Lies, Damned Lies & Israel

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, in a joint press conference with President Obama, said today that Israel "cannot go back" to the 1967 borders with its neighbors in its negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. He cited over 300,000 Israeli settlers in disputed territory as the reason.

What he did not say was that this was Israel's plan all along. While pretending to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians, Israel was building settlements in lands claimed by the Palestinian Authority. A LOT of settlements.

Angry Palestinians would send rocket and mortar fire into these settlements as a means of expressing their pent-up rage at Israel. Israel would counter by shutting down the West Bank and Gaza, rolling in tanks and delivering harsh "justice" while shouting to the world that the PA could not be trusted because it could not control its own people. While the world was focused on the plight of the peoples in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel was quietly approving new settlements, seemingly on a daily basis.

Benjamin Netanyahu would smile and shake hands with US Presidents and talk of peace with the Palestinians while expanding Israel's territory by shoving the Palestinians off of their lands. Now, he claims that he "cannot go back" because there are just too many settlers and too much of an investment made.

Someone PLEASE tell me why we continue to support Israel. They've been lying to us for DECADES. It's obvious by their actions that Israel is not interested in peace with the Palestinians or a Palestinian state, despite all of the lip-service they give the ideas.

Here's what President Obama (or ANY US President, for that matter) should do: cut off ALL funding to Israel. Stop ALL trade with Israel. Deliver the message: Make peace with the Palestinians RIGHT NOW, or you're on your own.

Will the President do this? Of course not. It's political suicide. But this kind of tough love is exactly what Israel needs so we can put this Middle East  "problem" to bed once and for all.

A Rebuttal To "The Osama Bin Laden Exception"

AP Photo

In an opinion piece in Salon.com entitled "The Osama Bin Laden Exception," columnist Glenn Greenwald argues that the US was wrong to kill Osama Bin Laden. He says that not only was it wrong, it was illegal.

In Greenwald's piece of May 9th, and in his subsequent appearance on NPR's "Talk Of The Nation," he says that US and international law prohibits the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and that he should have been brought to trial instead. His argument is that under international treaties and precedent, Bin Laden should have been given a trial and the US should have presented evidence of his guilt before passing sentence. As an example, he cites the war crimes trials of World War II, and the fact that we still have Khalid Sheikh Muhammad locked away in Guantanamo Bay - ostensibly awaiting trial.

Greenwald says that we are going against our own principles and our own sense of fairness and justice by executing Bin Laden without a fair trial in order to satisfy a thirst for revenge. He says that we would not feel the same if the situations were reversed; that is - we would not tolerate a foreign military operation on US soil designed to kill the President as a form of revenge for the deaths of thousands of people killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says that President Obama went against his own words by carrying out a military operation without notifying Pakistan first and giving them the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden.

Finally, Greenwald says that by taking this action, the US is setting a precedent: that we say that we are a nation of laws, but we will ignore those laws when it suits us. What's to stop us from assassinating ANYONE we deem a threat?

And technically, legally. . . he's right. But here's why he's wrong:

1. Assassinating a foreign head of state has been illegal since 1976, and the US has not assassinated any foreign heads of state since 1973
2. We did not assassinate a Pakistani citizen on Pakistani soil - we assassinated a known and wanted terrorist and fugitive, officially wanted by both the United States and Pakistan
3. A trial would have given Bin Laden and Al Quaeda the very publicity and notoriety they are looking for - giving them the chance to spread more of their message of hate and terror to more people
4. It would have legitimized Bin Laden and Al Quaeda
5. Executing Bin Laden and burying him at sea prevents believers from visiting his gravesite and enshrining him as a martyr

The war crimes trials in The Hague were prosecuting individuals who were part of a government sponsored war. Those trials were designed to show the world just how evil the Nazi regime was, and to bring to light the war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. Additionally, those people on trial were for the most part official representatives of their government.

Anyone on the planet with a radio, television or newspaper could see for themselves the terror, destruction and murder brought forth by Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Not only in the United States, but around the world. Al Quaeda claimed responsibility for their actions, boasted of the murder of civilians and encouraged others to do the same. They have convicted themselves by their own words and deeds.

Do our actions set a precedent? Do they "send a message?" Yes, they do: We ARE a nation of laws. We will defend your right to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say - but don't fuck with us or our allies or we'll hunt you down, pop two rounds of ammunition into your head and dump your sorry ass into the sea. It's basically the same message we've been sending out to the world since day 1 - only more up-to-date.

There's A Hole In The Bottom of the Sea

Everybody sing along!

