Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The President's Speechwriter

Over at the website of Reform Immigration FOR America, they're inviting people to suggest what they'd like to hear President Obama say in his address about immigration tomorrow.

I couldn't resist:

I'd like the president to say:

No human being is illegal. People residing in the U.S. without legal authority to be here are still our brothers and sisters. Their immigration status violates the law, but they, themselves, ought not to be called 'illegal aliens'. It's a dehumanizing phrase that packs a double-wallop. 'Illegal'. 'Alien'. Whatever else I accomplish here today, I'd like to banish that phrase from our public discourse. Words matter. These words are unworthy.
I'd also like the president to say:
Every wave of voluntary immigrants to this nation's shores have enriched America. They've weaved themselves into our great American tapestry. They've helped create what it means to BE American.

My wife Michelle, and our children, Sasha and Malia, are descendants of IN-voluntary immigrants. Slaves. They were, by the laws of the day, not people at all, but mere chattel property. They were dehumanized. President Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, helped fix that. Nearly 150 years later, we're still working at the task.

But let no one gainsay this, Michelle's great-great-grandparents, and the waves of Affrican Americans who came here as they did --- and their children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren --- have enriched America in ways beyond compare. They've weaved themselves into our great American tapestry. They, too, have helped create what it means to BE American.
Finally, I'd like the president to say:
You'll never believe this, but I got most of the best lines in my speech from the blog over at the website of an organization called "Reform Immigragtion FOR America". It's at www.reformimmigrationforamerica.org. Check it out.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Sunday, June 13, 2010

A Student's Honest Lament

Our teacher asked us what our favorite animal was, and I said, "Fried chicken." She said I wasn't funny, but she couldn't have been right, everyone else in the class laughed.

My parents told me to always be truthful and honest, and I am. Fried chicken is my favorite animal. I told my dad what happened, and he said my teacher was probably a member of PETA. He said they love animals very much. I do, too. Especially chicken, pork and beef.

Anyway, my teacher sent me to the principal's office. I told him what happened, and he laughed too. Then he told me not to do it again.

The next day in class my teacher asked me what my favorite live animal was. I told her it was chicken. She asked me why, just like she'd asked the other children. So I told her it was because you could make them into fried chicken. She sent me back to the principal's office again. He laughed, and told me not to do it again.

I don't understand. My parents taught me to be honest, but my teacher doesn't like it when I am. Today, my teacher asked us to tell her what famous person we admire most.

I told her, "Colonel Sanders".

Guess where I am now ...

Sunday, June 6, 2010

I've Been Called a Mother, but Only as a Prefix

My shul just made this announcement:

New Moms Circle Now Forming!
Open to all moms of chlldren under 5 yrs, and moms-to-be.
First play date is Sunday, June 13 at the temple, 1:30 - 2:30pm.
RSVP by June 10.


It prompted me to write this note:

Dear [Redacted],

Thanks for putting this together. Our son, [Redacted], is going to become Bar Mitzvah this summer, so I write not to join up, but to ask if you might consider widening the scope of this group a bit.

It's the dad in our family who stayed home with [Redacted] his first two-and-a-half years. He and I integrated a bunch of stroller groups and playgroups, but it wasn't entirely obstacle-free.

(A) At "Music Together," I was a novelty, but had no feeling of exclusion.

(B) Gymboree was pretty much the same.

(C) I was quite cheerfully welcomed into my local "Mothers First" chapter/playgroup and was happy to pay my dues. Being the only dad at the monthly Moms' Night Out (at a place like Bennigans or Crystal Thai) was usually cause for giggling by us all upon my arrival. Almost invariably, my arrival and announcement that I was looking for the Moms' Night Out group discombobulated the host or hostess.

But it grated a bit that, for two years, the fact that my wife and I had a joint checking account led to her name being enrolled in the national group with which our local chapter/play group was affiliated, rather than me, and that the occasional newsletter came addressed to her.

Five, count 'em five, calls to the national office never got it straightened out.

That one I filed under: "You can't win 'em all."

