My wife many years ago took a "women's leadership" seminar at the CIA led by Jynx Melia (author of the book, "Why Jenny Can't Lead"). She posited that women demonstrate a number of traits regarding problem solving and leadership techniques. Men, for example, are results oriented and quite willing to bend or break the rules to get the job done. On the other hand, women were more process oriented and often fixated on procedural issues to the detriment of mission accomplishment. In her book, Melia makes the amusing claim that, based on leadership style and problem solving techniques, America has already had a woman presidentJimmy Carter. . . .
Discuss.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/23/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
And Clintoon tried to make out every chance he got make up for it the only way he knew how.
Disgust Discuss that.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/23/2006 1:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No way in hell was that maggot "female". I've actually had far more male bosses exhibit Melia's stereotypical "female" response than women bosses.
I agree with Barbara. He was the first "eunuch" president, and hopefully the last. With any luck, his kind will never again infest the Oval Office during our lifetimes (Kerry came close, but thankfully didn't win).
#7
If she's correct, we certainly can not afford any female leaders. Jimmah's sterling performance can never be forgotten. He was probably the stupidist and most unimpressive president in the history of the republic.
#8
On the other hand "Golda Meir is the only man in the
Israeli giovernment" but I suspect the original was "Gold Meir is the only one minister who has balls".
#20
I'm deliberately not going to do the link thingy, but, if you look at Blackfive, there is (amazingly) a link to a post at the Daily Kos about some Americans who had bigger balls than Jimmuh ever thought about having.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/23/2006 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Ladies, the vote is in. Jimmy has been formally relegated to your camp.
Deal with it
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/23/2006 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
The pompous, hypocritical hucksterism of Günter Grass. By Christopher Hitchens
For many of the postwar decades, Günter Grass was above all fortunate in his enemies. In West Germany, these enemies took two forms. The first was the large number of citizens who were queasy about the recent past, and the second was the smaller number of citizens who were not so queasy. To the first, Grass could address himself in a high moral tone, calling for an honest appraisal of history and for an accounting with the silence and complicity that had marked the era of National Socialism. This represented, among other things, a demand that parents be candid with their children. To the forces of the German right, on the other hand, or with those who did not take easily to the admission of guilt or shame, he could address himself more forcefully. I believe that it was when partisans of conservative Chancellor Konrad Adenauer referred to Socialist challenger Willy Brandt as "the Norwegian bastard" (because he was of illegitimate birth and because he had worn the Norwegian uniform while fighting against Hitler's soldiers) that Grass decided to become an active campaigner for the Social Democrats. I once heard a conservative writer for the Frankfurter Allgemeine refer disdainfully to Grass himself as a man who looked as if he'd recently dismounted from a shaggy pony that had come from the Mongolian steppes. I felt myself obliged to defend him from this innuendo.
For all this, one was never able to suppress the slight feeling that the author of The Tin Drum was something of a bigmouth and a fraud, and also something of a hypocrite. He was one of those whom Gore Vidal might have had in mind when he referred to the high horse, always tethered conveniently nearby, which the writer/rider could mount at any moment. Seldom did Grass miss a chance to be lofty and morally stern. But between the pony and the horse, between the stirrup and the ground, there stood (and stands) a calculating opportunist.
During the 1980s, Chancellor Helmut Kohl came up with a well-turned but somewhat shady phrase. "The grace of late birth," as he put it, was what had saved many people of his generation from taking part in atrocities. This exemption, which came up again recently when Josef Ratzinger's early membership in the Hitler Youth was disclosed, has applied for over half a century to Grass himself. He was 6 years old when Hitler became chancellor, and thus never had to answer any questions about what he did in the killing fields to the East and the South. To say that he took full advantage of this privilege would be to understate matters. So his decision, in his current ripe and honored state, to admit to teenage membership of the Waffen SS, requires a bit more justification than he's been able to offer so far.
Continued on Page 49
Aljizz basicly putting the Dums on notice that their redeployment will not be enough. Just as we who live in reality have been trying to beat in the Murthas and Kerrys ducks of the worlds heads that if we dont fight them over their it will be over here. A redeployment of US forces from Iraq to say Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan will only result in the battle space moving into those nations and destabilization of those nations until they capitulate and either asks US to leave or we further retreat out of the ME itself. There is no end when we are run out of the ME it will be on to the next redeployed location.
