Yay (Or Nay) For UN Day!

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings every year when UN Day comes around. There have been so many great things that this institution has accomplished in its history and yet so many things that it continues to get horribly wrong in its current incarnation. If only they could look at what they have done in the past and applied those same virtues to the present the situation would be completely different and many questions regarding its modern viability would be alleviated. My personal opinion (i.e. detest for the current body of politicians) is one that is formed from the current positions that the United Nations has taken but it is also curbed by the things that, historically, this international body has allowed to happen.  

I can’t help but maintain my focus, above all other work being done, on two current issues in which I hold a personal stake in the outcome. The first is the ongoing push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the impact it could have on my rights. In an article published on April 14, 2013 in The Wall Street Journal, former United States UN Ambassador John Bolton summed up the push for this distasteful policy when he wrote the following:  

While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. 

…

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.

…

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for "recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.

Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but the court's decisions in other cases—even last year's challenge to the Affordable Care Act—remind us that those powers are limited.

The other reason for my disdain is rather simple… the United Nations ongoing efforts to vilify Israel and attempts to prevent the Jewish State from defending its boarders and living in peace. In addition to the outright deplorable statements made related to Israel’s acts of self-defense, the UN’s unwillingness to recognize the terrorist states that surround the country and levy harsh penalties for their actions is borderline anti-Semitic. It is amazing how much this international body has devolved from one that supported the country’s right to exist to now defending those who seek to destroy it.

It is because of these reasons that I cannot support the United Nations nor will I celebrate this day. It is a shameful institution full of people who cannot see past their utopian ideals and view the world through the prism of reality. If justice is blind then the United Nations is Helen Keller.

Israel Under Fire (From More Than Rockets)

So, while under rocket attack from Hamas, Israel negotiated a cease fire. But, honestly, let’s call this what it really is… giving in to the mounting international pressure (especially from the anti-Israel UN) so that you can have a few days of silence before Hamas launches more rockets, you retaliate, and Israel is deemed the aggressor. Basically, a giant Middle Eastern circle jerk.

What happened to the hard line that Bibi seemed so proud to be walking? What happened to the putting an end to this conflict once and for all? Where did the common sense go?

Honestly, we shouldn’t be surprised. This is basically what has happened every time ever since Israeli politicians began giving up land fought for and earned by the blood of their fellow Israelis. This is a dangerous trend that seems to have no end and that, at best, Israel comes out of the conflict a little worse off in the eyes of the media and the gullible public. Of course, this brings up another interesting story that was making the media rounds today.

A former AP correspondent, Motti Friedman, published a story in Tablet magazine about the failings of the main stream media in reporting the war in Israel and reporting on Israel in general. This is a tremendous read and one that should be noted as one of the few, if not the only, honest account of the world media and their treatment of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, this kind of reporting is not new as Freidman writes:

“The lasting importance of this summer’s war, I believe, doesn’t lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourse—namely, a hostile obsession with Jews. The key to understanding this resurgence is not to be found among jihadi webmasters, basement conspiracy theorists, or radical activists. It is instead to be found first among the educated and respectable people who populate the international news industry; decent people, many of them, and some of them my former colleagues.”

While reporters face tremendous danger, death threats, and, as we have seen recently, death, there is still little criticism surrounding those who are making these threats, posing these dangers, and taking innocent lives. Not only has it prevented reporting of the facts from actually occurring, it has prevented the truth from being told on more than one occasion. This is best explained when Freidman writes:

“There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)”

This is particularly startling when taken into account the means by which Hamas is reported. Actually, it’s more about how much is not written and how focused the media wolves are on every aspect of Israeli politics, culture, etc. It is not about wanting to better understand, it is all about finding the minute failings (this is a term applied by the outsider) in individuals and groups and applying them to Israel as a whole. This is not reporting, this is find a way to paint a picture, frame a story, box a topic that fits the views of the reporter and the media outlet. As Freidman explains:

“Israeli actions are analyzed and criticized, and every flaw in Israeli society is aggressively reported. In one seven-week period, from Nov. 8 to Dec. 16, 2011, I decided to count the stories coming out of our bureau on the various moral failings of Israeli society—proposed legislation meant to suppress the media, the rising influence of Orthodox Jews, unauthorized settlement outposts, gender segregation, and so forth. I counted 27 separate articles, an average of a story every two days. In a very conservative estimate, this seven-week tally was higher than the total number of significantly critical stories about Palestinian government and society, including the totalitarian Islamists of Hamas, that our bureau had published in the preceding three years.”

For those of us who have been paying attention to the media, listening to what is actually being said, and talking to those living in Israel we have been aware of this massacre of the truth perpetuated by the media. I am grateful for the honesty that has been so succinctly reported in this piece and I hold out hope that, one day, actual reporting will return to the Middle East and Israel in particular. Maybe we can have a few honest voices on the ground when this current ceasefire is shattered by the sound of rocket fire.

