This Prawer-Begin Plan, that prompted the "Day of Rage" protesting in several cities today, what is it?
What is it? Is it "the largest confiscation of Palestine-owned land since the 1950s," as one critic calls it?
Or, is it a way to help the southern part of Israel develop, despite the fact the Bedouins there are squatting on government land? The protesting Bedouins respond that they have been living on the site since before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Part of the plan calls for Jewish settlements in the area. I am not opposed to that, in spirit. If, though, the Bedouins have to be moved off land they occupied before Israel became a state in order to make room for the Jews, that might possibly be wrong.
It is also fair to wonder if the Bedouins are claiming to have occupied the property before 1948, while in actuality they came to live on the land parcels after the Jewish state was created, and after the Jewish state claimed the land.
Also to be considered, is that 93 percent of all land in Israel is owned by the state. Have Jews been treated the same as are these Bedouins in the Negev Desert area? Have any Jews been forced to move from one property to another? If this is normal treatment of all people in Israel, then perhaps it is acceptable treatment of the Bedouins, as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25170855
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174646#.UprhZY2siSo
Saturday, November 30, 2013
I Met a Criminal from South of the Border
At the grocery store, as we were shopping for our Thanksgiving meal, I said hello to a man appearing to be from south of the border.
He answered with a greeting of his own, then just paused in front of me, as if to invite further conversation.
So, I asked if he was from Mexico, asked why he came here (he came for employment), and asked about his family.
Oh, there are questions I should have asked, that didn't come to my mind right then, but I learned some from him. I didn't ask how often he goes back to Mexico, or why he never goes back to stay, that I might learn why he still chooses America over Mexico.
But, I learned he had been a gang member. He told me he had done bad things. I pressed, What bad things? What did you do? He declined to be more specific, just saying they were bad.
He had a kind, gentle look about him, and when he told me he had changed his life, I believed him. I wish I had asked him if America had provided him that chance to change. I feel he would have said it had.
As I sit here, thinking now, I think of how this should be the way with anyone who starts slipping into crime, or into friendships with those who negatively affect us. We should get away. Move all the way across the country, if we have to.
Or, move to another country. I'm grateful that option was open to Alfredo. While he told me he came for a job in the automobile industry, it does seem he escaped a life of crime by coming here.
In past blogs, I have agreed we should screen criminals out, as we make our rules for who shall be allowed to come to America. I still feel much that way. But, I am grateful for Alfredo's coming, for his being allowed to come. In his situation, coming to America seems like the right thing to have let happen.
He answered with a greeting of his own, then just paused in front of me, as if to invite further conversation.
So, I asked if he was from Mexico, asked why he came here (he came for employment), and asked about his family.
Oh, there are questions I should have asked, that didn't come to my mind right then, but I learned some from him. I didn't ask how often he goes back to Mexico, or why he never goes back to stay, that I might learn why he still chooses America over Mexico.
But, I learned he had been a gang member. He told me he had done bad things. I pressed, What bad things? What did you do? He declined to be more specific, just saying they were bad.
He had a kind, gentle look about him, and when he told me he had changed his life, I believed him. I wish I had asked him if America had provided him that chance to change. I feel he would have said it had.
As I sit here, thinking now, I think of how this should be the way with anyone who starts slipping into crime, or into friendships with those who negatively affect us. We should get away. Move all the way across the country, if we have to.
Or, move to another country. I'm grateful that option was open to Alfredo. While he told me he came for a job in the automobile industry, it does seem he escaped a life of crime by coming here.
In past blogs, I have agreed we should screen criminals out, as we make our rules for who shall be allowed to come to America. I still feel much that way. But, I am grateful for Alfredo's coming, for his being allowed to come. In his situation, coming to America seems like the right thing to have let happen.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Guns Kill More than Life, on Some Occasions
A Thanksgiving story, from early Wednesday morning:
A 72-year-old man, suffering from Alzheimers, wanders off into the night, walking maybe two or three miles from his home on a cold night, where he ends up at a stranger's house, and rings the doorbell. The homeowner comes out while the old man is still in the yard and confronts him. The homeowner tells the old man to to stop advancing toward him.
