A Few Words Here And There...

Giants Win 4-0

2010-10-31T23:40:00.001-04:00

The San Francisco Giants just beat the Texas Rangers to go up 3 games to 1 in the World Series. The Giants need only one more win to win their first World Series since moving to San Francisco. They last won the World Series in 1954 as the New York Giants. To give an idea of how different things were back then:

Dwight David Eisenhower was in his first of two terms as President
Republicans would lose control of Congress a month later. Democrats would control Congress uninterrupted for the next 26 years, and the House of Representatives uninterrupted for the next 40
The Giants played their home games at the Polo Grounds
Robert F. Wagner, Jr. was the Mayor of New York, the city the Giants called home
Referring to the New York Giants meant the baseball club. If one wanted to refer to the football team they would say, "the New York Football Giants"
The Brooklyn Dodgers still played across town at Ebbets Field
The New York Mets, the team I root for, would not play their first game for another 7 1/2 years
It was less than 5 months after the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, passage of the Civil Rights Act was still nearly another 10 years away, and passage of the Voting Rights Act still nearly another 11 years away
It was still nearly another 7 years under President Obama was born

The Giants now stand one win away from changing all that and bringing the World Series trophy to San Francisco for the first time.

The Constitution's Forgotten Amendment

2010-10-31T20:18:00.002-04:00

This was my first diary over at Daily Kos. Originally published April 13, 2009.

In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479) , the Supreme Court ruled that the right of married couples to use contraception was protected by the right of privacy. Justice Arthur Goldberg, in a concurring opinion used the long-forgotten 9th Amendment to defend his decision:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

During these past 44 years, there has been little use of the 9th Amendment to establish new rights under the Constitution. Instead, the Courts have looked to the 14th Amendment and its Due Process Clause, such as in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558). The 9th Amendment, meanwhile, has seemingly been consigned to the ash heaps of history largely being unused by citizens attempting to establish their rights, and courts establishing those rights.

Certainly the drafters of the Constitution did not intend for portions of the Bill of Rights to go unused, as the 9th Amendment has throughout history, yet this is precisely what has happened. During these past 44 years, there has not been a single case decided specifically on 9th Amendment. In fact, following the decision in Griswold, the 9th Amendment became one of the favorite punching bags of constructionists, who have constantly disparaged it while claiming only those rights explicitly listed in the Constitution exist.

Conservatives always claim that liberals are "legislating from the bench" and "inventing" rights. However, the wording of the 9th Amendment make it clear that there are rights in the Constitution not enumerated in the Constitution. Instead, these "liberal judges" that are "legislating from the bench" and "inventing" rights are merely upholding the spirit of the 9th Amendment by ensuring the Constitution remains a living and breathing document, even if not specifically invoking it in their reasoning.

During this time that the 9th Amendment and liberal jurisprudence have been disparaged, another long-forgotten amendment, the 10th Amendment has seen a resurgence. The 10th Amendment is quite similar in wording and vagueness to the 9th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549), the Supreme Court limited the power of the federal government under the Commerce Clause for the first time since the Great Depression, declaring the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 unconstitutional. A similar fate befell a portion of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598).

These rulings were significant because many of the federal acts and programs that we consider most important, such as the Civil Rights Act, the minimum wage, Social Security, and Medicare, are all dependent to a large extent on the sweeping powers granted the federal government under the Commerce Clause.

Despite this renaissance in 10th Amendment jurisprudence there has been no corresponding renaissance in 9th Amendment jurisprudence. On its face, the 9th Amendment seemingly makes it clear that there exist rights under the Constitution that are not explicitly listed within the Constitution. This reflects the thinking on the part of the drafters that they could not conceive of everything, nor could they waste their time attempting to list everything in the Constitution, as evidenced by the Necessary and Proper Clause (often called the Elastic Clause):

The Congress shall have the power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In fact, the 9th Amendment reveals the contradiction at the heart of constructionism. Constructionists such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (while they might use other terms to describe themselves, with Scalia styling himself a textualist and Thomas styling himself an originalist, they largely adhere to the beliefs of constructionism) believe that the Constitution is dead, rejecting the idea of a living Constitution, and accordingly believing that only the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution exist.

