|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 2 users and 19 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by msjo on Wed, 01/04/2006 - 10:31pm.
In recent a OlyBlog posting, Rachel Corrie, an impassioned HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST, was again wrongly accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. Apparently those holding this view are ignorant of the facts. #1) Rachel Corrie was not a terrorist sympathizer. #2) Saying she was to further their agendas or perpetuate their belief systems is just plain foul not to mention disrespectful. The lack of compassion, at the very least, is hateful to a sickening degree. I ask that those responsible for spreading lies about the deceased, stop it. And while you're at it, why don't you stop defining the perspectives of her parents, clean your ears out, and LISTEN. I know it might be hard for those of you who haven't LISTENED TO ANYONE in many years, however it is a skill crucial to participating in a community. My question: How can people live with themselves when all they do is hate?
Wise words for the perpetrators of this hate: Judge not lest ye be judged in the eyes of the beholder. Amen.
»
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Why is it that when you have
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 01/04/2006 - 10:59pm.I completely understand Rachel Corrie's position. That doesn't mean I think it was right.
Why is it that when someone f
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:36am.msjo, My opinions are base
Submitted by Deep Diver on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 4:43am.msjo,
My opinions are based on what I know and the perceptions I take away from the Corrie story. I strongly disagree with what Rachel did. But even more importantly I disagree with how this community has turned her into a martyr and a heroine, she is neither. What she did I believe was in support of those that have harmed innocents in Israel. That is what Israel has said, and even though Israel like all governments can be less than truthful in delicate situations, they have way more credibility than the forces that be in Palestine. According to Israel, she was protecting the home of animals that were furthering terrorism.
Like Bob said in another thread, she was definitely misguided. She chose sides, and I believe that was against the real victims in this cause, the same people that have been persecuted for thousands of years.
Finally, I don't hate Rachel Corrie or her parents. As people I get the sense they are nice people. I do hate what she stood for, and her unearned reputation by some in Olympia, even if it is in stark contrast to your feelings.
Deep Diver, Regardless of yo
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 10:49am.Ms. Corrie was certainly symp
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:01am.HBO aired the documentary "Death in Gaza" a couple of years ago and it was amazing seeing the conditions children are brought up in the Gaza Strip, not only having to deal with the IDF but also seeing how they are educated. For instance, they are taught in school that Israel does not exist.
Judging by the actions of her parents, I can make a safe assumption Ms. Corrie, at the very least, was apathetic to Palestinian actions against the US and Israel.
The "Palestinian group," as y
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:42am.Genocide? Are you really cal
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:51am.I guess I would call the syst
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:15pm.First and foremost, you can t
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:17pm.especially the united states
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:27pm.There's a lot more than just
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:41pm.Historically speaking, it wasn't just the US who created Israel. Do we support the country? Yes, we do. As mentioned before, though, we're way beyond going back and saying, "Maybe we should have thought this through a bit more."
It is interesting to note, though, that surrounding Arab countries want little to do with those living in the Gaza region. I actually never realized Egypt had a fence between themselves and Rafah until yesterday.
"Deep" reiver says: "she was
Submitted by Drew3000 on Thu, 03/09/2006 - 9:58pm."Deep" reiver says: "she was definitely misguided. She chose sides"
So, obviously from reading your post, did you. She chose humanity. you?I already know DD's and TFI's
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 9:16am.I already know DD's and TFI's and just about everyone's opinion on Rachel Corrie. Just about everyone here knows about Rachel Corrie and has already formed some kind of opinion. Discussing Rachel Corrie here isn't going change anyone's mind, but just make everyone feel great about their convictions.
That some people use her as a symbol for fights that go way beyond Olympia isn't in itself "news." It is just another chance for everyone to talk some more about her.
I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't want to talk about it.
I've often wondered why Rache
Submitted by Rick on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 9:45am.I've often wondered why Rachel Corrie's story gets so under the skin of some folks. (The stuff on Olyblog is mild compared to the pure vitriol you see on some sites.) It also happened here in a discussion about the protester who hung himself in his cell a few weeks ago. The fact is that Rachel violates the narrative that some folks tell themselves about what's going on. That narrative is based on a long list of beliefs. These include:
etc...
There should be no surprise about this; it happens in any conflict -- they call it the "objectification of the other." Now, when someone like Rachel comes along, she single-handedly violates every single one of these beliefs. In doing so, she puts the lie to that objectification. However, the objectification is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of the story. Without it, all of their beliefs become invalid. That is why she is the target of the most vile and heartless attacks.
You think we don't like Rache
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:04am.I would say the single-biggest reason I have a problem with those sympathetic to Rachel Corrie is seeing her picture lighting the American flag on fire. You want to talk about anger? That's one angry woman right there.