The old man doesn't, so the homeowner fires four shots, one hitting the 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook in the chest and killing him.
Georgia, where the story took place, is a Stand Your Ground state, having a law that says homeowners do not need to back down when they feel threatened, but can use deadly force. No charges are expected to be filed against Joe Hendrix, the homeowner.
The tragedy underscores two thoughts. First, if you have a weapon, you might end up using it when you shouldn't. You've bought a gun to defend yourself, so it is natural to look for a situation that plays out that intention. "This is why I bought this gun," is the thought pattern in the moment of distress.
Second, the Stand Your Ground laws further place in your mind that what you are doing is right. The law teaches that if someone advances on you, and you feel threatened, you have the legal right to defend yourself, and to shoot the other person dead.
Of course, guns can be used for good. They can defend you. But, be wary. If you must own one, be careful you are not too taken by the teachings of our society to be free and quick to pull the trigger. Guns can affect who you are, who you become, by placing you in position to make dreadful decisions that will haunt you the rest of your life.
At least, that's what happened to Joe Hendrix, when he pulled the trigger on a 72-year-old Alzheimer's patient. He will either suffer remorse for the rest of his life, or he will justify what he did. It has affected who he is in that he has brought death upon another. And, it will continue to negatively affect who he is, if for the rest of his life, he continues to justify what happened.
Guns kill more than life; they also kill character. No, not always, but when accompanied by false values, they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMO-5eU8J1Q
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2013/11/mute-air-force-vet-ronald-westbrook-advanced-alzheimers-killed-ga-homeowner.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/11/27/264495/No-Charges-Expected-To-Be-Lodged.aspx
A 72-year-old man, suffering from Alzheimers, wanders off into the night, walking maybe two or three miles from his home on a cold night, where he ends up at a stranger's house, and rings the doorbell. The homeowner comes out while the old man is still in the yard and confronts him. The homeowner tells the old man to to stop advancing toward him.
The old man doesn't, so the homeowner fires four shots, one hitting the 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook in the chest and killing him.
Georgia, where the story took place, is a Stand Your Ground state, having a law that says homeowners do not need to back down when they feel threatened, but can use deadly force. No charges are expected to be filed against Joe Hendrix, the homeowner.
The tragedy underscores two thoughts. First, if you have a weapon, you might end up using it when you shouldn't. You've bought a gun to defend yourself, so it is natural to look for a situation that plays out that intention. "This is why I bought this gun," is the thought pattern in the moment of distress.
Second, the Stand Your Ground laws further place in your mind that what you are doing is right. The law teaches that if someone advances on you, and you feel threatened, you have the legal right to defend yourself, and to shoot the other person dead.
Of course, guns can be used for good. They can defend you. But, be wary. If you must own one, be careful you are not too taken by the teachings of our society to be free and quick to pull the trigger. Guns can affect who you are, who you become, by placing you in position to make dreadful decisions that will haunt you the rest of your life.
At least, that's what happened to Joe Hendrix, when he pulled the trigger on a 72-year-old Alzheimer's patient. He will either suffer remorse for the rest of his life, or he will justify what he did. It has affected who he is in that he has brought death upon another. And, it will continue to negatively affect who he is, if for the rest of his life, he continues to justify what happened.
Guns kill more than life; they also kill character. No, not always, but when accompanied by false values, they do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMO-5eU8J1Q
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2013/11/mute-air-force-vet-ronald-westbrook-advanced-alzheimers-killed-ga-homeowner.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/11/27/264495/No-Charges-Expected-To-Be-Lodged.aspx
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Pakistanians Living Under the Terror of American Drone Strikes?
If what those speaking against drone strikes are saying is true, we should be outraged our country is perpetrating such an offense against humanity.
We should be out in the streets, protesting, indignant, upset that the good name of America is being dragged to the ground by such a practice. We should be mourning the loss of life of civilians, and crying for those who are living under a terror we are bringing upon them.
One report says for every one person the drones successfully target, they take another 49 non-targeted to the grave. Yes, I question the accuracy of such a figure. Is that number arrived at simply by counting the military leader who was targeted as the lone target, then counting all the rest of the soldiers killed as the 49 non-targeted deaths?
