treat it as such. Yet we put up with the inconvenience of waiting, because frankly, we can afford to wait.
Any law abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun can also afford to wait. Anyone who objects to a thorough background check, no matter how long it takes, clearly has something to hide. And it's not the Constitution. This should apply to gun shows as well. As the laws in most states now stand, anyone can stroll up to the kind of gun show held so tastefully this weekend in Tucson, and buy the assault weapon of their dreams on the spot.
Why does any law abiding citizen need an AK-47? Are they a hunter seeking to eradicate the entire deer species all in one afternoon? Or are they expecting an invasion by a foreign army in their sub-division? The same goes for the extended ammunition clips Loughner used with his Glock 19. What law abiding uses are there for shooting 30 rounds without needing to reload?
How can it possibly be so difficult and controversial for Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, due to the cowardice of both Republicans and Democrats? Even if you think the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms, those arms do not include weapons of mass destruction like military-style assault weapons. And if you think you should be able to buy any kind of gun at any time, why not expand your options to missiles and bombs too?
Some people say we need assault weapons for the day the government will attack its people by going door to door and taking away their guns. If you truly believe this scenario, you don't need more guns, you need a psychiatrist. But they are not alone.
The craziness of this past week is not confined to the Arizona shooter. If the people of the United States, and its representatives in Congress do not insist upon doing everything in their power to prevent what happened in Tucson from happening again, this country can rightfully be considered crazy. No one is talking about "taking away your guns". We need the kind of exhaustive, effective federal background checks that, while not foolproof, will at least make this country much safer than it is now. And to ban the kinds of weapons only the military and law enforcement personnel really need.
Because being civil to one another requires changing our gun laws so that we are once again a civilized society.
And comparatively very little has been said about guns.
And what limited discussion about guns there has been, has largely focused on how it's pointless to make guns laws more strict, and how we should make it easier for Americans to get their hands on a gun. How much easier could it possibly get? And yet, the NRA and its many followers in civilian life and Congress, keep making the most twisted arguments in favor of a Wild West gun mentality.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "Criminals will always find a way to get a gun, so why punish law abiding citizens with stricter gun laws?" Jared Loughner could easily have been prevented from getting a gun because a far more thorough and lengthy background check would have turned up many red flags. And even if, at the very least, he was forced to spend much more time in search of a gun, that might have given authorities the chance to catch up with him before he committed his crimes.
Why should gun background checks be instant when just about everything else we want in America takes so much longer? Anyone who has closed on a house, knows that process can often take several weeks, or even months, and require hundreds of pages of documents and records. On a smaller scale, when you order cable for your new place, it can often be at least a week before you can get an appointment. And then you still have to wait four hours waiting for the cable guy to arrive. Neither closing on a house or getting cable installed is a life and death matter, although some people treat it as such. Yet we put up with the inconvenience of waiting, because frankly, we can afford to wait.
Any law abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun can also afford to wait. Anyone who objects to a thorough background check, no matter how long it takes, clearly has something to hide. And it's not the Constitution. This should apply to gun shows as well. As the laws in most states now stand, anyone can stroll up to the kind of gun show held so tastefully this weekend in Tucson, and buy the assault weapon of their dreams on the spot.
Why does any law abiding citizen need an AK-47? Are they a hunter seeking to eradicate the entire deer species all in one afternoon? Or are they expecting an invasion by a foreign army in their sub-division? The same goes for the extended ammunition clips Loughner used with his Glock 19. What law abiding uses are there for shooting 30 rounds without needing to reload?
How can it possibly be so difficult and controversial for Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, due to the cowardice of both Republicans and Democrats? Even if you think the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms, those arms do not include weapons of mass destruction like military-style assault weapons. And if you think you should be able to buy any kind of gun at any time, why not expand your options to missiles and bombs too?
Some people say we need assault weapons for the day the government will attack its people by going door to door and taking away their guns. If you truly believe this scenario, you don't need more guns, you need a psychiatrist. But they are not alone.