This ignores the very explicit wording of the 9th Amendment and validates the fears of opponents of the Bill of Rights, who argued that creating a Bill of Rights would limit the rights of the people because some would argue that the only rights existing under the Constitution would be those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment was an attempt to ameliorate those fears and establish that the rights enumerated in the Constitution were the minimal rights afforded the people, and not the maximal rights. In fact, it would logically flow that the rights enumerated in the Constitution were not the minimal rights because the 9th Amendment makes it clear that there are constitutional rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Clarence Thomas has only further put this problem in focus with his disparaging our rights by saying he believes "there is too much focus on our rights" and "a proliferation of rights". Instead, Thomas proposes a Bill of Obligations and a Bill of Responsibilities.

Today, with the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court, with Anthony Kennedy a conservative-leaning swing vote, and three young conservative justices on the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, 60 or younger, and the youngest of the four-member liberal block, Justice David Souter, turning 70 this year, we are reminded of the importance of last year's presidential election. [Update: Since the original writing of this diary Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens have retired, with President Obama replacing them with the younger Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, respectively.] If more justices like Alito, Roberts, and Thomas join the Court it will no longer be the 9th Amendment consigned to the ash heaps of history, but many other rights that we already take for granted and many rights that we are still fighting for.

Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call, and perhaps when President Obama appoints his first Supreme Court Justice, we will see a revival of 9th Amendment jurisprudence, whether in name or in spirit.

Watching the World Series Tonight

2010-10-30T19:34:00.001-04:00

Fox and Cablevision finally came to an agreement. Right now I have channel 5 on and am watching the World Series for the first time this year. It's the bottom of the 2nd, and Nelson Cruz just hit a lead-off double with no score. And while yes, I know that I could have chosen to get the MLB.tv package and receive a $9.95 credit from Cablevision before Fox came back on the air, it's not the same watching it on the computer as it is watching it on television.

Tonight is effectively a must-win for the Rangers, who are down 2-0 after losing both games in San Francisco. The only team in baseball history to come back from a 3-0 deficit is the 2004 Boston Red Sox, when they fell behind the Yankees 3-0 in the ALCS, won the next 4 to win the ALCS and then swept the Cardinals in the World Series to break the Curse of the Bambino. However, no team has ever come back from down 3-0 in the World Series.

All I have to say right now: Finally! I'm looking forward to watching some good baseball after missing the entire NLCS and the first two games of the World Series.

Go Giants!

I Still Can't Watch The World Series

2010-10-29T04:19:00.001-04:00

Yes, I know that Cablevision has offered a $9.95 credit to anyone that orders the mlb.tv package to watch the World Series, but that means watching it online, and not watching it on the television. If the Mets were in it, not only would I order that package, but I would also be calling Cablevision everyday to complain about the lack of World Series coverage.

Still, I'm happy to see the Giants up 2 games to 0. I'm a National League fan, and I want to see the National League team win. The National League is where they play real baseball, and not that imitation baseball where not every player has to hit.

So to those of you out there that are Giants fans, congrats on the lead and hopefully the Giants can put the Series away with 2 more wins in Texas. If you're a Rangers fan, then next time hope you go up against the Phillies, Braves, or Dodgers in the World Series. And if you're a fan one of those three teams, hope you go up against the Yankees in the World Series.

Extremists Continue Lashing Out In Middle East

2010-10-28T23:42:00.002-04:00

With each passing day extremists continue lashing out in the Middle East, doing their best to threaten the peace that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians continue hoping for. Today is no exception. Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef made yet another inflammatory statement. Meanwhile, Hamas strategist Mahmoud Al-Zahar made inflammatory remarks of his own in an interview with Reuters and Hamas sent yet another threatening message to Israel. It once again underscores the importance of not letting the extremists win, and simultaneously the importance of the vast majority on both sides seeking peace pushing their leaders to do so.

Speaking at a Halacha (Jewish Law) lesson in his Jerusalem home, Rabbi Yosef stated that Halacha prohibits Jews selling their houses or land in the Land of Israel to non-Jews:

The rabbi cited the halacha as saying that the property should be sold to a Jewish buyer, even if he offers a lesser amount for it.

