YOU have GOT to be kidding me! This man is a MORON! Are there no more intelligent analytical people anymore???
Pardon the pun BUT what in G-d's NAME does winning a lottery have to do with addiction?
NADA YOU DUMB SHMUCK! Playing a game and gambling is NOT addiction. Addiction is a behavior, a pattern. Eating can be an addiction, will you refuse food for your congregation should it be donated.
This pastor is an A-Class MORON and then some.
I think he just has a vested interest in keeping those people who come to him down so that he can be in control. He should have his ass kicked to the curb.
BTW to the anonymous donor I will happily take the money he wouldn't. I am a struggling single gal with a lot of bills to pay. I promise to put it to good use, not abuse the donation and invest it wisely so that I have financial security for years to come.
NY charity turns down share of $3M lottery jackpot Fri Sep 12, 4:18 PM ET
A New York charity says it has turned down a share of a $3 million lottery jackpot because accepting the money could send the wrong message to gambling addicts.
The Lighthouse Mission, which helps feed 3,000 hungry Long Island residents a week, had been chosen to share an anonymous donor's jackpot last month. The donor gave the winning ticket to the True North Community Church, which said it would share the money with other charities.
The mission's pastor, James Ryan, says he appreciates the offer but had to turn it down because his organization counsels against addictions, including gambling. He did not say what the mission's share of the prize would have been.
Friday, September 12, 2008
9/11/08 In Photos And Video
For My Friday Foto Finish Fiesta for Carrie's blog I give you the photos of what I saw on 9/11/08 where all the media and well wishers as well as IDIOTIC ANARCHIST protestors came, right at the site. Only the families were allowed at the actual location. This corner is one block away and where everyone comes each year.I have never been to this area since before the attacks by Al Queda and Bin Ladin. This was my very first time. It was quite a shock to see some things.
Upon arriving I saw Menonites. I walked closer to them to see if I could snap a photo and saw this old man.
I went to take some videos of the choir and then came back to him. Not sure why he wanted to be there but I thought I'd give him a "voice" here on my blog.
This is what the crowd started to look like around 8:30am. I usually go to this location for a great cup of coffee from a vendor. I had NO idea none would be there and all this would be instead. The gaping open "hole" that allows you to see the smaller buildings in the background is where the Twin Towers used to stand. Just behind the bus you would have seen those awesome buildings.
And here are a few of the IDIOT protestors. Look how young they are. It amazes and saddens me how young they are. What does this mean for the future of our nation if these young boys are so brainwashed. We are in big trouble!
They are so fucked up that they can't realize with any honesty that they are the facists. So pathetic. If you listen closely you can hear me say they are so sick.
And before I left downtown to go home I saw this concert which was scheduled to give life and spirit to those who were affected. Something positive to leave this post with.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I Don't Need Any Lecture Or Class, I WAS THERE!
UPDATE: I am working at the site where they are protesting today. I am right at the corner of Broadway where the World Trade Center used to be. They aren't letting people directly in front on the street where it was.
There is a group of nasty anarchists protesting and it just angers me. I will post photos later when I can. They are so sick. And they have no regard for those who were murdered and for the feelings of the families. They are brainwashed into thinking they are doing this for the greater good and that is more important than the emotions of the families they step upon. They disgust me!
I bear witness without media pontification or left-wing editorializing and meaning changes.
I was there that day. I was NOT at the site. I was on the E train that would have ended at the World Trade Center.
It was election day in NYC. I stopped first to go and vote, something I believe strongly in doing as my civic duty.
Then I walked the the train. I probably got on the E train 10 minutes before the world as we knew it forever changed.
I remember complaining that the train was delayed and that I would be late to work. The entire events happened while I was in the tunnel on that train that day. Everything!
I got out of the train and walked to my bagel place. No one said a word to me. They just let me pay for my bagel ...but they knew.
I worked for a cable television station at the time and when I walked in one of the girls working there whom I was friendly with told me what happened and I looked at her and said,"That's NOT funny." I just didn't believe her.
She said, "There was a terrorist attack. Someone flew planes into the Trade Center.
I just could not wrap my mind around that sentence. I told her it was a cruel joke as she brought me to the television where live news shot were showing the fire and huge gaping hole. I put my hand in the VCR slot to feel for the phoney tape. Nothing! And then my heart sank.
I new immediately it was Muslim terrorism. No one else would do this. No one! I honestly didn't care what came out of my mouth that day. Fuck them if they didn't like the truth. LOOK what silence gets you. I told people, we ignored what they do to the Israelis and THIS is what we get.
I had to find a coworker who's mother was supposed to be working in the towers that day. Frantically he was trying to get her on the phone. I didn't own a cell phone then but so many did and no one could get calls in or out. Ironically the only thing working well was the Internet and so I emailed my brother and a few friends. My coworker's mother was finally able to get a call in and tell him and me that she was not downtown and not to worry. I ran around my office like nobody's business until I found him.
My brother as it turned out was sleeping since he didn't have to go into work that day or he had to go in late, I forget which.
A friend, who I was able to communicate with through email had an apartment and a business in the city, emailed me to come to his location so that I could use his phone. He for some reason had pretty good service, while most of the city didn't. He also offered me a place to sleep if I needed it.
THEN the news reports of a possible car bomb at the Pentagon came in. Which as we all know it turned out to be another plane slamming into the building there in DC.
And then it hit me like a ton of bricks. And honestly that expression doesn't do justice to the intense feeling I had when I realized that "someone declared war on us", this was much more than a terrorist attack.
The reports that people were jumping stunned me. I couldn't understand why. I guess in order to survive, our brains push out that which it cannot handle. Coworkers had to explain the reasons why.
How do you get yourself to take in the fact that people are jumping from that height? They know there is no chance of survival. I just couldn't "get it."
And then the plume of smoke. And it was hard to tell what happened. You could hear the reporter mention the top of the building toppled. But that really was not the case. It was just a television screen of dust. And then all you saw was one building.
And again I couldn't get myself to believe people were still inside. I told myself, well at least there is still one building left. They didn't get both.
When the second tower fell the reality hit me. And I started to cry and cry and cry. And I didn't care that my coworkers saw this. I kept saying "Oh my g-d, there's people in there, there's people in there!"
I made my way with some girl from the company who didn't have family in the city, to my friend who invited me to use his phone and stay with him.
Out on the streets it was ominous. No cars, and barely any busses. Sworms of people in the streets. Shop owners with the televisions outside for all to watch and listen to. I saw two men with Israeli flags drapped around them. (They understood all too well.)
My mother had beeped me to see if I could respond. (yes we used beepers back then) I finally got through and I told her I was ok and where I was going and I would call her again when I got there.
When I arrived at my friend's location and got Mom on the phone again she told me about two more planes. WHAT?
I don't remember much more of the conversation with her. I only remember the feeling. I know we told each other we loved the other and I promised to call her again when I could.
The trains weren't running until late that night.
I decided to go home.
There were about 4 people on the train with me. All of us had that same stunned look.
I met with a neighbor that night. I just didn't want to be alone. She was hysterical with anger. She worked for CBS TV and lost friends. The television stations had their antennas there. She was screaming and screaming and mad. It was if this happened only to her.
I went back to my apartment and called Mom again. I had nothing to say but I felt so alone and stunned.
No one went to work for the next two days. The Mayor asked us to stay home. Three days later when work was open again, I made my way to the E train. As I approached the top of the hill getting off the bus to the train, I looked to my left and saw thick thick smoke! It was STILL burning. And I knew I had no choice but go into it.
Even before I got on the train I saw the first poster of "the missing." In my town in Queens, a young waiter from Windows on the World, posted desperately from his family.
At every corner in the city, the posters, the signs, the faces.
The firemen from the station across from work never returned. NOT ONE MAN!
(Forgive me for any typos or spelling errors and for ending this post here. I just cannot write more and I can't get myself to look this over. Writing it down is reliving it enough for me for today.)
There is a group of nasty anarchists protesting and it just angers me. I will post photos later when I can. They are so sick. And they have no regard for those who were murdered and for the feelings of the families. They are brainwashed into thinking they are doing this for the greater good and that is more important than the emotions of the families they step upon. They disgust me!
I bear witness without media pontification or left-wing editorializing and meaning changes.I was there that day. I was NOT at the site. I was on the E train that would have ended at the World Trade Center.
It was election day in NYC. I stopped first to go and vote, something I believe strongly in doing as my civic duty.
Then I walked the the train. I probably got on the E train 10 minutes before the world as we knew it forever changed.
I remember complaining that the train was delayed and that I would be late to work. The entire events happened while I was in the tunnel on that train that day. Everything!
I got out of the train and walked to my bagel place. No one said a word to me. They just let me pay for my bagel ...but they knew.
I worked for a cable television station at the time and when I walked in one of the girls working there whom I was friendly with told me what happened and I looked at her and said,"That's NOT funny." I just didn't believe her.
She said, "There was a terrorist attack. Someone flew planes into the Trade Center.
I just could not wrap my mind around that sentence. I told her it was a cruel joke as she brought me to the television where live news shot were showing the fire and huge gaping hole. I put my hand in the VCR slot to feel for the phoney tape. Nothing! And then my heart sank.
I new immediately it was Muslim terrorism. No one else would do this. No one! I honestly didn't care what came out of my mouth that day. Fuck them if they didn't like the truth. LOOK what silence gets you. I told people, we ignored what they do to the Israelis and THIS is what we get.
I had to find a coworker who's mother was supposed to be working in the towers that day. Frantically he was trying to get her on the phone. I didn't own a cell phone then but so many did and no one could get calls in or out. Ironically the only thing working well was the Internet and so I emailed my brother and a few friends. My coworker's mother was finally able to get a call in and tell him and me that she was not downtown and not to worry. I ran around my office like nobody's business until I found him.
My brother as it turned out was sleeping since he didn't have to go into work that day or he had to go in late, I forget which.
A friend, who I was able to communicate with through email had an apartment and a business in the city, emailed me to come to his location so that I could use his phone. He for some reason had pretty good service, while most of the city didn't. He also offered me a place to sleep if I needed it.
THEN the news reports of a possible car bomb at the Pentagon came in. Which as we all know it turned out to be another plane slamming into the building there in DC.
