IndyBay is now a wasteland. The hidden comments section is GONE. Screw dialogue, they say, lets have diatribes...from one side. What is the point of this, and how is it in the spirit of open publishing, work towards peace, understanding, tolerance, and freedom of informatiom? I haven't the foggiest. The Left of Northern California is now officially deprived of open publishing IndyMedia...SFIMC is controlled by Nessie and only has his stuff, IndyBay is gone, and Santa Cruz...well that's a topic I ought to write more on, some other time. They have shut out Becky Johnson, fabulous journalist and effective activist, because she has written in support of Israel. Listening to their interviews is disgusting...a bunch of self righteous pricks, really, who ask the same question over and over again after being proved irrelevant.
To see the IndyBay Zio-pack (it's a shame this is all anonymous, it would be good fun to have events), we're all at la.indymedia.org...myself, Becky, Tia, Gehrig, Schtarker Yid, and our old friend the Israeli who was autoblocked at IndyBay last year and posts as autoblocked@IndyBay. Nessie and Toady (the one who never makes his own arguement but instead posts links to Allison Weir's website and short slogans like "Zionism is Racism"are joined by blatant anti-Semite Sheepdog (who once said "I hate 95% of Jews and immediately followed it up with "Yeah, I hate 95% of assholes"....nice slip).
Friday, May 19, 2006
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
anti-Zionist often DOES mean anti-semite
I try not to throw around the term "anti-semitic," and do not assume that all anti-Zionists are anti-semitic. Sure, many of them unfairly focus on Israel, but it's often because of lack of education, or...well, I don't know, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I really think the term is thrown around too much and has started to lose its power.
However, there unfortunately IS a good deal of anti-Zionist propoganda that is anti-Semitic. One example: the website http://www.nowarforisrael.com I first saw it through recommendations on www.indybay.org At first glance, it's just another anti-Israel website. One of those sites that you just about know is run at least partly by anti-semites, but you can't quite pin it on them. Want to know who hosts it? www.davidduke.com That's right, David Duke, full fledged neo nazi.
I really oughta find just how many sites David Duke hosts. Watch, they'll be some IndyMedia on it...maybe SF-IMC, run by Nessie, the "I hate 99% of Jews" guy.
However, there unfortunately IS a good deal of anti-Zionist propoganda that is anti-Semitic. One example: the website http://www.nowarforisrael.com I first saw it through recommendations on www.indybay.org At first glance, it's just another anti-Israel website. One of those sites that you just about know is run at least partly by anti-semites, but you can't quite pin it on them. Want to know who hosts it? www.davidduke.com That's right, David Duke, full fledged neo nazi.
I really oughta find just how many sites David Duke hosts. Watch, they'll be some IndyMedia on it...maybe SF-IMC, run by Nessie, the "I hate 99% of Jews" guy.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Gun Control
Growing up in the Bay Area, I was indoctrinated into following just about every part of the liberal dogma. It was just about impossible to disagree without being called a "facist." One issue that I didn't think about very much was gun control. It seemed very simple, guns=killing=bad. Gun control=no killing=good. Right?
Wrong. As I grew older, I began to realize the flaws in my logic. There were two major components to my change in opinion:
1. Gun control and violent crime
Wrong, very wrong. The people who are determined to use guns for crime are going to get them no matter what...lets just face that fact. With high gun control, law abiding citizens are less likely to own guns, and when they are put in danger by those who have not followed these laws, they are often rendered defenseless.
The immediate aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina opened my eyes even more. I thought, "what if a natural disaster happened where I live?" Would I, like many who were in New Orleans, have food and necessary supplies stolen at gunpoint? How would I be able to defend myself and my family? If I were in San Francisco (which will likely be hit by an earthquake of enormous magnitude in the next 25 years), given the recent gun ban, I would be up shit's creek without a paddle.
2. Bill of Rights
I'm scared of the Bill of Rights being muddled in ANY way whatsoever. The second that the Second Amendment is messed with on a federal level, politicians are able to justify taking away other civil liberties (ie in the Patriot Act, the wire tapping scandal).
