Mike L.
Published at the Times of Israel.
American Jews need to stand up
In Commentary Jeffrey Tobin argues that the Republican party has given American Jews an opportunity to defeat the Hagel nomination.
Will they take it?
I highly doubt it, but I encourage them to do so anyway.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (mike.lumish@gmail.com)
I'll be voting Republican from now on until the Democrats change their views on Israel. The national Democrats are now a de facto antisemitic party.
ReplyDeleteY'know, I haven't made that leap, yet.
DeleteI left the Democratic party once it became clear to me that the base accepted anti-Zionists as part of the overall coalition, but I have not, yet, gone to the Republicans.
The Republican party is going through a moment of transition and I want to see what comes out the other end.
In any case, American Jews need to stand up against this Hagel nomination and now they are given another opportunity to do so. I hope that they take it, but I do not think that they will.
From what I read this morning it looks like a NO vote.
ReplyDeleteBut the way the American parliamentary system works that could mean anything !
Michael!!!!
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me you don't vote Republican.
End of friendship mate!!
Finished!
Over!
Kaput!
My father was a Communist. No, not the brand of Communism that was seen in the US, or for that matter down under. It was more Labour/Workers party in the UK.
Even he woke up, and that after being an elected member of government in the 'old country' for 25 years.
He saw what the Left had come to represent but he could never bring himself to vote for the Liberal Party ( The Liberal party, the ALP is our Right)
As voting is compulsory, he voted 'informal' In other words he either posted an empty ballot paper or put a line through it
He once called me "A traitor to my class"
Hi Shirl,
DeleteI seem to be in a long, drawn out transitional phase.
I did, in fact, vote for... what was the guy's name again?... oh, yes... Mitt Romney.
I voted for Mitt Romney.
I admit of my own free will and am not the least little bit sorry about this fact.
For the first time in my life I voted for a Republican. I have all sorts of ancestors rolling around in their graves, but I have to tell you that it was very liberating.
I walked out of that polling station with both arms raised up and crying out, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Amighty, I am free at last!"
:o)
Y'know, I used to like to kid people that my relatives came to the United States early in the twentieth centuries carrying copies of Das Kapital and little round bombs in the other.
But we move on because times change and we need to change with them.
The truth is Shirl, that the progressive-left is dead to me and the Democratic party is dying.
I can live with it.
You really have a huge problem there Mike with your 'right'. It's like they are living in a time warp. It's about time they got themselves into the 21st century.
DeleteLike it or not they have to forget their blanket ban on abortion. I know there is something about to be proposed here by our Christian Democrat party which sounds like a good idea. I have no issue with it, however I don't think abortion should be used as a form of contraception.
I'm not sure if I have this correct or not but I am led to believe the Democrats have a 'thing' about homosexuality too.
This applies to you too Geoff, there is no way that every single person can possibility agree with ever single item a political party stands for.
I actually support the Christian Democrats for the Upper House. Sure the are a few things I don't go along with, especially their 'right to life' issues. I am a strong believer in euthanasia in the right circumstance. For instance. I went through 6 months of my father being reduced to nothing but a living, breathing vegetable with every dignity of life stripped from him. He lived the previous 2 years in limbo, for want of a better way of putting it. I wish I could have done the kindest thing and given him an injection and put him quietly to sleep the same as I did with my dog.
G-d forbid I ever become like that because I would hate to think that my children and grandchildren would have to go through what I went through.
Sorry guys. As my daughter would say Mum you're raving"!!
Whhops.
Delete"Democrats have a 'thing' about homosexuality too."
Should read "your Democrats"
Apostasy. It isn't just a body of water in Italy.
Delete;-P
I mess up more joke deliveries than Federal Express. Must be because I'm getting old...
Delete"You really have a huge problem there Mike with your 'right'. It's like they are living in a time warp. It's about time they got themselves into the 21st century."
DeleteYeah, there's the thing. It's certainly not all of 'the right,' per se, but it's definitely today's Republican Party. They party like it's 1959. Only without the 'party,' if you know what I mean.
I used to be "pro-choice" (pro-abortion). I used to view "conservatives" as being "right-wing" intolerant stupid lunatics.
DeleteAnd I have always believed that Gay people should not be discriminated against.
However, I am no longer "pro-choice". I understand that killing living beings is wrong. Fetuses are living beings. Killing fetuses is wrong.