And then it hit me like a ton of bricks. And honestly that expression doesn't do justice to the intense feeling I had when I realized that "someone declared war on us", this was much more than a terrorist attack.
The reports that people were jumping stunned me. I couldn't understand why. I guess in order to survive, our brains push out that which it cannot handle. Coworkers had to explain the reasons why.
How do you get yourself to take in the fact that people are jumping from that height? They know there is no chance of survival. I just couldn't "get it."
And then the plume of smoke. And it was hard to tell what happened. You could hear the reporter mention the top of the building toppled. But that really was not the case. It was just a television screen of dust. And then all you saw was one building.
And again I couldn't get myself to believe people were still inside. I told myself, well at least there is still one building left. They didn't get both.
When the second tower fell the reality hit me. And I started to cry and cry and cry. And I didn't care that my coworkers saw this. I kept saying "Oh my g-d, there's people in there, there's people in there!"
I made my way with some girl from the company who didn't have family in the city, to my friend who invited me to use his phone and stay with him.
Out on the streets it was ominous. No cars, and barely any busses. Sworms of people in the streets. Shop owners with the televisions outside for all to watch and listen to. I saw two men with Israeli flags drapped around them. (They understood all too well.)
My mother had beeped me to see if I could respond. (yes we used beepers back then) I finally got through and I told her I was ok and where I was going and I would call her again when I got there.
When I arrived at my friend's location and got Mom on the phone again she told me about two more planes. WHAT?
I don't remember much more of the conversation with her. I only remember the feeling. I know we told each other we loved the other and I promised to call her again when I could.
The trains weren't running until late that night.
I decided to go home.
There were about 4 people on the train with me. All of us had that same stunned look.
I met with a neighbor that night. I just didn't want to be alone. She was hysterical with anger. She worked for CBS TV and lost friends. The television stations had their antennas there. She was screaming and screaming and mad. It was if this happened only to her.
I went back to my apartment and called Mom again. I had nothing to say but I felt so alone and stunned.
No one went to work for the next two days. The Mayor asked us to stay home. Three days later when work was open again, I made my way to the E train. As I approached the top of the hill getting off the bus to the train, I looked to my left and saw thick thick smoke! It was STILL burning. And I knew I had no choice but go into it.
Even before I got on the train I saw the first poster of "the missing." In my town in Queens, a young waiter from Windows on the World, posted desperately from his family.
At every corner in the city, the posters, the signs, the faces.
The firemen from the station across from work never returned. NOT ONE MAN!
(Forgive me for any typos or spelling errors and for ending this post here. I just cannot write more and I can't get myself to look this over. Writing it down is reliving it enough for me for today.)
Talking Points For When People Blame The U.S. For Events Like Seven Years Ago
First, I was in NYC. Second, I'll never forget the feeling of being under attack and having someone declare war on you, not knowing whether to stay where you are or find another place to go or how to get home at all.
All too often we are blamed for the terrorism that is imposed upon us. We also here nasty and false claims that WE kill innocent civilians. Let's get the FACTS straight.
Here's a list of talking points from a very wise woman, Phyllis Chesler, who shows clearly that Muslim Terrorism started well before our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From 1967 on, Palestinian terrorists hijacked planes, bombed synagogues, took hostages, and killed Jewish and Israeli civilians; they did so long before a so-called “settler” movement began living in disputed territories.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide car bomber blew up the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing sixty-three, including seventeen Americans.
On October 23, 1983, terrorist operatives blew up the U.S. Marine barracks and French military headquarters in Beirut, killing 241 marines and 58 French paratroopers. Jeffrey Goldberg, staff reporter for the New Yorker, attributes this attack to Hezbollah (a.k.a. the Islamic Jihad Organization, a.k.a. the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth). Prior to 9/11, it was the most deadly terrorist attack on Americans.
On June 14, 1985, Hezbollah seized a TWA jet and commandeered its flight to Beirut, demanding the release of seven hundred Arabs held in Israeli jails. One U.S. Navy diver was killed and thirty-nine Americans were held hostage until July 1. Goldberg reported that the United States held one of Arafat’s former bodyguards, Imad Mugniyah, responsible for most of Hezbollah’s anti-American attacks, including this one.
On April 5, 1986, a bomb, putatively Libyan, exploded in a Berlin nightclub killing 2 U.S. servicemen and wounding 230 other people. “Libya is blamed, “according to the Associated Press (AP).
On December 21, 1988, Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, including some on the ground.
On February 26, 1993 a car bomb planted by radical Islamists exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center towers, killing six and wounding more than a thousand. The four convicted perpetrators were all linked to the blind Egyptian radical Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, himself indicted as the leader of a larger alleged conspiracy to destroy the United Nations headquarters and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.
On June 25, 1996, a truck packed with explosives exploded outside the Khobar Towers in Dharam, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. According to Goldberg, the U.S. also suspects former Arafat bodyguard Mugniyah of involvement in this case. However, according to the Washington Post, American investigations in 1998 pointed exclusively to Iranian agents.
On November 17, 1997, Jemaah Islamiyah operatives shot and killed more than sixty tourists visiting the temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Luxor, Egypt. There were Japanese, Swiss, German, and British among the dead.
ON August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda detonated two car bombs and destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam simultaneously, killing 224 and wounding thousands. The AP reported that bin Laden was suspected.
On October 12, 2000, Al Qaeda attackers bombed the U.S.S. Cole as it refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing seventeen sailors. Again “bin Laden [was] suspected.”
On September 11, 2001 Arab Muslims, mainly from Saudi Arabia, and acting for Al-Qaeda, flew two planes into the World Trade Center and a third plane into the Pentagon. Passengers forced a fourth plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field.
All too often we are blamed for the terrorism that is imposed upon us. We also here nasty and false claims that WE kill innocent civilians. Let's get the FACTS straight.
Here's a list of talking points from a very wise woman, Phyllis Chesler, who shows clearly that Muslim Terrorism started well before our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From 1967 on, Palestinian terrorists hijacked planes, bombed synagogues, took hostages, and killed Jewish and Israeli civilians; they did so long before a so-called “settler” movement began living in disputed territories.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide car bomber blew up the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing sixty-three, including seventeen Americans.
On October 23, 1983, terrorist operatives blew up the U.S. Marine barracks and French military headquarters in Beirut, killing 241 marines and 58 French paratroopers. Jeffrey Goldberg, staff reporter for the New Yorker, attributes this attack to Hezbollah (a.k.a. the Islamic Jihad Organization, a.k.a. the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth). Prior to 9/11, it was the most deadly terrorist attack on Americans.
On June 14, 1985, Hezbollah seized a TWA jet and commandeered its flight to Beirut, demanding the release of seven hundred Arabs held in Israeli jails. One U.S. Navy diver was killed and thirty-nine Americans were held hostage until July 1. Goldberg reported that the United States held one of Arafat’s former bodyguards, Imad Mugniyah, responsible for most of Hezbollah’s anti-American attacks, including this one.
On April 5, 1986, a bomb, putatively Libyan, exploded in a Berlin nightclub killing 2 U.S. servicemen and wounding 230 other people. “Libya is blamed, “according to the Associated Press (AP).
On December 21, 1988, Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, including some on the ground.
On February 26, 1993 a car bomb planted by radical Islamists exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center towers, killing six and wounding more than a thousand. The four convicted perpetrators were all linked to the blind Egyptian radical Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, himself indicted as the leader of a larger alleged conspiracy to destroy the United Nations headquarters and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.
On June 25, 1996, a truck packed with explosives exploded outside the Khobar Towers in Dharam, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. According to Goldberg, the U.S. also suspects former Arafat bodyguard Mugniyah of involvement in this case. However, according to the Washington Post, American investigations in 1998 pointed exclusively to Iranian agents.
On November 17, 1997, Jemaah Islamiyah operatives shot and killed more than sixty tourists visiting the temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Luxor, Egypt. There were Japanese, Swiss, German, and British among the dead.
ON August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda detonated two car bombs and destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam simultaneously, killing 224 and wounding thousands. The AP reported that bin Laden was suspected.
On October 12, 2000, Al Qaeda attackers bombed the U.S.S. Cole as it refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing seventeen sailors. Again “bin Laden [was] suspected.”
On September 11, 2001 Arab Muslims, mainly from Saudi Arabia, and acting for Al-Qaeda, flew two planes into the World Trade Center and a third plane into the Pentagon. Passengers forced a fourth plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
U.S. artist "made to dance" by Israeli security
"Israeli airport security officers made an African American member of the New York-based Alvin Ailey dance troupe perform steps for them before letting him enter the country, the group said on Tuesday."
Here we go again being RACIST toward Israel.
Think I am wrong? Why did Alvin Ailey issue this statement?
After all:
"The spokesman said Jackson was no stranger to this kind behavior because he had been asked to do the same during a visit to the Dominican Republic."
Yet we never heard this be made an issue when it happened in a Spanish Country, only when entering a Jewish country.
OH I just LOVE The quotes around the words made to dance, as if there is another implication, yet it was exactly that, made to dance.
I am feeling very Susan Powterish this week...STOP THE MADNESS.
Here we go again being RACIST toward Israel.
Think I am wrong? Why did Alvin Ailey issue this statement?
After all:
"The spokesman said Jackson was no stranger to this kind behavior because he had been asked to do the same during a visit to the Dominican Republic."
Yet we never heard this be made an issue when it happened in a Spanish Country, only when entering a Jewish country.
OH I just LOVE The quotes around the words made to dance, as if there is another implication, yet it was exactly that, made to dance.
I am feeling very Susan Powterish this week...STOP THE MADNESS.
Women Are Women's Worst Enemies
My comments/response in red.
I just can't stand that this crap is allowed to be published in the NYTimes as journalism.
The Mirrored Ceiling
JUDITH WARNER
It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.
“Drill, baby, drill,” clapped John Dickerson, marveling at Palin’s ability to speak and smile at the same time as an indication of her unexpected depths and unsuspected strengths. “It was clear Palin was having fun, and it’s hard to have fun if you’re scared or a lightweight,” he wrote in Slate.
The Politico praised her charm and polish as antidotes to her lack of foreign policy experience: “Palin’s poised and flawless performance evoked roars of applause from delegates who earlier this week might have worried that the surprise pick and newcomer to the national stage may not be up to the job.”
