Abbas promises the slaughter of millions of Palestinian "fighters"

This is awesome news.  Idiot fool and Palestinian President Abbas has promised to bring millions of fighters to invade Jerusalem.  He has obviously not studied the Marine Corps “Small Wars Manual."  Two of the big advantages of an insurgency is picking the time and place of conflict.  Mao said “the insurgent moves among people as a fish moves in the sea.”  Well at least I think it was Mao and I think that’s what he said, but all the readers know what I mean.

So Abbas has given up two big advantages of the insurgency: 1) announcing the “where” 2) promising to put millions of fighters into the announced kill zone.  Israeli generals have to be licking their chops at the prospect of killing millions of azzbag terrorists in one spot, but Abbas is a Palestinian leader so the likelihood of him telling the truth is on a par with a door to door vacuum salesman’s promise that his no-name vacuum comes with a 10 year warranty.

It’ll be like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam when the Viet Cong came out of hiding only to be slaughtered en mass never again to be an effective fighting force.  The really good news is that there is no Walter Cronkite to mischaracterize the victory as a military set back.  The further good news is that American people trust the MSM about as much as the average American trusts the door to door vacuum salesman.  

So this could be awesome news.

Today’s JG rants

Re: JG editorial by Ahmed Abdmageed “Preconceptions set by hyphen limit diversity discussion” of Aug 26, 2019

Not to put too fine a point on it – Ahmed Abdelmageed is either a race baiting fool looking for something to be offended by or an uninformed whiner still looking for something to be offended by.

The English language is very precise.  You means you. As in when a police officer pulls a driver over and asks, “Why did you run the stop light?”  The officer is refereeing to the driver as the operator of a motor vehicle who failed to observe a traffic control device at an intersection - not everyone in whatever group the driver identifies with. If the officer wanted to indict an entire group he could have said, “Why do [you people] [your kind] [you Arabs] ignore stop lights.” 

My high school English teacher warned us on day one about being careful with the use of the word “you.”  If I were to address a letter to the Board of Directors of Corp X and ever used the word “you” as a substitute for the board, as in “you know what I mean”, it was likely to come back with a red through it.  “You all know what I mean” would barely be acceptable.  “The Board members know what I mean”, would be perfectly clear and avoid her red pen.

So when someone writes a rebuttal letter to Abdelmageed and asks, “Why are you such race baiting fool?”  The “someone” is referring specifically to Ahmed Abdelmageed as a race baiting fool not Muslims-, Palestinians-, Arab-, Immigrant-American or whatever other divisive word Abdemageed wishes place in front of the hyphen racists use to divide Americans.

Monday, August 26, 2019 1:00 am

Preconceptions set by hyphen limit diversity discussion

Ahmed Abdelmageed

Ahmed Abdelmageed, assistant dean of alumni and community engagement at Manchester University's College of Pharmacy, is a board member with the Indiana Center for Middle East Peace.

“Why do you [insert question]?”

I've been asked many a variation of the above question. From the seemingly innocuous “Why do you do that?” to the outright belligerent “why do you hate us?”

The “you” in that question is usually in reference to one of the layers of my identity; the ones that precede the hyphen... Muslim-, Palestinian-, Arab-, Immigrant-American.

The question, usually accompanied by an accusatory undertone and a “this is weird” air about it, presupposes that I speak on behalf of that entire hyphenated population. As if my choices in life or the way I express certain things, which are influenced mainly by how, not where, I was brought up, are representative of “them.” The “them” I purportedly represent is seen by the questioner as a monolithic group that does not mesh with, or is antagonistic to, the American way of life.

It is asked, as you may have figured, by someone who does not belong to the group inquired about. Someone who is typically of the majority.

And, unfortunately, it happens way too often.

In my experiences, the above-mentioned questions surrounding my hyphen are frequently employed by those who consider the “other” less than or unworthy. I have witnessed it used, often systemically, to place minorities – such as African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American or Arab-Americans – at an arm's length from being just American.

Don't get me wrong, I fully embrace the multiple components of my identity and appreciate their complex intersectionality, but I wholeheartedly reject the use of the hyphen to denote a “less than” status of American. Unfortunately there are more than we would like to admit of those who will always view me, and others like me, as less than, but they are not where I choose to expend my energy. Trying to convince them otherwise is an exercise in futility as their questions are not asked to seek understanding but rather to express their opinion about me.

Now, I understand and fully appreciate the fact that we as human beings are naturally curious. The unfamiliar intrigues us and we seek to understand it. Therefore, I would rather engage those who have questions but are unsure how to ask them. Those who doubt the inflammatory rhetoric they see on traditional and social media. The ones who reject the pressure to fit into an “us” box despite it being tempting and relatively easy for it can be validated and reinforced by their echo chambers.

I'd rather expend my energy on those who refuse what is being peddled and seek truth through understanding.

But we as a society seem to have lost the art of simple, civil conversation. We avoid asking the questions that may expand our understanding in fear of coming across as offensive. We choose not to engage in heated discussions for fear of coming across as defensive. We dance around meaningful conversations to spare ourselves the inconvenience of hurt feelings.

