Obama's Speech Made Us Safer

Safer? are you kidding? I seriously do not understand why so many thought this was a great speech. I greet my Muslim friends with "Asalam aleikum" and believe that Israel is overstepping its "rights" to the land by oppressing the indigenous people be they christian or muslim (not sure there is an actual place called Palestine but to me that is not the real issue). But knowing the basic beliefs and history of Islam I was MOST concerned that a President who openly claimed Christianity in this speech would concede to "agree" that the Isra event actually happened. I certainly can agree that both sides need to compromise on matters of policy. BUT on matters of faith, no TRUE Christian would EVER cite the Isra event and thereby agree that Moses, Jesus and Mohammed prayed together. Christians do NOT believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but rather very misguided and perhaps even mentally ill and definitely NOT a saint or worthy of being taken to the heavens. They also could NEVER concede that Jesus, who had ascended to the heavens in His glorified body to be reuinted with the Father and Holy Spirit, would appear in anything BUT that glorified form again. And the Isra event was clearly crafted by Mohammed to try and trump the earlier historical story of Christ's transfiguration where Moses and Elijah descended from the heavens to witness to Jesus' authority and majesty as God. This was followed just weeks later by His ascension into the heavens. The Isra event is also the MOST important event to Muslims because it is through this event they believe that he was given superiority over all former prophets (supposedly then more important than Jesus) AND from this divine transport, also given divine sanction to spread Islam by ANY means such as wars, violence, oppression, whatever. So herein lies my BIG problem with President Obama and the others who helped him write that speech. In short, he did not just come out and say "all sides need to respect each other and play fair" what he REALLY did was agree to Islam's dominance over the Christian Gospel and gave the Muslim world the green light to take on the world and rewrite history just to make 1.5 billion people happy. A SAD SAD day for the rest of the world!

Oh and on this:

"much of what you write is patently solipsistic."

No, actually.. Pagans are very practical people and live in the real world. If you knew anything about it, instead of making bizarre statements like that, (or better yet, asking questions so that maybe you could actually open a DIALOGUE with someone you don't know in order to *learn* something) you'd know that.

But that's too hard for you to comprehend, so you come around accusing people of things that they've never said. One thing I never expected from someone who claims such *vast* knowledge of Judaism is intellectual laziness.

"All you're doing is attacking me, making baseless accusations against me. Indeed, much of what you write is patently solipsistic."

So I'm supposed to submit to your 'reeducation' program? Because I chose to think for myself and not be bound to any book? You are snide and extremely condescending.

"What this tells me is that your exposure to Judaism must have been very narrow. You never deal with the many scholars: Maimonides, HaLevi, Solevetchik, Buber, Rosenzweig, Heschel, M. Kaplan, Levinas, et al."

It doesn't tell you squat. You have no idea what I've studied, or even why I came to where I am now. Stop assuming that you do. I spent many years researching most if not all of the scholars.. and ultimately decided that it wasn't for me. I don't need a book to tell me how to live my life.

It doesn't mean that I *hate* Judaism, but it wasn't for me. That simple. Deal with it. What I certainly do resent are your attempts to at least *act* like a spokesperson for Judaism and are so quick to label someone a 'hater' for simply daring to think for themselves.. and coming to an alternate conclusion.

"Judaism is not a response to antisemitism."
It has become so, especially in recent years. Too many of the denominations have become even more reactive, exclusionary and seem to want to have such control over the lives of anyone who calls themselves Jewish.

The divine presence is within everything. Space and time collapse on the Sabbath, the period time Jews take to see the loveliness that is concealed all around them. At the end of time, it is believed that all the loveliness will reveal itself. Through PARDES, the levels of exegesis, Jews reach come into contact with immanence in scripture.

There is tremendous intellectual and spiritual beauty in the religion. It is not lachrymose. Quite the contrary. It is infinitely hopeful and optimistic.

I'm not a spokesperson for Judaism; however, your assumptions are all wrong. You are conflating some cultural problems with the religion itself. Judaism is not a response to antisemitism. It is a celebration of the "created" universe, of the infinite confidence of the deity, Hashem, in human.

Mokey,

I did reply to your posting to me on another thread a long way back. I'm not interested in your Jewish creds. You evidence very little knowledge of an enormously complex religion that would be better called Judaism(s).

