What Left-Leaning People on Facebook Say About Iran Deal

Eavesdropping on the Lefties...they really are foolish. I'd venture to say they have no idea what they're talking about.

Addendum (July 31, 2015)

I happened to catch a Michael Medved segment today in which he interviews Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School about Dershowitz's brand new book called, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? Professor Dershowitz's opening remarks were telling: he clearly self-identifies as a man of the left, a Democrat, an Obama supporter, etc., and in doing so, indignantly repudiates any suggestion by the the president that those who oppose the deal are conservative or Republicans. 

Dershowitz had some pretty damning things to say. Pay attention, left-leaning people! I hope his book (currently available as an e-book) makes the rounds on Capitol Hill, especially among Democrats, some of whom seem more loyal to party than to country. 

History's Chumps?

History repeating itself?

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again" (Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938).

"Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change -- change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure” (Barack Obama, July 14, 2015).

Addendum

In the days after this deal was announced, much has been written regarding whether this deal could be fairly compared to 1938 Munich. While I believe the historical comparison is valid in the broader sense (the importance of learning from history's mistakes, of not appeasing tyrannical governments, of not attributing good will to nations that have a proven record of lying, etc.), there are differences between the circumstances leading up to the Munich agreement and those of the Iran deal. 

These distinctions are noted in Bruce Carlson's My History Can Beat Up Your Politics podcast (linked below), in which he provides background and context for Neville Chamberlain's actions. The podcast is about 40 minutes and is actually Part I (of two, I believe). Very interesting. 

Neville Chamberlain, Really (link opens up to an mp3 file). 

And the Ineptitude Continues Apace . . .

Doyle McManus, in his op-ed column in today's Los Angeles Times, discusses how the $500 million that Obama requested (and received) from Congress a year ago to train 15,000 opposition fighters in Syria has resulted in only 60 trained fighters to date. 

"Sixty?" he asks, incredulous. "UCLA has more men on its football roster." 

McManus says that skeptics figure this amounts to about $9 million per fighter. "Not an impressive number," Defense Secretary Ashton Carter apparently conceded during his report to Congress on the training program's progress. 

Writes McManus: "[T]he story of the Pentagon's amazing shrunken training program — an idea that almost looked bold when Obama first proposed it — could serve as a metaphor for the whole of U.S. strategy in Syria: ambitious in its goals, but so risk-averse in design and so hamstrung in execution that it remains painfully ineffective" (italics my own). Yes, italics are often necessary when discussing this administration's gross incompetence. 

McManus's column is linked at the end of this post, if you like. Meanwhile, there's this: 

At least 4,000 Assyrian Christian families are believed to be among the 120,000 people who in recent days have fled the Syrian city of Hassakeh. ISIS forces are entering the city and looking to carry out a mass ethno-religious slaughter, humanitarian groups said, warning that the world still has not provided an adequate response" (italics mine).

 . . . Meanwhile over 200 Assyrian Christians remain captured by terror group ISIS, taken from a raid on Assyrian villages back in February. Though the Khabur river villages have since been liberated, the jihadists are believed to be asking close to $23,000,000 for the release of all 227 captive Assyrians, an amount which is impossible for families to pay.

Ethnic cleansing continues, the world's greatest superpower is flaccid and impotent, and this administration's ineptitude (or is it disinterest?) continues apace.

**** 
For Further Reading

"In Syria, $36 Million to Train 60 Opposition Fighters?" (Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 12, 2015)

"ISIS Commits Mass Ethno-Religious Slaughter of Assyrian Christians as the World Ignores Genocide, Humanitarian Groups Say," (Stoyan Zaimov, Christian Post, July 2, 2015)

After the Rainbow . . .

I spent the weekend listening, eavesdropping, more or less, on "the conversation" taking place in social media, primarily Facebook. I heard sentiment ("Isn't that fabulous!"), sarcasm ("This just in: next week the Supreme Court will be redefining 'Tuesday'"), melodrama ("That'll do, SCOTUS, that'll do"), hyperbole ("and Rome fell"), and lament ("a bit queasy--so sad to see how fast we are degenerating"). There was the predictable fawning (over Obama and Biden jogging through the White House carrying rainbow flags and Justice Kennedy's "beautiful" closing paragraph), but there were also long, personal, often eloquent statements. Not surprisingly, there were dismissals and un-friendings. One person said she had been reported to Facebook for posting pictures of flamboyantly-dressed gay people.