It seems we have bolted down the doors to our silos and replaced intrigue, curiosity and interest with suspicion, anxiousness and fear. And no, you can't hang this on “political correctness” or the “oversensitivity” of people. This is nothing but the product of replacing genuine curiosity and intrigue with crippling, mostly unfounded, fear of the unknown. And that falls squarely on the shoulders of those who choose to stick only with one side of the hyphen over the other.

To better the relationships among our various communities, to enhance the beauty of the mosaic that is the American society, we need to overcome disinformation, hype and unfounded fear. That cannot be accomplished without deep and honest conversations.

Such conversations cannot take place without trust, and trust cannot be established without developing friendships, and friendships do not form when each of us is behind closed doors.

Go out there, assume well of each other, reach across and embrace the beauty of our diversity.

Re: The JG’s absurd, poorly reasoned and colossally stupid editorial “Maximum disclosure” of Aug 23, 2019.  

When the first line of the subject editorial is a bold faced lie, it’s hard to believe anything that follows.  The JG’s alert editors stupidly open the editorial with this whopper, “State Rep. Jeff Ellington doesn't want you to know who's supporting Indiana politicians.”  Then, in the very next line, they get to the truth, “The Bloomington Republican told the Herald-Times he is considering legislation that would remove street addresses from the campaign finance reports.”

NEWS FLASH TO THE EDITORS:  Who is NOT the same thing as where.

I know that the notions of truth and accuracy at the JG have been subordinated to the concept of “support the racist liberal lie no matter what”, but for goodness sake is there not one person at the JG smart enough, honest enough and with enough moral fortitude to say, “This makes no sense.  It’s too stupid for anyone, even us, to print”?  Clearly the answer is a resounding, no.

The reasons listed to require an address on campaign contributions don’t hold water.  In the “Eric Smith” example, requiring Smith’s the address would only serve to confirm or refute the contribution to people who already knew where a particular “Eric Smith” lived.  Including the address would serve no purpose for the general population unless the usual crowd of racist leftists wanted to harass Smith irrespective of where he lived.

As far as determining if the donor lived in the district, a box indicating “Yes” or “No” would accomplish the same purpose without giving unhinged racist leftists the donor’s address for unwanted calls or other harassment.

The last example – guilt by location – is the dumbest of the dumb.  One of my favorite restaurants in Ft. Wayne is located in the same strip mall as one of my least favorite.  What conclusions can I draw from that happenstance?  Geez JG, guilt by association much?     

Friday, August 23, 2019 1:00 am

EDITORIAL

Maximum disclosure

Donor addresses provide essential information

State Rep. Jeff Ellington doesn't want you to know who's supporting Indiana politicians. The Bloomington Republican told the Herald-Times he is considering legislation that would remove street addresses from the campaign finance reports.

There's no reason for federal and state governments to collect the information except to make it easier to harass and target donors, he told the Bloomington newspaper. Names, donation amounts, occupations and city or county of residence would continue to be required. 

Ellington is wrong. There are many good reasons to collect street addresses of donors. 

• A complete address is needed to fully identify who is backing a candidate. A contributor's occupation is required only if the contribution exceeds $1,000, according to the Indiana Election Division.  Ellington's own donors include Bloomington resident Eric Smith, for example. But a quick internet search for Eric Smith in Bloomington finds a postdoctoral researcher, a urologist and the controller at Oliver Winery. A street address is needed to determine which one gave to Ellington's campaign.

• A street address can determine whether a candidate's donors live within his or her district. In Ellington's case, a donor identified as a Bloomington resident might live in Rep. Matt Pierce's district. Voters should know where a candidate's campaign support comes from. Do his own neighbors support him?

• A street address can reveal information not otherwise available. A website search for Education Innovation Research LLC, for example, gives no clue to where that Ellington donor is located. But the street address shows the corporation, which gave $36,000 to Republican legislative candidates last year, was an Indianapolis office park neighbor to the offices of Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy. Those are the online charter schools that allegedly charged Indiana taxpayers $40 million for students who were not enrolled or earned no credits. 

Indiana is one of just 11 states that impose no contribution limit on individual donors. It's not unreasonable to demand that candidates give more information about their contributors in exchange for that allowance. Hoosiers should know who is donating to political campaigns, as contributions can represent both a sign of support and an effort to influence candidates.

The impetus for Ellington's bad idea is obvious. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat, recently posted the names and employers of San Antonio donors who contributed the maximum amount allowed under federal law to President Donald Trump's campaign. 

“It's highly disturbing that a congressman and brother of a presidential candidate would harass citizens and donors using a federal database, especially in the aftermath of two mass shootings, both by men on the extreme fringes,” Ellington told the Herald-Times.

But the congressman violated no law. The information is required under federal election law. If a donor doesn't want to be known as a candidate's supporter, he or she can simply not contribute to a campaign.

Julia Vaughn, policy director of Common Cause Indiana, said Ellington's proposal was a “horrible idea based on a knee jerk reaction to a national news story.”

“Campaign contributors under siege because of disclosure is not an issue here,” Vaughn wrote in an email. “Hoosiers need more information about who's contributing to campaigns, not less. Takes us in the wrong direction for no reason. Bad idea, bad public policy.”