From the Be Careful What You Wish For department: the Palestinians recently held an election. What could be better? The free exchange of ideas, the will of the people carrying the day and leading to the peaceful transition of government.
Well, it seems no one except the Palestinians like the outcome of the election.
And so the consensus now is to make Hamas a global pariah before they even form a government and assume power. Cut off all funding and humanitarian support until they toe the line and adhere to the terms of their survival as dictated by the world.
In other words, create a situation once again where the Palestinians can do nothing but fail, and then use that failure as justification for punishing them further. This is no different than when Sharon isolated Arafat and removed his capacity to exert any control or authority, made demands of him that could not possibly be met, and then punished him and the Palestinian people for the failure to take action he was incapable of taking because Israel had made it impossible in the first place.
There is another way.
Only the most naive of fools would claim that Hamas is an organization that represents the better impulses of humanity. It is deplorable that as part of their charter they call for the extermination of Israel and refuse to repudiate that objective. There is no question that they have initiated violence against the people of Israel, though there is more than a little room for reasonable debate as to whether that violence has been on all occasions entirely unprovoked. Clearly most of the citizens of the world would not relish the thought of Hamas as a next door neighbor.
The truth though, is that through the political process and not through force of arms, the Palestinian people have spoken and asked that Hamas be the standard bearer for their hopes and aspirations. As a would-be sovereign people, their will should be honored.
Is it reasonable to fear that a Hamas led Palestinian Authority will differ little from the Hamas terrorists we have come to know and abhor? Of course. That should not however preclude them from having the opportunity to lead the Palestinian people forward. Sanctions, suspension of aid, and isolation from the global family of nations are all steps that should be held in reserve to be applied against a Hamas led Palestinian Authority that proves such actions are justified by their own future deeds. They need to be aware that the world is watching, and that if they do not act toward other nations with proper respect and consideration they will receive their justly earned reward. To punish first can only create a bunker mentality and a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. Persecution inevitably leads to the persecuted lashing out in regrettable ways, even when such persecution may well be justified.
It can certainly be hoped that a Hamas led government will comport itself responsibly, with honor and dignity, in a sincere effort to advance the interests of the Palestinian people who elected them. If they do that job well they should be rewarded, by the world at large and by the continued support of their constituency. Should they fail to execute that job effectively, the same people who have just empowered them will kick them to the curb. And if the Palestinian people should prove unequal to the task of controlling their chosen political leaders, then there will be more than ample opportunity for the rest of the world to step in and inflict the justice they seem so eager to dispense now in advance of the crime.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Jimmy Who?
Watching FOX Sports today for the football - that's another sore subject I WON'T be going into here! - it was difficult to avoid noticing Jimmy Johnson's hair.
Was that a body double?
Did he inflict that horror upon himself?
Did he pay someone to do that to him?
One thing is certain: all those charges of vanity Johnson has endured for years clearly are baseless. At least he has a sense of humor about it, and agrees that he looks like a Chia Pet.
Wow.
Was that a body double?
Did he inflict that horror upon himself?
Did he pay someone to do that to him?
One thing is certain: all those charges of vanity Johnson has endured for years clearly are baseless. At least he has a sense of humor about it, and agrees that he looks like a Chia Pet.
Wow.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Aloha From Kona
It is interesting what my line of work does to people.
I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .
I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.
(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)
I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .
I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.
(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Details Make a Big Difference, Reuters
The title of this post is linked to a Reuters news article posted online Sunday, December 4, 2005, at 3:41 AM EST titled "Iran says not interested in talks with US".
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Warning: Highly Inappropriate and Offensive Language Follows
There is no good way to go about this, so I will just plunge in:
Merry Christmas!
Yes, that's right, I said Merry Christmas. Oops, I did it again!
The link above points to a November 25, 2005, Reuters story regarding the official renaming of the Boston, Massachusetts Christmas Tree to a "Holiday Tree". 'Tis the season for political correctness to run amok. Citing a clause that does not exist in the Constitution, liberals and misguided troublemakers take to the courts this time of year to inflict there ignorance and bigotry upon the rest of us.
