Holy War in the Holy Land

When we think of a holy war in the Middle East, we usually think of Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, but there is another controversy going on that many outsiders are unaware of. That is the conflict between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews living within the state of Israel. The conflict is this: the more conservative Orthodox are clashing with the more secular, liberal government of Israel, over issues such as Orthodox Jews putting up signs demanding gender separation in all of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The government ordered that these signs be removed. Another controversy in Israel is the issue of gay rights. Israel has the fourth largest gay pride parade in the world, which has taken place in Tel Aviv since 1999. In response, some Orthodox Jews have resorted to attacking some of the gay demonstrators, and have even been charged with hate crimes. If that were not enough, some members of the Orthodox community are upset with a popular new television show in Israel which they claim misrepresents their culture. It depicts scenes of lack of intimacy, spousal abuse and homophobia. One Orthodox rabbi even compared the government of Israel to the government of Nazi Germany. 

So, the question is, which form of Judaism will win out? Right now, it seems like the secularists have the power, but like many fundamentalists, the Orthodox community has large numbers of children, and many people are afraid that they could turn Israel in a much more right-wing direction in the future. I guess only time will tell in this sectarian struggle.

Whoopi Goldberg's Hypocrisy

Recently, on an episode of "The View," the panel was discussing Nikki Minaj's controversial video, "Only," because of complaints from some viewers that it had Nazi-like imagery. The video showed Minaj speaking in front of a crowd, of which I can only assume are her fans, with a red and white flag with the letter "M" on it. Understandably, this makes some people cringe. But the most surprising aspect of this is Whoopi Goldberg's response on "The View." Whoopi accused Minaj of being ignorant and not even knowing what the Holocaust was. She then went on to accuse not only Minaj, but her entire generation, of being ignorant of what the Holocaust was. This is odd coming from Goldberg, who in 2006 and 2010 relentlessly defended Mel Gibson when he was caught in antisemitic, homophobic and racist rants, in addition to violently threatening his wife. Goldberg said, "I know Mel, and I know he's not racist. I can't say that he's a racist, having spent time with him, in my house, with my kid, I can't say it." Newsflash, Ms. Goldberg: just because someone is nice to you personally does not mean that they don't have any internalized bias towards certain groups of people as a whole. Yes, the imagery in Nikki Minaj's video is decidedly problematic. But I think it's hypocritical, coming from Whoopi Goldberg, who seems to only say something when it's somebody she does not consider to be a personal friend.

Not Everything Has a Simple Answer

It seems to me that in America we seem to want a quick answer for everything. School shootings.. if you're on the right, the problem is lack of prayer in schools, if you're on the left it's guns, and somewhere in the middle, it's violence in the media. This is also the case when it comes to war. I remember George W. Bush's "They Hate Us for Our Freedom Speech" in the run up to the Iraq War.

So, the question is; why do we as Americans refuse to look deeper? It's almost as if we're afraid to. So we tend to want to narrow it down. It's as if, if we can find this one thing at the source of our problems, then all our problems would simply go away. But I don't think that's true. I think that if we don't start looking at the deeper problems like mental illness and American Imperialism, then we will not truly be able to function as a society. We'll never be able to understand or fix any of the problems.

Is America Dead?

     I once heard a story about a few brave men who believed that there could be something better. They lived in a place where they had no rights. That place was called America. But, they dreamed of something better for themselves and their decedents. They took a chance, even if it meant their lives.
     But today, that brave spirit seems to be gone from America. We are afraid of what may happen, not what will happen. We can't legalize drugs because that could possibly create a nation of addicts. We can't legalize gay marriage because that might lead to legalization of incest. We can't legalize prostitution because it may hurt our young women in some way. What would our founding fathers think of this America, where we're so afraid of what might happen that we're afraid to do anything. They would be ashamed and saddened of how far our country has fallen. The point is, America has always been about taking chances on possibly dangerous things. America has always been about doing what is right despite what may happen to us. America's always been about progress and making things better. Why have we lost that spirit in so many of us? Why are we so afraid of what has not yet come that we won't even try? So I ask any American who reads this to please remember that American spirit within each and every one of us.

Marijuana Madness in Minnesota

Recently, a mother in Minnesota was arrested because she was found guilty of giving her son marijuana that she had obtained legally from Colorado to help control his epileptic seizures. Her big mistake was bringing it back to Minnesota, where it is not legal. She also made the mistake of telling a so-called friend where she got it. This friend called the police.