I have a special wonderful feeling every time I see the LLLs with their insane ideas and beliefs in Utopian fantasies get the opportunity to be just outright humiliated and proven stupid by the people they believe so much in. Its a shame Bush cant talk worth anything I would love to see him in his next speech call the Murthas Kerrys out with this article asking I ask my so called reality based opponents how will expanding the battle space from Iraq to the neighboring nations change anything and what are we going to do when they start attacking US in these neighboring areas REDEPLOY? (With a nice evil laugh)
Thank god these people are not in power and god help us if they do achieve power.
Let's also be clear: the writer of this piece is a certifed moonbat. He's going to get about 0.2% of the vote this fall, and he'll consider that a victory for the 'little people'. I'd fisk him but there's no point; he's an ass-tard.
How The Democratic Party Misleads Antiwar Voters
By: John A. Murphy
We all know how the antiwar movement fell silent in 2004 so as not to jeopardize the bloodthirsty campaign of John Kerry who promised to kill more Iraqis faster and cheaper than George Bush. Last week some of us experienced a similar phenomenon in Washington, DC and in other cities around the nation. When a demonstration was held to protest Israel's vicious attack on Lebanon, the antiwar movement, especially those associated with the Coalition for Peace and Justice did not participate. In fact, locally they have offered no response at all to the actions of Israel.
The hero du jour of the Democrats is John Murtha -- shades of Wesley Clark. Murtha is the Democratic Party's chief militarist who says verbally that we have to bring our troops home from Iraq but whose actual proposal calls for their redeployment to Kuwait so that they can be ready to invade Iraq or to stage an invasion against Iran or Syria.
Here is the exact wording of Murtha's proposal:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
THE MURTHA DECEPTION
When you remove the rhetoric, Murthas actual proposal says redeploy instead of withdraw the troops from Iraq. When Murtha says redeploy -- instead of withdraw -- the troops from Iraq, he makes clear that -- despite his rhetoric -- he doesn't want to really bring them home, but to station them in the Middle East. Murtha told Anderson Cooper of CNN:
"We ... have united the Iraqis against us. And so I'm convinced, once we redeploy to Kuwait or to the surrounding area, that it will be much safer. They won't be able to unify against the United States. And then, if we have to go back in, we can go back in."
Truly. It's cold here, and more than a bit uncomfortable, but one is never shocked to feel a knife in one's back because one was blind to the person waving it in one's face.
When Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5th), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rallied Democratic heavy weights such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to support Tammy Duckworth in her congressional primary race, the obvious was so disturbing no one inside or outside the beltway was willing to talk about it.
Emanuel, with help from Democratic Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), recruited Duckworth to run for the congressional seat being vacated by 16-term congressman, Republican Henry Hyde (R-IL-6th). Duckworth is an Iraq War veteran who was severely injured when the helicopter she was co-piloting was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Iraqi insurgents. The attack resulted in Duckworth losing both her legs. The subject that is taboo amongst the media and politicians is the harsh reality that Duckworths service to her country and resulting paraplegia are now being used by Emanuel and Democratic leaders for political gain.
In 2004, Hyde was surprised by Democratic challenger, Christine Cegelis, when she got over 44% of the vote. With Hydes seat open and the congressional approval numbers at near historic lows, Cegelis would undoubtedly be competitive with her previous support combined with disgruntled conservatives. However, Emanuel decided to throw Cegelis and her established organization to the curb and recruited Duckworth to run in the Democratic primary. As previously indicated, Emanuel brought in the Democratic power players to back Duckworth over Cegelis in the race, resulting in a 4 point victory for the Iraq war veteran.
Continued on Page 49
#1
good grief. If she is not going to show up for the debates - she's not going to win. The idea that she will win on a pity vote isn't going to cut it.
A good dash of perspective (with lots of quotes) in these days of darkness and doubt, I think. Moderators, this desperately wants to be p.49'd. The final paragraph summarizes the writer's point neatly.
