The Gay Agenda: The Fight for American Gay Rights

Greetings all!

Welcome to my blog, this time being posted on President's Day in honor of our past leaders. The topic for this week is the gay rights movement in America, specifically what is being done and what must be done to achieve the civil rights of our people. This week's quote is by Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence movement along with Jawaharlal Nehru, and a strong advocate of nonviolence. It's simply a little quote that I find truthful often. Now, to the debate at hand. 

Gay rights are a sticky issue in America, primarily because of religious belief that they should not be able to get married, have kids, etc. This is a prominent belief among Christian conservatives, along with Islamic conservatives (though not as common in America). In both groups, the denial of gay marriage comes with the inherent belief that marriage is a religious establishment and is therefore protected by the state. And yes, there is so much wrong with this. Many people still say that gay is a disease or a genetic deformity, and therefore they shouldn't get married. But does this make sense? Even if gay was a disease or an inherited genetic problem (which it is not), that doesn't give anyone the power to take away their civil rights. People with AIDS have just as much right as those without, and therefore were gay a disease (it is not), gays should be able to receive equal treatment anyway. Another argument is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because then they'll raise kids, and psychology would suggest that this would be a poor parenting model. I'm pretty sure that having two crack-addicted, dumbass parents is also a poor parenting model. But if they're straight, they can still get married and raise kids. News flash, people: most gays are not crack-addicted dumbasses. So why shouldn't they be able to marry and have kids?

Some people argue that gay is unnatural and that because only humans do it, it must be something wrong with us. This is false, actually. Tons of species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx), with about 8% of those species that do being gay. That's awfully close to the amount of humans which have admitted to having experimented with homosexuality in their lives (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565#.T0LimYePWuk). After looking at these reports, we can make out that gay is just as natural in humans as it is for a significant portion of the animal kingdom. Therefore, no reason to deny gay rights. Now, we come to the two major arguments against gay rights in America. Almost every denier of gay rights uses these or believes these at some time, and many often use these arguments whenever gay rights come up. These are the belief that gay is a choice, and that gay marriage/child rearing goes against religious institutions. 

Let's look at the "gay is a choice" argument first. On the surface, it is already flawed. Conservatives make a constant barrage of speech about how the federal government should not be able to dictate the way we run our daily lives, and how government should not be able to force us to choose something or force us to not choose something. Do you see the hypocrisy? Even if gay was a choice (which it is not), that would be no reason to deny gay rights to marriage. Because by doing so, the federal government implies that it favors heterosexuals, and it does not want people choosing to be gay. By restricting the rights of gays, the federal government would encourage people to repress their "choice", thereby making America into something conservatives fear most: a country where the government has first and final say. 

Now, to the second counterpoint. Gay is most certainly not a choice. A reason many people use is that there is no scientific evidence pointing to people being born gay. This is what is known as an argument based on negative evidence, where no evidence to the contrary means that the hypothesis can be assumed as true until positive evidence disproving it is discovered. This is the same kind of argument that the people hunting Bigfoot and ghosts use. "Just 'cuz you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not real." Look, I really don't care. Bigfoot and ghosts don't exist, because there is no evidence to support their existence. On the topic of being born gay, we at least have an indicator: most all gays say they are born gay. Since gays have firsthand experience, I'll take their word for it rather than denying the only thing we have close to proof. I don't know about you, but I don't have the rampant egotism necessary to think I know better than them. 

And now, the final anti-gay rights argument. The religious one, my favorite. Conservatives consistently note that marriage is a religious institution, and that by allowing universal gay marriage we force religions to accept a secular law that does not agree with their religious freedoms. Since this is a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is important, this is the only anti-gay argument that I accept as valid on face-value. Unfortunately, this point cannot apply to us. Mostly because at every point in our history, civil rights trump religion. They always have, and they always will, and this is a good thing about our country. We are not like Iran, where protection of Sh'ia Islam overrides rights whenever deemed necessary by the Ayatollah. My proof is in the 1960s, the American Civil Rights movement for black peoples of America. One of the contentious issues of the times was that many churches and other religious houses would not perform interracial marriages because it went against their beliefs to do so. In 1967, the Supreme Court gave a resounding "hell no" to that argument. They did this because, as I have stated, civil rights trump religious ones. If we are to ensure a fair and just society, we must be willing to sacrifice a little so that all our people live with equal treatment and rights. This applies to modern times. Just because churches don't want to marry gays, that doesn't give them the power to deny the civil rights of homosexuals, and it never will. 

