Let me start by saying I have nothing against Catholicism (except that I think it's incorrect, which is why I'm not Catholic...) or against the Papal system in general. In fact, a friend recently told me I got starry eyed when talking about Pope John Paul II. That was one righteous fellow.
Last night I posted on my facebook status "Sarah does not like the picture of the Pope at the Kotel on the cover of the New York Times" . I thought this was pretty self-explanatory. Doesn't everyone know that the Pope is an anti-semite? Apparently not. A bunch of Christian friends of mine asked "Why not?" and when I said that I was bothered by his..um...anti-semitism (citing examples) they focused on one thing. There is a prayer in the Good Friday Service where the Catholics pray for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism. From what I understand (the last time I was in Catholic church was 6 years ago for a Baptism, and I have NEVER been to a Catholic Good Friday ...mass?) the prayer starts out with a prayer for the Pope and Bishops, etc., then a prayer for Catholics, then for Jews, then for nonbelievers. There is no prayer for Muslims or Buddhists or anything, so obviously this is specifically targeting the conversion of Jews, but whatever.
Personally, this doesn't offend me, as a side note. I know that MOST Christians think that it is their duty (a mitzvah, if you will) to convert and "save" Jews and all non-Christians. They think they are correct. Doesn't everyone think that? I'm from the Bible Belt so I am used to people telling me they want to save me, are praying for me, and at first it used to piss me off. Then I thought it was amusing. Then I started to say "If you are going to pray for me, make sure you mention my Chem final tomorrow!!!" Now I have resigned to the fact that this is what Christians (as well as Muslims want) -- for the whole world to be part of their religion. As long as they leave me alone I don't really care what they are praying for. Having a Christian praying for me to "be saved" is not nearly as offensive as the kid who threw the penny at me in the Union the other day.
So anyway this prayer used to be really negative talking about how Jews were under a veil, unfaithful, etc., and over the last half decade has become a lot more positive. One of the many things this new Pope has done is try to make this prayer back to its original text. I don't want to argue the Latin or what it is truly saying because I saw this as a really small side note because like I said, I know the Pope wants everyone to be Catholic!!! Otherwise he would be a pretty weird Catholic. But after I posted this I got a lot of feedback on being a "completed Jew" and all sorts of strange concepts, and really I didn't want to debate religion with anyone. I would debate religion with atheists, with Jews who have some strange ideas, etc., but I don't really see the point in debating religion with religious Christians or Muslims. They have their views which they are entitled too and as long as they aren't hurting me what do I care. In Judaism there is no concept of everyone having to be Jewish and follow Jewish laws. The Torah was given to the JEWS and the only people that have to keep any of the laws in the Torah are those with a Jewish mother or those who convert to Judaism. There is no concept of looking for converts in Judaism. Everyone that isn't Jewish has to only follow the 7 Noachide laws. .
My whole point was this: POPE JOHN PAUL II was AWESOME. Pope Benedict XVI is lame and this is why I don't like to see him praying at the Kotel. Moshe did not get to go to Israel, Jews weren't allowed for thousands of years, my own father has never been, and here is the anti-semitic Pope at the Kotel. How sweet!
-Hitler Youth
Pope Benedict XVI was, like most good little German boys, in the Hitler Youth. I have been told that this isn't really his fault. After all, he was a kid and EVERYONE was in the Hitler Youth. First of all, he was a young teenager, not a kid. If he were a Jew, he would be considered an adult. I understand that a six year old might not be blamed for joining, but a 13 year old is. Secondly the Pope is a leader of a world religion. In fact he leads about a billion people. A teenage leader DOES actually have the responsibility to take a stand on what is right and wrong. (Pope JP2 did!) . I know if I were Catholic I would want my leader to know the difference between right and wrong when it is so black and white. I have Catholic relatives that have actually stopped going to the Church because because they don't want to be part of a group whose best leader they can find, of all the billion Catholics, wore a swastika and marched in line. There is a serious lack of leadership in Catholic church today if they cannot find a someone with a tiny bit of brazenness.
**MOST IMPORTANTLY JOSEPH RATZINGER CHOSE TO STAY WITH THE GERMAN ARMY AFTER GRADUATING THE HITLER YOUTH, JOINING Luftwaffe AA battery**
- Pius X
Here's the video of Bishop Richard Williamson, Holocaust Denier. Here he is saying that maybe 2-300,000 Jews "perished" but never by gas chambers, and he also says when asked about anti-semitism, that something isn't bad if it is true. He is a member of the Society of St. Pius X which is often accused of being anti-semitic, but I'm not going to go into why. So basically this bishop is a known anti-semite and holocaust denier and was excommunicated 20 years ago. Don't worry, though! Pope Benedict XVI invited him back! Yay! Maybe the Pope didn't know/care about this fact and let him back because his nice, has a cool accent, etc. I don't know. But once again he has a responsibility to look into these sort of things.
-Israel
Right now our dear Benedict is in Israel. He has made a few speeches to the Israelis, but mainly he is focusing on his Palestinian friends. For example, in Bethlehem (actually Beit Lechem- house of bread) , the other day Pope Benedict XVI talked about how he has a common bond with Palestinians because they want to go back to their homeland (see: Jordan) and so does he (Germany?). Also on this trip the Pope attended the speech of Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, who used the opportunity to urge Muslims and Christians to unite against Israel. This is the same speech that I heard when an imam spoke to my high school back in Mississippi. The Pope got up right after the speech to make a somewhat early exit, but made sure to shake the hand of Sheikh Tamimi first. Always the diplomat! Throughout the trip the Pope has expressed his sorrow for the Palestinian people saying how they are oppressed and deserve a state, etc.
-Forgiving the Jews?
