tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37188582024-03-10T17:59:58.529-04:00Free DartmouthA forum for independent, progressive, and liberal thinkers and activists from Dartmouth College.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1426125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-55279226563888403472009-07-28T22:06:00.001-04:002009-07-28T22:08:53.222-04:00Bill O'Reilly's off his rocker againAccording to O'Reilly, Canadians have higher life expectancy than Americans because there are 10 times more Americans, so Americans have 10 times as many accidents. Genius.<br /><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message"> </h3>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-45581631569793878232009-06-30T20:14:00.003-04:002009-06-30T20:20:45.277-04:00Legality of the Honduran CoupThe Honduran constitution is a pretty strange document. Check out this paragraph from wikipedia on the subject. It says that any citizen who tries to change the term limits article of the constitution can be immediately stripped of public office, and eventually even stripped of citizenship. So maybe the coup organizers are on solid legal ground. <br /><br /><blockquote>President Manuel Zelaya intended to hold a "nonbinding" public referendum on June 28, on whether to call a National Assembly to rewrite the constitution, to take place concurrently with this year's elections. Zelaya's opponents claimed that his intention was to allow his own re-election. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[12] The Constitution, however, establishes no process for impeaching or removing a president.[citation needed] Furthermore Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution states that citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic." According to the same article, revoking citizenship for this reason requires a court sentence and then a government order ("acuerdo gubernativo").[12]</blockquote><br /><br />Limiting a president to one term seems kind of extreme to me. In a way, it can be empowering, because the president need not worry about running again. So they can start their presidency off immediately by doing what they want. It also is a bit anti-democratic, because it curbs the people's will. But then again, with the sordid history of latin lifetime dictatorships, maybe it's wise to prevent the president from becoming to comfortable with his position.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-8666569824283517792009-03-04T22:53:00.003-05:002009-03-05T00:59:51.884-05:00The Curious Case of Microsoft ButtonAccording to a Bloomberg exclusive from today, the 'Starter' version of Windows 7, their cheapest option, will <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aOo55Sm8glGI&refer=home">only allow the user to run 3 programs at a time</a>. So now, if you are browsing the internet, reading your outlook mail, and running word, you'll have to stop doing one of those things if you want to run Excel.<br /><br />This reminds me of the DOS days before Windows 95 when you could only be doing one thing at a time. Does Microsoft really want to return to those days?<br /><br />Maybe after releasing Windows XP, Microsoft caught 'the curious case of benjamin button', and ever since have been evolving backwards. Vista was like Windows 98, now they're re-release DOS, and for the grand finale (drumroll please...)<br /><br />The Abacus!<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Limited Features<br /><br />To push customers to pricier versions of Windows 7, Microsoft is limiting the features of the cheaper edition. The most basic, called Starter Edition, can only run three programs at a time. -<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aOo55Sm8glGI&refer=home">bloomberg 3/5/09</a><br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-67916028799761472252008-03-02T14:55:00.003-05:002008-03-03T22:37:53.463-05:00Obama's Original SinI just noticed that when Obama was born (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama">1961</a>), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#Anti-miscegenation_laws_overturned_on_12_June_1967_by_Loving_v._Virginia">his birth was actually illegal in 22 states</a>.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether I should be impressed by how far we've come or depressed by how far our parents hadn't.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-12419227722348479372008-01-14T10:17:00.000-05:002008-01-14T16:42:34.936-05:00Bush Announces The Discovery of a New Model Muslim State Called The U.A.E.(plans underway to rename it new texaco)<br /><br /><blockquote>"The United Arab Emirates has shown the world a model Muslim state that is tolerant toward its people and other faiths, said US President George W. Bush in his speech at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi yesterday." -Bush</blockquote><br /><br />Let's do a little survey of the properties of this state that might make it a model for other nations:<br /><br />Political System: Hereditary Dictatorship<br />Demographics: 15% of country are citizens<br />Labor: See other 85%<br />Human Rights: None (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates)<br />Homosexuality: Officially none. Punishable by death<br />Budget: Flows through dictator's personal bank account<br /><br />Sounds like Bush's model American state, doesn't it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-89611409962153093032007-09-26T22:54:00.000-04:002007-09-26T23:04:28.467-04:00A hypothetical torture scenarioWe had the ticking time bomb scenario. Every candidate seems to be against have a *specific policy* where the President would have a signing statement ahead of time that pardoned the torturer ahead of time. Notice that this does rule out torture, just the official condoning of torture, at least a policy ahead of time. Obama even said he would make the determination at the time. I am heartened that every candidate spoke against torture.