“She had a great night. I thought she had a very skillfully written, and very skillfully delivered speech,” Joe Biden said, shades of “articulate and bright and clean” threatening a reappearance.
Thus began the official public launch of our country’s now most-prominent female politician. The condescension – damning with faint praise – was reminiscent of the more overt misogyny of Samuel Johnson. [Accept Ms. Warner doesn’t go after those who did the supposed condescending.]
“A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs,” the wit once observed. “It is not done well; but you are surprized to find it done at all.”
Palin sounded, at times, like she was speaking a foreign language as she gave voice to the beautifully crafted words that had been prepared for her on Wednesday night.
But that wasn’t held against her. Thanks to the level of general esteem that greeted her ascent to the podium, it seems we’ve all got to celebrate the fact that America’s Hottest Governor (Princess of the Fur Rendezvous 1983, Miss Wasilla 1984) could speak at all. [Hey no condescending comments coming from the writer now huh? Never ceases to amaze me how women are women’s worst enemies.]
Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women?
You are not, I think, supposed now to say this. Just as, I am sure, you are certainly not supposed to feel that having Sarah Palin put forth as the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate is just about as respectful a gesture toward women as was John McCain’s suggestion, last month, that his wife participate in a topless beauty contest.
Such thoughts, we are told, are sexist. And elitist. After all, via Palin, we now hear without cease, the People are speaking. The “real” “authentic,” small-town “Everyday People,” of Hockey Moms and Blue Collar Dads whom even Rudolph Giuliani now invokes as an antidote to the cosmopolite Obamas and their backers in the liberal media. (Remind me please, once again, what was the name of the small town where Rudy grew up?)
Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?
Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots. [Wow and now this author is a mind-reader. Nice rant without any factual way to base this. Nice way to write this as fact rather than opinion. Smacks too similar to the nasty comments imposed upon me at the nail salon simply for having a differing opinion. ] This disdain for their smarts shows up in the whole way they’ve cast this race now, turning a contest over economic and foreign policy into a culture war of the Real vs. the Elites.[Actually it’s the media that has done this not the Republican party. And Ms. Warner by virtue of her article takes part in it as well.] It’s a smoke and mirrors game aimed at diverting attention from the fact that the party’s tax policies have helped create an elite that’s more distant from “the people” than ever before. [Actually all you need to do is be a career politician like Charlie Rangle and hide your money in the D.R. so as not to become part of this elite Ms. Warner writes about.] And from the fact that the party’s dogged allegiance to up-by-your-bootstraps individualism — an individualism exemplified by Palin, the frontierswoman who somehow has managed to “balance” five children and her political career with no need for support — is leading to a culture-wide crack-up.
Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don’t talk too well, dropping their “g”s, for example, and putting tough concepts like “vice president” in quotation marks.
“As for that ‘V.P.’ talk all the time … I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, What is it exactly that the ‘VP’ does every day?” Palin asked host Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC sometime before her nomination. “I’m used to bein’ very productive and workin’ real hard in an administration and we want to make sure that that ‘V.P.’ slot would be a fruitful type of position.” [Sounds like Bill Clinton to me. BTW I voted for him twice and I’d do it again.]
And, I think, they find her acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically. [BITE ME!]
But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing.
One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to. This need isn’t limited to women; it brought us after all, two terms of George W. Bush.[And Bill Clinton] And it isn’t new; Americans have always needed to feel that their leaders were, on some level, people like them.
But in the past, it was possible to fill that need through empathetic connection. Few Depression-era voters could “relate” to Franklin Roosevelt’s patrician background, notes historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “It was his ability to connect to them that made them feel they could connect to him,” she told me in a phone interview.
The age of television, Goodwin believes, has made the demand for connection more immediate and intense. But never before George W. Bush did it quite reach the beer-drinking level of familiarity. “Now it’s all about being able to see your life story in the candidate, rather than the candidate, with empathy, being able to relate to you.”
There’s a fine line between likability and demagoguery. Both thrive upon manipulation [Just like your article which tells half-truths and only half the story] and least-common-denominator politics. These days, I fear, this need for direct mirroring — and thus this susceptibility to all sorts of low-level tripe — is particularly acute among women, who are perhaps reaching historic lows in their comfort levels with themselves and their choices. [Please don’t speak for all women.]
Just look at how quickly the reaction to Palin devolved into what The Times this week called the “Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition.” Much of the talk about Palin (like the emoting about Hillary Clinton before her) ultimately came down to this: is she like me or not like me? If she’s not like me, can I like her? And what kind of child care does she have? [OK but where is Ms. Warner placing the blame for this????]
“This election is not about issues,” Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager said this week. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” That’s a scary thought.[Yes it is a scary thought but it is true. Simple fact is that Obama has no record to stand on and therefore his nomination can only be attributed to it being about this.] For the takeaway is so often base, a reflection more of people’s fears and insecurities than of our hopes and dreams.
We’re not likely to get a worthy female president anytime soon. [Yes, because no woman at this time is running for President.]
I just can't stand that this crap is allowed to be published in the NYTimes as journalism.
The Mirrored Ceiling
JUDITH WARNER
It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.
“Drill, baby, drill,” clapped John Dickerson, marveling at Palin’s ability to speak and smile at the same time as an indication of her unexpected depths and unsuspected strengths. “It was clear Palin was having fun, and it’s hard to have fun if you’re scared or a lightweight,” he wrote in Slate.
The Politico praised her charm and polish as antidotes to her lack of foreign policy experience: “Palin’s poised and flawless performance evoked roars of applause from delegates who earlier this week might have worried that the surprise pick and newcomer to the national stage may not be up to the job.”
“She had a great night. I thought she had a very skillfully written, and very skillfully delivered speech,” Joe Biden said, shades of “articulate and bright and clean” threatening a reappearance.
Thus began the official public launch of our country’s now most-prominent female politician. The condescension – damning with faint praise – was reminiscent of the more overt misogyny of Samuel Johnson. [Accept Ms. Warner doesn’t go after those who did the supposed condescending.]
“A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs,” the wit once observed. “It is not done well; but you are surprized to find it done at all.”
Palin sounded, at times, like she was speaking a foreign language as she gave voice to the beautifully crafted words that had been prepared for her on Wednesday night.
But that wasn’t held against her. Thanks to the level of general esteem that greeted her ascent to the podium, it seems we’ve all got to celebrate the fact that America’s Hottest Governor (Princess of the Fur Rendezvous 1983, Miss Wasilla 1984) could speak at all. [Hey no condescending comments coming from the writer now huh? Never ceases to amaze me how women are women’s worst enemies.]
Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women?
You are not, I think, supposed now to say this. Just as, I am sure, you are certainly not supposed to feel that having Sarah Palin put forth as the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate is just about as respectful a gesture toward women as was John McCain’s suggestion, last month, that his wife participate in a topless beauty contest.
Such thoughts, we are told, are sexist. And elitist. After all, via Palin, we now hear without cease, the People are speaking. The “real” “authentic,” small-town “Everyday People,” of Hockey Moms and Blue Collar Dads whom even Rudolph Giuliani now invokes as an antidote to the cosmopolite Obamas and their backers in the liberal media. (Remind me please, once again, what was the name of the small town where Rudy grew up?)
Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?
Because the Republicans, very clearly, believe that real people are idiots. [Wow and now this author is a mind-reader. Nice rant without any factual way to base this. Nice way to write this as fact rather than opinion. Smacks too similar to the nasty comments imposed upon me at the nail salon simply for having a differing opinion. ] This disdain for their smarts shows up in the whole way they’ve cast this race now, turning a contest over economic and foreign policy into a culture war of the Real vs. the Elites.[Actually it’s the media that has done this not the Republican party. And Ms. Warner by virtue of her article takes part in it as well.] It’s a smoke and mirrors game aimed at diverting attention from the fact that the party’s tax policies have helped create an elite that’s more distant from “the people” than ever before. [Actually all you need to do is be a career politician like Charlie Rangle and hide your money in the D.R. so as not to become part of this elite Ms. Warner writes about.] And from the fact that the party’s dogged allegiance to up-by-your-bootstraps individualism — an individualism exemplified by Palin, the frontierswoman who somehow has managed to “balance” five children and her political career with no need for support — is leading to a culture-wide crack-up.
Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don’t talk too well, dropping their “g”s, for example, and putting tough concepts like “vice president” in quotation marks.
“As for that ‘V.P.’ talk all the time … I tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, What is it exactly that the ‘VP’ does every day?” Palin asked host Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC sometime before her nomination. “I’m used to bein’ very productive and workin’ real hard in an administration and we want to make sure that that ‘V.P.’ slot would be a fruitful type of position.” [Sounds like Bill Clinton to me. BTW I voted for him twice and I’d do it again.]
And, I think, they find her acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically. [BITE ME!]
But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing.
One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to. This need isn’t limited to women; it brought us after all, two terms of George W. Bush.[And Bill Clinton] And it isn’t new; Americans have always needed to feel that their leaders were, on some level, people like them.
But in the past, it was possible to fill that need through empathetic connection. Few Depression-era voters could “relate” to Franklin Roosevelt’s patrician background, notes historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “It was his ability to connect to them that made them feel they could connect to him,” she told me in a phone interview.
The age of television, Goodwin believes, has made the demand for connection more immediate and intense. But never before George W. Bush did it quite reach the beer-drinking level of familiarity. “Now it’s all about being able to see your life story in the candidate, rather than the candidate, with empathy, being able to relate to you.”
There’s a fine line between likability and demagoguery. Both thrive upon manipulation [Just like your article which tells half-truths and only half the story] and least-common-denominator politics. These days, I fear, this need for direct mirroring — and thus this susceptibility to all sorts of low-level tripe — is particularly acute among women, who are perhaps reaching historic lows in their comfort levels with themselves and their choices. [Please don’t speak for all women.]
Just look at how quickly the reaction to Palin devolved into what The Times this week called the “Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition.” Much of the talk about Palin (like the emoting about Hillary Clinton before her) ultimately came down to this: is she like me or not like me? If she’s not like me, can I like her? And what kind of child care does she have? [OK but where is Ms. Warner placing the blame for this????]
“This election is not about issues,” Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager said this week. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” That’s a scary thought.[Yes it is a scary thought but it is true. Simple fact is that Obama has no record to stand on and therefore his nomination can only be attributed to it being about this.] For the takeaway is so often base, a reflection more of people’s fears and insecurities than of our hopes and dreams.