In recent months, we have been bombarded with reports of the death of the Bush Doctrine. Of course, there have been many such reports since the doctrine was first promulgated at the start of what I persist in calling World War IV (the Cold War being World War III). Almost all of them were written by the realists and liberal internationalists within the old foreign-policy establishment, and they all turned out to resemble the reports of Mark Twain's death--which, he famously said, had been "greatly exaggerated." Nothing daunted by this, the critics and enemies of President Bush are now at it yet again. This time, however, their ranks have been swollen by a number of traditional conservatives who were never comfortable with the doctrine bearing his name and who have now moved from discomfort to outright opposition.
... the Bush Doctrine is no more dead today than the Truman Doctrine was cowardly in its own early career. Bolstered by that analogy, I feel safe in predicting that, like the Truman Doctrine in 1952, the Bush Doctrine will prove irreversible by the time its author leaves the White House in 2008.
But what is genuinely new, and more surprising, is the entry into this picture of a significant number of my fellow neoconservatives. As the Bush Doctrine's greatest enthusiasts, they would be much happier if they could go on pointing to signs of life, but so disillusioned have they become that a British journalist can say that, to them, "The words 'Rice' and 'Bush' have all but become the Beltway equivalent of barnyard expletives." No wonder that they have now taken to composing obituary notices of their own.
Are we then to conclude that the latest reports of the death of the Bush Doctrine are not "greatly," if indeed at all, exaggerated, and that it has at long last really been put to rest?
The ankle-biters spin their memes, mangle the words, toss in their pet irrelevancies, make idiotic and pointless comparisons to past events and situations, bang the drum for their favorite icons, and skew the intent in hopes of layering their special interest into the mix.
It's a difficult task to keep it straight, even with the Internet's nearly-infinite and nearly-perfect memory.
This is not Truman's or Reagan's day, the threats and the resources and the tactics MUST fit the reality of today. That Bush fails in the eyes of those who want it now, the immediate gratification junkies who are so blinded by their lazy logic that they can't see there's damned little difference between them and the Moonbats in regards to simple intellectual honesty, rational thought, and the eventual effects, there is nothing to say. Either you trust that he's going to do the right thing - or you don't.
Funny thing is, despite all the dire dread BS that passes for thought, here and elsewhere, we and Israel are still here, the asshats haven't been victorious in any sense of the word, the Mad Mullahs are still yapping, not tossing nukes, Islamonazi deaders keep piling up, and the game is still on. Most of the impediments to action against the perceived direst threats, such as Iran, are in OUR hands -- every November. Want the Mullahs decapitated? Then running off to be a Libertarian or sitting out the election is self-defeating, not to mention just stupid. Regardless of anyone's pet issue, what issue is for all the marbles? There's a whole pile of marbles. Only one issue is for all of them. The rest are singles. Maybe they're Big Juju to some, many, or most, but they are still secondary to stopping the spread of nukes and the Muzzbats who want them.
Thanks TW, and thanks Norman. The Bush Doctrine is not dead and should not die or be diluted by myopia.
#2
The Bush Doctrine - fight terrorism; democraticize ME politics - suggests variable application of either element, as circumstances warrant. I forsee reliance on military options, over nation building. I don't see that being inconsistent with the doctrine.
When even the New York Times reviewer can be this critical, CNN must have been seized by the spirit of Leni Riefestahl in its paean to Osama bin Laden:
"On the one hand, the producers here are attentive to Mr. bin Ladens skill at media manipulation. On the other, they themselves seem half-seduced by the portrait of the pure-hearted Arab revolutionary that has so captivated parts of the Muslim world. With the heavy rotation of soulful portraits of the soft-voiced prophet of jihad with Super 8-style movies of the warrior on horseback, parts of In the Footsteps of bin Laden could almost double as a recruiting video for Al Qaeda.
Mr. bin Ladens childhood friends express their love and admiration for him, and talk feelingly of his modesty, generosity, loyalty and deep piety. Important historical figures like Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief, give exclusive interviews, in which they present, without challenge, partial and self-serving versions of history. Similarly, Mr. bin Ladens authorized biographer speaks uncritically of the political justification for killing American civilians on Sept. 11.
