Tolerance for Diversity and Intolerance

Tiberias Haredi Jews want segregated bus lines so that "males and females may sit on seperate sides of the bus" and that they may be generally seperated from non-religious Jews. We like this. We hope the religious Jews beat the non-religious ones, as one interviewee feared would happen, on the head with the Torah.

Someone in Liberal Oregon can't understand, or appreciate cultural diversity, at least not the domesticated kind of diversity one might appreciate on a planned and disneyfied cruise and tour of Uganda. It irks him that somewhere, someone else's truth isn't the same as his for the Ugandan government is getting a democratic law passed which will punish homosexuals with death. It's not exactly the kind of democracy we had in mind though here at the epicenter of cultural niceness where some values are more equal than others.

Perhaps what we need is to get newly Knighted Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan on an away team to discuss tolerance and diversity to the Ugandan people, that is, even before economic sanctions hit and Ugandan children might starve in order that the 5-10% of our population that really values these things can feel less impotent than they usually do.



Then perhaps they will understand. Even the usually morally moribound Anglican Church is supporting this legislation which was once, more or less, a standard in European societies, at least until the French Revolution came along.

Uganda has banned radio adverts by witches but before you go around criticizing and getting all superior on the poor Ugandans, we do too, except we tend to call them psychics or palm readers.

Our enthusiasm for Uganda increases when we see that the government not only takes swindlers like fortune tellers to jail and prevents them from preying on ordinary people, but it even takes care of false versions of Catholicism, like the Brazilian Catholic Church, which permits its ministers to marry. Like the Old Catholics in Europe, they have quite a few problems with adult supervisions. By comparison, the Roman Catholic Church worldwide, though considerably less corrupt than the cannibal conference of the United Nations, and all of the heresy we talk about that it does suffer from, is nothing.

Is the Left Anti-Semitic After All?

Well, the left hates Joey Liberman (I), so it must be anti-semitic, because it hates Israel. Does the knife cut both ways? Never before has supporting Israel been so much fun, because you get to trash two faulty ideologies at once.

The Examener

Ruminations, December 27, 2009

Health insurance lives saved vs. lives lost
The Institute of Medicine, the health branch of the National Academy of Sciences, issued an analysis that concluded 22,000 lives were lost in 2006 due to a lack of health insurance. Many proponents of the new health care proposals are projecting their figures across 10 years and estimating that the new Congressional health care bill will save, conservatively, 150,000 lives over 10 years.

Although this analysis is speculative, it is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to examine the potential effect of health insurance on longevity. Rather than focusing on the dollars and cents side of the health care debate, perhaps adding an additional balance sheet focusing on lives would be worthwhile.

Saving 22,000 lives per year is based upon 30 million of people who are currently uninsured obtaining insurance and thus being able to afford to see their doctors once a year. If 30 million more people will go to their doctor once a year and, according to some estimates, a doctor and an assistant (nurse, physician’s assistant, or another doctor, etc) can see and examine 2,000 people per year (one visit per person). That means we’ll need 30,000 new medical professionals to see 30 million people. Where will they come from? They won’t materialize from thin air. With current staffing levels, regardless of insurance, we won’t have enough medical professionals to see these people. So maybe, unless or until we can expand our medical professionals, the 30 million people currently uninsured still won’t be able to see a doctor and 22,000 lives we estimated that would be saved will be lost anyway.

While accepting the estimate of 22,000 lives saved in one year, let’s consider the number of lives that the new health care bill may cost. For instance, won’t cutting nearly $500 billion from Medicare over 10 years have an adverse affect on the life spans of 46 million seniors? That’s an average cut of $10,000 per person over 10 years. It seems that by reducing health care by that amount, for a group whose earning power is limited and whose advancing years makes their health precarious enough without the cuts, will contribute to the lives lost count. Will it contribute to the premature death of more than 150,000 over ten years? Could be.

And, while we are on the subject of saving lives, there is no doubt that American medical innovation over the last decades has saved millions of lives. In fact, it is so advanced and superior, that, according to Deloitte & Touche, last year 400,000 people came from foreign lands to get health care in the United States. They came from all over including places such as Canada and Great Britain, where national health care is provided gratis. Why did they come? Not to save money, that’s for sure. They came because they wanted innovative health care that was unavailable in their home countries. Many, including those with diverse political perspectives as liberal former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich and conservative Fox commentator John Stossel, believe that a new health care system will not provide new innovations and, consequently it may cause a number of premature deaths that innovation could have saved.

So, on balance, will the new health care bill in Congress save lives? Maybe not.

Lieberman and anti-Semitism
The last two members of the Democratic caucus fell into line last week and supported the Democrats health care bill. Joe Lieberman (I, CT) and Ben Nelson (D, NE) voted to end debate on the bill and proceed towards its passage.

The left has been almost apoplectic on the about Joe Lieberman (I, CT), who threatened to join Republicans and filibuster the Senate Health Care bill. But when Lieberman’s objections to the “public option” and to the provision to allow people under 65 to apply for Medicare were met, he withdrew his filibuster threat and supported the bill. Lieberman had held out on principle. And by mollifying Lieberman, the Democrats were able to secure his support. But the left still treats him as a traitor.

Ben Nelson (D, NE), the last hold out, came back to the party-line when he was offered a $100 million subsidy for his Nebraska voters and tax breaks for Nebraska insurance companies. After he came back, the left treated him like a hero.

You can agree or disagree with Nelson and Lieberman but can you hold a mercenary in higher regard than a man who stands on principle?