The craziness of this past week is not confined to the Arizona shooter. If the people of the United States, and its representatives in Congress do not insist upon doing everything in their power to prevent what happened in Tucson from happening again, this country can rightfully be considered crazy. No one is talking about "taking away your guns". We need the kind of exhaustive, effective federal background checks that, while not foolproof, will at least make this country much safer than it is now. And to ban the kinds of weapons only the military and law enforcement personnel really need.
Because being civil to one another requires changing our gun laws so that we are once again a civilized society.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Navy Defends Country From Comedy
As a comedian, I hate jokes that are moronic, low brow, mean spirited and geared to the lowest common denominator. Which pretty much describes the excerpts of the videos by Captain Owen Honors which led the Navy to fire him this week.
If Captain Honors openly discriminated against gay soldiers under his command, and created the videos to foster an environment where gay sailors felt uncomfortable, his removal is the right thing to do.
But if the videos were simply the work of an unfunny, uncreative Captain, who thought gay jokes and sex jokes in general would make his sailors laugh, perhaps we should slow our rush to judgment. Because what is tasteless and offensive to one person can be a belly laugh for someone else. And I have the personal experience to back that up. Early in my career, I was working with the legendary Andrew Dice Clay, whom I met through comedy and consider to be a nice guy. His comedy persona is considered by many to be offensive, but on that night at a comedy club on Long Island, my political jokes about then President Reagan drew hisses and boos, while the Diceman's four letter tirades against women and other groups were greeted with a standing ovation.
Comedy should never have to be defended. It should be laughed at, hissed at or reacted to with silence. So if Captain Honors treated his sailors equally, with respect and appreciation, and confined his ignorance to stupid jokes, then he should not have been fired.
Of course, in keeping with the climate of our times, he won't have the chance to answer whether or not the videos were representative of any deep seeded negativity towards gay people, or simply the work of someone with a rather stupid sense of humor.
Last year, three personalities were abruptly fired after comments deemed to be offensive. Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Juan Williams never had the chance to tell us if they stood by what they said, or felt the need for clarification. In an open society, we should reserve judgment and consequences until we know what the person really thinks. And even if they stand by opinions we find distasteful, not every situation calls for punishment and excommunication.
There are things I find offensive, distasteful and reprehensible. The deception in the rush to war in Iraq based on lies from our President, Vice President and other government figures. And the despicable embrace of torture, to this day, by Bush, Cheney and others. That is the kind of thinking and behavior that sets a bad example, and is a total failure of leadership.
If Captain Honors was a bad commander who treated gay sailors in a less respectful manner than everyone else, and harbored any ill will towards them, he has no place in the military. But if it was simply a case of making videos that were dumb and not funny, he deserved a chance to explain himself.
If Captain Honors openly discriminated against gay soldiers under his command, and created the videos to foster an environment where gay sailors felt uncomfortable, his removal is the right thing to do.
But if the videos were simply the work of an unfunny, uncreative Captain, who thought gay jokes and sex jokes in general would make his sailors laugh, perhaps we should slow our rush to judgment. Because what is tasteless and offensive to one person can be a belly laugh for someone else. And I have the personal experience to back that up. Early in my career, I was working with the legendary Andrew Dice Clay, whom I met through comedy and consider to be a nice guy. His comedy persona is considered by many to be offensive, but on that night at a comedy club on Long Island, my political jokes about then President Reagan drew hisses and boos, while the Diceman's four letter tirades against women and other groups were greeted with a standing ovation.
Comedy should never have to be defended. It should be laughed at, hissed at or reacted to with silence. So if Captain Honors treated his sailors equally, with respect and appreciation, and confined his ignorance to stupid jokes, then he should not have been fired.
Of course, in keeping with the climate of our times, he won't have the chance to answer whether or not the videos were representative of any deep seeded negativity towards gay people, or simply the work of someone with a rather stupid sense of humor.
Last year, three personalities were abruptly fired after comments deemed to be offensive. Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Juan Williams never had the chance to tell us if they stood by what they said, or felt the need for clarification. In an open society, we should reserve judgment and consequences until we know what the person really thinks. And even if they stand by opinions we find distasteful, not every situation calls for punishment and excommunication.
