"The lessons we should learn from all
The fighting in the days of old
When providence bestowed divine
The sanctuary purified
Let lightning circle all you hold
And don't uproot the olive grove."

- Mirah, "Jerusalem"

I think it is finally time we stood up and thanked Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the darling Democrat from the Bay Area who leads her party in the House. Pelosi's recent speech to the Israel-American lobby AIPAC, the second largest lobby in Washington, was monumental – truly unparalleled in its candor.

Despite the fact that AIPAC was recently busted for spying on the United States, Pelosi, along with many other top bureaucrats from Washington, gushed effusions of praise on the foreign power. "There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," Pelosi said as she rallied AIPAC loyalists. "This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."

Apparently Pelosi has never asked Palestinians what they think of Israel's brutality. Not that she hasn't witnessed the occupation firsthand; Pelosi is just not concerned in the least with the Palestinian resistance.

"This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq," said Pelosi. "One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home. And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren't sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence."

Pelosi, like so many other Democrats and Republicans in D.C., does not appreciate the asymmetry of the conflict. She cannot understand that Palestinians are faced with violence every day as their livelihoods and homes are uprooted to make way for new Israeli settlements. Never mind that the farm collective where Pelosi landed in her fancy helicopter was at one time operated by Palestinian farmers. For the land, according to Pelosi, has always belonged to the state of Israel.

"One thing, however is unchanged," Pelosi added. "America's commitment to the safety and security of the state of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship."

Sadly, Palestinians don't figure into Pelosi's lopsided equation; those darn Arabs just don't matter. And when Pelosi speaks of "safety and security," it's only Israelis she's talking about. While Pelosi ignored Israel's vast arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry, along with the numerous UN resolutions the country has broken, she still had the audacity to lash out at the latest troublemaker in the Middle East: Iran.

"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology."

So, three cheers for Pelosi! Her honesty has been crudely insightful. Especially given the fact that two AIPAC staffers have just been indicted for espionage by the U.S. government.

How would you resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

You really are a glutton.

Shall I take that as indicating that you aren't going to address the question?

I will wait and when it gets deep, then I'll pull on my hip waders and consider going for a stroll.
But I've already been in this pond before.

How would Jubal address the Israeli Palestinian issue?

I'd encourage continuing negotiations, leave it to the Palestinians to work out their internal troubles, and shoot for a two-state solution.

And what of that which is perceived by many to be Israels war crimes against the Palestinians, as well as the Lebanese and others?

Out of my jurisdiction, as are the war crimes committed against Israelis by Palestinians, as well as Lebanese and others.

And that, my friend Jubal, is why I backed away from this, for now.
This is a hot button issue for many.

In my particular case, it's consistent with my conservative philosophy that we shouldn't get involved in the affairs of other countries. I'm willing to admit that we are too deeply into the Israel/Palestine thing to just walk away, but I think that we should limit our involvement to trying to get some kind of agreed solution, and then get out and stay out.

In my particular case, it's consistent with my conservative philosophy that we shouldn't get involved in the affairs of other countries. I'm willing to admit that we are too deeply into the Israel/Palestine thing to just walk away, but I think that we should limit our involvement to trying to get some kind of agreed solution, and then get out and stay out.

Then you would start by ending all direct and indirect military aid to Israel in the conservative spirit of non-involvement in other countries' affairs

and disavow the lie that the US has been a neutral broker of peace (while supplying the tools of oppression)?

If you followed that trajectory, stepping back from Israel but perpetuating the lie of US neutrality in the matter, you would earn the scorn of both sides (I know, you don't care)

Would you next claim that the US never supported the Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestine in the first place?

I mean, hell, now that the conservative line is that we are not only not staying the course, but never were, anything is retroactively possible. In for a penny, in for a pound.

"That's the Bush administration line. I don't see how the Bush administration can be honestly or accurately called conservative."

That is your opinion

and it would seem to run counter to the majority of American conservatives, who have made bush their spokesman and leader.

Yes. The continued existence of democracy insists on it.

Merely a suggestion, mind you...

Womens' voting rights were ceded when the majority found it to be right.

No. In a democracy the opinion of the majority is deemed to be a function of what is right.

We err. Human. I know, lawyers are different.

Do you fly? I fly. I like flying. When I fly from, say L.A. to San Francisco, I file a flight plan. I adhere to it. Approximately. During the course of the flight, I will correct my course many times to compensate for wind, pilot error, etc., but I will arrive at the right destination. At least, I always have so far. In spite of being, technically at least, off-course for most of the flight. Events can be reduced to absolutes, but processes cannot. Democracy is a process, not an event. And the events you cite as milestones in the process of democracy are, in turn, processes themselves, that begin, mature, age and end. They, in turn, stir the beginnings of other processes. We have, in effect, not yet achieved a finished product. You are arguing semantics simply for the sake of winning an argument that is necessarily unwinnable by eithr side. You very much like being right. Or at least having the appearance and cache of rightness.