Then there's her parents filing suit against Caterpillar, as if it's their fault.
And then calling her death "murder." If you go stand out in traffic and a car hits you, it's suicide, not murder. She wanted to be a martyr for her cause and got just what she wanted.
My comments were directed to
Submitted by Rick on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:05pm.Rick, thank you for your wisd
Submitted by will_is_ok on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 12:00pm.The Republicans are just trai
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 10:58am.bubbaz: Flying the Bin Ladens
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:10am.bubbaz: Flying the Bin Ladens out after 911
The Fire: Unfortunately for Michael Moore, the 9/11 Commission Report debunked this one. Nothing improper took place.
The Fire: You're going to bring up Cold War material? While you might not agree with sharing weapons technologies with other countries (which I don't, either), there was a logic behind the practice in the 80s and it was far from intending to harm the US. It goes back to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
We're making the same mistake in Iraq, though, by arming and training their police and military. Eventually they will come back to haunt us.
Dont act like the GOP does no
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:18am.When did this conversation de
Submitted by Bob on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:30am.Its because some GOP slimebal
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:35am.You should find the Democrati
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 11:59am.Personally, I think both parties are screwed up and believe government has become nothing but a bureaucratic machine.
I do find it interesting that, as a libertarian, you (appear) to side more with the left than the right. I'm not saying you need to pledge to a party, since that's why discussions usually devolve into simple statements ("George Bush did this!," "Ted Kennedy did that!") but, as a libertarian, you and I should be on the far-right of the ideological scale.
Personally, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge there won't be peace in the Middle East. I love the line Matt Damon delivers in "Syriana," stating that one-hundred years ago they were chopping each others heads off in the sand and one-hundred years from now they'll be doing the same thing.
It's a region which has, quite literally, been fighting with each other for thousands of years. Why do people believe we are so enlightened as to change the trend?
"I do find it interesting tha
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 12:37pm.Well, bubbaz, the basic ideol
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:00pm.A libertarian is a lot more than simply advocating the individual and going against the organization.
Now, with the Gaza Strip being a foreign region, you should know that, as a libertarian, we shouldn't meddle in foreign affairs, which is what Ms. Corrie was doing (by the same token, you can also say the US does).
There's also individual accountability and responsibility, something which those who support Ms. Corrie seem to want to absolve her of. If you assume the risk of going into a confliced region and, by your own choice, decide to interject yourself into it, you have to live (or die) with the consequences.
Historically (and academicall
Submitted by Bob on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:16pm.Unfortunately, the media now associates the left with Democrats and the right with Republicans. Seeing as how both parties follow special interests that advocate BOTH limited and more government, the now popular definition of left vs. right doesn't fit at all with the historical/academic one.
This is probably worth talking about so that when we post statements like being "far right" or "far left," we identify which definition we are using.
you're right about one thing,
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 12:59pm.From a domestic standpoint, t
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:12pm.As for foreign policy, government should ensure its people have the opportunity to be safe from any foreign threat.
what I meant to ask was this:
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:22pm.The current purpose? I don't
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:37pm.Right now many promotions in government aren't done based on actual qualification but irrelevent factors such as race or educational background. For instance, in many government jobs there is a requirement to have, say, a four-year degree. So Jane, who has worked at Department of XYZ for 15 years and knows the system inside and out, can't get a promotion because Frank, the recent college graduate, is "more qualified." I'm not saying we need to hire any person off the street but the emphasis on formal education is astounding.
Then, as I mentioned before, there's race. In an attempt to rectify previous historical errors, government has now moved to attempt these are rectified. While I might not agree with what happened before, hiring a less qualified person based on their race is ridiculous.
While the private sector isn't perfect, so long as you perform for the company your race, sex, etc. are largely irrelevent. The government should focus on results, not making people feel good.
Remember when the Washington AG's office cost the state something to the tune of a few million dollars? How many people were fired? I'm asking, because I don't know but I feel fairly comfortable in stating that nobody except the taxpayers felt the effect of that mistake.
So, making this short, I think the current purpose of government is simply to justify itself for existing.
New departments and jobs are created all of the time yet rarely, if ever, eliminated. There's just an endless amount of unncessary paperwork which employ people, again, to simply justify their existence and reason for having a job.
I realize I shotgunned this post, too.
TFI, that looked like it was
Submitted by Bob on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:24pm.What's fun to note, though, is that this is a very optimistic viewpoint of human nature -- i.e., give people the opportunity and they'll behave.
The opposite viewpoint is that humans are by nature greedy, selfish, and mean -- i.e., they must be governed strongly in order to maintain the safety/civility of the populace.
Without making a statement of political affiliation, which theory do you believe is more accurate? The positive view of humans or the more negative one?
