US incapable of being world policeman. - USSR says
Especially with Russia sabotaging and meddling in every attempt we make at crisis resolution. Russia may as well be pouring gasoline on the fire to put it out. A firm indicator of what we can expect from Russia will be if Putin allows himself to remain in power after his term limits expire. Then say hello to a quasi-Soviet style Cold War all over again.
PUTIN = RUSSIA already set up their date of Year 2018 long long ago. STRENGTHEN [anti-Amer Amer] SOCIALISM AT HOME, WEAKEN OVERSEAS. What they want is a WORLDWIDE/GLOBAL US-ONLY FALLBACK = RETREAT UNTO CONUS . you know, the kind of geopol global retreat =isolationism that somehow WON'T MOTIVATE AMER'S ENEMIES TO DEMAND MORE once they're convinced America is runing to the high hills. E.G PRE-BOXER REBELLION CHINA. T'is likely why the DemoLeft hasn't asked for BOLTON's head
. USA = PRE-BOXER CHINA > USA IS GONNA BE THE ONE THAT WILL NEED AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED FORCE TO SAVE CLINTONIAN MAINSTREAM COMMIE+ [LEFT] SOCIALIST AMERIKA FROM THE ANGRY FASCIST AMER BOXERS!? Mother Cindy + Motherly Commie Airborne Army = Peacekeeping UNFIA [UN FORCE IN AMERICA(S)]?
Pelosi and Conyer seem bound and determined to join the ranks of traitors like Norm Mineta. So be it. There will come a time when these terrorist facilitators will rue the day they kissed Islamic ass. In ironic and truly Islamic fashion, it is probably Muslims who will put paid to the bill of treason that these assholes are running up.
Robert D. Novak
As the new House majority caucus prepared to pick its leadership today, Democrats were trying to make the best of the inevitability of Nancy Pelosi as the party's first speaker in a dozen years. They have put out the word that she was not serious in endorsing Rep. John Murtha for majority leader. How much effort she has exerted for her longtime ally is irrelevant, but she has actively solicited votes this week.
The damage to her was irrevocable when she wrote her colleagues Sunday urging them to pick Murtha over Rep. Steny Hoyer. Close associates of Hoyer say her letter stunned him, and he was not alone. While Pelosi had made it clear that she would vote for Murtha, the public endorsement was unexpected.
Although Pelosi's apologists had stressed that this was not a public campaign, but a pro forma endorsement, she began actively campaigning for Murtha on Tuesday. Even before that, the letter itself was taken seriously within the Democratic caucus, including by Hoyer and his close associates. A speaker's written word cannot be taken lightly.
Robert J Samuelson
Among Washington lobbyists, policy analysts, congressional staffers and journalists, the game last week was to figure out how the Democrats' capture of Congress will refashion legislative agendas. One answer is that we won't know until the leadership sets its political strategy, canvasses its members and consults interest groups. Another answer is: Temper your expectations. Even forgetting possible vetoes by President Bush, the Democrats have less leeway to alter policy than their rhetoric implies.
Although Democrats didn't promise much -- they benefited heavily from unhappiness with the war in Iraq -- they still succumbed to exaggeration. Their sound bites ran ahead of plausible solutions. Consider three familiar themes. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy; inaction on the minimum wage; and Republican opposition to negotiating Medicare drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. All are of a piece: The Republicans are lackeys for the wealthy business class; they don't care much about the poor.
raise capital gains => kill the stock market => kill the expansion of the economy => recession => no jobs for the working class.
They still haven't learned have they?
Its called CAPITALISM becuuas eyou need to form CAPITAL to create new wealth. Thats right boys and girls, ther eis no fixed amount of wealth - we can make NEW wealth if we have proper environment for capital formation.
They just don't get it at the Dem Party or their MSM liberal allies at the WaPo and NYT.
What will they deliver?