Furthermore, euthanasia is wrong. Why does one who performs euthanasia perform euthanasia? To make themselves feel better. One who performs euthanasia performs euthanasia out of feeling aversion.
Killing any living being is harmful to that living being. One can refrain from actively prolonging the life of one who is dying and who is suffering, and that's not wrong. However, to actively kill someone who is dying and who is suffering is wrong.
And:
The matter of whether or not to legalize governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage is, at this time, a red herring. Furthermore, there are reasonable ethical reasons that some of the "Conservatives" who oppose the legalization of governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage oppose the legalization of governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage -- particularly at this time -- for ideologically ethical widely-encompassing political reasons.
---
So, contemporary self-professed "liberals" are against "Conservatives" and Republicans because of some abstract concept about "intolerance" and some abstract concept of thinking of others as being "intolerant" -- an abstract concept of thinking of themselves as being "righteous" and "good"? So contemporary self-professed "liberals" are against "Conservatives" because many "Conservatives" are against the killing of certain living beings?
So, supporting totalitarian, supremacist, ideologically genocidally anti-Jewish racists is okay, but supporting people who are Classical Liberals, and who, in many cases, oppose the killing of fetuses, and who, in, I think, many cases, oppose governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage but who don't believing in discriminating against Gay people in other ways, is evil?
Furthermore, the Republican party establishment is not contemporary "Conservative". That is: The Republican party establishment is not Classical Liberal. The Republican party establishment is, and has always been, an elitist self-serving club. Furthermore, the members of the Republican party at some of the highest levels are actually Progressives -- Socialists -- utopianist supremacist totalitarians.
(And, by the way, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist racist, and, by the way, was a devout Christian. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm_ )
The ignorance of very many people is huge. "Conservatives" and "liberals", both, are ignorant. Ignorant in different ways. Ignorant about different things. But ignorant, both, are "conservatives" and "liberals" nevertheless -- and, I think, especially so are contemporary "liberals".
"The liberal project began to fail when it began to lie."
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
----
I don't mean to be harsh or blaming to anyone here. I just want to point out facts. I just want to make known what I understand is true.
My recommendation is to listen to Thomas Sowell.
Daniel
DeleteI don't want to get into a long convoluted argument with you on the pros and cons of euthanasia.
I just hope that you never have to experience what I experienced over a six month period with my father. Over more than two years really, as dementia took hold more and more.
To watch a person you love, who was a vibrant, warm, loving and intelligent human being reduced to a 'nothing' that's what it is, nothing. It eats away at you and you die inside more and more daily. To watch that person reduced to a shell. Something that breathes and that is it. No sign of recognition, no speech, no movements, no smile, no nothing.
You hope and pray that he will close his eyes and go to sleep for ever. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
One of my daughter’s friends commented at the shiva that wasn’t upset. I spoke with her and told her I was happy. He was at peace finally. He’d had a terrible struggle. The person who died wasn’t my father. It may have been his body, but the person I knew and loved died a couple of years previously.
As to abortion. Until a foetus is able to survive unaided outside of the womb. It is not a life. In the USA you have children having children. What life do either of these people have?
Dear Shirley,
DeleteI feel sorry that you experienced the suffering that you experienced in your witnessing the suffering of your father. Your compassion for your father is beneficial and noble. Your compassion for your father, in how I think you may have treated him with kindness while he was suffering, may have relieved him of some of the suffering that he was experiencing.
I understand that you experienced suffering by witnessing you father suffering. However, if, to try to end your suffering (and, as part of that, to try to end your father's suffering), you had killed your father, that would have been very bad. I'm glad that you didn't kill your father.
I'm glad that you are not suffering so much now as you were when you were witnessing your father experiencing suffering.
I'm glad that you had compassion for your father.
----
And you said that the person who died wasn't your father.
What is a human being? What is a person? What is a living being?
What is viewed as being a human being -- a person -- a living being -- is a group of aggregates:
Form
Feeling
Perception
Mental fabrications
Consciousness
The Five Aggregates - A Study Guide - by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html
There is suffering.
There is the origination of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is the path of practice leading to the cessation of suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html
----
And:
As to abortion:
"...Until a foetus is able to survive unaided outside of the womb..."
Until a child is able to survive unaided by his mother or father or another adult is it not wrong to kill that child? No, it is wrong to kill that child under any circumstance.
