A Lunchtime Rant: Ohm on the Range

userpic=divided-nationEarlier today, a politically conservative friend of mine posted the following cartoon from Legal Insurrection:

Sourced from https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/branco-cartoon-love-trumps-hate/
 

My initial reaction is the situation pictured will be about as successful as the “Hate Obama/Clinton” strategy was for the Republicans in 2016.

I’ll let that sink in a minute.

But seriously, the picture highlighted a problem and perception that I have with our progressive, resistance movement. Far too many of us are just as knee-jerk in our hatred of Trump as the Conservative side was of Obama. Look at the memes from groups like Occupy Democrats making fun of Trump. Look at the posts on Pantsuit Nation with people in fear of Trump. As you read memes from our progressive groups, ask yourself if they are the same types of memes you might be seeing from the Conservative side against Obama or Hillary. Hell, you’re still seeing them from that side against Hillary.

An aside to any Conservative reading this: We’ve given up on Hillary; you should too, and let her fade back into the historical record.

We are better than that. I like to think that liberals and progressives are well educated and critical thinkers (which is why we’re liberals and progressives). I like to think that we have in-depth knowledge of the issues; that we take the time to learn the nuances and complications before we tweet. We shouldn’t need to sink to sophomoric name calling, fat shaming, slut shaming, ad hominem attacks, and all the other silliness that I see.

The issues in the upcoming elections are critical not only to our nation, but to the world. They are complicated issues — health care, climate change, treatment of women and minorities, religious freedom, equality, economic class warfare, and much more. I like to believe we have the better positions. I like to believe that we can represent and discussion those positions, and win based on the strength of our arguments — even in the face of conspiracy theorists. Certainly, in a fact based discussion, we can demolish Trump’s position and expose them for what they really are, and who they do and do not benefit.

If our platform for 2018 and beyond is simply hatred of Donald Trump, we’ve lost. We’ve let partisanship eclipse our intelligence and common sense. Let’s win the upcoming election season not by dropping down to the level of hatred, but by rising up to the level of intelligent political discourse where we take the time to listen to the other side, and use our intelligence and critical thinking to refute their arguments and to convince them of the correctness of our positions.

Hatred never wins. Well, except when you manipulate the electoral college and district boundaries.

Share

Girth Certificate? Really?

userpic=trumpEver since the report came out on the President’s health, the liberal groups I read have been in an uproar? “How could it be true”, they ask. “They’ve got to be lying about his weight — I demand to see a girth certificate“, they jest, while posting pictures comparing the President to athletes.

C’mon folks. As they say, “get a life”. This is a distraction, a diversion. There are more important things to focus on. Consider:

  • Does it really make a difference if the President is obese, other than to make fun of him? They say, when he sits around the White House, he sits around the White House.
  • As for mental health: Be careful what you ask for. Although a President with mental impairment does make a case for invoking clause 4 of the 25th Amendment, that likely wouldn’t happen anyway, and I hope you’re not wishing that the leader of the free world is crazy. Perhaps you’re scared that maybe he isn’t crazy and knows exactly what he is doing. I find that a lot scarier, given what he is doing. Further, passing a mental acuity test doesn’t mean he has the right skillset to be President, or that he has sound judgement, which is different than smarts. Mental tests don’t judge personality issues or things like self-aggrandizement or narcissism.

As I noted, the health issue is a diversion, a focus of our attention away from issues like DACA, the President’s racism, and the potential illegal, impeachable acts that are being investigated by Mueller. Don’t let yourself be distracted.

Share

I Can Deal With The Shit, It’s The Farts That Wear Me Down….

userpic=trumpOne of my favorite quotes from William Mulholland serves as the title of this post, “I can deal with the shit, it’s the farts that wear me down.”. He said it about endless lawsuits over the LA Aqueduct construction, but it equally apropos to the current shitstorm in Washington DC.

Folks: The issue isn’t whether Trump said shithole or shithouse, or that he used profanity at all. Listen to the Nixon tapes. He swore. The issue is the racism underlying what he said. I had a link that explained this well in a recent post. In short, he was indicating that people from a particular region — predominately black and brown — were not welcome in the US, while people from another region — predominately white — were. That’s racism. He wasn’t looking at individuals and their particular skills, health, or other attributes. He was making a blanket statement based on stereotypes of origin.