Finally, theres something way too credulous about In the Footsteps of bin Laden. The documentary spends almost no time with critics in the Arab world who see Mr. bin Laden as a dangerous fanatic who may have pushed the world to the brink of a global catastrophe. Hasnt Mr. Bergen learned anything in the eventful nine years since he met the terrorist? The documentarys view that Mr. bin Ladens zeal for jihad was corrupted into a murderous, revolutionary ideology by Egyptians like Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri seems like exactly the kind of thing Saudis like Mr. al-Faisal might tell impressionable visitors."
#1
does anyone actually watch CNN anymore? Hmmm... I guess we are often forced to while waiting for the doctor or working out at the gym. But.. does anyone actually ...you know... watch it ..and think it is news?
Watching CNN is like being forced to watch those Sunday morning preachers who ask for money within 30 seconds of turning to the channel - it's fascinating in that you have to wonder - are people really this foolish?
We are all aware of the dangerous Middle East conditions the United States faces today after five and half years of President Bush's leadership. So let's consider what the world might well look like if, in his remaining two and a half years, he were to follow the recommendations of his critics.
First: America out of Iraq by the end of 2007.
We warn the Iraqis to get off their duffs and prepare to be in charge by Dec. 31, 2007. We depart (leaving a couple of divisions in a desert base somewhere in Kuwait -- per John Murtha's over-the-horizon strategy). The Iraqi military and police are still not able to manage. Full-scale civil war breaks out. The Iranians enter to give help to the Shias. The Egyptians, Saudis and other Sunni states lend a hand to help the Iraqi Sunnis. The Kurds declare an independent Kurdistan. The Turks go to war against the Kurds after Kurdish PKK terrorists hit the Turks yet again. The Sunnis try to take a piece of Kurdish oil resources near Kirkuk. The Shia workers, who dominate Saudi's southern oil fields, attack Saudi pipelines in solidarity with Iranian Shia-led fighting in Iraq. Kuwait demands our two divisions immediately leave, as it is arousing the hostility of its population. Qatar makes the same demand, for the same reason, of our naval base. The United States complies.
Second: President Bush forces Israel to accept Hezbollah's role as a non-terrorist, social services-based political party in Lebanon.
In a special election, Hezbollah combines its support amongst Lebanon's Shias (40 percent of population), with voter intimidation to dominate the next government led by President Hassan Nasrallah.
Third: President Bush finally personally "leans on Israel" to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians.
No longer in the sway of the "Jewish lobby," Bush threatens to cut off Israel from all dollars, military equipment (including spare parts) and diplomatic support. He threatens economic sanctions if Israel doesn't negotiate a peace with Hamas-led Palestinians. Going beyond President Clinton's peace deal of 2000, which was rejected by Arafat, Hamas demands Israel return to pre-1967 borders, turn over the Golan Heights to Syria, no West Bank occupation (including in suburbs of Jerusalem), the right of return of the first half million Palestinians to Israel proper and turning over Jerusalem to a United Nations mandate. Israel is compelled to agree. They sign the agreement that recognizes two states.
On the next day (Nov. 29, 2007 -- 60 years to the day from when the first post-U.N. resolution Arab terrorist attack on Jews occurred and the day the U.N. resolution for an Independent Israel was passed in 1947), Israel is besieged by terrorists and intensively grouped missile attacks on the north by Hezbollah-run Lebanon, on the south from Gaza and in the center from Janin to Hebron in the new state of the Islamic Republic of Palestine. Syria militarily re-occupies the Golan Heights. U.N.- administered Jerusalem becomes, with U.N. acquiescence, a free passage zone for terrorists into Israel. When the Knesset is bombed by terrorists, Israel declares a defensive, existential three-front war against Lebanon, Syria and the Islamic Republic of Palestine. The war escalates fast toward the edge of Israel's conventional military capacity.
Fourth: The United States takes the military option off the table regarding Iranian nuclear negotiations.
After U.S./French/British-proposed feeble U.N. sanctions are blocked by Russia and China, the world community accepts the reality of Iranian nuclear aspirations, but expects to be able to deter Iran as we did the Soviets for 50 years, should they ever develop such capacity.
Just as the CIA had been caught unawares by the speed of Soviet, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and North Korean atomic bomb development from the 1940s to the 1990s, in the summer of 2007, the CIA in testimony to the Congress admitted that its five- to 10-year prediction of Iranian bomb acquisition was off by four to nine years. This testimony followed by a week Iran's first underground testing of a nuclear device.