Pope John Paul II officially "forgave the Jews for killing Jesus". This is a strange concept, but still a positive thing. Maybe the very pious Catholics of NYC don't know this, but many Christians do blame the Jews of today for the crucifixion. I had people ask me somewhat often why I killed Jesus. Pope John Paul II said on a trip to Israel
" “the Jews of our times can hardly be accused of the crimes committed against Christ, so far removed are they from those deeds. Actually, even in the time of Christ, the majority of the chosen people did not cooperate with the leaders of the people in condemning Christ" and went on to say that G-d has forgiven the Jews so you should to.
Pope Benedict XVI actually tried to revoke this. In other words say, okay we can now blame the Jews again. Whatttt?
There are many more examples but I need to eat lunch. I don't blame Catholics for their support of "G-ds Rottweiler" as he is nicknamed because I don't really think you are able to say that you dislike the Pope, but at the same token I hope that if you had the choice you would have chosen someone else.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
If I got to chose where some of the bailout money went...
Seriously. Obviously I hate the bailout and am really proud to come from a state where they said NO take your socialism, we'll keep our states rights and our charity and our gun rights.
Anyway.
I don't like the bailout. I think it's stupid. I think it defies all economic principles.
But there is one institution that could really use a boost. The MTA.
For non New Yorkers (are you friendly? do you give your seats up for pregnant women?), I'm talking about the Mass Transit Authority. Basically this is the public transportation in the NYC Metropolitan area. Most frequented are the Subways but the buses and even ferries are pretty popular as well. So there are crazy parking fees and gas is $1941029410 a gallon etc etc, and in NYC everyone loves mass transit. There are a few somewhat unique features of mass transit in New York.
-Subways run 24/7. The most you will ever wait for a train is 15 minutes. And you'd have a right to be really annoyed in that case because it doesn't happen to often. In other cities, such as DC, the train shuts down in the middle of the night and if you have to get to work at 5:30 AM then you are in trouble. Also other cities sometimes even have days of the week where there is no mass transit.
-No matter where you are going, the price is the same--as of now $2. You can ride from Queens to Brooklyn, transfers and all, and only pay $2. Or, you can ride from 34th & 6th to 23rd & 6th, and it's still $2. The later is a punishment for extreme laziness which I support.
-The system always seems to be losing. Despite the overcrowded trains, the cops kicking the bums off the stairwell, the great musicians and not so great musicians for entertainment... the MTA can never really keep up.
So the MTA had a few options. Let's do some basic microeconomic theory Obviously, PROFIT= REVENUE- EXPENSES and since profit < 0, then expenses > revenue, and the MTA either has to make more or spend less.
Let's analyze these two options.
1. Spend Less
Ways to spend less include:
a. LESS FREQUENT TRAINS. This is my preference, and I don't mean cutting out daytime trains. I mean cutting out all but maybe two trains that run on each line between 3:00 AM and 5:00 AM. This would mean those who travel at these strange times would have to either plan their commute accordingly or else hang out in the Starbucks for another thirty minutes. This would save millions for MTA in the course of the year and in effect take care of the deficit. But NYC is famous for running all night so they can't do that. Moronic.
b. LESS HOURS FOR THE MTA TICKET BOOTH WORKERS This wouldn't be such a bad idea because mostly they just yell into the intercom for us to look at the map. Most people that take the subway either know the routes, can read a map pretty well, or don't speak English anyway. But we don't want to cut [unnecessary] jobs. I guess.
c. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CLEAN THESE PLACES OR ANYTHING.
2. Make More
Say you are selling a book and want to make as much as possible. Would you sell the book for $500 dollars? Of course not! Nobody would buy it. You'd figure out how the highest price most buyers would spend, and charge that. Of course. But the MTA has this great idea that no matter what they charge , they will get the same number of clients..if they charge fifteen cents or ten dollars. This is ignorant. People will just have to find another way to get to work, or maybe not work at the same place or live in the same place. What this could cause is clear...a major strain on the economy. Over 11 million people use the MTA each day. What happens if they can't afford to get to work? MTA wants to change the fair from $2 to $3. This is a 50% increase. It's pretty huge.
The more logical way to make more is to attract more. This is clear because selling one book for $500 makes a lot less than selling 100 books for $10. Duh. You can obviously say eleven million people is too much already and I never get a seat on the train except the seat next to the sleeping drunk guy and I wish less people rode the train. And you'd be right. But do you really think this is how MTA gets a revenue? Think about the ADVERTISEMENTS. Think about all the empty space. Ok, I hate being bombarded just as much as you do, but you know that we are all so engrossed in our own worries and our iPod and our iPhone and whatever else that most of the time you don't notice them. So what about more adds? What about audio or video adds? Thats a lot of money.
So here's our dilema. We have three real options
-Less trains. MTA is not going to do this because they want their reputation for 24/7 whatever.
-More adds. New York has this new fear of branding so this won't happen for another five years but don't worry. It WILL happen.
-Higher fees. This is what MTA is willing to do although its going to overall hurt the economy.
So none of these options are good for both parties (being MTA and the clients, which can be redefined as the general public).
What does our President do? ( I clarify that P. Bush is just as responsible for this bailout as P. Obama is, but either way it is wrong wrong wrong)
He thinks our money would be better spent renovating government buildings and repaving roads and putting fresh coats of paint on stop signs, why not subsidize the MTA?
Ok Right friends, don't shoot me. I did suggest government subsidizing the MTA. Temporarily. As opposed to the NYC economy completely falling apart when they want to charge 50% more for a ride to work.
Don't get me wrong if it were up to me...no bailout. But if they have to take my money, this is a place I think it would be good to go to.
Anyway.
I don't like the bailout. I think it's stupid. I think it defies all economic principles.
But there is one institution that could really use a boost. The MTA.
For non New Yorkers (are you friendly? do you give your seats up for pregnant women?), I'm talking about the Mass Transit Authority. Basically this is the public transportation in the NYC Metropolitan area. Most frequented are the Subways but the buses and even ferries are pretty popular as well. So there are crazy parking fees and gas is $1941029410 a gallon etc etc, and in NYC everyone loves mass transit. There are a few somewhat unique features of mass transit in New York.