Judaism, is not properly speaking, pantheistic, in the sense, for instance of Spinoza, but certain Chasidic beliefs, Talmudic midrashim, which, of course, are esteemed by all the branches come very close.

All you're doing is attacking me, making baseless accusations against me. Indeed, much of what you write is patently solipsistic. YOu can't win on facts, so you settle for name-calling.

I see no point, quite frankly, in continuing this, particularly since I had no desire to enter a contest in the first place, and you are shadow boxing. I will, however, address this:
______________
If anti-semitism disappeared tomorrow, and the Jews no longer had anyone to fight against- what then would it mean to be Jewish in today's world?

I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to this.
_____________
What this tells me is that your exposure to Judaism must have been very narrow. You never deal with the many scholars: Maimonides, HaLevi, Solevetchik, Buber, Rosenzweig, Heschel, M. Kaplan, Levinas, et al.

You never mention the Tanaim, Bruria, Rashi for heaven's sake.

None of this is to the point, however. What religion you choose is up to you. Just quit accusing me falsely, ignoring everything I write that proves you incorrect.

"You think you know something about Judaism because you have spoken to enough rabbis in your life? LOL! To whom did you speak? What did they tell you about immanence? Which branches of Judaism? Askenazim? Sfardim? Trad. Orthodox? Modern Orthodox? Chasidism (specify branch), Conservative (specify type and branch), Reformed, Reconstructionist?"

My Jewish education or 'cred' is quite frankly none of your business. Suffice it to say that I studied enough to be taught that it was some sort of *mistake* to believe as I did in immanence and be a pantheist and still be considered Jewish, at least religiously.

I learned enough from the branches my family were from to know that I cannot be bound to any book.

It's not being 'hysterical' to point out to you that you are attempting to speak for an entire people- and it's attitudes like yours, that I or anybody else who sees things differently than you do requires 'reeducation' somehow- that snide, condescending attitude- that is why I left.

Your assumptions that you know anything about me are WAY off.

I actually posted something to you on another thread a long ways back that I never received an answer to, either.

If anti-semitism disappeared tomorrow, and the Jews no longer had anyone to fight against- what then would it mean to be Jewish in today's world?

I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to this.

Mokey,

Your last post is a very confused, even hysterical rant, rather inconsistent with much of what you said earlier, factually incorrect, a misrepresentation of me, etc.

You appear to have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, none whatsoever.

1. First, the immanent figures heavily in Judaism, particularly among the Chaidim, but also, especially, among the traditional Orthodoxy. It shines through various midrashim in the Talmud.

You think you know something about Judaism because you have spoken to enough rabbis in your life? LOL! To whom did you speak? What did they tell you about immanence? Which branches of Judaism? Askenazim? Sfardim? Trad. Orthodox? Modern Orthodox? Chasidism (specify branch), Conservative (specify type and branch), Reformed, Reconstructionist?

2. Who are the "big three" religious leaders? What are the "big three" religions?
Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam? Gee, I count four, assuming you are referring to the former pope's "Abrahamics" (LOL).

3. You: BS. Her interest comes directly out of her Paganism. If you read any of her works you would know that. You obviously don't care about Native Americans, nor would you be expected to, as a Jewish person.

Me: Huh? Say what? Do you ever read what you wrote before posting? So, her interest comes from her Paganism, not her Jewishness, but I can't be interested in Native Americans BECAUSE I'm Jewish?

Sense? None. Unsurprising, therefore, that it is factually incorrect. I've posted on this blog about my experience working on a Native American reservation, on the facts of Indian life in this country and of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

4. Animism: Animism is a broad term akin to deism, theism, etc. There are, of course, animist religions: Certain forms of Shinto could certainly be classified as animist.

I see nothing in your posting about the Anarchism, which you originally said Starhawk was not a part of, but which I demonstrated she is.

In the same way, with nothing but rants, accusations, faulty assumptions, stereotyping, and stereotyped beliefs, factual errors, you have accused me repeatedly.

Guess what, Mokey? It doesn't work. YOu just come off sounding panicky. It's time for you to stop and ask yourself what it is that's making you panic.

"Surely, you know that this is also a theme in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Animism, etc."

