I have no connection to the man outside of knowing he was a QB in the NFL, but this story struck me as just so tragic.
Las Vegas resident, former UNLV quarterback, and Philadelphia Eagles star, Randal Cunningham, lost his 2 year old son yesterday in a hot tub drowning. Cunningham was out of town, and a care taker was found by police trying to resuscitate the child yesterday evening around 4:30pm.
Cunningham, in his retirement, became an ordained pastor and founded a Church, Reminant Ministries. He had even conducted baptisms using that very hot tub.
Gosh. You figure if anyone is going to get some extra protection, you know? I realize it doesn't work that way, it's just so tragic.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Unfortunate ...
You're doing an awful lot of writing for a guy who says he was "done" with this thread 2 posts ago.
I realize fully that you were taking a shot at my (or your characterization of) my position. My point was for you to employ gas chambers & ovens or the final solution in your rhetoric about what I'm suggesting the Jews do, simply to jab at me, is monumentally inappropriate. If you don't or wont retract it, that's your call. You own it then.
My stated position on Hamas has been throughout that they need to be beaten militarily. You "100% agreed," then suggested the embargo was too much. That appears highly contradictory, to me.
Furthermore, I wrote that Hamas must be destroyed. I also said the Palestinian voter knew exactly who and what Hamas was when they elected them. I contend both positions can be held without it following that I want a Palestinian genocide. I asked for you to produce where I suggested that "all Palestinians" who voted for Hamas be "destroyed" & now you don't feel like cutting & pasting ... "ok."
Lastly, you continue to suggest that I abandon the personal jabs and simply point out where I think you're wrong. First, that tells me you were in fact pushing your opinion, and not simply"asking honest questions", as you contend, for how could I point out where you've been wrong if all you've done is made an inquisition? And opinion is fine, but your repeated claim was that "honest questioning" was your only aim. That aside, I have repeatedly pointed out where I think you are wrong. 4 times in fact: 1.) In the inconsistency above. Meaning if you feel the arms embargo is ill advised because it goes too far, rubbing dirt in the face of the common Palestinian as you put it, then why did you enthusiastically endorsed my military option regarding Hamas on June 7th? That certainly goes much further and it's a tad less PR friendly towards the dirt strewn face of the "common man" then the embargo. 2.) You were not seeking "honest questions" in your original post. You were using a line of questioning to make your personal point. It's a hallmark of yours, & it's fine except that I dislike being told it was something it was not. 3.) All supplies have NOT been cut off via the embargo. Uninspected supplies have, thus I feel you misrepresented the embargo's effect in your original post. 4.) As I have repeatedly said, ending the embargo is "wrong" because it would almost certainly mean more rockets and weaponry in the hands of Hamas. Thus it is a wise, if not the singular, course of action for Israel to pursue, short of a full scale war.
Each of these points I have made, repeatedly. So I'm not sure why you keep insisting "show me where I'm wrong."
Again, I find it unfortunate in the extreme that you have no qualms about employing phrases like "maybe Israel should fire up the ovens", under any circumstance. I understand you were attempting to portray & insult my position, but what you don't get is, it's an insult to Jews & the sensibilities of anyone familiar with the Holocaust when such a phrase is tossed around as a loose, sarcastic euphemism - particularly one which (indirectly or otherwise) references potential Israeli actions.
I'm comfortable with every word Ive written in this thread. If you can say the same, then I am simply surprised & disappointed.
And let me reiterate. "Questioning" the effectiveness of a given Israeli strategy is reasonable. But questioning the morality behind IDF strategy, of the Israeli people themselves, such as asking why Israel insists on "rubbing the common man's face in the dirt", I find unreasonable, ignorant of the facts, and even offensive. It undermines any vague resemblance to an honest inquisition, and it is a misrepresentation of a policy meant to prevent rockets from reigning down on innocent civilians. Hamas is responsible for that embargo, not Israel. Equally offensive (if not more so) is haphazardly tossing around phrases like "firing up the gas chambers" in reference to the IDF, simply to slap me down. Again, rip me up and down all you want I say, as I did you. But that "barb" was shameful.
Now I have said my peace, and I am done with this thread. Of course I mean the literal translation of done and not the one in which "done" is defined as continuing to post, and post . . . and post.
****
No comments on the Kenya story, huh? Hmm. I thought that was a pretty good find myself.
I realize fully that you were taking a shot at my (or your characterization of) my position. My point was for you to employ gas chambers & ovens or the final solution in your rhetoric about what I'm suggesting the Jews do, simply to jab at me, is monumentally inappropriate. If you don't or wont retract it, that's your call. You own it then.
My stated position on Hamas has been throughout that they need to be beaten militarily. You "100% agreed," then suggested the embargo was too much. That appears highly contradictory, to me.
Furthermore, I wrote that Hamas must be destroyed. I also said the Palestinian voter knew exactly who and what Hamas was when they elected them. I contend both positions can be held without it following that I want a Palestinian genocide. I asked for you to produce where I suggested that "all Palestinians" who voted for Hamas be "destroyed" & now you don't feel like cutting & pasting ... "ok."
Lastly, you continue to suggest that I abandon the personal jabs and simply point out where I think you're wrong. First, that tells me you were in fact pushing your opinion, and not simply"asking honest questions", as you contend, for how could I point out where you've been wrong if all you've done is made an inquisition? And opinion is fine, but your repeated claim was that "honest questioning" was your only aim. That aside, I have repeatedly pointed out where I think you are wrong. 4 times in fact: 1.) In the inconsistency above. Meaning if you feel the arms embargo is ill advised because it goes too far, rubbing dirt in the face of the common Palestinian as you put it, then why did you enthusiastically endorsed my military option regarding Hamas on June 7th? That certainly goes much further and it's a tad less PR friendly towards the dirt strewn face of the "common man" then the embargo. 2.) You were not seeking "honest questions" in your original post. You were using a line of questioning to make your personal point. It's a hallmark of yours, & it's fine except that I dislike being told it was something it was not. 3.) All supplies have NOT been cut off via the embargo. Uninspected supplies have, thus I feel you misrepresented the embargo's effect in your original post. 4.) As I have repeatedly said, ending the embargo is "wrong" because it would almost certainly mean more rockets and weaponry in the hands of Hamas. Thus it is a wise, if not the singular, course of action for Israel to pursue, short of a full scale war.
Each of these points I have made, repeatedly. So I'm not sure why you keep insisting "show me where I'm wrong."
Again, I find it unfortunate in the extreme that you have no qualms about employing phrases like "maybe Israel should fire up the ovens", under any circumstance. I understand you were attempting to portray & insult my position, but what you don't get is, it's an insult to Jews & the sensibilities of anyone familiar with the Holocaust when such a phrase is tossed around as a loose, sarcastic euphemism - particularly one which (indirectly or otherwise) references potential Israeli actions.
I'm comfortable with every word Ive written in this thread. If you can say the same, then I am simply surprised & disappointed.
And let me reiterate. "Questioning" the effectiveness of a given Israeli strategy is reasonable. But questioning the morality behind IDF strategy, of the Israeli people themselves, such as asking why Israel insists on "rubbing the common man's face in the dirt", I find unreasonable, ignorant of the facts, and even offensive. It undermines any vague resemblance to an honest inquisition, and it is a misrepresentation of a policy meant to prevent rockets from reigning down on innocent civilians. Hamas is responsible for that embargo, not Israel. Equally offensive (if not more so) is haphazardly tossing around phrases like "firing up the gas chambers" in reference to the IDF, simply to slap me down. Again, rip me up and down all you want I say, as I did you. But that "barb" was shameful.
Now I have said my peace, and I am done with this thread. Of course I mean the literal translation of done and not the one in which "done" is defined as continuing to post, and post . . . and post.
****
No comments on the Kenya story, huh? Hmm. I thought that was a pretty good find myself.
I'm still done...
But I'll clarify a few points, so there is no misunderstanding should Ryan wish to answer the questions I asked.
When I said "Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done?", I wasn't applying the underlying Nazi reference to Israel, but rather to YOUR preferred method of solving the problem.
You said to "Destroy them" was the only way to defeat Hamas, and then said that those who freely elected the party as that which best represented what the Palestinian people felt they needed in government KNEW what they were electing, and were just as culpable (no, I'm not going to cut-and-paste again). If the culpability is equal in the means and methods that Hamas came to power, then the solution to removing them as a threat must also be equal, right? I took this to mean that those that support Hamas, be it with guns, ammo, money or votes, must be just as "destroyed" as Hamas itself... and when you are talking about 200,000 civilian Palestinain voters that cast their ballots for Hamas, the gas chambers and ovens seemed the most expedient means to complete the job, given what we know of history.
This was a deliberate stab at YOUR position on the Palestinian question, not the Israelis... whom I still maintain have the RIGHT to defend their state as they see fit. I have not, now or in the very recent past, made ANY critical remarks about Israel's actions or policies other than to play a little "devil's advocate" and ask for possible alternative actions and policies that might be considered.
I did not claim that those "concerned" within Israel had a majority, only that they were a growing number of voting population, and that they currently held 4 of the 120 seats in the Knesset. This block is best represented by the Hadash Party and they are very much in favor of a two-state solution, and equal representation for Muslim and Jew alike. Like Hamas, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTY AS THE ONE WITH THE BEST SOLUTION... but I cannot deny that it has seen its support grow in the last 10 years, and I think that is because of the growing numbers of Israelis that are tired of the more hard-line, traditional "Jew-first" position that most Israeli politicians are associated with. That means that at least some of the Jewish population is voting for a fringe party that they feel best represents their needs, even if it is socialist or (at least) very liberal in its make up. That was what I was referring to... not a sudden urge by the Israeli people to embrace radical Islam as the means to peace that you seemed to read in my post.
I have said my peace, and I have done my best to be clear and concise. I'll not say another word about it until such time as Ryan details how he best thinks Israel should handle the Palestinian question, especially in light of the effects the current policies are having on Israel's international relations outside of the region.
I'm not so juvenile as to cry foul, but it is still a bit much to think that we can talk about almost anything... EXCEPT when we discuss what might or might not work in Israel and Palestine. I'm an idiot-ignorant-disgusting-nauseating-revisionist when I suggest that perhaps Israeli policy in action could be better served by taking another course? Since when is THAT what the Bund was all about? If I am wrong... show me I'm wrong. What is gained by the venom and rhetoric?
Nothing, I say.
When I said "Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done?", I wasn't applying the underlying Nazi reference to Israel, but rather to YOUR preferred method of solving the problem.
You said to "Destroy them" was the only way to defeat Hamas, and then said that those who freely elected the party as that which best represented what the Palestinian people felt they needed in government KNEW what they were electing, and were just as culpable (no, I'm not going to cut-and-paste again). If the culpability is equal in the means and methods that Hamas came to power, then the solution to removing them as a threat must also be equal, right? I took this to mean that those that support Hamas, be it with guns, ammo, money or votes, must be just as "destroyed" as Hamas itself... and when you are talking about 200,000 civilian Palestinain voters that cast their ballots for Hamas, the gas chambers and ovens seemed the most expedient means to complete the job, given what we know of history.
This was a deliberate stab at YOUR position on the Palestinian question, not the Israelis... whom I still maintain have the RIGHT to defend their state as they see fit. I have not, now or in the very recent past, made ANY critical remarks about Israel's actions or policies other than to play a little "devil's advocate" and ask for possible alternative actions and policies that might be considered.
I did not claim that those "concerned" within Israel had a majority, only that they were a growing number of voting population, and that they currently held 4 of the 120 seats in the Knesset. This block is best represented by the Hadash Party and they are very much in favor of a two-state solution, and equal representation for Muslim and Jew alike. Like Hamas, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTY AS THE ONE WITH THE BEST SOLUTION... but I cannot deny that it has seen its support grow in the last 10 years, and I think that is because of the growing numbers of Israelis that are tired of the more hard-line, traditional "Jew-first" position that most Israeli politicians are associated with. That means that at least some of the Jewish population is voting for a fringe party that they feel best represents their needs, even if it is socialist or (at least) very liberal in its make up. That was what I was referring to... not a sudden urge by the Israeli people to embrace radical Islam as the means to peace that you seemed to read in my post.
I have said my peace, and I have done my best to be clear and concise. I'll not say another word about it until such time as Ryan details how he best thinks Israel should handle the Palestinian question, especially in light of the effects the current policies are having on Israel's international relations outside of the region.
I'm not so juvenile as to cry foul, but it is still a bit much to think that we can talk about almost anything... EXCEPT when we discuss what might or might not work in Israel and Palestine. I'm an idiot-ignorant-disgusting-nauseating-revisionist when I suggest that perhaps Israeli policy in action could be better served by taking another course? Since when is THAT what the Bund was all about? If I am wrong... show me I'm wrong. What is gained by the venom and rhetoric?
Nothing, I say.
Kenyan Gulag
The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, now 87.
“He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she said. The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly antiBritish. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained. "
Mr Onyango served with the British Army in Burma during the Second World War and, like many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms from colonial rule. Although a member of the Luo tribe from western Kenya, he sympathised with the Kikuyu Central Association, the organisation leading an independence movement that would evolve into the bloody uprising known as the Mau Mau rebellion.
“To arrest a Luo ex-soldier, who must have been a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious. They must have had some damn good evidence,” said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.
The British responded to the Mau Mau uprising with draconian violence: at least 12,000 rebels were killed, most of them Kikuyu, but some historians believe that the overall death toll may have been more than 50,000. In total, just 32 European settlers were killed.
“This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured,” Mrs Onyango said. “We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food.” She said her husband was told that he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency, and was beaten repeatedly until he promised “never to rejoin any groupings opposed to the white man’s rule”. Even after he had confessed, and renounced the insurgency, the physical abuse allegedly continued.
Some of Mr Onyango’s fellow inmates were beaten to death with clubs, according to Mrs Onyango. “In fact, my late husband was lucky to have left the prison alive without any serious bodily harm, save for the permanent scars from beatings and torture, which remained on his body till he died.”
At the height of the rebellion, an estimated 71,000 Kenyans were held in prison camps. The vast majority were never convicted. Letters smuggled out of the camps complained of systematic brutality by warders and guards. According to the Harvard historian Caroline Elkins, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her exposé of British atrocities during the Mau Mau uprising, there were reports of sexual violence and mutilation using “castration pliers”. “This was an instrument devised to crush the men’s testicles,” she writes in Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005). “Other detainees also described castration pliers, along with other methods of beating and mutilating men’s testicles.”
Mr Onyango’s son seems to have inherited his father’s attitudes towards the colonial power. He was also arrested, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (Kanu), the organisation spearheading the independence movement. Mrs Onyango said unlike her husband, her step son had been held only for a short time in the white man’s prison: “Because he was not a leader in Kanu, he was released after a few days.”
Mr Onyango was a victim of the fight for Kenyan independence, but his son later became a direct beneficiary of that movement. In 1960, he travelled on a scholarship to the University of Hawaii, as part of a programme (sponsored by John F. Kennedy) to train young Kenyans to rule their own country.
Mrs Onyango said that the combative spirit shown by her husband during Kenya’s bloody independence struggle has passed down through the generations to the future president. “This family lineage has all along been made up of fighters,” she said. “Senator Barack Obama is fighting using his brain, like his father, while his grandfather fought physically with the white man.”
Mrs. Onyango is the woman President Barak Obama refers to as "Granny Sarah." Mr. Onyango was the paternal grandfather of our president. He was the father of his father, Barak Obama Senior, who was briefly arrested and traveled to Hawaii on scholarship. You can read the full article (much longer then these excerpts, with a history of the uprising) here: London Times.
Let me ask you guys something. You know how we were dumbfounded that as his first act the newly elected president would return, not put in the Smithsonian, not in storage, but return to the UK the bust of Winston Churchill? Well guess who the Prime Minister was whom dispatched the troops to Kenya to crush the insurgency? The Empire's colonial integrity was being threatened in all sectors. Stating, "I will not preside over a dismemberment" (of the Empire) it was Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, during his comeback term as PM from 1951-55, whom presided over the rebellion's suppression.
The bust's return make a little more sense now?
Look ... I think it's not only normal for the President to harbor ill feelings towards the British and Churchill in specific, but perfectly understandable. It's human. It'd be abnormal if he didn't. Problem is, he's in a super human job. I ask this sincerely - how can he be expected to treat as a traditional ally, or for that matter even be impartial towards, Great Britain?
