I leave for Columbus to meet with Dr. Savory, who performed my last knee redo, Thursday, and this will be my last memo for the rest of the week. Granted, it is a long one and I am starting with my own thoughts and commentary after finishing a book I have been reading followed by some observations as a result of reading The Latest Naval War College Review.
It took Doris Kearns Goodwin seven years to write her Pulitzer winning "The Bully Pulpit" and with all the travel and driving I have incurred I thought it would take me that long to finish it but I finally did so flying to and from Los Angeles this week.
The book describes the two terms of 'Teddy' Roosevelt, the one term of William Taft and their love hate relationship. Intermingled throughout this period, Kearns also does a bang up job weaving the story of the "Muckraker's" , ie. Baker, Steffens, Tarbell, White and McClure.
Roosevelt began "Progressivism" and Wilson implemented many of the changes Roosevelt sought, ie. Amendments 16,17 and 19 to our Constitution.. Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" fight with the traditional Republican Party, when Taft ran for a second term, paved the way for Wilson to become president and thus began America's flirtation with big government, government solutions to problems that sorely needed re-balancing, ie. corporate oligarchs, child labor abuse, wage disparity etc. - sound familiar?
Passage of the 16th Amendment provided FDR the resources for his expansion of government.
From my perspective, I believe the problems that were addressed, and many resolved, should have brought about a period of 'stop and observe' but because of FDR's socialistic philosophy compounded by The Depression, the "Progressive Movement" did not stop and in fact expanded and continues to do so to this very day with Obama's radical efforts and probably unconstitutional actions to enact his health care program.
Consequently, we have gone full circle, in that the initial "Progressive Movement" actually was worthy but its perpetuation has now destroyed much of the good it once achieved. We now have high unemployment, huge deficits, wage and work hours in decline, and a nation so corrupted by dependence on government one can hardly recognize the once vibrant America.
It is all about a good thing that turned bad because it overstayed, became amoebic and all consuming and, in the end, highly destructive. How sad indeed.
As for "The Muckrakers" they were very instrumental in impacting attitudes and helping to lay the groundwork for the necessary changes sought. The reporters were committed, were tireless and were brave.
Today we have a few vestiges but consolidation of the press under corporate ownership, whose bottom line drives the news, has destroyed "The Fourth Estate" in my mind and this is one of the greatest tragedies because an honest press is critical to the survival of our Republic. Today's media types , by and large, are puppets on the strings of the corporations that give them their pay checks. Brave independent reporting is dying.
The Wall Street Journal, Commentary Magazine and a handful of other such organs are all that is left. They are merely threads of a once proud segment of our nation's news reporting fabric.
I have not done justice to Kearn's efforts but these are my conclusions and you can take them for what they are worth.
The articles that fascinated me in the latest issue of The Naval War College Review were about Japan's preparation for war with the U.S. and the military, political and diplomatic calculations that were made, debated and eventually pursued.
The Japanese Military leadership was very traditional and thus hidebound and this led them to be hesitant to engage in a simultaneous attack on Pearl Harbor and Oahu,Hawaii. Senior Japanese Military did not listen to a young Japanese 'naval turk' named Genda who laid out the strategy which would have seriously cost America grave consequences had it been followed.
As readers of my memos know, from time to time I raise the issue of America's shrinking fleet and in Friday's issue of the WSJ (p A13) there is an excellent article by Steve Cohen entitled "America;s Incredible Shrinking Navy."
More importantly several book reviews in the "Naval War College Review" discuss the declining quality in America's officer ship - particularly in The Army.
This Administration has been particularly 'hell bent' on eliminating some of our best because of the push for a military that is politically correct and virtuous. Yes, women in the military must not be subjected to abuse but the military is the last vestige of a boy's club and it would seem to me we must bring some balance or we will have a military officer ship that is good at parading and polishing shoes but incapable of winning wars. I would rather have a Gen. Petraeus lead our troops over Gen. Westmoreland any day.
The review of Thomas Ricks' "The Generals: American Military Command from WW 2 to Today", New York: Penguin, 2012, 576 pp: $32.95, goes into detail why higher education is also no longer a significant consideration for promotion of our military leaders. That is tragic and will prove costly in future years.
I served on "The President's Commission on White House Fellowhipss" and had the distinct privilege of interviewing a host of future military leaders and they were outstanding, well educated, all with a number of higher degrees from prestigious schools, and all spoke several languages. They were cream!
When I observe our current Chief of Staff , frankly I cringe!
But this is what Obama wants because a weakened American Military is not a threat.
===
Right of Return is a code word for right to destroy. (See 1,1a and 1b below.)
Back to rifles - Fatah? (See 1c below.)
===
Obama can't get a break. (See 2 below.)
===
Is Hillary willing to move away from her failed Secretary of State tenure by moving right?
History demonstrates Hillary will say and do anything.
Remember how Whitewater records appeared suddenly that she previously said she did not know where they were?
Will Hillary re-set her re-set button? (See 3 below.)
===
Obama may have big ears but does he hear? (See 4 below.)
===
Is America producing a generation of wimps? (See 5 below)
Has Obama pointed the way? (See 5a and 5b below.)
===
J Street is challenged! (See 6 below.)