One unidentified student attending the lesson told YNet the following:

"The words were perceived by those who were present as normal discussion of the halacha, and not within a context of current events," said one student who did not want to be identified. He added that the rabbi spoke of a known and accepted law of the halacha, one that no one disputes. It should not be perceived as a reinforcement of a recent ban on selling property to Arabs declared by Safed rabbis, he said.

Following the declaration by Safed rabbis referenced by the unidentified student clashes broke out within the city:

"They yelled, 'Death to Arabs,' and the others yelled, 'Death to Jews.' Then the fight broke out," he said.

The police denied any connection between the fight and a proclamation signed earlier this week by Safed rabbis, which called on home-owners to avoid renting or selling apartments to Arab students, and to shun those who do.

The declarations by Rabbi Yosef and the Safed rabbis are unacceptable. It is antithetical to Jewish values to say that someone will not rent or sell to another person solely on account of their religion. Equally despicable are the statements made by the yeshiva students, because even completely ignoring how disgusting such a statement taken in isolation is, those students are well aware of the 2,000 years of Jewish history during the Diaspora. There is no reason to make such statements. There is no reason to engage in such violence. It is unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Hamas strategist Mahmoud Al-Zahar, attacked not only Israel, but the entire West in an interview with Reuters:

"You do not live like human beings. You do not [even] live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?" he said earlier this week, speaking from his apartment building in the densely populated, Mediterranean city.

It would not surprise me if Al-Zahar is either unaware or intentionally ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is not unique to humans, but actually occurs in many species throughout the animal kingdom. I therefore have no doubt he would find common cause with those who supported Proposition 8 in California and organizations such as the National Organization for marriage that seek to continue writing discrimination against LGBT citizens into law. As a liberal believing in equality, and someone who already enjoys the right to marry because I am straight, I strongly believe in equal rights for my LGBT fellow citizens.

Regarding women, Al-Zahar goes on to say:

"We are the ones who respect women and honor women ... not you," he said.

"You use women as an animal. She has one husband and hundreds of thousands of boyfriends," he added. "You don't know who is the father of your sons because of the way you respect women."

Here, it seems like Al-Zahar does not understand the West. I do not know what precipitated this particular statement. He seems not to understand that in the West we have freedom, and women are free to make their own decisions, just as men are free to make their own decisions. These include very personal decisions such as whom to marry, whether or not to even get married, whom to engage in sexual relations with, and how to dress. Western women serve at all levels of government, including at the highest levels in cabinets, leading legislative houses, and heading governments.

The statements from Al-Zahar regarding the West come as he also threatened Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

"You will pay a high price for entering Gaza", al-Zahar said. "Israelis should think twice before making that decision."

Later he made it clear to his opponents in the Fatah and the Palestinian Authority that "signing an appeasement agreement between Palestinian factions would not mean that the Strip would once again be run by the Palestinian Authority."

Thankfully, in a small sign of hope, Ha'aretz reports broad support for Mahmoud Abbas among Palestinian youth:

If elections were held today, nearly 40 percent of young Palestinians would vote for the secular-leaning Fatah, compared with under 10 percent for its rival Hamas, a radical Islamist movement.

It seems that at the very least, Palestinian youth are going through a process similar to what the American People were going through four-to-five years ago while George W. Bush was nearing the mid-way point in his second term, many Americans, including many that voted to give him that second term in office, were asking what we were thinking when we gave him those four additional years. Of course, those of us that supported John Kerry were asking that from immediately after the 2004 election.

In closing, I once again reiterate something I have always said. It is the extremists on both sides that are the greatest threats to peace. Despite their nominally differing theologies and ideologies, they are closer to each other than the mainstreams of both their populations that simply seek to live side-by-side, in two states for two peoples, and at peace. That is because they each have a stake in preventing that peace from occurring because they each support a one-state solution with their side emerging on top.

Peace may seem like a far-off dream at the current moment, however that is not cause to give up. Begin and Sadat made peace between Israel and Egypt. Rabin and King Hussein made peace between Israel and Jordan. One day an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader will make peace and make this conflict a story for historians, and not reporters, to tell. The first two were once thought impossible, and yet they came to pass. The same one day shall also be said of the third.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Will I Get To Watch The World Series?

2010-10-24T23:58:00.001-04:00

I'm a Cablevision customer. That means I don't get Fox while News Corporation and Cablevision haggle over fees for retransmitting the Fox broadcast signal. After last year's Satanic Series I actually want to watch the World Series this year. The Rangers vanquished the team I hate most: the Yankees; the Giants vanquished the team I hate the second-most: the Phillies.