And here's an additonal disturbing aspect of this entire story. Why have we NEVER heard this before? Do you know the dateline on the story when you click on the link I provided? 3 December, 2008. Before he was even inaugurated. Think about this - with all the flap of his sending the bust back, which was all over the news, NO ONE put this forward? And what this reminds me of is just how little we know of our Commander-in-Chief. He never released his collegiate essays, papers, etc. He "doesn't remember" his 20 years sitting in the pews at Reverend Wright's Church, and won't discuss them (don't know if Wright baptized his children, if Michelle "remembers" any of those years, etc). There are huge gaps in his childhood, years with no account for how or even where he lived. He won't discuss the years within the Chicago political machine, Tony Rescoe, his relationship with Ayers, nor if he conferred with Farrakhan. And what I find almost frightening is the press, by and large, NEVER ASKED. Never probed, never dug, never applied the same "investigative journalism" tenacity they did to say, Haliburton.
What we do know of him is gleaned by the caliber of his friends, his past associations, his one book and the source of almost all "Obama history", The Audacity of Hope in which he speaks of "a world where white man's greed runs a world in need", quoting a Wright sermon he did remember. And ALL of it seems to point to an individual raised in, immersed in, weened on and now part and parcel of radical left wing ideology.
It is my opinion that the US press machine has utterly failed in vetting a candidate for our most important job. And to this day they continue to look the other way on any "untidy" parts of his life.
Good Lord, can you imagine the thesis statement in any number of college term papers written by a young Barak Obama?
One thing's for sure - BP had no idea what they were up against.
“He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she said. The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly antiBritish. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained. "
Mr Onyango served with the British Army in Burma during the Second World War and, like many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms from colonial rule. Although a member of the Luo tribe from western Kenya, he sympathised with the Kikuyu Central Association, the organisation leading an independence movement that would evolve into the bloody uprising known as the Mau Mau rebellion.
“To arrest a Luo ex-soldier, who must have been a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious. They must have had some damn good evidence,” said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.
The British responded to the Mau Mau uprising with draconian violence: at least 12,000 rebels were killed, most of them Kikuyu, but some historians believe that the overall death toll may have been more than 50,000. In total, just 32 European settlers were killed.
“This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured,” Mrs Onyango said. “We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food.” She said her husband was told that he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency, and was beaten repeatedly until he promised “never to rejoin any groupings opposed to the white man’s rule”. Even after he had confessed, and renounced the insurgency, the physical abuse allegedly continued.
Some of Mr Onyango’s fellow inmates were beaten to death with clubs, according to Mrs Onyango. “In fact, my late husband was lucky to have left the prison alive without any serious bodily harm, save for the permanent scars from beatings and torture, which remained on his body till he died.”
At the height of the rebellion, an estimated 71,000 Kenyans were held in prison camps. The vast majority were never convicted. Letters smuggled out of the camps complained of systematic brutality by warders and guards. According to the Harvard historian Caroline Elkins, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her exposé of British atrocities during the Mau Mau uprising, there were reports of sexual violence and mutilation using “castration pliers”. “This was an instrument devised to crush the men’s testicles,” she writes in Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005). “Other detainees also described castration pliers, along with other methods of beating and mutilating men’s testicles.”
Mr Onyango’s son seems to have inherited his father’s attitudes towards the colonial power. He was also arrested, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (Kanu), the organisation spearheading the independence movement. Mrs Onyango said unlike her husband, her step son had been held only for a short time in the white man’s prison: “Because he was not a leader in Kanu, he was released after a few days.”
Mr Onyango was a victim of the fight for Kenyan independence, but his son later became a direct beneficiary of that movement. In 1960, he travelled on a scholarship to the University of Hawaii, as part of a programme (sponsored by John F. Kennedy) to train young Kenyans to rule their own country.
Mrs Onyango said that the combative spirit shown by her husband during Kenya’s bloody independence struggle has passed down through the generations to the future president. “This family lineage has all along been made up of fighters,” she said. “Senator Barack Obama is fighting using his brain, like his father, while his grandfather fought physically with the white man.”
Mrs. Onyango is the woman President Barak Obama refers to as "Granny Sarah." Mr. Onyango was the paternal grandfather of our president. He was the father of his father, Barak Obama Senior, who was briefly arrested and traveled to Hawaii on scholarship. You can read the full article (much longer then these excerpts, with a history of the uprising) here: London Times.
Let me ask you guys something. You know how we were dumbfounded that as his first act the newly elected president would return, not put in the Smithsonian, not in storage, but return to the UK the bust of Winston Churchill? Well guess who the Prime Minister was whom dispatched the troops to Kenya to crush the insurgency? The Empire's colonial integrity was being threatened in all sectors. Stating, "I will not preside over a dismemberment" (of the Empire) it was Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, during his comeback term as PM from 1951-55, whom presided over the rebellion's suppression.
The bust's return make a little more sense now?
Look ... I think it's not only normal for the President to harbor ill feelings towards the British and Churchill in specific, but perfectly understandable. It's human. It'd be abnormal if he didn't. Problem is, he's in a super human job. I ask this sincerely - how can he be expected to treat as a traditional ally, or for that matter even be impartial towards, Great Britain?
And here's an additonal disturbing aspect of this entire story. Why have we NEVER heard this before? Do you know the dateline on the story when you click on the link I provided? 3 December, 2008. Before he was even inaugurated. Think about this - with all the flap of his sending the bust back, which was all over the news, NO ONE put this forward? And what this reminds me of is just how little we know of our Commander-in-Chief. He never released his collegiate essays, papers, etc. He "doesn't remember" his 20 years sitting in the pews at Reverend Wright's Church, and won't discuss them (don't know if Wright baptized his children, if Michelle "remembers" any of those years, etc). There are huge gaps in his childhood, years with no account for how or even where he lived. He won't discuss the years within the Chicago political machine, Tony Rescoe, his relationship with Ayers, nor if he conferred with Farrakhan. And what I find almost frightening is the press, by and large, NEVER ASKED. Never probed, never dug, never applied the same "investigative journalism" tenacity they did to say, Haliburton.
What we do know of him is gleaned by the caliber of his friends, his past associations, his one book and the source of almost all "Obama history", The Audacity of Hope in which he speaks of "a world where white man's greed runs a world in need", quoting a Wright sermon he did remember. And ALL of it seems to point to an individual raised in, immersed in, weened on and now part and parcel of radical left wing ideology.
It is my opinion that the US press machine has utterly failed in vetting a candidate for our most important job. And to this day they continue to look the other way on any "untidy" parts of his life.
Good Lord, can you imagine the thesis statement in any number of college term papers written by a young Barak Obama?
One thing's for sure - BP had no idea what they were up against.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
My Friend Titus
You know it's amazing. Your name (& Jambo too) starts with the same letter as your online persona, yet I have never once mistakenly wrote your given Christian name, nor referred to you by your pseudonym via text or phone. I wonder why that is? Perhaps I have established an online persona of my own, one that sees the Bund names as potential adversaries at any given click of the mouse, whereas that's not the case (typically) in our more recent personal interactions. At any rate, because you are my friend I want to offer you an opportunity here. After reading your last I made myself, and I mean literally standing still in the grocery store pondering the idea of abandoning my yet filled cart and zipping home to post, stay and cool off (not to mention get some much needed shopping done before the kiddies got out of school). See, I made the mistake of reading your last while in my truck, just before shutting off the engine and heading into Wal Mart. As I said, I finished the shopping in order to cool off because if you thought I was angry before, your last would have sent me over the edge were I to post, post haste. And as there was an exorbitant amount of hot women grocery shopping at this hour (and I had the good fortune to be wearing a sleeveless shirt, hehe) I find it was a wise choice all around.
So now with a cooled temperment I proceed ... Now look. I know you responded in the midst of being "perturbed", but I found this, to be frank, horribly inappropriate. It was a poor choice to say the least, and were I to stumble upon this blog cold I would assume that at the very least you were sensitive to Hamas and perhaps anti-semitic. And as I know that neither are true the opportunity I spoke of was to retract the following:
"I know that many in ISRAEL are beginning to feel that the IDF is moving towards a "final solution" position, and that this concern is what took Netanyahu's party out of power in the 90s..."
To, even in some perverse stab at satire, employ the euphemism Germany used to covertly describe the Holocaust in order to describe (even in jest) what the IDF has in mind, is in bad form to say the least. And believe me, I am on record as detesting political correctness; but as Israel is in a fight for its existence, and Hamas et al are the aggressors, to assign the epic evil of the final solution to the aims of the military of the post Holocaust Jewish state, is ... well, disgusting.
And just on your second point- Netenyahu was returned to power after the the dovish Ehud Barak government was aggressively tossed out by the voting Israeli public. Now why do I say "aggressively" thrown out? Not just because BB's Lakud Party retook power, but because one of the other two Parties he shares governing responsibilities with now in the Kanessa is to his right. These elections are not that far removed, clearly the trend is toward a hard line. So I'm not sure why you believe anything approaching a majority is getting the same 1990's itch to remove the Netenyahu government.
Furthermore ...
"Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done?"
If the first quote was horribly inappropriate then this is just down right grotesque. What are you thinking? Pissed off or not, satirical or not, this is beyond the pale and certainly beyond the bounds of common decency, especially with someone as familiar with history as yourself. If you want to rip me a new one in order to even the score, then by all means. But to employ this historical reference (even in jest) as something the Jews might ought to do to another race, and when you know more than most what that reference details, is as I said, grotesque.
And by the way - if you can find where I wrote "destroy them all" when referencing Palestinians, please produce it. I said the only thing to do with Hamas is "destroy them." Which is not that far from your own sentiments. On 7 June of this year I wrote (in response to the flotilla boarding flap): [H]ow in the hell will negotiations prove fruitful with HAMAS? They want them (Jews) in the Red Sea. Where do you go from there? And that's the problem - Israel and her friends all keep dancing around the OBVIOUS. HAMAS must be defeated. But because of the PC and flat out anti Semitism involved, unless Palestine (such as it is) can mount an actual invasion of Israel, there is no scenario in which Israel can launch the necessary offensive without all hell breaking loose. Yet that is the only way in which things will be settled that allows for an Egyptian style peace process to go forward. No war has occurred to clear the way forward to peace. And no amount of negotiation will reconcile HAMAS with ANY state named Israel."
To which you responded on that very same day: "Well said" (that was your title). Your first sentence out the chute: I agree with everything you said... every syllable you wrote is 100% Titus-approved."
Well how do you think that defeat will materialize? Through diplomacy? Tell me, what's the starting point at the negotiating table when the guy across from you denies you have the right to even exist? I simply advocated in my last posts (via ripping you) that Israel defeat Hamas militarily. And you clearly agree. That would at least be a better scenario than what has existed thus far with more than a generation of violence. Yet you strongly (and sarcastically) question Israel's need of an arms embargo? Where's the consistency there? We already agreed that war with Hamas, a sound military defeat, is the only possible way forward. So why has your tone, and certain flat out statements of opinion, turned so vehemently against Israeli policy when thus far it has gone FAR short (referring to the embargo) of an Israeli military victory you agreed is necessary?
In addition ...
"All three of the examples I have made above are examples of political organizations/parties that were doomed to fail because of their formative and fundamental make up... yet had huge and even global impact through their ability to project force. Had any one (or all) of these groups had to answer for their "chartered" goals prior to facing a general popular election, they would have been laughed out of the running. Instead, they were seen by the majority of people to be able to provide something that the existing systems or parties were not... mainly peace and security for the masses ... Hamas is no different, in my opinion."
What? How is Hamas "no different" when in fact their "chartered goals" were very evident, in their charter, long before their sweeping election to office? I understand what you were saying - you were trying to make the point that the peoples that elect governments aren't necessarily responsible for any (or every) evil committed by that government once it's in power because it's not as if the Party in power advertised their evil intents prior to the election or rise - fine, I agree. But isn't that PRECISELY what makes the Hamas election different from your other three examples? They DID advertise their intention right there in their charter (not to mention via numerous speeches and terrorist acts) all prior to their being elected by the people. This is not to make the case that there are no innocents, and they all deserve to die, for goodness sake. I was simply being consistent (by advocating a military defeat of Hamas) in what I feel is the only (not best, not preferred, but only) course of action if there is to be a real, sustainable peace.
Now as to your original post that started this melee. You text me not 2 hours ago to defend it, and I quote: "I really don't think the Israelis are wrong ... I just wanted to see which options are available to them are viable." Well if honest inquisition to initiate a strategic discussion on Israel's best next move is what you desired, why didn't you simply ask that? Why the loaded phrases like: "What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt ...?" Or this gem: "I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the 'bad guy' when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them?" And you went on to describe the embargo as cutting off vital supplies (patently false, supplies continue to pour in from Israel), and the inability for Israel to win the "hearts and minds" of the Palestinians in this course of action, as if a peoples whom elect Hamas are prepared to open their heart , or mind, to being "won." And worst of all you raised the spectre of the Israeli embargo being the source for more terrorist recruitment, to quote exactly, "How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?" That is not a question meant to spark a strategic discussion of viable options! Not addressing your enemies is more dangerous than adressing them with the potential of pissing them off. Yours is a statement of clear opinion. It's the old, "When did you stop beating your wife?" question - loaded as they come, meant to convey a decided upon position not make an honest inquisition. And you can exclaim all you want "what, I can't voice an opinion here?" Yes, you can. But then don't text me that it was "simply asking a question about viable options for Israel." No you weren't. And my goodness, I just realized you referenced the non suicide bombing Hamas members as "resistance fighters." Jesus Titus, what is going on here? They're not resistance fighters. You didn't even italicize nor flank that phrase with quotation marks. And don't give me this garbage that you meant the technical definition - "well they are resisting and they are fighting." Bull sh*t. You know exactly the connotation that phrase carries and it is employed specifically to differentiate from being a terrorist. Again, what the hell is going on with you and these implied, inferred and sometimes obvious slights against Israel? "Questioning" Israeli strategy and policy is all fine and well. But asking why Israel insists on "rubbing the common Palestinian's face in the dirt" isn't that. THAT is opinion. That is a slight against Israel and a question of their integrity as a people. And if that is how you feel, by all means, express it. But don't then mask it with "I was just seeking viable options for Israel."
You say on the phone you mean to ask honest questions about Israel's viable options, but you're leading the witness brother ... and it's ugly.
So now with a cooled temperment I proceed ... Now look. I know you responded in the midst of being "perturbed", but I found this, to be frank, horribly inappropriate. It was a poor choice to say the least, and were I to stumble upon this blog cold I would assume that at the very least you were sensitive to Hamas and perhaps anti-semitic. And as I know that neither are true the opportunity I spoke of was to retract the following:
"I know that many in ISRAEL are beginning to feel that the IDF is moving towards a "final solution" position, and that this concern is what took Netanyahu's party out of power in the 90s..."
To, even in some perverse stab at satire, employ the euphemism Germany used to covertly describe the Holocaust in order to describe (even in jest) what the IDF has in mind, is in bad form to say the least. And believe me, I am on record as detesting political correctness; but as Israel is in a fight for its existence, and Hamas et al are the aggressors, to assign the epic evil of the final solution to the aims of the military of the post Holocaust Jewish state, is ... well, disgusting.
And just on your second point- Netenyahu was returned to power after the the dovish Ehud Barak government was aggressively tossed out by the voting Israeli public. Now why do I say "aggressively" thrown out? Not just because BB's Lakud Party retook power, but because one of the other two Parties he shares governing responsibilities with now in the Kanessa is to his right. These elections are not that far removed, clearly the trend is toward a hard line. So I'm not sure why you believe anything approaching a majority is getting the same 1990's itch to remove the Netenyahu government.
Furthermore ...
"Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done?"
If the first quote was horribly inappropriate then this is just down right grotesque. What are you thinking? Pissed off or not, satirical or not, this is beyond the pale and certainly beyond the bounds of common decency, especially with someone as familiar with history as yourself. If you want to rip me a new one in order to even the score, then by all means. But to employ this historical reference (even in jest) as something the Jews might ought to do to another race, and when you know more than most what that reference details, is as I said, grotesque.