Bob: TFI, that looked like it
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:49pm.The Fire: Haha! Well, if there is indeed a central website and I see my quote, I'll be sure to write them a letter and make sure it's attributed to me.
The Fire: On a small-scale I agree with the positive view of humanity. A large-scale? The negative.
I agree, too, that government must be strong. Large? I don't think it requires much in order to maintain civility.
A small and strong government is sufficient in order to maintain order.
But what does a small and str
Submitted by Bob on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:04pm.Small, local governments with
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:29pm.I think I have made my point
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:11pm.Anarchy is the extreme right.
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:15pm.Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of Social Security?
Anarcy is also the extreme le
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:23pm.This is true
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:51pm.Social security??? Lets fa
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:35pm.bubbaz: A true libertarian wo
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:56pm.The Fire: No they wouldn't. She was in a foreign country, thus making her actions irrelevent to us. She assumed the risk and responsibility involved with putting herself in such a situation.
I find it interesting you're pretty bent against private corporations, too.
I'm not "for" a corporation, I'm "for" a free market. Are private corporations a part of a free-market? Yes, they are. The only people they must be accountable to is their shareholders and consumers (and I mean actual consumers, as in people who purchase their product, not potential consumers).
I asked about Social Security because, as a libertarian, you more than likely would be against it.
I'm simply trying to gauge you, that's all.
So you are a bureaucratic lib
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 2:35pm.bubbaz: So you are a bureaucr
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:31pm.The Fire: Where did I advocate more from an organization? Because I stated that private companies are responsible only to their shareholders and consumers? That's not a fraud, that's a free market.
Please, just answer this question so I can sleep tonight: Do you or do you not believe in Social Security?
EDIT: As the ultimate libertarian litmus test, what's your opinion of the recent anti-smoking initiative passed in the state of Washington?
For that matter, we could get into majority voting, just to see how "libertarian" everyone is around here. Since you're true to the cause and I'm a "fraud," I suspect you are against majority voting, since the will of the group is being imposed on the individual.
I have no problem getting into an ideological discussion and just how close we observe them.
MSJO, so what ownership do
Submitted by Deep Diver on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 1:36pm.so what ownership does Palestine have in the conflict, or are they complete victims??
How much ownership did black
Submitted by Rick on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 2:51pm.Rick, I agree with your compa
Submitted by Bob on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:18pm.But in the case of Gaza, which is now fully in Palestinian hands, shouldn't we deplore the activity of criminals who want to use Israel's past acts as justification for hostage-taking?
sorry to answer with a questi
Submitted by msjo on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 10:17pm.Palestinians have no ownershi
Submitted by Deep Diver on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 3:24pm.Hamas, etc. are much more prolific in killing the other side than the blacks were in South Africa.
HAPPY THOUGHTS!
Submitted by will_is_ok on Thu, 01/05/2006 - 5:32pm.Yeah, this is what I was talk
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 01/06/2006 - 6:18am.I don't agree with your asses
Submitted by Deep Diver on Fri, 01/06/2006 - 8:21am.But I guess I will "Rick you" (he's good for not answering the question but posing another). What would all you peace nicks do in your analogy?
Me being a warrior, you all know I would fight. But unlike these "animals" (Palestinian freedom fighters) I wouldn't kill their children, elderly etc. I would take the fight to the powers that be.
My issue with the conflict over there is the way they fight, not that they are fighting for a cause they believe in. I believe they are wrong, as I believe that land is Israel's. But it's not my fight to fight, only so much as if it somehow might affect our national security.
Agreed, Deep Diver. It's not
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 01/06/2006 - 9:16am.It's the fact that virtually no attempt is made to fight military forces. Walking onto a bus full of everyday people is acceptable (and please, just to head it off, don't compare intentionally targeting civilians to accidental deaths. It's such a ridiculous argument, that somehow they're both equal. The only thing each is equal to is death, that's it. The intention is completely different) in their rules of engagement. In fact, the practice is defended and has been defended repeatedly by Palestinian leadership.
So yes, it's not the fact people are fighting in Iraq or Gaza. I would too, should the situation be reversed. It's the way they fight.
Deep - I understand your feel
Submitted by Bob on Fri, 01/06/2006 - 10:01am.I do, however, think that saying the land is Israel's cannot be supported by historical evidence. That land has changed hands so many times in the past 3000 years that saying it's "theirs" doesn't mean anything substantive.
Bob, I hear ya, and that s
Submitted by Deep Diver on Fri, 01/06/2006 - 10:51am.I hear ya, and that seems to be what they are fighting for. My basis for my opinion may not be the best, but I have it for 2 points.
1. The Bible says its theirs.
2. The reason it has changed hands so much is due to the Jews having to flee to avoid persecution, or being removed due to persecution.