What I see here are two greedy corporations fighting over who gets more money. News Corporation simply wants more for allowing Cablevision to retransmit the Fox schedule. Cablevision doesn't want to pay that price. In the end, customers like me get screwed. If News Corporation gets its way, Cablevision simply passes the higher cost onto us. If News Corporation doesn't get its way, the blackout continues and I can't watch the World Series.

News Corporation now suggested that those of us that want to watch the World Series do one of two things:

Switch providers to one that currently carries Fox
Buy an antenna (and a converter box if need be)

I see big problems with both these options:

Nothing prevents News Corporation from having similar disputes with other such providers in the future
News Corporation is reminding us that if we don't have cable or satellite then Fox content is available to us for free and they're wanting to charge us for something that we can easily get to free

Like I said, in the end, it's the consumer that gets screwed; not the corporations. The article in The New York Times indicates that Cablevision is hoping for government intervention through any one of several possible options including binding arbitration, the FCC forcing News Corporation to put Fox back on the air on Cablevision while the dispute is resolved, or through federal legislation regulating the carriage of broadcast signals.

While I'm not a Giants fan or Rangers fan, I still want to watch this World Series, and as long as this dispute continues I'll have to listen to the games on the radio if I want to follow the World Series live. If Fox isn't back by the day the World Series starts I might well call and complain and see what happens.

And if it were the Mets in this year's World Series, well then, I'd be angry beyond belief.

Giants Go To The World Series

2010-10-23T23:46:00.001-04:00

After the Rangers won last night it was already guaranteed that there would be no repeat of the Satanic Series because the Yankees went home. Now, the other end of the Satanic Series won't happen because the Giants just beat the Phillies to win the NLCS and go to the World Series.

While I'd rather see the Mets going to the World Series, I'm at least happy that the Yankees and Phillies aren't going there. They're the two baseball teams I hate most, and I'm glad to see them watching the World Series from the comfort of their homes.

Now, with the World Series set, I'm rooting for the Giants to win their first World Series since they left the Polo Grounds and New York (they last won the World Series in 1954 when Willie Mays made his famous catch). The reason I'm rooting for the Giants is because I'm a National League fan. I'll root for the NL team unless they're the Phillies, Braves, or Dodgers (I'm a Brooklynite, so I will generally not root for the LOS ANGELES Dodgers). Of course, if any of those three play the Yankees, then I'll root for them because the Yankees are the Yankees. Last year I held my nose and rooted for the Phillies over the Yankees in the Satanic Series.

It also helps that they play real baseball in the National League. In the NL it's understood that all players, including the pitcher, are supposed to hit. So yes, I'm vehemently opposed to the designated hitter.

Go Giants!

Live Blogging The NY Senate Debate

2010-10-21T23:19:00.001-04:00

I just live blogged the NY Senate debate between Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe DioGuardi over on Daily Kos. Andrew C. White live blogged the debate over at The Albany Project.

I think Gillibrand won this debate, just as she won last week's debate. DioGuardi once again called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Maybe Ponzi Joe is making that incorrect conclusion based upon his experience with Ponzi schemes.

Overall, Gillibrand scored her points, highlighting where her positions were in-line with New Yorkers, along with highlighting the hard work she's done for us since she was appointed to the United States Senate. It's important to remember that Senator Gillibrand favors the immediate repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; that she favors marriage equality; that she favors the Recovery Act, without which the economy would be considerably worse off; that she favors protecting Social Security and not privatizing it or belittling it as a Ponzi scheme; that she favors a woman's right to choose.

On all these issues Joe DioGuardi stands in opposition. He thinks we should defer to the generals on one of the great civil rights issues of our time. He opposes marriage equality. He opposes the Recovery Act and thinks the answer is less regulation and that government shouldn't do anything to help. He keeps on calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. And he opposes a woman's right to control her own body.

Thankfully, Senator Gillibrand is now comfortably heading towards winning the election to fill out the term of the seat she was appointed to (see New York Times article and data PDF, Siena College poll (warning: PDF), and even Rasmussen). There are still plenty of down-ballot races though where turnout can change the outcome, so it remains as important as ever to get out and vote to help Democrats keep control over the US House (there are at least 6 competitive races in Democratic House seats in New York State) and help expand the majority in the state senate.