And by the way - if you can find where I wrote "destroy them all" when referencing Palestinians, please produce it. I said the only thing to do with Hamas is "destroy them." Which is not that far from your own sentiments. On 7 June of this year I wrote (in response to the flotilla boarding flap): [H]ow in the hell will negotiations prove fruitful with HAMAS? They want them (Jews) in the Red Sea. Where do you go from there? And that's the problem - Israel and her friends all keep dancing around the OBVIOUS. HAMAS must be defeated. But because of the PC and flat out anti Semitism involved, unless Palestine (such as it is) can mount an actual invasion of Israel, there is no scenario in which Israel can launch the necessary offensive without all hell breaking loose. Yet that is the only way in which things will be settled that allows for an Egyptian style peace process to go forward. No war has occurred to clear the way forward to peace. And no amount of negotiation will reconcile HAMAS with ANY state named Israel."
To which you responded on that very same day: "Well said" (that was your title). Your first sentence out the chute: I agree with everything you said... every syllable you wrote is 100% Titus-approved."
Well how do you think that defeat will materialize? Through diplomacy? Tell me, what's the starting point at the negotiating table when the guy across from you denies you have the right to even exist? I simply advocated in my last posts (via ripping you) that Israel defeat Hamas militarily. And you clearly agree. That would at least be a better scenario than what has existed thus far with more than a generation of violence. Yet you strongly (and sarcastically) question Israel's need of an arms embargo? Where's the consistency there? We already agreed that war with Hamas, a sound military defeat, is the only possible way forward. So why has your tone, and certain flat out statements of opinion, turned so vehemently against Israeli policy when thus far it has gone FAR short (referring to the embargo) of an Israeli military victory you agreed is necessary?
In addition ...
"All three of the examples I have made above are examples of political organizations/parties that were doomed to fail because of their formative and fundamental make up... yet had huge and even global impact through their ability to project force. Had any one (or all) of these groups had to answer for their "chartered" goals prior to facing a general popular election, they would have been laughed out of the running. Instead, they were seen by the majority of people to be able to provide something that the existing systems or parties were not... mainly peace and security for the masses ... Hamas is no different, in my opinion."
What? How is Hamas "no different" when in fact their "chartered goals" were very evident, in their charter, long before their sweeping election to office? I understand what you were saying - you were trying to make the point that the peoples that elect governments aren't necessarily responsible for any (or every) evil committed by that government once it's in power because it's not as if the Party in power advertised their evil intents prior to the election or rise - fine, I agree. But isn't that PRECISELY what makes the Hamas election different from your other three examples? They DID advertise their intention right there in their charter (not to mention via numerous speeches and terrorist acts) all prior to their being elected by the people. This is not to make the case that there are no innocents, and they all deserve to die, for goodness sake. I was simply being consistent (by advocating a military defeat of Hamas) in what I feel is the only (not best, not preferred, but only) course of action if there is to be a real, sustainable peace.
Now as to your original post that started this melee. You text me not 2 hours ago to defend it, and I quote: "I really don't think the Israelis are wrong ... I just wanted to see which options are available to them are viable." Well if honest inquisition to initiate a strategic discussion on Israel's best next move is what you desired, why didn't you simply ask that? Why the loaded phrases like: "What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt ...?" Or this gem: "I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the 'bad guy' when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them?" And you went on to describe the embargo as cutting off vital supplies (patently false, supplies continue to pour in from Israel), and the inability for Israel to win the "hearts and minds" of the Palestinians in this course of action, as if a peoples whom elect Hamas are prepared to open their heart , or mind, to being "won." And worst of all you raised the spectre of the Israeli embargo being the source for more terrorist recruitment, to quote exactly, "How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?" That is not a question meant to spark a strategic discussion of viable options! Not addressing your enemies is more dangerous than adressing them with the potential of pissing them off. Yours is a statement of clear opinion. It's the old, "When did you stop beating your wife?" question - loaded as they come, meant to convey a decided upon position not make an honest inquisition. And you can exclaim all you want "what, I can't voice an opinion here?" Yes, you can. But then don't text me that it was "simply asking a question about viable options for Israel." No you weren't. And my goodness, I just realized you referenced the non suicide bombing Hamas members as "resistance fighters." Jesus Titus, what is going on here? They're not resistance fighters. You didn't even italicize nor flank that phrase with quotation marks. And don't give me this garbage that you meant the technical definition - "well they are resisting and they are fighting." Bull sh*t. You know exactly the connotation that phrase carries and it is employed specifically to differentiate from being a terrorist. Again, what the hell is going on with you and these implied, inferred and sometimes obvious slights against Israel? "Questioning" Israeli strategy and policy is all fine and well. But asking why Israel insists on "rubbing the common Palestinian's face in the dirt" isn't that. THAT is opinion. That is a slight against Israel and a question of their integrity as a people. And if that is how you feel, by all means, express it. But don't then mask it with "I was just seeking viable options for Israel."
You say on the phone you mean to ask honest questions about Israel's viable options, but you're leading the witness brother ... and it's ugly.
I'm done...
Once again, Ryan's temper makes discussion and discourse impossible, because there is no possibility that anyone could add anything to what Ryan has already determined to be the "answer".
So, let's be done with this... what IS the solution, Ryan? Is the course the IDF chooses the "default" best course? Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done? Hamas was "chosen" by the people of Gaza, so they must all know exactly what the demonic agenda of the group is... thus they are as culpable in the crimes against humanity as the ones doing the killing, right?
Surely, anyone that thinks that a people marginalized by circumstances (and I'm NOT blaming Israel for this) couldn't be reaching out and holding on to what little hope even radicals and terrorists might offer... they MUST agree 100% with the racist, murderous plots that Hamas is hatching, right?
I know that many in ISRAEL are beginning to feel that the IDF is moving towards a "final solution" position, and that this concern is what took Netanyahu's party out of power in the 90s... are they "part of the problem" too? Are they allowed to question the policies where we are not?
I absolutely detest that you automatically assume and associate any position I take or state that might be counter to Israeli actions as "anti-Israeli"... it is ignorant, unfair and beneath the level of understanding and mutual respect that I thought we held for each other.
I'm off to work. Please refrain from sending the multi-page texts about how ignorant I am... I'll wait to read those here on my favaorite "discussion" page.
So, let's be done with this... what IS the solution, Ryan? Is the course the IDF chooses the "default" best course? Perhaps the Israelis should take a lesson learned from history and dust off the gas chambers and fire up the ovens, and put the Palestinian Question to rest once and for all, huh? "Destroy them all." Isn't that what you said needs to be done? Hamas was "chosen" by the people of Gaza, so they must all know exactly what the demonic agenda of the group is... thus they are as culpable in the crimes against humanity as the ones doing the killing, right?
Surely, anyone that thinks that a people marginalized by circumstances (and I'm NOT blaming Israel for this) couldn't be reaching out and holding on to what little hope even radicals and terrorists might offer... they MUST agree 100% with the racist, murderous plots that Hamas is hatching, right?
I know that many in ISRAEL are beginning to feel that the IDF is moving towards a "final solution" position, and that this concern is what took Netanyahu's party out of power in the 90s... are they "part of the problem" too? Are they allowed to question the policies where we are not?
I absolutely detest that you automatically assume and associate any position I take or state that might be counter to Israeli actions as "anti-Israeli"... it is ignorant, unfair and beneath the level of understanding and mutual respect that I thought we held for each other.
I'm off to work. Please refrain from sending the multi-page texts about how ignorant I am... I'll wait to read those here on my favaorite "discussion" page.
No ...
I choose not to participate in the "new rule." And here's why - sometimes a fly needs to be killed with a hammer. I have reached my limits with the entire line of reasoning about what Israel must, could, should do to secure "peace." Allow me to explain.
"Hamas has its foundations in terrorism, I do not deny... just as Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland for the 40 years prior to the Good Friday Accords, but it doesn't negate the fact that the people of Gaza elected Hamas members to represent them ..."
They (Hamas) have its "foundations" in terrorism? They are on the US list of terrorist organizations right now! What is this nonsense? And no, it doesn't negate the fact that the people chose them as their governing body, but neither does the fact they are a governing body change the fact that they are terrorists!!! In fact, it's quite illuminating (and by the way- they didn't elect "members" whom happen to be in Hamas, as this quote seems to suggest. They have a parliamentary system, they elected Hamas as "party", a group, solidifying that "the people" support the group's aims).
You described Hamas as having a "staggering" victory and subsequent power via free elections. This is true. What is also true is that each and every voter which gave Hamas authority to "represent" them knew full well what Hamas is - a militant, rabidly racist, terror (although their voters would argue "freedom fighters" I'm sure) organization that seeks NO peace with Israel and would never recognize their right to exist. The most recent leader of Hamas shocked the West when saying he wished ALL the worlds Jews to come to Israel. That is until he followed that suggestion by noting this would make it easier to kill them. THAT is who the people chose. Does that not speak to the population itself, for which Israel is supposed to be "winning the hearts and minds?" After all of these decades, countless peace processes directed by the West, and untold millions in tons of aide, when the "common man" (whose face is apparently covered in dirt kicked by Israelis, say some) finally had his say not only did he reject a peace process but chose representation that was SURE to continue violence. In other words there is no peace process to be had. I find your even loose comparison of Sinn Fein utterly ridiculous and beneath your abilities (and by the way, I had a grand 8 hours sleep last night - this simply pisses me off to no end). Fein terrorized (& they were terrorists) claiming England had no inherent right to rule the Irish. They did not however have the destruction of the entire English population as a stated goal. Not to mention, when the UK finally conceded enough to Fein, it laid down (or buried) its' weapons. Can you honestly say this will ever be achievable with Hamas? The PA has been offered as much as 90% of their stated requests in past peace processes and still refused. I'm not "dismissing" them as terrorists, I'm identifying them as terrorists and noting that having been chosen as the PA's ruling body means the voting population does not seek peace, making Hamas all the more dangerous, not less.
"It's a crying shame that I am openly derided for asking the simple question of whether or not there were alternative methods to show the people of Gaza, Palestine and the world just how BAD Hamas was at running a government without directly increasing or contributing to the troubles and suffering of the people that elected them into power."
Here's where I blow my stack. Here's where it doesn't matter if I've had 10 hours sleep, the explicits start to fly. This is a fine geopolitical point, one involving the art of state craft, of national maneuvering in order to secure peaceful relations, of the international chess match for which societies around the world have engaged throughout history, IF WE ARE WRITING A F***ING THEORETICAL ESSAY!!!
The point being is the "embargo" was never meant to further alienate the Palestinian people (who after all, just want peace & cheaper tv programming, that's why they chose Hamas, right?) from their government. It is NOT meant to "show the Palestinian people and the world just how bad Hamas was at running a government." It is to stop ROCKETS from reigning down on innocent Jews!
I mean seriously, do you not get this? This wasn't a move to show the Palestinian people "how bad" Hamas is at governing. It is to save the lives of every day Israelis. The strategic course you are suggesting for Israel - of trying to demonstrate to average Palestinians how inept Hamas is without directly contributing to their ever day troubles - is the equivalent of when a man is having a heart attack, describing to him the health benefits of a low cholesterol diet! It's get out the paddles time man! To suggest that perhaps Israel is better served by blanketly lifting the embargo in order to better show the Palestinian people "how bad" Hamas is at governing negates the reality that such a move means MORE ROCKET ATTACKS.
Jesus, May and Joseph Titus, why do you refuse to grasp this? Even Egypt indirectly supports the embargo by offering aide ships the ability to be searched at their ports prior to heading to the embargoed waters. This is not the time to suggest Israel find some clever third way to effect peace with a people WHO DO NOT DESIRE PEACE. Hamas is an army of darkness, to paraphrase Henry Jones. No better than the Nazi Party. They are simply less effective at killing Jews (so far). You do not negotiate with NAZIs. You do not try and show "the people" how misguided their government is so long as German ovens are being constructed or Gaza rockets are reigning down - YOU DEFEAT THEM. Period. And I'm not suggesting Israel use its nukes and turn Gaza into glass for about 10,000 years (the mismatch in conventional forces is more than up to the task of winning). I'm simply saying that Hamas has declared war against Israel, and Hamas has the support of the population, so they're not going away. It is time to defeat the rabid racist, blood thirsty creature that is Hamas and give future Palestinians the same chance the US gave future Japanese generations (I would have used Germany but the whole Iron Curtain thing immediately post war kind of hurts the analogy).
"Putting aside the fact that their charter calls for the destruction of the very nation that allows them to sit in a position of representative authority at all (the destruction of Israel), let's look at the charter just a bit closer ..."
I realize you wrote this in an endeavour to go into detail about the dysfunctionality of every day Hamas governing, even without their racist/terrorist aims. And how they were sealing their own fate via that dysfunctionality even without the desire to slaughterer all Jews. But here's the problem. It doesn't matter. Even if Hamas wasn't a disaster at governing (they can make the trains run on time all they want) there is no "putting aside" this point in their charter. Not in any analogy, in any discussion, in any realm of possibility which is grounded in reality rather then strategic theory. My God man - look at what you wrote. You didn't ask to "keep in mind" their charter of Israeli destruction, you asked we "put it aside" to further the conversation. And I understand fully what you were attempting to achieve by writing it. I'm simply saying that even under those circumstances, to have a discussion which starts with that sentence means we have lost the lessons of history, no matter how brief, no matter how well intentioned. To be very honest, it's embarrassing you would even write such a thing. There's no discussion to be had when it starts with that sentence. There is no putting that aside under any circumstance, and any time the EU, or Russia, or you, or Obama enters into a discussion in which they must suspend the reality of that charter in order to move the discussion forward, well ... they have given anyway just a little more of their humanity, whether they meant to or not.
"Hamas has its foundations in terrorism, I do not deny... just as Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland for the 40 years prior to the Good Friday Accords, but it doesn't negate the fact that the people of Gaza elected Hamas members to represent them ..."
They (Hamas) have its "foundations" in terrorism? They are on the US list of terrorist organizations right now! What is this nonsense? And no, it doesn't negate the fact that the people chose them as their governing body, but neither does the fact they are a governing body change the fact that they are terrorists!!! In fact, it's quite illuminating (and by the way- they didn't elect "members" whom happen to be in Hamas, as this quote seems to suggest. They have a parliamentary system, they elected Hamas as "party", a group, solidifying that "the people" support the group's aims).
You described Hamas as having a "staggering" victory and subsequent power via free elections. This is true. What is also true is that each and every voter which gave Hamas authority to "represent" them knew full well what Hamas is - a militant, rabidly racist, terror (although their voters would argue "freedom fighters" I'm sure) organization that seeks NO peace with Israel and would never recognize their right to exist. The most recent leader of Hamas shocked the West when saying he wished ALL the worlds Jews to come to Israel. That is until he followed that suggestion by noting this would make it easier to kill them. THAT is who the people chose. Does that not speak to the population itself, for which Israel is supposed to be "winning the hearts and minds?" After all of these decades, countless peace processes directed by the West, and untold millions in tons of aide, when the "common man" (whose face is apparently covered in dirt kicked by Israelis, say some) finally had his say not only did he reject a peace process but chose representation that was SURE to continue violence. In other words there is no peace process to be had. I find your even loose comparison of Sinn Fein utterly ridiculous and beneath your abilities (and by the way, I had a grand 8 hours sleep last night - this simply pisses me off to no end). Fein terrorized (& they were terrorists) claiming England had no inherent right to rule the Irish. They did not however have the destruction of the entire English population as a stated goal. Not to mention, when the UK finally conceded enough to Fein, it laid down (or buried) its' weapons. Can you honestly say this will ever be achievable with Hamas? The PA has been offered as much as 90% of their stated requests in past peace processes and still refused. I'm not "dismissing" them as terrorists, I'm identifying them as terrorists and noting that having been chosen as the PA's ruling body means the voting population does not seek peace, making Hamas all the more dangerous, not less.
"It's a crying shame that I am openly derided for asking the simple question of whether or not there were alternative methods to show the people of Gaza, Palestine and the world just how BAD Hamas was at running a government without directly increasing or contributing to the troubles and suffering of the people that elected them into power."
Here's where I blow my stack. Here's where it doesn't matter if I've had 10 hours sleep, the explicits start to fly. This is a fine geopolitical point, one involving the art of state craft, of national maneuvering in order to secure peaceful relations, of the international chess match for which societies around the world have engaged throughout history, IF WE ARE WRITING A F***ING THEORETICAL ESSAY!!!
The point being is the "embargo" was never meant to further alienate the Palestinian people (who after all, just want peace & cheaper tv programming, that's why they chose Hamas, right?) from their government. It is NOT meant to "show the Palestinian people and the world just how bad Hamas was at running a government." It is to stop ROCKETS from reigning down on innocent Jews!