Following one thread, I was particularly touched by the posting of a man named Joseph Sciambra, an ex-gay porn star who has become a Catholic. I would go so far as to say Mr. Sciambra's comments impacted me more than anything I read all weekend. He obviously deeply loves his former friends, while at the same time wanting to offer them hope and freedom in Christ. Here is his blog. I think I will follow him and try to learn from him.

The appearance of the rainbow on users' profiles by means of the Celebrate Pride tool provided by Facebook gradually distinguished those who celebrated the decision from those who didn't (at least, that's how it was perceived), once again validating my growing suspicion that social media is not about being social but being socialized. But I digress.

I haven't quite entered the fray. There was a (private) tussle with a relative over the question of narrow-mindedness, the relative claiming that it's narrow-minded to impose one view of marriage on the rest of us, I countering that it's arrogant to undo thousands of years of an understanding of marriage that is based in both the Judeo-Christian ethic and biology ("every single person arguing this issue was created by the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm"). 

This afternoon I dipped my toe into the discussion stream, responding to someone else's post. But I'm really not quite ready to articulate everything I'm thinking, especially on Facebook. I'm collecting articles, listening to both sides (sadly, this is one argument that seems to have no middle ground. One is either for gay marriage or against it), hoping mostly to figure out what I think and why I think it.

The funny thing about rainbows is, they're illusions, but not reality. Yes, I know, we're supposed to see a rainbow as symbolic, the end of a storm, with the sun emerging from the clouds, light refracting off water droplets creating the beautiful spectrum of color. The rainbow, I suppose, is the "beautiful closing paragraph" from Justice Kennedy, whose purple prose presents marriage as embodying "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family." 

But what if a rainbow didn't signify the end of a storm but rather a pause between storms? The sun peering through clouds doesn't mean there aren't more storms gathering. That's what I'm sensing. Gathering clouds. Some of the articles I'm reading, for instance, don't paint quite the rosy picture that Justice Kennedy described. Hanna Rosin in Slate, for example, writes that "in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships." Rosin cites a Gawker article by Stephen Thrasher, who in turn cites a study out of San Francisco State University which essentially concludes, as Thrasher puts it, that "not all gay unions are built on the straight model, particularly when it comes to the issue of monogamy." 

Were Justice Kennedy and his fellows snookered? Quite possibly. But now that Pandora's Box has been opened and gay marriage is the law of the land, as people (politicians, in particular) are wont to say, it will be interesting to see how things play out. The redefining of marriage from the standpoint of genders is what we conservatives are focusing on right now, along with concerns about fundamental freedoms (religion and speech). There are (or should be) concerns about children and children's rights. But beyond these, will we also begin to see marriage re-imagined as an institution, as defined and practiced by gay couples, if, indeed, these observations (linked below) are valid? The challenge in the next months and years will be whether or not we have the courage and honesty to confront and address these questions. 











For Further Reading

1. "The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous," by Hanna Rosin, Slate, June 26, 2013
2. "Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage," by Stephen W. Thrasher, Gawker, June 19, 2013.
3. "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret," by Scott James, New York Times, January 28, 2010).
4. "Relationship Characteristics and Motivations Behind Agreements Among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus" 
5. "The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy's Gay Marriage Ruling," by Jordan Weissman, Slate)

Catholic Sarcasm, or, One (of Several) Reasons Why I (Still) Put Up With Facebook

Apparently not all Catholics are on board with the Pope's encyclical on climate change.

A footnote: The original poster is a former Catholic nun but apparently still a practicing Catholic.   

*** 

For further reading: 

"Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls For Swift Action on Climate Change" (Jim Yardley and Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, June 18, 2015)

"Laudato No: Praise Not Pope Francis's Crude Economics" (National Review Online, The Editors, June 18, 2015, print view)