One more thing: saying that gay marriage will lead to animal marriage is bogus, because ANIMALS ALREADY DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS. They don't, and they never will. People won't be marrying animals after gays, because people simply don't want to. Also, by using this argument you effectively imply that gays are no better than animals, so it only makes you look bad. It only hurts you.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have attacked the issue at all angles. If you feel I missed something, would like to add something, or etc. simply leave a comment right here. My Facebook and Twitter account are also open, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Justice Is Done: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Welcome to my blog!

After weeks of not posting due to various reasons, I have returned to post once again. Note that in the future, I will avoid not posting if at all possible. This week’s topic is right in the title; the culmination of American efforts to find and end Osama Bin Laden. The reason I address this is not because I supported the man, or Al-Qaeda, but rather because of the ethical issues our mission and treatment of said mission bring about. This week's quote is from current president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, after Bin Laden had been killed. It holds no significance separate from this post, but I thought it would be good to include.

Now on to the topic at hand. Osama Bin Laden was not a good person. This is undeniable; his actions over the years allowed terrorism to grow and many people to die without reason. However, we also murdered him. Yes, I know that he has killed many. But we can't allow our nation to pull stuff like this. Even after World War 2 ended and Nazi leaders were captured, we didn't kill them immediately. They were put on trial for their horrendous crimes first. They got the death sentence, but we were still willing to give them the rights of due process before acting against them. The Nazis killed far more than Bin Laden ever did, and yet we shot him on sight. While I would not have opposed the death sentence for him, I do believe he deserved his right to a fair trial before having his life taken. This is what makes us different from other nations, and if we wish to declare our superiority or feel good about ourselves as a nation, we must use this as evidence. By extinguishing Osama before he had a chance to trial by jury, we eliminate the possibility of ever redeeming ourselves of our so-called greatness. Michael Moore made this point a while ago, and I agree with it in full (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/some-final-thoughts-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden).

But many still argue that it was a just cause, due to the way Bin Laden struck against the U.S. without provocation. This isn't entirely untrue, but unfortunately this is another instance of us bringing terrible things upon ourselves. It starts in the early 1980's, when we backed and trained the Taliban against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan. While it served our interest of beating communism then (an unjust cause, I might add), the Taliban would later become the group that would shelter and train Al-Qaeda. We did another disservice to ourselves in the Iran-Iraq War when we backed both sides as part of double containment. When Iran-Contra was exposed, Iraq and Iran found out we backed both of them in order to destroy them both. This created serious hatred for the U.S. Afghanistan watched this, as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda growled. Now they were trained, armed, and had a common enemy. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and they watched as the U.S. and coalition western forces trounced Saddam Hussein. Their drive against America was fueled. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, with Bin Laden responsible. No surprise there. But everything culminated starting in 2000 and ending in 2001. During this short period, the Bush government provided aid to Afghanistan, unaware of what was going on. And then, the September 11 bombings occurred. We were devastated and afraid, and finally saw how the Taliban worked. So we invaded Afghanistan and crushed them, forcing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to flee. But the damage had been done at this point. We have given weapons and training to our enemies, and then given them reasons to hate us and even attack us. So while the terrorist strikes against the U.S. came from Osama, it's not like we didn't help push him to it. 