===
Sowell on Blacks and Republicans.
Republicans have vast advantages over Democrat enslavement but they need to wake up , be forthright and smell their rosy opportunity. It just takes effort and common sense.
Are Republicans up to the challenge? That is the question. (See 7 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) “Right of Return” Is Not About “Refugees”
In “A Jewish State,”the Wall Street Journal notes that “the right of return, with its implicit promise to eliminate Israel, is the centerpiece of the conflict” between Israelis and Arabs. The Journalobserves that it is a “right” recognized “for no other refugee group in the world,” and that its acceptance by Israel would risk “a demographic time bomb that could turn the country into another Lebanon, sectarian and bloody.” The Journal explains the Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state as follows: “As to why Mr. Abbas won’t accept a Jewish state, it’s because doing so means relinquishing what Palestinians call the ‘right of return.’”
The Journal’s otherwise excellent editorial confuses a tactic and a goal. The reason the Palestinians won’t accept a Jewish state is not because it means relinquishing the “right of return.” It is the other way around: they won’t relinquish the “right of return” because it would mean accepting a Jewish state. Nor is this simply a matter of substituting the converse for the Journal’s formulation. Rather, it reflects a fundamental point that Ron Dermer (then one of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s closest aides and currently Israel’s ambassador to the U.S.) made in a May 2009 AIPAC presentation. Dermer’s point was that the “core issue” in the conflict was not refugees, but recognition:
The half of the Palestinian polity that is not openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction is unwilling to recognize Israel as the Jewish state … For those of you who think that this has anything to do with the refugee issue — you’re wrong. In 1947, there wasn’t a single refugee, and the Palestinian and the Arab world was not willing to recognize a nation state for the Jewish people. That is a core issue, the core issue …
The Palestinians use a definition of “refugee” that makes their “refugeehood” hereditary. Other refugees get resettled; Palestinian refugees get born. They may have never lived in Israel, but they are classified as “refugees” at birth, on grounds that their grandparents (or great grandparents) were refugees 65 years ago. This is why each year the number of Palestinian refugees increases, while the number of other refugees in the world decreases. The Palestinians have been repeatedly offered a state to which their refugees could “return,” but they repeatedly reject it, clinging to a specious “right” of “return” to Israel not because it is necessary for the “refugees,” but because it is a tool in the fight against the Jewish state.
The latest tactic is the Palestinian assertion (swallowed whole by the New York Times) that recognition of a Jewish state is a new issue, allegedly raised by Netanyahu to prevent peace. It is a Big Lie. Last Wednesday Ambassador Dennis Ross, speaking on “Israel, America, and the Middle East: Challenges for 2014,” summarized the Israeli position (my transcription and italics):
From the Israeli standpoint, they say look, if you believe in two states, why is it that Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish people is something that you can’t accept? Why is it that self-determination for the Jewish people in a part of historic Palestine is something that you can’t embrace? And it’s pretty fundamental.
When I hear it said that this is the first time this issue has been raised – the people who say that think that no one knows history. Now maybe it’s true that most people don’t know history. But they should never say it to me. When we were at Camp David, this issue was raised. In the period after Camp David, before we did the Clinton Parameters, this issue was raised. This issue has been raised for obvious reasons. From the Israeli standpoint, there is a need to know that the Palestinians are committed to two states, meaning in fact that one state is Palestinian and one is the state of the Jewish people. They need to know the Palestinians are not about two states, one Palestinian and one bi-national.
In 1947, the Jews accepted the UN two-state resolution; the Arabs not only rejected it, but started a war the next day. In 1948, when Israel declared itself a state, the Arab states sent their armies in, seeking to destroy it. Instead, they created a “catastrophe” for themselves. More than 65 years later, the Palestinians and their Arab allies still reject a Jewish state. They need to recognize it, not only for Israel’s benefit but their own: it is the necessary first step on their long road back from the self-created “catastrophe.” For the reasons succinctly stated in Ambassador Ross’s summary, no “two-state solution” is possible until they take that first step. But the Palestinians appear to have already made it clear they will not miss the opportunity to say “no” once again.
1a) The Recognition Trap
By Leonard Getz
Recent reports in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv revealed that a PLO Central Committee member suggested that Mahmoud Abbas was ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Subsequent reports denied this notion, but the question is, what are the ramifications if Mahmoud Abbas publicly announces that he recognizes Israel as the Jewish State, as demanded by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and at one time supported by Secretary of State John Kerry?
No doubt Kerry will declare this utterance a coup, and waste no time turning on Netanyahu to demand he immediately make those promised “painful concessions.” After all, Kerry got Netanyahu what he wanted, so Netanyahu owes him.
Or does he?
Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State means more than just lip service, something Kerry may not understand, or care about.
Interestingly, Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent member of the PLO, unwittingly brought home this very point in an interview she gave to the Associated Press.
“I remember the days when we were told, `All you need is to get the PLO to recognize Israel, and recognize Israel’s right to exist in safe and secure boundaries,’” she said. “The Palestinians did just that,” she noted, as part of the 1990s peace agreements.
But did they?
Or did they just put words on paper?