Also, we must look at the reason that the Second Amendment was written...these were those who fought in the Revolutionary War, and who experienced firsthand the consequences of not being able to defend oneself against the government. If our government does take an extreme turn for the worst, and we find the need to oust it, we'd likely need weapons. At this point, I'd only advocate reform of the existing system, but hey, who can truly predict the future?
Wrong. As I grew older, I began to realize the flaws in my logic. There were two major components to my change in opinion:
1. Gun control and violent crime
Wrong, very wrong. The people who are determined to use guns for crime are going to get them no matter what...lets just face that fact. With high gun control, law abiding citizens are less likely to own guns, and when they are put in danger by those who have not followed these laws, they are often rendered defenseless.
The immediate aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina opened my eyes even more. I thought, "what if a natural disaster happened where I live?" Would I, like many who were in New Orleans, have food and necessary supplies stolen at gunpoint? How would I be able to defend myself and my family? If I were in San Francisco (which will likely be hit by an earthquake of enormous magnitude in the next 25 years), given the recent gun ban, I would be up shit's creek without a paddle.
2. Bill of Rights
I'm scared of the Bill of Rights being muddled in ANY way whatsoever. The second that the Second Amendment is messed with on a federal level, politicians are able to justify taking away other civil liberties (ie in the Patriot Act, the wire tapping scandal).
Also, we must look at the reason that the Second Amendment was written...these were those who fought in the Revolutionary War, and who experienced firsthand the consequences of not being able to defend oneself against the government. If our government does take an extreme turn for the worst, and we find the need to oust it, we'd likely need weapons. At this point, I'd only advocate reform of the existing system, but hey, who can truly predict the future?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
gay marriage
For my first issue, I figured I'd give myself an easy one. So here it is: gay marriage. Why's it so easy? Because it's so goddamned straightforward, if you actual care about equal rights, there's no way to justify not allowing gay marriage.
The counterarguements:
1. public opinion
Who gives a shit about public opinion when we're talking about a basic civil liberty? For quite awhile, public opinion was against interracial marriage, as well. I don't care what gives people the heebie jeebies, they're discriminatory heebie jeebies, and they must not interfere with the rights of others. Anyway, this country is not based on mob rule...given the average intelligence of Americans, we'd be screwed.
2. "marriage is between a man and a woman..."
The only "proof" for that is religious, and I heard about this nifty thing...I think they call it separation of church and state. Once again, I will not fall for the heebie jeebies craze.
3. "sactity of marriage..."
Britney Spears had a what...24, maybe 48 hour marriage. If that's not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage," I don't know what is.
4. "slippery slope"
Bestiality? Incest? Pedophilia? Consent issues.
5. state rights
I felt the same way at one point...I'm a big fan of state rights, as well, due to my fears of a highly centralized huge government not being able to serve it's citizens well. The constitution does indeed give responsibility of marriage issues to the states. However, this isn't a small issue, it's a basic civil right, just like marriage is...for all citizens of the US. It's an issue of discrimination, and it's an issue where basic definitions need to be changed. Slavery was also argued to be a state issue, as it was legally a property matter at the time. But the US government stepped in and took away this terrible definition, as it needs to in this case. Where does it have the power to this? Well, there's a reason the elastic clause was written...and it absolutely should not be abused, but in an issue regarding discrimination and civil liberties, I would consider it appropriate.
The counterarguements:
1. public opinion
Who gives a shit about public opinion when we're talking about a basic civil liberty? For quite awhile, public opinion was against interracial marriage, as well. I don't care what gives people the heebie jeebies, they're discriminatory heebie jeebies, and they must not interfere with the rights of others. Anyway, this country is not based on mob rule...given the average intelligence of Americans, we'd be screwed.
2. "marriage is between a man and a woman..."
The only "proof" for that is religious, and I heard about this nifty thing...I think they call it separation of church and state. Once again, I will not fall for the heebie jeebies craze.
3. "sactity of marriage..."