It doesn’t seem so for many of the left. Rosa DeLauro (D, CT) says, “I'll say it flat out, I think he [Lieberman] ought to be recalled." MoveOn.org has raised one million dollars so that when Lieberman “comes up for re-election, we'll make sure we send him home for good.” Michael Moore demands that Connecticut recall Lieberman and wants to punish Connecticut for electing Lieberman by means of a boycott. MSNBC news commentator Keith Obermann said that Lieberman was “embarrassing humanity.” And the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation has been pressured to sever relationship with Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah.

Is there something else at work here – something other than political opposition? When people oppose President Barack Obama, some of Obama’s supporters are quick to state or imply that the reason for the opposition to Obama is racism. Could one conclude that the reason for the strong opposition to Lieberman is anti-Semitism?

First of all, let’s set aside the lunatic fringe that will always be with us. There is no doubt that there is a small group of people who don’t like Lieberman because he is a Jew – just as there exists a small group of people who don’t like Obama because he is black. Small fringe groups, however outrageous their beliefs, are of little concern; when the group gets large or influential, that’s when it bears watching.

In Lieberman’s case, the left has other reasons to dislike him. In 2006, Lieberman returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq and declared the war not only winnable but worth fighting. This infuriated the left and, at the Connecticut Democratic state Convention, instead of nominating the incumbent Lieberman, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont was nominated for senator. Lieberman then had the effrontery, in the eyes of the left, to run for senator as an independent against a party-line Democrat – and he won.

In 2008, Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and endorsed Republican John McCain.

While many on the left urge rapprochement with Cuba, Lieberman has remained strongly anti-Castro.

And, while a significant portion of the American left leans toward Palestine in the Israeli-Palestinian controversy, Lieberman is strongly pro-Israel.

So the resentment of Lieberman for opposing the party orthodoxy has been building. Was the Health Care kerfuffle the tipping point? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss Lieberman detractors as anti-Semites? Let’s explore that notion.

There still is a remnant of anti-Semitism in the United States and some of it by seemingly responsible public figures and politicians who should know better. Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D, SC), for example, implied that President Bush initiated the war on terror in order to appease Jews.

While anti-Semitism in the United States is not at the levels it had been in the 1930s, it still exists. In November 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Anti-Semitism briefing report (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/081506campusantibrief07.pdf) that said, “Indeed, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism flourish on college campuses because of the energetic focus of a determined minority and their willingness to dedicate themselves to this cause.” If that was and is the case, we don’t need to wonder that the attitudes of people who have been subjected to academic precepts of anti-Semitism made to sound intellectual will become anti-Semites themselves.

But according to the Commission, it is a small group of determined activists that foment anti-Semitism on campus. And who is it that leads political groups? Small groups of determined activists.

One of the Commission’s major findings is that “The assault on Jewish nationalism is embedded in the ideology of the left” and that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." As was pointed out above, Lieberman strongly supports Israel.

Former Soviet dissident and Israeli government official Natan Sharansky stated that “One of the major difficulties in grappling with the new anti-Semitism is the ease with which it can be denied. Unlike in the past, post-modern anti-Semitism no longer exclusively involves such phenomena as violence against the Jews, sporting swastikas and burning synagogues. While these phenomena do indeed exist and are even increasing, especially in Europe, today they form only part of the problem.”

So, is opposition to Lieberman anti-Semitism camouflaged as politics or is it legitimate political opposition? It’s probably both. There is no doubt Lieberman has, overall, a liberal voting record. But liberal-versus-conservative voting records are hard to measure; the big issues for the left over the past year have been the war in Iraq, the presidential election and health care. Lieberman has, at times, opposed the left on all three.

Just as Lieberman has taken principled stands to oppose the left, it is fair to say that many on the left are taking principled stands in opposing Lieberman. Some of that opposition may be anti-Semitism camouflaged in principle and some, when it is expressed with venom and rancor, may not be camouflaged but blatant anti-Semitism.

The conclusion? It’s worrisome.

Link to original...

Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem: "The Baby Jesus is a Cure for Pride"

Dear Brothers and Sisters,


"While they were [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger." (Luke 2:6-7)

On behalf of the Child of Bethlehem, born in the shelter of a poor cave, and on behalf of many children, like him, born homeless and in refugee camps, I wish to welcome you with the very words the angels spoke to the shepherds: "I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. And this is the token for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger" (Luke 2: 10 to 12). We hope for this to happen again in the today that belongs to God, starting from this city and this cave and the manger towards which we will, in a moment, carry the divine child in procession!

Read full article...

Cenacle Site Defaced with Graffitti in Jerusalem

g.s.) - For the past few nights in Jerusalem, someone has been contriving to sow the seeds of hatred in Christian Sion hill.

The quiet neighbourhood just south-west of the walls that surround old Jerusalem is home to the Church of the Dormition, the Cenacle, and the adjoining Franciscan friary where five friars live.

When he left the friary yesterday morning, the guardian friar, Father Enrique Bermejo, found the door covered with abusive graffiti (see the photo), in English and Hebrew, against Christians. The kindest words invited them to leave. Every night the door is also used as a urinal.

Tired of supporting this in silence, the friars decided to make these facts public - especially as, on the night between 9th and 10th December, an anonymous hand wrote in Hebrew Mawet lanotsrim, "Death to Christians" with a black spray on the perimeter wall of the Church of the Dormition, corresponding to the apse. The words were erased in a few hours (at noon they had already disappeared) after the Custos of the Holy Land had complained to the Israeli authorities.

The building with the room of the Cenacle was once where the Custos of the Holy Land and the first friars lived. They were evicted in 1551 when the building was converted into a mosque to honour a grave which is believed to be the tomb of King David.

For this reason the area is considered sacred by Muslims and Jews alike. A Jewish religious school (yeshiva) has also occupied part of the complex for some time now. The Franciscans however, have never ceased claiming ownership of the premises and today the question is included in the ongoing talks between Israel and the Holy See.

Link to original...