President Ahmadinejad threatens to unleash the "fire of Allah" should the United States, Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia further intervene in Iraq. The same "fire of Allah" is threatened at the "Zionist Entity" if she doesn't immediately stop her war against Syria, Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Palestine.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey request immediate publicly acknowledged coverage under the United State's nuclear umbrella -- at least until their joint crash program to develop their own nuclear bombs can be accomplished. The 2008 American presidential campaign revolves around whether to grant such a nuclear guarantee -- in the face of Iran's ongoing terrorist/politico/military hegemonic advance toward the Caspian, Mediterranean and Red Seas.
The Democratic presidential candidate is blaming President Bush and the Republicans for both: 1) forcing Israel into an untenable "peace," and 2) the precipitous departure from Iraq -- both actions of which has left the Middle East ablaze and a hair trigger's touch away from nuclear detonation.
Price of a barrel of crude oil on Election Day 2008: $250.
#1
Why not assume that the President has already decided on regime change in Iran? The past 5 years since 9-11 have not played out according to plan. Ergo: try something different.
Groups like Hamas, Hizbollah, Basij, Mahdi Army, al-Fatah, Jamaat-i-Islami, Taliban, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood should not exist. If we drop any plans to democraticize these animals, then the secular remnants in the Muslim countries could be forced to liquidate that enemy. Democraticization has somewhat legitimated terror groups. We have no alternative other than liquidation.
#2
The 5-point plan, sort of like the end of the Godfather this should all happen at once if possible.
(1) Build up along the Iraqi/Syrian borders and Iraqi/Iranian borders to get Syria/Iranians to shift military equipment to the borders (or bury it to save it). Do this with the increased strength currently going into Iraq (2) Israel takes out Syria while the Syrian military is stretched, in the East, or hiding. (3) Kill Sadr (4) Target the Iranian leadership with concrete bombs if they pop their head up. (5) Promote revolution in Iran over the radio, satelites, internet, and loudspeakers. Parachute in radios if need be, with the military on the border there will be fewer people to bash down any revolts.
#3
Snease Shaiting3550 - I'd say that nothing has been carved into stone except that the US, true to its traditions and beliefs, had to try the democratization route. It's a well-worn topic here, from my readings. That the Muzzies are incapable of connecting the dots and resort to their age-old sectarian and "Muzzy First" habits comprise the answer to the question, "Can they change? Can they accept the great gift offered to them on a silver platter?" Nope. I believe we will not see the US attempt any nation-building on the behalf of Arabs or Islam, at least on the scale of Iraq, ever again. They blew it for everyone else.
Obviously, I agree Iran is the key to the most pressing threat. Bush will play the various political games to try to cover his eventual attack on Iran. It's his reality. This seems to make many people go totally bonkers. "Isn't the UN dead, already? Haven't we learned that the Tranzis will stab us in the back?" Etc. I'm sure Bush gets it - but he has to deal with rampant nitwit BDS, tenacious partisan political realities, and bona-fide legal hurdles he must negotiate. Sucks to be him, IMHO, but that is the lot he must deal with. So he does - and gets ankle-bitten by the New BDS strain - from the right.
He has said that they must not have nukes. He said it several times, including very recently, and I believe he meant it. So I believe that, when he thinks he's checked off all the political boxes that the timeframe allows, he will, indeed, take the Iranian regime down. The ankle-biting always begs the question, when people get nutso about his failure to have already acted, "Gee, do they know more than the President of the US?" No. That's simply stupid.
Much has been said about the fact that Iran is a group of ethnic states being held captive by what has become a minority (?) of Persians. I believe that, once the grip of the Mullahs is broken by US decapitation and reduction of the nuke efforts, Iran will never be a threat again.
Tony is obviously a very smart guy. I hope it's contagious.
Well said. The President had a mandate to follow the post 9-11 route that he chose. I would point to errors, but not to bad faith. I am confident that he will both do the right thing, and secure bi-partisan support.
#5
Iraq put us out of nation building, we will never do it again that is why I will feel very sorry for the next country that gets lined up in our sights it will not be pretty.