We’re not likely to get a worthy female president anytime soon. [Yes, because no woman at this time is running for President.]
My Yearbook Photo
Again a fun find through Lady Banana.
The funniest thing to me is that the photo with the supposed 1974 hair, straight and long, I had although with dark hair, in the early 90's.
The funniest thing to me is that the photo with the supposed 1974 hair, straight and long, I had although with dark hair, in the early 90's.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
WTF Moment For Tuesday
"In a July speech to the NAACP's national convention, Paterson implied that racism led to him being tagged "the accidental governor" when he took office after Eliot Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal."
In case you don't know about Governor Patterson he is a legally blind black man that was NOT elected to the office of Governor of New York State. He was second in line should anything happen to the elected Governor of New York State, who was Elliot Spitzer.
If you don't remember, Spitzer resigned with his tail between his legs after being caught hiring high-priced hookers.
But oh yes, let's call the description of "accidental" implied racism, instead of correct.
ac·ci·den·tal [ak-si-den-tl] –adjective
happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting
BTW the antonym would be planned
So since your acquisition of the office of Governor wasn't planned, as you weren't elected by the people of the State of New York, guess what?
And since learning about this disgusting misuse of the race card you can be sure you will NEVER ever get my vote when you try to run for office during the next election.
In case you don't know about Governor Patterson he is a legally blind black man that was NOT elected to the office of Governor of New York State. He was second in line should anything happen to the elected Governor of New York State, who was Elliot Spitzer.
If you don't remember, Spitzer resigned with his tail between his legs after being caught hiring high-priced hookers.
But oh yes, let's call the description of "accidental" implied racism, instead of correct.
ac·ci·den·tal [ak-si-den-tl] –adjective
happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected: an accidental meeting
BTW the antonym would be planned
So since your acquisition of the office of Governor wasn't planned, as you weren't elected by the people of the State of New York, guess what?
And since learning about this disgusting misuse of the race card you can be sure you will NEVER ever get my vote when you try to run for office during the next election.
Gun Violence
A voicer in the New York Daily News wrote this in today's paper:
"When I was about 9 and living in Detroit, my brother's 15-year-old best friend was shot and killed by another teenager. By the time I graduated from high school in 1986, I couldn't count the number of friends and acquaintances who had been shot and killed. Every day, I read of another person - more often than not, a child - being shot and killed. Today, I read of 13-year-old Scotty Scott (photo) being killed in Harlem this past Friday. A life lost, along with many, many others across this country (and beyond) by that almighty gun. Where are all these guns coming from? It seems to me that there is an invisible original source that has no accountability to the people, for lost lives and to families in misery. Something's gotta give - other than more lives."
Heart wrenching, yes! But it got me thinking about this topic from a different perspective than I used to think about guns.
I don't like them! It's very simple for me. BUT the consitution allows us to bear arms.
I don't own a gun. I never held a gun. I might someday at a gun range but probably that would be it. I've walked around rough neighborhoods at sometimes odd hours. I still don't want a gun.
Granted I don't have to live in those places. But it's still a choice. I choose not to exercise my right to own a gun.
Illegal gun or legal gun I think is the wrong way to look at this problem. Why do you have the gun? What's your intent? What choices do you have that brought you to owning that gun? What choices brought you to using that gun?
OK it's a tough neighborhood but that doesn't mean you don't have other choices besides the "friends" you choose to associate with and the places you choose to hang out. Yes, it may suck to high heaven to be in your apt. all the time when you're not in school or work but if it means you are safe so be it.
Think about it, isn't it the hard things that we have to live through that teach us the most and empower us?
It's no wonder so many young folks feel so disempowered these days. We have done so much to make them never feel pain or have to learn a hard lesson that they have no idea what they can achieve and overcome and accomplish.
It's hard to watch someone you love in pain, but sometimes you just have to step out of the way and let it be their lesson, stand by them, hold their hand and support them through the muck so that they can stand on their own two feet.
That little boy didn't choose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and he didn't get a choice in where he was living. But the one who shot the gun did have a choice.
The communities have a clear choice to make things better. Note: I didn't say easy choice.
They can discuss honestly that there is a problem with the way they think and live in their communities and make changes about what they teach their children or things can stay the status quo. Because we can legislate all we want and yet over my lifetime I have not seen this problem with guns get any better, just as the voicer mentions in the paper today.
"When I was about 9 and living in Detroit, my brother's 15-year-old best friend was shot and killed by another teenager. By the time I graduated from high school in 1986, I couldn't count the number of friends and acquaintances who had been shot and killed. Every day, I read of another person - more often than not, a child - being shot and killed. Today, I read of 13-year-old Scotty Scott (photo) being killed in Harlem this past Friday. A life lost, along with many, many others across this country (and beyond) by that almighty gun. Where are all these guns coming from? It seems to me that there is an invisible original source that has no accountability to the people, for lost lives and to families in misery. Something's gotta give - other than more lives."
Heart wrenching, yes! But it got me thinking about this topic from a different perspective than I used to think about guns.
I don't like them! It's very simple for me. BUT the consitution allows us to bear arms.
I don't own a gun. I never held a gun. I might someday at a gun range but probably that would be it. I've walked around rough neighborhoods at sometimes odd hours. I still don't want a gun.
Granted I don't have to live in those places. But it's still a choice. I choose not to exercise my right to own a gun.
Illegal gun or legal gun I think is the wrong way to look at this problem. Why do you have the gun? What's your intent? What choices do you have that brought you to owning that gun? What choices brought you to using that gun?
OK it's a tough neighborhood but that doesn't mean you don't have other choices besides the "friends" you choose to associate with and the places you choose to hang out. Yes, it may suck to high heaven to be in your apt. all the time when you're not in school or work but if it means you are safe so be it.
Think about it, isn't it the hard things that we have to live through that teach us the most and empower us?
It's no wonder so many young folks feel so disempowered these days. We have done so much to make them never feel pain or have to learn a hard lesson that they have no idea what they can achieve and overcome and accomplish.
It's hard to watch someone you love in pain, but sometimes you just have to step out of the way and let it be their lesson, stand by them, hold their hand and support them through the muck so that they can stand on their own two feet.
That little boy didn't choose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and he didn't get a choice in where he was living. But the one who shot the gun did have a choice.
The communities have a clear choice to make things better. Note: I didn't say easy choice.
They can discuss honestly that there is a problem with the way they think and live in their communities and make changes about what they teach their children or things can stay the status quo. Because we can legislate all we want and yet over my lifetime I have not seen this problem with guns get any better, just as the voicer mentions in the paper today.
Photo Tour Of Wall Street Area
THIS was the uptown 6 train at Grand Central at 5:45PM Monday night. I had to wait for two more trains before I could even board one. This is insanity. The MTA wants to raise our fare from the already $2 one-way trip, with less service, over crowded trains and no air conditioning. If anyone from the city council comes upon this blog and sees this photo, in the words of Susan Powter will you please STOP THE INSANITY.
(click on the photo to get a better feel for the way I experienced this)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Group Dangles $50K for Jews Who Move to Ala. Town
Is this such a good idea for a religion of people who are ALWAYS stereotyped as money-grubbing, or money lending etc...?
OY VEY!
OY VEY!
Student Voter Registration
I am Reading in the New York Times today about the issues surrounding college student voter's registration rights.
Apparently many college students are being recruited to register to vote based on their dorm address. In fairness The Times mentions that this has been done for many previous elections.
I'm wondering if this should have been allowed and should continue to be allowed. It seems to be that common sense is being thrown to the wolves in favor of lots of acceptions for too many individuals.
When I first went to college, I too as in this story, went to school in Virginia. It never crossed my mind to register to vote there. When we were in our Senior year of highschool, someone from the town came to our classroom and signed us up to vote and gave us the forms for when we would turn 18 for those like myself, a June baby, so I had to wait until school was almost over.
Since my primary residence would be NJ that is where I was registered to vote. It only seems like common sense to me. My parents claimed me as their dependent and they were living in NJ. How could I claim to live somewhere else permenently and tell the government I am my parents dependents? It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
What it sounds like to me is gerrymandering as well as representation without taxation.
Never shying away from a controversial topic I leave this now to you all to comment.
(Yes, apparently I can get to blogger but not emails. The other person sharing this job with me seems to use it so I am chancing it here at this job this week:-)
Apparently many college students are being recruited to register to vote based on their dorm address. In fairness The Times mentions that this has been done for many previous elections.
I'm wondering if this should have been allowed and should continue to be allowed. It seems to be that common sense is being thrown to the wolves in favor of lots of acceptions for too many individuals.
When I first went to college, I too as in this story, went to school in Virginia. It never crossed my mind to register to vote there. When we were in our Senior year of highschool, someone from the town came to our classroom and signed us up to vote and gave us the forms for when we would turn 18 for those like myself, a June baby, so I had to wait until school was almost over.
Since my primary residence would be NJ that is where I was registered to vote. It only seems like common sense to me. My parents claimed me as their dependent and they were living in NJ. How could I claim to live somewhere else permenently and tell the government I am my parents dependents? It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
What it sounds like to me is gerrymandering as well as representation without taxation.
Never shying away from a controversial topic I leave this now to you all to comment.
(Yes, apparently I can get to blogger but not emails. The other person sharing this job with me seems to use it so I am chancing it here at this job this week:-)
Sunday, September 7, 2008
License Plate Covers
I couldn't snap the photo because I felt too many eyes on me BUT today I saw a car with Jersey plates and a vanity plate cover that said:
Jack Daniels
Does anyone else see something seriously wrong with this?
Jack Daniels
Does anyone else see something seriously wrong with this?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Obama's Own Words On Whites
rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Trojan Vibrating Touch?
Has anyone else seen one of these commercials? OMG. They actually have the actress say, "OMG it's so cute" and then giggle with her girlfriend. THEN an old lady tells them where she got hers.
Can anyone else say ick!?
Seriously are we that loose a society that it is now ok to advertise (no matter how late the hour) masterbation accessories. What's next? Commercials for blow up dolls for men? Big sucking lips for electronic blowjobs for the guys?
Hey Trojan employees: there's nothing CUTE about this item or what it does and it oddly looks like a kitty toothbrush. So much for market research.
