Israeli lobby: if you’re against illegal settlements, you’re for ethnic cleansing of Jews

The Israeli lobby is at it again, according to a recent article by the U.K. Guardian. If you are against Israel's illegal settlements on the land of Palestinians, you must supposedly be for ethnic cleansing of Jews:

The Israel Project, with an advisory board that includes 20 members of Congress from both parties, issued the confidential document to its supporters at about the time Obama came to power in January. The report, marked as "not for distribution or publication" but since widely disseminated outside of the organisation, says that those who back the removal of the settlements should be told they are supporting ethnic cleansing and antisemitism. The guide offers what it describes as "the best settlement argument".
Not coincidentally, there is a growing movement among British unions for the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel for its treatment of Palestinians and its failure to work toward peace.

Continue ReadingIsraeli lobby: if you’re against illegal settlements, you’re for ethnic cleansing of Jews

Holland House: a real world place to enjoy life after you die.

All my life I’ve been fascinated with the way most people refuse to deal with death. Many people simply can’t stand to talk plainly about death. When Uncle Fred dies, they can’t bear to say “Uncle Fred died.” Rather, it's something like Uncle Fred “passed away” Or “Uncle Fred went to heaven,” even though no one is sure whether there is a heaven—or if there really were a heaven, no one knows how one would really know whether Uncle Fred really earned his way in. Regardless, whenever people die, most people talk as though they are sure the loved one is still alive and that they are absolutely certain that he or she didn’t go to hell. Further, when people speak of the death of loved ones, they usually speak in a strange voice and with strange facial expressions. It's difficult to say why people have such a difficult time talking plainly about death, but they do. I don't claim to have the entire answer, but I am intrigued by the insights of Terror Management Theory. People also talk this strange way when their pets die. A few months ago, an acquaintance told me that his 10 and 12 year old sons had been crying constantly, for several weeks, that their dog “passed away and went to dog heaven.” Good grief! Then again, we are also living at a time when Americans will go so far as to pay thousands of dollars for chemotherapy for their 15-year old dogs. Most of us just can't let go. As a teenager, I often noticed this discomfort with death and I wondered why so many people can’t shoot straight on such an important topic. Why can’t people plainly admit that within 150 years every person currently living on earth will be dead, and that this includes your parents, your children, everyone one of your friends and even those know-it-all preachers who so often assure you that you continue to live after you die? This fascinating topic of death came up vividly last week. A co-worker was telling me about a strange request being made by her 70-year old mother. Her mother has repeatedly raised the topic of her own (eventual) death and she has requested that when she dies, she wants her children to embalm her and place her body into a glass coffee table, lying on her back, with her eyes open. She wants to remain part of the family forever, as best she is able. My co-worker and her family were somewhat amused by this request until it became clear that her mother wasn’t kidding. Her mother really wants her dead body to remain in the living room of one of her adult children, where it will be plainly visible to her children and grandchildren (and presumably great-grandchildren, etc). Here mother claims to be figuring out how to make this glass coffee table entombment a reality.

Hearing this story reminded me of a concept I co-developed with a buddy named Mike Harty back in high school (in 1974). Mike and I often discussed death back in high school. Many of our classmates found the topic to be disturbing, but it energized and entertained us. One day, we wondered what kind of potential market might exist for post-death “living” arrangements for families whose loved ones were now corpses. We called our concept “Holland House,” (I believe that we borrowed the named from this real life opulent estate). Our company slogan would be: “We think your loved ones should not be deprived of their earthly pleasures.” And also this one: Holland House: Open to all dead people from 7 to 70.” Mike even drew a photo of Holland House, which would offer wealthy families the finest in post-death community living:

[caption id="attachment_8651" align="aligncenter" width="445" caption="Art by Mike Harty"]holland-house-lo-res[/caption]

Holland House would be a large lavish resort for dead people, an alternative for families not willing to plop their dead loved ones into graves. Here's how we planned to market Holland House. Important announcement for bereaved families. Consider this alternative to burial or cremation. Simply send your loved ones to Holland House and we will carry on where the nursing home left off. Our attendants will start the day by taking your loved one’s corpse out of bed, dressing it and wheeling it to the breakfast table, where it would sit (admittedly stiffly and silently) in front of fresh food prepared by highly trained chefs. After breakfast, we will wheel your loved one to a wide variety of activities, including various classes and recreational activities. There would be visiting hours, where the families could come to talk to their dead loved ones—Holland House staff would wheel the corpse into a brightly lit visiting area, with tea and cookies, where the family could present an update about what was going on with the living members of the family. Our professional staff would update the family as to their loved ones' activities at Holland House. For instance, we might advise: "Yesterday we had a photography class and horseback riding. Tomorrow, we will have dancing classes--two attendants will assist each corpse--and shuffleboard." [caption id="attachment_8653" align="alignright" width="282" caption="Art by Mike Harty"]Art by Mike Harty[/caption] Holland House would have a photographer on staff to keep the family photo album updated with photos of everyone in the family, alive or otherwise. [I'm not recounting these ideas from pure memory. Mike and I wrote up an outline of the services to be offered by Holland House] Mike and I planned that Holland House would have private rooms for each of the guests, with a color TV in each room. We’d have an extensive library and a medical center (where we’d we well stocked in deodorant). We offer night classes too, including a favorite: “How to get the most out of life.”). There would be a dating service, where we’d match residents based on their accomplishments while they were alive. We’d have a high end clothes store, so that our residents were always wearing up-to-date fashions. Our foods would be naturally grown organic foods fertilized by former residents. Oh, and we'd be careful at Holland House that we'd never refer to our residents as "dead." Perhaps you're wondering how long would a corpse stay at Holland House? The answer is simple: as long as the family couldn’t bear to dispose of the corpse in some other way or until the family money ran out, whatever came earlier. I am offering this idea for free to anyone who wants to offer Holland House services to people with far too much money. Then again, perhaps post-death living might get so popular someday that Medicare would pick up the tab, which could lead to multiple generation families residing on entire wings of Holland House . . . Mike and I created all of this for our amusement many years ago, but this concept was all triggered by the fact that so many people can't acknowledge that dead people were really and truly dead.