There are things I find offensive, distasteful and reprehensible. The deception in the rush to war in Iraq based on lies from our President, Vice President and other government figures. And the despicable embrace of torture, to this day, by Bush, Cheney and others. That is the kind of thinking and behavior that sets a bad example, and is a total failure of leadership.
If Captain Honors was a bad commander who treated gay sailors in a less respectful manner than everyone else, and harbored any ill will towards them, he has no place in the military. But if it was simply a case of making videos that were dumb and not funny, he deserved a chance to explain himself.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
No News Is Bad News For CNN
Jonathan Klein, the CNN/U.S. president, said yesterday that the new 8 pm show co-hosted by Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker, would be a “roundup of all the best ideas” of the day. Which sounds a bit like plagiarism.
But the real news here is not what the new show is, but what it isn't.
Even if Spitzer and Parker overcome their very limited television hosting experience, and their show offers a variety of viewpoints with a minimum of shouting, it is still not the show CNN should be doing at 8 pm. In fact, they shouldn't be doing a "show" at all.
Instead of coming up with a toned down version of the discredited "Crossfire", CNN should have returned to its long forgotten roots and made the 8 o'clock hour a newscast. Although CNN covers "breaking news" during the day, there isn't a comprehensive, scripted hour of news anywhere on their schedule.
With their expansive global news resources, CNN is well positioned to produce a compelling, substantial hour of news that would also do well in the ratings. Another talking heads show, even if it is a more even-handed one, cannot compete against Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. The neglected demographic is the sizeable group of people, like myself, who crave a newscast in the mold of BBC World News and Canada's The National.
And 8 pm would be an ideal time to hook the news junkies who aren't home at 6:30, or find the network news shows at that hour to be increasingly not worth watching, because of their high fluff factor.
CNN could start a solid newscast like this in a matter of days, not weeks or months. There are many highly qualified reporters already at CNN who could handle the anchor chores. And the reporters in the field around the world give CNN a global reach the networks can't match.
There should be a place somewhere on CNN's schedule for an opinion show that truly delves into issues with intelligence and civility. But what we really need at 8 pm is not the talk show CNN will be giving us in the fall. We need a newscast that is all about the news, not the person delivering the news.
If CNN did an 8 o'clock newscast, it would be good news for the industry and for our country.
But the real news here is not what the new show is, but what it isn't.
Even if Spitzer and Parker overcome their very limited television hosting experience, and their show offers a variety of viewpoints with a minimum of shouting, it is still not the show CNN should be doing at 8 pm. In fact, they shouldn't be doing a "show" at all.
Instead of coming up with a toned down version of the discredited "Crossfire", CNN should have returned to its long forgotten roots and made the 8 o'clock hour a newscast. Although CNN covers "breaking news" during the day, there isn't a comprehensive, scripted hour of news anywhere on their schedule.
With their expansive global news resources, CNN is well positioned to produce a compelling, substantial hour of news that would also do well in the ratings. Another talking heads show, even if it is a more even-handed one, cannot compete against Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. The neglected demographic is the sizeable group of people, like myself, who crave a newscast in the mold of BBC World News and Canada's The National.
And 8 pm would be an ideal time to hook the news junkies who aren't home at 6:30, or find the network news shows at that hour to be increasingly not worth watching, because of their high fluff factor.
CNN could start a solid newscast like this in a matter of days, not weeks or months. There are many highly qualified reporters already at CNN who could handle the anchor chores. And the reporters in the field around the world give CNN a global reach the networks can't match.
There should be a place somewhere on CNN's schedule for an opinion show that truly delves into issues with intelligence and civility. But what we really need at 8 pm is not the talk show CNN will be giving us in the fall. We need a newscast that is all about the news, not the person delivering the news.
If CNN did an 8 o'clock newscast, it would be good news for the industry and for our country.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Lazy Reporters, Politicians and Comedians Bring Helen Thomas Down as an Unquestioning Public Cheers
The fact that writing about Helen Thomas four days after she resigned feels like old news, tells you something about what's wrong with the media and our country today.