If they truly recognized Israel’s right to exit, wouldn’t they stop referring to the establishment of Israel as the Nakba – the catastrophe? In May 2013, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), commemorated “the Palestinian Nakba” by announcing detailed figures on the numbers of Palestinian refugees in occupied Palestine and the diaspora.
Further, the PCBS defines the word Nakba as “a process of ethnic cleansing in which an unarmed nation has been destroyed and its population displaced to be systematically replaced by another nation.”
Does this sound like the PLO truly recognizes Israel’s right to exist, as Ashrawi claims?
Take a look at the Fatah emblem. The map of Israel is draped with an Arab kafiyhah. The map of Israel doesn’t exist in Palestinian school text books.
Listen to the words Palestinian Arab children are taught to sing on television as recently as December 20, 2013:
“My country Palestine is beautiful. Turn to Safed, and then to Tiberias, and send regards to the sea of Acre and Haifa. Don’t forget Nazareth – the Arab fortress, and tell Beit Shean about its people’s return. My country Palestine is beautiful.”
Does this sound like Palestinian children are taught that Israel has a right to exist?
As recently as January 16, 2014, an article in Al Hayat Al Jadada stated: “The Ministry of Prisoners’ [Affairs] honors families of several prisoners and detainees, including families from the Palestinian Interior and the West Bank.”
Does referring to Israel proper as the “Palestinian Interior” sound like the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist?
When the Western media uses the term “occupation,” readers understand this to mean the West Bank or biblical Judea and Samaria. Not so in Palestinian media. “Occupation” refers to the entire land of Israel. A simple report on weather conditions in Al Hayat Al Jadida on December 17, 2013, couldn’t help but be political: “Occupation forces closed roads leading to Hebron and the territories occupied in 1948 due to weather [conditions].”
And in a documentary repeatedly shown on PA TV from 2005 to 2007, Biblical Canaanites are referred to as Arabs: “The Arab Canaanites established ports on the coast of Canaan, known today as Palestine.”
So if these are examples of what Hanan Ashrawi meant when she said the PA recognized Israel’s right to exist in the early 1990s, how will Mahmoud Abbas express his recognition of Israel as the Jewish State, if he ever does so? Will it be sincere or just another ploy to trick Kerry into forcing Netanyahu to make irrevocable concessions?
Will he acquiesce to unimpeded Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount? Will he remove the kafiyah from all the maps of Israel, especially those in the Palestinian Arab text books? Will he stop the incitement of violence and hatred of Israel and Jews in the media and schools and mosques? Will he recognize the kotel or Western Wall as Jewish?
Kerry may be swayed by mere words but as Netanyahu said recently, “we’re not suckers.”
1b)1. According to an Israeli Channel Two TV report, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued “three no’s” in his meeting with U.S. President Obama :
Specifically, the report said, Abbas rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that he recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinians and their descendants — a demand that, if implemented, would drastically alter Israel’s demographic balance and which no conceivable Israeli government would accept. And finally, he refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under which a peace deal would represent the termination of any further Palestinian demands of Israel.
1c) Fatah calls for return to the rifle
Fatah official:
"We have not cast down the rifle... the rifle is here, and it can burst forth at any moment"
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
At a ceremony in support of PA Chairman Abbas in Jericho Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi reiterated Fatah's adherence to the use of weapons as "one of the methods of struggle." Shouting that "the rifle is here, and it can burst forth at any moment," Tirawi stated that the rifle "will burst forth from this [current] leadership... and if we are no longer alive... [from] our sons, our young lions."Click to view
Similarly, a cartoon posted by Fatah on Facebook called for the return to armed struggle. It showed a small boy pulling the hand of a man carrying a rifle and dressed in a military uniform and wearing a traditional Palestinian headscarf. The child says to the armed man: "We have missed you,
come back."
[Facebook, Fatah Mobilization and Organization Commission, March 11, 2014]
Palestinian Media Watch has documented that Fatah frequently uses Facebook to promote violence and glorify terrorist murderers. The following is a longer excerpt of Tawfiq Tirawi's declaration that Fatah will return to the rifle:
Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi:
"A national enterprise cannot succeed without the National Liberation Movement, Fatah. We in this movement have not cast down the rifle and have not let go of the rifle. The rifle is here! The method of struggle we are adopting now (i.e., negotiations) is [only] one of the methods of struggle. But the rifle is here, and it can burst forth at any moment, with a new method and a new leadership. It will burst forth from this [current] leadership if we remain alive, because we are its people; and if we are no longer alive, [then] our sons, our young lions and you will be its people. Revolution until victory, until victory, until victory."
[Official PA TV Live, March 17, 2014]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)> Subj: Vus Titzuch
President Obama calls the head of the CIA and asks, "How come the Jews know everything before we do?"
The CIA chief says, "The Jews have this expression, 'Vus titzuch?' The President asks, "What does that mean?" "Well, Mr. President," replies the CIA chief, "It's a Yiddish expression which roughly translates to 'what's happening?'
They just ask each other and they know everything."
The President decides to go undercover to determine if this is true. He gets dressed up as an Orthodox Jew and is secretly flown in an unmarked plane to New York, picked up in an unmarked car and dropped off in Brooklyn's most Orthodox Jewish neighborhood.