I mean seriously, do you not get this? This wasn't a move to show the Palestinian people "how bad" Hamas is at governing. It is to save the lives of every day Israelis. The strategic course you are suggesting for Israel - of trying to demonstrate to average Palestinians how inept Hamas is without directly contributing to their ever day troubles - is the equivalent of when a man is having a heart attack, describing to him the health benefits of a low cholesterol diet! It's get out the paddles time man! To suggest that perhaps Israel is better served by blanketly lifting the embargo in order to better show the Palestinian people "how bad" Hamas is at governing negates the reality that such a move means MORE ROCKET ATTACKS.
Jesus, May and Joseph Titus, why do you refuse to grasp this? Even Egypt indirectly supports the embargo by offering aide ships the ability to be searched at their ports prior to heading to the embargoed waters. This is not the time to suggest Israel find some clever third way to effect peace with a people WHO DO NOT DESIRE PEACE. Hamas is an army of darkness, to paraphrase Henry Jones. No better than the Nazi Party. They are simply less effective at killing Jews (so far). You do not negotiate with NAZIs. You do not try and show "the people" how misguided their government is so long as German ovens are being constructed or Gaza rockets are reigning down - YOU DEFEAT THEM. Period. And I'm not suggesting Israel use its nukes and turn Gaza into glass for about 10,000 years (the mismatch in conventional forces is more than up to the task of winning). I'm simply saying that Hamas has declared war against Israel, and Hamas has the support of the population, so they're not going away. It is time to defeat the rabid racist, blood thirsty creature that is Hamas and give future Palestinians the same chance the US gave future Japanese generations (I would have used Germany but the whole Iron Curtain thing immediately post war kind of hurts the analogy).
"Putting aside the fact that their charter calls for the destruction of the very nation that allows them to sit in a position of representative authority at all (the destruction of Israel), let's look at the charter just a bit closer ..."
I realize you wrote this in an endeavour to go into detail about the dysfunctionality of every day Hamas governing, even without their racist/terrorist aims. And how they were sealing their own fate via that dysfunctionality even without the desire to slaughterer all Jews. But here's the problem. It doesn't matter. Even if Hamas wasn't a disaster at governing (they can make the trains run on time all they want) there is no "putting aside" this point in their charter. Not in any analogy, in any discussion, in any realm of possibility which is grounded in reality rather then strategic theory. My God man - look at what you wrote. You didn't ask to "keep in mind" their charter of Israeli destruction, you asked we "put it aside" to further the conversation. And I understand fully what you were attempting to achieve by writing it. I'm simply saying that even under those circumstances, to have a discussion which starts with that sentence means we have lost the lessons of history, no matter how brief, no matter how well intentioned. To be very honest, it's embarrassing you would even write such a thing. There's no discussion to be had when it starts with that sentence. There is no putting that aside under any circumstance, and any time the EU, or Russia, or you, or Obama enters into a discussion in which they must suspend the reality of that charter in order to move the discussion forward, well ... they have given anyway just a little more of their humanity, whether they meant to or not.
Tropical Storm Alex
And so it begins.
I'm looking out my patio window now... All the rain and cloudiness we have here in Biloxi is attributed to TS Alex, soon to be Hurricane Alex. No cone of Death, no threat of shutdowns, life is peachy, but...
The prevailing winds from the southeast and the nearly 12 foot waves in the Gulf have shut down much of the clean-up efforts, made the containment booms useless, and drove the first oil onto Biloxi's shores, at the beach off of Rodenburg Ave. Other pockets of oil turned up at the landing at the end of Beachview Drive off of Gulf Park Estates, and Fontenblieu Beach, (Titus and I remember THAT stretch as where Fish used to live before the storm. One particularly fine Big League party was hosted there... sigh)
All of this mess over a tropical storm that won't come within 300 miles of us. Imagine if we were IN the cone of death.
What no one is talking about, again, is the plume of oil underneath the surface. In the event of a storm surge, millions of barrels of "hidden" oil will be driven on shore. Relief well still on track for mid-August, barring weather delays.
This is so Hollywood disaster movie perfect. I keep waiting for the writer/director of 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow to drive up.
I'm looking out my patio window now... All the rain and cloudiness we have here in Biloxi is attributed to TS Alex, soon to be Hurricane Alex. No cone of Death, no threat of shutdowns, life is peachy, but...
The prevailing winds from the southeast and the nearly 12 foot waves in the Gulf have shut down much of the clean-up efforts, made the containment booms useless, and drove the first oil onto Biloxi's shores, at the beach off of Rodenburg Ave. Other pockets of oil turned up at the landing at the end of Beachview Drive off of Gulf Park Estates, and Fontenblieu Beach, (Titus and I remember THAT stretch as where Fish used to live before the storm. One particularly fine Big League party was hosted there... sigh)
All of this mess over a tropical storm that won't come within 300 miles of us. Imagine if we were IN the cone of death.
What no one is talking about, again, is the plume of oil underneath the surface. In the event of a storm surge, millions of barrels of "hidden" oil will be driven on shore. Relief well still on track for mid-August, barring weather delays.
This is so Hollywood disaster movie perfect. I keep waiting for the writer/director of 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow to drive up.
You were right...
You were being rude. And obnoxious. And condescending. And as elitist and dismissive as any pseudo-intellectual I've heard in a decade.
But, you were tired... so I'll put aside the meaningless and childish personal stabs and attacks and try and find some rational train of thought in your sarcastic and facetious comments on my question.
When I speak of the "Hamas-led government", I am speaking of the democratically elected coalition parliamentary representative government that both Israel and America helped institute in the Palestinian territories. Hamas won a staggering majority, and while the Fatah Party still plays a major role, it is the 74-seat Hamas majority that is giving Israel the headaches... and the death tolls... that we are discussing when we talk about the "Palestinian Problem". Hamas has its foundations in terrorism, I do not deny... just as Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland for the 40 years prior to the Good Friday Accords, but it doesn't negate the fact that the people of Gaza elected Hamas members to represent them in government, through a process that both Israel and the US promoted and provided.
To dismiss Hamas as "nothing more than terrorists" is to limit YOURSELF from seeing any historical associations or lessons that might be found. The Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution used terror, intimidation and out-right murder and mayhem to seize control of the Russian political and military machines, and thus cementing 73 years of crushing totalitarian rule for hundreds of millions of people. The Taliban was nothing more than a group of extremist thugs throwing rocks at Russian tanks, using what they learned against the Red Army to seize control of Afghani "choke points" and supply routes that allowed them to slowly take control of the entire country. The National Socialist Democratic Workers Party was little more than a bunch of beer-swilling bullies that specialized in vandalism, arson and extortion... until 1932 and the sweeping victory they had in the general election.
All three of the examples I have made above are examples of political organizations/parties that were doomed to fail because of their formative and fundamental make up... yet had huge and even global impact through their ability to project force. Had any one (or all) of these groups had to answer for their "chartered" goals prior to facing a general popular election, they would have been laughed out of the running. Instead, they were seen by the majority of people to be able to provide something that the existing systems or parties were not... mainly peace and security for the masses.
Hamas is no different, in my opinion (since my opinion is such a source of contempt and disdain today, I'll put that in italics). As an organization, they are doomed to fail. Putting aside the fact that their charter calls for the destruction of the very nation that allows them to sit in a position of representative authority at all (the destruction of Israel), let's look at the charter just a bit closer.
The PA is a very (VERY) socialist system of government, and because they base so much of their organization and structure on the hadith and sharia-law, the economy of both Gaza and the West Bank is a very structured and controlled beast. The tax rate is exorbitant and the services provided are minimal (if they exist at all). Prices are fixed at an executive level, and legislative processes are answerable to a board of clerical "imams" and no one else. Hamas' party structure even copies that of the CPSU, with a presidium and a politburo comprising its executive directorate, and regional party groups organized to represent the "people" of Gaza making up the party's legislative body. Forget for a minute that Hamas cannot and (seemingly) will not forgo violence and murder in its effort to legitimize its political aims (a long walk, I know... just something else you can mock me for later), look at what happened to Gaza between 2006 (the election that took them to power in the PA) and 2009.
Before Israel even instituted the embargo or closed the border of Gaza to (moderately) unregulated, unrestricted traffic, Gaza was (as Ryan pointed out) utterly dependent on Israel for more than 80% of its food and medical needs, and more than 90% of its water and electrical needs... not because the farms were barren, or because the power plants were out of fuel, or the wells were dry... but because the people of Gaza simply couldn't afford the prices fixed by the Hamas government! A progressive tax rate as high as 88%, with taxes attached to everything from buying food to wearing denim jeans (yes, jeans!). Just to watch 30 minutes of al Jazeera news cost the equivalent of $19, all of which was a "media tax" because the broadcast didn't originate in Gaza (source HERE). Life in Gaza SUCKED because of Hamas rules and regulations... not because of Israel. Hamas has no choice but to use Israel as the "scapegoat" for their failures, and that is why I think (my opinion again) that they refuse to consider taking a legitimate, non-violent course of action in their political efforts... they can't justify their own policies without having someone else to blame for their failures.
In short, Hamas cannot succeed in ruling Gaza (or anywhere else in Palestine)... first and foremost because they ARE sponsors and supporters of terrorism, but we CANNOT discount the fact that their preferred system of government is PROVEN to be a short-cut to failure each and every time it is employed.
It's a crying shame that I am openly derided for asking the simple question of whether or not there were alternative methods to show the people of Gaza, Palestine and the world just how BAD Hamas was at running a government without directly increasing or contributing to the troubles and suffering of the people that elected them into power. We here have had the temerity and gall to call into question the policies and actions of many American efforts to win wars that cost thousands of American lives... but to question the policies of Israel is to cross onto "holy ground" it would seem. I'm sorry Ryan read so much into what I posted... it seems that in writing my post, I was positing opinion rather than making an interrogative statement in an effort to elicit information from others... and that is somehow wrong here at the Bund (or, presumably, anywhere else).
There is no profit (fiscally speaking) in modern warfare, and the quickest way to secure peace over the long-term is to show the people of a region or area just how profitable peace can be. If prosperity can be shown to stem from cooperation and mutual understanding between Israel and the Palestinian Territories (as we are beginning to see in the West Bank and Golan, where violence is far less than half of what it is in Gaza), then the trials and tribulations that the Gazan population are being forced to endure under Hamas rule will be less and less appealing to Palestinians in Gaza (and elsewhere). Far be it from me to ever ask whether or not there might be another road to that peace other than the one the IDF has determined to walk... because we all know that Israel can't possibly be wrong in its chosen course of action...
Just ask the 204 American sailors who were killed or wounded on the USS Liberty in 1967.
But, you were tired... so I'll put aside the meaningless and childish personal stabs and attacks and try and find some rational train of thought in your sarcastic and facetious comments on my question.
When I speak of the "Hamas-led government", I am speaking of the democratically elected coalition parliamentary representative government that both Israel and America helped institute in the Palestinian territories. Hamas won a staggering majority, and while the Fatah Party still plays a major role, it is the 74-seat Hamas majority that is giving Israel the headaches... and the death tolls... that we are discussing when we talk about the "Palestinian Problem". Hamas has its foundations in terrorism, I do not deny... just as Sinn Fein did in Northern Ireland for the 40 years prior to the Good Friday Accords, but it doesn't negate the fact that the people of Gaza elected Hamas members to represent them in government, through a process that both Israel and the US promoted and provided.
To dismiss Hamas as "nothing more than terrorists" is to limit YOURSELF from seeing any historical associations or lessons that might be found. The Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution used terror, intimidation and out-right murder and mayhem to seize control of the Russian political and military machines, and thus cementing 73 years of crushing totalitarian rule for hundreds of millions of people. The Taliban was nothing more than a group of extremist thugs throwing rocks at Russian tanks, using what they learned against the Red Army to seize control of Afghani "choke points" and supply routes that allowed them to slowly take control of the entire country. The National Socialist Democratic Workers Party was little more than a bunch of beer-swilling bullies that specialized in vandalism, arson and extortion... until 1932 and the sweeping victory they had in the general election.
All three of the examples I have made above are examples of political organizations/parties that were doomed to fail because of their formative and fundamental make up... yet had huge and even global impact through their ability to project force. Had any one (or all) of these groups had to answer for their "chartered" goals prior to facing a general popular election, they would have been laughed out of the running. Instead, they were seen by the majority of people to be able to provide something that the existing systems or parties were not... mainly peace and security for the masses.
Hamas is no different, in my opinion (since my opinion is such a source of contempt and disdain today, I'll put that in italics). As an organization, they are doomed to fail. Putting aside the fact that their charter calls for the destruction of the very nation that allows them to sit in a position of representative authority at all (the destruction of Israel), let's look at the charter just a bit closer.
The PA is a very (VERY) socialist system of government, and because they base so much of their organization and structure on the hadith and sharia-law, the economy of both Gaza and the West Bank is a very structured and controlled beast. The tax rate is exorbitant and the services provided are minimal (if they exist at all). Prices are fixed at an executive level, and legislative processes are answerable to a board of clerical "imams" and no one else. Hamas' party structure even copies that of the CPSU, with a presidium and a politburo comprising its executive directorate, and regional party groups organized to represent the "people" of Gaza making up the party's legislative body. Forget for a minute that Hamas cannot and (seemingly) will not forgo violence and murder in its effort to legitimize its political aims (a long walk, I know... just something else you can mock me for later), look at what happened to Gaza between 2006 (the election that took them to power in the PA) and 2009.
Before Israel even instituted the embargo or closed the border of Gaza to (moderately) unregulated, unrestricted traffic, Gaza was (as Ryan pointed out) utterly dependent on Israel for more than 80% of its food and medical needs, and more than 90% of its water and electrical needs... not because the farms were barren, or because the power plants were out of fuel, or the wells were dry... but because the people of Gaza simply couldn't afford the prices fixed by the Hamas government! A progressive tax rate as high as 88%, with taxes attached to everything from buying food to wearing denim jeans (yes, jeans!). Just to watch 30 minutes of al Jazeera news cost the equivalent of $19, all of which was a "media tax" because the broadcast didn't originate in Gaza (source HERE). Life in Gaza SUCKED because of Hamas rules and regulations... not because of Israel. Hamas has no choice but to use Israel as the "scapegoat" for their failures, and that is why I think (my opinion again) that they refuse to consider taking a legitimate, non-violent course of action in their political efforts... they can't justify their own policies without having someone else to blame for their failures.
In short, Hamas cannot succeed in ruling Gaza (or anywhere else in Palestine)... first and foremost because they ARE sponsors and supporters of terrorism, but we CANNOT discount the fact that their preferred system of government is PROVEN to be a short-cut to failure each and every time it is employed.
It's a crying shame that I am openly derided for asking the simple question of whether or not there were alternative methods to show the people of Gaza, Palestine and the world just how BAD Hamas was at running a government without directly increasing or contributing to the troubles and suffering of the people that elected them into power. We here have had the temerity and gall to call into question the policies and actions of many American efforts to win wars that cost thousands of American lives... but to question the policies of Israel is to cross onto "holy ground" it would seem. I'm sorry Ryan read so much into what I posted... it seems that in writing my post, I was positing opinion rather than making an interrogative statement in an effort to elicit information from others... and that is somehow wrong here at the Bund (or, presumably, anywhere else).
There is no profit (fiscally speaking) in modern warfare, and the quickest way to secure peace over the long-term is to show the people of a region or area just how profitable peace can be. If prosperity can be shown to stem from cooperation and mutual understanding between Israel and the Palestinian Territories (as we are beginning to see in the West Bank and Golan, where violence is far less than half of what it is in Gaza), then the trials and tribulations that the Gazan population are being forced to endure under Hamas rule will be less and less appealing to Palestinians in Gaza (and elsewhere). Far be it from me to ever ask whether or not there might be another road to that peace other than the one the IDF has determined to walk... because we all know that Israel can't possibly be wrong in its chosen course of action...
Just ask the 204 American sailors who were killed or wounded on the USS Liberty in 1967.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Get Gay's Hardware on the line ...
I know during your recent hiatus you've been attending to some home improvements. So my question to you is, have you been drinking lead based paint directly from the can? Or is sifting its way into your bowl of corn flakes, which you clearly had prior to your last post. That was perhaps the most nonsensical load of horse dung my eyes have ever born witness to. I am on exactly 1 hour sleep (so as to attend my son's Egyptian Exhibit field trip early, after a night's work). And if I hustle I can get a 3 hour nap before they get out of school, but instead I am pounding on this keyboard, furious and bewildered at your inquisition into Israel. Not even the cute red headed mom, an accompanying chaperon whom motioned for me to sit with her on the bus ride home, had my full attention as I pondered the inane prose you so carelessly left as your last.