Overspending on pork (Byrd, Murtha are masters of this), social projects that backfire, higher taxes to pay for it, indecisiveness on foreign poliy and the military, and corruption (Already beginning with Hastings, Murtha, and the coming investigations in the Senate in to Reid et al). Plus divisiveness even within the Dem party (San Fran liberalism vs Blue Dog Dems).
Question is, will the press hound them as hard as they hounded the Repubs? Nope. And there's the shame. The Amereican people are being duped by the press' half truths and blinders.
eLarson, most, if not all Union wage scales are tied to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up x% then the Union wage goes up the same x%. All the way up the line. Talk about an inflation generator!
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/16/2006 12:41 Comments ||
Union pay scales are based on negotiatied contracts with contractors in the district. They cannot be adjusted until the contract runs out. Trying to get more money from the contractors assosiation because the kids at Taco Bell are making more money is going to be hard to do.
BUt, but, but ASIA TIMES/OTHERS say the USA will collapse andor go into recesion next year??? GLEN BECK > Wall Street + Financial bigwigs believe new terror is coming very soon against America, including Naw Yawk-Manhattan, which is why Beck says many are starting to protect, hide, + transfer their investments. RECESSION, COLLAPSE, + AAMER HIROSHIMA(S)???
Which bipartisanship will Bush choose?
The election results pose two enormous strategic choices for America. First, the obvious outcome of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Republican White House is the need for bipartisan cooperation in order to get anything done. The key question is: Which kind of bipartisanship will emerge? Will there be a Ronald Reagan approach to bipartisanship which appeals to the conservative majority of the House? Or will there be an establishment bipartisanship which cuts deals between liberals and the White House? Second: Will the departure of Donald Rumsfeld and his replacement by Robert Gates lead to a tactical effort to minimize the difficulties of Iraq, or to a fundamental rethinking of the larger threats to American safety?
These two choices are strikingly interrelated. An establishment bipartisanship between the White House and liberal congressional leaders will almost certainly make it necessary to focus narrowly on how to minimize difficulties in Iraq and postpone consideration of the larger threats to America for the remainder of this and into the next presidency. By contrast, a conservative bipartisanship that knits together the House Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats into a floor majority, working with a White House that emphasizes popular issues at the grassroots, would make it much easier to focus on the larger threats to American safety. (Such a bipartisanship could stress making the cap gains tax cut permanent; controlling set-asides and discretionary spending; oversight on failing bureaucracies and waste; English as the language of government; and biofuels as part of an energy policy.)
-Politics have changed since Mr Newt's heyday. The Dems have moved a long way towards the left as the class of '68 has gripped more and more power.
-The perception at that time was that the only thing that mattered was economics, history having "ended". Threats of foreign invasion and attack and immolation of Western civilization did not factor in except for a few voices crying in the wilderness, both parties equally guilty. Adding this factor changes everything, and invalidates a lot of the strategy and tactics used by Mr Newt et al ten years ago. Economics and budgeting are and always will be inportant but they no longer exist in a vacuum.
-The so-called Blue Dog Dems are a much smaller percentage of their party, and are viewed askance by the leadership. Witness the recent plight of Joe Lieberman.
-The newly elected Dems that Mr Newt takes for granted as being centrist or conservative are not proven, yet, as either, and should not be considered as such until empirical proof exists (I am HIGHLY skeptical that they are centrist or conservative on much, just a few social issues).
-The leadership in either party is notoriously harsh (and successful) in their attempts to rein in and control freshman members, and given the opposition to winning the battle for Iraq specifically and the WoT generally by the left in this country, this does not bode well for getting freshman members on board for our "security".
-W has a few not-so-conservative ideas of his own, particularly with regard to immigration reform, that he will have to forge alliances with the leftist leadership to accomplish, and this will alienate him from any legitimately centrist Democrats.
What Mr Newt is doing is projecting his own set of circumstances onto a new playing field, perhaps even a new sport. He may be right, but if so it will only be by accident. All the "work" in the world may not be enough - even if it does unite whatever few non-leftist Dems that exist in the congress - to achieve anything meaningful.
