Pumasphere 2.5

Some time ago Riverdaughter (riverdaughter.wordpress.com) wrote about the breakup of the liberal blogosphere prior to the election. Many of the bloggers who now write for Puma blogs started writing on liberal blogs. When some blogs decided to support Obama, the writers who were undecided or supported another candidate got unceremoniously kicked off the blog on some pretense or another. Now another breakup is happening. I almost didn’t see it because it was disguised as a personality conflict but really now, does that type of thing really happen on political blogs? What I’m talking about is what is known as the P/I issue. As in “Palestine Israel”.

Maybe this is time for a little disclaimer about who I am. I am Christian, of the non-literalist variety, but I take spiritual vitamins from other traditions. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe in the Two State Solution. I believe peace in the Middle East will happen in my lifetime. I believe my actions in the blogosphere can help make that happen. I believe the biggest threat to peace today (and the long-term security of Israel) is the right wing Israel lobby. If someone else does not believe this, please do explain it to me.

So back to the Palestine/Israel Pumasphere breakup. The first breakup was at the Confluence a few weeks ago when there was a discussion about the anti-semitism on the Cannonfire blog. Cannonfire was removed from the blogroll, but nonetheless, several Jewish Pumas left the Confluence. They’re blogging at Widdershins, but I so far I haven ‘t seen any hard hitting middle Eastern commentary that would justify their migration. (Cannonfire, who sets off all my internal anti-tolerance alarms, is now back on the Confluence sidebar.)

Meanwhile, over at PumaPAC (pumapac.org), two commenters, BrianH and sue66, had kept up a storm of right wing Israeli settler propaganda of the most offensive sort. It took the form of massive numbers of links to right-wing Israeli hate publications and videos. It was also about this time I recieved this hate mail (NSFW), using a Swiss-based  anonoymous email service. Then, suddenly they were told they could no longer post the links. They immediately disappeared. It looked like PumaPAC was making a play towards the center and more respectability. Now, suddenly, inexplicably, out of the clear blue sky, two new commenters have appeared, with the same old tired anti-Islamic schtick. No video links this time–they’re linking to racist hatebaiting standards like Sweetness and Light and Religion of Peace. They’re not sneaking in the back door late at night, either. They’re right out there in broad daylight and PumaPAC appears to have embraced them.

If there was any doubt at all left, it evaporated in the 4-7-09 blog talk radio/free us now broadcast. The guests were none other than Marcia Pappas and Dr. Phyllis Chesler, talking not about the recent legal changes in Afghan law but about Buffalo beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan by her husband way back in February. Then, halfway into the talk, I started hearing little buzzwords like dhimmi and sharia, words that show up on right-wing Israeli propaganda websites. So who are these guys anyhow?

From Dr. Phyllis Chesler’s website: “Some of you might be most interested in my recent work about Islamic gender and religious apartheid, the psycho-analytic roots of Islamist terrorism, or in my work about anti-Semitism and Israel.” Hmmm. Her biography also notes that she is “an affiliated Professor with Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities” (in Israel) and has been profiled in Jewish Women in America.

So let me get this straight. PumaPAC wants to influence Moslem thinking by quoting someone who is Jewish? This is just insane on so many levels. Unless of course, the real agenda isn’t about the women at all.

I’m not against anyone Jewish having a role in Puma, not at all. For instance, jenniforhillary has done a noteworthy job in the past with explaining voter fraud. It’s just that I don’t believe someone from outside any religious tradition can really explain it adequately, especially to someone inside the tradition.

And who is the other one, this Marcia Pappas? She’s the director of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. When she started talking about beheadings back in February, the Muslimnista posted this open letter:

…your comments that Ms. Hassan’s murder is a “terroristic version of honor killing, a murder rooted in cultural notions about women’s subordination to men” and that “too many Muslim men are using their religious beliefs to justify violence against women” are a disservice to our community, to people of diverse cultures and faiths, and to our daily work as advocates for survivors of domestic violence from South Asian and Muslim communities.

In this particular scenario, Ms. Hassan had an order of protection, law enforcement officials confirmed a history of domestic violence, and the crime occurred after she filed for divorce. Would you call a Christian woman in this same scenario murdered by gun violence a victim of an honor killing? Femicide is femicide and this tragedy is one more disturbing face of domestic violence.