After a journalism career spanning almost seventy years, Thomas was taken down in less than two minutes. Which is the running time of the video where she made the remarks that forced her to resign her job, lose her book collaborator, her lecture agent and have a Washington-area high school cancel a graduation speech she was scheduled to deliver.
Most people are also unaware that the person who conducted the video interview in late May, was not a reputable journalist like Helen Thomas, but a right- wing Long Island Rabbi with a website, which apparently is all you need to get press credentials to The White House for a Jewish Heritage event. Rabbi David Nesenoff uploaded the video to his website under the caption "Helen Thomas Tells Jews To Go Back To Germany". Which isn't a nice thing for her to say. Except she didn't say it.
Let's take a quick break to give you an unedited transcript of their exchange:
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Any advice for these young people over here for starting out in the press corps?
HELEN THOMAS: Go for it. You’ll never be unhappy. You’ll always keep people informed. And you’ll always keep learning. The greatest thing of the profession is never stop learning.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Today they’re covering the Jewish Heritage Month. Any—
HELEN THOMAS: Are they going to meet the President?
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Yeah, and any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today. Any comments on Israel?
HELEN THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Ooh, any better comments than that?
UNIDENTIFIED: Helen is blunt.
HELEN THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, and it’s not Poland.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: So where should they go? What should they do?
HELEN THOMAS: They could go home.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Where is their home?
HELEN THOMAS: Poland, Germany—
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: So the Jews—you’re saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?
HELEN THOMAS: —and America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See?
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Now, are you familiar with the history of that region and what took place?
HELEN THOMAS: Very much. I’m of Arab background.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: I see.
(At that point, Nesenoff asks Helen if she speaks Arabic, and she says she does not. Nesenoff says a few words to her in Arabic. And then Thomas ended the interview with)
HELEN THOMAS: Go for journalism. You'll never regret it.
Helen Thomas issued a statement saying, "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon," she wrote.
However crass, undiplomatic and imprecise her language, it is clear that Thomas was merely advocating the same two state solution that myself and a majority of Americans, Israelis and Palestinians support. And an end to an occupation that is considered illegal by international law. Whether the land really belongs to Palestinians or Israelis, no one will ever know. I'm pretty sure they didn't save the receipts. Thomas clearly means "Israeli" settlers in the West Bank, as the people who should go somewhere else. And while of course she should have listed "Israel" as the first place they could go, the notion of Israeli and other Jews also living in 2010 Germany and Poland is simply not the same as what she has been recklessly accused of saying. Sending Jews back to the Germany and Poland of the Nazi years.
What does Rabbi Nesenoff think about who the land belongs to? This is what he writes on his website RabbiLive.com
Whether you agree with Helen Thomas is not important. But to all those who delight in her excommunication, here is Helen Thomas, at age 85, in action on March 21, 2006, the first time President Bush directly called on her in three years
“Maybe you should go home,” “Maybe you should go back to where you came from. Maybe you should go to Lebanon now that we don’t need you anymore as a reporter. You big fat cow. I like that she thinks she’s from America so she’s where she is. She’s where she’s supposed to be. She should go back to Lebanon. I don’t know why she’s here. She’s occupying America with her big, fat ass.” Hopefully the planet will be rid of her soon. Maybe she'll stroke out or something. That would be nice."
After reading Stern's venom, you might want to take a shower. Better yet, here's another Helen Thomas gem from a recent interview in Vice Magazine:
On June 3, Rabbi Nemeroff posted an edited version of the Helen Thomas interview (1:03 minutes) on You Tube. It has received 1,582,238 hits. On June 7, after Thomas resigned, the unedited version(1:58 minutes)was posted. To date, it has 61,746 hits.
After a journalism career spanning almost seventy years, Thomas was taken down in less than two minutes. Which is the running time of the video where she made the remarks that forced her to resign her job, lose her book collaborator, her lecture agent and have a Washington-area high school cancel a graduation speech she was scheduled to deliver.