I think sometimes civility makes me wanna puke!

My opionion of Nancy Pelosi is that she courts power for power's sake. She is not really progressive. She will say and do whatever gets her and the Democratic party more power, or allows it to maintain the power it already has. She is a poll watcher. She will get in bed with the Republican Party, should the Democratic Party gain control of the House, to keep and expand that power. She publicly said there would be no attempt to impeach Bush, and I fully believe she intends to keep this. So don't be surprised about what she says or does, either now or after she becomes House Majority Leader (assuming she does). She, like Hillary Clinton, is a snake that will shed its skin in a heartbeat and become whatever she perceives is needed at the moment to maintain or expand political power.

Try to miss your shirt this time. Or at least change it afterward.

But most here want to put that gavel in her hand. Not much of an option, her or Hastert I admit. I suppose we'd better get used to the idea, but don't expect much. Different lobbies, different agendas, same money. The American people will still come in a distant second place on their list of priorities.

An anti incumbant vote will send a louder message than purely an anti Republican vote. I guess I don't care as much which party is in power as you guys do, I'd rather see all of the old blood, all of it, swept out. No sanctuary, all incumbants have had their shot, they ALL blew it regardless of party.

You are arguing semantics simply for the sake of winning an argument that is necessarily unwinnable by eithr side. You very much like being right. Or at least having the appearance and cache of rightness.

Allow me to restate your position as a syllogism.

If the majority supports something, then it is right.
The majority supported Jim Crow.
________________________________
Ergo, Jim Crow was right.

If you prefer,

If something is right, the majority supports it.
The majority supported Jim Crow.
________________________________
Ergo, Jim Crow was right.

Is either of these what you meant?

I prefer the latter formulation, myself.

My opionion of Nancy Pelosi is that she courts power for power's sake. She is not really progressive. She will say and do whatever gets her and the Democratic party more power, or allows it to maintain the power it already has. She is a poll watcher. She will get in bed with the Republican Party, should the Democratic Party gain control of the House, to keep and expand that power. She publicly said there would be no attempt to impeach Bush, and I fully believe she intends to keep this. So don't be surprised about what she says or does, either now or after she becomes House Majority Leader (assuming she does). She, like Hillary Clinton, is a snake that will shed its skin in a heartbeat and become whatever she perceives is needed at the moment to maintain or expand political power.

But most here want to put that gavel in her hand. Not much of an option, her or Hastert I admit. I suppose we'd better get used to the idea, but don't expect much. Different lobbies, different agendas, same money. The American people will still come in a distant second place on their list of priorities.

An anti incumbent vote will send a louder message than purely an anti Republican vote. I guess I don't care as much which party is in power as you guys do, I'd rather see all of the old blood, all of it, swept out. No sanctuary, all incumbents have had their shot, they ALL blew it regardless of party.

QUESTION:

When Jim Crow was shown to be wrong, even though it was at that moment considered for all intensive purposes within a plurality of the populace, to be right, Was it then right or wrong? Did it switch from rightness to wrongness like a light switch switches from darkness to lightness? Or perhaps did it take time to say... evolve.

Just asking?

I believe the correctness of the issue never changed. It was wrong and was always wrong.
What changed, was the human perception, and yes, that was like a light switch.
Always is and always will be. This human factor is why we have any discussion at all.

There sure is a lot of dimness parading around with Confederate flags and making up words like macaca. Are these people merely hiding in the shadow of the light? Or have they not adapted their consciousness enough to bath in it's glow?

I don't see it as a on/off process. I see it as an evolution of awareness. While some people get it, others don't, and yet more ponder the possibility. Those that ponder aren't stuck in some twilight zone gray room of enlightenment, but are evoloving their preception OF reality.

People who argue like O'Liely does, offering a preception where the objective answer is one of definative black or white, where the question is tricked out with a bias of, "I'm right if you agree with me and you're wrong if you don't," really are attempting to control the essense of the debate in favor of their opinion. That debases their appearence of being honest and genuine. Their arguing for their agenda and not truely opening up debate to exchange ideas.

QUESTION:

When Jim Crow was shown to be wrong, even though it was at that moment considered for all intensive purposes within a plurality of the populace, to be right, Was it then right or wrong? Did it switch from rightness to wrongness like a light switch switches from darkness to lightness? Or perhaps did it take time to say... evolve.

Just asking?

Heavens to Mergatroyd! She sounds like a politician!

Believe it or not, Jubal, sometimes the majority can be wrong on an issue.

Case in point the Iraq War, where so many Democrats gleefully jumped on that band-wagon for political reasons. Is this what we can expect from a Democratic controlled House and/or Senate in the future? I regret to say the answer is Yes. These Democrats have shown they will do whatever is popular with the people, regardless of if it is right or wrong. They did it in the past. They will do it again.

Now its time for Sky to step up and make another justification for why the Democrats need to do what they do, and that it is somehow correct. Thank you, Sky. You can always be counted on to be a Democratic Party apologist.