But some would still say that capture was impossible, and therefore killing Osama was the only viable option beyond allowing him to flee. Bullcrap. We had him surrounded by highly trained men with strong weaponry. We mowed down the guards, and had him ready to surrender. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" motto apparently also applies to the military, because that's what we did. We could have captured him and held a trial, and then put him to death. But we forfeited that opportunity to improve our image by at least a little. However, what's done is done I suppose. Now that Bin Laden is gone and Al-Qaeda is falling back, we can finally rest a little easier knowing terrorism won't be an enormous threat for sometime as long as they have no coordinated leader. That's what I thought, until just weeks later when I heard a movie would be made about the mission. Are we serious? Not only do we have to murder a guy and then cheer about it, but then we have to glorify said murder by making it into a film? Nothing got better when I saw the trailer just days ago, with the ad going along to the soundtrack of Eminem. This is sad. We kill a guy, and then make murderers into heroes while mixing in a drug-addled white rapper. Perfect. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as this is acceptable as true American spirit nowadays. None of this is right, and we should be ashamed at least to some degree. We need to try to preserve our integrity.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope I have provided a full response to the issue at hand. If you'd like to say something to me, ask a question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section here. I also have a Facebook and a twitter, and my email at zerospintop@live.com is still open. That is all, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Post Free Week

Sorry folks, but there will be no new post this week. I'm taking a temporary break before addressing the big surprise topic of this month next week. This week's quote is by Mustafa Kemal, the leader of Turkey in the wake of the end of the Ottoman Empire. I like his leadership style, and the way he handled the Turkish people in the face of collapse was great. So until next week, bye!

Why Right Ain't Right: The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism

Greetings and welcome all to my blog!

I have made this post on Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. day, not because it necessarily relates to his cause, but because it is a Monday holiday. This week I tackle the growing global movement towards nationalism and right-wing extremism that the USA and other countries seem to be taking. A horrifying event to me, it is something that needs to be addressed. This week's quote is by Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Bolshevik party which overthrew Tsar Nicholas the Second in the early 20th century and implemented communism. I enjoy his quotes. 

Moving on, rightist extremism is a fairly visible trend, at home and abroad. Here in America, it can be seen with the increasingly conservative Republican Party, which continually distances itself from its past leaders claiming that they were too "liberal". In the rest of the world, it can be seen in right-winged leaders taking power in many countries in order to cut spending and alleviate economic hardships. In more extreme forms, it can be in political activists or groups making very strong displays of what they believe, sometimes violently. No matter where or under what circumstances, this is a serious omen. While conservatives may not feel any problem, increasing rightism in the world is not something new. We have experienced something like this before. 

During the 1920s and 1930s, to be specific. Under eerily similar conditions, the power of the right-wing became swelled on a global scale. And don't think I'm joking here, either. The rise of these leaders and movements was primarily due to harsh economic troubles and fear for the safety of nations. Back then, military leaders and extreme rightists took power by taking advantage of this fear. Hitler, Mussolini, and eventually Franco all took hold of incredibly vulnerable countries, with devastating results. Most of us are familiar with World War 2 and the Holocaust, I presume. Fascism was the main concern; the rise of absolute autocrats in Europe and Latin America became very apparent once Germany invaded Poland. The US didn't even make real attempts towards helping the world until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But the fact of the matter was that humanity began to realize just how dark the souls of humans become. We saw for the first time just how terrible things got when we turned our backs on each other. We saw how easily we could be manipulated, and what the consequences were when it happened. I don't consider fascism truly "defeated" until Franco's Spain was toppled at his death, although some say it ended when the war did. We thought it was all over.

It may not be. Look at what is going on. The world is experiencing an economic slump greater than it has felt in decades. Money is tight, and people are scared. They fear for their families, friends, and selves. But few fear for those other than their compatriots. Right-winged leaders are taking hold once more in Europe, and Latin America may be soon to follow. They are numerous, and control some powerful countries; Cameron in the UK, Sarkozy in France, Rajoy in Spain, Monti in Italy, Merkel in Germany, the list goes on and on. The point is that we may be headed in a direction we have already been on, one which we all know where it leads to. While fascism may be away down the road, it is not impossible. We know for certain that people have an incredible capacity for cruelty and so called "justice" in the name of their movements, like Anders Breivik of Norway, who fired on many people in the hopes of seizing right-winged power in Europe and starting a movement (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657141/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breiviks-plan-to-seize-power-in-Europe-after-London-visit.html). It is also obvious that we are turning to the right more and more as we become more desperate for solutions. 