What prompted me to write this post was another article I saw today exploring how Trump is serving to make explicit the formerly racist subtext, and how a particular segment is responding to those dog whistles. It had a particularly cogent conclusion that bears repeating:

It’s possible to take a “rule of law” attitude toward unauthorized immigration while welcoming legal immigrants (though most Americans who are exercised about the first also oppose the second). It’s possible to support lower legal immigration, on balance, to the US, without caring much about where those immigrants come from.

It’s possible to support “merit-based immigration” as a way to affirmatively select each individual allowed to settle in the US, and oppose forms of immigration — including family-based migration, humanitarian migration, and the diversity visa — that have any criteria other than an individual’s accomplishments.

The problem is that some of the people who espouse all those attitudes are consumed, at heart, by the fear that the America they know is being lost or in danger of being lost. They believe that America has a distinctive and tangible culture, and that too much immigration from cultures that are too different will dilute or drown it; they may even worry about a cultural “invasion.”

This is an anxiety born of xenophobia. It accepts as a premise that people who come to America from certain places “don’t assimilate,” and concludes that there are some groups of people who cannot ever be fully American.

The policy aims of restrictionism can be negotiated and legislated — even as the extent to which they’re underpinned by racism will inevitably be part of the debate. It’s almost unimaginably hard to figure out a way to “end chain migration” that would both pass Congress and avoid a collapse of the immigration system, but it’s still a discussion that can happen.

You can’t negotiate with people who believe that an America that lets in people from “shithole countries” isn’t the America they know or love. Either America is a nation of immigrants or it is a nation of blood and soil.* It cannot be both.

To me, in the end, it is a question of power. Why won’t Puerto Rico be admitted as a state? Because it would vote Democratic, and thus dilute Republican power. That’s a political equation that goes back to the Civil War, where a slave state could be admitted only if paired with a free one for balance. Similarly, why don’t the Republicans want to admit minorities? Because they believe they would vote (when they become citizens) in such as way as to dilute their power base, in such a way that is a threat to the caucasian male privileged leadership positions they possess. And thus, racism and hatred of the other are embraced because it keeps them in the swamp. Drain the swamp? Hell, they are the swamp.

If you want to get rid of the swamp, the answer is not to drain it, but to dilute it with fresh water. Bring in new blood, new ideas, and embrace the diversity of thought and solutions. Try things that haven’t been tried. That is what immigration — from all over the world — brings to this nation, and we have shown with our growth the power that diversity can bring.

————————
From Wikipedia: Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden) is a slogan expressing the nineteenth-century German idealization of a racially defined national body (“blood”) united with a settlement area (“soil”). By it, rural and farm life forms are not only idealized as a counterweight to urban ones, but are also combined with racist and anti-Semitic ideas of a sedentary Germanic-Nordic peasantry as opposed to (specifically Jewish) nomadism. The contemporary German concept Lebensraum, the belief that the German people needed to reclaim historically German areas of Eastern Europe into which they could expand, is tied to it. “Blood and soil” was a key slogan of Nazi ideology.

Share

Transitive Hate

userpic=trumpDo you remember how, in high school, you learned that if a=b and b=c then a=c? Do you remember learning that what you say is important, because your words often reflect your innermost beliefs? Today, you need to put that learning into action.

I do not care where you are on the political spectrum. I do not care what your personal position might be on financial, immigration, or any of the myriad policy discussions floating around right now. If you do not believe that your Senator or your Congresscritter must push for a resolution to censure, condemn, or otherwise reprimand the President for his language today, then you are guilty of holding the same racist, sexist, and hateful beliefs that are espoused by this man.

We’re all aware of the President, on tape (before he was President) talking about how he behaves towards women.

We’re all aware of the President, on tape (during the campaign) mocking the disabled.

We’re all aware of the President saying America is “going to hell” because the NFL defended openly gay player.

We’re all aware of what happened in Charlottesville, where he implied support for the antisemitism of the marchers.