Soon, a little old man comes shuffling along. The President stops him and whispers, "Vus titzuch?" The old guy whispers back, "Obama's in Brooklyn!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) HILLARY TACKS RIGHT of OBAMA on FOREIGN POLICY
Hillary Clinton receives the American Jewish Congress's lifetime achievement award this week in New York. Associated Press
Hillary Clinton has begun laying out foreign-policy positions that sound a more hard-line note on Iran, Russia and other global trouble spots than is coming from President Barack Obama, underscoring how she might differentiate herself from the administration she served, should she run for president.
The former secretary of state this week voiced doubts that Iran would make good on an agreement that Mr. Obama hopes will curb that country's nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions.
Mrs. Clinton, speaking to the American Jewish Congress in New York, said that she was "personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver" on the nuclear deal reached last year.
She added that the deal was a "development worth testing," though she hinted that military action should remain a consideration if the agreement collapses. "Let's be clear. Every option does remain on the table," she said.
In previous appearances recently, Mrs. Clinton drew parallels between the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine and Adolf Hitler before the Second World War.
Mrs. Clinton's remarks, coupled with a memoir she is writing, give her a chance to shape impressions of her four years as the nation's top diplomat and to blunt Republican claims that she was a partner in an ineffectual Obama foreign-policy operation.
When it comes to foreign policy, Mrs. Clinton faces a delicate balancing act in the run-up to the 2016 presidential race.
Overtly criticizing Mr. Obama's foreign moves would make her appear disloyal. But at the same time, as secretary of state, she was not in lock step with the president on all issues, and she might want to draw distinctions about her own stances.
In internal discussions about the Syrian civil war, for example, she had pushed unsuccessfully for lethal support to opposition forces, in addition to diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, a former colleague of hers said. The arming proposal was later backed by Mr. Obama.
One image from 2009 could prove embarrassing for Mrs. Cilnton, now that U.S.-Russian tensions are escalating. A widely distributed photo from that year shows a broadly smiling Mrs. Clinton pushing a red "reset" button with her Russian counterpart—a suggestion that relations between the two countries were on the mend.
Speaking in California earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Putin's claim that his moves in Ukraine were meant to protect ethnic Russians echoed Hitler's argument in the 1930s that he wanted to protect Germans living outside of the country.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said Mrs. Clinton and her husband are much admired in Israel. However, he said, "Israelis don't like world leaders being compared to Hitler. Whatever else Putin has done, he's not putting six million people in an oven."
Rosa Brooks, who worked in the Pentagon during Mr. Obama's first term and now teaches law at Georgetown University, said that Mrs. Clinton's remarks on Russia and Iran seem aimed at "positioning" herself for a possible presidential bid. She said the comments are at variance with the "sober-minded" views Mrs. Clinton expressed when she served in the administration.
"She was in fact someone who really seemed willing to be the honest person and to ask hard questions and listen and challenge conventional wisdom as secretary of state," Ms. Brooks said. "The bad news is that she is positioning herself for a presidential run, and her views are dictated by what she regards as politically expedient," she added
She said Mrs. Clinton's comments on Russia were not helpful to Mr. Obama, who is "under intense pressure to do something," amid concerns that Mr. Putin may seize more territory in Ukraine.
"I don't think she did Barack Obama any favors by saying those things," she said.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton referred questions to two of her former colleagues. One, former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, said that Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state was privately skeptical that cooperation with Russia would improve. She believed that Dmitry Medvedev, who was president of Russia then and who would be succeeded by Mr. Putin, was "weak," Mr. McFaul said.
"Within the administration, it's fair to say that she was more skeptical about cooperation with the Russians than others," Mr. McFaul said. "She didn't think it would last, and part of her concern was that Medvedev was a weak president."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jonathan S. Tobin
Earlier this week, President Obama sent a celebratory message to the people and the leaders of Iran on the occasion of the Nowruz, the Persian New Year. The annual videotaped presidential missive was very much in the spirit of the administration’s policy toward Iran emphasizing not only holiday cheer but also a belief in the need for the U.S. and Iran to resolve their differences, especially with regard to the nuclear negotiations now going on. In doing so, the president went even further than previous statements about the talks in which he said he supported a peaceful Iranian nuclear program and predicted a deal that would strengthen the economy of the Islamist regime. Israeli President Shimon Peres also sent his own equally conciliatory message to Iran that emphasized peace.
But if either leader were expecting a friendly reply from Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, they were disappointed. Speaking earlier today to commemorate the holiday, Khamenei brushed off conciliation, attacking the idea of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, questioning the Holocaust and vowing to triumph over international sanctions.
Given Khamenei’s history of hate speech directed at both the “Great Satan” (the U.S.) and the “Little Satan” (Israel), none of this is particularly surprising. Khamenei is the embodiment of a regime saturated in hostility to the West and anti-Semitism and whose support of international terrorism and a nuclear weapon is closely tied to its ideological goals. The only mystery about this is why Americans refuse to take him seriously when he speaks in this manner.