-Subways run 24/7. The most you will ever wait for a train is 15 minutes. And you'd have a right to be really annoyed in that case because it doesn't happen to often. In other cities, such as DC, the train shuts down in the middle of the night and if you have to get to work at 5:30 AM then you are in trouble. Also other cities sometimes even have days of the week where there is no mass transit.
-No matter where you are going, the price is the same--as of now $2. You can ride from Queens to Brooklyn, transfers and all, and only pay $2. Or, you can ride from 34th & 6th to 23rd & 6th, and it's still $2. The later is a punishment for extreme laziness which I support.
-The system always seems to be losing. Despite the overcrowded trains, the cops kicking the bums off the stairwell, the great musicians and not so great musicians for entertainment... the MTA can never really keep up.
So the MTA had a few options. Let's do some basic microeconomic theory Obviously, PROFIT= REVENUE- EXPENSES and since profit < 0, then expenses > revenue, and the MTA either has to make more or spend less.
Let's analyze these two options.
1. Spend Less
Ways to spend less include:
a. LESS FREQUENT TRAINS. This is my preference, and I don't mean cutting out daytime trains. I mean cutting out all but maybe two trains that run on each line between 3:00 AM and 5:00 AM. This would mean those who travel at these strange times would have to either plan their commute accordingly or else hang out in the Starbucks for another thirty minutes. This would save millions for MTA in the course of the year and in effect take care of the deficit. But NYC is famous for running all night so they can't do that. Moronic.
b. LESS HOURS FOR THE MTA TICKET BOOTH WORKERS This wouldn't be such a bad idea because mostly they just yell into the intercom for us to look at the map. Most people that take the subway either know the routes, can read a map pretty well, or don't speak English anyway. But we don't want to cut [unnecessary] jobs. I guess.
c. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CLEAN THESE PLACES OR ANYTHING.
2. Make More
Say you are selling a book and want to make as much as possible. Would you sell the book for $500 dollars? Of course not! Nobody would buy it. You'd figure out how the highest price most buyers would spend, and charge that. Of course. But the MTA has this great idea that no matter what they charge , they will get the same number of clients..if they charge fifteen cents or ten dollars. This is ignorant. People will just have to find another way to get to work, or maybe not work at the same place or live in the same place. What this could cause is clear...a major strain on the economy. Over 11 million people use the MTA each day. What happens if they can't afford to get to work? MTA wants to change the fair from $2 to $3. This is a 50% increase. It's pretty huge.
The more logical way to make more is to attract more. This is clear because selling one book for $500 makes a lot less than selling 100 books for $10. Duh. You can obviously say eleven million people is too much already and I never get a seat on the train except the seat next to the sleeping drunk guy and I wish less people rode the train. And you'd be right. But do you really think this is how MTA gets a revenue? Think about the ADVERTISEMENTS. Think about all the empty space. Ok, I hate being bombarded just as much as you do, but you know that we are all so engrossed in our own worries and our iPod and our iPhone and whatever else that most of the time you don't notice them. So what about more adds? What about audio or video adds? Thats a lot of money.
So here's our dilema. We have three real options
-Less trains. MTA is not going to do this because they want their reputation for 24/7 whatever.
-More adds. New York has this new fear of branding so this won't happen for another five years but don't worry. It WILL happen.
-Higher fees. This is what MTA is willing to do although its going to overall hurt the economy.
So none of these options are good for both parties (being MTA and the clients, which can be redefined as the general public).
What does our President do? ( I clarify that P. Bush is just as responsible for this bailout as P. Obama is, but either way it is wrong wrong wrong)
He thinks our money would be better spent renovating government buildings and repaving roads and putting fresh coats of paint on stop signs, why not subsidize the MTA?
Ok Right friends, don't shoot me. I did suggest government subsidizing the MTA. Temporarily. As opposed to the NYC economy completely falling apart when they want to charge 50% more for a ride to work.
Don't get me wrong if it were up to me...no bailout. But if they have to take my money, this is a place I think it would be good to go to.
Pirates...or Patriots?
Hearing the word "pirate" probably arouses fond childhood memories of playing the backyard, or maybe adventure novels read in middle school. In my case, it usually reminds me of high school, because my school mascot was the pirate.
If you are just hearing about the 2009 Pirate Crisis, you're probably on the wrong blog. But anyway it's nothing too far away from the 2009 Israel/Hamas Crisis. Or the Oil Crisis. Or 911. It's basically Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups encouraging Somalian pirates to continue their crusade against evil, or something like that...
(And you know what? It's working.)*
Senior Al Qaeda official Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri (try saying THAT ten times fast!), or Abu Sufian al-Azdi for short, encourage
" The crusaders, the Jews and the traitorous rulers did not come to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden except to wage war against you in Somalia and abolish your newly established emirate, and by Allah, they shall be defeated. They shall bring a curse upon their people." (from a tape acquired by CBS news)
Okay, first of all I want to point out that these pirates have captured Greeks (most definitely not Jewish, anyone know the story behind Hanukkah?), Lebanese (see 2005 and the turning back of the clocks of Beirut), Egyptians (ehhh...), etc., etc., NO ISRAELI SHIPS. So If their goal is actually Jews than they have some bad aim.
Secondly, if these countries wanted to "wage war" against Somalia and Djibouti, don't you think they'd do it instead of just floating through the water to do some trading? Hello.
Thirdly, these attacks are clearly random. These are often not government owned ships and owned by corporations.
Obviously it's sick that America isn't really treating this at part of the War On Terror. Is it really not considered terrorism when a bunch of teenagers with guns attack and American ship? If they had been older would it have been? Or maybe if they were having a TEA PARTY? Or maybe we don't want to stereotype.
Just because these pirates are named things like Abduhl Wal-i-Musi obviously doesn't make them terrorists. But it doesn't mean we should try to be politically correct. Because they attack us and they have guns and they hate and they aren't scared of anything and they are encouraged by Al Qaeda...this certainly points to terrorism to me.