But today … today …  Growing frustrated while discussing immigration with lawmakers in the Oval Office, President Trump suddenly asked why people from “shithole countries come here” — referring to people from Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations. He also asked why more people from Norway don’t come here. (ref: Buzzfeed, Vox, Los Angeles Times)

Just unpack that. We need more white Nordic people. We need fewer people that look like shit (i.e., coming out of a shithole, i.e., brown and black). That is so incredibly racist, especially in this day and age. It harkens back to the worst of America — the treatment of the Irish, Italians, Jews, and other minorities. It harkens back to the attitudes used to incite Germany against foreigners and those who are not Christian. It is language that in multi-cultural American must be universally and soundly condemned. This is not how our President talks. This must not be how our President thinks. The President is not the President of White Christian American, but of all America, and he is bound by law and oath to follow the principles of equality enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

The President’s speech is not an impeachable offense. However, offensive speech demands a response, rebuttal, and accountability. Every American must demand that their representative introduce / publicly support a resolution stating that such speech does not represent America, and is not appropriate to be said by a President of this nation. It must say that such speech — from the President — is unacceptable, and does not reflect the views of Congress or America.

Any representative or senator that does not condemn what has been said, by the law of transitivity, in my eyes is considered to hold the same view. I hope that you view them similarly, and that on election day (if not before) you remember this behavior.

[ETA, with a hat tip to Jay L.: This echoes what I say above, as well as giving the background of why censure is the appropriate response.]

Share

2017: In Which “The Me Generation” Earns Its Name

userpic=trumpAs I look back at 2017, not surprisingly, I’m dismayed by … Donald Trump. That’s probably not a surprise. Trump is a salesman in every sense of the word — and a great one at that — promising a lot of stuff to a lot of people. They buy the car and drive off the lot, satisfied in the deal they received. Only a few months after buying the car they discover it was held together by spit and duct tape, and that the promises weren’t quite what they seemed. This tax bill will be a great example of that. A large number of people — primarily those in areas that didn’t support Trump — get hurt immediately. Others benefit, but only for a few short years because their benefits expire after Trump leaves office. Why do they expire? Because without the expiration, they will balloon the deficit to unacceptable levels (this being done by the party that supposedly was against deficit spending). Other benefits — significant cuts for businesses, and especially for businesses where Trump is doing business — will be permanent.

Trump’s approach on what to do in office appears to boil down to the following:

  • Do anything he can do to undo Obama’s legacy. If Obama did it, he wants to undo it, whatever “it” is.
  • Do anything he can to please his most rabid and strongest base, the people that adore him unquestionably. That means acting in ways that reinforce what they do and what they believe, and constantly dog-whistling messages to them.
  • Do anything he can to please his Republican-party donors and benefit himself personally, as his biggest donor.
  • Do anything he can — in the short term — to make it appear as if promises were fulfilled. If those go away later, that’s someone else’s problem — someone else to blame.

Although he touts “Make America Great Again” (a slogan he trademarked), his actions do not fulfill those words except in the eyes of “America First” Americans. In the eyes of the rest of the world, he is a laughingstock, and he is reducing America’s stature. He is permitting non-democratic countries to become the world leaders, especially China. He is playing to the hands of thugs and dictators, and arguably increasing the risk of war. But within America, America is great if you say it is and act like it is, and downplay any attempts to tell a different story. That’s a propaganda win.

It has also been a win for selfishness. Our society has become increasingly selfish. From the growth of the selfie and the focus on MEEEE in the picture (and away from the others in the world we love), to a tax plan that people only look at from how it benefits or hurts them personally, we no longer think of the others in the world. We no longer seem to care how others are affected. We no longer think long term and think about hidden implications and impacts. If it benefits me personally now, it’s good, and that’s good enough. That’s a dangerous, self-serving attitude.

I do think this is a great country, and I hope we can survive Trump’s administration — however long it is — and we can recover afterwards. We’ve had populist demagogues before — witness Andrew Jackson. We’ve had idiots in the office. We’ve had corrupt Presidents. Somehow, we’ve survived. But during their terms, was the ride ever bumpy; further, the office was less international and there was less risk of instigating global catastrophe.

If I had a wish for 2018, it would be for sanity to return to politics. Legislation should not be passed on strict party lines. That’s what doomed the ACA because of the seeming single-sidedness. That’s what increases the hatred of the 2017 tax reform. Politicians must work to find a middle ground that can create broader acceptance. Give on some areas, gain on others, for the sake of the Nation as a whole.

In other words, America can only regain its greatness when what is put first is not Trump’s personal interests, not the personal interests of the Republican (or Democratic) leadership,  and not what benefits the political party and its donors. Even putting the “notion” of America first — that is, the flag, the symbols — isn’t the answer. It is not putting first the ideas of the 1700s and 1800s of Christianity first, of White Men first, of women and people of color as chattel, of those different from us as bad and the source of all evil.