This is an atrocity. We can't let this happen. We know how bad things become when the extreme right takes power, and we can't allow it again. Even when it's not fascism, the right wing can cause serious problems for our country and the world. In America, Reagan ran a huge deficit and allowed lots of job losses for lower class workers due to trickle-down economics. Bush had us involved in two wars, only one of which was fully justified. Along with beginning drone strikes in other countries as well, he began making huge tax cuts, thereby defunding expensive wars. No matter what way we look at it, while life under right-wing leaders may seem fun, it isn't for everyone, and they have left behind messes time and again. Europe has it no better. Their experiences with the right are often worse, especially in the cases of Germany and Spain. Yet Europeans are once again turning to the right to solve their problems, generally by austerity measures this time around. It's not hard to see that the people have a problem with this; protesters in places like Greece sometimes turn violent in a fight against austerity. While this is a good sign, presidents and prime ministers generally hold power longer than people can keep protesting. As such, I fear for our world. 

For those of you wondering at home, the Tea Party does not have your best interests at heart (unless you are rich and/or own a corporation, of course). Global conservatives do not have the world's interests at heart. Most are focused on improving their own country at the expense of others, a problem of the past. If we wish to pull through our hard times, we must be willing to help each other out, despite our reluctance to hand over cash when we feel that we are in tough times. No matter how bad it becomes, consider this: a 10-year-old boy in Somalia has just stolen food from the black market in order to feed his many siblings. He goes without food, because he could not steal enough. He may have malaria, and most likely has no parents, or even a house. Yet you sit there reading this on your computer (or phone, or whatever). We can't forget what happens when we ignore the world to focus on ourselves. When we turn our backs, the worst is soon to follow. 

That is all for this week, and I hope I have given a posting which everyone will understand and enjoy. If you have comments, questions, etc. you can post them in the comments here. For something more private, email me at zerospintop@live.com. I also have a Facebook, a Twitter, and a Google+ account as well. This is SuperJew McLovin signing off, and Happy MLK Day! 

American Idol(ism): Our Problem With Voting

Hello again to you my readers!

I have returned after a short dry spell to readjust myself to my normal posting schedule now that holidays have ended. This week, I address voting in America, and specifically the problems we face when it comes to getting people to vote. Our voting rates hover around 50% at each presidential election, and it is generally less with congressional, state, and local elections. Obviously, this is not a good thing to keep democracy efficient. It is my belief that if a country must have democracy, it must be wholly supported in order to fill the will of its people. The same is true of any form of governance. This week's quote is by Ernesto Guevara, a revolutionary Argentine leader of the past whom I draw inspiration from. Alright, that is all on that.

Moving on, I'd like to start by validating a claim that some Republicans have said President Obama believes. While I don't know if he believes this or not, it is true. We as Americans are lazy. It is a fact. A good lot of us are obese and/or diabetic (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html), and we make laziness an acceptable societal behavior by making it "funny" on TV all the time. You know what I mean; some character will be lying on the couch, and will try to reach the remote. They end up not getting up because they're too damn lazy. Everyone laughs, etc. In my eyes, it is not funny. The fact that we make this seem to be a normal, tolerable behavior is sickening. What, you can't get up to change the freaking channel once in a while? How lazy are we? This is pathetic, especially for the nation that claims to be the world's lone superpower. How do we plan to defend ourselves if we can't even get off the couch to try? Normally, this would not be a politically important problem. However, we have allowed our laziness to spread into our effectiveness as a nation.

Compared to other effective first world democracies like Italy and Australia our voting rates are not good. Just look here (http://www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm#). You can look up our voting rates, as well as voting rates in all other countries that vote. In presidential elections, we aren't absolutely terrible. We are terrible when it comes to congressional elections. We rarely make it to the halfway margin. Australia rarely falls below the 90% margin. This isn't good. A cornerstone of the democracy Americans praise is voting. In order for our system to work, we all must have input to ensure the full will of the people is heard. However, this is not what is happening. It appears that our voting rates are comparatively low, sometimes only a little and sometimes drastically. This causes wide ramifications for how our government is run for us.