First, let me back up a minute on North Korea. Look, I hear you, appeasement isn't working, it never does. But you can lay North Korea's current mind set - saber rattling to extort supplies - squarely at the feet of one William Jefferson Clinton. He paraded the Madeline Albright Rocky Horror Show of diplomacy out to Kim Jong and handed that water reactor over without so much as a pinch on the ass in return. Yes NK was saber rattling for aide prior, but Clinton taught them just how successful they could be at it, and forever cemented that course into their government's psychic. Bush, at the very least, put them back fore square in the sights of America's bad guys list. And yes, I put them last in terms of immediate threats, but had the 19 hijackers been Koreans, hijacking in the name of the Communist Manifesto, I'd like to think they would have got top billing from me. Bush's Axis of Evil, and the subsequent rankings, make sense only in light of 9/11 and the need to address radical Islam as a clear and present danger. And lets not forget - there's something like 207 nations in the world, Bush's (and my) Axis of Evil does have them at #3.
Now, lets get to Israel and why I think you may have been consuming copious amounts of lead.
Let me start with this - are you out of your mind? I am so sick of this line of inquiry I could projectile vomit. Were you merely trying to spark a discussion, or presenting these as your personal curiosities? Either way I have a problem with you on this. It's asinine in any form. The entire premise, a fool's notion.
So as not to misquote you ...
[T]he news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza ...
Oh good. For a second there I thought you were going to be an apologist for the "Hamas-led government." I mean really? Are we going to talk like little idiosyncratic elitist poli-sci professors from Cambridge? Seriously? They are a terrorists. Murdering, blood thirsty, vicious terrorists. Simply call them what they are and move on. Don't offer them the legitimacy of polite conversation in their description. It's ridiculous. And just by the by, if you're about to make a staement and it starts with, "I'm no apologist for Hamas, but ...", perhaps you should reconsider making that statement.
You went on.
" ... and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia ..."
Why is it of all the 1st world democratized nations Israel is the only one, THE ONLY ONE, in which the word "but" follows that statement? It is always "well clearly Israel has a right to defend herself, BUT ..." Why is that? But what? "But" not today? Not in this instance? Not right now? The statement should stand alone. Would any of us provide for a qualification to follow "The United States of America has the right to defend itself"? Would WE ever stand for such? Of course not. Why with Israel then? Why must they be so understanding of the special circumstances involving their enemy? Are we? We go half way around the world and DEMAND that the Afghan government produce Osama Bin Laden within 72 hours or we will invade, occupy (in the technical sense of the word), and destroy all those who stand in our way, YET Israel has "buts" thrown in when dealing with people hurling rockets 100 yards from their border!!! I hope you see where I'm driving here - the entire premise of your dialogue is unacceptable, and possible only under a suspension of reality. And if these were simply musing questions to start a thread, and not necessarily your personal avocation - STOP IT. It's poor in conception and a bastard in practice.
Furthermore ....
"[B]ut with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?"
Yes. Destroy them.
I discussed this 800lb gorilla in the room when last we discussed Israel and the flotilla boarding. Israel's policy towards Palestine for decades has been to defend her boarders and people best she can in the hopes that a legitimate partner in peace would arise in Palestine. It hasn't. They traded a short big war for endless little ones. I would ask Israel (ala Dr. Phil), "How's that workin' for ya?"
To continue ...
"The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?"
What's wrong with you? Do you not see how absurd this question is? Let me see if I understand this. Israel's behavior in this matter is giving the terrorists everything they need to recruit more terrorists. But Israel's behavior is a response to terrorists Hamas recruited in the first place, pre-embargo. So Israel, by responding to acts of terror, has become a source for recruiting terrorists, which were responsible for the original terror ... oh piss off, will you!!?!
This is the exact line of reasoning the left uses to argue against GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act - you name it. And what this line of reasoning fails to recognize is that Israel's embargo is a RESPONSE to terror already committed. THUS the problem is with HAMAS' acts of terror, not the Israeli response to those acts of terror. The "recruits" are there and plentiful no matter what, because Jews have been born and they find that unacceptable! The simple act of self preservation, an arms embargo, causes recruits, huh? Perhaps because I'm a bit tired and that's why a more erudite adjective escapes me, so forgive my calling this "stupid" as well. That is just plain dumb. And I'm fed up with it. This entire discussion, the very premise is ludicrous. Israel has responded with about 1/100th of the response we have and would to enemies as belligerent, as hostile, and as engaged in acts of war as Hamas. Can you imagine sending in thousands of tons of aide to Berlin while we were still on the opposite side of the Rhine? It's madness. Israel showing restraint to a fault. And the only thing more maddening to me personally is to read otherwise intelligent people travel down this perverse idiom of illogic.
"Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through..." Well, I'm sure they feel better now that you've conceded they have a right to not be blown up. Good call.
"I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen."
Are you asking about Israel or Hamas? Because Hamas is the problem. Hamas is the terrorist group. Hamas is the one targeting civilians. Hamas is the one sworn to wipe Israel off the map. See, call me crazy, but I think the lion's share of "rationale" questioning should be directed at Hamas. They're the problem, not Israel. And that's my problem with this entire premise, your entire critique of the Gaza embargo, it all skips right past the real problem, what has been the real problem since the 1948 Balfour Declaration - HAMAS and Islamic supremacists the region over. And yes I'm being emotional throughout this post, but for a purpose - discussing the hearts and minds question and the legitimacy or effectiveness of Israeli embargoes is ABSURD in the face of suicide vests, sworn death oaths as an article of faith, and routine rocket launches. How can you maintain that we have been too appeasing in our dealings with North Korea, yet contend Israel may be too aggressive in responding to outright attacks on their soil and sovereignty? And HOW IN THE HELL does Hamas get the world talking about embargoes in the face of all their atrocities? That's as if in late September of 1939 the UK & France went into discussions about how Poland deploying troops along their Western flank might agitate the Germans rather then commenting on the fact that PANZERS ARE STREAMING ACROSS THE GOD D*MN BORDER!
But I'm being rude ... you asked a question in the above quote, let me answer: NO. It's just you.
First, let me back up a minute on North Korea. Look, I hear you, appeasement isn't working, it never does. But you can lay North Korea's current mind set - saber rattling to extort supplies - squarely at the feet of one William Jefferson Clinton. He paraded the Madeline Albright Rocky Horror Show of diplomacy out to Kim Jong and handed that water reactor over without so much as a pinch on the ass in return. Yes NK was saber rattling for aide prior, but Clinton taught them just how successful they could be at it, and forever cemented that course into their government's psychic. Bush, at the very least, put them back fore square in the sights of America's bad guys list. And yes, I put them last in terms of immediate threats, but had the 19 hijackers been Koreans, hijacking in the name of the Communist Manifesto, I'd like to think they would have got top billing from me. Bush's Axis of Evil, and the subsequent rankings, make sense only in light of 9/11 and the need to address radical Islam as a clear and present danger. And lets not forget - there's something like 207 nations in the world, Bush's (and my) Axis of Evil does have them at #3.
Now, lets get to Israel and why I think you may have been consuming copious amounts of lead.
Let me start with this - are you out of your mind? I am so sick of this line of inquiry I could projectile vomit. Were you merely trying to spark a discussion, or presenting these as your personal curiosities? Either way I have a problem with you on this. It's asinine in any form. The entire premise, a fool's notion.
So as not to misquote you ...
[T]he news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza ...
Oh good. For a second there I thought you were going to be an apologist for the "Hamas-led government." I mean really? Are we going to talk like little idiosyncratic elitist poli-sci professors from Cambridge? Seriously? They are a terrorists. Murdering, blood thirsty, vicious terrorists. Simply call them what they are and move on. Don't offer them the legitimacy of polite conversation in their description. It's ridiculous. And just by the by, if you're about to make a staement and it starts with, "I'm no apologist for Hamas, but ...", perhaps you should reconsider making that statement.
You went on.
" ... and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia ..."
Why is it of all the 1st world democratized nations Israel is the only one, THE ONLY ONE, in which the word "but" follows that statement? It is always "well clearly Israel has a right to defend herself, BUT ..." Why is that? But what? "But" not today? Not in this instance? Not right now? The statement should stand alone. Would any of us provide for a qualification to follow "The United States of America has the right to defend itself"? Would WE ever stand for such? Of course not. Why with Israel then? Why must they be so understanding of the special circumstances involving their enemy? Are we? We go half way around the world and DEMAND that the Afghan government produce Osama Bin Laden within 72 hours or we will invade, occupy (in the technical sense of the word), and destroy all those who stand in our way, YET Israel has "buts" thrown in when dealing with people hurling rockets 100 yards from their border!!! I hope you see where I'm driving here - the entire premise of your dialogue is unacceptable, and possible only under a suspension of reality. And if these were simply musing questions to start a thread, and not necessarily your personal avocation - STOP IT. It's poor in conception and a bastard in practice.
Furthermore ....
"[B]ut with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?"
Yes. Destroy them.
I discussed this 800lb gorilla in the room when last we discussed Israel and the flotilla boarding. Israel's policy towards Palestine for decades has been to defend her boarders and people best she can in the hopes that a legitimate partner in peace would arise in Palestine. It hasn't. They traded a short big war for endless little ones. I would ask Israel (ala Dr. Phil), "How's that workin' for ya?"
To continue ...
"The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?"
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph I scarcely know where to begin. First, you are clearly unaware how this "embargo", if you can call it that, works. Israel - ALONE - provides Palestine with 15,000 tons of aide, not per year, not per month, but per week. Some embargo huh? The flotilla and all other aide meant for the PA can safely and securely arrive to its intended recipients via Israel, so they can check for weapons. And given thousands of rockets have reigned down on our ally from inside the Palestinian territory, I find this a reasonable response, to say the least. I'm curious how long the US Navy would allow ships to enter port in Cancun were rockets reining down on Arizona, California and Texas from Mexico? So you ask what do they hope to gain? SELF PRESERVATION, that's what. That ok with you?
In this scenario - Hamas attempting to smuggle in rockets and weaponry to target civilians while Israel sends that enemy 2,000+ tons of aide a day - at what point do the Israelis "lose" the high moral ground? Never.
And why do they insist on "grinding the common man's face in the dirt" via this embargo? Let me get this straight. Hamas is the sworn enemy of the Jew. They proclaim Jewish blood is that of pigs and monkeys. They vow to destroy their nation. They hurl rockets and suicide vests with nails and ping hammer balls laced in, so as to achieve maximum carnage. They are in a state of war (as far as they're concerned) with the state of Israel. And Israel, although they refrain from using their military might to crush Hamas, occupy every square inch from Gaza to the Golan Heights, and eradicate every Palestinian holding a rock or a rocket, has you concerned because they appear to be metaphorically rubbing the common man's face in the dirt? I about got it? Just want to be sure I have that straight. I'm moving on now because I'm hoping the sheer idiocy - and I almost never use that word to describe you - inherent in your concern is apparent at this point.
You went on ...
"I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the "bad guy" when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them?"
I realize you flanked bad guy with quotation marks. But it's still stupid. I mean, Forrest Gump, borderline retarded, double digit IQ, stupid. This is the European notion on how to intellectually approach the "Israeli problem." And believe me, their (and your) question does frame it in such a way that the problem is with the Israeli response to Hamas rather then Hamas itself. Now here's my idea, and I'm just spit balling here, but perhaps Hamas could STOP FIRING F*CKING ROCKETS, and then Israel could take a second glance at their heartless embargo.
"Wait, wait that's my point" you're surely screaming. "Hamas is showing themselves to be belligerent beyond reconciliation, so why does Israel insist on insering themselves as the bad guy?" Here's the answer - this isn't a theoretical exercise for Israel. Their people are under attack. Real rockets, real suicide vests, real Jews dead. Israel can't afford to let Hamas make an ass of themselves until the EU and Russia (& now the US) "get it." Their citizens will DIE in the mean time. It would be a ghastly dereliction of duty for the Israeli government to forgo protecting their citizenry in order to make a geopolitical point, and curry favor with critics,. And that brings me to my other point. As far as the EU and Russia go (and obviously Hamas), Israel will be the "bad guy" NO MATTER WHAT they do or don't do. Short of booking Helen Thomas's all Jewish vacation package there is nothing they can do to not be the "bad guy." So they might as well go ahead and at least try and protect their citizenry.
There's more ...
"How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?"What's wrong with you? Do you not see how absurd this question is? Let me see if I understand this. Israel's behavior in this matter is giving the terrorists everything they need to recruit more terrorists. But Israel's behavior is a response to terrorists Hamas recruited in the first place, pre-embargo. So Israel, by responding to acts of terror, has become a source for recruiting terrorists, which were responsible for the original terror ... oh piss off, will you!!?!
This is the exact line of reasoning the left uses to argue against GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act - you name it. And what this line of reasoning fails to recognize is that Israel's embargo is a RESPONSE to terror already committed. THUS the problem is with HAMAS' acts of terror, not the Israeli response to those acts of terror. The "recruits" are there and plentiful no matter what, because Jews have been born and they find that unacceptable! The simple act of self preservation, an arms embargo, causes recruits, huh? Perhaps because I'm a bit tired and that's why a more erudite adjective escapes me, so forgive my calling this "stupid" as well. That is just plain dumb. And I'm fed up with it. This entire discussion, the very premise is ludicrous. Israel has responded with about 1/100th of the response we have and would to enemies as belligerent, as hostile, and as engaged in acts of war as Hamas. Can you imagine sending in thousands of tons of aide to Berlin while we were still on the opposite side of the Rhine? It's madness. Israel showing restraint to a fault. And the only thing more maddening to me personally is to read otherwise intelligent people travel down this perverse idiom of illogic.
"Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through..." Well, I'm sure they feel better now that you've conceded they have a right to not be blown up. Good call.
"I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen."
Are you asking about Israel or Hamas? Because Hamas is the problem. Hamas is the terrorist group. Hamas is the one targeting civilians. Hamas is the one sworn to wipe Israel off the map. See, call me crazy, but I think the lion's share of "rationale" questioning should be directed at Hamas. They're the problem, not Israel. And that's my problem with this entire premise, your entire critique of the Gaza embargo, it all skips right past the real problem, what has been the real problem since the 1948 Balfour Declaration - HAMAS and Islamic supremacists the region over. And yes I'm being emotional throughout this post, but for a purpose - discussing the hearts and minds question and the legitimacy or effectiveness of Israeli embargoes is ABSURD in the face of suicide vests, sworn death oaths as an article of faith, and routine rocket launches. How can you maintain that we have been too appeasing in our dealings with North Korea, yet contend Israel may be too aggressive in responding to outright attacks on their soil and sovereignty? And HOW IN THE HELL does Hamas get the world talking about embargoes in the face of all their atrocities? That's as if in late September of 1939 the UK & France went into discussions about how Poland deploying troops along their Western flank might agitate the Germans rather then commenting on the fact that PANZERS ARE STREAMING ACROSS THE GOD D*MN BORDER!
But I'm being rude ... you asked a question in the above quote, let me answer: NO. It's just you.
Two more points...
I'm starting work on "swing" tonight, even though the table games haven't gone live yet, so I'm going to need to wrap up my computer time here soon so I can get my chores done and get a quick nap in before I strike out for work... but I wanted to make two more points.
First off is that I read a butt-load of articles on North Korea's stated position that it is actively working to build upon and improve its "nuclear deterrent" capability in response to American intervention in the region. They have test-detonated at least two warheads since 1992, and we know they have the ballistic capability to get a warhead as far as Japan, Alaska or deep into mainland China... possibly a lot farther, too. They have sunk a South Korean warship in international waters with no cause or provocation. In the last 5 years, 17 American military personnel have been injured or killed due to "altercations" along the DMZ between NK and US/RoK sentry stations.
It has long been established that Ryan feels North Korea was the least of the threats posed by the "Axis of Evil" as detailed by Bush, and that Iraq and Iran constitute the greater threats... yet of the three (knowing Iraq has seen the regime change that Bush so wanted at the time), it is still North Korea that HAS the capacity, right now, to threaten peace with nuclear attacks. Allowing NK to posture and threaten expanded nuclear capability simply to win concessions at the humanitarian aid table is tantamount to what every President before Reagan was doing in regards to the USSR... appeasement rather than confrontation. When is a concerted effort to end the ability of NK to threaten its neighbors and the world with WMDs going to become a priority in the West? When will it become clear that the threat doesn't go away with the development of nuclear weapons... it increases exponentially?