"We do not insist that our medicine, our technology, or even our entertainment, all remain in an obsolete state; why would we demand that the law be given such treatment? It seems absurd to suggest that we can change the speed limit to reflect improved technology but we cannot interpret the Constitution to reflect improvements in society."
A year ago, Slate magazine's legal correspondent, Dahlia Lithwick, recounted this observation - from one of her bounteously sophisticated liberal readers - as a neat summary of the "doctrine" of a "living Constitution." And a neat summary it is. How droll and obtuse that conservatives think the Constitution should remain anchored against the tides of change while those currents bring with them torrents of newfangled iPods and ever-changing gusts of news; one day about Brittany Spears, the next day Paris Hilton. How very horse-and-buggy to suggest that the Commerce Clause wouldn't change with the latest in slattern chic and personal electronics.
Anyway, that bit stayed in my mind ever since, and I think of it whenever the Constitution comes up in the war on terror. Just last week was a case in point. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued a ruling that even legal scholars who like the outcome consider to be laughable in its reasoning. She held that the government's Terrorist Surveillance Program is not only illegal but also unconstitutional. The program, if you recall, monitors phone calls and Internet activity among al-Qaida members and affiliates without a warrant. The executive branch holds that it has the right to do this under its authority to collect intelligence for national security purposes. These calls aren't being monitored for criminal prosecutions but to "connect the dots" and prevent another 9/11.
It may turn out that the TSP is illegal, technically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but we wouldn't know that from Taylor's decision. She cited almost none of the most relevant cases on the matter, and the upshot of her ruling is that even if Congress wanted to codify in law what the president has been doing under his own authority, it couldn't because the founders never had any such thing in mind. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," Taylor wrote, invoking the founders' intent and betraying her own intent to issue as quotable an opinion as possible for the press.
You do see the irony here, don't you? A coalition of pressure groups - Greenpeace, the ACLU and a bunch of left-wing professors - are arguing that the Constitution must be immutably inflexible, adamantine in the face of changing times. The fact that al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders could never have imagined is irrelevant, say the absolutists. If the government can listen in on bin Laden's phone calls without a warrant, what's to keep them from listening to a phone call between me and my Aunt Sally?
Isn't this just a bit hard to take with a straight face from the ACLU, which finds powers not created by the Constitution every day and periodically declares such inanities as the idea that the Constitution forbids teachers from reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" in class lest the tykes' young minds be corrupted by hidden messages about Christianity? Such concerns would have left the founders dumbfounded before the opening prayers of the Constitutional Convention.
Then there's Greenpeace. Not noted for its abiding concern for constitutional niceties one way or the other, the environmentalist outfit claims that its constitutional rights were violated because the TSP had a chilling effect on its international communications. Had they been in negotiations with bin Laden to keep him from blowing up baby seals?
But, you might ask, aren't traditional opponents of the living Constitution hypocrites? Liberals normally like their penumbras emanating and their Commerce Clause written in Silly Putty while we conservatives like our Constitution like our beef jerky - cold, dead, tough to chew through. So aren't conservatives using a double standard, too?
It may depend whom you're talking about, but I think not. Long before the concept of a living Constitution was hatched, the authors of the original version - as well as the courts interpreting it - understood that the executive branch has the authority and flexibility to conduct foreign policy and wage war. Terrorists may be criminals, but they aren't merely criminals. They're waging war against us and doing so in ways never imagined by the founders. They don't want territory or treaties, and they don't use armies and cannons. They want to make our own technology and freedoms into weapons they can use against us.
And so here is the real absurdity of the "living Constitution" school. Where the Constitution is supposed to be inert, they want it alive and mutating. But where the Constitution was intended to be flexible, intellectual rigor mortis has set in.
#1
Let's reead the very first words of the Constitution:
"We, the people of the United States" and that is what makes all the claims about the living Constitution at the very least harebrained, at worst dishonest and traitorous.
The Constition was made by the people and a mere judge tring to twist it would be guilty of major felony and breaking of democracy.
#2
The Constitution is a framework of fundamentals. Fundamentals, by their very definition, do not change, but are rather the bedrock upon which other ideas (that often change) rest.
Comparing the immutable fundamentals on which society is based to 'medicine', 'technology' and 'entertainment' is sheer stupidity.