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-84994425996309069432007-09-26T22:36:00.001-04:002007-09-26T22:37:04.684-04:00Dartmouth DebateAny reactions to the Presidential Debate?Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-63658636984780525912007-09-20T16:22:00.000-04:002007-09-20T16:23:39.247-04:00Presidential Pong<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/presidential.pong/">Based on the video game pong.</a>Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-25253093800011278062007-09-15T10:03:00.000-04:002007-09-15T10:32:00.604-04:00PolydongsThere has been a little buzz around <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctnebccsu0914.artsep14,0,1506359.story">this offensive (if non-sensical) cartoon in the Central Connecticut State University paper, the Recorder</a>. I spent a lot of time looking for the actual strip. I am still not sure if the idea was to be offensive, to start a dialog - to encourage racism? I do wonder at what point, though, it's not more offensive to the Latino community how shitty a job we do educating their children or representing them in government, or whatever - compared to what a few drunk dull-witted whities (I'm guessing) at some random college do to get a rise. So, as I said when a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy">certain Dutch cartoon</a> ruffled the feathers of a group of people whose brethren's genocide in Darfur got (from the same people), barely a notice - fine, be offended, take action, but really, where's the outrage for the stuff that really matters?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB5apkIzWmaeW7elGH33xXWXir3OMB_pbtezR_JkMrdTH5-84DuE_8FvoDYKNWC1g4wyVoPRadgN89JHHAQh9_9lT-fYCb6_HSPffZf99nKzoldUjCuELC6H9QaGCYKhEt7bURfQ/s1600-h/polydongs.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB5apkIzWmaeW7elGH33xXWXir3OMB_pbtezR_JkMrdTH5-84DuE_8FvoDYKNWC1g4wyVoPRadgN89JHHAQh9_9lT-fYCb6_HSPffZf99nKzoldUjCuELC6H9QaGCYKhEt7bURfQ/s1600/polydongs.jpg" border="0" alt="polydongs" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5110438082381156658" width="800" /></a>Jared Alessandronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09347442211268081021noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-24689071134405136672007-08-28T22:07:00.000-04:002007-08-28T22:27:11.282-04:00Girl on Girl ActionOkay, so the consecration of Ms. Tracy Lind, (talks to God, likes chicks), could cause a schism, and I'm torn about the impact. See, our side of the church rocks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/us/20episcopal.html?ex=1332043200%20en=b7d5662a7ff482c3%20ei=5088%20partner=rssnyt%20emc=rss">about 1/3 of the ca$h that runs the worldwide church, but with far fewer members</a>, so if we take our balls (and our ball on ball action) and go home, that leaves the Episco Disco in, say, everywhere else, up the poor creek. Poorer creek. Which is fine - a bunch of bigoted and angry fire-churches in Africa don't likey the gay people, have fun without roofs on your church. The truth is, hate-mongering and God go together like dick and... well, that's to taste - either way, I have no problem in being apart from these Evangelical-like homophobe backwards freaks. <br /><br />The bigger question is whether the complicated aid networks that the Episcopal Church USA sponsor in various places - as a truly progressive church they don't mix missionary with service - things like AIDS outreach, Malaria prevention, etc. are in jeopardy because of their partner churches abroad. My guess is that the schism won't happen anyway - it kind of requires too much inertia - but that there will be another like, signing statement on the side of our church that says in some weird, technical way that we recognize that some Anglicans might have differing readings on scripture and that we deeply respect their beliefs. This is what you get in a church where even God is kind of relative. (Religious scholars, and historians of me, see, this is where I get <i>my</i> God from. Or, used to. Even flamingly liberal churches still go for the inane idea that God is basically a bored guy who wants some lovin'. I'd rather take my chances believing in Craigslist.Jared Alessandronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09347442211268081021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-83301187159129933242007-08-26T23:55:00.000-04:002007-09-16T10:07:22.086-04:00The Vietnam Specter<blockquote><p>"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'" <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6717379">Bush said </a></p></blockquote><p>After years of willfully neglecting this comparison, Bush finally offers it to the American people unsolicited. But how can he talk of the possible cost of American withdrawal without also mentioning the sunk cost of American intervention? </p><p>The consensus seems to be that only a politician stupid enough to start an unnecessary war could ever be resolute enough to finish it, so Bush has a reluctant backing even among democrats, who don't seem willing to put up much resistence to the surge.