I hope Mr Newt is right, but I'm skeptical.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/16/2006 6:51 Comments ||
Preview is my friend......grrr..........
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/16/2006 6:52 Comments ||
Byron York, National Review
Forget the House leadership election and the intrigue that has surrounded it.
The real question is: Does the new Democratic leadership in the House have a clue about what to do in Iraq?
I think you know the answer to that. But just for the record, its no. And weve known that for a long time.
Last December, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would do about the war if they were to win power.
This is the Posts account of her answer:
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is no one Democratic voice ... and there is no one Democratic position, Pelosi said.
There still isnt. The only thing that is different is that Pelosi will soon be Speaker of the House.
Much attention has been paid to the war over the war inside the Bush administration. But in coming months the Democratic war over the war might well dominate the news.
Just look at the back-story to the Steny Hoyer-John Murtha leadership fight.
Last November and December, when Rep. Murtha (D-Pa.) came up with his proposal to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq My plan says redeploy to the periphery, to Kuwait, to Okinawa, and if theres a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United Statess national security, we can then go back in few, if any, Democrats dared to publicly embrace his idea.
But then Pelosi spoke up. Im endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, she said. I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.
The majority of the caucus thing was a bit much. I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, said Rep. Hoyer (D-Md.), begging to disagree, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nations security and credibility.
And then, answering Hoyer, Pelosi chose to celebrate the virtues of diversity:
On an issue that relates to war and the conduct of war, we have always said from the start this is completely an individual decision. There is no leadership conversation about this in terms of encouraging members to go one place or another, not like an issue like prescription drugs or Social Security, which are core issues to the Democratic Party. People have their own views on it, and we all respect them.
Months ago, all sorts of people gave Pelosi the benefit of the doubt when she said things like that. For example, when she told the Post that there would be no party position on Iraq, the Post headlined the story, Pelosi hails Democrats diverse war stances.
That was a very nice way to put it. But with all due respect to the next Speaker, what the hell kind of policy is that? The our-policy-is-to-have-no-policy position might have been good enough to get Democrats through the election, but now its looking worse and worse each day.
Still, what would you expect from a party leader who not only doesnt know what to do about the war she doesnt even know what to call it?
This isnt a war to win, Pelosi told Fox Newss Brit Hume last week. Its a situation to be solved.
Put that statement together with her comments during the Murtha controversy, and its fair to conclude that Pelosi believes the way to solve the situation is to redeploy from the situation.
It leads one to wonder: What kind of policies would Pelosi have advocated had she been in power during earlier situations?
You know, like World Situation I sometimes known as the situation to end all situations?
Or World Situation II? (When the U.S. was actually fighting in Okinawa and could have redeployed to the periphery in Iraq.)
Or the Korean Situation. Or the Vietnam Situation. Or the Persian Gulf Situation.
How would Pelosi have solved those situations?
Now, while its completely fair to say that Pelosi does not appear to have any idea what to do in Iraq, its not fair to say that shes alone in that.
Most Republicans seem to be in roughly the same boat. And in the days ahead well probably find out that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group doesnt really know, either.
But the difference is that Pelosi and her colleagues are now in power, and their policies will be subject to greater scrutiny than before.
I know I sound crazy but I am glad they are stalling at this decision. The rapid pullout or withdraw options are short-sighted and would almost surely cause an implosion in the gulf region. We simply can not afford politically or economically to let that happen and I think the Dems know that too. I bet that both Bush and Pelosi will look to the Iraq report for political cover.
Forget the Koran. Forget the ayatollahs and the imams. If we want to understand the enemy we're fighting in Iraq, the magic word is "tribe."
Islam is not our opponent in Baghdad or Fallouja. We delude ourselves if we believe the foe is a religion. The enemy is tribalism articulated in terms of religion.
For two years I've been researching a book about Alexander the Great's counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we're fighting today even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic.
