What’s in a choice? Options. In order to make a choice, you must have options. As descendants of those who fled religious persecution, many of our forefathers understood the importance of options and the power of choice. That’s why they guaranteed our right to freely exercise religion in the first amendment. I think we can all agree that’s a good thing.

I read an article the other day that I can’t get out of my mind about reproductive care in Catholic hospitals. As @JillFilipovic reports on Al Jazeera America:

Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the “spiritual responsibility” of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of women’s health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited — sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).

Some other particularly disturbing accounts from the article:

Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman, had a different, more terrifying experience. Her water broke at 18 weeks, too early for the fetus to be likely to survive. A friend drove her to the closest hospital, a Catholic facility where medical providers told Means the baby would probably not live, but they refused to terminate her pregnancy. She went back a second time and was sent home, despite being at risk of infection and in excruciating pain. The third time she went back, this time bleeding, in pain, running a fever and suffering from an infection from a miscarriage in progress, she was again directed to go home. She went into labor while filling out hospital discharge paperwork. Only then did hospital employees begin to attend to her. She delivered, and the very premature infant died shortly thereafter.

In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospital’s emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospital’s administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.

As a 25-year-old woman, who went to a Catholic hospital only a few hours prior to reading that article, it really resonated. I immediately recalled how the woman checking me in had asked if I’d disclose my religious affiliation — I declined. And upon further reflection I realized that my general practitioner/gynecologist’s office was a part of the same Catholic healthcare system as the hospital. At no point was I informed by my doctor that seeking care at a Catholic facility could affect my access to care.

In outrage, I shared this with a friend. She responded, ”I agree that it’s poor healthcare practice, though I do think private hospitals should have the right to make such management choices….just as I think Catholic or Jewish schools can rightfully teach religion and god in a manner that would be completely unacceptable in public school.” Her school analogy challenged my initial gutteral rage reaction, transforming it into thinking. I must say that it also helped that my friend concluded our email with the prompt, “What do you think?”

 Options and choices

When there’s a choice in the matter (a choice defined by the existence of economically and logistically viable options), I don’t really have a problem with the dogma. If parents or children don’t like the way religion is taught at a private school, they’re free to choose a public alternative (even if the quality of education is worse). In this scenario, parents/children can weigh their options and make the best decision for them. If they choose to attend the private school that teaches a religion different than their own, that’s their choice. They are free to choose the imposition.

With hospitals, I don’t think that these options exist. When the only option is a regional hospital and that hospital has a religious affiliation that prevents its staff from offering certain services, patients are left with no choice but to abide by the rules of a religion they may not even believe in — and with concrete consequences to their health. I think that’s tyranny.

And it’s not just a rural vs. urban thing either. The power dynamic between hospital and patient is different than that between school and child/parent. If a school isn’t good for a child, the parent can transfer the kid to another school – and the parent/child can actually take time to weigh the decision and explore other options. When somebody’s bleeding to death, the only option is the closest hospital. And once the person walks (or is carried) through the hospital doors, they are going to get treated at that hospital.

For instance, if harm befalls a pregnant woman and she’s taken by an ambulance or whomever to the nearest hospital that happens to be Catholic, she literally has no other option but the Catholic hospital. And then if there’s some complication where it’s save the mother vs. save the baby and the mother is not offered lifesaving options due to the hospital’s religious beliefs, that is an infringement upon her religious rights.

 Freedom of religion

Inherent in the freedom to exercise one’s religion is the right to NOT exercise a religion. And in the case of religious hospitals, the religious institution is trampling the right of the individual to not follow the doctrine of a religion he/she doesn’t believe in – and in life and death situations.

I just don’t think hospitals should have religious rights. Perhaps unless they’re exclusively serving those that ascribe to their religious doctrine. If only practicing Catholics were tended to by the Catholic hospitals and then denied certain care that’s deemed anti-Catholic, that’d be a different story. Their religion, their choice. Not tyranny. On the other hand, when the hospital follows its religion to the detriment of its non-religious patient and doesn’t allow the patient to make the tough ethical call, then I strongly feel that that’s the exact type of tyranny our forefathers were trying to avoid with the 1st amendment.