(D) At a play group at the late, not-so-lamented "Fun Company for Kids" (where the Target is now, at Skyline Mall on Route 7), I was actively shunned for two seasons and then gave up. The one parent in that group who treated me as a peer later told me that my failure to sign up for a third season was greeted by significant relief. Apparantly, I was viewed as having a lot of chutzpah to expect to be welcomed in a group where some moms breast-fed.

No one said I ogled or leered, which was a good thing because it would have been a lie, but the consensus was that even though it was obvious that I was careful to avert my eyes, my very presence made my group-mates uncomfortable.

That one I filed under: "Their loss."
____________
At services this past Saturday, the D'var Torah started out being about tzitzit and tallessim. The Cantor talked about her own decision to wear a talit and opened the discussion up for comments about gender issues in Judaism. I mentioned the twinge of regret I'd felt when I saw the announcement of the new mom's group in this month's Bullettin.

The mom of a toddler picked up my refrain. She works outside the house. Her husband works from home, makes his own schedule (more-or-less) and would be a wonderful person to include in your group. But he wasn't inclined to change around nap times or other schedule-related matters to join up. She seemed pretty sure that he would have been more inclined to do it if the name made it more obvious he would be welcome.

He would be, wouldn't he?

I fear you will read this note and feel "No good deed goes unpunished." You volunteer to do a good and needed thing and some crank unloads his decade-old frustration on you. Please trust that this is not my intent.

I simply mean to point out an issue you might not have considered. If you find merit in my comments and observations, I hope you are moved to act on them. If not, I will pester you no more. You're doing a mitzvah by volunteering to coordinate this project, regardless.

With respect and warm regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

David

A Failure of Public Relations, Too

This is a great article. Bibi should read it. Hasbarah is crucial.

But when you think you're always right, you don't give much credit to opposing opinions.

Entebbe was a shining moment. But, Idi Amin robbed us of the Netanyahu whose whole life prepared him to lead Israel. May his memory be for a blessing.

Sadly, we're stuck with the one whose best work has been done as a furniture salesman.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Netanyahu vs. DiDC

Here's Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's un-edited explanation for the events of recent days. (You can find my response below.):

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry – smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva – these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza. And here’s our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot.

And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no short age of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.

On this occasion too, we made several offers – offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship – you can see this in the videos – the first soldier – they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released. This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it – under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers – you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard.

I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth. Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Thank you.
_______________________________________
Of course the soldiers had a right to defend themselves.

But they ought not to have been landing aboard the ship(s) in the first place.

Turkey inspected the goods on the boats before the boats left.

If Israel’s once-but-unlikely-to-be-future ally, Turkey, was not deemed trustworthy or competent enough to make a thorough inspection, which it did before putting its own reputation on the line by permitting the boats to set sail under the Turkish flag, check out this analysis by a former Mossad agent about better ways to have disabled the flotilla, sparing Israel the public relations nightmare it now faces.

The results of the ill-conceived raid, by Shayetet 13, an elite commando unit trained to take over hijacked ships, were maddeningly predictable.

Indeed, in HaAretz, Gideon Levy predicted them. This piece by Levy was published before the raid.

Netanyahu has set up a straw man. No rational person expects a soldier being attacked to refrain from acting in self-defense. No rational person expects a sovereign state to refrain from acting in self-defense.

But rational Zionists, inside the State or in the galut, have every reason to expect the Israeli government to behave sensibly. Levy told us why this approach was stupid beforehand. Victor Ostrovsky tells us why afterwards.

Netanyahu’s government is incompetent. His Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is a menace.

In the end, this stupidity will cause the Netanyahu government to fall. Good riddance, and don’t let the door hit you in the tuchas on the way out.

But in the meantime, ponder this: If the boats were carrying weapons, wouldn’t Netanyahu be brandishing them before every camera within 10 miles of Ashdod?

People died, and brave soldiers sustained life-threatening injuries, in an operation ordered by fools.

In the same way that George W. Bush made me long for the intellectual depth of the Reagan administration, Netanyahu leaves me yearning for the carefully measured diplomacy and national security policy of that noted dove, Arik Sharon.

ARRRRRRGH.