In other words, the clash of East and West is at bottom not about religion. It's about two different ways of being in the world. Those ways haven't changed in 2300 years. They are polar antagonists, incompatible and irreconcilable.
The West is modern and rational; its constituent unit is the nation. The East is ancient and visceral; its constituent unit is the tribe.
So, if I follow Mr Pressfield, President Bush needs to be married to several Tribal Chieftains' daughters, share some roast goat by the fire, schmooze a little, very fiercely, of course, make a couple of them Grand Poobahs at the Pentagon -- or we should just leave.
From such brilliance was the current world made.
I can't help but think there are options Mr Pressfield hasn't fully considered.
That's true sir. Many of us here realized this long ago. Bush & his group never have. That's why their approach has failed miserably. Bring on the cavalry, Gronimo's back. Take no prisoners. When we have reduced their numbers by an appropriate amount, they will submit. Either that, or leave.
That is about the best summation of tribalism I've seen in some time. So, what to do? Stomp the bejeebers out of them and reign over them in an Imperialistic fashion (not likely), or leave them to their squalid tribal primitivness (not in our best interests)?
Yep, how long have we been saying this. Islam is one problem. The other and prolly more dire issue is the bedouin tribe foundation of the culture of mesopatamia. It would have been advantageous to pit tribe vs. tribe ala Hussein & exploit the fractures. Those tribes that played ball received more prestige, etc. Those that supported insurgencies got brutally wetworked. It would have also been advantageous to make them swear fealty to the U.S. or GWB a kin to Hirohito & MacArthur. I think the Japan plan vice the Marshall plan would've been more applicable in this case - just my $.02.
Some of ya'll are missing the point here I think.
During the Apache Wars, and in particular referring to Geronimo - incidentally one of the longest, and most savage guerilla wars in American history, the US government and Army were forced to wage ruthless, bloody, and horribly expensive (in many ways) campaigns against a small, unruly, vicious, ruthless group of tribes and tribal leaders that knew the land and held to their own ways and honor until they were forced to face the fact that they had no other choice than complete and total genocide or surrender.
The Apaches fought ruthlessly and were known for the savagery inflicted on captured whites or virtually anyone else not Apache or not known and welcomed by the Apaches.
The US Army eventually learned that it had to be virtually as ruthless and vicious as the warriors they were fighting if they were going to win.
The Apaches raided both sides of the border. If they were being chased by the US Army, they crossed the border into mexico and were, for awhile, safe. If they were being chased by the Mexican Army, however, they had to cross into the USA at specific points where they would not be intercepted by American forces. In the end, the US Army eventually learned that it had to be capable of chasing the Apaches into Mexico if they were going to win. The Mexicans didn;t like it and protested like hell, but there was little they could do about it without sparking war with the US (and the Mexican Army wasn't really very effective or very enthusiastic about chasing the Apaches - they tended to lose way too many soldiers in the process).
The whole process was virtually stalemated for years with the US Army chasing the Apaches all over the southwest end of hell.
Then came a couple of US Army generals (Crook & Niles) who had the guts to take it to the Apaches like they never had before. Niles utilized technology, and by the time Geronimo had been beaten down a number of times until he had only 24 warritors with him when persuaded to accept surrender and temporary imprisonment in Florida.
You can read a very brief, imprecise, incomplete, and obfuscated version of the story here,
However, this entire reference fails even once to include the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers to the entire epic of the campaigns against the Apaches and it also fails to tell the tale of the scope of the 20+ year campaign against them.
The Buffalo Soldiers eventually earned their name and title from the American Indians, principally the Apache, Comanche, and other tribes against which they learned how to be just as thoroughly ruthless and honorable in combat.
The Apaches respected the Buffalo Soldiers and the leaders as much as they respected their tribal leaders because they knew these men could kick ass and take names in any fight.
Our leaders need to take a few more lessons from history.
