Reflections From a Murky Pond

Balducci’s, a gourmet market in New York’s Greenwich Village, accidentally found itself in an embarrassing situation. Sometime over the weekend a store clerk mistakenly put a sign over a set of hams describing them as “Delicious for Hanukkah.”

Manhattan novelist Nancy Kay Shapiro, a self-professed unobservant Jew, noticed the advertisement of trafe – unclean, forbidden foods – for Chanukah. Instead of being offended, Ms. Shapiro took photographs and posted them on the web.

I just thought it was funny, I wasn’t offended in any way. I just thought, here’s somebody who knows nothing about what Jews eat.

— Nancy Shapiro
Author of What Love Means To You People

When Ms. Shapiro returned to the store on Tuesday, the first night of Chanukah, the signs had vanished. A manager at the Balducci’s gourmet grocery store apologetically said that the sign had been a mistake and blamed it on a stock clerk.

Thank you, Ms. Shapiro! Where many people would have been grossly offended, you showed good humor and tolerance for other’ ignorance and fallibility.

Are there Islamists in Commerce? No, I don’t mean Muslim radicals who have commercial sector jobs; we know those people exist. I mean are there Islamists in the US Department of Commerce. Archaeologyknits points out in this article that The US Secretary of the Commerce Carlos Gutierrez proudly displays a copy of the radical Islamist creationist Atlas of Creation in his office.

The book contains a photograph of one of the planes striking the World Trade Center, captioned:

No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terror over the world are, in reality, Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that places a value on-and thus encourages conflict.

— Adnan Oktar AKA Harun Yahya
Atlas of Creation

This does not seem the sort of manuscript an appointed member of the US government should be giving “pride of place” to in his federally funded office. A recent visitor to the office told Ken Silverstein from Harpers Magazine that the Atlas would be impossible to miss, both because of its huge size–it weighs approximately 12 lbs and has nearly 800 pages–and because it is prominently displayed on a stand at the entrance to the waiting room for Sec. Carlos Gutierrez’ office. One has to wonder what Mr. Gutierrez is thinking.

One point should be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cruelty, conflict, and other ordeals endured by the vast majority of people is the ideological prevalence of disbelief. This can be ended only with the ideological defeat of disbelief and by conveying the wonders of creation and Qur’anic morality so that people can live by it.

In this effort, the books of Harun Yahya assume a leading role. By the will of God, these books will be a means through which people in the twenty-first century will attain the peace, justice, and happiness promised in the Qur’an.

— Adnan Oktar AKA Harun Yahya
Atlas of Creation

I’m not sure that this is something I would want to see displayed in a federal office, especially the Department of Commerce. If Carlos Gutierrez subscribes to- or even sympathizes with the views of this radical Islamic creationist, the American people may experience some very nasty long-term problems. On the other hand, it is completely legal for Sec. Gutierrez to display any book he so desires in his offices – though the ACLU might find this as objectionable and actionable as any other religious reference or icon displayed on government or public property.

On the brighter side, it’s strangely comforting to know that Islam has its share of wackjob, wingnut creationists too! 😛

As the Democratic primary race heats up one issue seems to be coming to forefront – Who of the candidates would do more to provide health coverage for the uninsured? Clinton and Obama have been engaged in aggressive arguments about the merits of their respective plans. Edwards, who released his healthcare plan has now entered the fray. But beyond the rhetoric which candidate has the better healthcare plan for the US?

All three of the major players – Clinton, Edwards and Obama – in the race for the Democratic nomination have sweeping plans for healthcare reform. All three candidates have based their proposed reforms on universal health insurance coverage for Americans. The primary difference between the plans is that both Clinton and Edwards intend to mandate by law that every American purchase and maintain health insurance policies, while Obama would only mandate that children must be covered by law.

The other key elements of their respective healthcare plans are quite similar. Each includes government subsidies to help lower-income and even middle-income families pay health insurance premiums, and various proposals to cut the cost of health care. All three candidates say they intend to pay for their healthcare plans by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for upper-income earners and by creating costs savings in health spending through various measures.

That’s right, all three plans are based on universal health insurance coverage, not on some form of government healthcare infrastructure. So be assured that great pains will be taken to ensure that the $500 billion per year health insurance industry gets their share of the candidates’ proposed $100+ billion per year plans.

So it appears that the major difference between the candidates’ plans, and the cause of the increasingly vicious argument between Clinton and Obama that Edwards is now weighing in on, is the fact that Obama does not wish to mandate via federal law that every American purchase health insurance. Obama only wants the government to force the US people to purchase health insurance for their children.

I don’t think we should start by giving up on 15 million Americans. That’s why my health care plan covers everyone.

— Sen. Hillary Clinton

And who are these 15 million Americans? These are the estimated 15 million Americans who would voluntarily choose not to purchase health insurance even though they could do so. Both Hillary and Edwards have a severe problem with the idea that American’s might exercise their right to choose not to insure themselves.

At what point did Americans lose the right of self determination? Is the US at the point where The People are willing to be forced to do something that may be in their own best interests, but is assuredly in the best interests of the healthcare industry?

Here are two interesting quotes from two separate US State of the Union addresses, one by Clinton (Slick Willy) in 1998 and one by Bush (Dubya) in 2002.

“We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information… And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.”

“Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”

— President Bill J. Clinton
State of the Union address,
January 27, 1998

The bulk of the American people seem to laud this statement. They believed that the US must protect itself from the potential threat posed by this “unholy axis”. The Right’s response was to denounce this rhetoric as warmongering, empire building, and fiscally irresponsible.

Though President Clinton started the US’ modern rhetoric against terrorism and against Saddam Hussein the American people seem to refuse to force his administration or the Left in general to shoulder any share of the blame for the resulting debacles.

“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”

— President George W. Bush
State of the Union Address,
January 29, 2002

The majority of the American people didn’t support this statement. They believed that the US must protect itself from the potential threat posed by global terrorism, but seemingly only quick-fix ways that costs little time, few if any American soldiers, and less commitment. Saddam was not seen by many to an acceptable target for anyone named Bush and President Bush was accused by the Left of being warmongering, empire building, and fiscally irresponsible.

President Bush and the Right in general will have to bear the legacy of the debacles that have resulted from the actions America has taken in Iraq, Pakistan and the Mideast in general.

As we approach the 2008 US Presidential Elections, with a Clinton as a favored candidate, American’s might do well to dwell for a moment or two on the similarities between the 1998 and 2002 State of the Union addresses. We should also dwell for even longer on how the Right and the Left have shifted stances on the issues – apparently depending solely on which political party controlled the Whitehouse.