What will help America regain its greatness is to put the American people first — and that’s ALL the American people and all future Americans — the full range of skin colors, genders, orientations, and religion. It is the full ranges of birth places: those born here and those born abroad who want to work hard and tie their destiny to this nation.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t how our leaders of 2017 acted, and come 2018, they are going to be so fired.

Share

Collateral Damage / Thinking Only of Myself

userpic=trumpWhile eating lunch today, I’ve been reading FB and the LA Times. The LA Times had a really really interesting article about all the production and support people that have been hurt financially in the fallout of all these sex scandals. On FB, there was an Occupy Democrats meme about how Congress should stop all legislation until the Russia scandals are investigated and resolved.  Both are related to collateral damage.

Websters defines collateral damage as ” injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation.” We’ve been seeing a lot of non-military collateral damage of late, and if you think about it, it is often caused by people being selfish and thinking only of themselves:

  • In these Hollywood sex scandals, actors, producers, and directors — i.e., men in power — are selfish about their sexual desires and impose themselves unwanted on others. When this catches up with them and they get fired, their productions in progress are shut down. There is disruption in production, and uncertainty and stress in production companies. These people — from the makeup artists to the script copyists to the food and craft services to the camera operators — they did nothing wrong. They have been planning their lives on a steady job that goes down because of a dick. That’s unfair collateral damage.
  • In Washington DC, this plays out another way. Congress works to serve its donors and the specific small core that gives them the edge in primaries, because they know party loyalty will do the rest. This tax bill is a great example. It serves the wealthy corporate donors quite well — and directly — and serves the self-interest of the Congress-critters by keeping them in office. It is you and I that are the collateral damage. A coworker on my van estimated that with the proposed changes in the tax code, his tax bill will go up $11,000. The citizens in high tax states are collateral damage. The middle class are collateral damage. The poor are collateral damage. Schoolteachers and graduate students are collateral damage. That’s unfair.
  • Thinking of a STOP WORK in Congress or letting the government shut down? That hurts loads of people, from the direct government employees to the contractors, from those depending on government checks to those providing health services. All have plans thrown in disarray, all have their lives in turmoil, because of political children thinking only about their political self-interest and not the people they work for.
  • At the Presidential level, we have a clear example of a President who is only thinking about his self-interest, not caring about collateral damage. Obama snubbed him in some way, so he’ll undo everything Obama did — right or wrong. Who cares who is screwed, as long as the short-term glory goes to … you know who. We have the undoing of regulations to help industries that praise him, never mind the collateral damage to the people (environmental regulations are a great example of this). We have taunting and pissing matches over twitter, making the world arguably more dangerous. All because of someone with inflated self interest.

When we look at how are are commanded to behave in the various moral codes in the world, there is one commonality: a concern about others in the community. Do not put a stumbling block before the blind. Do unto others. Welcome the stranger.

We have become a society obsessed with self — something Noel Paul Stookey predicted a long time ago would happen. We’re obsessed with the selfie; with film cameras, we primarily took pictures of others. We’re obsessed with our self interest at work and in life: how does this benefit me?

Even if we don’t reach the level of asking how our actions might benefit others, we should at least take the small step of thinking about how our actions might impact others. Before you grab that pussy, ask yourself: If I got fired or divorced because of this, who would be hurt? Before you vote in favor of that tax bill, ask yourself: who will be hurt if this passes? Thinking about the negative impacts of your actions is just as important as thinking about the positive ones, if not even more important.

Share

Pardon Me

userpic=trumpAs I read all the discussions around Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio, a few articles keep sticking in my head:

  • The Power to Pardon. First, to set the context, listen to this excellent TrumpConLaw podcast on the Pardon Power. In short, the President can pardon whomever he wants, but only for Federal crimes, only after the crime has been committed, and it can’t be a pardon from impeachment. Most Presidents (and Trump isn’t “most Presidents”) pardon on the recommendation of the Justice Department, only after some jail time has been served, and for the controversial ones, as their last action as President before they leave so they don’t have to suffer the political ramifications. But, as I noted, Trump isn’t “most Presidents”. He’ll get to deal with the fall out.
  • Why He Did It? (Take One). Vox has an interesting explanation of why he did it: To send a message that the enforcement of law and order takes priority over the actual laws. Arpaio was convicted of violating civil rights in order to enforce his interpretation of law and order, which is congruent with Trump’s interpretation. Or, as Vox put it, “Joe Arpaio recognized the fundamental truth of Trump’s worldview even before Trump did: that promising “law and order,” and protection from social disorder in the form of unauthorized immigration and street crime, didn’t require you to actually adhere to the rule of law.” This sends message #1 from Trump: “If you are doing what I like, I’ll protect you from the law.”
  • Why He Did It? (Take Two). The LA Times presents a different take on the subject: the Federal Government expects local help on dealing with immigration issues, to the extent they will shield those who violate civil rights to take actions against immigrants. It sent the message that using racial profiling was acceptable in Trump’s book.
  • Why He Did It? (Take Three). The Atlantic captures yet a third message in Trump’s pardon: Contempt for judges and the rule of law. As the Atlantic writes: “The Arpaio case was the very integrity of the federal judiciary. He was not convicted of an ordinary crime, but of deliberately disobeying a federal court order and lying about that; but beyond that, during the litigation that led to his conviction for criminal contempt, he hired a private detective to investigate the wife of a federal judge hearing a case against his office. Any judge can understand the threat posed by law enforcement personnel who seek to strike back at judges and their families, perhaps for purposes of blackmail or revenge—and the deep arrogance of a president who regards such behavior as praiseworthy. In fact, since even before the election, Trump has brandished his hostility to judges almost as aggressively as his disregard of racial decency. When federal district Judge Gonzalo Curiel was assigned the Trump University civil fraud case, Trump attacked the Indiana-born Curiel in front of a campaign rally as “Mexican” and “a total disgrace.” When Judge James Robart (a George W. Bush appointee) of the District of Washington enjoined the first version of Trump’s “travel ban,” Trump on Twitter dismissed Robart as a “so-called judge” and told his supporters “If something happens blame him and court system.”  When another District Judge enjoined his “sanctuary cities” defunding order, Trump publicly threatened to break up the Ninth Circuit. When a terror cell carried out a car attack in Barcelona earlier this month, Trump immediately zeroed in on the “travel ban” case, now pending before the Supreme Court: “The courts must give us back our protective rights,” he tweeted. Every indication is that Trump will respond to an adverse Supreme Court ruling on any important issue with a full-throated assault on the court and on the very idea of judicial independence. That the court’s majority is conservative and Republican won’t matter.”

In short, the simple takeaway is this: As President, Trump has the authority to pardon whomever he wants for a Federal crime. Once pardoned, one cannot un-pardon. However, the President has to deal with the fallout of his actions, and this will add to Trump’s shedding of any discretionary supporters. All that will be left is the hard-core (“rabid”?) base of those that place ideology and hatred of “the other” over the laws of this country. Trump never had any progressive support, and those who were supporting him for fiscal conservatism are coming to realize that there are better ways to achieve their goals, and better politicians to back to do so.

Share

Parallel Divides

userpic=divided-nationReading through my Facebook feed today, an article from Haaretz caught my eye: ‘Religion-hating Gangsters’: Israeli Orthodox Vitriol Toward Reform Jews Escalates Amid Kotel Crisis.  As the article is a premium article (meaning if you don’t come in right, it is behind a paywall), I’ll quote from it a bit more than I normally would:

“Inappropriate and insolent.” That’s how Rabbi Abraham Gordimer, a member of the Rabbinical Council of America and the New York Bar, dubbed Reform Jewish protests against the government’s decision to freeze plans for a pluralistic prayer space at the Western Wall.

Rabbi Gordimer’s comments, published on the right-leaning Arutz Sheva website in English, were mild compared to the wave of bile heaped upon the followers of Reform Judaism in Israel’s right-wing Hebrew press. Readers would have been forgiven for forgetting that the government itself had approved the plan last year after four years of negotiations brokered by Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky.

Far-right lawmaker Betzalel Smotrich (Habayit Hayehudi) accused the Reform movement of “dragging Diaspora Jews into a fight.” He said responsibility for the crisis lay with “a small fringe group of a few dozen activists in the Israeli Reform movement. They don’t care about the right of an individual to pray according to his beliefs.”

A profile of Reform leader Rick Jacobs in Israel’s Maariv daily newspaper and the NRG website portrayed him as an “extreme left,” pro-BDS “gangster” as one of the many Israelis who circulated the story on social media described him. A commentary on Channel 20 accused him of being a “selective Zionist” and creating a platform for anti-Semitic propaganda.