To treat these people like they are poor teenagers with guns is not only wrong its dangerous. Ignoring threats to our safety is a lot more dangerous than risking the Dixie Chicks criticize you in France.
I don't know why our President is worried about that anyone. President Sarkozy is not a fan.
There are three main ways the media has been handling this.
1. The Conservatives--Right as usual.
2. The Obamanatics -
The media, such as CNN and all of your other proudly liberal mainstream channels, have been dumping praise on Pres Obama this last week or so for giving the military the go ahead to save Captain Richard Phillips. Uh. Seriously? What was the alternative? "I give you permission to save your captains life and not let him get shot by some sixteen (excuse me, he might be seventeen) year old Somali kid." What? Am I the only one baffled by this? I guess you can't take anything for granted these days. I assume an American President would support the military in any possible way but with none of our 800 billion going to anything having to do with safety (other than environmental safety, whatever that means), but it's a new era. Hold on tight.
The main stream media has not really been praising our military for saving Cptn Phillips, or talking about how amazingly brave he is , or suggesting ways to avoid pirates in the future. Anybody should clearly see that the hero here was not our dear President but the MILITARY.
3. The Fringes
Here I am speaking of the your favorite crazies to watch on the news. What they say is so bizarre that it's easy to forget they are serious. But they are... Example : The Reverend Al Sharpton. Americans tend to call these people pirates. Some reasons include they are on boats, they have guns, they hijack boats, the ask for money, etc. That's basically what pirates are. Maybe they don't have swords or parrots or say arggh, but these people are dangerous. Al Sharpton commented on this, and said that he agrees more with the definition these people give themselves
"VOLUNTARY COAST GUARD".
This guy is a nut. If he is such a fan of these patriots, what is he doing wearing a suit being interviewed on CNN? Get out there and fight the power!!!!
Bottom line is: These pirates are way more than a nuisance and need to be treated that way. This isn't a new problem, this isn't an American problem, and it's not a Somali problem. It's a global problem. What a shame that there is no such thing as a global community (don't get me wrong, there never really has been one) to get together and try to sort this out.
*Sorry for all the (parentheses) in this post. And all the other posts. I really like them. Deal with it.
If you are just hearing about the 2009 Pirate Crisis, you're probably on the wrong blog. But anyway it's nothing too far away from the 2009 Israel/Hamas Crisis. Or the Oil Crisis. Or 911. It's basically Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups encouraging Somalian pirates to continue their crusade against evil, or something like that...
(And you know what? It's working.)*
Senior Al Qaeda official Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri (try saying THAT ten times fast!), or Abu Sufian al-Azdi for short, encourage
" The crusaders, the Jews and the traitorous rulers did not come to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden except to wage war against you in Somalia and abolish your newly established emirate, and by Allah, they shall be defeated. They shall bring a curse upon their people." (from a tape acquired by CBS news)
Okay, first of all I want to point out that these pirates have captured Greeks (most definitely not Jewish, anyone know the story behind Hanukkah?), Lebanese (see 2005 and the turning back of the clocks of Beirut), Egyptians (ehhh...), etc., etc., NO ISRAELI SHIPS. So If their goal is actually Jews than they have some bad aim.
Secondly, if these countries wanted to "wage war" against Somalia and Djibouti, don't you think they'd do it instead of just floating through the water to do some trading? Hello.
Thirdly, these attacks are clearly random. These are often not government owned ships and owned by corporations.
Obviously it's sick that America isn't really treating this at part of the War On Terror. Is it really not considered terrorism when a bunch of teenagers with guns attack and American ship? If they had been older would it have been? Or maybe if they were having a TEA PARTY? Or maybe we don't want to stereotype.
Just because these pirates are named things like Abduhl Wal-i-Musi obviously doesn't make them terrorists. But it doesn't mean we should try to be politically correct. Because they attack us and they have guns and they hate and they aren't scared of anything and they are encouraged by Al Qaeda...this certainly points to terrorism to me.
To treat these people like they are poor teenagers with guns is not only wrong its dangerous. Ignoring threats to our safety is a lot more dangerous than risking the Dixie Chicks criticize you in France.
I don't know why our President is worried about that anyone. President Sarkozy is not a fan.
There are three main ways the media has been handling this.
1. The Conservatives--Right as usual.
2. The Obamanatics -
The media, such as CNN and all of your other proudly liberal mainstream channels, have been dumping praise on Pres Obama this last week or so for giving the military the go ahead to save Captain Richard Phillips. Uh. Seriously? What was the alternative? "I give you permission to save your captains life and not let him get shot by some sixteen (excuse me, he might be seventeen) year old Somali kid." What? Am I the only one baffled by this? I guess you can't take anything for granted these days. I assume an American President would support the military in any possible way but with none of our 800 billion going to anything having to do with safety (other than environmental safety, whatever that means), but it's a new era. Hold on tight.
The main stream media has not really been praising our military for saving Cptn Phillips, or talking about how amazingly brave he is , or suggesting ways to avoid pirates in the future. Anybody should clearly see that the hero here was not our dear President but the MILITARY.
3. The Fringes
Here I am speaking of the your favorite crazies to watch on the news. What they say is so bizarre that it's easy to forget they are serious. But they are... Example : The Reverend Al Sharpton. Americans tend to call these people pirates. Some reasons include they are on boats, they have guns, they hijack boats, the ask for money, etc. That's basically what pirates are. Maybe they don't have swords or parrots or say arggh, but these people are dangerous. Al Sharpton commented on this, and said that he agrees more with the definition these people give themselves
"VOLUNTARY COAST GUARD".
This guy is a nut. If he is such a fan of these patriots, what is he doing wearing a suit being interviewed on CNN? Get out there and fight the power!!!!