When I heard about this story, I was shocked. Before the boy began taking marijuana, he had been having up to 3 violent seizures a day. But that doesn't matter to the drones controlling the drugs. They seized his medicine, and now his mother may be going to prison for up to ten years for trying to protect her son. My opinion on the war on drugs is this: you must follow the money. Who has the most to gain from keeping a plant that you could grow on your own for medicinal purposes illegal?Well, Big Pharma for one. Companies like Pfizer and Merck make billions of dollars off of psychiatric medications, and sadly, they have enough money and power to drive the conversation.

And I want to say again to the drug enforcers, have you no soul? Can you not override your preconceived programming to see what is obviously in front of you? Very sick children are getting better. I think change will only happen if the enforcers and the people in general rise up and protest this injustice, and I also think if everyone had to deal with a severely sick child on a daily basis, public perception about things like marijuana would change.

Cannabis Craziness in Alaska

     Recently an Alaskan ABC news reporter, who is also the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary quit on air. It's not why she quit, but how she quit that people are talking about. Upon her resignation she said, "I, the actual owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club, will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness, which begins with legalizing marijuana here in Alaska. And as for this job, well, not that I have a choice, but fuck it. I quit. "
     While I admire her passion, and completely agree with her point of view, I think the way she resigned does more to hurt than to help. The anti-legalization people might say,"Of course the foul-mouthed, black anchor woman wants to legalize recreational marijuana. "
     I think the fight to legalize marijuana, not only Alaska, but nationwide, is going to take coolness, calmness and a certain degree of restraint, if we're going to break the stereotype of marijuana users.

World's Worst Mom, or Savior of America's Children?

I was on the internet the other day, when I came across a video featuring Lenore Skenazy. She was talking about a book she'd written called "Free Range Kids". Essentially, Lenore's opinion is that today's parents are too scared of images of child kidnappers and other horrific news stories. Basically her point is that parents have become so afraid of the 24-hour news cycle with kidnappings, molestation, and school shootings, that they don't want to let their kids outside or out of their sight. But she has come under immense criticism, even being labeled "World's Worst Mom" by several blogs. But I agree with her on some things, such as her opinion that the obesity epidemic is perpetuated by the same fear. I think there's a fine line between protecting your kids and putting them in virtual straight jackets. It keeps them from experiencing the dangers of life, but it also keeps them from the joys of life. Yes, bad people are out there, but I don't think that keeping your kids locked up, and by default depriving them of a healthy lifestyle, is the way to keep your children safe. And, I do believe that if we keep going the way we're going, we're going to raise a generation that is scared of everything and can't think for themselves.

Millennial Voters

A recent poll of millennial voters, that is, voters born between 1982 and 1996, said that they would be much more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate in any given race.

One very possible reason for this is the changing attitudes towards social issues. On average, young people tend to be more liberal on social issues such as gay marriage and drug legalization. Also, conservative buzzwords such as 'socialism' don't carry the same meaning for them as they did for their older, cold war era parents and grandparents. But, in an interesting twist, young people tend to be more fiscally conservative.

So, even though I'm not a conservative, I have a piece of advice for anyone who seeks to get young people interested in conservatism: drop the social issues but keep the money issues. You are not going to win over young people by telling them you want to keep their gay friends from being able to marry, or that you don't think women can make their own decisions about reproduction, or that pot is as bad as heroin.

This is the 21st century, so conservatives, even though they have proven to be a reliable voting bloc, you need to turn your attentions away from the interests of the evangelicals and towards those of young people, because young people are the future.

Just Keep Talking, Catholics

Recently, I saw a very interesting video on Youtube called, "Where are the Catholics?" Speaking on the video was a man who could only be described as a Catholic fanatic, calling Catholics to arms, to aggressively combat their detractors online and in the media. He blasted Catholics who support people's freedom of speech by tolerating anti-Catholic criticism, and he compared tolerating such criticism to tolerating someone beating up your mother right in front of you. He went on to rant and rave about how the Catholics were being trampled and persecuted, and how they have a monopoly on truth, and damn all secularists, Jews, and Protestants alike. The funny thing is, he doesn't realize he is what we non-Catholics and secularists think of when we think of the rabid Catholic fanatic. Now, I am by no means saying that all Catholics are like this. But Catholics who do not condemn this type of extremist rhetoric are only contributing to the downfall and the further discrediting of their faith. And so, I invite Catholics and all religious extremists like this, to just keep talking, because it only gives the non-religious, and religious non-fanatics, more fuel for the fire.

Just keep talking.

Is Anti-Catholicism Justified?