Secondly, the news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza, and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?
The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?
I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the "bad guy" when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them? How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?
Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen.
First off is that I read a butt-load of articles on North Korea's stated position that it is actively working to build upon and improve its "nuclear deterrent" capability in response to American intervention in the region. They have test-detonated at least two warheads since 1992, and we know they have the ballistic capability to get a warhead as far as Japan, Alaska or deep into mainland China... possibly a lot farther, too. They have sunk a South Korean warship in international waters with no cause or provocation. In the last 5 years, 17 American military personnel have been injured or killed due to "altercations" along the DMZ between NK and US/RoK sentry stations.
It has long been established that Ryan feels North Korea was the least of the threats posed by the "Axis of Evil" as detailed by Bush, and that Iraq and Iran constitute the greater threats... yet of the three (knowing Iraq has seen the regime change that Bush so wanted at the time), it is still North Korea that HAS the capacity, right now, to threaten peace with nuclear attacks. Allowing NK to posture and threaten expanded nuclear capability simply to win concessions at the humanitarian aid table is tantamount to what every President before Reagan was doing in regards to the USSR... appeasement rather than confrontation. When is a concerted effort to end the ability of NK to threaten its neighbors and the world with WMDs going to become a priority in the West? When will it become clear that the threat doesn't go away with the development of nuclear weapons... it increases exponentially?
Secondly, the news is full of Hamas' latest threat that more and more Israeli soldiers will be taken hostage or kidnapped as a means to end the "embargo" of the Gaza Strip. I am no apologist for the Hamas-led government in Gaza, and I will always be an advocate of the right of Israel to defend herself and her people from harm... but with the EU, Russia, Israel and the US ALL withholding the $500 million dollars of aid that the PA requires to function, the fiscal crisis facing the Gaza region right now, does anyone think that perhaps there is another means by which Hamas can be forced to concede its hard-line positions?
The blockade of Gaza is supposed to stop weapons from entering the area from supporters of terror and terrorism (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other militant Islamic sects), but at what point do the Israelis risk losing the moral "high ground" because the humanitarian costs of the embargo are so overwhelming in scope? When basic services like water and electricity are denied because the Hamas leadership cannot pay its bills, that is one thing... but when they are denied because Israel cuts off the supplies needed to provide those services, what is gained? What does Israel hope to gain by grinding the common man's face in the dirt, when Hamas will do it all by themselves without any assistance from Tel Aviv?
I guess I am asking why Israel feels it is in their best interest to be the "bad guy" when they have Hamas and most of the rest of the PA leadership ready and more-than-willing to do it for them? How can they hope to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied territories by giving the terrorists-in-charge (Hamas) everything they need to keep recruiting more and more suicide bombers and resistance fighters?
Again, I'm not saying this isn't an issue that Israel has the RIGHT to determine it's own best course through... I'm simply asking if anyone else has questions about the rationale behind the course chosen.
We're having a banner year, so far...
The Bund is on-pace to have more than 750 posts this year (2010), which would be our biggest year ever. That's not bad, considering that we're all working now and are all seperated by vast distances and one of our members is "active duty" and unable to post. We're seeing more hits from unrelated IP addresses every week, too... which means more and more people are reading what we write.
Nice....
Nice....
MacDonald vs City of Chicago
The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to deliver its decision on MacDonald vs City of Chicago sometime today, and this case is even bigger than DC vs Heller.
Besides calling for the end of Chicago's ban on handgun ownership, MacDonald is calling for the reversal of the decisions given in 1873 by the SCotUS in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which said that the Bill of Rights 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities Clauses" did not apply against the States. If this reversal is made, then the question of selective incorporation no longer applies and the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) applies against the States as much as it does the Federal Government.
I am constantly amazed at the words that come out of anti-gun advocates like Chicago's Mayor, Dick Daley, when he says "Guns kill." Chicago's death rate from gun-related crime has gone up EVERY YEAR since the ban went into effect in 1982 by an annual average of just under 4%, reaching its peak in 2004 at 15.6%. Where is the safety on Chicago's streets with the ban in place? Where can they demonstrate that the ban has had any effect on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and making those law-abiding citizens even one iota safer? Average response time to emergency calls in Chicago is today right at 7.5 minutes... and in a mugging, robbery or home invasion, I'd say a lot of crime can happen in that time. Why can't people be allowed to take at least some of the responsibility of protecting themselves and their property, if they should choose to do so? I just don't see the logic... at all.
I for one will be waiting with baited breath to see what the SCotUS has to say on the matter...
Besides calling for the end of Chicago's ban on handgun ownership, MacDonald is calling for the reversal of the decisions given in 1873 by the SCotUS in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which said that the Bill of Rights 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities Clauses" did not apply against the States. If this reversal is made, then the question of selective incorporation no longer applies and the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) applies against the States as much as it does the Federal Government.
I am constantly amazed at the words that come out of anti-gun advocates like Chicago's Mayor, Dick Daley, when he says "Guns kill." Chicago's death rate from gun-related crime has gone up EVERY YEAR since the ban went into effect in 1982 by an annual average of just under 4%, reaching its peak in 2004 at 15.6%. Where is the safety on Chicago's streets with the ban in place? Where can they demonstrate that the ban has had any effect on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and making those law-abiding citizens even one iota safer? Average response time to emergency calls in Chicago is today right at 7.5 minutes... and in a mugging, robbery or home invasion, I'd say a lot of crime can happen in that time. Why can't people be allowed to take at least some of the responsibility of protecting themselves and their property, if they should choose to do so? I just don't see the logic... at all.
I for one will be waiting with baited breath to see what the SCotUS has to say on the matter...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
I like her already...
But I can't say I've heard of her before your post. I'll have to check the video out.
One person that I can say that has made that connection (between radical environmentalism and anti-progressive policy) is a conservative satellite radio host named Mike Church. While Mike can be a bit "flamboyant" in his presentation, he is (of all the hosts and pundits I listen to) the one with the best grounding in historical reality of the bunch.
I know he routinely makes the connection between those that are using the Gulf oil slick (which he is very in-touch with because he lives in Louisiana) as the means by which to reduce or eliminate offshore oil drilling and those that choose to ignore the common-place accidents and spills that result from the traditional surface ship means of oil importation, wherein a port like San Diego or Charleston or New Orleans is expecting these supertankers to discharge up to 1,500 barrels of "bilge" into the harbor waters. For those that haven't worked on boats and ships before, it should be noted that more than 80% of what lays at the bottom of a ship's bilge is toxic petroleum sludge that, because it has already been refined and processed with engineered chemicals and additives, DOES NOT break down naturally the way crude oil does, but instead floats on the surface or sinks to the bottom where it kills almost anything that comes in contact with it.
Much of what Ryan described in what he heard can be easily seen in LA right now. The "moratorium" on drilling that the President so eagerly tried to gt in place would have put 32,000 people out of work in LA alone, and would have added an additional 25,000 people to the "dole" rolls that are already over-loaded in Louisiana. Thats as many as 12,000 MORE kids with no means of housing or food outside of what the "government" can provide through welfare and unemployment. Add to that the increase in cost the entire country would see when our daily crude oil production rates DROP as much as 9% every month (which is the average rate at which existing wells reduce in production, and which is the driving reason why it is so important to always be drilling new wells where the pressure is un-tapped) with no means of increasing supply WITHOUT increasing our rate of importation, which costs more than using our own oil and ADDS volatility to the price.
Progress brings change, and progress doesn't happen without profit. Ask anyone that has expereinced life on an American Indian Reservation prior to 1988 what life was like then, and compare it to what life is like now, a generation AFTER casinos brought work, revenue and profitable tourism to places no one ever visited before... and THEN tell me I'm wrong.
One person that I can say that has made that connection (between radical environmentalism and anti-progressive policy) is a conservative satellite radio host named Mike Church. While Mike can be a bit "flamboyant" in his presentation, he is (of all the hosts and pundits I listen to) the one with the best grounding in historical reality of the bunch.
I know he routinely makes the connection between those that are using the Gulf oil slick (which he is very in-touch with because he lives in Louisiana) as the means by which to reduce or eliminate offshore oil drilling and those that choose to ignore the common-place accidents and spills that result from the traditional surface ship means of oil importation, wherein a port like San Diego or Charleston or New Orleans is expecting these supertankers to discharge up to 1,500 barrels of "bilge" into the harbor waters. For those that haven't worked on boats and ships before, it should be noted that more than 80% of what lays at the bottom of a ship's bilge is toxic petroleum sludge that, because it has already been refined and processed with engineered chemicals and additives, DOES NOT break down naturally the way crude oil does, but instead floats on the surface or sinks to the bottom where it kills almost anything that comes in contact with it.
Much of what Ryan described in what he heard can be easily seen in LA right now. The "moratorium" on drilling that the President so eagerly tried to gt in place would have put 32,000 people out of work in LA alone, and would have added an additional 25,000 people to the "dole" rolls that are already over-loaded in Louisiana. Thats as many as 12,000 MORE kids with no means of housing or food outside of what the "government" can provide through welfare and unemployment. Add to that the increase in cost the entire country would see when our daily crude oil production rates DROP as much as 9% every month (which is the average rate at which existing wells reduce in production, and which is the driving reason why it is so important to always be drilling new wells where the pressure is un-tapped) with no means of increasing supply WITHOUT increasing our rate of importation, which costs more than using our own oil and ADDS volatility to the price.
Progress brings change, and progress doesn't happen without profit. Ask anyone that has expereinced life on an American Indian Reservation prior to 1988 what life was like then, and compare it to what life is like now, a generation AFTER casinos brought work, revenue and profitable tourism to places no one ever visited before... and THEN tell me I'm wrong.
First, a word to "google maps."
Hey, save a tree ok? Start directions on #5 or later - I know how to get out of my driveway, onto my own street, and out of my own neighborhood, thank you very much. Alright ...
... now about saving those trees. I have a new favorite Irish woman (after Scarlet O'Hara of course): Ann McElhinney. As I was traversing the less then inspiring service streets of Las Vegas, Nevada on my way home this morning, I found so little to listen to on radio, the entire broadcast spectrum so bare, that I finally rested upon a faint little signal high into the 1100's on Marchony's dial, which in fact turned out to be ESPN. 10 minutes into whether LeBron James will go to New York or Chicago the hour ends and without my really noticing, at 6am on Sunday, it turned into gospel programming. And the first program up was a cross section between faith and politics. A promising description, I thought, until I heard the program's title: "Woman to Woman" hosted by whomever from somewhere. Man kind has yet to develop a mechanism capable of measuring the speed at which my hand lept for that radio dial. But just before I was able to offer a successful twist of the knob, a pleasant Irish accent came across the waves ... and it was Mrs. McElhinney. As a guest in the first segment she was there to discuss the "disastrous" effect of global warming hysteria, and I released the clutched knob.
What a treat.
The most basic, effective, devastating approach to addressing the subject I have encountered. She discussed things we are all aware of such as the 40 million deaths directly related to prohibiting DDT disbursement; but her approach was entirely one of a human rights activist, of which she's been her entire life. She went on, "The fundamental truth of the human experience that environmentalists fail to grasp is that to be a human right's advocate is to be defender of capitalism. 200 million people in India have been lifted from poverty in the last ten years, a remarkable achievement of mankind on any scale in history, all due to one word - capitalism."
She started as a liberal journalist doing environmental pieces for the BBC. And was sent to do a story on the "evils" of mining in Romania. And while she went up that mountain with one notion, she came down with another. It became readily apparent to her that the organized environmentalist movements of the world, while supported by well meaning good hearted donors back at home, are in truth hostile to human rights. Personally I have long touted the various ulterior motives of the green crowd: a convenient home for those hostile to capitalism (i.e. they're "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside) for some, while the rest see the movement as an article of faith, a new religion for which the moral code of conduct contains no wrath, no hard choices, no depth, just recycling. But the human rights argument, I'm embarrassed to say, is one I hadn't made (not directly anyway). She went on to describe how first hand experience awakened her to ugly truths such as Green Peace and others being obsessed with the environmental impact of Western nations, but not at all with "communist mining", as she puts it. Real, measurable pollution goes on within nations such as China, yet the focus of green venom remains the US. They oppose progress in the most basic of forms. And as I sit here in my home watching G20 protesters vandalize, riot, and loot store fronts and financial institutions in Toronto, her message strikes a particularly relevant tone.
It turns out she has offered the counter film to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." As you may already be aware it became required viewing for every school child in Britain, which spawned a headline grabbing court battle. One parent stood up, proclaimed it science fiction, not science fact and in a land mark ruling the British high court found 9 factual errors in Gore's ode to mother earth and ordered it be shown only with a disclaimer attached, such as one would find on a packet of cigarettes. She exposes those 9 errors in depth in her film, the sort of Farenhype 911 of global warming if you will. You can see a trailer for the film, purchase it and read her bio all at Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria.
Perhaps Titus' book How the Irish Saved Civilization (on loan to me low these many years) will require an additional chapter in its' next printing.
... now about saving those trees. I have a new favorite Irish woman (after Scarlet O'Hara of course): Ann McElhinney. As I was traversing the less then inspiring service streets of Las Vegas, Nevada on my way home this morning, I found so little to listen to on radio, the entire broadcast spectrum so bare, that I finally rested upon a faint little signal high into the 1100's on Marchony's dial, which in fact turned out to be ESPN. 10 minutes into whether LeBron James will go to New York or Chicago the hour ends and without my really noticing, at 6am on Sunday, it turned into gospel programming. And the first program up was a cross section between faith and politics. A promising description, I thought, until I heard the program's title: "Woman to Woman" hosted by whomever from somewhere. Man kind has yet to develop a mechanism capable of measuring the speed at which my hand lept for that radio dial. But just before I was able to offer a successful twist of the knob, a pleasant Irish accent came across the waves ... and it was Mrs. McElhinney. As a guest in the first segment she was there to discuss the "disastrous" effect of global warming hysteria, and I released the clutched knob.
What a treat.
The most basic, effective, devastating approach to addressing the subject I have encountered. She discussed things we are all aware of such as the 40 million deaths directly related to prohibiting DDT disbursement; but her approach was entirely one of a human rights activist, of which she's been her entire life. She went on, "The fundamental truth of the human experience that environmentalists fail to grasp is that to be a human right's advocate is to be defender of capitalism. 200 million people in India have been lifted from poverty in the last ten years, a remarkable achievement of mankind on any scale in history, all due to one word - capitalism."
She started as a liberal journalist doing environmental pieces for the BBC. And was sent to do a story on the "evils" of mining in Romania. And while she went up that mountain with one notion, she came down with another. It became readily apparent to her that the organized environmentalist movements of the world, while supported by well meaning good hearted donors back at home, are in truth hostile to human rights. Personally I have long touted the various ulterior motives of the green crowd: a convenient home for those hostile to capitalism (i.e. they're "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside) for some, while the rest see the movement as an article of faith, a new religion for which the moral code of conduct contains no wrath, no hard choices, no depth, just recycling. But the human rights argument, I'm embarrassed to say, is one I hadn't made (not directly anyway). She went on to describe how first hand experience awakened her to ugly truths such as Green Peace and others being obsessed with the environmental impact of Western nations, but not at all with "communist mining", as she puts it. Real, measurable pollution goes on within nations such as China, yet the focus of green venom remains the US. They oppose progress in the most basic of forms. And as I sit here in my home watching G20 protesters vandalize, riot, and loot store fronts and financial institutions in Toronto, her message strikes a particularly relevant tone.
It turns out she has offered the counter film to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." As you may already be aware it became required viewing for every school child in Britain, which spawned a headline grabbing court battle. One parent stood up, proclaimed it science fiction, not science fact and in a land mark ruling the British high court found 9 factual errors in Gore's ode to mother earth and ordered it be shown only with a disclaimer attached, such as one would find on a packet of cigarettes. She exposes those 9 errors in depth in her film, the sort of Farenhype 911 of global warming if you will. You can see a trailer for the film, purchase it and read her bio all at Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria.
Perhaps Titus' book How the Irish Saved Civilization (on loan to me low these many years) will require an additional chapter in its' next printing.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Less salty today...
Went to the pub with Mick last night, and I've got a thick head today... but he told me to send all of you his best.