Two-for-Two: Rangers Beat the Yankees

2010-10-20T00:18:00.002-04:00

The Rangers have beaten the Yankees 10-3 to take a 3-1 lead in the ALCS. One more Texas win ends the Yankees' season and puts the Rangers in the World Series for the first time. It would be that much sweeter to see the Yankees lose, and their season end, at Yankee Stadium.

Knesset Majority Opposes Loyalty Oath

2010-10-19T23:17:00.003-04:00

Ha'aretz reports today only 56 MKs support the proposed loyalty oath passed by the government. In addition to the entire opposition, including the far-right National Union, two government parties also oppose the oath: Avodah (Labor) and UTJ (United Torah Judaism, an Ashkenazi Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) party). The Ha'aretz head count seemingly does not include at least four Likud MKs who publicly oppose the oath: Benny Begin, Michael Eitan, Dan Meridor, and Reuven Rivlin. Begin, Eitan, and Meridor are all cabinet ministers; Rivlin is the Knesset speaker. Their opposition presumably lowers support for the loyalty oath to 52 MKs, nine short of the 61 MKs needed for passage.

Following the furor over the proposed new loyalty oath applying only to non-Jewish new Israeli citizens, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered the Israeli Justice Minister to change the proposed wording to include all new Israeli citizens, both Jew and non-Jew alike. However, the aforementioned Ha'aretz report suggests the proposed revision extending the loyalty oath to Jews could result in opposition from both Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu:

The revised version is likely to be particularly problematic for Shas, which, like UTJ, is an ultra-Orthodox party. UTJ MK Moshe Gafni told Haaretz on Monday that he opposes the bill, in part because of the religious objection to Jews swearing any kind of oath. That reason would presumably apply to Shas as well.

As for Yisrael Beiteinu, it is the party that initially proposed and pushed the bill. But a sizable proportion of its voters are immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and it may therefore be sensitive to the claim made by Edelstein and Elkin that the new version discriminates against immigrants.

Shas leader Eli Yishai (the Israeli Interior Minister) and Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman (the Israeli Foreign Minister) both opposed extending the proposed loyalty oath to new Jewish citizens of Israel.

While Ha'aretz reported that if current numbers held the loyalty oath would go down to defeat in the Knesset, the opposition continued their attack against the proposed loyalty oath. A group of MKs, artists, and intellectuals met at the Knesset today to express their opposition to the bill, among them Kadima MK Shlomo Molla:

"The country is thriving, but the flood of anti-democratic and anti-Israeli laws in Israel must end. We came here to say, 'Stop (Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman's fascism."

"I am first and foremost a proud Jew, Israeli and Zionist. I am not going to ask that Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash chairman) or Afou Agbaria (Hadash MK) be Zionists. I want to preserve our democracy, because a democracy that does not defend itself is at risk, and we've seen what happened to the Jews when they did not defend themselves," said Molla, who chairs the Knesset's Lobby for the Struggle Against Racism.

I have repeatedly stated that it should not be taken for granted that the entire Knesset would pass the loyalty oath. Therefore, this news, while certainly good, comes as no surprise to me. Based on the very public opposition from Avodah and from senior Likud members, it has always been abundantly clear that the loyalty oath pushed by Yisrael Beiteinu thankfully faced a steep uphill climb. This news only reiterates that.

Hopefully, Prime Minister Netanyahu, cognizant of the damage already caused by proposing this loyalty oath and of the fact that it faces uncertain-to-unlikely prospects for passage, will decide to shelve this bill before it gets to a Knesset vote. Prime Minister Netanyahu will also hopefully fire Avigdor Lieberman, the prime pusher of this "loyalty" agenda.

While I am hopeful that the former will come to pass, I doubt the latter will ever come to pass. In the meantime, I can be somewhat satisfied that while the Israeli government did not do the right thing, it looks like the Knesset will do the right thing.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

One Down, One To Go

2010-10-19T19:11:00.001-04:00

The Giants defeated the Phillies 3-0 today, giving them a 2-1 advantage in the NLCS. The Phillies are looking to win their third consecutive National League Pennant, while the Giants are looking to go to the World Series for the first time since 2002, when they lost to the then-Anaheim Angels in seven games.