One of the last acceptable prejudices in recent years... the Catholic Church, has been getting a lot of scrutiny because of the cover up of sexual abuse of children and other events. But, what has also been on the rise, fair or not, is a lot of Anti-Catholic sentiment. Now, anti-Catholicism is nothing new, especially in the US, but it seemed to have cooled down with the election of John F. Kennedy back in 1960. But, an interesting phenomenon has resurfaced since events like the sex abuse scandal. A lot of people feel like they can make blanket generalizations about Catholics and about the Catholic Church and not even think of themselves as being prejudiced.

For instance, when Mel Gibson went on his anti- Semitic rant back in 2006, one British newspaper discussing Gibson, ended with the line "who could have imagined Catholicism could be so interesting?"

Now, imagine if someone were writing an article about about Bernie Madoff and ended with the line "who knew Judaism could be so interesting?" People would understandably be in an uproar. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church does not deserve criticism. I honestly think all organized religion is a little kooky. But bigotry against the Catholic Church is still bigotry and it's wrong.

Finally, the only way we can become a truly understanding world, is to condemn bigotry wherever we see it, whether it's the Catholic Church or a gay teen being bullied to the point of suicide.

Media Censorship

Many Americans like to think we live in the greatest and freest country in the world, but unfortunately during certain times in our history this has not always been so. Take the post-WWII Cold War era. Many Americans were mercilessly dragged before Congress and made to explain themselves for simply not agreeing with certain policies or just not agreeing enough. For a more recent example, look no further than the post- 9/11 era. Celebrities like the Dixie Chicks were black listed for saying they were embarrassed about George Bush being from Texas. Another 9/11 celebrity punching bag was comedian and actress Rosie O'Donnell. She was called unpatriotic due to her antiwar stance and her assertion that the Bush administration may have had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Whether you agree with these people's controversial opinions or not, I think it's wrong for a country that claims to be the freest and the greatest to engage in attacks and character assassinations every time a prominent celebrity, or any person, disagrees with a government policy, position or statement. The fact is, I no longer believe the country is run by just politicians. I believe the country, and the world, is run by people with their own interests and agendas who are willing to destroy people who pose a threat to that system of power and control. So, the next time you hear someone say "America's the greatest country in the world," ask yourself, is it?

Should Hate Speech Still Be Free Speech?

How far does freedom of speech go? Recently, a New York cab driver was suspended from his job because he was wearing Nazi paraphernalia. Let me be clear: I do not agree with what this man was wearing, or what he stands for. But, he shouldn't be forced to hide his, although uninformed and ignorant, deeply held political views. After all, as a New York City cab driver, he cannot legally discriminate or turn down anyone who gets in his cab. Freedom of speech was created to protect unpopular opinions. I want him to have his rights, because it means I still have mine.

Simpsons Censored in Japan

We all know the iconic series The Simpsons, which has been running on Fox since Christmas of 1989. But if you live in Japan, there is one episode that you will likely never see. The episode is called, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," and if you've never seen it, let me give you a quick description: Homer and the rest of the Simpsons win free plane tickets to anywhere in the world. The only problem is, they don't know what country they're going to. Once they get bored, they just steal the Flanders' tickets to Japan. As you can imagine, even Japan is not safe from the zany antics of the Simpsons. One of the most controversial scenes is, due to Homer not understanding the difference between traditional sumo wrestling, and WWF style American wrestling, he throws the emperor of the country into a pile of the wrestlers' underwear. Once in jail, they are seen doing many stereotypically Japanese things, like making origami and dressing like geishas. But once out of jail, they find that their passports have expired, and they have to go on a Japanese game show to get plane tickets home.

 Now, if you've ever seen a Japanese game show, they are very different and much more extreme than ours, and the clever writers of The Simpsons seem to have exaggerated this for comedic effect. But apparently the Japanese government was not happy with the mocking of their culture by the American cartoon. To this day, the episode has never aired in Japan, and was even removed from the DVD version of the show's 10th anniversary box set. Censorship is nothing new. I can't tell you how many episodes of Pokemon have been drastically altered or never seen in the U.S. due to their sexual content or violence. My question to you is this: do you think that countries should have the right to ban or cut whole episodes due to their differing cultural norms, or if it might seem offensive to a foreign audience, or do you think people just need to lighten up?