Interesting thing I saw yesterday... there was a documentary (possibly BBC, but I'm not sure) about the historical connection between many modern cultural experiences we are all familiar with here in America (and other places) and actual events of the past. Some I was already aware of, like the "Ring around the rosey" rhyme being associated with the English experience of the Black Death in the 14th Century. Some I was not aware of, like the children's tale of the Pied Piper.
That particular story goes back to 1284, in the actual German town of Hamelin (in Saxony, near Hanover), and may be a communal recollection of two separate events, the first being a migration of youths and children out of Hamelin and east towards less populated areas and the second (happening about a century later) being a massive infestation of rats at almost the exact time when such an infestation meant increased likelihood of plague exposure. What I found really cool was the way the investigators went about detailing the possible historical roots to the cultural experiences.
References were made to our modern understanding of the story of the lycanthrope, or werewolf. Another documentary, this by the History Channel, detailed the series of attacks by a mysterious wolf-like creature in the south-central portion of France that began in the late 1600s and continued (in four year cycles) until 1954. Over a 12 year period between 1765 and 1777, more than 200 documented killings were attributed to the "Beast of Gevaudan" and caused such an uproar that King Louis XV had to send a professional hunter to the region to kill the Beast.
Anyway, the topic that prompted me to post was that the language we speak today stems from two, distinct and separate languages brought to England by two different waves of settlement separated by more than 200 years, the Saxon invasions and the Viking invasions of England. The Saxons began coming with the departure of the Romans from Britain in the 5th Century, and the Vikings (or "Danes") began coming in the 7th Century. While we know that a Dane and a Saxon, living in the same area at about the reign of Alfred the Great, would be able to converse with each other to a degree, the melding of the two tongues would simplify the grammar of both tongues and give us the amazingly easy pluralization of nouns (and the lack thereof for adjectives) by simply adding an "s", while providing our language with a rich and varied vocabulary stemming from the same objects or actions having both Dane and Saxon names associated with them. That is why, when we write, speak or read anything in English, we see so many words associated with the same thing... we here are all fathers, and we can describe ourselves as "rearing" children (English) or "raising" children (Norse). When those children misbehave, we can tan their "hides" (English) or their "skin" (Norse). We look up to see birds flying through the "air" (English) or in the "sky" (Norse).
Of the 400 most commonly used English words, more than 80% are of Saxon and Danish roots, while the rest are adopted from French, Latin and the extant Celtic tongues of the era (which, despite the fact that Celtic was the mother tongue of the British Isles, make up less than 1% of our modern language). In fact, 70 years ago this month, Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons (now called the "We shall fight on the beaches" speech) that is entirely comprised of words that any Anglo Saxon of Alfred's day would understand... with one exception: the word "surrender" came with the French spoken by the Normans and had no meaning to the Saxons of Alfred's time.
I'm done rambling, and my coffee is just about out, so I'll leave you all to your weekend.
Interesting thing I saw yesterday... there was a documentary (possibly BBC, but I'm not sure) about the historical connection between many modern cultural experiences we are all familiar with here in America (and other places) and actual events of the past. Some I was already aware of, like the "Ring around the rosey" rhyme being associated with the English experience of the Black Death in the 14th Century. Some I was not aware of, like the children's tale of the Pied Piper.
That particular story goes back to 1284, in the actual German town of Hamelin (in Saxony, near Hanover), and may be a communal recollection of two separate events, the first being a migration of youths and children out of Hamelin and east towards less populated areas and the second (happening about a century later) being a massive infestation of rats at almost the exact time when such an infestation meant increased likelihood of plague exposure. What I found really cool was the way the investigators went about detailing the possible historical roots to the cultural experiences.
References were made to our modern understanding of the story of the lycanthrope, or werewolf. Another documentary, this by the History Channel, detailed the series of attacks by a mysterious wolf-like creature in the south-central portion of France that began in the late 1600s and continued (in four year cycles) until 1954. Over a 12 year period between 1765 and 1777, more than 200 documented killings were attributed to the "Beast of Gevaudan" and caused such an uproar that King Louis XV had to send a professional hunter to the region to kill the Beast.
Anyway, the topic that prompted me to post was that the language we speak today stems from two, distinct and separate languages brought to England by two different waves of settlement separated by more than 200 years, the Saxon invasions and the Viking invasions of England. The Saxons began coming with the departure of the Romans from Britain in the 5th Century, and the Vikings (or "Danes") began coming in the 7th Century. While we know that a Dane and a Saxon, living in the same area at about the reign of Alfred the Great, would be able to converse with each other to a degree, the melding of the two tongues would simplify the grammar of both tongues and give us the amazingly easy pluralization of nouns (and the lack thereof for adjectives) by simply adding an "s", while providing our language with a rich and varied vocabulary stemming from the same objects or actions having both Dane and Saxon names associated with them. That is why, when we write, speak or read anything in English, we see so many words associated with the same thing... we here are all fathers, and we can describe ourselves as "rearing" children (English) or "raising" children (Norse). When those children misbehave, we can tan their "hides" (English) or their "skin" (Norse). We look up to see birds flying through the "air" (English) or in the "sky" (Norse).
Of the 400 most commonly used English words, more than 80% are of Saxon and Danish roots, while the rest are adopted from French, Latin and the extant Celtic tongues of the era (which, despite the fact that Celtic was the mother tongue of the British Isles, make up less than 1% of our modern language). In fact, 70 years ago this month, Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons (now called the "We shall fight on the beaches" speech) that is entirely comprised of words that any Anglo Saxon of Alfred's day would understand... with one exception: the word "surrender" came with the French spoken by the Normans and had no meaning to the Saxons of Alfred's time.
I'm done rambling, and my coffee is just about out, so I'll leave you all to your weekend.
Friday, June 25, 2010
hehehe ...
Clearly you haven't lost the most identifiable characteristic of a dice dealer - the art of self flattery... hehe. Well good for you brother, good work, glad you had fun (not to mention, any day, any where in the world an AC guy gets his come up-ins, is a good day). $385 horn high yo? The first thing I'd say at my joint, even before "bet", would be "throw me 3 red" ... and you probably think Im kidding.
After nearly twenty years...
I discovered that I can still make my way around the layout after nearly two decades away from dealing.
Yep, today I climbed onto a game and pushed in (all three bases) for what I was told by my bosses was some damn respectable action. I was told that, should any of the new dealers want instruction on "6 and 8" moves, I was the one to deliver it... no one else. Seems they thought my particular brand of "instruction by example" was exactly what they felt they were looking for.
I started by showing just a simple one-number $18 goes to $24 (classic "take one-leave one" stuff)... and ended by showing a particularly stubborn pit boss from Atlantic City exactly how $24 each CAN go to $30 each in less than three moves, and that $18 each goes to $24 each in less than four moves (you have to have $6 in white, thought, in the payout). THAT was the stuff that let me walk out of that training session with a larger-than-average hat size, believe me... I LOVE showing those AC jerks how its done!
I've never claimed to be Johnny Craps, and I know my hands are far less than "magical" in anyone's book (even mine)... but there is a real sense of pride in knowing that if the time ever came that I had to put on the black and whites again... I could hold my own with the best of them. I mean, can anyone give me a rougher "trial by fire" than a practice table with break-in dealers (and myself) slinging cheques to 25 of the crustiest veteran supervisors in the business? I kid you not, there was probably 200 years worth of dealing and gaming experience on that table... and I didn't miss a beat or a bet.
What I did do was sweat, though... Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I had forgotten how HARD it is to hump that much time with my head never going higher than my ass. It wasn't a twenty-minute stint, either... you slugged it out till the shift said "Change em up!" and a new dealer pushed you out. Thank GOD we were "business casual" today, and that I wasn't wearing a tie... I'd have had a stroke before the first tap out. I won't lie and say I didn't fall just a bit behind (those Jersey boys LOVE to run you over when you have 12 come bets and they are all down with odds!)... but I kept up no matter how many rolls behind I was.
Yep... I'm feeling kind of salty tonight. I managed a very respectable hour or so of base time on a game that very few people will ever see no matter how long they deal, because you just never see THAT many strokers on ONE game at one time... EVER. I mean, I haven't SEEN a live craps game since March of 2006, and my first stint on stick was to book a $385 horn high yo, while the dice were in the air and a twelve hits... it took me as long as figuring out what $1500 plus $400 plus $25 plus $77 was, and I had the payoff quicker than anyone on the table. "$2002 dollars for the stroke in the puke-green dress shirt next to base, please, and tell him its still up to win again."
Okay... I'm done bragging.
Yep, today I climbed onto a game and pushed in (all three bases) for what I was told by my bosses was some damn respectable action. I was told that, should any of the new dealers want instruction on "6 and 8" moves, I was the one to deliver it... no one else. Seems they thought my particular brand of "instruction by example" was exactly what they felt they were looking for.
I started by showing just a simple one-number $18 goes to $24 (classic "take one-leave one" stuff)... and ended by showing a particularly stubborn pit boss from Atlantic City exactly how $24 each CAN go to $30 each in less than three moves, and that $18 each goes to $24 each in less than four moves (you have to have $6 in white, thought, in the payout). THAT was the stuff that let me walk out of that training session with a larger-than-average hat size, believe me... I LOVE showing those AC jerks how its done!
I've never claimed to be Johnny Craps, and I know my hands are far less than "magical" in anyone's book (even mine)... but there is a real sense of pride in knowing that if the time ever came that I had to put on the black and whites again... I could hold my own with the best of them. I mean, can anyone give me a rougher "trial by fire" than a practice table with break-in dealers (and myself) slinging cheques to 25 of the crustiest veteran supervisors in the business? I kid you not, there was probably 200 years worth of dealing and gaming experience on that table... and I didn't miss a beat or a bet.
What I did do was sweat, though... Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I had forgotten how HARD it is to hump that much time with my head never going higher than my ass. It wasn't a twenty-minute stint, either... you slugged it out till the shift said "Change em up!" and a new dealer pushed you out. Thank GOD we were "business casual" today, and that I wasn't wearing a tie... I'd have had a stroke before the first tap out. I won't lie and say I didn't fall just a bit behind (those Jersey boys LOVE to run you over when you have 12 come bets and they are all down with odds!)... but I kept up no matter how many rolls behind I was.
Yep... I'm feeling kind of salty tonight. I managed a very respectable hour or so of base time on a game that very few people will ever see no matter how long they deal, because you just never see THAT many strokers on ONE game at one time... EVER. I mean, I haven't SEEN a live craps game since March of 2006, and my first stint on stick was to book a $385 horn high yo, while the dice were in the air and a twelve hits... it took me as long as figuring out what $1500 plus $400 plus $25 plus $77 was, and I had the payoff quicker than anyone on the table. "$2002 dollars for the stroke in the puke-green dress shirt next to base, please, and tell him its still up to win again."
Okay... I'm done bragging.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Well thank you sir ...
for those kind words.
I have heard rave reviews about 1776. McCullogh is clearly up there in terms of modern works. Some of these I was familiar with (with 1776 the next on my list of purchases). However, I was altogether unaware of Jaroslav Pelikan and his masterpiece you enthusiastically endorsed. This I will add to my list. And that's what's great about just this type of thread - comparing/sharing tools in the tool box. That was the simile one of my favorite history professors used. He balked at the idea of students selling their books at the conclusion of their requisite course. He considered a library much like a tool box. "You don't sell your wrench just because you bought it to fix one leaky faucet." And I have kept that perspective ever since.
Let me add a few of my own suggestions. Niall Ferguson's Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order And The Lessons For Global Power. And "the real" series by Andrew M. Allison. The Real Thomas Jefferson, The Real George Washington and The Real Benjamen Franklin are all fantastic contemporary publications & can be purchased online for as little as $12.
In terms of modern "classics" I would rank W. Cleon Skousen's The 5,000 Year Leap near the top - it should be required reading in every high school in America. As well as William L. Shrirer's The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich. I have a second edition circa 1960 if you can believe it. My mother picked it up at a flea market (clearly the tool box analogy was lost on someone out there). Written in 1959 this became the definitive post war account of Nazi Germany, as Shrier lived and worked in the Reich the first half of its' existence, not to mention documents and memories were still fresh enough for first hand accounts.
You're right - there are scores we could name. I sought one name and got many. In fact I intend to list some of the names here on a sheet of paper (along with my trusty Amazon password info) & put it at the end of my "currently reading" shelf so as to have fresh names for exploring the past when my current selections are at their conclusion.
Funny. There is an electronic device I'm sure you're all familiar with. A "Kindle." It's a sleek, electronic mini lap top looking thingamajig, similar to the much vaunted new Ipad. You can load hundreds (perhaps thousands, I don't know) books into it, and carry a virtual library around with you, accessible at the ease of your finger tips. And I hate it. I understand, I get it, this is the inevitable Gene Roddenberry future and I'm behaving like a grumpy "back in my day" old man (and barely into my 30's no less). But here's the thing. Something, I'm not sure what, but something is lost without that feel and smell of a fresh new book. It's like freshly brewed coffee. It has a distinctly pleasing aroma filled with boundless pounds of potential. Only to be matched by a used, dog eared, perhaps underlined here & there (in my case), slightly frumpled book sitting on your shelf. Walking buy a shelf and seeing the titles leap out on the book ends which jut out gives me a smile. Occasionally I pull one out and have a look through. See what I underlined, what was "so important" 6 years ago to me. And just seeing the titles of read (& sometimes reread) works also keeps the arguments and positions formed as their result, fresh in my mind. At least more fresh then were they resting in some sub folder on an over sized ipod. So, let us list on, whenever they occur to you or a new gem has been stumbled across, for there is no list so sad as a "completed" reading list.
I have heard rave reviews about 1776. McCullogh is clearly up there in terms of modern works. Some of these I was familiar with (with 1776 the next on my list of purchases). However, I was altogether unaware of Jaroslav Pelikan and his masterpiece you enthusiastically endorsed. This I will add to my list. And that's what's great about just this type of thread - comparing/sharing tools in the tool box. That was the simile one of my favorite history professors used. He balked at the idea of students selling their books at the conclusion of their requisite course. He considered a library much like a tool box. "You don't sell your wrench just because you bought it to fix one leaky faucet." And I have kept that perspective ever since.
Let me add a few of my own suggestions. Niall Ferguson's Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order And The Lessons For Global Power. And "the real" series by Andrew M. Allison. The Real Thomas Jefferson, The Real George Washington and The Real Benjamen Franklin are all fantastic contemporary publications & can be purchased online for as little as $12.
In terms of modern "classics" I would rank W. Cleon Skousen's The 5,000 Year Leap near the top - it should be required reading in every high school in America. As well as William L. Shrirer's The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich. I have a second edition circa 1960 if you can believe it. My mother picked it up at a flea market (clearly the tool box analogy was lost on someone out there). Written in 1959 this became the definitive post war account of Nazi Germany, as Shrier lived and worked in the Reich the first half of its' existence, not to mention documents and memories were still fresh enough for first hand accounts.
You're right - there are scores we could name. I sought one name and got many. In fact I intend to list some of the names here on a sheet of paper (along with my trusty Amazon password info) & put it at the end of my "currently reading" shelf so as to have fresh names for exploring the past when my current selections are at their conclusion.
Funny. There is an electronic device I'm sure you're all familiar with. A "Kindle." It's a sleek, electronic mini lap top looking thingamajig, similar to the much vaunted new Ipad. You can load hundreds (perhaps thousands, I don't know) books into it, and carry a virtual library around with you, accessible at the ease of your finger tips. And I hate it. I understand, I get it, this is the inevitable Gene Roddenberry future and I'm behaving like a grumpy "back in my day" old man (and barely into my 30's no less). But here's the thing. Something, I'm not sure what, but something is lost without that feel and smell of a fresh new book. It's like freshly brewed coffee. It has a distinctly pleasing aroma filled with boundless pounds of potential. Only to be matched by a used, dog eared, perhaps underlined here & there (in my case), slightly frumpled book sitting on your shelf. Walking buy a shelf and seeing the titles leap out on the book ends which jut out gives me a smile. Occasionally I pull one out and have a look through. See what I underlined, what was "so important" 6 years ago to me. And just seeing the titles of read (& sometimes reread) works also keeps the arguments and positions formed as their result, fresh in my mind. At least more fresh then were they resting in some sub folder on an over sized ipod. So, let us list on, whenever they occur to you or a new gem has been stumbled across, for there is no list so sad as a "completed" reading list.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
On the Historian Question...
"Who is our Herodotus? Our Pliny? Our Tacitus?"
That might be the BEST question posed on this site since its inception. OUTSTANDING discussion topic... well done!