A few good books as references on how to deal with tribal uprisings (and how not to),
John D. McDermott, A Guide to the Indian Wars of the West (University of Nebraska Press, 1998) ISBN 0-8032-8246-X (I haven't read this one yet)
Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee (don't bother - leftist, revisionist claptrap)
Long Knives & Yellow Legs (title uncertain; one of the best historical western descriptions of the Indian Wars I have ever read, now long out of print, but worth it if you can find a copy)
http://www.geocities.com/~zybt/awars.htm (probably one of the best point-by-point rundowns I've ever seen (even if it contrdicts anything I;ve said above, believe it, not me)
The one problem with this analysis is that, as the author admits of Alexander's Macedonians, the 'West' was once tribal as well. But they became more 'rational' and built a nation.
There is a book quite a few of you might have read called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond that basically says geography and the availability of domesticable plants and animals led to the formation of nations from tribes.
Personally, I do not fully buy it but it's thought provoking. In this theory the craggy coast of Europe allowed a number of geographically secure enclaves in which humans could build agricultural societies with relative protection for sufficient time that, eventually, some of them built strong nations that were able to venture forth and conquer -- a factor that roughly corresponds to 'recorded history.' One of the first of these societies was in what is now Iraq. I guess they've backslid since then.
To me the problem is that we in the "West" are in a post-modern funk and lack a sense of self confidence. It is largely self induced and a largely well intended response to the horrors of the 20th century. First came the Enlightenment and Reason. So far, so good. Then came Darwin, who provided a rational explanation for the origin of man that did not involve God. Ok, but then came ideologies like Marxism which filled the void left by God and King but led to over 100 million deaths, many in camps rather than the battlefield. Now, the Europeans recoil in guilt from what they did over the last century. If you look at the demographic statistics, they don't even consider themselves worthy of reproducing let alone imposing their ways on our tribal enemies. My pet theory is that they have resorted to environmentalism (neo paganism really) to fill the spiritual void left by Darwin and Marx so they are no longer rational (Hans Blix things global warming is a bigger threat than nuclear terrorism, for instance).
America is different. For many reasons, a lot of our citizens are more likely to reconcile faith and reason rather than resort to atheistic ideology. A shorter history and religious pluralism meant religions had to argue their point, win over converts and avoid the corruption and sometimes bloody excesses of established religions in Europe. Free enterprise and the frontier made leftist ideologies far less appealing as alternatives. We still think we have something good to share with, if not impose on, the rest of the world. Certainly, our many immigrants agree.
Back when the West ws more self confident, colonial Europeans unashamedly forced various tribal people to change their ways even as greed was a major motivator for 'colonialism.' They did so ruthlessly at times, of course. I have read, but have not confirmed, that the British controlled what is basically India + Pakland with 30,000 troops. Certainly they were brutal and played tribes and religions against eachother brilliantly (as did the Conquistadors) to prevail at such a numerical disadvantage. But they left in place enduring institutions that still benefit the nation of India and are the last vestiges of civilization in Pakland, where the Wahabists are now the colonialists.
Reading my post of General Platt's obit yesterday got me thinking of this rant. Pakland was a far better place when he was riding to hounds and having a whiskey afterwards than it is now but few will admit it.
I agree with those who say we are too "politically correct" and not ruthless enough in fighting in the tribal middle east. However, I do not think the enemy people are unbeatable or unredeemable if faced with a self confident force from a superior society. We in the West do indeed have a superior culture by all material and moral measures. However, we refuse to acknowledge it and I believe that is the root of the problem when faced with an enemy who has an overabundance of pride, rather than a deficiency.
Radical elements across the Middle East see last Tuesday's defeat of President Bush's Republican Party as their victory.
Calling the election "the beginning of the end for Bush," Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer's war in Lebanon taught the Israelis.
Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats' victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. "It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran," says Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue.
His view is echoed by academics with ties to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. "The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats," says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University. "Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon - that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight."
Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. "With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play," he says. "There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue."
Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush's defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain's 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government.
The writer assumes that Arab Sunnis can project more power than the Shiites. The reverse is true. If US troops were pulled out of Iraq, then Iranian troops would walk in. And they would have no resistance to march the border of Israel.