Really? Want to ask the big three religious leaders if the idea of pantheism or immanence is anywhere in their texts? I can't wait for THAT response. According to the big three, at least, that would be considered 'idolatry'. I've spoken to enough Rabbis in my life to have learned that the hard way.

There was a split divorcing spirit from nature or flesh once all the book religions showed up. Taking what once was held sacred and making it bad or to be dominated over. And what couldn't be made 'bad' was incorporated or grafted onto local traditions.

You're conflating two ideas without any basis for it other than her using the ideas of egalitarianism.

Again, please learn something.

"An awful lot of violent rhetoric in the posting of the pacific Starhawk. And no, her interest in Israel does not stem from her Paganism any more than my interest in Native Americans stems from my Jewishness."

BS. Her interest comes directly out of her Paganism. If you read any of her works you would know that. You obviously don't care about Native Americans, nor would you be expected to, as a Jewish person.

I have yet to see any violent rhetoric in the ideas that she has presented. It's not "violent" to actively work to promote peace between fighting factions of people.

Now you're just adding baseless accusations.

BTW.. animism is not a religion on it's own, either. It's a component of many different religions. And you could believe in immanence and not necessarily be an animist, either.

Stop trying to pretend you know what someone else believes.

Mokey,

While Starhawk's anarchy was patently obvious to me, I did not know that it was her stated philosophy, albeit with a small
"a," and I do respect her for it. I've been doing a bit of Starhawk catch-up in light of your recent posts.

When you say "she's not an anarchist," you disagree with the identity she forthrightly
confers upon herself.

http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html

http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html

Please do not simply dismiss what I write with a wave of the hegemonic hand, Pagan or otherwise.

Mokey,

Not an invitation to cherry pick, but

"She talks about the webs of life and the interconnectedness of all things and all people...."

Surely, you know that this is also a theme in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Animism, etc.

Mokey,

I honestly don't know how it is possible for you to make so many false assumptions about what I'm saying.

I'm not an either/or, dichotomous thinker, hope you aren't, well, either. The "evil" that you hunt for in my snakey post is, quite simply, not there. A snake is not a snake any more than A is A, and to it, I attribute neither good nor evil.

An awful lot of violent rhetoric in the posting of the pacific Starhawk. And no, her interest in Israel does not stem from her Paganism any more than my interest in Native Americans stems from my Jewishness.

As for "immanence," of course, you're greatly mistaken as it is very much a part of Judaism. Do you know anything about Judaism? If not (and it would appear not), please do not pronounce upon it.

Backatcha: "Please top putting your labels on things you don't know about."

Did you read the links I posted on "anarchism"? Or are you confusing it with the "lay" synonym "chaos"?

Farnaz

wow.. you're more misinformed than I thought, Farnaz.

Paganism IS the source of her thinking. It doesn't make her a "Jewish Anarchist".. it makes her capable of seeing the divine everywhere- and as such realizing the difference between Power-over and Power-from-within. She writes about this extensively in her book, Dreaming the Dark.

It's not her aim to dismantle the governments of anybody- but she is capable of advocating nonviolent resistance in order to get people working together and thinking about each other in ways that might for once lead to a different outcome. She talks about the webs of life and the interconnectedness of all things and all people and uses those structures to get people thinking differently about themselves and others who may not be like them. Those ideas come from the immanence which is found in much of Wiccan polytheology. Far cry from Judaism.

It's funny you mention snakes- they are seen not as evil in Paganism- they are a powerful symbol of transformation of death and rebirth- another of the ongoing cycles of life. So your snake metaphor as somehow 'evil' doesn't apply here. Sorry. :)

Please top putting your labels on things you don't know about. That's on you, not her.

Mokey,

Of course, Paganism informs some of her thinking.

Farnaz

Mokey,

Last post was addressed to you.

Farnaz

You: With Jewish roots- but that's a big difference. There's a world of difference between what the seed started as to what the plant becomes.

Me: The snake may shed its skin, but it's still a snake. With respect to identity, hers is not akin to that of, for example, Justice Breyer, Supreme Court.

YOu: Actually, it's perfectly relevant to the current situation. It's a mistake for you or anybody to associate any group as a monolith.