Still, I wonder whether drones do take out innocent bystanders, not just soldiers.
I wonder at the 416-948 civilian deaths from drones from 2004 to 2013, as reported by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Is that number accurate? And, is that too many civilian deaths for us to allow? Surely, some incidence of civilian loss of life is to be expected in a war. Are these lives, then, expendable? (Are these deaths very unfortunate, but justifiable, and therefore expendable?)
I wonder at the terror inflicted on the people. What would it be like to live with a drone hovering above your community 24 hours a day, being afradi a missile might flash down at any moment, engulfing your home?
Terrorism? Yes, that seems like terrorism. We have created terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism. And, we have placed our name on it.
If these accusations have some truth, then America -- the protector of freedom, and the defender truth and right -- is terrorizing and killing the innocents of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Yemen.
If these accusations have some truth, then we are soiling our good name with the blood of the poor and innocent. This thing should not be. If these accusations bear much truth, then the drone strikes that began in 2004 should end before we reach their tenth anniversary.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/
We should be out in the streets, protesting, indignant, upset that the good name of America is being dragged to the ground by such a practice. We should be mourning the loss of life of civilians, and crying for those who are living under a terror we are bringing upon them.
One report says for every one person the drones successfully target, they take another 49 non-targeted to the grave. Yes, I question the accuracy of such a figure. Is that number arrived at simply by counting the military leader who was targeted as the lone target, then counting all the rest of the soldiers killed as the 49 non-targeted deaths?
Still, I wonder whether drones do take out innocent bystanders, not just soldiers.
I wonder at the 416-948 civilian deaths from drones from 2004 to 2013, as reported by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Is that number accurate? And, is that too many civilian deaths for us to allow? Surely, some incidence of civilian loss of life is to be expected in a war. Are these lives, then, expendable? (Are these deaths very unfortunate, but justifiable, and therefore expendable?)
I wonder at the terror inflicted on the people. What would it be like to live with a drone hovering above your community 24 hours a day, being afradi a missile might flash down at any moment, engulfing your home?
Terrorism? Yes, that seems like terrorism. We have created terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism. And, we have placed our name on it.
If these accusations have some truth, then America -- the protector of freedom, and the defender truth and right -- is terrorizing and killing the innocents of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and Yemen.
If these accusations have some truth, then we are soiling our good name with the blood of the poor and innocent. This thing should not be. If these accusations bear much truth, then the drone strikes that began in 2004 should end before we reach their tenth anniversary.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Granting the Power to Enrich Will Further Their Bomb-Making Capacity
If the U.S. and Iran cannot agree on what they agreed to, perhaps they should scurry back to the negotiating tables and make things clear. Off top, I think the Iranians might be correct. They say language in the agreement allowing them the "right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," does indeed give them the right to enrich uranium.
My understanding is, nuclear power is not possible without enriched uranium. If you've given them power to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, you've also given them the power to enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is a necessary step for a nuclear bomb, of course, but that is a step you've agreed they can take.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/27/confusion-over-nuclear-deal-as-iran-protests-white-house-statement/
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Let Iran's Economy Totter, but Save the People
Amid all my thoughts of how easing sanctions against Iran might not be a good thing; amid thoughts of how Iran's economy is crippled by the sanctions and maybe this would be time to hope the regime falls to a broken economy, if it will; amid thoughts of how the deal with Iran might reduce neither its nuclear weapon tendencies nor its nuclear abilities, comes this thought:
If the economy is in such bad shape, people are suffering. This, too, should be a concern.
With the dreadful effects of the nuclear warheads, with the suffering and colossal amount of death it brings, perhaps the suffering of the common folk in Iran is to be preferred. Their suffering is better than letting Iran to forward toward nuclear armament.
Perhaps, but it just seems we should do something.
Perhaps we could offer humanitarian aid, outright gifts of food, distributed by us, and carefully so in order that they do not fall into the hands of the despot government. This would not mend the economy, still leaving it to fall, if fortune would allow that.
Iran might reject the aid, or attempt to reject it, but it would be hard-pressed to do so against the argument that they cannot let their poor suffer in the face of an offer to provide them relief.