Sadly however, this item or similar is a necessity as SOME men have no clue as I have written about recently. I do have a cure for the guys who are intimidated by the battery thing...USE YOUR EARS!
Here's how a more realistic commercial SHOULD go:
girlfriend one: My boyfriend is a lazy lay.
girlfriend two: OMG tell me about it.
girlfriend one: I found the perfect item.
girlfriend two: Really?!
girlfriend one: After sleeping with this lazy bastard for so long I was willing to try anything!
Well you get the point!
Friday, September 5, 2008
For the Brain, Remembering Is Like Reliving
How ironic that this story was in the NYTimes online today.
Scientists have for the first time recorded individual brain cells in the act of summoning a spontaneous memory, revealing not only where a remembered experience is registered but also, in part, how the brain is able to recreate it.
This afternoon, after about five years, I received an email with my Ex's name on it. I opened my private email account while at work and there staring at me is this bastard's name. And yes that is how I see it all this time later. The narcissist was at it again.
Clearly he knows I don't read fully in Spanish! Clearly he had an email address of mine that I opened well after our demise. So clearly he had googled me and found out about me. And clearly he is still a pussy and chose to send some bullshit online social book request from a Spanish social site, to me to let me know he knows about me and wants contact.
I had a coworker translate to let me know just what the email said. FUN FUN NOT!
Here's my response in case he ever happens upon this blog:
PUSSY!
I have no time for a narcissist like him ever again. I learned my lesson the hard way and I am not interested in learning about his life now, his probable marriage and kids. He can take his limp penis and shove it in some other stupid womans hoohoo and make whatever babies he wants.
Perhaps he is back at Harvard and needs me to write his papers again for him. Too bad this time!
This chick has grown stronger and wiser and won't let someone like him, back into my life ever ever ever again.
Thanks once again for showing your narcissistic colors by contacting me after so long, after such a tumultuous break-up.
Fool me once...
Scientists have for the first time recorded individual brain cells in the act of summoning a spontaneous memory, revealing not only where a remembered experience is registered but also, in part, how the brain is able to recreate it.
This afternoon, after about five years, I received an email with my Ex's name on it. I opened my private email account while at work and there staring at me is this bastard's name. And yes that is how I see it all this time later. The narcissist was at it again.
Clearly he knows I don't read fully in Spanish! Clearly he had an email address of mine that I opened well after our demise. So clearly he had googled me and found out about me. And clearly he is still a pussy and chose to send some bullshit online social book request from a Spanish social site, to me to let me know he knows about me and wants contact.
I had a coworker translate to let me know just what the email said. FUN FUN NOT!
Here's my response in case he ever happens upon this blog:
PUSSY!I have no time for a narcissist like him ever again. I learned my lesson the hard way and I am not interested in learning about his life now, his probable marriage and kids. He can take his limp penis and shove it in some other stupid womans hoohoo and make whatever babies he wants.
Perhaps he is back at Harvard and needs me to write his papers again for him. Too bad this time!
This chick has grown stronger and wiser and won't let someone like him, back into my life ever ever ever again.
Thanks once again for showing your narcissistic colors by contacting me after so long, after such a tumultuous break-up.
Fool me once...
Carrie's Friday Foto Finish Fiesta
Gives new meaning to Shit Hole! HAHA!
OK I chose this photo and this item because I just love it. If you have a multi-cat household like I do and your kitties are young enough to use this I highly suggest you invest the $23 for it. Its a top entry cat litter. So for those of us with limited space but messy cats who love to get litter on the floor or whose cats sometimes pee a little outside the box for whatever reason, THIS is the perfect litter box for you. They can play in this damn sandbox all day and not get it all over your floor or ruin your wood and leave urine smell way past the time you die.
GO VISIT CANDID CARRIE'S SITE NOW for more Friday Foto Finish Fiesta Fun!
OK I chose this photo and this item because I just love it. If you have a multi-cat household like I do and your kitties are young enough to use this I highly suggest you invest the $23 for it. Its a top entry cat litter. So for those of us with limited space but messy cats who love to get litter on the floor or whose cats sometimes pee a little outside the box for whatever reason, THIS is the perfect litter box for you. They can play in this damn sandbox all day and not get it all over your floor or ruin your wood and leave urine smell way past the time you die.
GO VISIT CANDID CARRIE'S SITE NOW for more Friday Foto Finish Fiesta Fun!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
My Experience At The Nail Salon Last Friday
(3 posts today, don't forget to check out the other two :)
Last Friday I decided to take advantage of a day off and get my nails manicured and pedicured for my brother's then upcoming wedding taking place on the weekend. It was on this day that John McCain decided to announce his VP pick of Sarah Palin.
I had heard speculation that morning and decided to blog my feelings before the announcement so that it would be clear where my opinions were before information on her broke.
As I am sitting in the chair getting my pedicure the news cuts in with breaking news confirming that Ms. Palin has been officially chosen by McCain for his running mate.
I have gone to this salon for at least 13 years and so I felt comfortable talking with the woman who does my nails and owns the salon. In some settings I just would be quiet. Sitting next to me is a woman in her late 40's or maybe early 50's. As I am talking with Mimi, my manicurist, saying things directly related to Palin and much to the sentiment I mentioned in my post that day, I hear GROAN, MMMM, UH with a large let out of air from the woman next to me.
I didn't say a word about my support for McCain YET. Just that I didn't care if he chose a woman or not, I wanted to know more about her.
But I surely heard the groans. Now mind you, I never included this woman in my conversation and clearly I was having a conversation with Mimi and no one else although to be fair I was in a public salon and people could hear us/me.
Then I said, "Well I will be voting for McCain no matter what" and I was rudely intrurrupted by this woman next to me. "How could you vote for him?! You're voting for McCain! WHY?"
Stupid me, I thought she wanted an answer. She didn't. Because as I spoke my words again I was rudely and arrogantly inturrupted. What I started to say was : "Obama is a racist and I can't vote for someone like that."
So what did she say to me?
She said and I quote, "SO WHAT, AMERICA IS RACIST!"
HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????
Where's the logic in this statement?
OK warning, a snarky comment is coming from me on this post now.
Logic from a liberal, what was I thinking?????
OK look before you make your angry comments about my snarkiness, let's get back to the issue at hand. I mention my reason for not being able to vote for Obama, which is a very good, noble and valid reason...racism is BAD. No?
So here's the typical way an Obama supporter gets the direction of a "conversation" going. Ready? Ask a question but not really meaning to want an answer. Hear a few words and harp on a detail of the answer rather than the point, hence this sentence harp on the word racist, rather than the actual meaning of my sentence. Take that word and choose another issue regarding that word, this case racist and apply it something unrelated to try to get me to defend something else and get off topic. "America is racist"
Are you exhausted yet? YES -- that is their point. Get you exhausted and to get you so tangled in another web of a conversation that you forget what the topic really was.
So now we aren't talking about Palin or why I can't vote for Obama which was the original question, we are on her topic now which is her hate for America.
Now before I forget, let me tell you this woman has a strong accent. So I assume she is a naturalized citizen. But as I start to address this she then goes after me and starts her inquiry into my background rather than addressing hers.
In a very raised voice she says to me:
Angry Liberal: "Where are your parents from!"
Me; "Here.'
Angry Liberal:"No one is originally from here. Where are your grandparents from?"
Me: "Here." (BIG CHEESY SMILE)
Angry Liberal: "Where are their parents from?"
And so I say where are YOU from, obviously not here. Why did you come here if you don't like it and think it is racist?
Then I learn that she isn't a citizen. She won't mention her country of course, she is European. As if that is a country. DUH BIATCH!
Then I put my hand up to her and said, you're not from here you don't get a say and I am done.
Well the gloves came off now. This is what I had to hear next:
Even louder voice to me:
"You just want to have a conversation by yourself? No one else is allowed to talk?"
"YOU probably don't even know where Europe is!"
"Where'd you go to school? You're probably just uneducated."
"You're white trash!"
Now remember all I said was you're not from here so you don't get a say and I am done.
I didn't call anyone names. I didn't attack her for her education and I certainly didn't attack her country with name calling like she did.
But now I am done. This woman called my country racist and she isn't from here. It's bad-enough when this is from your own people, but an outsider, here enjoying the comforts and pleasures of my country as a guest and you come and basically spit on us. NOPE. I'm done being nice.
So I told her that she was Eurotrash who should know more about being a racist than anyone here seeing that they let Hitler march in and kill millions of Jews and millions of gays and Gypsys and Stalin come rolling in to Europe next throwing another batch of innocent people in Gulags. But yes yes America is racist. Then yes I really went off on her.
You see I am completely intolerant of intolerance. You'll see no nice me at this point.
Then I told her in basically this way: How dare you come visit here and shit upon me and my country. You can just shut the fuck up now because I don't give a rats ass what you have to say anymore. You're visiting here on vacation enjoying the amazing things we have to offer. If you feel we are racist then do us all a favor and stay the fuck home. You accused me of not letting you speak when you cut me off when I tried to answer your question. You don't even know who I am or who you are calling white trash. You are just so ignorant!
I said not one word more.
As she left she wished me luck and I said "you too" and that was the end of anything to do with her.
BTW my nails looked fantastic and my toes did too.
Last Friday I decided to take advantage of a day off and get my nails manicured and pedicured for my brother's then upcoming wedding taking place on the weekend. It was on this day that John McCain decided to announce his VP pick of Sarah Palin.
I had heard speculation that morning and decided to blog my feelings before the announcement so that it would be clear where my opinions were before information on her broke.
As I am sitting in the chair getting my pedicure the news cuts in with breaking news confirming that Ms. Palin has been officially chosen by McCain for his running mate.
I have gone to this salon for at least 13 years and so I felt comfortable talking with the woman who does my nails and owns the salon. In some settings I just would be quiet. Sitting next to me is a woman in her late 40's or maybe early 50's. As I am talking with Mimi, my manicurist, saying things directly related to Palin and much to the sentiment I mentioned in my post that day, I hear GROAN, MMMM, UH with a large let out of air from the woman next to me.
I didn't say a word about my support for McCain YET. Just that I didn't care if he chose a woman or not, I wanted to know more about her.