Oz and Atheism

Many of us grew up watching the classic 1939 "The Wizard of Oz." For many of us it's just a sweet children's movie but I believe it may have a deeper meaning. I believe "The Wizard of Oz" could be a tale about religion and atheism. Let me explain.You see many clues in the film and the book. One comes in the beginning of the book when Glinda says that the one person who might know how Dorothy can get home is the Wizard of Oz. She says this even though it's made evident later in the film that nobody has ever seen the wizard. This could be a metaphor for blind faith and religion.
Also, take the fact that Scarecrow, Lion, Tinman and Dorothy are all missing vital parts of themselves that only the wizard can give them, and going along the Yellow Brick Road, or a narrow set of rules, to get what they want out of life. Finally, three scenes towards the end of the film, the wizard is revealed to be a fraud and a con artist. And, Glinda reveals to Dorothy that she always had the power to go back to Kansas on her own. This could symbolize the theatrics of certain religions and how they make people dependent on them for their salvation. One more thing to think about: Oz compared to Kansas seems like a dream. It's colorful and magical, but it's ultimately shown that Oz is not all that it's cracked up to be. So, can Oz represent heaven and the Wizard, God? Don't get me wrong it could be a harmless children's story but that's just my theory.

Freedom of the Press...Or Maybe Not

Ever since ancient times, leaders and rulers have tried to control how they are perceived. Ancient pharaohs would put painters to death for portraying them with even the slightest blemish. But now, even though that has softened, the tendency to edit the public's view of their leaders still goes on. Many people know about the White House Press Corps. But I don't think too many Americans are aware of the job of the president's personal photographer. His job, since he is paid directly by the White House, is to portray the administration in, shall we say, a more filtered light than the president would get in a normal press conference. For instance, the press during Roosevelt's time was barred from ever seeing him in his wheelchair. In fact, only one photo of him in his chair survives.

And these days, it's gotten even worse. Since the advent of television and the internet, the so-called "Average Day at the White House" series has chronicled the President's "day-to-day life". But even these specials are carefully edited and rehearsed. For instance, in 1990, in one special, it was reported that a scene with Barbara Bush simply delivering letters to the President had to be reshot fifteen times because the filmmaker didn't think the way she said, "Hi, George," was natural enough. Under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, presidential filtering has reached new heights. I'm sure we all remember the "Mission Accomplished" statement with George W. Bush dressed in Army fatigues, or perhaps the scene with Obama sitting on the bus that Rosa Parks sat on; it was later discovered that he only invited his personal White House photographer to photograph him in the bus.

The question I want to ask you, is do you think it is appropriate for presidents and world leaders in general, to constantly try to control and present an image to the public, or are we being fed an image, and not who the person really is, or what they believe?

Supreme Madness

I want you to imagine something for a moment. Imagine that you lived in a place that was ruled by a few select individuals that could never be voted off or replaced: they were there for life. Now imagine that I told you that that is essentially what we have here now in the United States. Yes, it's called the Supreme Court. On the surface we have representative democracy. Big issues, like abortion and birth control, the internment of Japanese Americans: these are just some of the life changing issues that have been decided on by this unelected, non replaceable body of government. I think it's insane that we leave some of the most important issues, to what I consider to be a direct attack on the democratic ideal. In my opinion, the Supreme Court needs to be demolished, or at least drastically reformed. They need to hold term limits and be able to be fired. We can no longer allow this small group of defacto leaders of our nation to make such important, life changing decisions for all of us. Reform or end the Supreme Court now.

The Right to Die

In the 1990's a doctor named Jack Kevorkian made headlines when he invented a machine that could assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients. Even though Dr. Kevorkian had video tapes of his patients stating they wanted to die, he was still convicted of murder and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. The question is: do patients have the right to end their lives with the help of a physician? My opinion is yes, and I am not alone. Switzerland, Oregon, Washington state, and Vermont have lifted their ban on assisted suicide.
But I also see there are legitimate concerns, like when a person is in severe pain, they might make irrational decisions that they cannot take back later. But I still think that a person's body is theirs to choose what to do with. And, I think it's arrogant of the state to force the patient to take chemo drugs, lose their hair, vomit, and make them more miserable than they already are just because they're afraid of what might happen. After all, wasn't America founded on risky undertakings? The founding fathers knew that if they were caught they would be executed. But, they still did the right thing.

So, What's Your Real Motive?

In recent years, the right wing, socially conservative Pro-Life movement in America has differed a bit from years past. Where they used to say all human life is sacred, they now say anyone who supports birth control or women's reproductive rights is racist. Well, they don't actually say that, but that is what they imply. Let me explain: in recent years, there has been an increasing amount of focus on the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, for her supposedly racist, eugenic views. Eugenics, for those who don't know, is the belief that one can improve the human condition by controlling who has children and who doesn't. It was put into use most infamously in Nazi Germany.