When we vote, we give a mandate to those taking office. This mandate describes that the officials being voted in will do as the people wish, and will serve his/her people as they served him/her into office. It is a good thing most of the time. If enough people vote for a certain candidate that means that s/he has the right to govern and has been chosen by true consensus. But this is the problem we get; not enough people vote. When this happens the candidates receive weak mandates, meaning they didn't receive much of a call to rule. Therefore, their right to do so can easily be called into question. It can also lead to illegal rule, where a candidate is voted in solely because the voter turnout was heavily swayed to one side while the other side was too lazy to get out and vote. While we don't have the problem of fraudulent elections, if voting rates continue dropping we just might. We also don't have a problem with voter fraud inherently, although it could be possible in the future.

Before I keep going, I'd like to address our so-called voter fraud troubles. Some of you may recently have been hearing about voter ID laws passed in many states. Most are nonsensical to some degree. Some have been challenged in court. All because conservatives cry out that we have rampant voter fraud. Really? Voter fraud? You think we are collectively active enough to illegally vote rather than do it legally? What could make anyone think we would do that, lazy as we are? Also, being a citizen who is of voting age should be all that is required to vote. If you are a citizen, you are inherently American, and part of that is voting. Case closed. And when states pass voter ID laws, it is ridiculous. The party that claims to love the constitution is doing what it can to prevent Americans from taking part in our government. They are restricting democracy they claim to hold on to with their dying breaths. This is a serious fault. We cannot expect to believe that we have voter fraud problems; we are not the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we are not Burma. We are the United States of America. No one is stuffing ballot boxes that easily, trust me.

Anyway, we need to find out why we are so lazy and correct it. I'm sure our collective fatness is probably responsible to some small degree. But it is far more than that, I assure you. It is not normal for a country's people to have more voter turnout for American Idol than the presidential election. I personally believe that we are simply lazy as an inherent trait of Americans. Therefore, I believe we must provide some form of incentive for voting. Perhaps we can go the way of Australia and impose a fine for not voting. They do have some pretty high voter turnout rates, after all. I think this a fair solution to our problems. However, some people would claim this is unconstitutional and that it is in contrast with democracy. Good enough argument, I suppose. If so, another solution is necessary. If anyone here has taken U.S. history in ninth grade, you'll remember the party machines of the early 1900's. These party machines were strongly partisan groups that would provide jobs to people in exchange for votes. While this was a heavy indicator of corrupt democracy, it was efficient at bringing out voters. We need something similar but nonpartisan today. While I don't suggest hiring common folk in exchange for the promise of voting, there must be something that makes us as Americans want to participate in democracy. Maybe it could be a tax incentive, or some form of salary bonus that would come with all the more voting people do. While this problem is hard to tackle with positive incentives, it is possible. And perhaps if this problem is solved, our system will be a better representation of America as a whole.

Well, that is all for this week, and if anyone would like to post comments/questions/criticisms/praise you can do so in the comments section here. My friend Danyal Ahmad is president of the nonprofit corporation which is currently in the process of applying for a 501(c)(3), the Citizen Empowerment Foundation, to ameliorate our problems with voting, so I'm glad some of us are making progress, and if anyone else would like to get in on that then do so. If you would prefer somewhere else, I also have a Facebook and a twitter, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

A World of Hurt: The Israel-Palestine Debate

Hello again, my readers!



Now that the religious holidays are over, I have decided to put my monthly large post up today. As noted in the title, I will be explaining my views on the widely known Israel-Palestine debate. It is a very controversial topic (at least around here it is), and therefore requires special attention. This week's quote comes from the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, a wonderful book about a world dominated by youth crime where a character known as Alex is taken into a "reform" program. I won't say more, but it has an amazing language scheme, and is well worth anyone's time. To avoid trouble, I should note that it is a very mature book, and nobody of young age should be anywhere near it. And that is all I have to say on that.