"Get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight" > thusly, of course, which is why I don't know OSAMA BIN LADEN, ZARQEY, KHALID, and many of the Burqua Boyz. Must - nay, GOTTA - be thinking of Jimmy Carter!? D *** nged SOVIETS FOUGHT ROSWELLIAN ALIENS IN AFGHANISTAN, NICARAGUA, AFRICA + VIETNAM, ETC. YOU BETCHA BOY
Rhetoric shorn of conviction does not solve any problems. So, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a US panel on Iraq the other day that any solution to the current instability in the war-torn country should form part of a broader Middle East strategy, eyebrows were raised. And, understandably so.
Did Blair mean Iraqi people should wait as long as a final solution to the Palestinian issue is found an issue that has been hanging fire for half a century and more, and for which no serious effort is under way to find a settlement?
If Blair is really keen on finding a solution to the Palestinian problem, wherein Palestinians will ultimately be able to live in their own state in peace, that is most welcome. Yet, linking Iraq to the Middle Easts oldest crisis is adding to the woes of Iraqi people, whose country has been turned into a living hell thanks to the invasion three years ago.
Theres nothing wrong in the British Prime Minister offering help to the US on Iraq, though it is doubtful if Blair is in a position to influence the Americans. In fact, Blairs plea to involve Teheran and Damascus in Iraq received a quick rebuff from Washington. Ideally, solutions should be found to the Iraqi and Palestinian problems without wasting any more time. It would, however, be more realistic if the Iraq and Palestine issues are not linked in the matter of a final settlement of the vexed problems, which are not directly related.
Che snuck away from the firefight and surrendered with a full clip in his pistol, while whimpering to his captors: "Don't Shoot! I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
His Bolivian captors begged to differ.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Great info there to use on the vacuous idiots who wear his shirts. Imprisoned more opponents than Hitler. Executed (without trial and without proof) more than Slobodan Milosovic, a convicted war criminal.
David Mamet has written a book, "The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred and the Jews" (Shocken/Nextbook), that is by turns bold, courageous, and outrageous -- it is a book that calls Diaspora Jews to the table and asks: "In or Out?" . . .
Mamet is the playwright who wrote "Glengarry Glen Ross" (for which he won the Pulitzer Prize), . . . . He is currently the co-creator and executive producer of "The Unit," a one-hour dramatic series that airs on CBS on Tuesdays at 9 p.m.
When I spoke with Mamet recently, he explained that he has been pondering the idea of Jewish passivity for 15 years or so . . . . In "The Wicked Son," Mamet identifies the many contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, unmasks those who support it or who, passively, refuse to stand up against it.
not to mention the fact that teh American Jewish community overwhelmingly favors the democrat party, one which favors dhimmitude and capitulation to Israel's enemies, Joe L and Ed Koch are exceptions
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/16/2006 9:11 Comments ||
If Mamet believes that jewish observance correlates with a realistic view of anti semitism and left wing quackery he might be correct. However, it is likely a weak correlation. There are plenty of reform rabbis and leftist conservative rabbis who keep Kashrut (although maybe not at a strict level), who pray often (maybe not 3 times every day), who attend many a bris and many a bar mitzvah and who have completely bought into the left wing agenga, including the 'plight of the palestinians' nonsense.
In. Exactly as religious as I need be, unashamed, and actively supporting both Israel and America. I posted an article on the trend of increasing numbers of Jews voting Republican, contradicting the "Exit polls say 87% voted Dem" canard I heard again on NPR this afternoon. But mhw is absolutely right. Like so many analyses, it's incomplete.
Hasidic Jews were the key bloc that defeated Congresswoman Sue Kelly(R) and voted in an ex-rock musician (D) instead because she didn't meet their demands for large allocations of money to their settlement, which has been aggressively encroaching on local resources and other legal jurisdictions.