While not a fan of the club that once upon a time inhabited the Polo Grounds, I am indifferent towards them. At the same time, I hate the Phillies more than any other club save one: the Evil Empire a.k.a. the New York Yankees.

The Yankees and Rangers play in an hour, and I'm hoping to see Texas take a commanding three games to one lead over the Yankees with one game left to play in New York after that, and potentially two more to play in Arlington. Obviously, I'm hoping that the Rangers make that unnecessary and simply close out the series in New York.

Tonight's Gubernatorial Debate

2010-10-18T22:47:00.001-04:00

Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino faced off in their only debate tonight. The two major-party candidates shared the stage with five minor candidates, including Kristin Davis (the so-called Manhattan Madame), NYC councilman Charles Barron, and Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is 2 Damn High Party. I live blogged the debate over at Daily Kos. It was my first-ever attempt at live blogging.

What struck me most about the debate was Paladino's relatively good behavior. Gone was the angry and obnoxious bigot that we had seen in full force the past week. Instead, Paladino remained relatively calm. The real characters in the debate were McMillan and Davis. McMillan concluded nearly every answer with "Rent is too damn high!" Meanwhile, Davis got in a few zingers of her own, particularly against what she termed "career politicians".

In fact, "career politicians" seemed the term of the night for everyone on-stage except Andrew Cuomo. Each of the six other candidates bashed career politicians in one form or another. Barron, at one point, accused Cuomo and his father, former Governor Mario Cuomo, of racism. Paladino discussed cutting spending, although he didn't mention anything about his baseball bat.

All-in-all, tonight's debate seemed relatively tame. I was expecting fireworks, with Carl Paladino providing some more golden material. Instead, aside from the minor candidates, the debate was relatively calm and an actual exchange of policy ideas.

In the end, I think Cuomo won the debate. He clearly possessed a grasp and knowledge of policy unmatched by any of the candidates. Other candidates offered vague proposals that either consisted of pure platitudes or simply did not make any sense. Cuomo offered substantive policy proposals, which while certainly not comprehensive given the limited time in a debate, clearly indicated he possesses a serious plan, something that cannot be said of the other candidates.

Of course, I entered the debate with my mind already made up. I already knew that I am voting for Andrew Cuomo on November 2. I merely watched for the entertainment value I expected. In some ways, the debate proved disappointing because Paladino did not provide the expected fireworks. However, some of the other candidates did provide those fireworks.

In Defense of Israel

2010-10-18T17:29:00.002-04:00

I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel. At the same time, I do not particularly like her current government. Binyamin (Benjamin) Netanyahu is letting himself be held hostage by the extremists in his own government, particularly by Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu and Eli Yishai and Shas. Netanyahu has had several opportunities to remove both men and their parties from the government and replace it with the Tzipi Livni-led Kadima. However, Netanyahu has refused to do so, and in the process has harmed Israel's interests by helping kill the recently-restrated peace process.

Of course, in this Netanyahu does not share sole blame. Mahmoud Abbas shoulders a fair share of the blame as well. Abbas is the one that refused to return to the negotiating table during the first nine months of the settlement freeze. Abbas is also the one that said Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish State and would never compromise on their core issues, including the right of return and a border adhering to the 1949 Armistice Lines with no land swaps.

The latter would mean giving up Israeli sovereignty over the Kotel (Western Wall) and recognizing Palestinian sovereignty. That is unacceptable and a clear indication that Abbas is not serious about peace. The Kotel is the holiest place in the world for our people. To force Israel to recognize foreign sovereignty over it now that it is under Israeli sovereignty is akin to asking Muslims to give up Mecca or Catholics to give up the Vatican combined with asking Britain to recognize foreign sovereignty over London or France to recognize foreign sovereignty over Paris.

Throughout its history Israel has fought several wars for its very existence, starting in 1948, when an Arab coalition attacked the newly-established state as it declared independence. Then, after Israel won its War of Independence, rather than sign peace treaties with Israel the Arab governments simply left the armistice in place. It was not until 1979 that an Arab country (Egypt) signed a peace treaty with Israel. It was then another fifteen years until another Arab country (Jordan) signed a peace treaty with Israel. To date, Egypt and Jordan are the only Arab countries at peace with Israel and with full diplomatic relations with Israel.