Me: I'm not, hence, my comment on the reductive take evident in your earlier post.

Jewish Anarchism:

You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_anarchism

Then, you might take a look at this:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7404/anarchy_in_yiddish.html

Jewish Anarchism has a rich, sometimes salutary, sometimes deadly history.

Farnaz,

Once again, a false assumption. She is writing from her point of view as a Pagan.
With Jewish roots- but that's a big difference. There's a world of difference between what the seed started as to what the plant becomes.

It's going to be different from her perspective no matter what you try to read *into* it.

Not sure where you get the whole 'anarchist' thing from in this post. What is a "Jewish anarchist tradition", anyway?
She's not Jewish.

"Come on. This is just a tad reductive, if not irrelevant, isn't it?"

Actually, it's perfectly relevant to the current situation. It's a mistake for you or anybody to associate any group as a monolith.

Mokey,

RE: My last post

Meant to write "Jewish Anarchist" tradition.

Mokey,

Speaking of "false assumptions" and "name-calling," I'd suggest you rethink your pronounements in light of pot-kettle theory. You might also like to reread Starhawk's essay with that construct in mind. The comparison with Luxembourg was/is apt. I may know more of the "Jewish anarchist" position than you do, and that may be part of the problem. But it is only part.

Mokey,

I think you know quite well what I'm talking about since we've had this discussion before.

"And I don't have to agree with everything Israel does, even as a Jew."

Come on. This is just a tad reductive, if not irrelevant, isn't it?

Farnaz

"Why not step out of your pseudo center for a moment, walk to the periphery, fringe, border, margin, where, for now, this moment, you will be quite safe, and contemplate that which, for you, may not speak its name?"

LOL. As a Pagan, I'm nowhere NEAR any imagined center- at least not in this monotheistic society.

And I don't have to agree with everything Israel does, even as a Jew.

I don't have to agree with all of her positions, either- that's the problem when an entire range of faith traditions is only represented on a site like this by one author- but I think they need to be considered. She walks the walk.

Once again.. you're making false assumptions about people, as you do here.

contemplate what, specifically? All I've seen is that you deride the voice of someone who has been actively working for peace longer than most. I've 'contemplated' your position on that, and still found it wanting.

If you have something to say to me, please, by all means, say it. Outright.

But stop the name calling.

"Your desire to make things *relative* to past presidents (i.e. George W. Bush)"

Actually, Globalone, hypocrisy *is* a matter of 'relative to the past' ....As in what I was pointing out as regards your sudden complaint about teleprompters after supporting Bush, who could barely string a sentence together even *with* a teleprompter, never mind without one.

In other words, I was pointing out *your* assertions that were hypocritical.

Trust me, between Obama and Bush there's no real comparison on this count. It's obvious.

Pagan,

Your desire to make things *relative* to past presidents (i.e. George W. Bush) is puzzling to say the least. But if it makes you feel better (or superior), that's your choice.

The infatuation that some Americans have (i.e. Starhawk) with President Obama's speaking ability is borderline insane. Go listen to clips of President Harding speak and you'll realize that President Obama is not the first, or the last, to possess these skills.

(By the way, how did the Harding presidency turn out anyway? Arguably one of the five worst in history? Ouch.)

Getting pretty thin? I can hardly keep up! One minute the President is genuflecting at the feet of foreign dignitaries and the next he's trying to explain 9.4% unemployment when he *promised* that his Throw Money at the Problem Stimulus package would cap unemployment at 8.1%. Oops.

MOkey,

You say I am "out of line," and that is where your incomprehension of me has generally begun and ended. Too bad, M, because I think you're smart. The thing is, you see, I've never been IN line, and I will never be.

Why not step out of your pseudo center for a moment, walk to the periphery, fringe, border, margin, where, for now, this moment, you will be quite safe, and contemplate that which, for you, may not speak its name?

Farnaz,

You're out of line here, attacking someone for not being 'Jewish' enough. If you bothered to read anything she's written on this issue about her own experiences in the region, which she has been an active participant in for 30 years or more, you would know that she does what she can to help those she finds. Israelis AND Palestinians. She's sat down in front of tanks, been arrested numerous times, all for trying to speak truth to both sides.

What is your obsession with 'Cherokee'?