Bottom line is: These pirates are way more than a nuisance and need to be treated that way. This isn't a new problem, this isn't an American problem, and it's not a Somali problem. It's a global problem. What a shame that there is no such thing as a global community (don't get me wrong, there never really has been one) to get together and try to sort this out.
*Sorry for all the (parentheses) in this post. And all the other posts. I really like them. Deal with it.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Randy Hoffmeister
I posted this as a Facebook note and what is affective once may as well be reused...
This is in response to the uproar on campus in the last week due to the publishing of the word "kike" by one of the school's papers.
All that has really been accomplished is people are upset about this (including me), and rightfully so.
All of the craziness reminded me of another incident:
DISCLAIMER: I don't think it's right to compare the incident I'm describing with what happened at SBU, on most levels. Though I do think the way we should respond/what our responses could cause can be compared, and I think that the generalizations I make can be applied to countless situations.
When I was in eleventh grade, I had a Xanga. This was mostly because I thought it was the cool thing to do, and all of my friends had Xangas. It was really lame. I think my most exciting post was about the time I saw some kid steal a CD at the mall and get chased by a policeman (the kid won).
I never wrote anything about religion on my Xanga from what I can recall. In fact I didn't know anything about religion so I don't know what I could have possibly written. But it was a small town and I generally went to the Reform temple in town on Friday nights.
One day somebody named "Randy Hoffmeister" wrote a nasty comment on my blog. It had something to do with the fact that he thought all Jews can be hanged. I clicked on his blog because I had no clue who he was. The last three posts of his included
a) A picture of me he had apparently gotten off my Xanga (oops)
b) A nasty anti-semitic picture, usually from Nazi Germany, with a comment that I looked like the Jew in the picture and was probably [insert negative stereotypes here]
c) Pictures of morbidly obese naked women
When I saw Randy Hoffemeister's blog, formerly located at www.xanga.com/randyhoffmeister , I started crying. This was for two reasons. First of all, I was offended and hurt. Second of all the pictures of the naked women were really sick and I was traumatized. Who wants to see THAT?
Immediately about fifteen of my friends started attacking Randy Hoffemeister. They called him all sorts of nasty names and threatened him and all sorts of stuff. Then he would publish another article with my picture in it. And the would yell at him. And then it would happen again.
Finally I respectfully asked my friends to not comment on the next blog about me, no matter how bad it was. After a few days, he stopped.
I soon found out that Randy Hoffmeister was actually a kid at my school who I didn't even know . His name is NOT Randy, and to this day I don't think he knows that I know.
What did "Randy" want from all of this? He wanted to hurt my feelings. He wanted to piss me off. He wanted attention. So I pretended like I wasn't hurt or pissed off, and he was ignored. And he stopped.
I learned a few things from this whole Randy Hoffmeister experience.
-Due to freedom of the press, there is nothing I could do about what "Randy" was writing, although his Xanga did get shut down. Even though the article was mean, anybody that wants to can say that word in the paper or on a blog or even on TV and the most that can happen is they get fired.
- He wasn't accomplishing anything but hurting me, so once I started ignoring him, he realized he was wasting his time. These people want attention!
-The best thing you can do, as sad as it is, with these sort of things is ignore it. That's the last thing inflammatory writers want. I know this is easier said than done because although it is logical, how can we really ignore something like this?
-Don't publish pictures on the internet unless you want people to take them!
-There will always be anti-semitism, there will always be racism, there will always be white supremacists and black supremacists and Asian supremacists and everything else... if you think that is going away you are blind. All we can do is stick together, those of us who DON'T hate.
-On that same note, the majority of people are actually good (just quiet sometimes). Seeing all of my friends bashing this Randy dude also made me cry!
-People who publish under pseudonyms are probably embarrassed by what they have to say. This may be why Randy Hoffmeister never confronted me. By the way Sarah Marshall is my real name and I stick by everything I say.
-I don't know if these things come from hate. Surely anyone that writes these things is hateful, right? I honestly don't know. I think they are just bored or ignorant or insensitive or a combination. Either way I feel bad for them. Maybe Randy grew up in a house full of hate and never saw anything to change his mind. For those of us who have been bashed by ethnic slurs, stereotypes, all sorts of disgusting things... show them that they are wrong. "Randy" never met a Jew! People like Bernie Madoff are the only Jews he has heard of. Don't get me wrong, this kid was a loser and I'm not trying to excuse him. But people like him exist all over the world and always have and always will, and the biggest thing we can do to stop them is prove them wrong through actions.
This is in response to the uproar on campus in the last week due to the publishing of the word "kike" by one of the school's papers.
All that has really been accomplished is people are upset about this (including me), and rightfully so.
All of the craziness reminded me of another incident:
DISCLAIMER: I don't think it's right to compare the incident I'm describing with what happened at SBU, on most levels. Though I do think the way we should respond/what our responses could cause can be compared, and I think that the generalizations I make can be applied to countless situations.
When I was in eleventh grade, I had a Xanga. This was mostly because I thought it was the cool thing to do, and all of my friends had Xangas. It was really lame. I think my most exciting post was about the time I saw some kid steal a CD at the mall and get chased by a policeman (the kid won).
I never wrote anything about religion on my Xanga from what I can recall. In fact I didn't know anything about religion so I don't know what I could have possibly written. But it was a small town and I generally went to the Reform temple in town on Friday nights.
One day somebody named "Randy Hoffmeister" wrote a nasty comment on my blog. It had something to do with the fact that he thought all Jews can be hanged. I clicked on his blog because I had no clue who he was. The last three posts of his included
a) A picture of me he had apparently gotten off my Xanga (oops)
b) A nasty anti-semitic picture, usually from Nazi Germany, with a comment that I looked like the Jew in the picture and was probably [insert negative stereotypes here]
c) Pictures of morbidly obese naked women
When I saw Randy Hoffemeister's blog, formerly located at www.xanga.com/randyhoffmeister , I started crying. This was for two reasons. First of all, I was offended and hurt. Second of all the pictures of the naked women were really sick and I was traumatized. Who wants to see THAT?