Do You Really Want Me As A Juror?

 
Today is the date that I was told to report and like any other day during the work week I woke up early, grabbed my stuff and got in the car. Last month I went to pick up the mail and as I flipped through the envelopes one stood out to me. Crap! I got called for jury duty. While many might try to feed you the lines of ‘serving the community’ or ‘supporting the legal system’ I firmly believe that it is a complete waste of time and I shouldn’t be required to burn one of my vacation days to simply fill a seat. Plus I have to drive to Norristown and supposedly park in a temporary lot while the juror parking garage is under construction. This is sounding like it is going to be so much fun!

 

Hopefully some of my displeasure came across in my answers to the questionnaire that I filled out last week (they should pay me for the time it took to fill out that list of crap). And that was even after I waited and had accepted my fate before filling it out. The interesting thing about most of the questions that they ask is that if you think about them long enough you can honestly answer them yes or no. Here are just a couple of the yes or no questions that can be found on the form:

 

Do you have any religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that might prevent you from serving as a juror?

 

When you first read it you think that as a moral, ethical, and grounded person you should check yes but if you put some thought into your response, as I did, I had no choice but to honestly answer no. As a proud Jew (Israeli actually), if someone were to go on trial who is proven to have any kind of tenuous affiliation with a terrorist organization (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) or white supremacist group, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the crime, I would immediately assume them to be guilty. Right or wrong that is honestly how I would react. Plus I have a huge gripe with the extreme liberals and hippies in this country so the same type of scenario could play out that way too. Don’t be offended regular non hippie liberals that is not directed at all of you.

 

In general, would you have any problem following and applying the judge’s instruction on the law?

 

Well… in general, using the Supreme Court as a means of measurement, I am certain that I would completely disagree with a judge’s instruction on the law about half the time in a number of different kinds of cases. If this were specified as a means of applying the letter of the law to a case I would say no. However, this is specifying the generality of the situation so that I have no other option than to respond with yes. While I am obviously by no means a legal scholar, I have my views and there are numerous laws that I disagree with which could, albeit not guaranteed, influence my ability to serve and follow said instruction. Therefore, in general, I might take issue with certain instructions. Also see the previous question and response because there is the potential that one of the instructions could be to ignore such affiliations that are not pertinent to the case at hand.

 

While it could have been simply a lack of cases there is a good possibility that my honesty on the questionnaire is why I was not required to report. Instead, I got to go to work and earn the money that gets taxed to hell so that we can have these overburdened and sometimes broken systems in place. But at least I didn’t have to burn a vacation day!

 

A Common, Rotting, Core

As you may recall, back in April and May there was a heinous disservice done to many eighth grade students in a Los Angeles area public school. After reading “The Diary of Anne Frank” the following assignment was given to approximately 2,000 English students at Rialto Unified (which meets the ‘critical thinking’ requirement outlined in the Common Core manifesto):

“When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence. For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim. You are also required to use parenthetical (internal) citations and to provide a Works Cited page.”

Now, I am a firm believer of developing critical thinking skills in students as it can be a powerful tool that can be nurtured throughout their academic life however long that may be. Additionally, it encourages them to form strong and persuasive arguments that can serve them well throughout their life. However, there is a time and place for such educational endeavors and encouraging such ignorance as exemplified above is sickening. Without proper literature and reference material and anti-Semitic sources given the same credence as fact, it is a crime by these ‘educators’ to perpetrate such propaganda among such an easily influenced student body.

While largely criticized as anti-Semitic, there were still some hold outs that defended the assignment as part of this new educational doctrine that is drilled into the minds of students with the utopian end result being a better, all be it much more expensive and liberal leaning, educational system. Well, now we are seeing the fruits of such toil and trouble as many of those students, months later, still question whether the greatest genocide in history ever occurred. After months of sifting through what has now become public record, the Los Angeles Daily News recently reported the following:

“An examination of the essays by newsroom staff found that at least 50 essays denied or doubted the Holocaust occurred. Even many students who agreed the Holocaust occurred said there were good reasons to believe it had not or that elements of the historical record were actually hoaxes.”

So now we are seeing the fallout and we will continue to fight the difficult battle of changing minds that have already been made up. This is the common core of the problem and one that, if such a system is left unchecked, will continue to eat away at the educational system. In addition to the financial burdens that such a mandate places on school districts, the ideals that this doctrine instills in students is counterproductive to the uniqueness of communities throughout the nation and is detrimental to creating a peaceful society… after all, if the curriculum doesn’t meet the liberal standards, it can’t be taught in the schools because any other view is just plain wrong.