</p><p>Only democrat candidate Mike Gravel (not to mention Kucinich) has taken a stand on this issue, stating unequivocally since '71 that American troops in Vietnam <a href="http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1822">'died in vain'</a>. In the youtube debates, he was confronted on this issue by a vietnam vet, and held his ground, while virtually every other candidates danced around the question. Many were willing to state that US soldiers were dying unnecessarily, but were unwilling to make the equivalent statement that they were 'dying in vain'. That's pathetic. Gravel was powerful in his respond that the only thing more tragic than American soldiers dying in vain, was the idea of more American soldiers dying in vain. Hence a pullout, and a return to the politics of reality. </p><p>Mike Gravel is the only one with the guts to stand up to the national consensus, which is so hopelessly skewed by blind patriotism that it refuses to see reason.<br /></p><p>We need a new leader with the freshness to reverse current policies without looking like a hypocrit, but also with enough street cred in the deep south, where politics and other critical mental functions are distort by the heat.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-76520424765772456542007-08-24T23:29:00.000-04:002007-08-24T23:37:37.233-04:00We're G-rated!(Well, until Jared posts at least.)Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-86912296101342496892007-07-16T22:04:00.000-04:002007-07-16T22:14:06.377-04:00Henceforth, Debaathification=RebaathificationA new<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070315-1.html"> "Debaathification Bill"</a> Bush has been working on has recently been all over Bush and Snow's speeches: "We are working on a deBaathification bill and it will be presented later." But the actual purpose of the bill is to reverse the old deBaathification policy set in place under former Iraq Czar Paul Bremer in 2003:<br /><br />"On May 16, the top U.S. civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer (search), issued a decree barring top-ranking Baath Party members from any public position, a process now referred to as deBaathification -- whether in universities, hospitals or minor government posts." (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98661,00.html">link</a>)<br /><br /><br />The new Debaathification Bill, if passed, would allow them back in government. This doesn't seem like a bad idea considering these are the only people with experience governing over a pre-civil war Iraq. Just don't call it debaathification. More credible sources are calling it "<a href="http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/04/30/congress-iraq-declaring-defeat/">reversal of debaathification</a>", or "an amendment to the debaathification bill". Personally, I like "rebaathification". It really captures the zen-like circularity of GW's approach to governing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-46862025393469234042007-04-24T22:28:00.000-04:002007-04-24T22:29:08.885-04:00Take Back The BlogFree Dartmouth got hacked. Again. Here's my attempt to reclaim it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1172032801533229972007-02-20T23:36:00.000-05:002007-02-20T23:53:39.643-05:00Tel Aviv Rabbis Forbid Land Sale To Non-JewsAnother underreported example of Israeli apartheid (see previous posting on Israeli marriage law)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Important rabbinical leaders published an announcement this week stating that it is forbidden to sell apartments to Arabs."</span> (<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342278,00.html">link</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1170826253921620122007-02-07T00:21:00.000-05:002007-02-12T00:45:34.130-05:00Iraqi 'Police' Abduct Iranian Diplomat In Iraq<p>This is getting pretty scant coverage in US media. CBS had something though. Sounds like the US might have been behind it. Another era of republicanism another era of 'disappearances' (see reagan, pinochet, kissinger, etc...)</p><blockquote><p>Details of the kidnapping remain murky, but one government official said it began when gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms blocked Sharafi's car in the Karradah district, forced him into one of their two vehicles and sped away.Iraqi police then opened fire, disabling the second vehicle and arresting the four gunmen inside, the official said.Police took the four to a police station. The next day, Iraqis in uniform appeared there, showed government badges and demanded the four suspects _ ostensibly to transfer them to another lockup, the official said.The authorities complied, and the men disappeared. Spokesmen of both the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry, which together control Iraqi security forces, said they had no information and no idea where the suspects went.Shiite lawmakers said they believed Sharafi was detained in an intelligence operation carried out by the Iraqi Special Operations Command, an elite unit under the direct supervision of the U.S. military. (<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/06/ap/world/mainD8N4G1IO0.shtml">link</a>)</p><p align="left"><strong>Update</strong>: To contextualize, just two weeks ago, the Bush Administration authorized US troops to "kill Iranian agents in Iraq" (<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/26/news/prexy.php">link</a>)</p></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1170454799849700382007-02-02T17:18:00.000-05:002007-02-07T02:51:08.360-05:00Senator Biden's GaffeIn the comments thread <a href="http://thelittlegreenblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/who-not-to-vote-for-in-democratic.html">to this post</a>, Nathan and I have a back and forth.