According to the Times of Israel, this is what Khamenei had to say about the Holocaust:
“The Holocaust is an event whose reality is uncertain and if it has happened, it’s uncertain how it has happened,” Khamenei said during his address, according to a Twitter account under his name thought to be run by his office.“Expressing opinion about the Holocaust, or casting doubt on it, is one of the greatest sins in the West. They prevent this, arrest the doubters, try them while claiming to be a free country,” said Khamenei, who has repeatedly called the Holocaust a “myth.”“They passionately defend their red lines … How do they expect us to overlook our red lines that are based on our revolutionary and religious beliefs.”
As much as the president insists that he has his eyes wide open when it comes to Iran, his policies toward have always reflected a degree of naïveté about the nature of its government and an unwillingness to confront it. From his first attempts at “engagement” to his shameful silence during the 2009 repression of demonstrators in Tehran to the current interim nuclear deal that granted Iran significant concessions in return from nothing of substance from them, Obama has been consistent in his desire for a new détente with the regime.
The administration has disingenuously sought to use the victory of Hassan Rouhani in Iran’s faux presidential election last year to justify a belief in Iranian moderation but the end of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s term in office changed nothing. Holocaust denial is pervasive throughout the Iranian leadership not because they like to offend Jewish and Western sensibilities but because it is integral to their anti-Semitic worldview. Rouhani is no moderate but even if he were one, it is Khamenei who runs the country.
This week’s exchange of greetings proves again that Iran has always viewed Western efforts at appeasement with contempt. They have given every indication that they consider Obama weak and too irresolute to hold them accountable for terrorism, arms smuggling aimed at inciting Palestinian violence or their nuclear quest. Nothing Khamenei says will likely deter President Obama from pursuing a nuclear deal. But the administration must, above all, learn to take Iran at its word when it threatens genocide and or says it will never back down on the nuclear question. If not, this pointless back and forth will be merely the forerunner of even more dangerous dialogue that will be heard after the Iranians reach their nuclear goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) 5 Ways America Is Creating a Generation of Wimps
That's the stock that Americans come from, which begs an obvious question: What the hell happened to us?
How did the toughest, most independent society since Sparta turn into a wuss factory full of people who've never had an adventure in their life outside of a video game? We now have an entire grievance industry full of losers who spend all their time complaining that they're "offended" by everything from the name of the Redskins to the "Patriarchy" to politicians using "violent language" like "crosshairs" and "job killing." Can you imagine a member of the Greatest Generation complaining because a Japanese soldier called him a mean name? Do you think the wagon trains on the Oregon Train were more worried about "isms" or trying to avoid dying of dysentery and being scalped?
So back to that central question: How did Americans get so soft, so fast?
There are a lot of answers to that question. The military has gotten smaller; so fewer people serve; a lot of manly professions have faded away; our society has economically prospered to the point of decadence even if many people don't realize it; liberalism encourages wimpiness and failure....we could go on and on. However, the biggest problem we have is that we're systematically teaching our kids to be wusses.
The problem is that it doesn't matter how pretty, rich, or gifted you are; life is a pile of bricks coming towards you at 100 MPH and no matter how smart you are, how hard you work, or how often you do the right thing, it's going to clip you ever so often. You're going to lose a job, someone's going to die or decide he doesn't want to be your friend any more, you're going to have a stretch of bad luck, your hard work will be unrewarded, you're going to face financial stress, people are going to laugh at you -- no matter how charmed your life may be, it happens to EVERYONE.
Is this how we're going to prepare our kids for those unhappy eventualities?
1) Ban "Bossy:" This is the hot new idea on the "Left." Apparently if we "ban" the word "bossy," little girls will all grow up to be decisive leaders or something. Of course, if being called "bossy" is enough to dissuade a little girl from being a leader, she probably isn't cut out to be a leader in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's online, in Hollywood, at your local PTA, or in school; if you lead or gain a little status, someone will immediately start to undercut you. Typically, the words used are a lot less benign than "bossy," too. Sarah Palin knows a little something about being hit with abuse for being successful and as she would say, either "buck up or stay in the truck."
2) Microaggressions: This is a bit of popular silliness that has taken off on college campuses. Basically, since liberals are having trouble finding any overt racism to complain about, the general idea is supposed to be that someone is committing a "microaggression" against you by denying that he’s a racist, sexist, or even just by annoying a minority in some way. In fact, including microaggressions in this column counts as a "microaggression." In other words, the idea is supposed to be whiny losers always have some "ism" to be aggrieved over every time they feel bad, which is pretty much all the time because that's what life as a whiny loser is like.
3) Trigger Warnings: This is another bit of wackiness that has taken off on college campuses and I'll just use the Urban dictionary definition of it since it's as good as any other,
Translation: instead of encouraging people to talk to a friend, get therapy, or just get over whatever is bothering them, it's everyone else's responsibility to warn others that they might be saying something that could trouble the legions of easily offended left-wing groups out there. Try that at your job some time and see what your boss says about it -- and don't expect a trigger warning before you get fired. Life is not only full of unpleasantness, it's full of things that remind you of that unpleasantness. Part of leaving childhood behind and becoming an adult is dealing with that fact.