To start with, we need to examine the very origins of the debate before I go further on how I feel about it. I view the problems as starting in the 20th century, and coming into focus through the two world wars and the time between them. During the First World War, anti-Semitic treatment of Jews by Axis powers became apparent, as well as by some Allied and neutral powers (http://www.jewishhistory.org/world-war-i-and-the-jews/). While barely noticed then, taken into context this was the beginning of the proposed need for a safe Jewish homeland. Between the wars, most of my readers should know the world went to hell. The 1920s may have been nice for America, but not for everyone else. Nothing got better for global populations when the US economy tanked. As huge pressures rode on multiple societies to find solutions to the economic crises, an overwhelmingly right-winged authoritarian response took place. While the US chose to elect a left-winged leader four times who rode on the principle of fixing the laissez-faire structure of the economy to blame for the crisis, the rest of the world wasn't so lucky. We must remember that these were desperate times, and that other places had it even worse than us. Many countries chose to blame groups of people rather than accept that their systems, which they had designed, may have had some fault to them. And after World War 1, some places had the deck stacked in favor of radicalism anyway; the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly for the war, putting resentment in place of each dollar paid (deutschmarks, in this case). At this point, anti-Semitism was already a lurking force, so blaming Jews was no problem in central Europe. While not as rampant in Italy, after a fascist leader rose to power and brought down the Weimar Republic (Hitler, duh), the propaganda sprang up all over the place, with little internal opposition that had any power. While Hirohito Japan didn't have this problem, they also had no Jews, and didn't do anything about the Holocaust. After World War 2 ended, 6 million Jews had died, approximately 60 to 65 percent of all Jews at the time (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/holocaust.htm).



And here is where the Palestinian place comes into play. While most people concern themselves with the amount of Jews dead, a larger total estimate of Muslims was killed. While not as huge percentage-wise, it is a significant point. Both religions suffered harshly in the war. When it was over, it became increasingly obvious to world powers that in order for Jews to even survive in this world, they needed to have some country to call their homeland and someplace to be safe. After the UN was formed, the organization gave the UK a Middle East mandate to occupy much of the region for a few years until everything was stabilized and ready for the formation of states. And in 1948, both Israel and Palestine were formed. It was believed that the division of lands would suit both peoples and allow for a long-awaited peace that the world had lacked for decades. The world got no such peace. Upon creation of the two states, Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries rejected the right for a Jewish state to exist, and shortly afterward small attacks on Israel began.



World powers were shocked. They had assumed the two religious groups would get along at least with tolerance (at this point, most anti-Semitism came from Christians and/or Europeans). They assumed this hatred of the Jews as the main sticking point for the new problem. While certainly not the main root of the problem, it is undeniable that hatred exists on both sides and drives the struggles along. As remaining British-mandate countries gained independence, most sided with Palestine strongly on the issue. The UK and US swore to protect the tiny state of Israel and its denizens from attacks, with America providing the brunt of weaponry and economic support to the resource-dry country. Palestine didn't react well, to say the least. At this point, small numbers began the practice of Jihad upon Israel, a well known practice in modern society. The push for liquidation of Israel continued to build until the Arab-Israeli War in 1967, known commonly as the Six Day War. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan formed a military alliance and launched attacks on Israel in the hopes of "liberating" Palestinians and destroying the country altogether. Other countries of the Middle East declared support for the aggressors. What follows is the reason this debate still exists. During the war, Israel had pushed into Gaza and the West Bank against enemy troops, both for defensive and offensive reasons. When the war ended, the occupation didn't.


Arab nations were infuriated. Not only had the effort to wipe Israel out failed, but now Palestine appeared to no longer exist. It was undeniable that the problems had only just begun, and that the situation was more serious now than ever. Things improved slightly when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005, but the issue remains. The two sides are currently as follows: the "pro-Israel" side, which advocates an eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but not at the current time for various reasons. Extremists here often call for a permanent Israeli state that envelops Gaza and the West Bank, as well as its current territory. The other side, the "pro-Palestine" side, calls for an immediate creation of a democratic Palestinian state in wake of decades of poor existence. Extremists here still call for the end to Israel and the takeover of lands by Palestinians. And now, what you all have waited for, my side.