#3
For the left, the Constitution is just an empowering icon. The words long ago lost their meaning. Possessing power is the only justification for dictates and decrees which the governed class need to obey. Like ancient religious ceremonies, the 'Constitution' is just something to invoke to force the unwashed masses to your will. And that is why, boys and girls, the left is so shrill and angered, cause the 'Power' was only meant be we wielded by them and them alone. Now they see the danger they created by their own hands. That is why fear and panic run among their numbers.
#4
I used to believe in the Living Constitution idea when I was fresh out of college and somewhat naive.
Then someone pointed out that there was a reason the founders put the ability to change and ammend the constution into the constitution in the first place. If it was flexible and mutable ammendments would not have been necessary.
#5
On that note, the best song on the Simpson's soundtrack. Done by the singer of at least one Schoolhouse Rock. Oh, yeah!
Kid: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.
(starts singing)
I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.
There's a lot of flag-burners,
Who have got too much freedom,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.
'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
(spoken) Kid: But why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution...
Kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?
(sings) Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me,
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.
(spoken) Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya! You're in the US Constitution!
Amendment: Oh yeah!
Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
#6
Beautifully written article. Reasoned and dead on target. Not that this will have any effect on the LLL's or the MSM's support for "progressives"...
Its unprecedented during wartime to undermine your nations unity. Nevertheless, thats exactly what Israeli PM Ehud Olmert did when he declared that the war would create "new momentum" for his divisive Realignment Plan. Now even that presumptive fantasy has fallen by the wayside as his attention turns to the most important task for an allegedly corrupt career politician saving his job.
It seems Olmert, in a desperate attempt to stave off the mounting calls for his resignation and forthcoming investigations into his conduct of the war and personal financial dealings, is trying to cut a deal with the Opposition. In return for "postponing" Realignment and changing the government's composition, such as removing the Labor party (perhaps with inexperienced Defense Minister Amir Peretz serving as the fall guy for the entire war), maybe, just maybe this dead man-walking can survive.
Of course, this is all dependent upon the Opposition who, lead by former PM Benjamin Bibi Netanyahu, probably won't take the bait. Figuring that, "were tired" Olmert and "lets negotiate" Peretz would do a fine job of hanging themselves, the Opposition has been largely quiet. Sure, there have been some soft jabs at "government mistakes" but Netanyahu and most Opposition Knesset members have refrained from unloading their full criticism, content to merely watch as those nooses tighten. According to a new poll published on Aug. 16 in the Maariv newspaper, they probably won't be waiting much longer with
support for the prime minister, who may face a formal inquiry into a real estate deal he made in 2004, dropp[ing]from 78% on July 19 to a new low of 40%."
Whether by choice, trial or election, Olmerts days are numbered along with what he represents, a mentality Bradley Burston described in Haaretz as "Yuppiestan." Israelis, he wrote, have
" tolerated corruption for too long. For too long, we've allowed incompetence to go unaddressed, even rewarded. We've learned to countenance mediocrity, to let failure ride."
Failure in war of course, is another matter, for a country where victory is synonymous with survival. Even with the calls for accountability from Left to Right, however, Olmert isnt one to give-up easily (except against Hezbollah). According to Sara Hoing (Jerusalem Post) this should be a given for someone of Olmerts abilities. Olmert, she wrote ,
"may be grossly inept in running the affairs of state, but he's second to none in churning out a heavily biased portrayal of reality (in his own favor obviously), or advantageously manipulating our perception, prettying-up and covering-up. The day of the spin doctor is upon us."
But can spin really work this time? Can the Israel public be made to believe that they won rather than lost the war, even as Olmert calls for
prepare[ation] for what's to come" i.e. the coming wars? That Northern Israel was protected rather than neglected, when approximately 4,000 rockets fell there? That the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) were well prepared instead of ill-equipped and supplied, when many reservists have complained about the lack of food, water and tellingly, orders? It doesnt seem likely, prompting Opposition MK Prof. Dr. Aryeh Eldad to recently comment: "a thousand public relations experts cannot turn failure into victory." In other words, Humpty Dumpty cant be put back together again hes already in the frying pan.