Britney Spears had a what...24, maybe 48 hour marriage. If that's not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage," I don't know what is.
4. "slippery slope"
Bestiality? Incest? Pedophilia? Consent issues.
5. state rights
I felt the same way at one point...I'm a big fan of state rights, as well, due to my fears of a highly centralized huge government not being able to serve it's citizens well. The constitution does indeed give responsibility of marriage issues to the states. However, this isn't a small issue, it's a basic civil right, just like marriage is...for all citizens of the US. It's an issue of discrimination, and it's an issue where basic definitions need to be changed. Slavery was also argued to be a state issue, as it was legally a property matter at the time. But the US government stepped in and took away this terrible definition, as it needs to in this case. Where does it have the power to this? Well, there's a reason the elastic clause was written...and it absolutely should not be abused, but in an issue regarding discrimination and civil liberties, I would consider it appropriate.
Friday, May 05, 2006
first post
I've been needing an outlet to ramble freely about politics, without the fear of being shunned by a group I work with politically, or censored. I'm supposedly somewhat of a political anomaly: a Green Zionist. As I talk about it more and more, I find that this is not necessarily the case. Many are scared as a Green to come out as being pro-Israel, or as a Zionist to support a party that seems resolved to hate Israel. There's also the problem of the classic Jewish democrat, often quite progressive, but scared to join a third party. I hope that my generation will be more gutsy, especially after seeing the betrayl of the Democratic Party (voting for the war, not standing behind immigrants, etc), but it seems that a wave of apathy is spreading. Sure, many say that they are anti-war or pro-choice, but action? I see none. Genuine efforts to stay informed? Not so much. Many of my friends are shocked to hear of that the Democratic Party disagrees with them and 70% of registered democrats on a variety of "hot" issues (death penalty, immigration, etc). Yet they will never change their registration. When pressed, they often respond "but there's nobody in the Green Party, they'll never make a difference" (so register and encourage people to do the same, it can't hurt), "they're spoilers" (why bother voting for a pro-war candidate, and if you're really that scared, just register Green, don't vote Green), "I want to vote in the primary" (this often refers to the presidential primary, and by time it gets to here in California, it's basically decided), or...Israel.
Yeah, it's the last one that gets me. It's a general thing in the left. At rallies and protests in San Francisco, there is often much irrelevant Israel bashing. On IndyMedia sites, Zionists are discounted solely on that one political beliefs, and on sites like IndyBay, we are censored and autoblocked. Whatever happened to tolerance? Whatever happened to defending our Bill of Rights? It's scary. Gary Acheatel of www.advocatesforisrael.org is working on reversing Resolution 190, the GPUS resolution for divestment from Israel. I plan to help him in his efforts. I have met Greens who believe that this resolution is isolating many Greens or people who would be Green, and some who do actually support Israel-- but they're scared to say anything. We need to be loud and proud. I have found that as soon as somebody says that they are pro-gun (for reasons such as not wanting the Bill of Rights messed with, or being prepared to defend our rights to the government by force if needed), many others say, "oh, me too..." I've heard of "Greens for Guns" caucuses being formed. Loud and proud.
Yeah, it's the last one that gets me. It's a general thing in the left. At rallies and protests in San Francisco, there is often much irrelevant Israel bashing. On IndyMedia sites, Zionists are discounted solely on that one political beliefs, and on sites like IndyBay, we are censored and autoblocked. Whatever happened to tolerance? Whatever happened to defending our Bill of Rights? It's scary. Gary Acheatel of www.advocatesforisrael.org is working on reversing Resolution 190, the GPUS resolution for divestment from Israel. I plan to help him in his efforts. I have met Greens who believe that this resolution is isolating many Greens or people who would be Green, and some who do actually support Israel-- but they're scared to say anything. We need to be loud and proud. I have found that as soon as somebody says that they are pro-gun (for reasons such as not wanting the Bill of Rights messed with, or being prepared to defend our rights to the government by force if needed), many others say, "oh, me too..." I've heard of "Greens for Guns" caucuses being formed. Loud and proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
