TIS, Elie Wiesel wrote a book titled 'Night'

It's the story of his experiences, as a child, at Buchenweld, Auschwitz, Buna and the Holocaust in general. A very sad but informative and touching story.

A must read!


EDIT : TIS, looks like SB and I had the exact same thought when reading your post.

SB & DC,

No, I am embarrased to say I'm not real up and knowledgeable on the subject. I don't know the book but it sounds interesting. On the radio today Elie just sounded so sincere and broken up even still these many many years later.

A few years back I went to the Museum of Tolerance (in. L.A.) on a feild trip for my school. It was so touching and I began to learn more about the holocaust.
You guys know more names facts/data than I do though without a doubt.

All I know is it can bring me to tears. My heart breaks for victims.

TIS

My daughters went to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. When they enter, they are given an "identity" of someone who was in the camps. They don't find out until the end whether the person survived or not.

TIS, since you'll have some free time coming up, I would suggest reading Wiesel's books as well as those of Simon Wiesenthal, another survivor who dedicated himself to hunting down the Nazi war criminals. The books, while they are heartbreaking, are also very life-affirming.

I think Obama's speech in Cairo was one of his best, and definetely his best speech he gave abroad.

While I didn't get to see the entire speech, from what I saw and read, yes, it was excellent. How refreshing to have an intelligent President. And, he didn't have any shoes thrown at him. That's always a good thing.


TIS

The speech had its supporters and critics here and around the world. You can always expect a certain amount of both because of endemic Obama supporters and opponents. Some people though have alot invested in the middle-east struggle. For one, Ali Abunimah is an American journalist of Palestinian descent who stated that the speech contained little about a change in US policy. However, the speech challenged some of those criticisms of the US such as the US being completely on Israel's side. The President's call for an end to Israeli settlements on the West Bank is one of them. It gives a leg up to Middle-east moderates.

Elie Wiesel is the most powerful and moving speaker I've ever seen. When I was at Fordham, I did a thesis on his autobiographical novel "Night."

He may have had an effect on the election results in Lebanon which dealt Hezbollah a defeat.

Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s plan to fix the economy through stimulus spending and government intervention to boost companies like General Motors Corp. has "already failed."

Gingrich was the keynote speaker at a fundraising dinner for the Republican House and Senate campaign committees, filling a role President George W. Bush had served for the past eight years.

"Bureaucrats managing companies does not work, politicians dominating the economy does not work," Gingrich told about 2,000 Republicans who attended the event at the Washington Convention Center last night.

Some Republican leaders hailed Gingrich, the leader of the 1994 "Republican Revolution," as a de facto head of the party at a time when Republicans are looking for ideas to lead them back to the majority.

In introducing Gingrich, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin called him the “architect of the last reform movement” and “the man of ideas.”

Gingrich was preceded by a series of Republican leaders who also took aim at Democrats and the government bailout of Detroit-based GM, New York-based American International Group Inc. and other companies.

Congress in February passed a $787 billion stimulus measure that Republican lawmakers have criticized, saying it hasn’t lived up to administration promises.

Obama said yesterday there are signs the economy may be headed toward a recovery. "We're seeing a reduction in the fear that gripped the market just a few months ago," he said at the White House.

‘Radical Agenda’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama has a "radical agenda." Republicans have "watched them take over banks, insurance companies, auto companies," he said, “and now they want to take over your health care.”

"We’re going to need some wins next November to slow down their agenda," said McConnell. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Democrats are using their control of Congress "to bury our children and the middle class under a mountain of debt."

Actor Jon Voight, the master of ceremonies, opened the evening with a series of sharp attacks on Obama, something many Republican leaders have been hesitant to do in light of the president’s high approval ratings.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken May 29-31 gave him a 61 percent approval rating.

‘Weak Nation’

"We are becoming a weak nation," said Voight, calling Obama a "false prophet." Republicans need to find their way back to power to free the nation from "this Obama oppression," he said.

Both McConnell and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who followed Voight, seemed pleasantly surprised.

"I’m still just reveling that someone from Hollywood made a speech like that. I hope you’re going to be able to find work after this," said McConnell. "I really enjoyed that."

Senator John Cornyn of Texas called the speech "refreshing."