Most people are also unaware that the person who conducted the video interview in late May, was not a reputable journalist like Helen Thomas, but a right- wing Long Island Rabbi with a website, which apparently is all you need to get press credentials to The White House for a Jewish Heritage event. Rabbi David Nesenoff uploaded the video to his website under the caption "Helen Thomas Tells Jews To Go Back To Germany". Which isn't a nice thing for her to say. Except she didn't say it.
Let's take a quick break to give you an unedited transcript of their exchange:
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Any advice for these young people over here for starting out in the press corps?
HELEN THOMAS: Go for it. You’ll never be unhappy. You’ll always keep people informed. And you’ll always keep learning. The greatest thing of the profession is never stop learning.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Today they’re covering the Jewish Heritage Month. Any—
HELEN THOMAS: Are they going to meet the President?
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Yeah, and any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today. Any comments on Israel?
HELEN THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Ooh, any better comments than that?
UNIDENTIFIED: Helen is blunt.
HELEN THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, and it’s not Poland.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: So where should they go? What should they do?
HELEN THOMAS: They could go home.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Where is their home?
HELEN THOMAS: Poland, Germany—
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: So the Jews—you’re saying Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?
HELEN THOMAS: —and America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See?
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: Now, are you familiar with the history of that region and what took place?
HELEN THOMAS: Very much. I’m of Arab background.
RABBI DAVID NESENOFF: I see.
(At that point, Nesenoff asks Helen if she speaks Arabic, and she says she does not. Nesenoff says a few words to her in Arabic. And then Thomas ended the interview with)
HELEN THOMAS: Go for journalism. You'll never regret it.
Helen Thomas issued a statement saying, "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon," she wrote.
However crass, undiplomatic and imprecise her language, it is clear that Thomas was merely advocating the same two state solution that myself and a majority of Americans, Israelis and Palestinians support. And an end to an occupation that is considered illegal by international law. Whether the land really belongs to Palestinians or Israelis, no one will ever know. I'm pretty sure they didn't save the receipts. Thomas clearly means "Israeli" settlers in the West Bank, as the people who should go somewhere else. And while of course she should have listed "Israel" as the first place they could go, the notion of Israeli and other Jews also living in 2010 Germany and Poland is simply not the same as what she has been recklessly accused of saying. Sending Jews back to the Germany and Poland of the Nazi years.
What does Rabbi Nesenoff think about who the land belongs to? This is what he writes on his website RabbiLive.com
So after the Holocaust in the late 1940s it was a natural for the Jews to go back there-- to their land and reclaim it again. And with the world feeling really guilty right after the Holocaust it made it that much easier to get the land back and kick out hundreds of thousands of Arabs who were living there and dwelling peacefully with their families and loved ones. But it was ours first as it was promised to us by G-d in the Torah so we have a claim to it.
Whether you agree with Helen Thomas is not important. But to all those who delight in her excommunication, here is Helen Thomas, at age 85, in action on March 21, 2006, the first time President Bush directly called on her in three years
"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet...your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth...what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil...quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?"
Contrast those powerful,insightful words from an American journalism treasure to those of Howard Stern.
“Maybe you should go home,” “Maybe you should go back to where you came from. Maybe you should go to Lebanon now that we don’t need you anymore as a reporter. You big fat cow. I like that she thinks she’s from America so she’s where she is. She’s where she’s supposed to be. She should go back to Lebanon. I don’t know why she’s here. She’s occupying America with her big, fat ass.” Hopefully the planet will be rid of her soon. Maybe she'll stroke out or something. That would be nice."
After reading Stern's venom, you might want to take a shower. Better yet, here's another Helen Thomas gem from a recent interview in Vice Magazine:
"In the run-up to the Iraq War, no one asked for proof of weapons of mass destruction. It was very, very clear that President Bush wanted to go to war at any cost. And he would not go back to the UN and allow them three more months to look and see if it was really true. We went to war on lies.