Classical-period historians (Herodotus, Xenophon, Josephus, Dio Cassius, Suetonius) give us the very (VERY) limited glimpse of life in the classical period... and there are so few extant examples of such works that the names ring through the ages. Since the 16th Century, extant writings of more modern historians have been more readily available to us, mainly because of Johannes Gutenberg, so the choices of whom we are going to refer to in the realm of historical studies grows every year.
I'd have to say that the last, really "epic" work of historical study to come from an English author was Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in 6 volumes between 1776 and 1788. I'd put Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" up there, too... but I'm not sure that is actually a work for an "historian" as much as for an economist, even though the bulk of it is a study of the history of economics.
Now, if you wanted a list of whom I think are the greatest "modern" historians, I can't narrow it to just one or two. I'll give you a short list of my personal favorites here:
Shelby Foote and his three-volume masterpiece The Civil War: A Narative
Anything Simon Shama wrote or produced on the history of the British Isles.
James Burke's Connections series.
Jaroslav Pelikan's 5-volume "epic" masterpiece "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" is the stand-alone greatest work on the history of Christianity ever written... and the man wasn't even Catholic.
Danny Danziger has written a series of books (three that I know of) about very specific periods of time... 1000 AD, 1215 AD and 1453 AD... all very detailed in their accounts and all very fun to read. Ryan still has my copy of The Year 1000, so it must be good.
David McCullough has written some absolutely SUPERB books in his day. Truman, 1776, and John Adams are my favorites (with 1776 taking top spot). He's also the narrator for Ken Burn's Civil War, too.
Jeez... the more I think, the more I can list here. There are so many to choose from. Who have I NOT put up that need to be there?
That might be the BEST question posed on this site since its inception. OUTSTANDING discussion topic... well done!
Classical-period historians (Herodotus, Xenophon, Josephus, Dio Cassius, Suetonius) give us the very (VERY) limited glimpse of life in the classical period... and there are so few extant examples of such works that the names ring through the ages. Since the 16th Century, extant writings of more modern historians have been more readily available to us, mainly because of Johannes Gutenberg, so the choices of whom we are going to refer to in the realm of historical studies grows every year.
I'd have to say that the last, really "epic" work of historical study to come from an English author was Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in 6 volumes between 1776 and 1788. I'd put Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" up there, too... but I'm not sure that is actually a work for an "historian" as much as for an economist, even though the bulk of it is a study of the history of economics.
Now, if you wanted a list of whom I think are the greatest "modern" historians, I can't narrow it to just one or two. I'll give you a short list of my personal favorites here:
Shelby Foote and his three-volume masterpiece The Civil War: A Narative
Anything Simon Shama wrote or produced on the history of the British Isles.
James Burke's Connections series.
Jaroslav Pelikan's 5-volume "epic" masterpiece "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" is the stand-alone greatest work on the history of Christianity ever written... and the man wasn't even Catholic.
Danny Danziger has written a series of books (three that I know of) about very specific periods of time... 1000 AD, 1215 AD and 1453 AD... all very detailed in their accounts and all very fun to read. Ryan still has my copy of The Year 1000, so it must be good.
David McCullough has written some absolutely SUPERB books in his day. Truman, 1776, and John Adams are my favorites (with 1776 taking top spot). He's also the narrator for Ken Burn's Civil War, too.
Jeez... the more I think, the more I can list here. There are so many to choose from. Who have I NOT put up that need to be there?
On the German Question...
We can discuss strategic mistakes and missed opportunities by the Nazis all day long, but we can't do that without pointing out Allied mistakes, too. I'm game for either continuing the discussion of exactly when, in a purely historical context, Hitler and the Nazis crossed the line between fighting a fight they could win, and expanding to a war they could never win (and I still contend that it was the actual manner in which Barbarossa was planned and executed that put the final nail in the coffin, and not the invasion itself)...
OR...
We can discuss strategic possibilities for potential German success, given certain understood constants and parameters that we know from history. This takes us into the "What If" game again, and past experience has shown we don't tend to agree in this realm on what is or isn't "fact".
For example, as Jambo pointed out, had Hitler come to the same conclusion that Stalin did and removed himself from the strategic planning and operations aspect of the war effort, I have a sneaking suspicion that much of what we take for granted now would NOT be the case. Imagine what the defenses along the Normandy and Brittany coasts might have been like on the morning of June 6th, 1944, had Rommel had his way rather than be forced to do what Hitler insisted and separate commands between all forces on the beaches and the reserve armored units inland. What if command authority had remained with the officers on the coast, where the decisions needed to be made immediately, rather than deferring them all back to Berlin and the OKW?
One final point...
Ryan makes the case that the end of the war for Hitler was Pearl Harbor, and it is a good point... but to be absolutely accurate, you'd have to say that the turning point in this scenario was Germany's declaration of war after the US declared on Japan... and I'm not sure that wasn't the right thing to do.
Keep in mind that Hitler didn't want the U-boats sinking American vessels (even though they did, on occasion) because he didn't want to provoke American intervention in Europe, but once America was at war in the Pacific, and knowing we'd fight right alongside both the English and the French to defend their colonial and commonwealth territories, American involvement in Europe was unavoidable, so the shooting of convoys and American "Lend-Lease" targets after Dec 10th, 1941, just makes good sense, right? Why not force America into a two-front fight that could only detract from America's ability to assist and support England and the Allies?
Had Germany done a "secret attack" on the US by bombing New York harbor or Hampton Roads or Boston... then I'd agree. But in reacting to a Japanese act (that I have never been fully convinced was known ahead of time by the Germans), I think it was (objectively speaking, of course) the only strategically sound course Germany could take.
OR...
We can discuss strategic possibilities for potential German success, given certain understood constants and parameters that we know from history. This takes us into the "What If" game again, and past experience has shown we don't tend to agree in this realm on what is or isn't "fact".
For example, as Jambo pointed out, had Hitler come to the same conclusion that Stalin did and removed himself from the strategic planning and operations aspect of the war effort, I have a sneaking suspicion that much of what we take for granted now would NOT be the case. Imagine what the defenses along the Normandy and Brittany coasts might have been like on the morning of June 6th, 1944, had Rommel had his way rather than be forced to do what Hitler insisted and separate commands between all forces on the beaches and the reserve armored units inland. What if command authority had remained with the officers on the coast, where the decisions needed to be made immediately, rather than deferring them all back to Berlin and the OKW?
One final point...
Ryan makes the case that the end of the war for Hitler was Pearl Harbor, and it is a good point... but to be absolutely accurate, you'd have to say that the turning point in this scenario was Germany's declaration of war after the US declared on Japan... and I'm not sure that wasn't the right thing to do.
Keep in mind that Hitler didn't want the U-boats sinking American vessels (even though they did, on occasion) because he didn't want to provoke American intervention in Europe, but once America was at war in the Pacific, and knowing we'd fight right alongside both the English and the French to defend their colonial and commonwealth territories, American involvement in Europe was unavoidable, so the shooting of convoys and American "Lend-Lease" targets after Dec 10th, 1941, just makes good sense, right? Why not force America into a two-front fight that could only detract from America's ability to assist and support England and the Allies?
Had Germany done a "secret attack" on the US by bombing New York harbor or Hampton Roads or Boston... then I'd agree. But in reacting to a Japanese act (that I have never been fully convinced was known ahead of time by the Germans), I think it was (objectively speaking, of course) the only strategically sound course Germany could take.
An update on the German question(s) ...
1.) It wasn't Goring ...
Goring was fledgling in his assault on England, he wasted far too many planes on sites other than the RAF bases which should had been his target if Germany was to lay the groundwork for Operation Sea Lion (the ground forces invasion of the British Isles). Between Hitler's growing frustration with the inability to quickly dominate the skies for his upcoming British invasion and the Brit's moxy bombing of Berlin (morale more than strategic, like Doolittle), he ordered the bombing of London and subsequent cities. His theory was either the common people would be so rattled they'd demand a government who would sue for (a puppet-regime style) peace (which is what he wanted so as to get on with Russia and destroying Bolshevism); or their morale so depleted as to make Sea Lion a walk.
2.) Upon further reflection this all strikes me as a bit mute - invading Russia was the war as far as Hitler was concerned, just as much as dominating Europe. Gaining "breathing room" in the East was as much a part of his war aims as dominating the West. We can say he "lost the war" by going into Russia, but that's not entirely accurate. More accurate, I think - as I work through this thought process here (forgive me) - is pinning Germany's Achilles heel on Hitler's impatience born of an inflated belief of his own military prowess after the WWI victor, France, hit the dirt like a hill billy prom dress. Just follow me here. If he first goes after Poland, then France, then Britain, then the US via Japanese and German forces combined, saving Russia for last (assuming Ol' Joey Staleen laughs as both the Brits and the US fall at the hands of his "pal" Adolph), then there exists the potential for a different outcome. In essence the timing of his various invasions (which came unraveled after he fails to take Britain in 1940, his first loss) is the culprit more so then the particular countries he chose to invade. He could have focused on Western Europe, prevented Japan from hitting Pearl, then go after the US knowing Stalin would cheerlead, and then go into Russia - preferably at the beginning of summer. Hitler's timing due to ego and belief in his own abilities prevented such a methodical, deliberated approach. In 1939, even into 41', his armies could of wiped the floor with the UK or Russia. He would have been wise to play them off of each other to the demise of each - defeating one then the other rather then force them into bedfellows aligned against him.
It works the other way too ... hit Russia first (then France & the UK). Chamberlain would have done nothing at a German invasion of Russia, and it's unlikely Churchill rallies the nation to defend Stalin's Soviet's, a man and government he despised nearly as much as National Socialism. In that scenario Hitler saves the US for last, and now he has the oil rich Urals to fuel his war machine. The combinations for success were he to go one at a time with these uneasy allies, rather then uniting them with simultaneous theaters of combat, are endless.
At any rate, MY POINT is Germany's undoing is the timing of Hitler's invasions. Going after Russia before the UK submits (or vice versa). Then allowing the US to come in (signing off on Japan's attack on Pearl) before Russia submits. He kept expecting the success in Poland & France to follow in Britain and Russia, and didn't wait for the outcomes to be sure before launching on the next invasion. He wanted Germany to rule the world for a 1000 years, but he wanted to get there in 2.
(* By the way: I stress "potential for a different outcome" because I do believe in the inevitability of American exceptionalism defeating Nazi Germany, no matter the circumstance. However, that is a bias - one I proudly submit - and not necessarily an objective dissertation on where Hitler went wrong.)
Goring was fledgling in his assault on England, he wasted far too many planes on sites other than the RAF bases which should had been his target if Germany was to lay the groundwork for Operation Sea Lion (the ground forces invasion of the British Isles). Between Hitler's growing frustration with the inability to quickly dominate the skies for his upcoming British invasion and the Brit's moxy bombing of Berlin (morale more than strategic, like Doolittle), he ordered the bombing of London and subsequent cities. His theory was either the common people would be so rattled they'd demand a government who would sue for (a puppet-regime style) peace (which is what he wanted so as to get on with Russia and destroying Bolshevism); or their morale so depleted as to make Sea Lion a walk.
2.) Upon further reflection this all strikes me as a bit mute - invading Russia was the war as far as Hitler was concerned, just as much as dominating Europe. Gaining "breathing room" in the East was as much a part of his war aims as dominating the West. We can say he "lost the war" by going into Russia, but that's not entirely accurate. More accurate, I think - as I work through this thought process here (forgive me) - is pinning Germany's Achilles heel on Hitler's impatience born of an inflated belief of his own military prowess after the WWI victor, France, hit the dirt like a hill billy prom dress. Just follow me here. If he first goes after Poland, then France, then Britain, then the US via Japanese and German forces combined, saving Russia for last (assuming Ol' Joey Staleen laughs as both the Brits and the US fall at the hands of his "pal" Adolph), then there exists the potential for a different outcome. In essence the timing of his various invasions (which came unraveled after he fails to take Britain in 1940, his first loss) is the culprit more so then the particular countries he chose to invade. He could have focused on Western Europe, prevented Japan from hitting Pearl, then go after the US knowing Stalin would cheerlead, and then go into Russia - preferably at the beginning of summer. Hitler's timing due to ego and belief in his own abilities prevented such a methodical, deliberated approach. In 1939, even into 41', his armies could of wiped the floor with the UK or Russia. He would have been wise to play them off of each other to the demise of each - defeating one then the other rather then force them into bedfellows aligned against him.
It works the other way too ... hit Russia first (then France & the UK). Chamberlain would have done nothing at a German invasion of Russia, and it's unlikely Churchill rallies the nation to defend Stalin's Soviet's, a man and government he despised nearly as much as National Socialism. In that scenario Hitler saves the US for last, and now he has the oil rich Urals to fuel his war machine. The combinations for success were he to go one at a time with these uneasy allies, rather then uniting them with simultaneous theaters of combat, are endless.
At any rate, MY POINT is Germany's undoing is the timing of Hitler's invasions. Going after Russia before the UK submits (or vice versa). Then allowing the US to come in (signing off on Japan's attack on Pearl) before Russia submits. He kept expecting the success in Poland & France to follow in Britain and Russia, and didn't wait for the outcomes to be sure before launching on the next invasion. He wanted Germany to rule the world for a 1000 years, but he wanted to get there in 2.
(* By the way: I stress "potential for a different outcome" because I do believe in the inevitability of American exceptionalism defeating Nazi Germany, no matter the circumstance. However, that is a bias - one I proudly submit - and not necessarily an objective dissertation on where Hitler went wrong.)
Can I ask a general history question?
Who is the West's leading historian?
Who is our Homer, our Tacitus, our Pliny the Elder?
I often go to the Brit transplant Niall Ferguson, he's a brilliant scholar and fantastic public orator (I once witnessed him absolutely fillet a PBS panel single handily) whose books are used in both "liberal" and "conservative" universities in a multitude of nations. But who is considered "the" guy, or at the very least "the" institution?
My question's genesis is a result of the History Channel's series: Who Really Discovered America?. They present at least 8 different possibilities all predating Columbus as much as 22,000 years, ranging from the Vikings (a rather obvious one) to the Japanese (matching pottery in Ecuador) to the wandering tribe of Israel (confirmation of which would lend historical creedence to The Book of Mormon, I might add). And all that's fine - any post high school pseudo historian knows Asian migration "discovered" the Americas prior to the Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria. My question is more general - who's the standard bearer? Whom must an archaeologist or budding historian convince of his theory for it to go "mainstream?"
I will say this, technology is again imposing itself over traditional renditions of history, and I don't mean carbon dating. Multiple historical societies and institutions are using advanced DNA testing/sequencing to discover previously unknown "interactions" between disparate cultures and nations hitherto unconnected by either oral or written history.
I know the past is a powerful voice within each of us here. And as such I recalled from one essay (& I paraphrase) Pliny the Younger writing to Tacitus regarding his uncle's passing - It is those favored by the Gods granted either to do what is worth writing, or write what is worth reading. I number my uncle among those few blessed in both.
My question is, who is the guy writing what's worth reading about history in 2010?
Who is our Homer, our Tacitus, our Pliny the Elder?
I often go to the Brit transplant Niall Ferguson, he's a brilliant scholar and fantastic public orator (I once witnessed him absolutely fillet a PBS panel single handily) whose books are used in both "liberal" and "conservative" universities in a multitude of nations. But who is considered "the" guy, or at the very least "the" institution?
My question's genesis is a result of the History Channel's series: Who Really Discovered America?. They present at least 8 different possibilities all predating Columbus as much as 22,000 years, ranging from the Vikings (a rather obvious one) to the Japanese (matching pottery in Ecuador) to the wandering tribe of Israel (confirmation of which would lend historical creedence to The Book of Mormon, I might add). And all that's fine - any post high school pseudo historian knows Asian migration "discovered" the Americas prior to the Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria. My question is more general - who's the standard bearer? Whom must an archaeologist or budding historian convince of his theory for it to go "mainstream?"
I will say this, technology is again imposing itself over traditional renditions of history, and I don't mean carbon dating. Multiple historical societies and institutions are using advanced DNA testing/sequencing to discover previously unknown "interactions" between disparate cultures and nations hitherto unconnected by either oral or written history.
I know the past is a powerful voice within each of us here. And as such I recalled from one essay (& I paraphrase) Pliny the Younger writing to Tacitus regarding his uncle's passing - It is those favored by the Gods granted either to do what is worth writing, or write what is worth reading. I number my uncle among those few blessed in both.
My question is, who is the guy writing what's worth reading about history in 2010?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