People must understand that Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People. It was where my ancestors came from before they found themselves in Latvia and Poland. It was in Israel that we were forged as a nation. And that legacy continues on today, not only in the modern State of Israel, but also in the fact that as an Ashkenazi Jew my genetic relationship with Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews are ten times closer than any of us are related to the host populations our ancestors lived among in Europe, North Africa, the Levant and Iran.

Most importantly, today I am in exile, in the Diaspora, because that is my choice. I hold only American citizenship and live in the United States because that is my choice. At any time I remain free to pack my bags and return to my ancestral homeland. That is something that was denied to the overwhelming majority of my fellow Jews for nearly 2,000 years. It is for that reason that Israel is so important for me.

Finally, I believe that Zionism can very easily be distilled into the sixth and seventh lines in Hatikvah, Israel's national anthem:

התקוה בת שנות אלפים
להיות עם חפשי בארצנו

The Hope of 2,000 years
To be a free people in our land

Entertainment Provided Courtesy of Carl Paladino

2010-10-18T13:35:00.000-04:00

I'm anticipating tonight's New York Gubernatorial Debate. The debate should provide some entertainment value, with not only waiting to see the latest crazy statement made by Republican candidate Carl Paladino, but also from some of the characters debating Andrew Cuomo tonight. I'm actually live blogging the debate over at Daily Kos.

In the meantime, The New York Times, has published two articles today. One is about the preparations and expectations from both the Cuomo and Paladino campaigns ahead of tonight's debate. The other is about the five minor candidates appearing on the stage with them tonight.

Whatever happens, tonight's debate should be interesting.

You win some and you lose some...

2010-10-18T00:43:00.000-04:00

I'm a Met fan. I hate the Phillies. The only team I hate more is the Yankees. In the current League Championship Series I'm rooting for the Giants and the Rangers. Both series are now heading to their next parts tied 1-1 after the Phillies defeated the Giants tonight 6-1. In the NLCS this means that the Giants go home only needing to win the three games in San Francisco to win the N.L. Pennant. For the Rangers, they have to win at least one of the games in New York in order to take the series back to Texas for a chance to win their first A.L. Of course, I'm hoping that the Rangers will just win all three games here in New York and get to put the Yankees and their fans through having to watch the Rangers celebrate at Yankee Stadium.

Today's New York Senate Debate - Gillibrand vs. DioGuardi

2010-10-15T22:17:00.002-04:00

I watched today's Senate debate between Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and her challenger Joe DioGuardi. The debate streamed live on WABC-TV's website, and will air on television on Sunday. However, the WABC report featuring some clips from the debate is now on their website.

While I wrote a of the debate summary over Daily Kos two things said Joe DioGuardi stuck out the most to me:

He called Social Security the "biggest Ponzi scheme in the world" and saying that even Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme doesn't come close to comparing to Social Security
When discussing immigration and calling for increased immigration visas, he said that should include Western Europeans, who in his own words, "help build this country"

Gillibrand won the debate hands down, but even with all the points she scored, it's DioGuardi's words that stuck with me most because of how over-the-line they were.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It's effectively a pension/annuity, and operates in that manner. Workers pay into the system while they're younger, and when they reach the designated retirement age they then collect a monthly check based upon the amount of money they paid into the system. That makes it like any other pension or annuity. To call Social Security a Ponzi scheme is to say that of any pension plan or annuity.

With immigration, if DioGuardi simply stopped with favoring increasing immigration visas and said nothing of Western Europeans or how they built this country, that would have been okay. However, once he added that last part, he crossed a line. This country wasn't built only by Western Europeans. It was built by everyone that immigrated here and already lived here, and it continues to be built by everyone living here today and everyone that comes here today.

An Experiment

2010-10-15T20:58:00.001-04:00

Blogging here is an experiment. I already blog over at Daily Kos, but that's necessarily limited to politics. Here, I can blog whenever I want about whatever I want. This is my blog. So I set my own rules. I discuss what I want to decide. I blog how often I want to, whether it's ten posts or zero posts. I'll crosspost my political blogging over at Daily Kos, but pretty much everything else will get posted here.

Let the experiment begin.