4) Zero Tolerance Gun Policies at Schools: After Columbine, it's understandable that schools might be on the alert for weapons at school, but they've cranked things up to Salem-Witch-Trial levels of hysteria. There are kids who've been suspended for saying the word “gun,” chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun or in the latest case, there's a girl being threatened with expulsion for having a razor blade in her possession for as long as it took to get it away from a kid who was trying to cut his wrists. Every man should at least know his way around a gun; firearms benefit women even more since they're unlikely to be able to outfight a man who wants to beat, rape or murder them. How does teaching kids to turn into a jellied mass of quivering fear because some kid chewed a gun into a Pop Tart square with the importance of knowing how to use firearms for adults?
5) The Self-Esteem Movement: There is actually a basic formula for building self-esteem. You find something you have talent at, you work at it, your ability is recognized and you feel better about yourself. However, we've moved past that formula and may have become the first society in history to almost entirely disconnect self-esteem from accomplishment. It's debatable whether our schools should be focusing on building the self-esteem of kids at all, but we certainly shouldn't be teaching every kid that he's a special little sunflower, regardless of whether he's done anything to earn it. Yes, God thinks all of His kids are special, but the rest of us generally aren't impressed with someone who has nothing going for him other than the fact that he exists and his teacher says nice things about him. The world doesn't owe you a living, you're not special just because your teacher didn't mark your papers with red ink, and the harsh truth is that the world values you for what you bring to the table, not because your life has been one long series of participation trophies.
5a) Obama’s pathetic response to Putin’s invasion of Crimea
By Charles Krauthammer
Early in the Ukraine crisis, when the Europeans were working on bringing Ukraine into the EU system and Vladimir Putin was countering with threats and bribes, one British analyst lamented that “we went to a knife fight with a baguette.”
That was three months ago. Life overtakes parody. During the Ukrainian prime minister’s visit to Washington last week, his government urgently requested military assistance. The Pentagon refused. It offered instead military ration kits.
Putin mobilizes thousands of troops, artillery and attack helicopters on Ukraine’s borders and Washington counters with baguettes, American-style. One thing we can say for sure in these uncertain times: The invasion of Ukraine will be catered by the United States.
Why did we deny Ukraine weapons? Because in the Barack Obama-John Kerry worldview, arming the victim might be taken as a provocation. This kind of mind-bending illogic has marked the administration’s response to the whole Crimea affair.
Why, after all, did Obama delay responding to Putin’s infiltration, military occupation and seizure of Crimea in the first place? In order to provide Putin with a path to de-escalation, “an offramp,” the preferred White House phrase.
An offramp? Did they really think that Putin was losing, that his invasion of Crimea was a disaster from which he needed some face-saving way out? And that the principal object of American diplomacy was to craft for Putin an exit strategy?
It’s delusional enough to think that Putin — in seizing Crimea, threatening eastern Ukraine, destabilizing Kiev, shaking NATO, terrifying America’s East European allies and making the West look utterly helpless — was actually losing. But to imagine that Putin saw it that way as well and was waiting for American diplomacy to save him from a monumental blunder is totally divorced from reality.
After Obama’s Russian “reset,” missile-defense retreat and Syria comedown, Putin had already developed an undisguised disdain for his U.S. counterpart. Yet even he must have been amazed by this newest American flight of fantasy. Putin reclaims a 200-year-old Russian patrimony with hardly a shot and to wild applause at home — Putin’s 72 percent domestic popularity is 30 points higher than Obama’s — and America’s leaders think he needs rescue?
Putin made it clear that he preferred Sevastopol to good reviews from the “international community.” Yet Obama and Kerry held off doing anything until the Crimean referendum — after which, they ominously threatened, there would be “consequences.”
Obama unveiled them Monday in a four-minute statement as flat-toned as a legal notice in the classifieds. The consequences? Visa denial and frozen assets for 11 people, seven of them Russian.
Seven! Out of 140 million. No Putin. No Dmitry Medvedev. No oligarchs. Nor any of Putin’s inner circle of ex-KGBers. No targeting of the energy sector or banks, Russia’s industrial and financial lifeblood.
This elicited unreserved mockery from the targeted Russians themselves. One wondered whether the president’s statement had been written by a prankster. The Duma voted that it should be sanctioned -- all 353 members who’d voted for annexation. And the financial markets, which abhor disruptions and crave nothing but continuity, responded with relief: Russia’s spiked 3.7 percent; the Dow Jones rose 1.1 percent (180 points).
Putin responded with appropriate contempt. Within hours he recognized Crimea’s secession. The next day, he signed a treaty of annexation. (Two days later, Obama expanded the list of sanctioned Russians and added one bank. It will make no difference.)
Europe’s response was weaker still, sanctioning a list of even lesser Russian functionaries. The irony is that for two decades we’ve encouraged Russia’s integration into the world economic system — including Obama’s strong support for Russian accession to the World Trade Organization — thinking those ties, and the threat of losing them, would restrain Russian behavior.
On the contrary. It restrained European behavior. Europe has refused to adopt any measure that might significantly affect its commerce and natural gas imports from Russia.
What’s our excuse? We import no Russian gas and have minimal trade with that Russia. Yet our president appears strangely disengaged. The post-Cold War order of Europe has been brazenly violated — and Obama is nowhere to be seen.