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1169778019334906712007-01-25T21:18:00.000-05:002007-01-30T23:57:53.350-05:00SA controversyIn case you're not aware, <a href="http://thelittlegreenblog.blogspot.com/">Andrew Seal at the little green blog</a> has been writing about an attempt to impeach the SA president.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1169777834599710742007-01-25T21:15:00.000-05:002007-01-25T21:17:14.656-05:00Texas theme parties<a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125071mlk1.html"><i>Outrage Over Texas College MLK Day Party: Event featured Aunt Jemima, gang apparel, fried chicken, malt liquor</i></a>Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1169053941077208422007-01-17T12:10:00.000-05:002007-01-26T03:27:42.236-05:00So much for the slow kill by the S.L.I.<a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=20070117011">Zete to be rerecognized in a few years after a "dark" period.</a>Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1168548356574670832007-01-11T15:32:00.000-05:002007-04-11T22:59:58.290-04:00Review President Resigns; is Shocked-- Shocked! -- About What Review PrintsIn 1990, a quote from Hitler's <i>Mein Kampf</i> appeared in the Review. The Review's senior staff said they were not responsible for its insertion. The Review's President resigned then as well:<blockquote>“I cannot allow the Review to ruin my life any further,” C. Tyler White declared soon after he resigned as President of the Review, “The official Review response, which I co-signed and helped distribute, avoids the main thrust of the issue. It does not emphasize our sorrow in this dreadful act of malice, nor does it claim responsibility for letting it reach newsprint…. The editor-in-chief has failed in his job, and now we must wear the albatross of anti-Semitism because he won’t take responsibility for the issue’s contents.”</blockquote>ow in 2007, the President of the Dartmouth Review is resigning over the recent cover of the Review. In this controversy, Reviewers seem to be saying the offending material was approved by the editor-in-chief, but not other senior staff. <a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=20070111011">The Dartmouth is reporting</a>:<blockquote>Kevin Hudak '07 will resign from his post as president of The Dartmouth Review, he announced at a staff meeting Monday. His decision comes as a result of the cover on the newspaper's Nov. 28 issue, according to sources involved with The Review. The cover, which triggered a rally outside Dartmouth Hall that attracted national news coverage, depicts a Native American holding a knife and scalp under the headline "The Natives are Getting Restless!"</blockquote>In 2024, another Review President will resign in protest and forever solve all that is wrong with the Review.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1166077047097363512006-12-14T01:12:00.000-05:002006-12-24T15:03:05.406-05:00It's not that cliches are wrong<a href="http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2006/12/06/the_cover_was_a_mistake.php">Some editors at the Dartmouth Review write</a>:<blockquote>There are no “racists” or people who “hate” at The Dartmouth Review. Such terms are the clichés of unearned, but desperately desired, moral superiority.</blockquote>In other words: <i>How dare those liberals try to say what we really think? But our side knows what the liberals really think. It's not that cliches are wrong, always: It is that our cliched view of the other side is right, and their view, based on what we do, is wrong because they cannot see into our hearts.</i> Or something like that.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1165981274794441362006-12-12T22:32:00.000-05:002006-12-13T11:40:27.496-05:00Review M.O.<a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/read.php?id=1304">Review Editor Linsalata writes:</a><blockquote>“Obviously we really were not intending to maliciously go out of our way to say, ‘How many people can we piss off?’”</blockquote>Yes, it's obvious that they don't go <i>out of their way</i> to piss off people. After all, pissing off people has been <i>the</i> way of the Review for decades.Timothyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05596669402185696213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1165765994444218412006-12-10T10:42:00.000-05:002006-12-13T21:39:38.550-05:00As The Iraqi (Insurgents) Stand Up, We Will Stand Down"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down", they said. Sounds nice on paper, but what happens if as the Iraqis stand up, they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?hp&ex=1165813200&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;en=c34b12f8e339f476&ei=5094&partner=homepage">sell their American weapons to the insurgents</a>, who stand up? We're finding out the hard way.<br /><br />We have our NRA-controlled congress to thank in part for this failure to prevent American issued weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Until recently, the US was not even keeping track of the serial numbers of weapons it shipped to Iraq, meaning there are an estimated <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?hp&ex=1165813200&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;en=c34b12f8e339f476&ei=5094&partner=homepage">370,000 weapons</a> the US has shipped for which there is no record. Many of these unmarked guns are probably being used by insurgents to kill American. I'm sure this really helped our local gun manufacturers, who had to ship out loads of new weapons to replace the weapons that were 'lost'. According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?hp&ex=1165813200&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;en=c34b12f8e339f476&ei=5094&partner=homepage">the NYT article</a>, 4% of the weapons the US has sent for Iraqi soldiers were lost before they even reached the Iraqi soldiers. On top of that, the smugglers say their primary source of weapons is actually from Iraqi soldiers who already received the weapons, meaning that at the very least 10-15% of the weapons paid for by the US have ended up on the Iraqi black market.