Also what about the ethical implications for non-Catholic doctors, nurses, etc. who work at Catholic hospitals? Surely not all who work at Catholic hospitals are Catholic…

I definitely don’t hate religion, and I understand the need for certain institutions to center the way they run things around a certain religion without fear of reprimand from the government. But where is the balance? What about the individual’s right to follow or not follow a religion?

The post Lesson learned: My Catholic hospital can limit my medical choices appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Chelsea Manning is a patriot. She will go down in history as one of the great Americans of our time. If you have not already, please read her statement. No, not the statement she issued about her decision to transition from a lifetime as Bradley to a future as Chelsea. While that statement is also bold, powerful, and inspiring, it was Manning’s plea for a pardon from President Barack Obama that gave me chills. Chills because of the bravery of this young woman in the face of 35 years of incarceration. Chills because she so deftly puts words to everything that is wrong about how the war on terror has been waged. Chills because she invokes the mistakes of our past so that we may stop repeating them. Chills because she is so willing to give up her freedom so that we can live in a “country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.”

Below is CommonDreams.org’s rush transcript of Manning’s statement, which was read by her attorney, David Coombs, after she was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

‘Sometimes You Have to Pay a Heavy Price to Live in a Free Society’

“The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war.  We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country.  It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing.  It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity.  We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians.  Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture.  We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government.  And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power.  When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps—to name a few.  I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States.  It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people.  When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society.  I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.”

I found Manning’s case to be extremely troubling, not just for the unjust, harsh sentence imposed upon one who leaked classified documents with the purest of intentions, but also because of the implications the case has for free speech and freedom of press in our society. Like journalist Aura Bogado, I too, feel more than a pang of remorse for not paying enough attention to Chelsea’s case, for not speaking out against what I perceive as gross injustice, for not doing enough to support this brave fellow American. Godspeed, Chelsea. May the caged phase of your life be short, and may freedom come swiftly. I will write you.

For those interested in sending letters to Chelsea, the address is below:

Bradley E. Manning 89289 1300 N. Warehouse Road Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-2304

The post Chelsea Manning is a patriot appeared first on Occasional Planet.

While waiting for a connecting flight in the Dallas, Texas, airport, I witnessed a woman turn to a man and ask him to watch her luggage so she could go peruse about some of the shops. The man answered in playful banter, “Well, as long as you’re not a terrorist…” The woman laughed and replied in her Southern accent, “No, it’s okay, I’m Israeli.” The two chuckled, and the woman, who was not an Israeli, but an American, named the US location she was actually from. The topic changed, and the woman got her dose of pre-flight shopping. I balked.

Yes, this actually happened.

In about 15 seconds, this exchange summed up the extreme bias apparent in US mainstream media and discourse on the topic of Israel and Palestine. “No, it’s okay, I’m Israeli” as an answer to “Are you a terrorist?” exposes the subconscious notion harbored by many Americans:  that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim are interchangeable terms that all equal “terrorist”.

If more Americans knew the reality of life in the West Bank or Gaza, they might just be whistling a different tune.

Terror, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

Let’s examine the events of December 12^th, when a teenage boy was shot dead at a checkpoint near the West Bank city of Hebron. When demonstrators gathered to protest the controversial, premature death of seventeen-year-old Muhammad Ziad Awad Salaymah, they were met with live rounds of ammunition and tear gas, in the country that labels itself the most democratic nation in the Middle East. In the same story Al Jazeera reported that it is commonplace for “Israeli soldiers [to] use rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas bombs and stun grenades against non-violent protesters in the West Bank – in addition to spraying them with water mixed with chemicals. These tactics have led to the injuries of hundreds and even several deaths among protesters.”