Your comments eclipse domestic violence for what it is. As we know from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in this country every day, on average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends and in 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. We should, together as women’s rights advocates, be able to name domestic violence when we see it. When we do not, it reinforces the silence around domestic violence and stigmatizes minority communities by condoning “cultural” excuses for violent behavior.

Your comment dangerously re-casts focus on culture, religion, and particularly American stereotypes of Islam. As multi-faith advocates, we reject the idea that any faith condones violence. In fact, we have been working for years to change the language around “honor killing” for we reject the notion that there is any honor in killing – and many of our community members agree. We would hope that an organization as esteemed as NOW would not reinforce stereotypes in the media – especially when this is how many of our fellow Americans shape their understandings of our communities as well as domestic violence.

Well said, Fatemeh. Violence against women is not an Islamic problem; it is a world problem.  Moslem women may be even more reluctant to come forward with reports of abuse if they fear it maybe used as a political tool against their ethnic group.

I suppose I should post that on PumaPAC, but it looks like they’re having a little technical difficulty:

Invalid username, huh. Well, I hope they get it straightened out. Do you suppose one of PumaPAC’s political enemies hacked into it? They’re always bragging about “separating one from the herd” and all the provocative comments they have posted at PumaPAC with fake aliases.

Well, back to Islam.

Suppose you read the words “I have declared war on homosexuals.” Would that work for you? What about “I have declared war on Jews”? Or what about “I have declared war on blacks”? Or women?  Murphy over at PumaPAC says,

i AM fighting (my own tiny personal little) war against islam.

War against Islam? I’m not gonna touch that one.

I have been blogging for a while now, but I have never invoked Godwin’s law. It’s time. Neimoller, where are you?

First they came for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

They just came for the Moslems.

Sarah Palin and other bumbling gifts from well meaning males

When I was all of fourteen I received my first gift of jewelry from a male admirer–a bracelet that looked like an expansion watchband from a man’s watch. It was ugly. It was masculine. It was totally unfashionable and inappropriate. All of my friends were getting friendship rings from Woolworth’s and I wanted a friendship ring too. So I told him I wasn’t ready to go steady–as if I knew what that was–and gave the thing back. Yes, he had poor taste in jewelry, and for me that was a deal-breaker, but he wasn’t any worse than all the other 14-year-old boys, and in some ways he was much more interesting. We connected again in our senior year, then lost touch after graduation. Until the twenty year reunion. I arrived in my Mazda hatchback, and he arrived in his Mazda light truck. Maybe I should have taken that bracelet after all.

Now we have a presumptive nominee of the Republican party, John McCain, who is offering us a female vice presidential candidate as his running mate. Everyone is busy digging up the usual bad news that accompanies a candidate newly in the public eye, but is she really any less qualified than say, Dan Quayle or Spiro T. Agnew?

While no one really believes that women will vote for a presidential candidate based strictly on identity politics, nominating a woman is obviously meant to appeal to the woman vote. How sweet. He notices us, even if this Sarah Palin candidate is supposed to be a religion dominionist, whatever that is, and anti-abortion (but is that just for herself or does she want it enshrined in law for those who don’t share her religion?) and oh, dear there’s the polar bear thing. I like polar bears. And she’s in bed with oil. Drill, drill, drill. Still, McCain is courting us. He’s trying. In his own special, bumbling way. Sarah Palin is that slightly inappropriate gift that shows McCain believes we are important. Should we just smile, say “thank you” and accept the homage? Or will Palin’s flaws be a deal-breaker?

What about the other brand? The word in the Democratic party circles from the nominee is that women voters are supposed to “get over it” (even if only half the voters chose Hillary) and that women are supposed to fall in with zombified lockstep just because Hillary has now endorsed the Democratic nominee. It’s not just a matter of the Democratic candidate not courting female voters. There is more than a suggestion that the recent campaign against Hillary Clinton was knowingly, cynically, and intentionally sexist.

There aren’t any good choices in this election, at least for women voters.

Whetever else happens, there’s one thing we can always count on. Get ready for more negative campaigning.