But I surely heard the groans. Now mind you, I never included this woman in my conversation and clearly I was having a conversation with Mimi and no one else although to be fair I was in a public salon and people could hear us/me.
Then I said, "Well I will be voting for McCain no matter what" and I was rudely intrurrupted by this woman next to me. "How could you vote for him?! You're voting for McCain! WHY?"
Stupid me, I thought she wanted an answer. She didn't. Because as I spoke my words again I was rudely and arrogantly inturrupted. What I started to say was : "Obama is a racist and I can't vote for someone like that."
So what did she say to me?
She said and I quote, "SO WHAT, AMERICA IS RACIST!"
HUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????
Where's the logic in this statement?
OK warning, a snarky comment is coming from me on this post now.
Logic from a liberal, what was I thinking?????
OK look before you make your angry comments about my snarkiness, let's get back to the issue at hand. I mention my reason for not being able to vote for Obama, which is a very good, noble and valid reason...racism is BAD. No?
So here's the typical way an Obama supporter gets the direction of a "conversation" going. Ready? Ask a question but not really meaning to want an answer. Hear a few words and harp on a detail of the answer rather than the point, hence this sentence harp on the word racist, rather than the actual meaning of my sentence. Take that word and choose another issue regarding that word, this case racist and apply it something unrelated to try to get me to defend something else and get off topic. "America is racist"
Are you exhausted yet? YES -- that is their point. Get you exhausted and to get you so tangled in another web of a conversation that you forget what the topic really was.
So now we aren't talking about Palin or why I can't vote for Obama which was the original question, we are on her topic now which is her hate for America.
Now before I forget, let me tell you this woman has a strong accent. So I assume she is a naturalized citizen. But as I start to address this she then goes after me and starts her inquiry into my background rather than addressing hers.
In a very raised voice she says to me:
Angry Liberal: "Where are your parents from!"
Me; "Here.'
Angry Liberal:"No one is originally from here. Where are your grandparents from?"
Me: "Here." (BIG CHEESY SMILE)
Angry Liberal: "Where are their parents from?"
And so I say where are YOU from, obviously not here. Why did you come here if you don't like it and think it is racist?
Then I learn that she isn't a citizen. She won't mention her country of course, she is European. As if that is a country. DUH BIATCH!
Then I put my hand up to her and said, you're not from here you don't get a say and I am done.
Well the gloves came off now. This is what I had to hear next:
Even louder voice to me:
"You just want to have a conversation by yourself? No one else is allowed to talk?"
"YOU probably don't even know where Europe is!"
"Where'd you go to school? You're probably just uneducated."
"You're white trash!"
Now remember all I said was you're not from here so you don't get a say and I am done.
I didn't call anyone names. I didn't attack her for her education and I certainly didn't attack her country with name calling like she did.
But now I am done. This woman called my country racist and she isn't from here. It's bad-enough when this is from your own people, but an outsider, here enjoying the comforts and pleasures of my country as a guest and you come and basically spit on us. NOPE. I'm done being nice.
So I told her that she was Eurotrash who should know more about being a racist than anyone here seeing that they let Hitler march in and kill millions of Jews and millions of gays and Gypsys and Stalin come rolling in to Europe next throwing another batch of innocent people in Gulags. But yes yes America is racist. Then yes I really went off on her.
You see I am completely intolerant of intolerance. You'll see no nice me at this point.
Then I told her in basically this way: How dare you come visit here and shit upon me and my country. You can just shut the fuck up now because I don't give a rats ass what you have to say anymore. You're visiting here on vacation enjoying the amazing things we have to offer. If you feel we are racist then do us all a favor and stay the fuck home. You accused me of not letting you speak when you cut me off when I tried to answer your question. You don't even know who I am or who you are calling white trash. You are just so ignorant!
I said not one word more.
As she left she wished me luck and I said "you too" and that was the end of anything to do with her.
BTW my nails looked fantastic and my toes did too.
Who Is Sarah Palin?
Here's some 411 that the NY Daily News told us about Ms. Palin:
"she blew the whistle on sleazy dealings and stood up to Big Oil power players. She refused to accept money from Washington for the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. And she has called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a step opposed by McCain.
Alaskans love her. In her second year as governor, Palin's approval rating tops 80%. In politics, that's higher than Mount McKinley. Married to an oil-field production operator on Alaska's North Slope, [he's a union member] she presents an image of the American family that many will identify with. Her oldest son enlisted in the Army last Sept. 11 and will deploy to Iraq this Sept. 11. And she has credibility with the pro-life right: She's an evangelical Christian who refused to abort her infant son after learning he would be born with Down syndrome. "
So far what I am hearing and reading I am comfortable with. Does Ms. Palin share all my views on all the issues? No she doesn't. If I were to try to choose a candidate based on all the issues I could never choose anyone. I'd waste my time getting caught up in all the little details rather than seeing the bigger picture of the person. I want to know how and why a person lives and chooses what they do choose. What does that mean?
It means this: if she says she's pro-life (which I do not agree with personally) how does she live her life? She's a mother of five at the age of 44. She knew her last child would, if she went to term, be born and live with downs syndrome yet she held firm to her beliefs.
It doesn't mean I will start questioning her ethnic background (as was done to me this weekend, for which I will write about in another post), and then try to show how where her parents or grandparents or possibly great grandparents came from can somehow prove that she is too biased visa vie all the prejudice and racisit beliefs that must have been passed down to her and therefore prove that she is not an intelligent pick and that all her choices are tainted and wrong because of her familial background. THAT WOULD BE A PERSONAL ATTACK.
It means I will look at what she says she stands for and then look at her HER HER HER HER actions and see if they match up or show that she is full of shit about what she says she stands for.
That is MY VALUE system. Look at each person as an individual. What do they say and then what do they do.
For all those same reasons I cannot stand behind Obama. He claims he is not racist and yet sat in a racist church with a racist preacher for 20 years. The racist preacher married him and his wife and baptised his children. His words and actions don't match. Obama states in his own book, "The Audactiy of Hope", that he sought this type of church out, went to it, and then decided to join it precisely because of its theology/ideology and its activism in this regard.
Who is the leading pioneer of the church's ideology? James Hal Cone.
Here's what Cone himself said:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." - "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
More quotes of Cone:
"There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile."
"Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it... While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. "
Jeff Head states so eloquently the following on his blog about the origins of this racist hate bating church,"It is in no way related to, or derived from American foreign policy or society. The fact is America, despite its problems and mistakes, has set more people free (even through a horrific civil war of our own) and and given them individual liberty (and thus individual accountability) and therefore truly assisted more people's on this earth than any other nation on it. "
"she blew the whistle on sleazy dealings and stood up to Big Oil power players. She refused to accept money from Washington for the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. And she has called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a step opposed by McCain.
Alaskans love her. In her second year as governor, Palin's approval rating tops 80%. In politics, that's higher than Mount McKinley. Married to an oil-field production operator on Alaska's North Slope, [he's a union member] she presents an image of the American family that many will identify with. Her oldest son enlisted in the Army last Sept. 11 and will deploy to Iraq this Sept. 11. And she has credibility with the pro-life right: She's an evangelical Christian who refused to abort her infant son after learning he would be born with Down syndrome. "
So far what I am hearing and reading I am comfortable with. Does Ms. Palin share all my views on all the issues? No she doesn't. If I were to try to choose a candidate based on all the issues I could never choose anyone. I'd waste my time getting caught up in all the little details rather than seeing the bigger picture of the person. I want to know how and why a person lives and chooses what they do choose. What does that mean?
It means this: if she says she's pro-life (which I do not agree with personally) how does she live her life? She's a mother of five at the age of 44. She knew her last child would, if she went to term, be born and live with downs syndrome yet she held firm to her beliefs.
It doesn't mean I will start questioning her ethnic background (as was done to me this weekend, for which I will write about in another post), and then try to show how where her parents or grandparents or possibly great grandparents came from can somehow prove that she is too biased visa vie all the prejudice and racisit beliefs that must have been passed down to her and therefore prove that she is not an intelligent pick and that all her choices are tainted and wrong because of her familial background. THAT WOULD BE A PERSONAL ATTACK.
It means I will look at what she says she stands for and then look at her HER HER HER HER actions and see if they match up or show that she is full of shit about what she says she stands for.
That is MY VALUE system. Look at each person as an individual. What do they say and then what do they do.
For all those same reasons I cannot stand behind Obama. He claims he is not racist and yet sat in a racist church with a racist preacher for 20 years. The racist preacher married him and his wife and baptised his children. His words and actions don't match. Obama states in his own book, "The Audactiy of Hope", that he sought this type of church out, went to it, and then decided to join it precisely because of its theology/ideology and its activism in this regard.
Who is the leading pioneer of the church's ideology? James Hal Cone.
Here's what Cone himself said:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." - "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
More quotes of Cone:
"There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile."
"Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it... While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. "
Jeff Head states so eloquently the following on his blog about the origins of this racist hate bating church,"It is in no way related to, or derived from American foreign policy or society. The fact is America, despite its problems and mistakes, has set more people free (even through a horrific civil war of our own) and and given them individual liberty (and thus individual accountability) and therefore truly assisted more people's on this earth than any other nation on it. "
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Looks Like I Made It To The Big Time
I'm being monitored by the US House Of Reps. YESIRREEE BOBAROONIE. Well this just gives me the tingles. HAHAHA! Man o man, do I have so much I'd like them to really pay attention to. Perhaps they should spend MY TAX dollars more wisely and earmark some dollars for women's health issues like VULVODYNIA, or how to stop the insurance companies from screwing up the medical system so much so that MD's are severely over-performing unnecessary c-sections on women rather than letting them labor normally. But no, instead they pay their staff to monitor little old itty bitty blog for personal reasons me. HAHAHA! Just tickles me.
OH...GO McCain/Palin!
Domain Name house.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 143.231.249.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 864
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Last Page View Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://canubapartofm...-minority-seats.html
Visit Exit Page http://canubapartofm...-minority-seats.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Visit Number 7,346
OH...GO McCain/Palin!
Domain Name house.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 143.231.249.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 864
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Last Page View Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://canubapartofm...-minority-seats.html
Visit Exit Page http://canubapartofm...-minority-seats.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Sep 3 2008 11:20:59 am
Visit Number 7,346
No Explanations and No Apologies
A very wise person sent to this me privately. I'll let that person's words stand for mine as well.