But what the pro-life movement won't tell you is that Margaret Sanger was not alone in her eugenicist or racial views. Many scientists and prominent figures of the twentieth century held views that we would today consider racist. Let's not forget how Henry Ford used to hand out copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamously anti-Semitic, conspiratorial screed, with every new car that he sold. Or, shall we go to old Walt Disney? Disney was notorious for asking his employees about their genetic makeup before he hired them. If they had one drop of Jewish blood in their system, sorry, no room for you at the Magic Kingdom. Some even get Hollywood movies: King Edward VIII, perhaps best-known for abdicating England's throne to marry an American divorcee, sent Hitler himself a birthday card in 1939, 5 months before the Nazis rolled into Poland. My point is, this is not about exposing the racist nature of Planned Parenthood, or even condemning eugenics. This is about controlling women, and making them little more than breeders. Do not be fooled by the new mask: this is about taking away a woman's most basic right, to direct her own destiny.

Freedom of Speech: Born 1776, Died 2014

These days, I've noticed a disturbing trend in American politics. It seems like you can't have an opinion anymore without somebody questioning not only your ideas, but your very character. If you disagree with them, your very character is called into question. Take gun control for example. On both sides of the issue, the character assassination seems to be taken to extremes. If you're for gun control, you're unpatriotic and un-American. If you're against gun control, you don't care about innocent school children dying. When did it become acceptable to question a person's character and values simply because they disagree with someone on an issue? Take the case of former CNN anchor Piers Morgan.In 2012, when the tragic shooting happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Piers took the lead in anchors and media personalities calling for stronger gun control laws. For this, he was attacked and even physically threatened. It was as if people were saying, "How dare this foreigner come to our country and lecture us about our laws, and how dare he even have an opinion about our laws?"  as if we're not comfortable endlessly lecturing other countries about what they're doing wrong; but when we get a taste of our own medicine, we want to kick the guy out. Let me say this: Piers Morgan may have been, in fact, an evil conspirator working to overthrow the Constitution. Or maybe not. The point is, we have to stop assuming that just because someone disagrees with us, they're an evil or bad person. They're not. It's called freedom of speech. People are going to disagree with you. Get used to it.

Save the Skin

A lot of times, I have noticed that there are certain double standards when it comes to things involving religion. One of these things, to me, is circumcision. Call me crazy, but I don't think cutting off a part of a helpless, innocent baby is either healthy, or "religious freedom." But for some reason, people still think it is justified in the 21st century. But I am not one of those people. Quite frankly, I think it is barbaric, and I think it's really messed up that we live in a world where an 18 year old can go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old, and will have to be registered as a sex offender, but we think it's perfectly okay to mutilate a non-consenting, helpless infant. That's why I plan on writing the Children's Religious Protection Act. Because certain things, in my view, do not count as religious freedom. They just don't. Help support the cause to protect children from this archaic practice. Ban infant circumcision now.

Russia Goes Really Retro

In recent years, there have been concerns internationally that Russia is returning to the Soviet police state of Joseph Stalin.  But forget Soviet -- recent evidence has come to light that an old Czarist mechanism is being deployed on protesters near the Sochi Olympics. It seems that a couple members of the Russian pop group Pussy Riot were in Sochi making a new video about the abuses of the Russian prison system when police officers calling themselves "The New Kochik Militia" descended upon them. For those who don't know, the Cossacks were the old secret police of the Czar, and they were mainly used to purge Jews and other ethnic minorities from Russia. But these days, they're apparently being used, once again, to horse whip and stomp peaceful protesters. I'm not kidding, folks. Go check the video out for yourself. It's sad, I'm beginning to wonder if Russia will ever know true freedom. Given the recent developments, I'm not so sure.

What Exactly Are We Watching?

Last year the Rachel Maddow show did a very interesting story about a very interesting way the Syrian government was drumming up support. Apparently the government had been hiring actors to go on their news as average street people saying how much they love the Syrian regime. Unfortunately, this is not specific to Syria. In 2004 then president George W. Bush admitted the State department had released video news releases. Bush paid actors to pretend to be Iraqi civilians and say how much they loved the United States. With these revelations and the cooperation of much of the mainstream press, the Bush administration got away with war propaganda and lying on a massive scale to get us into a war and drum up support for said war, which killed thousands of troops and civilians. Now that we know this, how can we be sure that when we turn on the news, even today, what we are seeing is authentic? Where do we go? Well, there's the internet, but the internet is notorious for not fact checking either. I don't mean to be Mr. Gloom and Doom but when it comes to news and current events, I think we're basically screwed.