Your obsession with this 'self hatred' thing says more about you than it does about her.

I am the same as her, too- you gonna call me a *self-hater*, too?

A big problem communications-wise is that you don't know the history, which goes back a long, long time. Took root big time in the twentieth century, when Jews finally got something approaching citizenship in some European countries, after WWI. It's the Rosa Luxembourg syndrome, brilliant though L. surely was.

Fight for everyone but your own damned Jewish self and the Jewish selves of others. And then you get to share in that great nineteenth-century cannard that the Jews are the real "white" people, that notwithstanding how much the "real" hated Js, and with a vengeance.

Hence, in the nineteenth century you had all these deracinated EuroJewish socialists, brilliant, many of them,in some ways, as antisemitic as the cultural Christians.

Starhawk is part and parcel of that tradition. I've seen it too many times not to know it. And I don't like it.

Where was Starhawk, indeed, where is she for the one hundred thousand Ethiopian Jews living in Israel? Where was she when they walked from Ethiopia to Israel, often getting "detained" and tortured in Sudan while en route?

NOt exotic enough? Starhawk doesn't understand that she'll never be a Cherokee.
That's it. Otherwise, I have no problem with her. Had no problem with Rosa Luxembourg, who thought antisemitism didn't exist....

Here is something that might help you understand where I'm coming form IF that interests you, but NB, you will only understand if you don't do the old sidestep.

Where was Starhawk during the reign of the buffoon "Shah"? During the Islamic Revolution when Jews, desperately, Christians, just a little less desperately, not to mention the Bahai, and millions of Muslims needed a spokesperson?

When Russian Jews were WALKING across Russia to find safe houses?

Where is she now when it isn't safe for Jews to walk on the streets on Europe as is noted all over the web?

Although some of the forgoing were not well-publicized (Jews, especially, don't have surplus value), the information was always readily available.

And then there is the unimaginable suffering of Afghan women under the Taliban, yet another matter involving Muslim women, if that is Starhawk's major concern. Yet, through the years, what exactly did we hear from her on them?

And if Palestinians are her major concern, why does she not post on the very well-known corruption of Fatah? Why has she never? So serious it was that Gazans killed Arafat's nephew? These "politicians" gorge themselves, steal food meant for the people, have three mercedes (the expensive ones) in their driveways, as Starhawk should certainly have SEEN. (I did, and I ain't no celeb.)

If Starhawk is so concerned about Palistinians and such a feminist, why does she not condemn the honor killings? One out of every three Palestinian murders is an honor killing....

And the daily killing (KILLING) of Kurds that goes on in Turkey? Oh, Starhawk...Can't quite hear yooouuuu....

The Dalit? 170,000 to 250,000,000 enslaved by our good friend, India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

I'm sure Starhawk, indeed, I know Starhawk has done some good. But she'll never be a Cherokee. That's what she doesn't get. Cannot get. Will never get.

Sfer from whom?? whom are you pointing out at or singling out, a totaly crap article, waste of time

Farnazz, whatever you're talking about, (especially with this Tiger Woods thing, is he involved somehow?) it doesn't justify you trying to 'disqualify' Starhawk from speaking on the basis she's... Not Jewish enough, which you 'prove' by 'revealing' her born 'given name' and acting like she's defrauding someone by speaking under her Pagan name?

Err... What?

I mean, if **you* don't care about Israel, why are you attacking her as a 'self-hating Jew?'

What'd she do, spoil the charming ambiance over there or something?

Guess I'm really not making my case since you can't see that I'm not making a case. Composed a post for Captain Ahab. Neither that nor my post to you has anything to do with your "Holy Land," "your," I say, since I never had one, still don't.

The "land" is in your own skin, the holy, that you can leave it, yet know the project will always be doubtful. Tiger Woods' problem.

For some to see it, they must be it. Others require discursive radar. But that (secularly) blessed bunch that forms, un-forms, re-forms, some times de-forms out on the fringes, the waves, seeing double, triple, etc....

Err, Farnazz, whatever you were saying in the first place with all that nonsense, you haven't improved your case.

So... You can have your opinion, indeed.

Frankly, *my* opinion on that patch of Earth is, if that's what the lot of you call 'Holy land' you should keep your damn 'holy wars' there. Before you go talking like you do to someone who even *tried* to make it better.