In an earlier post, I noted that I am pro-Israel. To be more specific, I do believe that a Palestinian state must be created due to the conditions endured by its people. I see a need for a country named Palestine if there is ever to be long-lasting peace in the region. And currently, I am fine with the PA (Palestinian Authority) leadership in the West Bank. The reason I don't see a Palestinian state rising soon is due to Hamas. As is well known, Hamas is a militant political faction which won majority power in the Gaza strip during elections in 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm). Hamas is also known for being the main source of suicide bombers towards Israel, along with being hard-lined towards the very country at certain times, generally when pressured. While it may have support there, I fear the omen they bring with them. Were Palestine to become a state, both leadership from the West Bank and Gaza would take over the new country. And with a faction that bears the brunt of current attacks on Israel in a true leadership role, the hope for peace would be slim. It's hard to know exactly what would happen due to speculation, but I have fear about the worst. In a good scenario, Palestinian leaders would hold true to peace between the two countries and the world could move on from one of its most tantalizing issues. On the other hand, upon independence Palestine could also declare war on Israel, receiving support from Arab allies and others. The US and some other powers like the UK would side with Israel, forming another horrible war in the Middle East this world really can't handle. Things could get progressively worse from there. While racial and religious hatred would once again brew between the two original combatants, the war could bring tensions between the US and its adversaries to surface, possibly leading to a third world war. While this is not my main fear, I am a pacifist, and any war at all is unfavorable to me.


While I know most people would say it is a bad thing to live in fear, it is something that drives my opinion, at least in this issue (and rarely in others). Until I see better prospects in Gaza leadership, I cannot endorse the creation of Palestine due to trepidation over war. The last thing I want to hear about these days is that wholesale military efforts are being taken between Palestine and Israel. Believe me; I want nothing more than peace. And the day Hamas loses majority, you can count me pro-Palestine. However, until that day comes I will favor those who oppose immediate Palestinian independence. And while I don't always agree with the arguments my peers make for my side, I have little choice until the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip put a less militant, more negotiable party into strength. As such, this is my view of the issue.



That is all for this week, and I hope I have given a comprehensive analysis that fulfills all of what my readers desired from me on this topic. If you feel that you have a question, comment, et cetera you can leave it in the comments here. I also have a Facebook, an email (zerospintop@live.com), and a twitter if you would prefer those modes of communication instead. This is SuperJew McLovin signing off, and Happy New Year!

Blood for Oil: The U.S. Role in the Middle East

Welcome back again, my readers!

This week's topic, as obvious in the title, is the role of the U.S. in the broad Middle East region, from past actions to what needs to be done now and in the future. This week's quote was inspired by me, who upon falling while walking on the sidewalk on Friday, tried to make myself look better to my peers by saying that. It did garner a laugh, so I view my efforts as a success.

Now, to the topic at hand. The USA has played a big part in developments in the Middle East for a long time, mostly since the state of Israel was created in 1948. Ever since then, our two countries have maintained strong economic and diplomatic ties, for a bilateral benefit. The relationship benefits Israel by giving it strong, ensured trade, easy technological access and advancement opportunities, and military backing from a large, powerful country. For the US, it gives a foothold in an important geographic region, as well as making the US look good for protecting the homeland of one of the world's smallest religions, Judaism. For those that are blind and deaf, this does cause problems for both parties as well. Countries that oppose Israel take harsh stances against the US, sometimes causing war. Decreasing favor for American policy rides strong in the Arab-dominated region. And aid to Israel is a burden on the US every year. But no matter what, it is obvious by now that this relationship won't be changing too soon. The US will consistently support Israel and an eventual two-state policy in the foreseeable future. And while Israel depends on the US, because the relationship is fairly static there is not too much I can say on it, other than I support it. I also support the two-state policy, although I'm not entirely sure that now is the time for it to be enacted. But more on that belief next week.