I've been thinking about it. If someone came into your home, spent time telling you how terrible you were, ate all your cookies without asking, and then took a dump on your couch before leaving, what would you do? Because you seem like a pretty nice person, you may invite them back a second time, thinking they had a bad day, maybe you got off on the wrong foot, etc. How many days in a row would you go before just saying, you're not allowed here any more? I'll tell you, I've never had anyone come to my blog and act rude on a consistent basis. I'd probably find it incredibly funny. But the minute it went from amusing me to annoying me, I'd never allow another comment. No explanations, no apologies.
I've been thinking about it. If someone came into your home, spent time telling you how terrible you were, ate all your cookies without asking, and then took a dump on your couch before leaving, what would you do? Because you seem like a pretty nice person, you may invite them back a second time, thinking they had a bad day, maybe you got off on the wrong foot, etc. How many days in a row would you go before just saying, you're not allowed here any more? I'll tell you, I've never had anyone come to my blog and act rude on a consistent basis. I'd probably find it incredibly funny. But the minute it went from amusing me to annoying me, I'd never allow another comment. No explanations, no apologies.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
What is Loshon Hora?
SELECTED HALACHOS OF LOSHON HORA
(Selected Laws of Slander or Evil Tongue)
From "Guard Your Tongue" ... by the Chofetz Chayim.
As the old British wartime adage goes, 'careless talk costs lives'. The Talmud relates in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani "Why is the evil tongue called a thrice-slaying tongue? Because it kills three people: the person speaking, the person spoken to, and the person being spoken about." It may not kill them physically, but it is character assassination.
Loshon Hora (the evil tongue ... or slander) is considered among the Jewish people as one of the worst sins imaginable ... one almost tantamount to murder in that the good name, livelihood, reputation, etc. can all be destroyed by a single word, look, expression. Therefore, we have laws in great detail explaining all the ramifications of slander ... all its appearances and some ways of rectifying the results ... knowing that full restitution is not always possible ... the results are then left between the perpetrator, the victim, and G-d.
The laws might appear to be complicated ... but just give them some serious thought, and the many ramifications of law will become apparent ... and most interesting ... Jewish law truly is a sea of wisdom.
SPEAKING LOSHON HORA TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE
You are forbidden to relate loshon hora to a single individual or to a group. The larger the group that hears your loshon hora the graver your sin, since the victim will be degraded in the eyes of more people ... Furthermore, a larger number of people have sinned by hearing your loshon hora.
LOSHON HORA THAT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Many people mistakenly think that repeating well-known derogatory information is not considered loshon hora. Quite the contrary, it should be made clear that many halachic (legal) authorities do not differentiate between loshon hora that is well known from loshon hora that is not well known. However, there is a lenient opinion which holds that if someone speaks loshon hora in the presence of three of more people and they subsequently repeat this information, these people are not guilty of speaking loshon hora. The original speaker has of course sinned.
LOSHON HORA THAT THE SPEAKER WOULD RELATE
EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUBJECT
If you feel that you would relate loshon hora even if the subject were present, it is still forbidden. Even if you have criticized the subject right to his face, you are still forbidden to repeat the derogatory information to others.
LOSHON HORA STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUBJECT
Speaking loshon hora about someone in his presence is very serious ... even if your sole intention in mentioning his faults is to criticize him constructively ... Corrective comments should be delivered privately. Offending someone publicly is loshon hora and constitutes a grave sin ... You may also be guilty of causing him humiliation and mortification.
GIVING PEOPLE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
If at all feasible you should give people the benefit of the doubt. If you relate an incident, not giving the benefit of the doubt in circumstances which obligate you to do so, you would be guilty of speaking loshon hora, and thus failing to perform the commandment b'tzedek tishpot amisecho ... "Judge your neighbor with righteousness."
LAW REGARDING A PIOUS G-D FEARING PERSON
Now we are always obligated to give a pious, G-d fearing person the benefit of the doubt. This is true not only when the chances of zchus (a favorable judgment) and chov (an unfavorable judgment) seem equal, but even when it appears most likely that his action was improper.
LAW REGARDING AN AVERAGE PERSON
The rules concerning giving the benefit of the doubt to an average person are as follows:
If the probability of zchus and chov seem equal, we are obligated to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
If the possibility of chov seems more likely than the possibility of zchus, it is then proper to leave the matter undecided in your mind. According to the letter of the law, however, you are permitted to assume the side of chov.
Even when the side of chov appears most likely, it is meritorious for you to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Keep in mind what our Sages have said: "Whoever gives other the benefit of the doubt, Hashem Yisborach (G-d) will deal likewise with him" (Shabbos 127b)
"KINAAS HA'EMES" (PASSION FOR TRUTH)
You are forbidden to say that a person did something improper, even if you are motivated by kinaas ha'emes ... that is, you are agitated about the transgression and insistent that the truth be known. Although your words might be meant totally without malice, they still constitute loshon hora. You are allowed to relate details of an improper action only if it is constructive.
RELATING THAT SOMEONE VIOLATES MITZVOS
WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO JUDGE HIM FAVORABLY
The average mitzvah (commandment) observer is someone who is normally careful not to violate any mitzvos, but sometimes fails. If you see such a person repeatedly sin, yet somehow fine it possible to exonerate him, you are obligated to judge him favorably, and are forbidden to tell others that he has sinned. Perhaps he did not know that the action was prohibited and therefore he repeated it many times. Or perhaps he did not realize the severity of his transgression.
You are obligated to give such a mitzvah observer the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Furthermore, you must even refrain from disliking such a person because of his misdeeds.
TSHUVAH FOR SPEAKING LOSHON HORA
If you have spoken loshon hora and want to do tshuvah (repent), the necessary procedure depends on the effects of that loshon hora:
A. If the listeners did not believe what you have told them, and their esteem for the person spoken about was not lessened, the sin is considered one between man and G-d (bain odom laMakom) you have violated G-d's commandments but have not harmed your fellow man. The procedure for doing tshuvah in such instances is the same as in all other violations of mitzvos "bain adom laMakom" ... between man and G-d ... You might notice the very fine distinctions and subtleties in our laws.
You must sincerely regret what you have done. (that's charata)
You must sincerely confess to Hashem Yisborach, G-d. (that's viduy)
You must be resolved never to repeat your sin. (kaholo al l'haboh)
B. However, if the listeners believed the loshon hora, and the person spoken about was lowered in their esteem and he thereby suffered ... physical damage, financial loss, or mental anguish ... the sin is considered as between man and his fellow-man (bain odom la chavairo) sinning against a fellow man. And in such instances you are obligated to request forgiveness from the person who suffered because of your loshon hora. Afterwards you have to again follow the above-mentioned steps for tshuvah ... Are you beginning to understand why we have so many lawyers?
Even if the victim is not aware of the loshon hora you spoke, you are still obligated to inform him about what you have said and ask for forgiveness. Normally you are obligated to specify the wrongdoing when you ask someone to forgive you ... but if this ill cause the person embarrassment, you should not be specific.
It is preferable for the person who has spoken the loshon hora to personally ask for forgiveness. If this is difficult for him, he is permitted to have someone else request it for him.
LISTENING TO LOSHON HORA
The Torah forbids you to listen to loshon hora, even if you do not intend to believe what is spoken.
EXONERATING THE SUBJECT OF LOSHON HORA
When you are able to exonerate the person spoken about, you perform a mitzvah (commandment) by listening to someone belittling another person. By hearing the entire story you will be able to disprove what has been said and find some zechus (merit) for the subject of loshon hora.
CALMING DOWN THE SPEAKER
There is another instance when it is a mitzvah (commandment) to listen to loshon hora ... If you feel that the speaker is merely momentarily agitated and that by presently telling you the loshon hora he will calm down and not repeat it to others who might believe it, you should listen. Even though you are permitted to listen to the loshon hora, you mist keep in mind that it is forbidden to believe what you hear.
REBUKING THE SPEAKER OF LOSHON HORA
If you are in the company of people who are speaking loshon hora, you are obligated to rebuke them. If you remain silent, you will be held responsible for their sins.
WHEN THE REBUKE WILL GO UNHEEDED
And even if you feel certain that the people speaking loshon hora will not heed your rebuke, you are nonetheless obligated to admonish them ... Silence on your part will be mistakenly misconstrued as approval ... Therefore, you must try to defend the victim of loshon hora even if you feel that your effort will prove fruitless.
WALK AWAY
If a person who begins to relate loshon hora in your presence will be goaded on by your rebuke to increase the flow of his derogatory words, you should certainly not reprimand him. But how are you to save yourself from transgressing the prohibition against hearing loshon hora? ... You should place your fingers in your ears, or better yet, simply walk away.
BELIEVING THAT SOMEONE IS YATZAH MICHLAL AMISECHO
If you hear that someone has completely forsaken Torah observance (yatzah miclal amisecho), you are forbidden to believe the statement, and until you actually verify the information you must continue to render him all services that you are obligated to do for a human being.
NOTE: In the following three sections, the laws specifically mention Jewish groups. I am certain this was due to extreme hardships put upon Jewish people throughout history, requiring us to make special effort to protect our own, especially from our own. Today I would say the injunctions would address all scholars, and all "groups" of people.
LOSHON HORA ABOUT A TALMID CHOCHOM
Speaking loshon hora about a Talmid Chochom (learned Jew), in his presence or absence, is an extremely grave sin. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) ... states that disgracing a Talmid Chochom is punishable by the loss of olam haboh (eternity).
DEFAMING THE DEAD
You are forbidden to defame someone who is dead ... (one who in no way can defend him/herself) ... If the subject was a Talmid Chochom (learned Jew), the offense is even more severe. Btw, any mitzvah (meaning "service" here) done for the dead, is considered the greatest good deserving the greatest merit, in that the benefactor in no way can make repayment for your service ... an interesting concept.
LOSHON HORA ABOUT A GROUP
You are forbidden to speak loshon hora about an entire group, even when you do not specify the names of any individuals ... It is considered loshon hora to speak disparagingly about national or religious groups of Jews, for instance, Chassidim, Misnagdim, Ashkanizim, Sfardim, American Jews.
(Selected Laws of Slander or Evil Tongue)
From "Guard Your Tongue" ... by the Chofetz Chayim.