On a side note, no one has questioned whether this war was a case of 'wag the dog' as some have speculated about Ariel Sharon's intentions behind the Disengagement Plan. The fact that it was a war of choice rather than necessity leaves questions as to Olmerts motivation. Why didn't he maintain the status quo of hoping that Hezbollah wouldn't launch a war on his watch - it worked for his two predecessors? Whatever his intention, greater attention is being focused on many facets of Olmerts life from the contradictory his children refused compulsory IDF service and two sons live abroad - to the possibly criminal and worst of all, his innate indecisiveness.
With the end of Olmerts Premiership, possibly Yuppiestan and the Israeli media's realization that greater vigilance is needed to prevent mediocrity from ever rising again, maybe the public can focus on the painful reality that peace is a long process. It is not something that can be unilaterally declared, secured behind ever higher walls or by misguided agreements paid for with the blood of victims of peace.
Which if any leader and party have the vision and determination to put forward a comprehensive new strategy and shift the failed paradigms? Its unclear who will emerge when the dust settles but for right now it will suffice that Olmert and his government go.
Hattip Instapundit. A long interview, and even longer comment thread, on Mr. Totten's blog. Very interesting, if you want to explore the thinking of the Israeli public during the hudna before the second phase of the Hizb'allah war. The interviewees were Viet Nam era American anti-war protestors who emigrated to Israel. They make the point that unlike our nutters, they served their 25 years in the IDF as active and reserve, and now their children are serving in turn. They have a strong viewpoint, but are surprisingly realistic about the situation of Israel in the region, and about the views of their countrymen.
A taste:
What do you do with this? Yehuda said. Its not reasonable to expect Jewish people to just roll up and go away or disappear. But on the other hand, a true injustice was done to the Palestinians. Between those two poles, you have all sorts of people coming up with all sorts of statements, theories, and whatnot. And its all obviously useless. Nothing has led to anything. All we see is military confrontation. When the first Zionists came to Palestine, Palestine was a feudal society. And you have a big clash between concepts that have nothing to do with religion or anything of that nature. The fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict is degrading into a religious conflict is a tragedy beyond description. It never really was.
Israel is often thought of, in the West, as an unhinged fanatically right-wing country, like the U.S. on speed. Israel is far more European, though, than it is American. If Israel were not constantly under fire and constantly embroiled in conflict with eliminationist enemies, Israel would resemble a Jewish France or even Sweden of the Levant. The country was founded by democratic Labor Party socialists, and only rather recently has become more capitalist and complex.
I wanted to know if there are many Berkeley-style leftists in Israel.
I think whats different from our peace movement, Amichai said, from the peace movements in the United States, in other countries, and in Europe is the question of serving in the army. Peace movements are usually pacifists and they dont encourage their members to serve in the army. The Israeli peace movement believes that Israel would not exist if we didnt defend it. There is a slogan thats going around: If the Arabs put down their arms, there will be peace. If the Jews put down their arms there wont be any Jews left. And I think theres a basic truth to that.
Amichai is speaking in the context of Israel, Yehuda said, and I can understand that. My feeling goes beyond the spirit of Israeli society only. I see organizations like Hezbollah as a threat to humanity in the same manner, for me, as the settler movement is also a threat. Where you have a nationalism that hooks up with a religious idea, I see only trouble. Im not willing to discriminate between Jews and Arabs on this score. Not at all.
Btw, the bit about the "gruntisation" of the IDF brought on by the police-like/counter-terror necessities of the two successives intifadas fits well with what some analysts and writers have said; IE, the emphasis on light infantry probably has lowered the standards of others arms.
I hope the IDF will emerge stronger from this soul-searching.
#3
The difference is that the United States has a large enough military that, even with emphasis on one area, there is enough knowledge, tradition and assets left to, at a minimum, have enough capacity to ramp up in a needed area. Hence an emphasis on special-forces will not entirely negate armour, for example.
As with other small nations with small populations, Israel does not have that luxury. Though unlike the small nations I have "worked with", they have a good indigenous defence industry and a generous patron to fall back upon.
I have not even touched on the political aspects. Suffice it to say that the problem has been manifesting itself for some time.
#1
I was so disappointed too, I was hoping dwarf man would come out swinging and bring the 12th guy with him and we could smashed him so far back into that well that he never come out for over 10000 years. :(
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When even the New York Times reviewer can be 