Note added Nov. 27:
I wonder how we could verify if people are starving, or going shy on food, and how we could ensure it is they that we reach. If we just go in with food and offer it at the city square, a lot of unneedy people will come right along with the needy. I don't know if there would be a way to qualify who needs assistance. I believe the best we could do would be to make our best determination whether people are truly suffering, then give the assistance even though some of it would fall into the hands of those not in dire need. Screen them as they come to the tables where the food is distributed, asking them about their needs, even though there would not be a way to verify if the needs they represented were actual.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/25/247077050/crippled-by-sanctions-irans-economy-key-in-nuclear-deal
If the economy is in such bad shape, people are suffering. This, too, should be a concern.
With the dreadful effects of the nuclear warheads, with the suffering and colossal amount of death it brings, perhaps the suffering of the common folk in Iran is to be preferred. Their suffering is better than letting Iran to forward toward nuclear armament.
Perhaps, but it just seems we should do something.
Perhaps we could offer humanitarian aid, outright gifts of food, distributed by us, and carefully so in order that they do not fall into the hands of the despot government. This would not mend the economy, still leaving it to fall, if fortune would allow that.
Iran might reject the aid, or attempt to reject it, but it would be hard-pressed to do so against the argument that they cannot let their poor suffer in the face of an offer to provide them relief.
Note added Nov. 27:
I wonder how we could verify if people are starving, or going shy on food, and how we could ensure it is they that we reach. If we just go in with food and offer it at the city square, a lot of unneedy people will come right along with the needy. I don't know if there would be a way to qualify who needs assistance. I believe the best we could do would be to make our best determination whether people are truly suffering, then give the assistance even though some of it would fall into the hands of those not in dire need. Screen them as they come to the tables where the food is distributed, asking them about their needs, even though there would not be a way to verify if the needs they represented were actual.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/25/247077050/crippled-by-sanctions-irans-economy-key-in-nuclear-deal
Monday, November 25, 2013
Netanyahu Calls Deal 'Historic Mistake'
"Today, the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world." -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Six world powers agreed to ease international sanctions against Iran in exchange for limitations being placed on that country's nuclear program -- but the question is, will the limitations amount to little or nothing while allowing the country to regain some relief as it totters economically?
Israel says it will not be bound by the agreement. If the deal ends up strengthening Iran, and if it does not curb Iran's nuclear warhead capabilities, then does the deal then bring us closer to war, not further from it? For if Iran is closer to being a nuclear power, Iran is closer to a preemptive strike.
And, what of President Obama? How will this play on his reputation? He is already reeling from developments with the Affordable Care Act. If public opinion agrees this move was a blunder, public approval ratings for him might yet decline the more.
More importantly, what does the deal say of our relationship with Israel? Israel opposed the deal, yet we were the nation that brought it along, brought it to fruition. We did not rally to Israel's side on this matter, but went straight against it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-suckers-deal/2013/11/21/9d03e966-52dc-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Some-fear-nuclear-deal-with-Iran-may-intensify-sectarian-tensions-in-Middle-East-333024
Six world powers agreed to ease international sanctions against Iran in exchange for limitations being placed on that country's nuclear program -- but the question is, will the limitations amount to little or nothing while allowing the country to regain some relief as it totters economically?
Israel says it will not be bound by the agreement. If the deal ends up strengthening Iran, and if it does not curb Iran's nuclear warhead capabilities, then does the deal then bring us closer to war, not further from it? For if Iran is closer to being a nuclear power, Iran is closer to a preemptive strike.
And, what of President Obama? How will this play on his reputation? He is already reeling from developments with the Affordable Care Act. If public opinion agrees this move was a blunder, public approval ratings for him might yet decline the more.
More importantly, what does the deal say of our relationship with Israel? Israel opposed the deal, yet we were the nation that brought it along, brought it to fruition. We did not rally to Israel's side on this matter, but went straight against it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-suckers-deal/2013/11/21/9d03e966-52dc-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Some-fear-nuclear-deal-with-Iran-may-intensify-sectarian-tensions-in-Middle-East-333024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)