Continue ReadingHolland House: a real world place to enjoy life after you die.

Bill Maher tells the Republicans that there is no shame in apologizing

In my mind, Bill Maher is consistently smart and sharp-edged in his presentations. Consider this post, in which he clearly explains (for the benefit of Republicans) that there is no shame in apologizing when one should apologize. But the Republicans see apologizing as a weakness, always:

One of the things that makes Republicans furious about our current president is their idea that Obama is always apologizing for America's biggest mistakes. Unlike President Bush. Who was one of America's biggest mistakes.

In his first week as president, Obama did an interview with Arab TV in which he said, "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect." Thought crime! And then he went to Cairo and violated one of those absolute eternal rules the Right Wing is always making up out of thin air: "The president must never apologize on foreign soil. Lest our allies begin to doubt that we're assholes. "

Continue ReadingBill Maher tells the Republicans that there is no shame in apologizing

Just A Question Or Three

Just a couple of what seem to me like obvious questions. (I know, I've been writing a bit on the health care debate, and I'll try to do some other things after this, don't want to bore anyone, especially myself.) I see a lot of protesters waving signs that contain something like this: HEALTHCARE REFORM YES, GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER NO. TORT REFORM NOW! Something about that doesn't quite add up. If health care is to be reformed, who is going to do it? The industry isn't, not without a threat. Which means there will have to be something outside the industry doing the threatening. What might that be? Hmm. The government? And the nature of the reform, if it isn't to be entirely self-serving on the part of the industry, will have to be devised by a somewhat disinterested party. Who might that be? The government? And tort law...well, that's, as it says, Law. Which is legislation. Which is---wait for it!--- the government! So what is being asked for here? That the government enact reforms that do not involve the government, do not make use of government authority, do not engage government offices, and will not grant the government any power to enforce. So how will that work exactly? Or is there some third party out there we haven't been told about capable of doing all this reforming? Oh, the market! Which basically is consumers, which is, well, all of us. The people. But wait...isn't the government supposed to be the duly elected voice of the people? So if the people are demanding reform, how are the people supposed to both express such a desire and then implement said reforms? I guess, through their duly elected voice---the government. But if the government is not to be trusted, I guess that means the people aren't to be trusted. The people don't know what they want, what is good for them, or how to go about managing the reforms they've demanded and, somehow, achieved. So there will have to be an appointed body of presumed experts who do know how to manage all this to act on the people's behalf... Who might that be? The industry? Hmm. Well, since it's the industry that needs reforming and the people who have demanded reform, handing management of the reform over to the very thing that needs the reform would seem, well, not to put to fine a point on it, stupid. So I guess we'd have to elect a representative body to manage the reforms. Oh, wait, don't we already have such a body? Yeah, it's the government. So by demanding reform of an industry, it would seem reasonable that we not trust the industry (that already doesn't do what we want it to do) to reform itself. It would be silly to create a whole other body to oversee all this when one already exists that has over two centuries of expertise in doing exactly this sort of thing. So how is anything is going to change otherwise? Just wondering, you know, because some of the demands sort of don't make any sense.

Continue ReadingJust A Question Or Three

Hitler and the Dining Room Table

I like Barney Frank. He says what he feels, usually in a way that makes his argument better. But it's almost a no-brainer to do a comeback on the idiocy with which he was faced in Dartmouth, Massachussetts this past week. I mean, what do you say to someone who thinks it's a valid statement to compare Obama to Hitler? A woman carrying a poster with Obama's image modified with a Hitlerian mustache stepped up to the microphone to ask why Frank supports a Nazi policy. There are so many things wrong with this it boggles the mind where to begin. Frank's response was probably the most effective. "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" he asked. Then: "Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table." He then commented that her freedom to carry that poster and make such lamebrained statements was a tribute to the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. I salute his restraint. To compare any president of the United States to Hitler is a stretch, even with the likes of Obama's predecessor. (I might consider it for Cheney, but even he does not match the level of malignancy achieved by Adolph, nor does our system allow for such people to act with unrestrained impunity, hard as that might be for some to accept.) But to compare Barack Obama to the man man of the 20th Century is such a profoundly ignorant mischaracterization that it is tempting to write off this whole experiment in potential civilization as a failure. Where does this shit come from? The Republican Party, what is left of it, is grasping at straws, sinking in the quicksand of its own inanity. We must take care to not be pulled into the quagmire in some misguided attempt to rescue it through well-intentioned but doomed bipartisan sentiments. The Republican Party has devolved into a nasty cadre of ideologues, a shrinking room of hydrophobic screechers who claw and scratch at anyone who tries to do this country a service by bringing it back to some semblance of decency. They have fed on their own conspiracy-fevered viscera for so long that they cannot even hear the words much less the sentences of opposing viewpoints. We should perhaps let them sink and drown. It would be a kindness. The fear-mongering is reminiscent of everything we've seen since 2000. Rachel Maddow, who is one of the most able of contemporary analysts on television, shows the process and the connections here. Shouting, screaming, inane blather---noise filling the spaces in which rational discourse might take place if only the decibel level could be reduced. Platitudes, sloganeering, slander, and lies are flooding these so-called town hall meetings and shoving aside reason and discovery and thought. These are not people who are interested in understanding anything, they are people bent on stopping something they've been told---been told---they should not allow.

Continue ReadingHitler and the Dining Room Table