<br /><br />Whatever genius it was that crafted this policy that leaves zero paper trail or accountabilty for lost weapons could only have been inspired by the NRA. The failure to even record gun serial numbers is reminiscent of John Ashcroft's dogged insistence to <a href="http://www.iowasportsmen.com/News%20items/ashcroft_blocks_fbi_access_to_gu.htm">deny the FBI the power to use gun purchase records to aid in the hunt for the 911 terrorists</a>, even while he was prepared to compromise almost every other American privacy, right down to <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11980">the books we check out from the library</a>. If it weren't for the US's ridiculously loose gun control policy, I wonder how many fewer american soldiers and Iraqis would be dead.<br /><br />The unfortunate reality of how many of the guns bought with US taxpayer dollars are being used by insurgents to kill American soldiers brings into question whether it's really constructive to be funding the arming and training of a huge new Iraqi army to replace US forces. If so many of the weapons we give our 'allies' in Iraq are going to end up in the hands of insurgents, perhaps the entire approach of picking favorites and then arming them to the teeth is not in our best interest. Maybe the less weapons we dump into Iraq, the less violence there will be. This may sound naive. But the alternative of expecting weapons given to Iraqis to be used against insurgents rather than against american soldiers seems pretty naive too -- especially considering that the only thing Iraqis seem to be able to agree on according to polls is that they want the US out of Iraq.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3718858.post-1165645116981338682006-12-09T00:53:00.000-05:002007-03-28T22:20:14.270-04:00Interfaith Marriage Is Illegal In Israel?Talk about creating second class citizens... Apparently it is illegal for jews to marry non-jews in Israel, just like it used to be illegal for blacks to marry whites in the US. Israel only recognizes those born to a jewish mother as jewish, while they recognize the 'right of return' to Israel for anyone who is at least 1/4 racially jewish, or has converted to judaism (although they're currently considering legislation to deny converts the right of return). This means there are 300000 Israeli jews who can't get married in their own country.<br /><br />Admittedly, the analogy to past interracial marriage bans in the US is imperfect, because one can technically convert to Judaism while one cannot (usually) change skin color. However, conversion is supposedly quite difficult, and subject to rabbinical judgement. What's more, the economist argues in this week's issue that the motive for the ban on converts' right of return is probably to deny converts the opportunity to marry Israeli jews, and dilute the culture and bloodline.<br /><br />There are already 300,000 Israeli jews (about <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html">6% of the jewish population of Israel</a>) who have qualified for citizenship through the right of return, but are denied all marriage rights, and have to go to Cyprus or some other country if they want to a reconignize marriage. Some are supposedly even converting to Islam so they can marry under the more lenient Sharia law in Israel. (Imagine that: Sharia law more lenient!)<br /><br />Why deny converts the right of return? The fear seems to be that their numbers will continue to swell, increasing the scale of the injustice that denies so many Israeli jews the right to marry, eventually allowing them to wrest control over marriage from religious authorities, ultimately leading to a more secular country. In other words, marriage is 'under assault'. Sound familiar?<br /><br /><em>"In all the free world people can get a civil marriage. This is impossible in Israel. But civil marriages carried out abroad are recognised here – it's insane,"</em> -<a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/06dec1a7038197c49494eb6160e4fb9e.htm">Zamira Segev</a>, coordinator of the Forum for Freedom of Choice in Marriage.<br /><br />Sounds a bit like what the US is going through now with gay marriage, doesn't it?<br /><br />I'd link to the economist article, but unfortunately, you need a membership to access it. However, there's a reuters piece <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/06dec1a7038197c49494eb6160e4fb9e.htm">here </a>that goes over some of the fact around the issue of interfaith marriage in Israel.<br /><br />A common response to this sort of criticism of the state of Israel is to ask why the critic doesn't focus more attention on horrible human rights violations in the Islamic states of the Middle East. This point has some merit, but if you took a poll, I think you'd find a much greater awareness among americans about Islamic human rights violations than you would about Israeli human rights violations. Ask an American about Palestinian terrorism, they'll nod their head indignantly. Ask them about Palestinian dispossession, or Israeli second class citizens, and all you'll get is perplexity.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0