Until a human being is able to survive unaided by the oxygen and warmth and atmosphere of the earth is it not wrong to kill that human being? No, it is wrong to kill that human being under any circumstances.
Dear Shirl,
DeleteI apologize for referring to you as Shirley instead of as Shirl. I referred to you as Shirley instead of as Shirl by mistake. I referred to you as Shirley automatically because I automatically thought of your name as being Shirley, because the name Shirley is, to me, in what I have experienced in my life, a more common name than Shirl -- so my mind automatically thought of your name as being Shirley -- because I was not being mindful. I apologize.
I am overwhelmed by the OCD that I am experiencing. It's difficult for me to be mindful in certain instances -- because I am overwhelmed by the OCD that I am experiencing.
But I try to be mindful. I try to not cause any harm to myself or others. It's difficult for me to not cause any harm to myself and others, but I try to not cause any harm to myself and others.
Dan
"But I try to be mindful. I try to not cause any harm to myself or others. It's difficult for me to not cause any harm to myself and others, but I try to not cause any harm to myself and others."
DeleteWhat I mean is that I often make mistakes which I feel cause harm to myself and others.
But I try to not make mistakes that cause harm to myself and others.
I try to be mindful.
And, as part of that, I try to not get angry. And I try to not say and do things in anger. But I have often gotten angry. And I have often done and said things in anger. But I try to not do and say things in anger.
I try to be mindful.
"They party like it's 1959. Only without the 'party,' "
DeleteI'm going to snitch that
Shirl, we went through something similar with my mom who suffered a series of strokes before we let her go toward the middle of the last decade.
DeleteFor quite some time she was alive, but she was gone.
These things are hard, but very much a part of life, unfortunately.
Daniel, as we say here "No sweat" Right Geoff? Me being an ex-pat Brit too.
DeleteJokes aside, it doesn't matter what you call me as long as it's not rude.!!
I actually loathe name shortening. Especially mine, very few people do it. I became Shirl in Oz, when I first started on the Internet, which was about the time it started here in the early 90s. I wanted to use my name and at the same time my location. 'Shirlee in Oz' was a no-go. The obvious choice was what is now.
The double e spelling came about at university. I Hated 'Shirl' and told people if they HAD to shorten it to call me Lee. Inadvertently someone spelled Shirlee with the double e. I liked it and so it began. It's spelled like that everywhere.Passport etc.
Thank you, Shirley. (It's my understanding, from reading your message, that Shirley is your name. If that understanding of mine is wrong, then I apologize and please correct me.)
DeleteSome corrections to what I wrote in my previous messages:
DeleteI wrote:
"Furthermore, there are reasonable ethical reasons that some of the 'Conservatives' who oppose the legalization of governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage oppose the legalization of governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage -- particularly at this time -- for ideologically ethical widely-encompassing political reasons."
I think that, instead, I should have written: "I think that some of the reasons that some of the 'Conservatives' who oppose governmentally sanctioned Gay marriage are reasonable at this particular time, given the current situation in the U.S. politically/culturally/societally."
But I don't know. It's difficult for me to communicate well in writing. What I understand as being the political/societal/cultural/ situation in the U.S. that I'm referring to is too complex for me to be able express my understanding of. The main point that I mean is that it involves totalitarians and the actions and agendas of totalitarians. But, as I said, the issue of Gay marriage, as it is promoted as a pivotal political issue, is at this time, a red herring.
My personal belief is that any man or woman should be not prevented by any governmental authority from being in a romantic mutual relationship with whoever other man or woman who they want to be in a romantic mutual relationship. And, in the U.S., and in most other Western countries, no governmental authority prevents that. But bringing the government into giving certain privileges to people involved in romantic relationships -- opposite sex and same-sex -- is a different thing and involves and affects multiple things. And it's my understanding that some "Conservatives" (Libertarian-minded "Conservatives") want the government to be out of romantic relationships in general -- opposite sex relationships and same-sex relationships. But I digress.
And I wrote:
Delete"Killing any living being is harmful to that living being."
However, I think that that which I wrote may not be quite right.
I'll now try to accurately express my understanding of what the Buddha taught about this matter, which is the teaching about this matter that I adhere to. The following is my expressing of my understanding of what the Buddha taught about this matter.
Volitional actions result in results -- almost always. Whether or not a volitional action results in a result depends on various factors -- the interacting results of a complex of many other volitional actions. If the volitional action of volitionally killing a living being results in a result for the being who did that volitional action of volitionally killing a living being then that result will be experienced as suffering by the being who did that volitional action of volitionally killing a living being. How a being who is killed experiences the results of being killed depends on the state of mind of that being.
In summary: It's wrong to intentionally kill any living being. And it's my understanding that most living beings, including most ordinary human beings -- most non-enlightened human beings -- who are killed experience suffering as a result of being killed. And it's my understanding that most living beings who intentionally kill other living beings experience suffering as a result of intentionally killing other living beings. And it's my understanding that enlightened beings -- human beings who have attained enlightenment -- don't experience suffering as a result of being killed. It's my understand that how one experiences being killed depends on one's own state of mind -- the spiritual development of one's mind -- the qualities in one's mind.
----
And I allowed my dog to be euthanized when I was younger -- when I was a teenager. And I felt horrible afterwards. I allowed my dog to be euthanized because, at the time, I felt aversion to my dog, and because, at the time, I felt aversion to having my dog, because he was sick and went to the bathroom everywhere in the house, and because he smelled bad. I felt horrible after I allowed my dog to be euthanized. My intentions were unwholesome in allowing my dog to be euthanized.
And it's my understanding that the intention to kill any living being can never be wholesome. It's my understanding that at the moment of the intention to kill any other living being -- at the moment of intentionally doing the volitional action of killing a living being -- the intention to kill a living being has unwholesome qualities -- aversion and fear at, I think, the very least unwholesome level, and hate at the most unwholesome level.
So, it's just my rule of thumb to never intentionally kill any living being. That's just my rule of thumb now.
I now strive to not do any evil, and to perform what's skillful, and to cleanse my own mind. It's difficult for me to not do any evil, and to perform what's skillful, and to cleanse my own mind, but I strive to not do any evil, and to perform what's skillful, and to cleanse my own mind.
----
"The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind:
this is the teaching
of the Awakened."
-- The Buddha
And:
DeleteThe Buddha taught that killing one's own mother or father will inevitably -- without exception -- cause one who does that action to be born in a woeful state and experience extreme suffering for a long time. The Buddha taught that there are several evil actions that will inevitably -- without exception -- cause the doer of any of those evil actions to be born in a woeful state and experience extreme suffering for a long time. Killing one's own mother or father is one of those evil actions that will inevitably -- without exception -- cause one who does that evil action to be born in a woeful state and experience extreme suffering for a long time.
It is my understanding that the effect on the mind of one who does any of those evil actions is so unwholesome and so strong that it inevitably results in causing that person to experience a state of experience that is extremely painful -- to be reborn in a woeful state and experience extreme suffering for a long time.
----
"Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
"Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow."
-- The Buddha, Dhammapada, verses 1-2
----
I apologize if my writing what I have written is unwholesome. I'm trying to do what's wholesome. I want to prevent the doing of unwholesome actions. I want to prevent the experiencing of suffering. But my mind is not pure (I'm afflicted by OCD), so I feel afraid that I may be causing harm by my writing what I have written. And I feel like a hypocrite because I have written what I have written while my mind is not pure, and I feel uneasy in my having written what I have written -- because my mind is not pure. I don't want to cause harm. I apologize if I am causing harm. I hope that I am not causing harm.
I hope that what I have written may be beneficial.
I will try to not cause any harm. I will try to purify my own mind.
Many years ago I was an activist member of the Australian Labor Party. I let the membership lapse after some years after being alienated by the openly and aggressively antisemitic radical left of the party.
ReplyDeleteRemember Bill Hartley and the Victorian Socialist-Left faction, Shirl?
Queensland and Canberra, where I was a party member, had their version.
After Hartley and some of his colleagues were expelled following federal intervention I continued to vote for the ALP for many years.
That has now changed. I now vote for the Liberal Party of Australia when they have a candidate(for the US --- the equivalent of Republican moderates)
As I live in regional Australia the Liberals don't always have a candidate. This is because their coalition partners, the National Party, a party further to the right, is allowed a free rein so as to not split the conservative vote. Even with preferential voting that can tip the balance to the ALP candidate in this marginal electorate.
I still have a great deal of difficulty voting for the Nationals and therefore have voted informal in the past. As Shirl says, in Australia, registration and voting is compulsory. You can be fined if you don't have a good enough excuse.
That too will change this year. This is because the Greens tend to poll pretty well around here. The need to preference their candidate last has overcome my instinctive aversion to voting for the Nationals.
I will have to hold my nose while I do it but for the first time in my life I will be casting a formal vote for the National Party candidate (who is the incumbent and has the brains of a beached jellyfish).
Perhaps they will preselect a better candidate or maybe the Liberals will run a ticket. Very unlikely. The Liberals and the Nationals hardly ever run candidates against incumbents from the other party.
Leaving the ALP after voting for them most of my life does not mean I have become a Liberal. I regard myself as an Independent.
Actually what I just said is wrong. Currently Justine Elliott of the ALP is the incumbent in the federal electorate of Richmond. The beached jellyfish is the local state member.
Deletehttp://aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/richmond.htm
Still unlikely to a Liberal candidate however. And the National candidate will probably be as palatable as another jellyfish. They usually are.
Geoff the name Bill Hartley rang a small bell so I looked him up. I don't really remember him to be honest with you.
DeleteWe came here in 1967 and for the first few years we were too busy trying to make a living and then two unplanned babies, which didn't leave time for much else. Obviously the sex life was OK!!
I just downloaded a map and I presume you are in the Electorate of Page?
I have all the stats for the 2010 Fed. election.
In Page there was a swing of 4.1% to the ALP. Less than 3,000 votes between the ALP and the Nats.
This election I'd say the Greens, if the other parties run a good campaign up there, will lose seats, considering what has been happening over the last couple of years. They lost big time in the State election and destroyed at local level.
I doubt this time around if the ALP will be directing preferences to the Greens, though Greens voters may vote ALP, but then again seeing how bad brand Labour is it could well go to the Nats
That ugly twit with the big hat, who just formed a new party, surely wouldn't be fielding a candidate in your electorate?
I'm in Wentworth, so if you stuck a sausage on a stick up as the Lib candidate it would be elected. Cynical I know. I also loathe Turnbull. Self opinionated prig.
Geoff you have to get out and help on the campaign trail. I did with the State election. We have a Lib now in. First time in 48 years.
I am just so annoyed with the ALP for having polling day on Yom Kippur. I always work all day on the booths and scrutineer at the count. This will be a dreadful end to a campaign which I will have worked on for four weeks. I pretty much do full time for two weeks on the pre-poll booth too.
I'm in Richmond Shirl
Deletehttp://aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/richmond.htm
Major towns?
Kingscliff -- where I live
Byron Bay --- where all the ferals, new age hippies and European back packers live
Mullumbimby ---- the largest Green voting polling station in Australia and the centre of the "don't inoculate your children against whooping cough, small pox, diphtheria or any other major medical advance in the history of humankind" live.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/secret-past-of-greens-senator-lee-rhiannon/story-e6frg6z6-1226255689458
http://byrongreens.org/articles/byronsdc.html
Scum.
By coincidence a friend in Sydney just emailed me this
ReplyDeleteSubject: Circumcision Disqualifies a Politician in Australia
A man walks into the Australian Parliament office, says to the receptionist:
"I would like to put my name forward for the forthcoming elections to be an Independent M.P."
The receptionist replied "Certainly sir. Please fill in this form.''
He was filling the form OK until he came to the question -
''Are you circumcised?''
So he asked the receptionist - "Is that question necessary?"
She replied... "If you are circumcised you are not eligible"
He asked what difference it would make if he was circumcised?
She replied...."To become an Australian M.P. you have to be a complete prick
Heh. I think they enforce that rule in Philadelphia City Hall, too...
DeleteI'll pay that one Jay!
DeleteGeoff I made a boo boo after another look at the map. It looks like you are in Richmond. What a small electorate.
ReplyDeleteCan't type the whole thing out again. The Libs are in a strong position I think
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/rich.htm
It's traditionally a conservative seat but with the sea change migration of urban lefties to Byron Bay and surrounds there is a huge problem with dickhead voters and elected officials some of whom should be put down like rabid dogs
DeleteYou know. Like that scene in "To Kill A Mockingbird"
Yup I know what they are like. Remember I had a run-in with the same guy you did.
DeleteThe Greens have been almost been annihilated thanks to their loony ideas. I think you'll find the Libs or Nats will pick up the votes, especially since Labour is so on the nose.
Look what happened at Bryon in the Council election. Only 2 Greens made it. That's quite something.