That’s the reason we’re so easily led down the garden path—nobody’s asking “why?” The question “why?” should always be there. What is the reason this other government or these people would do this to us? But I had the impression that throughout the whole country, truth took a holiday. There’s been very little search for truth, except for a few people who have spoken out."
On June 3, Rabbi Nemeroff posted an edited version of the Helen Thomas interview (1:03 minutes) on You Tube. It has received 1,582,238 hits. On June 7, after Thomas resigned, the unedited version(1:58 minutes)was posted. To date, it has 61,746 hits.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Crackdown on Ignorance Should Target Arizona Lawmakers
Governor Jan Brewer said the Arizona police would not use racial profiling, even though the whole point of the immigration bill she signed into law yesterday is to racially profile and harass Hispanics. Brewer was expected to receive the endorsement of racist groups in Arizona and across the country, and the overwhelming support of those who post misspelled, incoherent gibberish on online message boards.
The bill appears to weaken the chance of Republicans ever attracting one Hispanic vote in this country, although they apparently hope it will appeal to Hispanics with low self-esteem who support being stopped by police for no apparent reason.
State Senator Russell Pearce is uniquely qualified to be the sponsor of the new law. When Pearce posed for a photo with a man who was a featured speaker at a neo-Nazi conference, he said he didn't know that the man was a neo-Nazi, although you would think the swastika might have been a tip-off. Arizona police did not say if they will use a German accent when they racially profile Hispanics and demand they "show us your papers!".
Pearce helped burnish his credentials in 2006, when he praised a 1950's federal deportation program called Operation Wetback that could open up the possibility of police deporting anyone who might be sweating on a lovely 110 degree day in Phoenix.
And Pearce once "inadvertently" sent an email to supporters with an attachment by a white supremacist group. The only person who could "inadvertently" attach a white supremacist document is someone who could pose with a neo-Nazi and not know he's a neo-Nazi.
In a related move, Senator John McCain sold his soul to the devil. After a lifetime of fighting immigration measures like this, McCain supported the bill and answered the question of which John McCain he is now. Apparently, he's the John McCain who voted against making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday in 1983.
The Arizona immigration bill signed into law yesterday almost makes the stupidity and vileness of the "Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Nazi Fascist" signs at Tea Party rallies, and the mind-blowingly vapid and mean ramblings of Michele Bachmann ("We have a gangster government in Washington") pale in comparison. Those are just disgusting words. What Arizona has done is a disgusting deed.
So until Arizona repeals this un-American bill, the closest I'm going to get to the Grand Canyon is looking at a photo of it in an old National Geographic.
The bill appears to weaken the chance of Republicans ever attracting one Hispanic vote in this country, although they apparently hope it will appeal to Hispanics with low self-esteem who support being stopped by police for no apparent reason.
State Senator Russell Pearce is uniquely qualified to be the sponsor of the new law. When Pearce posed for a photo with a man who was a featured speaker at a neo-Nazi conference, he said he didn't know that the man was a neo-Nazi, although you would think the swastika might have been a tip-off. Arizona police did not say if they will use a German accent when they racially profile Hispanics and demand they "show us your papers!".
Pearce helped burnish his credentials in 2006, when he praised a 1950's federal deportation program called Operation Wetback that could open up the possibility of police deporting anyone who might be sweating on a lovely 110 degree day in Phoenix.
And Pearce once "inadvertently" sent an email to supporters with an attachment by a white supremacist group. The only person who could "inadvertently" attach a white supremacist document is someone who could pose with a neo-Nazi and not know he's a neo-Nazi.
In a related move, Senator John McCain sold his soul to the devil. After a lifetime of fighting immigration measures like this, McCain supported the bill and answered the question of which John McCain he is now. Apparently, he's the John McCain who voted against making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday in 1983.
The Arizona immigration bill signed into law yesterday almost makes the stupidity and vileness of the "Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Nazi Fascist" signs at Tea Party rallies, and the mind-blowingly vapid and mean ramblings of Michele Bachmann ("We have a gangster government in Washington") pale in comparison. Those are just disgusting words. What Arizona has done is a disgusting deed.