Concerned for the safety of innocent civilians in Gaza, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon spoke of the most recent wave of violence to break out between Israel and Hamas this past November. By the time a ceasefire was reached “more than 139 Palestinians had been killed, more than 70 of them civilians, and more than 900 were injured. In addition, some 10,000 Palestinians had lost their homes.” To the grieving family members who lost loved ones or homes, and to those whose lives have been forever altered by a debilitating injury, the Israeli military is the terrorist.

While I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, one can hardly call peaceful protesters in the West Bank a threat to Israeli existence. “Shoot first, ask later” tactics at checkpoints also serve no peace-keeping purpose, but rather spark outrage and increase tensions in an already tense region. And shelling such a densely populated area as Gaza when Israel has the resources and technology to carry out targeted assassinations with drones, mass killings of civilians are not self-defense.

In a 2009 statement, the Secretary of Press boasted of President Obama’s pro-Israel stance, quoting Obama’s speech before the United Nations, “the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance – it’s injustice.”

It should also be said that “the slaughter of innocent Palestinians is not self-defense – it’s injustice.”

Who starts the peace process?

Again, US impressions of who must begin the peace process are skewed in favor of Israel.

Many Americans rightly wonder, “How can you negotiate with an entity that has sworn your destruction?” as did this Baltimore Sun reader in his response to an editorial stating that perhaps the successful statehood bid would make Israel resume the peace process. He asserted that, “The pressure should be on the Palestinians and Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself from constant aggression by the Palestinians.”

Bill Maher boasted a similar opinion in an interview with Jewish Journal’s blog Hollywood Jew.

HJ: Why are you more on the side of Israelis?

BM: Take this conflict; here, everyone in the newspapers, the pundits, they talk about it like it’s very complicated. It’s not that complicated: Stop firing rockets into Israel and perhaps they won’t annihilate you.”

While I agree that Hamas needs to stop firing rockets into Israel, both Halikman and Maher’s gross oversimplifications ignore the realities of systematic Israeli aggression against Palestinians. Like the majority of American citizens and politicians, they fail to ask equal questions of Israel.

They confuse the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, but more than anything, they willfully woefully ignore the baseline inequality between Israeli and Palestinian existence.

What’s fair is fair

The West Bank and Gaza are territories. One lives under occupation and the other under blockade. The Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, “governs” the West Bank to the extent that it can, although it does not have control of its borders and does not collect and distribute its own taxes. Hamas, the group that rules in Gaza, is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization rather than a legitimate source of authority, although some Israeli columnists propose that this assessment change.

Israel, meanwhile, is a full-fledged nation. Please note that because Israel is exclusively a Jewish State, Palestinians living in Israel do not enjoy the full civil rights endowed to their fellow Jewish citizens. Israelis are free to exit and re-enter their nation. Palestinians are not.

Mere existence is a struggle even for Bedouin communities within Israel like Al-Arakib, where families who have lived on the land for years play a constant cat and mouse game as they continue to rebuild the homes the Israeli Lands Administration continues to destroy.

Palestinians in the West Bank are deprived access to water and can face forced illegal eviction at a moment’s notice like the residents of The Firing Zone. Or in Gaza, where people live “free” of occupation, but under a blockade that allows in aid packages containing slightly less calories than the amount each person needs to survive.

Both sides have certainly alternated playing the role of instigator and victim. Both sides have done wrong, but the situation is far from equal.

The largest hold-ups to peace talks have been Israel’s refusal to halt settlement building and Palestine’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s existence. While Palestinian refusal to acknowledge Israel’s existence is a static mindset that is not carried out in action, Israeli settlement building is an action that continues to change the Palestinian landscape and even the viability of a separate Palestinian state.

Forget the rhetoric, and look at what’s happening on the ground. The Palestinian territories are disappearing, and have been disappearing over the past 50 years, as can be seen in the map below.

If given the option to choose between the peace process or continued expansion, which does Israel choose? Immediately after the successful Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, Netanyahu announced plans to move forward developing settlements in the highly contentious E1 section of East Jerusalem, splitting the West Bank in two by separating Ramallah and Bethlehem, and cutting off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem. As the two-state solution envisions East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, settlement development in E1 would serve the final deathblow to the two-state solution.

Does Israel recognize the Palestinian right to exist?

Why do I care about Israel-Palestine?

I’m not Israeli and I’m not Palestinian. I know people on both sides and I consider myself an ally to those pursuing peace and equality. I stand in solidarity with Palestinians seeking their full civil rights and with Israelis yearning for an end to inequality and violence. But I also know that this is not my fight to fight, and not my country’s fight to fight. We have plenty to take care of at home, as the shocking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut has shown us.

Thomas Friedman recently wrote an opinion column in the New York Times entitled “My President is Busy.” Friedman continues, “Soon Americans will be asked to pay more taxes for less government. It’s coming. It will not make us isolationists, but it will change our mood and make us much pickier about where we’ll get involved. That means only a radical change by Palestinians or Israelis will get us to fully re-engage.”

While Mr. Friedman makes an excellent point that once Americans are hit in the wallet, we might look at foreign aid with an enhanced level of scrutiny, his notion of “re-engage”-ing with the topic of Israel-Palestine ignores the US role in the conflict. If we’re speaking about the US public conscience, then yes, only radical changes will bring Israel-Palestine back to the forefront of our political discussions — and the conflict in Gaza and UN Statehood Bid have certainly done that. However, the US is already very much engaged in the conflict. We fund 20% of the Israeli military… with US taxpayer dollars.

So, why should Americans care about the situation in Israel and Palestine? Because we are involved in it.

Our military aid packages to Israel total billions annually (the amount for 2012 was $3 billion) and are dispersed not in installments as they are for all other nations receiving US foreign aid, but in one lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year. Israel is the VIP aid recipient, receiving US taxpayer money not only to purchase (American) weapons to strengthen their military but to also fund research to develop their own weapons industry. Israel is now one of the lead arms exporters in the world. More details about US foreign aid to Israel can be found in the Congressional Report on US Foreign Aid to Israel.

As an American tax-payer, I do not want my tax-payer dollars to go towards bolstering Israeli military strength. Strength that is used to perpetuate an unequal situation. Strength that is used to fire live ammunition at protesters. Strength that is used to shoot teenage “threats” to Israeli existence at checkpoints in the West Bank.

I do not want my tax-payer dollars funding a country that does not hold their soldiers accountable for killing innocent civilians or peaceful US activists like Rachel Corrie, who was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.

How to proceed?

Currently, Americans, or rather our representatives in Washington, must make tough choices about what we fund and what we cut. Instead of cutting funding for social services and entitlements, I would love to hear our Congress call into question the amount of US military aid sent to Israel.

I agree with the stance of many Middle East peace groups in requesting the following in an open letter to President Obama:

“Israel, the biggest long-term recipient of US aid, should not be above the law. Mr. President, please condition US aid to Israel on compliance with US and international law. It must not be used to violate the rights of Palestinians.

Anything less is a danger to Palestinians, to Israelis, to Americans and to the entire world.”

We can’t afford to fund world actors who are acting counter to US interests in the world. Israel, recipient of up to three billion in USAID annually, is continuing to advance policies that harm rather than help our strategic interests in the region and undermine our moral authority. The mission statement of the US Department of State is as follows:

 “Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.”

I think we should re-assess the extent to which our unconditional, no strings attached aid packages to Israel carry out these goals.

We do not solve old problems by approaching them the same way that has failed and continues to fail. We must rejuvenate our approach to issues by trying new tactics. I respect the fact that Mahmoud Abbas pushed the envelope and forced the issue of Palestinian statehood with Israel. The majority of the United Nations thought so as well. And now, South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress has voted to join the BDS movement. The world is beginning to act.

Now is the time for the US to remind Israel of the definition of democracy and perhaps give the necessary nudge towards a lasting peace that empowers all. It’s about time we see some action that reflects the rhetoric about wanting peace. A good friend will tell you what you need to hear, even when you don’t want to hear it. The United States, as Israel’s number one ally, must step into this role, and save Israel not from the Palestinians, but from itself.

The post Tax dollars at work: American foreign aid to Israel appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When my friend who worked in the Obama campaign’s analytics department told me about Project ORCA, I thought he was talking about an environmental initiative to protect marine life. In our post-election, post-elation debrief, Asher relayed to me the stress he felt on election day while monitoring exit poll results. He had observed that Obama supporters were not showing up to the polls at the rates originally projected while more Romney supporters were going to the polls than projected. Upon analyzing the data, however, he found it to be weak as Obama supporters were far less likely to report back. (Collective sigh of relief.) While the Obama campaign’s “Get out to vote” (GOTV) efforts may have shown weak, troublesome data, the mechanism of reporting, analyzing, and utilizing such data worked.

Project ORCA was the Romney campaign’s sophisticated, high-tech poll-monitoring GOTV strategy. When Asher told me about its massive failure, I did not fully understand how it failed or what it’s objective was… that is, until I read the following first hand account from a Romney campaign volunteer: “The Unmitigated Disaster Known as Project Orca.”

While I am extremely happy about the outcome of the election, I can’t help but feel sorry for the tens of thousands of fired up Romney supporters whose energy was under-utilized –dare we say suppressed?—on election day. This failure mirrors the GOP’s go-to tactic of throwing money — rather than people — at an issue.

The post Romney’s Project ORCA: Technology fails, shoe leather wins appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In tonight’s third 2012 Presidential debate, Governor Romney once again referred to President Obama’s diplomatic tour in Spring 2009 as an “apology tour.” He rebuked Obama for “criticizing America” and went on to say:

Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to — to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to — to Turkey and Iraq. And — and by way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.

I visited the transcript of President Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya news network as well as the transcript of his June 4^th, 2009 address to the Muslim world from Cairo. Word searches for “dismissive” and “derisive” yielded no results from either text. Variations on the word “dictate” appeared once in each transcript, although one could hardly characterize the use of the word as an apology for US foreign policy.

When asked by Al-Arabiya’s Hisham Melhem about how he would see his “personal role” in facilitating peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis, President Obama divulged the advice he offered George Mitchell, his personal envoy to the Middle East.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Apology or strategy? You can be the judge. In his Cairo speech, entitled “A New Beginning” used the word “dictating” not to apologize for US policy but to defend religious freedom:

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.

Obama’s speech in Cairo laid out a beautiful dream of peace for the Middle East and the world. He focused on global similarities across cultures and religions, rather than re-enforcing our differences. He apologized for nothing.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

President Obama continued in this same speech to tactfully defend the US invasion of Iraq, while admitting that war is not always the answer.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

President Obama even touted our country’s strong relationship with Israel while addressing the Muslim world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

Ahem, Romney, while he may not have gone to Israel on this tour, he did meet with Netanyahu in May 2009 and visited a concentration camp immediately after his speech in Cairo.

On the subject of a two state solution, Obama said the following:

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

The only thing Obama should be apologizing for is not walking the talk by following through with his idealistic intentions to coordinate peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian parties.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

Had Governor Romney wanted my vote, he could have resurrected this sentiment and brought peace talks back to the US foreign policy agenda… in addition to changing his position on, oh wait, almost everything.

To anybody in need of a dose of idealism and hope for peace, I highly recommend reading the full text of President Obama’s speech, A New Beginning.”

“We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.”

The post No apologies in the so-called “apology tour” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Tensions are running high this election season. Partisan politics have become more divisive and onslaughts of TV campaign ads have become more incisive. Thankfully, we have the wonders of the internet to lighten the mood. More specifically, thank God for Twitter.

Before Twitter, the nationwide response to binders full of women would have been experienced in solitude in living rooms across America, in momentary looks of bewilderment, grimaces, and chuckles. Perhaps a pundit would have recalled the quote and discussed it on air. In this scenario, I would not have laughed as much as I have in the past few days.

Oh, the power of a hash-tag.

Halfway through the debate, internet analysts were shocked to find trending #bindersfullofwomen and a spike in google searches of “binders full of women”. Doug Cronin summed up my evening in a tweet:

Without further ado, I hope you enjoy the world wide web’s finest responses to #bindersfullofwomen as much as I did.\

Everyone is all worked up about #bindersfullofwomen, but I'm most frightened by his attitude that women need to be home by 5 to make dinner.

— Betsey Stevenson (@BetseyStevenson) October 17, 2012

https://twitter.com/BernadttBendik/status/258781454761357312

First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the #bindersfullofwomen.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) October 17, 2012

I'll never forget the day I found my dad's stash of #bindersfullofwomen #debate

— Libraryben (@Libraryben) October 17, 2012

I'd love to see the meeting minutes from that roundtable. #bindersfullofwomen

— David Weller (@dcweller) October 17, 2012

Gosh can't we find some women who are qualified? #bindersfullofwomen

— Irwin Feldman (@IrwinFeldman) October 17, 2012

https://twitter.com/Vittletweet/status/258824184044584960

#BindersFullOfWomen: now that we know where he keeps women, will he soon slip on the whereabouts of the rest of his tax papers?

— Ron Knowles (@reezybbimp) October 18, 2012

https://twitter.com/BlGBlRD/status/258638142272315392

I'll never forget the day I found my dad's stash of #bindersfullofwomen #debate

— Libraryben (@Libraryben) October 17, 2012

For some, the 140 character limit just didn’t cut it. Amazon customer reviews of “Avery Durable View Binders” have become a forum for satire. Hopefully all this commentary will result in more women in high-level positions

The post Best of #bindersfullofwomen appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Dear Congressman Akin: When a man and a woman love each other and decide that the time is right, they call the stork. Nine months later, a little bundle of joy arrives on the happy family’s doorstep. That’s how pregnancy occurs when two consenting adults engage in intercourse, right?

No, Todd Akin, that’s not how it works. Your unfounded remarks about how conception takes place are exactly the reason why politicians should not make medical decisions about a woman’s body. It is extremely disconcerting that somebody like yourself, who clearly has no knowledge about the women’s life cycle, or how pregnancy even occurs, is attempting to legislate my medical decisions.

Let’s talk sex, Mr. Akin. Each month a woman ovulates, meaning that her ovaries release an egg. For a span of approximately 24 hours, that egg, if exposed to a sperm, can be fertilized. The catch is that sperm can live up to a week in a woman’s body. So if a man and a woman have sex, and a sperm enters the womb within a week of ovulation, there is a chance that the intercourse could result in conception. That chance is the same whether the sex is consensual or not.

It would be great if our bodies had some magical emergency valve where if we didn’t want to get pregnant, we wouldn’t. That would likely result in far less abortions than any type of anti-choice legislation conservative law-makers could ever cook up.

However, the female body does not have such a safety mechanism. The stork doesn’t skip over rape victims.

More disconcerting is your bizarre notion of “legitimate” vs. “illegitimate” rape. No means no. I understand that consent can sometimes fall within a gray area, especially when drugs and alcohol are involved. However, when a man or a woman is forced to have sex, against his or her will, he or she has been raped. End of story. The question of legitimacy has no place in this discussion.

Please tell me what an illegitimate rape looks like. “I’m sorry ma’am, it doesn’t seem that you were traumatized enough to make your rape legitimate.” “I’m sorry sir, it seems that the rape you endured wasn’t violent enough to meet our strict standards of legitimacy.” Victims of violent crimes need not be further victimized by our legal system.

Now, how to proceed? I think you should apologize, and acknowledge that you did not merely misspeak but that your remark was completely divorced from fact or science. If you truly want to atone for your remarks, you should back off, and leave our vaginas to the gynecologists. No other medical decisions are legislated. If masturbation or Viagra were illegal, we’d be having a different conversation. People who do not understand the female body should not create legislation that affects it.

The post The truth about sex and pregnancy, as told to Todd Akin appeared first on Occasional Planet.