The dinner, which included 150 members of Congress, raised $14.5 million for the Republican House and Senate campaign committees.

Alaska Governor and former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell were among the special guests.

Gingrich dialed back his criticism of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, only saying she is "wrong" on the issue of quotas, without citing any rulings she had made in favor of racial quotas.

Gingrich Controversy

After Obama nominated Sotomayor on May 26, Gingrich posted a blog saying, "A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

On June 3, Gingrich took back his description of her as a "racist," though he continued to criticize a 2001 speech by her as a "betrayal" of fundamental principles. In the speech, she suggested a "wise Latina" would reach "better" decisions than white males.

Obama nominated Sotomayor, 54, last month to succeed retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first Hispanic to sit on the nation’s highest court.

Obama said last week: "I’m sure she would have restated" her 2001 remarks if given the chance and that she was saying that her life experiences would help her understand other people’s struggles.

Republican lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from the "racist" claims of Gingrich and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Race baiting from Gingrich, whose party has not one African-American member in Congress.

These assholes make it so easy to stereotype middle aged and older white men as buffoons. Well, they don't speak for this 50 year old white man.

Jerks.

It is now obvious the GOP strategy is exactly what Rush said a few months ago. They want Obama to fail. How patriotic.

I would love to see Gingrich run against Obama in 2012. Newt wont carry more than ten states.

Obama gave a great American campaign speech, full of good thoughts about virtue, fairness, democracy, sweet reason--the kind of stuff most Americans and their media like. If he were running for president of the Middle East, and the Middle East were populated by Americans and covered by American media, he'd win. But the Middle East is populated by people who hate each other, often for irrational reasons. I don't think the president gave much thought to how his speech would be interpreted by the listeners:

The headline in Palestinians' heads was: "Obama Blames Israel." Their leaders think Obama gave them a new reason not to be serious about peace: No talks until Israel dismantles the settlements (although Obama didn't say that). That'll hold them for another eight years, when they'll have to find another reason not to get serious about peace. But they know that time is on their side...

The Muslim fanatics heard the same message. They're now waiting for the next settlement to be established so they can launch another jihad, expecting that the rest of the world will side with them because Obama said Israel shouldn't build any more settlements. His pleas for Islam to establish democracy, respect women's rights, tolerate dissent, etc., went right past them. Besides, why should they change anything when Obama didn't say boo to Mubarek, who's been a dictator for 29 years and who is suppressing their beloved Muslim Brotherhood?

Israeli hard-liners are shrugging: "Oh, sure. Bush told us it'd be good to give Gaza to the Palestinian Authority as a 'peace gesture.' And he though holding a free election there would be a way to 'incubate democracy.' We removed 8,000 Jewish settlers so the Palestinians could have 'democracy.' We got 7,000 rockets as our reward. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...' "

I'm really disappointed that Obama didn't use his considerable prestige, star quality and rhetorical skill to lay out a concrete plan for a comprehensive peace process. It was a time for a dramatic breakthrough, not for platitudes.

These are the latest Nielsens for nightly news. Those for CBS are the lowest ever. One thing to keep in mind though is that as low as they are, they are still nearly twice as much as O'Reilly and Hannity and they are one hour shows.

NBC 7,960,000
ABC 7,150,000
CBS 5,180,000

TB, there is no concrete plan for a comprehensive peace process. Realistically,a concrete plan doesn't exist. There are several ideological, political, economic, and military components among the Israeli and Palestinian populations. Until they are satisfied or several eliminated in one way or another, peace is not likely. What Obama hopes to accomplish is to kick one leg of the palestinian argument out from under them by reposturing the US in their eyes and giving support to moderates.

I don't think that his speech was aimed at American voters. Well, at least not alone. I think the main goal was to start a new chapter in the relations between the US and the Islamic world.
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world."
Again and again he stressed mutual interests, shared goals, and he underlined his willingness to start a new chapter in the relations.

That was probably the headline in the hard heads not only in Palestine but everywhere where there are people who only hear what they want to hear. Obama made it very clear that Palestineans must change their way of pursuing their goals.
"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. (...) Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."


I think that this was neither the time nor the place for a concrete plan. This speech was an attempt to encourage the political leaders in the region to change their politics, to open their minds. A concrete plan might be the next step.