Obama underwear, eewww, how about a puma pawprint instead?

The latest way for soap opera stars to show their support for Obama is to model Obama underwear.  I kid you not.  Does anyone really vote on the basis of what their favorite soap opera star wears? Or does anyone else think this is just gross?

Here’s something better that should make cat lovers and P.U.M.A. political junkies alike smile.  A big cat paw.  There’s Puma Paw boxer shorts, Puma Paw thong underwear, a spaghetti strap Puma Paw camisole and a Puma Paw trucker’s hat.

Purrfect.

Saturday is No Spend Day–and a time to reevaluate relationships

Two things are supposed to happen this Saturday.  The first is No Spend Day.  (Via 18 million voices) This is supposed to be a day of no spending and no commercial media in support of women’s issues.

On Saturday August 16th, 2008, observe a day of NO SPENDING to evidence that we are serious in our demand of fair practices for women.

Don’t spend a DIME for 24 hours. NO SPENDING (cash or credit) on: internet purchases, gas for the car, cups of coffee, TV shopping, movies, dining, grocery or clothes.
NO SPENDING ON ANYTHING.

Instead, plan a day of R&R, read a book or clean your closet BUT hold onto your money AND turn off all commercial TV and Radio in response to all forms of bais against women in the media.

A day of no spending will demonstrate that women, and those who support women’s issues, can impact the economy as well as the election.

I think it’s a good idea.   It doesn’t seem to have been very widely publicized, but never mind.  Just as fasting during Ramadan makes you more aware of what you eat, smoke, and drink, planning ahead for how not to shop or use commercial media on a particular day is a good exercise in becoming more aware of how we use our money and time.  For starters I will probably listen to public radio, go for a long walk, and if I do a blog post, I will either write it ahead of time or date it ahead so as to not have it appear on Saturday. (Although WordPress blogs are free, they do sometimes put ads on our blogs to generate income.) I’m still thinking about this one, since the blog serves my purposes as well.

The other thing that’s supposed to happen on Saturday is an eclipse of the moon.  Astrologers will tell you a lunar eclipse during a full moon, as this one is, is particularly significant and the effects can last as long as six months.

The “crisis” that these eclipses tend to elicit is a crisis of lack–a time when we suddenly realize a great need or want. The impact of the crisis can act to sever a relationship–it’s possible. But it can also bring two people together with a sudden awareness of a great need for each other. Although Lunar eclipses are more relationship-oriented than Solar eclipses, they are not always about relationships between two people. They can trigger awareness of need in other areas of our lives, such as our relationship to work, to our health and bodies, and so forth. This is a time when matters come to light–things that have been brewing under the surface…

Lunar Eclipses are about relationships and polarities. With the Leo-Aquarius axis involved, this Lunar Eclipse presses us to look more closely at our needs, lacks, and wants in our lives. The Leo-Aquarius polarity deals with the balance between all that is personal (Leo) and all that is impersonal (Aquarius). The energy of Leo is creative self-expression and the boost to the individual ego that we receive through pleasure and romance, while Aquarius rules the group, more impersonal friendships, and objectivity. This Full Moon urges us to strike a balance between romance and friendship, and between expressing ourselves in personal and impersonal ways. The Leo Sun is proud and intensely individual—not content with simply being just one of the team. The Aquarius Moon, while individualistic as well, values independence and the “team”. The Full Moon illuminates this conflict. Some sort of crisis (which can be a crisis of consciousness) or sudden awareness of a lack in our lives provides us with a golden opportunity to explore our emotional needs within the context of the house polarity where the eclipse occurs in our natal charts. Relationships may be challenged, broken, or strengthened dramatically at this time. Our discovery is emotionally charged and dramatic. Epiphanies are likely at this time as we become acutely aware of our lack. This understanding can propel us into positive action.

I like horoscopes, not because I’m convinced that they are true  (or untrue) or even that they convey unique information about one person at one moment in time, but because they provide an interesting framework for organizing the way we do long term planning and analysis of our personal lives.

Maybe Saturday is also a good day to contemplate our relationships with money, media, and politics, and to take whatever revelations and outpourings the full moon inspires and start turning them into rational processes.