"you don't like her being a Jew, you respect the name she's taken."

She'd have to respect it more herself. She believes she has a certain "right" in Israel because of her Jewish ethnicity. Because of her ego, she's certain that the seas should part, checkpoints crumble, etc.

Been there and seen it. If yuh haven't been, and yuh don't get the history, don't "okay"?

Tell the next African American who's damned tired of Tiger Woods bein' a Cherokee that in your book she's got it all wrong.

Have your opinions. I'll have mine.

And where, O where, was this Jewish Pagan for Jews during the Islamic revolution? For Christians? For Muslims?

Yuh don't get it cuz yuh can't bee it.

YourAffectionateUncle,

"Well done. You do progress as we watch."

Glad to hear it, Uncle. So sad, though, that you have nothing better to do than watch a screen fill up with words by people you know next to nothing of and pronounce upon same.

It's coming up on summer, Tio. Get out. Breathe in the glad green air. It will do you a world of good.

My Dearest Farnaz,

"Hard to understand"

"It is unless you know that she was born Miriam Simos in 1951, i.e., is a self-hating Askenazic leftie zealot of a certain age, a certain time, place, generation."

What a lovely revelation you make, as if you have discovered some hidden and shameful thing about your intended victim. You do impress on some occasions with your blithe vitriol. So reflexive that it now seems part of the very fabric of your soul. In time you can invite it to flourish in every aspect of your life. Wonderful how it obviates the need for you to encompass any aspect of the truth that the victim may have inadvertently stumbled upon, isn't it?

Well done. You do progress as we watch.

I mean, really, Farnazz, just cause I don't agree with the Church don't make me 'only a Paddy when someone wants to make a negative of it.'

She's been where she's been and saw what she speaks of. Which is more than can be said for most people with extremist opinions, here.

Apart from that, her viewpoint on this seems straightforward enough to *me.*

If you're going to get racial, Farnaz, there really does have to come a point where we say 'Whoever she was, now she's ours.'

If you want to talk about what's 'Self-hating' in people of Jewish exraction, never mind particular ethnicities, though, I think it'd have to do with denying someone the validity of their own experiences and opinions if they don't agree with a certain party's platform.

There's a lot of people taught to 'hate themselves' and 'like it' in the name of other religions. Ancient feuds and grudges, whatnot.

Some may believe their whole religion is doomed to fall apart if not recorded, remembered, and enforced, in every detail, but, well, the Goddess...

Ain't impatient.

If you don't like her being a Jew, you respect the name she's taken.

Captain Ahab,

"Hard to understand."

It is unless you know that she was born Miriam Simos in 1951, i.e., is a self-hating Askenazic leftie zealot of a certain age, a certain time, place, generation.

By the way, Ahab:

"Starhawk does like to write.
However, she hasn't the slightest idea what she is talking about.
She misunderstands the history of the conflict.
She misunderstands the motives of the Palestinians.
She misunderstands what it will take to end the conflict."

She's been there. Met the people. Seen what happens. Been there. For. What happens. Been *jailed.* For. What happens. She's also ethnically 'Jewish' by how that works for some. And no slouch about what that means.

She doesn't have universal support from all Pagans in the world for everything she does. (particularly getting involved in monotheist conflicts. ) But, more than can be said for most of the people spouting about Israel, and who thinks what holy book justifies what in the name of what is not what is... she's gone and seen and done and found out.

And if you *don't* value her perspective about what she's seen, you can hardly claim to give a crap about the real people and real sufferings there.

Everyone else talking here who cares about that piece of land has a religious agenda that subordinates our common humanity to symbolism. ...the symbols (And, in my case, I would think sure, my armchair notion of strategy) are more 'real' than the people dwelling there. What they see, what they do, what they say for themselves. What effects it all has.

I'm not a Fundie, Jew, or Muslim. I don't care one way out of a hundred about that piece of land. All I can see is geopolitics, mad ideas about bringing Jesus back to end the world among Fundies here at home...

And human beings.

Now, I don't claim to know *enough* about that patch of land to call myself an authority, but I *do* know enough about myself to know what I care about when bullets, blades, and bludgeons are flying.