[…]

Non-Orthodox Jews were depicted as outsiders with no legitimate say in what should or shouldn’t happen at the Western Wall or in Israel at large.

[…]

Anti-Reform sentiment runs deep among Israel’s Orthodox leadership. At the Haaretz conference earlier this month, lawmaker Moshe Gafni of United Torah Judaism explained why he could not align with left-wing parties even though he found them “more intelligent” than their counterparts on the right. “Why don’t I go with the left? Because you sit with the Reform,” he said.

Last month, Rabbi Meir Mazuz, head of Yeshivat Kashei Rachamim, compared Reform Jews to pigs in his weekly sermon. “They are not Jews,” he said.

Rabbi Michael Marmur, provost of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem, said there has long been among some streams of the Orthodox movement “a long history of looking at the Reform movement as a boogey man and a tendency to blame Reform for all the heinous things in the world.”

“As we make more inroads into the conversation about what Israel should look like, there is an inflationary spiral in the rhetoric,” he said. “The vitriol you see expressed is in direct proportion to us trying to make a stand. We are wheeled out as the enemy, as traitors. The article about Rick Jacobs is a classic example. If Reform Jews and the Reform movement he represents are understood as a dagger in the back, as a fifth column, then the problem is neutralized.”

As I read through this, I was struck by the parallels in the rhetoric that I have seen — and continue to see — from what I would characterize as many in the far right — the ardent Trump supporters. Further, given the very un-Presidential tweet of an animation showing our President* beating up and bloodying the mainstream media, personified by CNN, I dare to say that this is rhetoric I’ve seen from our President himself.

From my very Conservative friends on my Facebook feed, I have seen posts making the same claims about Liberals that the Orthodox make about Reform. Read the quote above and replace the sentiment with Liberals, and it will sound familiar. “They are not Americans”.  There is “a long history of looking at the Liberal movement as a boogey man and a tendency to blame Liberals for all the heinous things in the world.” “Liberals are wheeled out as the enemy, as traitors. The article about [insert your Democratic candidate] is a classic example. If the Democratic Party and the Liberal/Progressive movement he represents are understood as a dagger in the back, as a fifth column, then the problem is neutralized.” As to why moderate Republicans might not work with the Democrats? Lawmaker [insert name here] of the Republican Party explained why he could not align with left-wing parties even though he found them “more intelligent” than their counterparts on the right. “Why don’t I go with the left? Because you sit with the Liberals/Progressives,”

It sounds far too familiar. Yet from Reform Jews towards Orthodoxy, just as from Liberals towards Conservatives, I don’t see the same level of hatred or divide. There is the willingness to accept the diversity of opinion, to recognize that we can agree to disagree. Reform Jews don’t characterize Orthodox as the source of all problems in Judaism, just as Liberals do not  characterize all Conservatives as the source of all problems in America. (Well, most don’t).

If this country is to move forward and not split apart, we must learn to see people as people and not the abstract enemy that we hate. Separation and hatred plays to activist bases, but doesn’t solve problems. Unfortunately, we may never get past this if the leadership of the parties do not set the example. If our leaders cannot work together, how can the people ever have a hope of doing the same. My voice is insignificant — I’m represented by congresscritters and senators that already feel as I feel. I’d urge those supporting the President to urge him to act Presidential, to remember that he is the President of the entire country, not just the minority of the voters that voted for him. But, alas, even as congressional leadership urges that, he is ignoring it.

Almost 27 years ago I started the Liberal Judaism Mailing List to provide a place where people from different Jewish movements could discussion issues in an environment where we respected each others as Jews and didn’t let movemental affiliation impact that respect.  Fundamental to that discussion was the notion that saying lies or propagating myths about the other side is essentially Lashon Horah, propagation of gossip and lies. Through hard moderation, we were able to keep a positive dialog going for a long time. Why can’t, as Americans, we do the same?

As we approach this July 4th, we must remember that the original motto of this country was not “In God We Trust”, and there wasn’t an emphasis on pushing Christianity on the people (the only reference to religion in the Constitution was the fact that there shouldn’t be a religious test for office holders). Rather, the original motto was, E Pluribus Unum, “From Many, One”. It is the many voices that came together to make this nation strong, not one voice stomping out all the others.

*: Yes, our President. Whether you voted for him or not, he is President of this  country. The fact that he doesn’t act very Presidential, as someone people can respect and model behavior after, is a different issue.

Share