Immediately about fifteen of my friends started attacking Randy Hoffemeister. They called him all sorts of nasty names and threatened him and all sorts of stuff. Then he would publish another article with my picture in it. And the would yell at him. And then it would happen again.
Finally I respectfully asked my friends to not comment on the next blog about me, no matter how bad it was. After a few days, he stopped.
I soon found out that Randy Hoffmeister was actually a kid at my school who I didn't even know . His name is NOT Randy, and to this day I don't think he knows that I know.
What did "Randy" want from all of this? He wanted to hurt my feelings. He wanted to piss me off. He wanted attention. So I pretended like I wasn't hurt or pissed off, and he was ignored. And he stopped.
I learned a few things from this whole Randy Hoffmeister experience.
-Due to freedom of the press, there is nothing I could do about what "Randy" was writing, although his Xanga did get shut down. Even though the article was mean, anybody that wants to can say that word in the paper or on a blog or even on TV and the most that can happen is they get fired.
- He wasn't accomplishing anything but hurting me, so once I started ignoring him, he realized he was wasting his time. These people want attention!
-The best thing you can do, as sad as it is, with these sort of things is ignore it. That's the last thing inflammatory writers want. I know this is easier said than done because although it is logical, how can we really ignore something like this?
-Don't publish pictures on the internet unless you want people to take them!
-There will always be anti-semitism, there will always be racism, there will always be white supremacists and black supremacists and Asian supremacists and everything else... if you think that is going away you are blind. All we can do is stick together, those of us who DON'T hate.
-On that same note, the majority of people are actually good (just quiet sometimes). Seeing all of my friends bashing this Randy dude also made me cry!
-People who publish under pseudonyms are probably embarrassed by what they have to say. This may be why Randy Hoffmeister never confronted me. By the way Sarah Marshall is my real name and I stick by everything I say.
-I don't know if these things come from hate. Surely anyone that writes these things is hateful, right? I honestly don't know. I think they are just bored or ignorant or insensitive or a combination. Either way I feel bad for them. Maybe Randy grew up in a house full of hate and never saw anything to change his mind. For those of us who have been bashed by ethnic slurs, stereotypes, all sorts of disgusting things... show them that they are wrong. "Randy" never met a Jew! People like Bernie Madoff are the only Jews he has heard of. Don't get me wrong, this kid was a loser and I'm not trying to excuse him. But people like him exist all over the world and always have and always will, and the biggest thing we can do to stop them is prove them wrong through actions.
Why Americans Are All Unhappy
Loser.-->Here in New York we have groups that protest everything. Mostly they protest the government (in general), Israel (G-d forbid they fight back!) , the war (even in times of peace) , capitalism (where?), etc. Some of them have good points (well...not that I've seen but I trust that they exist), but most of them are skinny upper class white kids who have had a Lexus since they were fifteen and need something to complain about and occupy their time. They like to fight "the man," even if the man employs their daddy and pays their college tuition and will one day employ them. And "the man" is also the one that worked so hard to give them the right to sit outside with a sign and complain about anything and everything.
So any person who visited America would probably come to New York and thus see these protesters. Someone who lived in New York would see few days without these protestors. And they'd think "Wow, Americans sure are unhappy!"
Fortunately , they'd be wrong.
I lost my house in Hurricane Katrina and it sucked. When people here about this they say "Wow, you must really hate Bush!" Unlike some of these protestors, Mississippians do not generally think that President Bush was brilliant enough to create a Hurricane powerful enough to destroy a few thousand lives. Only G-d can do that and we don't know why it happened, but it did. The answer is to move on as best as we can, not blame President Bush.
My point with that is not that all Americans are miserable with the way things are going. Sure, we are in a recession. Sure, things aren't perfect. But we still have so many freedoms, so many opportunities.
My family is dirt poor. I mean...really poor. But here I am at school that costs me about $25,000 a year. I didn't get my scholarship because I'm poor or because I'm a minority or because my dad went to school here (my parents didn't go to college, actually). I got this scholarship because I worked really hard in high school. Anyone can do that. Correction. (Warning: inflammatory statement) If someone can't figure out how to get a scholarship, loan, or grant, then they probably don't deserve it and I don't want them operating on me.
We are still one of the richest countries in the world, and we are definitely the freest. In fact we are among only a few countries where if you don't like it here, you can take all your money and leave. Most places won't let you do that.
Our "skyrocketing" unemployment rate is still below that of most Western European countries. It's below most countries that aren't communist, actually, because we don't force people to take jobs that they don't want. Instead they can collect welfare, unemployment, food stamps, medicare/caid, live in subsidized housing..etc. Ew!
My point here is stop whining, people. It doesn't really accomplish anything If all you do is sit around and complain, I would be thrilled if you went through with your threats and moved to Canada. Better yet, move to France...or Cuba!
Yay America.
R-e-s-p-e-c-t.
Update: I am doing my best to respect President Obama despite...the obvious.
Old Article:
That’s President Fascist to You
About a year ago, I moved from the “Yes ma’am” capital of the world, Mississippi, here to Long Island. I wasn’t exactly expecting to see chivalry, but some things did surprise me. A lot of teachers here want us to call them by their first names. Seriously? I should call my teacher with two PhDs who has been doing research projects in my field since before I was born “Steve”? Nope. Can’t do it. Sorry. It’s hard enough for me to not call them “Yessir” but to call them by their first name will never happen.
The informality I found upon leaving home is not limited to professor-student relationships. People outside of my little hometown sure have an odd way of talking about politicians. I had a classmate at home who was about as Liberal as you can get. When insulting our President though, he wrote all over his website, “President Bush is a fascist!” This is obviously an offensive (and very untrue) statement, but this guy would never think of leaving about his formal title. I have gone from hearing insults directed at President Bush to insults directed at George. The first time it happened I was reading an article about Secretary of State Rice and heard her referred to as “Condi.” I realize this is an affectionate term, as some of President Bush’s biggest supporters call him “Dubya,” but it’s WEIRD.