As for the rest of the region, there is much to cover. I'll start with our wars in the Middle East. Currently, we still retain troops in Afghanistan because our war there is not yet over. Our troops in Iraq will all be pulled out by the end of the year, officially ending our operations there. Drone strikes continue in Pakistan and Yemen, along with spying missions done on Iran. I'm pretty sure that all this shows that we like having military presence in the Middle East. Whether we deny it or not, we always maintain some shadow in the region. In times of peace, that specter is present in the military support to Israel. At other times, it shows in our attacks on suspected terrorists or dissidents in different countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't garner us any good tidings. The constant watchdog effect our military pressures on Middle Eastern countries only serves to hurt our image in the eyes of the populace. Who among us would feel safer with troops on the streets and army aircraft overhead? I do believe that our pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, but we need to do more. We need to leave Afghanistan. It's also become obvious recently that Pakistan probably doesn't want us in their airspace (http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/article/203331/175/US-Troops-Vacate-Pakistan-Airbase). And while Yemen struggles to consolidate civilian power now that Saleh has stepped down, I'm sure that soon enough they'll want us to end drone strikes in their country too. However, we still have conservatives who always maintain a stance saying that we must stay in Afghanistan, and that drone strikes are the only way to get rid of Al-Qaeda operatives effectively. But does that truly matter? You cannot kill off an idea like terrorism. It's impossible, and it has been proven. Despite our best efforts, we could not kill off communism, even after decades of trying. We also cannot kill off terrorism. As such, no matter how many drones we fly we will never destroy Al-Qaeda outright. Even if we did, terrorism would still exist. It simply wouldn't have a brand name. And why do we need a presence in Afghanistan? It's pretty clear that our army does not ensure peace in the country, whether we wish it would or not. Sure, if we leave they may adopt a government that we don't completely love. But honestly, it is not our place to control them. If it has the support of the people, then who are we to tear down their system?

Should we stay to maintain a foothold in the region? Hell no. I seriously doubt us taking action in China, India, or Turkmenistan. We have no real reason to do so. As for Iran, if we really wanted a stable place to attack from we could just ship missiles to Saudi Arabia. We are, after all, allies. If we are going to take action on Iran, it is best made from a place that already hates them to some extent and has a relatively stable, powerful system. Also on Iran, we have had some serious tensions for a long time. The main reasoning for this hatred was the US support of the Shah of Iran (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp) during most of the 1950's through the 1970's. An instigated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected Iranian leader, was the start of this. Afterwards, the Shah took power, beginning a harsh reign that was in US favor at the time, mostly due to the Shah's opposition to communism. This was the Cold War, after all. Unfortunately, this was the biggest mistake the US has ever made in the Middle East. Growing resentment towards the Shah and the US peaked in 1979 when a massively popular Islamic revolution gripped the enormous country. The Shah fled, allowing Ruhollah Khomeini to sweep religious conservatives into power. Soon, the Iranian hostage crisis followed, deepening the hatred and mistrust further. Nothing got better during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, when Reagan provided support for both sides in a "double containment" effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/the-debris-of-dual-contai_b_203920.html) that showed both countries just how much we were a threat to them. It's no wonder Hussein didn't like us. This made things with Iran just worse and worse. Things got no better when Khomeini died and the even more conservative Khamenei took the reins, conducting Iran to where it is today. My stance on what has happened between us is that we are to blame for Iran's hatred of us. We have done terrible things there for a long time, and there is no way to repay Iranians for our sins against them. And for any Iranians reading this, I know my apology doesn't mean much, but I can ensure its sincerity. Someday, perhaps, we'll learn to treat Iran a little better, and maybe things will start improving there and towards the US.

Lastly, I'd like to address US support of dictators and the Arab Spring in the Middle East. We've got a bad record on the former account. Believe it or not, we supported Gaddafi for a time (http://links.org.au/node/2179), while also bombing the crap out of Libya simultaneously. But when people started rioting just this year, we declared support for rebel groups. A similar case applies to Egypt (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113020265198814.html). We have propped up what we considered beneficial to us in the Middle East, claiming often that it was in the name of democracy. For those of us familiar with history, you should know that the Middle East got little democracy for most of the 20th century. Not much changed with the new century, either, until the Arab Spring. This is something I view as a high note. While I hate what we've been doing in the Middle East for decades, the fact that we supported the Arab Spring is a good thing. When the people finally did start calling for true democracy we stood with them, an accomplishment on our part. We rarely stand for anything that threatens our power in the region. Yet when faced with a choice, I'm glad we made the right one this time.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope you enjoyed reading. If you want to leave a comment, question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section. You can also contact me using Facebook, twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.