As the old British wartime adage goes, 'careless talk costs lives'. The Talmud relates in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani "Why is the evil tongue called a thrice-slaying tongue? Because it kills three people: the person speaking, the person spoken to, and the person being spoken about." It may not kill them physically, but it is character assassination.
The Rambam, Maimonides, adds a further dimension - sometimes a person may say something that is not quite lashon hara. Yet, as his statement passes from person to person, it eventually does cause harm or trouble, fright or hurt to the other party being spoken about.
The Orchos Tzadikim (Ways of the Righteous) comments that "Before you speak, you are the master of your words. After you speak, your words master you." How often we feel imprisoned by our own words after we have said something that we wish we hadn't or know we shouldn't have.
There are times when a person is obligated to speak out, even though the information is disparaging. Specifically, if a person's intent in sharing the negative information is for a to'elet, a positive, constructive, and beneficial purpose, the prohibition against lashon hara does not apply. Motzi shem ra, spouting lies and spreading disinformation, is always prohibited. And if the lashon hara serves as a warning against the possibility of future harm, such communication is not only permissible, but, under certain conditions, compulsory.Loshon Hora (the evil tongue ... or slander) is considered among the Jewish people as one of the worst sins imaginable ... one almost tantamount to murder in that the good name, livelihood, reputation, etc. can all be destroyed by a single word, look, expression. Therefore, we have laws in great detail explaining all the ramifications of slander ... all its appearances and some ways of rectifying the results ... knowing that full restitution is not always possible ... the results are then left between the perpetrator, the victim, and G-d.
The laws might appear to be complicated ... but just give them some serious thought, and the many ramifications of law will become apparent ... and most interesting ... Jewish law truly is a sea of wisdom.
SPEAKING LOSHON HORA TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE
You are forbidden to relate loshon hora to a single individual or to a group. The larger the group that hears your loshon hora the graver your sin, since the victim will be degraded in the eyes of more people ... Furthermore, a larger number of people have sinned by hearing your loshon hora.
LOSHON HORA THAT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Many people mistakenly think that repeating well-known derogatory information is not considered loshon hora. Quite the contrary, it should be made clear that many halachic (legal) authorities do not differentiate between loshon hora that is well known from loshon hora that is not well known. However, there is a lenient opinion which holds that if someone speaks loshon hora in the presence of three of more people and they subsequently repeat this information, these people are not guilty of speaking loshon hora. The original speaker has of course sinned.
LOSHON HORA THAT THE SPEAKER WOULD RELATE
EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUBJECT
If you feel that you would relate loshon hora even if the subject were present, it is still forbidden. Even if you have criticized the subject right to his face, you are still forbidden to repeat the derogatory information to others.
LOSHON HORA STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUBJECT
Speaking loshon hora about someone in his presence is very serious ... even if your sole intention in mentioning his faults is to criticize him constructively ... Corrective comments should be delivered privately. Offending someone publicly is loshon hora and constitutes a grave sin ... You may also be guilty of causing him humiliation and mortification.
GIVING PEOPLE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
If at all feasible you should give people the benefit of the doubt. If you relate an incident, not giving the benefit of the doubt in circumstances which obligate you to do so, you would be guilty of speaking loshon hora, and thus failing to perform the commandment b'tzedek tishpot amisecho ... "Judge your neighbor with righteousness."
LAW REGARDING A PIOUS G-D FEARING PERSON
Now we are always obligated to give a pious, G-d fearing person the benefit of the doubt. This is true not only when the chances of zchus (a favorable judgment) and chov (an unfavorable judgment) seem equal, but even when it appears most likely that his action was improper.
LAW REGARDING AN AVERAGE PERSON
The rules concerning giving the benefit of the doubt to an average person are as follows:
If the probability of zchus and chov seem equal, we are obligated to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
If the possibility of chov seems more likely than the possibility of zchus, it is then proper to leave the matter undecided in your mind. According to the letter of the law, however, you are permitted to assume the side of chov.
Even when the side of chov appears most likely, it is meritorious for you to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Keep in mind what our Sages have said: "Whoever gives other the benefit of the doubt, Hashem Yisborach (G-d) will deal likewise with him" (Shabbos 127b)
"KINAAS HA'EMES" (PASSION FOR TRUTH)
You are forbidden to say that a person did something improper, even if you are motivated by kinaas ha'emes ... that is, you are agitated about the transgression and insistent that the truth be known. Although your words might be meant totally without malice, they still constitute loshon hora. You are allowed to relate details of an improper action only if it is constructive.
RELATING THAT SOMEONE VIOLATES MITZVOS
WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO JUDGE HIM FAVORABLY
The average mitzvah (commandment) observer is someone who is normally careful not to violate any mitzvos, but sometimes fails. If you see such a person repeatedly sin, yet somehow fine it possible to exonerate him, you are obligated to judge him favorably, and are forbidden to tell others that he has sinned. Perhaps he did not know that the action was prohibited and therefore he repeated it many times. Or perhaps he did not realize the severity of his transgression.
You are obligated to give such a mitzvah observer the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Furthermore, you must even refrain from disliking such a person because of his misdeeds.
TSHUVAH FOR SPEAKING LOSHON HORA
If you have spoken loshon hora and want to do tshuvah (repent), the necessary procedure depends on the effects of that loshon hora:
A. If the listeners did not believe what you have told them, and their esteem for the person spoken about was not lessened, the sin is considered one between man and G-d (bain odom laMakom) you have violated G-d's commandments but have not harmed your fellow man. The procedure for doing tshuvah in such instances is the same as in all other violations of mitzvos "bain adom laMakom" ... between man and G-d ... You might notice the very fine distinctions and subtleties in our laws.
You must sincerely regret what you have done. (that's charata)
You must sincerely confess to Hashem Yisborach, G-d. (that's viduy)
You must be resolved never to repeat your sin. (kaholo al l'haboh)
B. However, if the listeners believed the loshon hora, and the person spoken about was lowered in their esteem and he thereby suffered ... physical damage, financial loss, or mental anguish ... the sin is considered as between man and his fellow-man (bain odom la chavairo) sinning against a fellow man. And in such instances you are obligated to request forgiveness from the person who suffered because of your loshon hora. Afterwards you have to again follow the above-mentioned steps for tshuvah ... Are you beginning to understand why we have so many lawyers?
Even if the victim is not aware of the loshon hora you spoke, you are still obligated to inform him about what you have said and ask for forgiveness. Normally you are obligated to specify the wrongdoing when you ask someone to forgive you ... but if this ill cause the person embarrassment, you should not be specific.
It is preferable for the person who has spoken the loshon hora to personally ask for forgiveness. If this is difficult for him, he is permitted to have someone else request it for him.
LISTENING TO LOSHON HORA
The Torah forbids you to listen to loshon hora, even if you do not intend to believe what is spoken.
EXONERATING THE SUBJECT OF LOSHON HORA
When you are able to exonerate the person spoken about, you perform a mitzvah (commandment) by listening to someone belittling another person. By hearing the entire story you will be able to disprove what has been said and find some zechus (merit) for the subject of loshon hora.
CALMING DOWN THE SPEAKER
There is another instance when it is a mitzvah (commandment) to listen to loshon hora ... If you feel that the speaker is merely momentarily agitated and that by presently telling you the loshon hora he will calm down and not repeat it to others who might believe it, you should listen. Even though you are permitted to listen to the loshon hora, you mist keep in mind that it is forbidden to believe what you hear.
REBUKING THE SPEAKER OF LOSHON HORA
If you are in the company of people who are speaking loshon hora, you are obligated to rebuke them. If you remain silent, you will be held responsible for their sins.
WHEN THE REBUKE WILL GO UNHEEDED
And even if you feel certain that the people speaking loshon hora will not heed your rebuke, you are nonetheless obligated to admonish them ... Silence on your part will be mistakenly misconstrued as approval ... Therefore, you must try to defend the victim of loshon hora even if you feel that your effort will prove fruitless.
WALK AWAY
If a person who begins to relate loshon hora in your presence will be goaded on by your rebuke to increase the flow of his derogatory words, you should certainly not reprimand him. But how are you to save yourself from transgressing the prohibition against hearing loshon hora? ... You should place your fingers in your ears, or better yet, simply walk away.
BELIEVING THAT SOMEONE IS YATZAH MICHLAL AMISECHO
If you hear that someone has completely forsaken Torah observance (yatzah miclal amisecho), you are forbidden to believe the statement, and until you actually verify the information you must continue to render him all services that you are obligated to do for a human being.
NOTE: In the following three sections, the laws specifically mention Jewish groups. I am certain this was due to extreme hardships put upon Jewish people throughout history, requiring us to make special effort to protect our own, especially from our own. Today I would say the injunctions would address all scholars, and all "groups" of people.
LOSHON HORA ABOUT A TALMID CHOCHOM
Speaking loshon hora about a Talmid Chochom (learned Jew), in his presence or absence, is an extremely grave sin. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) ... states that disgracing a Talmid Chochom is punishable by the loss of olam haboh (eternity).
DEFAMING THE DEAD
You are forbidden to defame someone who is dead ... (one who in no way can defend him/herself) ... If the subject was a Talmid Chochom (learned Jew), the offense is even more severe. Btw, any mitzvah (meaning "service" here) done for the dead, is considered the greatest good deserving the greatest merit, in that the benefactor in no way can make repayment for your service ... an interesting concept.
LOSHON HORA ABOUT A GROUP
You are forbidden to speak loshon hora about an entire group, even when you do not specify the names of any individuals ... It is considered loshon hora to speak disparagingly about national or religious groups of Jews, for instance, Chassidim, Misnagdim, Ashkanizim, Sfardim, American Jews.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Charles Krauthammer Thoughts On Obama
The Democrats anoint a stranger in Obama
Friday, August 29th 2008, 4:00 AM
Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.
Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments - bearing even fewer witnesses.
When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.
Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.
Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.
Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him - I am currently unavailable - to get Democratic things done. God bless America.
Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving - but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.
Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.
Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.
Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.
Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'" - and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.
So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?
The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger - a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, August 29th 2008, 4:00 AM
Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.
Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments - bearing even fewer witnesses.
When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.
Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.
Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.
Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him - I am currently unavailable - to get Democratic things done. God bless America.
Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving - but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.
Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.
Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.
Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.
Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'" - and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.
So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?
The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger - a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
