Grass is Greener on the Other Side

I find it interesting that Olmert thinks that a two-state solution is the only option for Israel in order to continue to exist as a civilized sovereign nation. It seems to me that if a two-state solution is reached, too many Palestinians who wish to eliminate Israel all together. As much as the two-state idea sounds like an ideal one, it would be allowing too much growth and power from the Palestinians who as I have discussed already also want more than what they are given. Especially with Iran on their back, a country that hopes to have Israel wiped off the map in the near future. One can only imagine that if the Arab nations had the chance to suffocate Israel they would jump at the opportunity. I'm not saying that Israel should take things into their own hands and eliminate the Palestinians, but I do not know if splitting the land 50/50 is really in Israel's best interest. The Jews have no where else to call home, where as the Palestinians have no real ties except that they were there first, and if we went by who had which land first, the Native Americans would be the ones regulating American casinos on reservations. There is no easy solution, nor is there one that will please all parties involved, but considering what Israel has had to go through to get to where they are today, I think it should be on the Arabic nations surrounding Israel to take in the refugees when they were the ones who attacked Israel to begin with.

Two-sided solution

Would you like a side of fries with that land?

So maybe this isn't exactly how it is going, but the Middle East Crisis does follow a similar pattern. It usually does not go as peaceful as this and the smile on the Palestinian's face probably does not come this easy, but in the end it is the Israelis who are losing out on what is rightfully theirs. Asides from the fact that the many Arab nations surrounding Israel already dislike Jews and see them as public enemy number 1, they feel like the land east of the Mediterranean should belong to the Palestinians. Last I checked war is the ultimate decider of who maintains or receives land, and I do not believe Israel has lost any wars since their birth, yet they are threatened constantly to give back the land. And for some reason or other (I mean, it's for peace, but we have seen how that turns out), Israel tends to always give back land that it rightfully won, and then some. Not surprisingly, every time they do give back a piece, the Palestinians want a little more, and then some more, and even more. At a certain point Israel needs to just put its foot down and stop giving in to terrorist threats. I am fine with a peace agreement, but it has to be concrete, not something that Hamas will eventually decide isn't enough and bomb some random shopping mall. Clearly someone needs to back down, and after fighting several wars against several nations, I think Israel has earned the right to stay put.

Waffle House

Funny little cartoon, I like it more that it does not focus on his religion, but on the real problem with his candidacy, constant flip -flopping. In an election where minorities are the majority of candidates, and where the microscope has never been so deliberate on the attributes of those running, I think it is really important to keep the attention on the type of politician a man, or woman is, rather than the type of beliefs or physical characteristics of the person. In the beginning, after reading the series of Mitt Romney from the class website, I actually grew quite fond of him. He does not share all the same political beliefs that I do, but I liked his business acumen and his determination to overcome tough odds, such as the 2002 Winter Olympic games, and running for Governor of Massachusetts, a state dominated by Liberal ideology. Then came the stories of his reluctance to answer questions about his religion, which even though I discourage the idea of that serving any importance, I do not belief he should run from the critics, as well as his inability to stick with one side. I understand he has a struggle right now to maintain votes and he wants to please as many people as possible before the primaries, but I do not think that changing your mind whenever someone new asks you a question is any better than sticking with one choice regardless of who agrees. At least the media was able to take some of the pressure off Mitt in regards to his religion, but Mitt is on his own with this latest obstacle.

GOP debate

A third party candidate from the Christian Right if Rudy Guiliani wins the primaries, seems like a rational way to solve a problem, if you cant beat 'em, get someone else who might be able to. If a scenario like this were to play out during the elections, the Christian Right will get their way and Guiliani would lose, but ultimately, they would lose as well as a Democrat would undoubtedly take the Oval Office. Now, I don't know exactly what goes through their heads when they make rash decisions like this, but it seems to me more beneficial to take your losses and still try and back Rudy as opposed to having Clinton or Obama, which would disgust the Religious Right with every move they would make. I can't blame them for trying to put pressure on the Republican Party to find another candidate that better suits their needs..err, wants, but at a certain point acceptance that the government does not work like Burger King, and you can't always have everything your way. Sadly though, these people hold so much power and backing, that these threats could potentially made a difference, but hopefully rationality will prevail and if Guiliani makes it to the national polls, he won't be blindsided by a futile candidacy from a third party Southern Baptist.

Christopher Hitchens attacks Falwell...

...and for good reason.



Jerry Falwell, and people just like him seemed to be a big portion of this class, and similar to Lobdell's view, or at least what I have been able to take out from his lectures on how he feels about these kind of people, Christopher Hitchens also despises the man and everything he stands for. I do not blame him either, and every point he makes is right on target with the truth. Although I have to give Falwell props for attracting so many innocent victims to his cause, I do think that ultimately followings like the one he created, along with those of the Crouch's and Robertson and so on have a negative effect on politics and on the publics' lives. They used the media to manipulate the public through the use of religion which ultimately had an enormous effect on politics. Prime examples of why we have a class like this, to learn from what these blood-suckers did and ensure it does not happen to our generation.

Iran v. Ahmadinejag

And the news story

I had no idea something like this was going on, and I couldn't be happier to know the people of Iran have taken the time to create something so meaningful and provocative in a place lead by a man full of hatred and denial towards the Jewish people. Being Jewish myself and knowing about how Ahmadinejad feels towards my people, it is refreshing to know that something is being down to ensure that a stereotype isn't created throughout Iranian society. I have not had a chance to watch any, but I got Part 1 of the series from youtube in case anyone wanted to take a look. Hopefully, the nut-case President of Iran won't take any offensive actions against this, as he adamantly denies that the Holocaust was real, but was merely a myth created by the Western powers to justify giving Israel its land. The other interesting idea brought up in this article was the distinction made between Jews and Zionists. I myself do not personally like the people that consider themselves to the Orthodox Jews, but I do believe that the Jews should have a home, and whether or not it is Biblically written, or if it is Gods given land to the Israelites, the fact of the matter is Israel has face roughly 6 wars since their birth in 1948 and have given back enough land to expand its size 6 fold after each victory to ensure peace, and has gotten no respect in return from the surrounding Arabic nations.

Iran v. The World

Iran won't budge


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted out on Wednesday that the United States efforts to calm the Middle East Crisis are futile, and that Israel will collapse in the near future. His main issue is with the Zionist perspective that they are entitled to Israel, when Ahmadinejad believes that the only reason they are in the position they are because of lies, corruption and violence. Nice. I hope no one takes this man seriously. A man who chooses his words wisely, yet does not understand how ridiculously hypocritical he sounds. First off, when it comes to violence, he is among the leaders in the world, when it comes to lies, there aren't many better at it, and when it comes to corruption, well his government is not the most respected and fair in the world. Secondly, who is this man to tell the world that peace will never come, that attempts to solve issues are in vain, and that lives need to be lost in order for a solution to arise. Even countries that typically side with Iran aren't please with the President's crude comments in favor of Israel being "wiped off" the map. It is sad that people like this exist in this world, and even more appalling that such a man could have such a powerful position for such a long time. Oh well, as long as he continues with threats and does not try to be the hero of the mislead Arab people, we should all be fine.