July 20, 2014

I think a post of mine was deleted.

First, I'm not very adept at finding my way around websites, so I offer this as my version of what I think happened, though I could be wrong.


I got a reply to my post on 7/17 about Israel/Palestinian relations from Daveed (sp) telling me that he would delete (or lock) my post unless I removed it. He advised that I read the guidelines for the forum. I did, but am still not sure why the post was deleted. I asked him twice for information but got no reply.

I did find a icon of a person with a red x on him.This lead to a screen that said "You can't ignore yourself."

Please let me know what happened and how to avoid it in the future.

Thanks.

July 18, 2014

For how long did the Jews say "next year in Jerusalem" before they actually got to Jerusalem?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/18-5
Regarding Juan Cole's article

All discussions of the Israeli/Palestinian relations should start with this mantra.

A. Ideas don't die. Accept the fact that the Palestinians/Israelis are not going away. Israel and Palestine are implementing a solution based on violent removal of individuals, not the causes for the extremism. They are building a forever occupation.

B. You can't negotiate with a non-existent country or an adversary that has no power. A group with no power resorts to violence. It is in Israeli's best interest to provide a basis for a Palestinian society.

C. "If you want peace, work for justice" (Pope Paul VI).

July 5, 2014

Ask not what you can do for your religion, but what can the government do for your religion.

In the Hobby Lobby case, we see a group of people claiming that the government should allow it to reject, on the basis of their religious beliefs, a provision of law. Hence, constraining others from availing themselves of the law’s protection. A law to which this group of people are subject only because they voluntarily decided to engage in behavior that is regulated by this law.

So why does Hobby Lobby claim that ACA constrains their religious freedom? ACA doesn't tell them what to believe. ACA doesn't ask them to do anything against their religion.

In our complex society today it may be hard for a religion to reconcile its beliefs with the behavior needed to fully partake in a democracy. It may be hard to find a pharmacy that doesn’t sell contraceptives or a drug company that doesn’t make them. Or health insurance that doesn't cover birth control.

However, the government should not mitigate a religion’s difficulty of pursuing its beliefs either by constraining its own pursuit of the public good or by constraining the behavior of others. In fact, the separation of church and state requires that the government not only not espouse a particular religious belief, but that the government not constrain anyone’s behavior on the basis of such a belief.

In a democracy it is necessary that government not only not establish a religion, but that it doesn't allow some people's religious beliefs to affect the behavior of others.

The Supreme Court’s decision in essence is the Alice in Wonderland version of religious freedom. They ask “How can the government help this group of people not cross their religious views?” They don’t ask, “Why should their religious views constrain the behavior of others?”

July 1, 2014

Barra/Lauer Interview: reframing the question

I wanted to address two subjects that hit me as I watched the interview and I want to get your feedback on my reactions. Let me say here that I mean no dispargement of Ms. Barra in discussing the interview; it is just one example of a universal situation.

First what is the purpose of asking "can you do both"?

This is the macho version of have you stopped beating your wife.
This nonquestion is designed to remind all viewers that women are handicapped in the business world; that they lose some intangible "mommy" ability when they are successful. In fact, Lauer says that it's okay for him to ask the questions because she brought it up: by mentioning her family. As if mention of a family suddenly generates a doubt that she can do the job: OMG, she has a family.

Lauer is not interested in if Ms. Barra "thinks" she can do the job; he is interested in framing the interview.
Though Ms. Barra's answer seemed reasonable, it only legitimatized the question and put her on the defensive. The question made Lauer a "hard hitter" and Barra's answer, "I think I can", sounded defensive and weak.

Second, why do business women still fall into the trap of answering nonquestions? I am sure that as a successful business woman, Ms. Barra has been taught the fundamentals of answering hard questions as well as the importance of public relations. But on national tv, given an opportunity to provide a strong answer that highlights the subtext fo the question, she stumbles.

This is not the first time that question has been asked, and yet she had not a prepared answer. Where was her training in dealing with gender stereotypes?

My feeling is that she needed to reframe the interview by emphasizing that this is not the first job she's had since having a family. She's already done it: raised a family and was a business success.