♫ There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a hole, there's a hole
There's a hole in the bottom of the sea


There's a well in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a well in the hole in the bottom of the sea
There's a well, there's a well
There's a well in the hole in the bottom of the sea

. . . continues. . .

There's a failed blowout valve in the well in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's a pipe in the failed blowout valve in the well in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's oil and gas in the pipe in the failed blowout valve in the well in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's a mess in the ocean from the oil and gas in the pipe in the failed blowout valve in the well in the hole in the bottom of the sea

There's dead animals from the mess in the ocean from the oil and gas in the pipe in the failed blowout valve in the well in the hole in the bottom of the sea


Add your own! Here are some examples:

Finger pointing
Job losses
Public outrage
Dog-and-pony shows
Name calling
Protests
Stonewalling
Political posturing
Endless news coverage
Failed barriers
Destroyed wetlands
Political outrage (genuine)
Political outrage (fake)

Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Woman in 1990?

Glenn Beck's lawyers are not laughing. Neither, I'm sure, is Glenn Beck. But tens of thousands of people are having a laugh at the rumor site, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com.
The anonymous author of the site says that TV loudmouth Glenn Beck uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation. And what's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander. Other websites have picked up on the site's popularity, and the alleged "rumor" has spread like wildfire.

Glenn Beck is famous for his "Obama is a racist" remarks, and ran a successful smear campaign against the President's "green jobs" advisor, Van Jones by using unscientific cause-effect logic, as well as spouting frightening allegations of communism. He famously had a "nervous breakdown" on national television because he was "frightened" about where the country was headed.

As proof of the rape allegation, a number of websites have popped up with "evidence" of Glenn Beck's wrongdoing, one even hosting a police report and news clipping showing that, indeed in 1990, a person named Glenn Beck did, in fact, rape someone in Connecticut in 1990 where Glenn Beck happened to be working at the time.

Is the rumor true? Glenn Beck isn't talking, and the DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com website capitalizes on this by asking him to come forward and tell the truth about the rumors. Because as we all know, a lack of a denial can be just as good as an admission - at least it is to Glenn Beck.

It's Time To Fire The Loudmouths: An Open Letter to Fox, CNN & MSNBC

An Open Letter to:

Rupert Murdoch, CEO Fox News
Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Inc.
Jeff Zucker, President of NBC Universal

Gentlemen:

I am writing this letter to express my concern over what I see as the deterioration of civil discourse in American society.

Your cable news networks reach an astonishing number of people throughout the country and around the world. Each of your networks provides valuable news and information to your viewers. Each of your networks also, however, is guilty of stirring up hate, bigotry, racism and fear in the very population you have pledged to serve.

I am speaking, of course, about your "non-news" programs - the programs that mix news, opinion and entertainment. These types of programs are unprecedented in the history of news gathering and reporting and I believe that they represent a real danger to American society.

By airing these types of shows in the evening and "prime time" hours, you are presenting entertainment and opinion as "news," which it is not. Between your three primary networks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC) there is not a single program that broadcasts purely news after 4PM. Instead, there is a lineup of overly-dramatic programs and opinionated talkers - all spouting their alarmist theories, telling outright lies and badmouthing each other. There is no debate and no opposing points of view are allowed. Some have even revealed themselves to be outright racists and bigots. By displaying a news ticker at the bottom of the screen, you further validate these programs as actual news and validate the opinions of the commentators. Their hateful and vitriolic speech goes right up to the limit of free speech as defined by the Constitution, and they take no responsibility for the potential consequences of their words.

So, I'm asking each of you to do the American public a favor and stop broadcasting these programs in lieu of actual news. Bring back the "old style" news and honest debate. Bring back investigative journalism. Reporters and anchors should report - and shut up. The bond of trust between news anchors and the viewing public has been broken and needs to be restored.

We as a society need to return to honest debate and discussion about the issues of the day. Right now, we yell at each other from our entrenched positions - never actually listening to what the other side has to say, and never actually trying to understand opposing viewpoints. We make up our minds on an issue without fully understanding it - a consequence of lax reporting, opinionated journalists and financial agendas set by each of your companies.

What does it say about network news when a large portion of the American populace reports that they get their news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? It says that your three networks are failing in their mandate to serve the public.

As proof that you are serious about a return to public service, you need to cancel every single show that features an opinionated loudmouth as it's main host. All of them. It's the only way to be completely fair. Any columnist that wants their show back must be held accountable to high standards of decency and fairness.

Will it cost you viewers? Yes. Will it cost you money? Yes. But America needs this. Your job is to educate and inform the public and then let us make up our own minds - a task in which you all have failed miserably.

Do the right thing. Bring back real news.