As I’ve argued here before, there are things we can do: Send the secretary of defense to Kiev tomorrow to negotiate military assistance. Renew the missile-defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic. Announce a new policy of major U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. Lead Europe from the front — to impose sanctions cutting off Russian enterprises from the Western banking system.
As we speak, Putin is deciding whether to go beyond Crimea and take eastern Ukraine. Show him some seriousness, Mr. President.
5b) The Price of Failed Leadership
The President's failure to act when action was possible has diminished respect for the U.S. and made troubles worse.
Why are there no good choices? From Crimea to North Korea, from Syria to Egypt, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, America apparently has no good options. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, Russia owns Crimea and all we can do is sanction and disinvite—and wring our hands.
Iran is following North Korea's nuclear path, but it seems that we can only entreat Iran to sign the same kind of agreement North Korea once signed, undoubtedly with the same result.
Our tough talk about a red line in Syria prompted Vladimir Putin 's sleight of hand, leaving the chemicals and killings much as they were. We say Bashar Assad must go, but aligning with his al Qaeda-backed opposition is an unacceptable option.
And how can it be that Iraq and Afghanistan each refused to sign the status-of-forces agreement with us—with the very nation that shed the blood of thousands of our bravest for them?
Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied?
A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."
When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.
Months before the rebellion began in Syria in 2011, a foreign leader I met with predicted that Assad would soon fall from power. Surely the White House saw what this observer saw. As the rebellion erupted, the time was ripe for us to bring together moderate leaders who would have been easy enough for us to identify, to assure the Alawites that they would have a future post-Assad, and to see that the rebels were well armed.
The advent of the Arab Spring may or may not have been foreseen by our intelligence community, but after Tunisia, it was predictable that Egypt might also become engulfed. At that point, pushing our friendHosni Mubarak to take rapid and bold steps toward reform, as did Jordan's king, might well have saved lives and preserved the U.S.-Egypt alliance.
The time for securing the status-of-forces signatures from leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan was before we announced in 2011 our troop-withdrawal timeline, not after it. In negotiations, you get something when the person across the table wants something from you, not after you have already given it away.
Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.
A chastened president and Secretary of State Kerry , a year into his job, can yet succeed, and for the country's sake, must succeed. Timing is of the essence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
| A dose of nuance | ||
| ||
A few weeks ago, Jeremy Ben- Ami of J Street and I debated each other in Atlanta. It was labeled a “conversation,” but it was really a debate.
Very civil, more than a bit of humor, rather conversational and all that, but still a debate. (You can find the video on YouTube or Google.) Ben-Ami made his points, I made mine. Mine were very simple: He and I both want the same thing. He wants (I was willing to assume for the sake of the argument) a secure and Jewish State of Israel. So do I. He wants (no question about this one) a Palestinian state as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I would be happy to see such a state (and would vote for significant territorial compromise) if it would mean an end to the conflict.
Though we disagreed about many things, there was one major point of contention that was more significant than all the rest. He’s convinced that a deal for a two-state solution is within reach, and I was, and remain, almost entirely certain that it’s utterly impossible.
So, for a good portion of the time, I laid out my case for why Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not make a deal. He’ll never give up on the right of return. His refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is a symptom of the sad fact that the Palestinians hate Israel (and let’s be honest, the Jews, too) far more than they care about themselves.
There’s the problem of Hamas and Gaza, and Abbas’s worry about Hamas potentially taking over. There’s the unpleasant fact that even if Abbas did agree, what happens when he or his successor is overthrown? What happens when Ramallah turns into Tahrir Square? Where will we be then? Nothing new in all these arguments – just a summary of what most people who think already know.
And then I sat down.
Then it was Ben-Ami’s turn to respond, and he made the most important comment of the entire evening. “I just find that so depressing,” he said. In not so many words, he was just saying that he cannot accept a world in which the options are so bleak – so he chooses to believe that there is a way out.
Because my view is depressing, it must be wrong.
It was the most significant comment of the evening, I thought, because it was also the most honest. What defines Israel’s position in the world today is a division not so much between those who care about Palestinians and those who don’t (though there are sadly many of the latter), not between those who tolerate the Jews and those who can’t stand them (though there are tragically a growing number of the latter), and not between those committed to a secure Israel and those who would be happy to see Israel crumble (though there are many of those, too).
The real divide is between those who can accept reality for what it is (with all the sadness thereunto appertaining), and those who cannot tolerate that bleakness – and therefore opt for delusion.
Take all the ostensibly fair-minded people who argue that Abbas’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is legitimate, indeed noble, because he is seeking to protect that status of non- Jews in Israel. It’s a clever argument, but also malevolently dishonest. Israel has defined itself as a Jewish state since the Declaration of Independence was adopted in May 1948, and a Basic Law of 1985 added the notion of “Jewish and democratic” (interestingly, the Declaration of Independence says nothing about Israel being a democracy, but that’s an issue for another time). But has that stopped Israel from appointing Arabs to the Supreme Court? From having three Arab parties represented in the Knesset? Does it stop Beduin women from becoming doctors in Israel? There is obviously much about the status of Arabs and other non-Jewish citizens of Israel that can and must be improved, but does anyone seriously believe that Abbas is holding out to accomplish that? Anyone fair-minded understands that Abbas will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state because once he does, he undermines the argument that the refugees must be returned. And he needs the return of the refugees to destroy Israel.