I read all sorts of news articles these days and hear about people named “Obama” “McCain” and “Sarah.” My name is Sarah.
The Vice-Presidential hopeful is named Governor Palin. A kid on a high school basketball team can by his last name. The people who are hoping to run our country in a few months are not Obama and McCain. They are Senator Obama and Senator McCain.
Maybe using formal titles has become obsolete. I’m sure, though, general respect isn’t. It’s hard to believe that with the flyers that are shoved in my hands every time I walk through The City.
I am a big supporter of Senator McCain. I disagree with about 90% of Senator Obama’s plans. I don’t know what plans are in the other 10% because I can’t find anything that I do agree with, but I’m being optimistic and assuming there is SOMETHING. The polls have been, for the past month, hovering on the even mark. There is a decent chance that Senator Obama will win the election and come January be the President of the United States of America. At that point he would become President Obama. If that happens, I will be very sad. There is a good chance that I will even cry. A lot. I will criticize his policies and actions (or lack thereof). I will accuse him of being a younger, more attractive, more charismatic [Former President] Jimmy Carter. I will be right.
I will not start calling him Barack. I will not draw mean caricatures of him making fun of whatever physical characteristic of his I don’t like as people do now, with Senator McCain’s gland and Senator Obama’s ears. I will not say he cheated to win the election. I won’t say he is racist. None of these things are okay, even if you use formal titles.
In America we have the right to criticize the government in any way we want, but do yourself a favor and be respectful. When people make fun of politicians (anything less tasteful than the SNL Tina Fey skit crosses the line) they only make themselves and their parties look bad.
Old Article:
That’s President Fascist to You
About a year ago, I moved from the “Yes ma’am” capital of the world, Mississippi, here to Long Island. I wasn’t exactly expecting to see chivalry, but some things did surprise me. A lot of teachers here want us to call them by their first names. Seriously? I should call my teacher with two PhDs who has been doing research projects in my field since before I was born “Steve”? Nope. Can’t do it. Sorry. It’s hard enough for me to not call them “Yessir” but to call them by their first name will never happen.
The informality I found upon leaving home is not limited to professor-student relationships. People outside of my little hometown sure have an odd way of talking about politicians. I had a classmate at home who was about as Liberal as you can get. When insulting our President though, he wrote all over his website, “President Bush is a fascist!” This is obviously an offensive (and very untrue) statement, but this guy would never think of leaving about his formal title. I have gone from hearing insults directed at President Bush to insults directed at George. The first time it happened I was reading an article about Secretary of State Rice and heard her referred to as “Condi.” I realize this is an affectionate term, as some of President Bush’s biggest supporters call him “Dubya,” but it’s WEIRD.
I read all sorts of news articles these days and hear about people named “Obama” “McCain” and “Sarah.” My name is Sarah.
The Vice-Presidential hopeful is named Governor Palin. A kid on a high school basketball team can by his last name. The people who are hoping to run our country in a few months are not Obama and McCain. They are Senator Obama and Senator McCain.
Maybe using formal titles has become obsolete. I’m sure, though, general respect isn’t. It’s hard to believe that with the flyers that are shoved in my hands every time I walk through The City.
I am a big supporter of Senator McCain. I disagree with about 90% of Senator Obama’s plans. I don’t know what plans are in the other 10% because I can’t find anything that I do agree with, but I’m being optimistic and assuming there is SOMETHING. The polls have been, for the past month, hovering on the even mark. There is a decent chance that Senator Obama will win the election and come January be the President of the United States of America. At that point he would become President Obama. If that happens, I will be very sad. There is a good chance that I will even cry. A lot. I will criticize his policies and actions (or lack thereof). I will accuse him of being a younger, more attractive, more charismatic [Former President] Jimmy Carter. I will be right.
I will not start calling him Barack. I will not draw mean caricatures of him making fun of whatever physical characteristic of his I don’t like as people do now, with Senator McCain’s gland and Senator Obama’s ears. I will not say he cheated to win the election. I won’t say he is racist. None of these things are okay, even if you use formal titles.
In America we have the right to criticize the government in any way we want, but do yourself a favor and be respectful. When people make fun of politicians (anything less tasteful than the SNL Tina Fey skit crosses the line) they only make themselves and their parties look bad.
My Provocative Article
Apparently this pissed people off. This was published in The Patriot and got not only a response but accusation that I used a pseudonym.
If You Love Israel…
Sarah Marshall
In June I completed my second trip to Israel. Anybody with a drop of knowledge about politics knows how important Israel is to the US (and for that matter, how important the US is to Israel). Israel is our only reliable ally in the Middle East, and arguments that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our buddies can be quickly shot down with a review of the last few decades. Suffering from Election ’08 fever myself, I asked every Israeli I encountered for their opinions on who should be leading the free world this time next year. The vote was anonymous. Most people couldn’t believe I would ASK such a question. A more official poll given by the Washington Times puts the Israeli vote for Senator McCain around 70%.
I’m not going to explain the importance of supporting Israel and voting for someone who supports Israel. From a secular standpoint, a vote for Israel is a vote for the future of America. Without any influence in a region as huge and important as the Middle East, we won’t last too much longer. Now let’s figure out which candidate would most help to ensure the continuing success of the only democracy in a region otherwise almost completely lacking in freedom.
Senator Obama, a man of clarity and a consistent policy in general, summed up his view just a few weeks ago on a visit to Jordan. "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain... administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change,” pledged Senator Obama.
Thank you for clarifying, Senator. Honestly, I can’t really find anything showing what Senator Obama really thinks about Israel. In his two and a half years as a Senator, his votes did indicate overall support for Israel. But from reading what he says and plans to do, it’s clear his opinion is the exactly equal to…whatever his audience wants to hear. In 2004 he voiced his opinion for the “wall” protecting the Israelis to come down. He has close personal and political ties with George Soros, one of his biggest donors, who says he wants to break America’s bonds with Israel and erode political support for Israel. Senator Obama has indicated that he wants to hire some of Carter’s foreign policy team for himself in ’09. I think we all know what Carter, who recently hugged a Hamas leader, did to the Middle East. To be fair, Senator Obama strongly condemned the meeting with Hamas, which he called a terrorist organization, even though they whole-heartedly endorsed him. Last week while in Israel Senator Obama met with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which named him “candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel.” In this meeting he pledged support for continuing the strong positive relationship between America and Israel. Officially, according to his website, Senator Obama says the same things he said to Haaretz. So, to sum it up, I don’t really know what the Democratic nominee for President thinks about Israel, but I don’t think he’d do anything too radical, either way.
McCain has a clearer stance, one that hasn’t changed at all since he began his career working with the house over thirty years ago. Every statement and vote that he has made has been 100% Pro-Israel. In March on a visit to Israel he said that there was no point in negotiating with Hamas. Last summer he recognized the importance of Israel to America, asking “If we fail in Israel, where will we succeed?” When Senator McCain was asked why he is so concerned about Iran, he answered, “The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust.” Senator Joe Lieberman urged supporters of Israel to vote for Senator McCain, saying, “If you love Israel, you’ll love McCain.” In an effort to be completely fair, I looked all over for something indicating that Senator McCain isn’t ideal for Israel, but I couldn’t find much. The closest thing I saw was his consideration to have James Baker, White House Chief of Staff for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, be a sort of advisor on Israel. Baker, in a conversation with a friend about Israel, reportedly made a disgusting statement about Jews, noting, “They don’t vote for us anyway.” The only other thing I can find, after sifting through a few hundred articles, is comparisons between Senator McCain and President Bush, saying that the later is bad for Israel. I can’t find any logic behind that, though.
All I ask is that you consider what I’ve said, or rather, what the candidates have said, before you cast your vote in November. Until elected, we can’t be sure what either candidate will do, but, in the words of Senator Obama himself, no matter what, “Israel will be a friend of Israel’s.”
I'm not ashamed of my opinions, people--I'm a proud Republican.
(PS...I know this article means nothing now. The election is long. I'm just wondering what pissed people off so feel free to let me know.)
If You Love Israel…
Sarah Marshall
In June I completed my second trip to Israel. Anybody with a drop of knowledge about politics knows how important Israel is to the US (and for that matter, how important the US is to Israel). Israel is our only reliable ally in the Middle East, and arguments that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our buddies can be quickly shot down with a review of the last few decades. Suffering from Election ’08 fever myself, I asked every Israeli I encountered for their opinions on who should be leading the free world this time next year. The vote was anonymous. Most people couldn’t believe I would ASK such a question. A more official poll given by the Washington Times puts the Israeli vote for Senator McCain around 70%.
I’m not going to explain the importance of supporting Israel and voting for someone who supports Israel. From a secular standpoint, a vote for Israel is a vote for the future of America. Without any influence in a region as huge and important as the Middle East, we won’t last too much longer. Now let’s figure out which candidate would most help to ensure the continuing success of the only democracy in a region otherwise almost completely lacking in freedom.
Senator Obama, a man of clarity and a consistent policy in general, summed up his view just a few weeks ago on a visit to Jordan. "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain... administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change,” pledged Senator Obama.
Thank you for clarifying, Senator. Honestly, I can’t really find anything showing what Senator Obama really thinks about Israel. In his two and a half years as a Senator, his votes did indicate overall support for Israel. But from reading what he says and plans to do, it’s clear his opinion is the exactly equal to…whatever his audience wants to hear. In 2004 he voiced his opinion for the “wall” protecting the Israelis to come down. He has close personal and political ties with George Soros, one of his biggest donors, who says he wants to break America’s bonds with Israel and erode political support for Israel. Senator Obama has indicated that he wants to hire some of Carter’s foreign policy team for himself in ’09. I think we all know what Carter, who recently hugged a Hamas leader, did to the Middle East. To be fair, Senator Obama strongly condemned the meeting with Hamas, which he called a terrorist organization, even though they whole-heartedly endorsed him. Last week while in Israel Senator Obama met with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which named him “candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel.” In this meeting he pledged support for continuing the strong positive relationship between America and Israel. Officially, according to his website, Senator Obama says the same things he said to Haaretz. So, to sum it up, I don’t really know what the Democratic nominee for President thinks about Israel, but I don’t think he’d do anything too radical, either way.
McCain has a clearer stance, one that hasn’t changed at all since he began his career working with the house over thirty years ago. Every statement and vote that he has made has been 100% Pro-Israel. In March on a visit to Israel he said that there was no point in negotiating with Hamas. Last summer he recognized the importance of Israel to America, asking “If we fail in Israel, where will we succeed?” When Senator McCain was asked why he is so concerned about Iran, he answered, “The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust.” Senator Joe Lieberman urged supporters of Israel to vote for Senator McCain, saying, “If you love Israel, you’ll love McCain.” In an effort to be completely fair, I looked all over for something indicating that Senator McCain isn’t ideal for Israel, but I couldn’t find much. The closest thing I saw was his consideration to have James Baker, White House Chief of Staff for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, be a sort of advisor on Israel. Baker, in a conversation with a friend about Israel, reportedly made a disgusting statement about Jews, noting, “They don’t vote for us anyway.” The only other thing I can find, after sifting through a few hundred articles, is comparisons between Senator McCain and President Bush, saying that the later is bad for Israel. I can’t find any logic behind that, though.
All I ask is that you consider what I’ve said, or rather, what the candidates have said, before you cast your vote in November. Until elected, we can’t be sure what either candidate will do, but, in the words of Senator Obama himself, no matter what, “Israel will be a friend of Israel’s.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