They also supported Hillary in exchange for all sorts of other goodies for their dense settlement in NY.
Their identity as Jews is quite firm -- it just excludes much respect for their neighbors.
The Chassids (alternate spelling, since it's a transliteration from the Hebrew) are a cult, in my opinion, or perhaps an edge group as anachronistic as the Amish or the Pennsylvania Dutch. On the other hand, they don't stone accidental passers-by who aren't observing the rules they hold for themselves, like the Ultra-orthodox Mea Shearim idiots in Israel who don't like women wearing shorts in hot weather... and the Chassids do work within the rules of the greater society in which they find themselves. Our society happens to accept trading bloc votes for community advantage, so they do so. One branch of the Chassids is openly Zionist, several other branches not, and one branch believes their recently deceased chief rabbi is actually the Messiah, and await his imminent return when they expect him to announce himself.
The true things always ambush me on the road and take me by surprise when I am drifting down the light of placid days, careless about flanks and rearguard actions. I was not looking for a true thing to come upon me in the state of New Jersey. Nothing has ever happened to me in New Jersey. But came it did, and it came to stay. In the past four years I have been interviewing my teammates on the 1966-67 basketball team at the Citadel for a book I'm writing. For the most part, this has been like buying back a part of my past that I had mislaid or shut out of my life. At first I thought I was writing about being young and frisky and able to run up and down a court all day long, but lately I realized I came to this book because I needed to come to grips with being middle-aged and having ripened into a gray-haired man you could not trust to handle the ball on a fast break.
When I visited my old teammate Al Kroboth's house in New Jersey, I spent the first hours quizzing him about his memories of games and practices and the screams of coaches that had echoed in field houses more than 30 years before. Al had been a splendid forward-center for the Citadel; at 6 feet 5 inches and carrying 220 pounds, he played with indefatigable energy and enthusiasm. For most of his senior year, he led the nation in field-goal percentage, with UCLA center Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabar) hot on his trail. Al was a battler and a brawler and a scrapper from the day he first stepped in as a Green Weenie as a sophomore to the day he graduated.
At least Conroy has the guts to make such an honest self-appraisal. Many people go through their entire lives without spending a single moment enduring such candid introspection, not to mention publishing it for all to see.
Pat Conroy also gave a great eulogy for his father, Col. Don Conroy, USMC:
His Black Sheep squadron is the first to reach the Korean Theater [in 1950] and American ground troops had been getting torn up by North Korean regulars. Let me do it in his voice:
"We didn't even have a map of Korea. Not zip. We just headed toward the sound of artillery firing along the Naktong River. They told us to keep the North Koreans on their side of the Naktong. Air power hadn't been a factor until we got there that day. I radioed to Bill Lundin I was his wingman. 'There they are. Let's go get'em.' So we did."
I was interviewing Dad so I asked, "how do you know you got them?"
"Easy," The Great Santini said. "They were running - it's a good sign when you see the enemy running. There was another good sign."
"What was that, Dad?"
"They were on fire."
And this about his mother:
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, my mother took me out to the air station where we watched Dad's squadron scramble on the runway on their bases at Roosevelt Road and Guantanamo.
In the car as we watched the A-4's take off, my mother began to say the rosary.
"You praying for Dad and his men, Mom?" I asked her.
"No, son. I'm praying for the repose of the souls of the Cuban pilots they're going to kill."
Conroy gets my forgiveness when he goes to schools and gives speeches on making the right choice and the effect of making the right choice, and does an in-your-face to the communist teachers he stumbles across.
I have come to a conclusion about my country that I knew then in my bones but lacked the courage to act on: America is good enough to die for even when if she is wrong.
I don't think our country was wrong to go there, it was very truely mismanaged from DC after we got there.
What a great confession, i Don't really hold the 20 year olds accountable as much as I hold the politico's accountable for their lack of understanding of total war and some lost concept of managing a war.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/16/2006 13:08 Comments ||
Who can say it better than The Bard?
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/16/2006 16:48 Comments ||
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.