But that means that there’s no deal to be had, because Abbas won’t give up the fight, and Israel will not commit suicide.
Which is depressing for those who want a deal more than they like reality.
So now US Secretary of State John Kerry is telling Israel that it should give up on that demand. Why? Because it’s easier, and less depressing, for Kerry to tell Israel to be flexible – even at the risk of its very raison d’être – than to admit that he is going to fail.
Masks and pretense were for Purim, but Purim is behind us.
The world in which we live is an increasingly bleak place. But that does not mean that the solution is to pretend that matters are other than what they were. The US pretends that it is going to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but it is clear that it will not.
The international community pretends that it has the willpower to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expansionist drive (the end of which one cannot even begin to imagine), when it is clear that America under US President Barack Obama is under a full-speed retreat from leadership. And the international community insists that if Israel budges just a bit on one issue or another, the Palestinians will make a deal, when it is clear that this is utterly myopic.
There is much that Israel has done wrong in recent years, and Israel’s administration has undoubtedly contributed to the Jewish state’s lonely place in the world today. But let us be honest about at least one thing, even in the face of the sobering – yes, depressing – reality we face.
The prime reason that Israel is so maligned is that it, alone, simply refuses to be part of the charade. ■
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Republicans and Blacks
By Thomas Sowell
Recently former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added her voice to those who have long been urging the Republican Party to reach out to black voters. Not only is that long overdue, what is also long overdue is putting some time -- and, above all, some serious thought -- into how to go about doing it.
Too many Republicans seem to think that the way to "reach out" is to offer blacks and other minorities what the Democrats are offering them. Some have even suggested that the channels to use are organizations like the NAACP and black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson -- that is, people tied irrevocably to the Democrats.
Voters who want what the Democrats offer can get it from the Democrats. Why should they vote for Republicans who act like make-believe Democrats?
Yet there are issues where Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats -- if they will use that advantage. But an advantage that you don't use might as well not exist.
The issue on which Democrats are most vulnerable, and have the least room to maneuver, is school choice. Democrats are heavily in hock to the teachers' unions, who see public schools as places to guarantee jobs for teachers, regardless of what that means for the education of students.
There are some charter schools and private schools that have low-income minority youngsters equaling or exceeding national norms, despite the many ghetto public schools where most students are nowhere close to meeting those norms. Because teachers' unions oppose charter schools, most Democrats oppose them, including black Democrats up to and including President Barack Obama.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's recent cutback on funding for charter schools, and creating other obstacles for them, showed a calloused disregard for black youngsters, for whom a decent education is their one shot at a better life.
But did you hear any Republican say anything about it?
Minimum wage laws are another government-created disaster for minority young people.
Many people today would be surprised to learn that there were once years when the unemployment rate for black 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was under 10 percent. But their unemployment rates have not been under 20 percent in more than half a century. In some years, their unemployment rate has been over 40 percent.
Why such great differences between earlier and later times? In the late 1940s, inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage set in 1938. Without that encumbrance, black teenagers found it a lot easier to get jobs than after the series of minimum wage escalations that began in the 1950s.
Young people need job experience, at least as much as they need a paycheck. And no neighborhood needs hordes of idle young men hanging around, getting into mischief, if not into crime.
Republicans have failed to explain why the minimum wage laws that Democrats support are counterproductive for blacks. Worse yet, during the 2012 election campaign Mitt Romney advocated indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which would not only guarantee its bad effects, but would put an end to discussing those bad effects.
Are issues like these going to switch the black vote as a whole over into the Republican column at the next election? Of course not. Nor will embracing the Democrats' racial agenda.
But, if Republicans can reduce the 90 percent of the black vote that goes to Democrats to 80 percent, that can be enough to swing a couple of close Congressional elections -- as a start.
Even to achieve that, however, will require targeting those particular segments of the black population that are not irrevocably committed to the Democrats. Parents who want their children to get a decent education are one obvious example. But if Republicans aim a one-size-fits-all message at all blacks they will fail to connect with the particular people they have some chance of reaching.
First of all, Republicans will need to know what they are talking about. There are books like "Race and Economics" by Walter Williams, which show that many well-meaning government programs have been counterproductive for minorities. And there are people like Shelby Steele and the Thernstroms with valuable insights.
But first Republicans have got to want to learn, and to be willing to do some thinking, in order to get their message across
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans rode in wagon trains across this country, tossed the Brits’ tea in the Boston Harbor, outfought the superpower of the 18th century to get our freedom, pounded the Indians, Mexicans, and Spanish into the ground to fulfill our Manifest Destiny and then for an encore, we saved the planet in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Our pioneer-pilgrim, hard-fighting, gold-mining, wagon-training, gun-fighting ancestors were so hard, Kid Rock'sAmerican Bad Ass should have played when they walked into a room. We conquered a continent, built the Hoover Dam, went to the moon, and not only did our Olympic athletes refuse to dip our flag to Hitler during the 1936 Olympics, we made the most evil man who ever lived kill himself in fear before we could get to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment