Voting No On God And Jerusalem

Voting No On God And Jerusalem.

I am not anti-semitic, am not involved in advocating for the Israelis or the Palestinians. I did empathize a little bit with Yasser Arafat, who seemed no match for the mighty Israeli Army. I’ve had friends, several over the years, who served in the Israeli Army. They seemed more sophisticated and cosmopolitan than I could ever hope to be.

I was embarrassed to witness the vote on god and Jerusalem last night at the Democratic Convention. Neither god nor Jerusalem belongs in the party platform. The dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be settled regionally, without U.S. intervention.


About elroyjones

Married, no children, responsibly self-directed, living happily.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Voting No On God And Jerusalem

  1. Peggy says:

    I bet this wasn’t Obama’s idea. He is no friend of Netanyahu – they dislike each other intensely. The U.S. is not the only country becoming more religiously fundamental. In talking about the Israeli settlements, “. . . the military itself is becoming more and more heavily populated by religious Zionists . . . In 1990, only two per cent of the infantry’s officer training corps was religious; now the figure is at forty-two-percent.” Luckily, there are men who served with Sharon who still hold sway and they will not let Netanyahu and his cronies bomb Iran. Netanyahu is as crazy as Ahmadinejad and we have no business backing that country.

    • elroyjones says:

      That explains quite a lot. My good looking Israeli friends, men and women alike, were not religious at all, which I’m sure had a lot to do with their sophistication 25 years ago.

  2. Particularly when you consider the fact that overly religious Christians… like, oh, I don’t know, ex-pres Bush, actually said out loud that they support the state of Israel because whithout it, there can never be an armeggedon and return of Christ. Talk about a cynical, perverted reason for doing something.

  3. I suppose you don’t wear American flag lapel pins either.

  4. How could you help but like Arafat who looked like he just stepped out of the pages of GQ?

  5. Well, you certainly tossed out some red meat here and it will take a great deal more than a comment in a blog to really do some analysis. But I will say this: I think it’s time that party platforms and party conventions went the way of the dinosaur. At one time a gathering was needed to hash out issues and nominate candidates, but in this age of technology, that gathering is nothing more than a gigantic waste of money. However, to be fair, I will add that I do not believe in the two-party system. It does not allow for flexibility on complex issues. What we need are great statesmen and stateswomen who place the needs of the country and indeed the world ahead of their need for election.

    • elroyjones says:

      I agree HF, the binary system does not work for us. I thought tonight, as we watched the hoopla from the convention, that there will be excitement from now until the election. The day after, we’ll wake up and have a president, and the problems will be there minus the glitz, like Ash Wednesday after Mardi Gras. Sadly, I believe the days of public “service” are gone.
      I have a diabolical plan for future campaigns-
      No running for office if you have more than $10k in cash or more than $500k total assets, that includes immediate family and parents per household limit.
      No cash donations from anyone at all; unlimited time donations are allowed.
      No network or cable advertising.
      Debates broadcast on PBS only, on Sunday afternoons.
      Make social networking and the internet work.
      You may not run if you have never worked.

    • Doug says:

      Interestingly, the current POTUS wouldn’t be so, if it had not been for a single speech at one of these anachronistic political wingdings. Which is why I think they still serve a purpose. To showcase up and coming talent. Both down ticket players and young party building behind the scene types.

      And while I agree with you on how the two party system limits alternative options to political angst, I worry, especially, with a non-parliamentary system, that more the merrier may lead to further political tribes with subsequent ideological and regional balkanization. Think debt celling debates with “Palin Particulars” and the “Clean Coal Coalition” chiming in.

      • elroyjones says:

        Yup, I always forget that wanting more and different means very different. Being careful what I wish for.

      • Yeah, good points, but think about this. Historians say we have had only four or five great presidents. Many have been mediocre and many more have been piss poor. So, the system is not working! We are not electing the best and brightest. HF

      • elroyjones says:

        I agree. Corporate imperialism run by an oligarchy is manipulating the vote. I don’t see a change without a social revolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s