There have to be radical changes in politics and policy of both, Israel and Palestine. They have to recognise the other's people's needs. At the moment, the Israeli government denies or ignores this, as well as Hamas.

No single person can enforce the peace in the middle east right now, neither the US president nor the UN General Secretary nor anybody else. But Obama showed that every-one who is involved has to overcome some mind barriers.

Take a look at the election results in Lebanon and the probability that moderates have a great chance to win in Iran. If this happens the landscape is going to change, and we will have seen instant results of the speech.

I'm hearing that the election in Iran 'may" be very very close. Evidently there is more interest in this election than there has been for years. The streets were full of people yesterday (on both sides). Today though, apparently is a contemplation day, but they expect record turn-out tomorrow. Any predictions?

TIS

No, he didn't deliberately aim at American voters. But its style was the same as his campaign speeches. People generally continue to do what they think is successful and led to rewards for them. Obama won a smashing victory in the US presidential election, and often it seems to me that he's still on that US campaign trail.

That was probably the headline in the hard heads not only in Palestine but everywhere where there are people who only hear what they want to hear. Obama made it very clear that Palestineans must change their way of pursuing their goals.
"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. (...) Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."[/quote]
Yes, all true. But people everywhere hear what they want to hear. I think his emphasis might have been clearer if he'd taken into greater account the impression he wanted to leave with people despite that self-centered filtering.




I fervently hope so.

I'm willing to bet Obama doesn't even have a concrete plan. I'm not saying any of the past presidents have either truth be told. I highly doubt there is a concrete plan for peace in that region.

This may be sad to say but I say let both sides fight it out and we'll support the winner.

Haven't we done that for the last 62 years?

How do you figure that? From my perspective the US has supported Isreal in everything they do. It's almost as if Isreal is sucking the United States **** and we're just leaning back and enjoying it.

Don't misunderstand me here folks, I'm not on any sides here although I'm sick and tired of the US always supporting Isreal. I say let them fend for themselves, instead of us always riding to their rescue like the proverbial man in the white hat.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday of an election that pitted the conservative establishment against candidate with broad backing from the country's youth. Riot police attacked opposition supporters, beating them with clubs and smashing cars.

A statement from Mousavi posted on his Web site condemned what he described as the "manipulation" of election results.

Demonstrators wearing the trademark green color of Mir Hossein Mousavi chanted slogans condemning the results that gave 62.6 percent of the vote to Ahmadinejad. Protesters set fire to tires outside the Interior Ministry in the most serious unrest in Tehran in a decade.

Ice, I realize that you and I are usually at odds. You think I'm a sarcastic and pompous New Yorker (you're right), and I realize that I have the tendency to poke fun at America's heartland. I guess that could get kind of old, so I'm sorry for that.

All that said, that's just about the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.

Israel is our most vital ally. Islamic terrorists are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and even a well-placed dirty bomb could do enormous damage to the Jewish state and force much of its carefully-tended farm land out of cultivation. A devastating attack of this kind might cause the collapse of Israel's economy. Then what?

This is a reminder of why Israel is perhaps the most important ally in the war against the jihadis. The very existence of America is not yet threatened by them, but Israel is very much at risk. They could become our greatest ally because the stakes are so much higher for them.

Here's the bottom line: The jihadis make virtually no distinction between Americans and Zionists; the two terms are virtually interchangeable for them. Nothing better demonstrates why it is time to stand with Israel.

This is an area where Obama can not afford to waver. He has to stop trying to be everyone's friend in the Middle East. It's not possible. In short, he needs to shit or get off the bowl here.

I would consider it more 69, you know?

And what of the settlements issue?

If you're gonna fix an election, don't make it that damn obvious.

Expect the "official" % to narrow down so to clean up that little booboo.

Well, that's a question that deserves its own thread. But in short, I believe the settlements are legal.

From the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

The settlements are not located in "occupied territory." The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.

The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel in a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel's seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan.

dont worry everyone the stimulus package should kick in soon ......... what a joke!

Don't tell me you still think we should have voted for John McCain, Smitty.

With that logic, the Sinai Peninsula was legal turf too.

Which Israel gave to Egypt in the Camp David Accords.