She's met the people.

You'd be an *ahem* to dismiss a view on that.

Oh, but you did.

Globalone: "But gee whiz Beave, isn't the President so McDreamy when he's reading from the teleprompter? Hoo-rah."

This and all the rest from a *Bush* supporter?

Are you *kidding?*

At least he can *read* the teleprompter, and write the words that go on it... You know, like people used to bring paper to a podium... That being why there's a podium...

He can also speak extemporaneously without looking like a buffoon.

It's getting pretty *thin* out there in Neocon land, isn't it? Your Roveian tactics are supposed to be about *pre-emptively* attacking where you're weak, not trying to snipe in areas where you've already been a national embarrassment for eight years.

"Obama's Speech Made Us Safer"

I don't think so speech will make the difference , we can only see difference if good and safe policies for the world had been not only made but implemented too. Specially justice policies had to be made for the Muslim world.

Learn and clear your mis-conception about islam at http://islam-faq.blogspot.com

I'm glad Starhawk is so in loving with our articulate, poetic President.

Perhaps more people would feel the same way if he wasn't busy trampling federal laws, extorting states to do his bidding by withholding bailout funds, panhandling for women and hispanic votes through Supreme Court nominations, appointing "salary" czars, and moving the federal government down the path of owning every major industry in the U.S.

But gee whiz Beave, isn't the President so McDreamy when he's reading from the teleprompter? Hoo-rah.

Starhawk does like to write.

However, she hasn't the slightest idea what she is talking about.

She misunderstands the history of the conflict.

She misunderstands the motives of the Palestinians.

She misunderstands what it will take to end the conflict.

Yet somehow she is given the impremateur of the Washington Post and place to scribble.

Hard to understand.

"Wow! What a bunch of nuts!!! You Americans are in trouble. You're nuttier than western Europeans."

yates33333

Sometimes we do attract the weirder spammers, it seems. :)

Actually, I have the impression that 'Interfaithnation' (Not a Pagan, by the way) is originally from Eastern Europe. (Hard to tell, really) He's basically just a troll from some prison cult who keeps getting banned and sneaking back on. :)

Wow! What a bunch of nuts!!! You Americans are in trouble. You're nuttier than western Europeans.

Starhawk, I am much in agreement with you, during the period before the speech, it was painfully apearent what he needed to say if there would be progress to peace. I sent a message to the Whitehouse to both the President and speech writers asking them to use the words of the Prophet as the best means to communicate, which was done, and unlikely unrelated to my email, but I suggested he use the words of Mohamad's last speech which was to all mankind, all people of good faith and viewed with the greatest respect in the Islamic world, rather than the Koran, which in it's passages is largely addressed to the Faithful. The last speech is a message of universal love and brotherhood, that also honors and respects the feminine in about as strong a fashion as someone raised in a patriarchal culture could phrase it. It would have saved Obama, the criticism he has received from some for, Moslem ancestors or no, daring to interprete the Holy Word as someone who has not submitted to Allah. There is no question that the Koran is somewhat sectarian in whom it addresses, like most any other Holy Book, but the last speech is aimed at the whole world, and inspiring reading for most all Moslems and non-Moslems alike at least those ready to share some kind of common spiritual bond.
If you are curious and haven't seen it an excellent translation can be found by googling Cairo University, Anthropology Department and poking around a bit. Sorry, I haven't got a more exact link handy,
but it says in essence to us all,
"Love and respect one another." in very beautiful terms. Read it in Arabic if you can, but...
ASALAAM!

" Obama's Speech Made Us Safer "

This is something that republicans will never understand, because all they know and support is guns and sending our sons and daughters into dumb joke wars. Regardless how you explain it to them.

This is one of the finest pieces I have read.

Why should America be the enemy of Arabs and Muslims or vice versa for the sake of Israel.

America stands for Human Rights of all the people and does not pick and choose for the sake of convenience.

Well, at least that last comment had the sole virtue of brevity. Though I see room for improvement, even yet. :)

"Obama's speech made us safer".

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

Thank you for this studied response. We are correct to ask more from President Obama, especially where nonviolence and wars are concerned. While he may be helping our lives improve, we must press him to be better and better.
Gweneth Dietrich, CCHT
San Francisco