So until Arizona repeals this un-American bill, the closest I'm going to get to the Grand Canyon is looking at a photo of it in an old National Geographic.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Were Laws of Gravity Passed Through Reconciliation?
The Kentucky Legislature recently introduced a bill that would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
But why stop there?
Maybe it's time to revisit the whole question of whether the earth is actually flat after all. Skeptics point to those images from space that clearly show a round globe. But how hard would it be to do some editing tricks with Photoshop to give the illusion of roundness? Skeptics also say that if the earth was flat we would hear stories of people falling off constantly. But it's pretty hard for people who just fell off the earth to tell their story to the media
The round earth camp clings to a belief in mysterious gravitational forces that keep Brazil from falling backwards into space. Maybe revelers in Rio have been flying into space, but people are too drunk to notice.
When was the last time anyone took an unbiased look at the laws of gravity? Who wrote these laws and were they passed through reconciliation?
If reconciliation is "the nuclear option" Republicans and conservative media say it is, does that mean Iran is secretly building a 51 vote majority to drop on Israel?
Isn't it time to insist that we stop the threat of 51 vote majorities around the world, especially in the volatile Middle East region? A good first step might be to use unmanned drones to target parliamentarians around the world. They seek to impose a new Robert's Rules Of Order in the world, that forces countries to adopt the undemocratic nuclear option of majority rule.
To those who support this nuclear option of a 51 vote majority, where is the money going to come from to pay for it? That's what Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky probably had in mind when he singlehandedly held up unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of Americans by refusing to allow a vote on it. Democracy may look good on paper, especially parchment, but in a recession, the American taxpaper just can't afford these reckless majority rule votes.
To those who are so quick to criticize Jim Bunning, did you ever consider that maybe he was holding up the unemployment insurance vote to maintain his Time Magazine ranking as one of the Five Worst Senators? Although political correctness tells us not to value victory, a former star pitcher like Jim Bunning knows the value of winning any kind of prize, even one that the liberal media gives a negative connotation.
In addition to evolution and global warming, maybe Bunning's home state of Kentucky will challenge another long established theory that Republicans and conservatives have questioned recently.
The truth.
But why stop there?
Maybe it's time to revisit the whole question of whether the earth is actually flat after all. Skeptics point to those images from space that clearly show a round globe. But how hard would it be to do some editing tricks with Photoshop to give the illusion of roundness? Skeptics also say that if the earth was flat we would hear stories of people falling off constantly. But it's pretty hard for people who just fell off the earth to tell their story to the media
The round earth camp clings to a belief in mysterious gravitational forces that keep Brazil from falling backwards into space. Maybe revelers in Rio have been flying into space, but people are too drunk to notice.
When was the last time anyone took an unbiased look at the laws of gravity? Who wrote these laws and were they passed through reconciliation?
If reconciliation is "the nuclear option" Republicans and conservative media say it is, does that mean Iran is secretly building a 51 vote majority to drop on Israel?
Isn't it time to insist that we stop the threat of 51 vote majorities around the world, especially in the volatile Middle East region? A good first step might be to use unmanned drones to target parliamentarians around the world. They seek to impose a new Robert's Rules Of Order in the world, that forces countries to adopt the undemocratic nuclear option of majority rule.
To those who support this nuclear option of a 51 vote majority, where is the money going to come from to pay for it? That's what Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky probably had in mind when he singlehandedly held up unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of Americans by refusing to allow a vote on it. Democracy may look good on paper, especially parchment, but in a recession, the American taxpaper just can't afford these reckless majority rule votes.
To those who are so quick to criticize Jim Bunning, did you ever consider that maybe he was holding up the unemployment insurance vote to maintain his Time Magazine ranking as one of the Five Worst Senators? Although political correctness tells us not to value victory, a former star pitcher like Jim Bunning knows the value of winning any kind of prize, even one that the liberal media gives a negative connotation.
In addition to evolution and global warming, maybe Bunning's home state of Kentucky will challenge another long established theory that Republicans and conservatives have questioned recently.
The truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)