The "separation of church and state" does not exist, per se, within the Constitution. What does exist is the requirement that "Congress shall pass no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not a terribly complicated sentence, or murky in its meaning. No government sponsored and enforced religion will exist in this country, period. This is a clear and direct reference to the Church of England, not to the erection of an internally lighted Frosty the Snowman in Central Park. Also, Congress refers to - - - Congress! It is not a Founding Father euphemism for "Every federal government entity, derivative or subordinate governmental unit, agency, or any individual or entity funded or even involved either directly or indirectly with some element of the federal government".
Far more troubling than the prodigious efforts to remove Christmas from the national lexicon, except of course when used in reference to revenue generating Christmas Sales, is the refusal to object to the public presentation of non-Christian religions and holidays and indeed the demand in many instances that our children be compelled to study other religions within a classroom setting in order to foster greater understanding of those cultures. Islam is taught in California classrooms, including the reading and memorization of verses from the Koran and recitation of Islamic prayers. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled this was just fine, since it was "taught" in a history and geography class and was merely enabling students to learn about Islam. What is the likelihood that a seventh grade class about Christianity, including Christian prayers and readings from the Bible, would last beyond the first day? Not every student in a public school is Christian. Shouldn't those who are not have the opportunity to learn about Christianity in a controlled, scholarly environment instead of having to rely on flawed information derived from their friends or contacts on the street?
Mangers in the public square threaten the fabric of our society. A fat (or should that be Atkins Deprived?) old man in a red suit is a clearly religious symbol that must be eradicated at every turn. Songs referencing Christmas, Santa, Reindeer, or even hint that they might support notions of a peculiarly Christian Winter Festival must be censored in the interests of preserving weak minds unable to defend themselves from an evil universe and unfortunate enough to lack parents with the concept of personal responsibility for themselves or their offspring.
Yet, when is that last time a big stink was made over a publicly displayed menorah? Whose son or daughter hasn't come home endlessly singing "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel" until you wanted to either throttle them or at least convince them to start a rousing chorus of "999,999,999 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"?
So until all you self serving publicity hounds with far more time on your hands than true conviction develop enough intellectual honesty to fight any expression of religion in any guise, including those that do not fall beneath the umbrella of Christianity, I will continue to reject your childishness.
I will sing Christmas carols. Not only do I enjoy them, they have the added benefit of annoying you.
I will put up a Christmas tree. And decorate it. And stand it in my front window to inflict upon any who may happen to drive by my home.
And I will not succumb to the pressure to use phrases such as "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays". I am not ashamed of the fact that I was raised in a Christian denominated household, nor that I retain at least a few of the values of my upbringing.
The taboo phrase of December is offered as a pleasantry, in a spirit of fellowship and good cheer. It is not an epithet hurled against another. Any offense is drummed up by the recipient rather than offered by the giver.
So, and please accept this in the spirit it is delivered, Merry Christmas to all.
And to all, a good night.
Merry Christmas!
Yes, that's right, I said Merry Christmas. Oops, I did it again!
The link above points to a November 25, 2005, Reuters story regarding the official renaming of the Boston, Massachusetts Christmas Tree to a "Holiday Tree". 'Tis the season for political correctness to run amok. Citing a clause that does not exist in the Constitution, liberals and misguided troublemakers take to the courts this time of year to inflict there ignorance and bigotry upon the rest of us.
The "separation of church and state" does not exist, per se, within the Constitution. What does exist is the requirement that "Congress shall pass no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Not a terribly complicated sentence, or murky in its meaning. No government sponsored and enforced religion will exist in this country, period. This is a clear and direct reference to the Church of England, not to the erection of an internally lighted Frosty the Snowman in Central Park. Also, Congress refers to - - - Congress! It is not a Founding Father euphemism for "Every federal government entity, derivative or subordinate governmental unit, agency, or any individual or entity funded or even involved either directly or indirectly with some element of the federal government".
Far more troubling than the prodigious efforts to remove Christmas from the national lexicon, except of course when used in reference to revenue generating Christmas Sales, is the refusal to object to the public presentation of non-Christian religions and holidays and indeed the demand in many instances that our children be compelled to study other religions within a classroom setting in order to foster greater understanding of those cultures. Islam is taught in California classrooms, including the reading and memorization of verses from the Koran and recitation of Islamic prayers. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled this was just fine, since it was "taught" in a history and geography class and was merely enabling students to learn about Islam. What is the likelihood that a seventh grade class about Christianity, including Christian prayers and readings from the Bible, would last beyond the first day? Not every student in a public school is Christian. Shouldn't those who are not have the opportunity to learn about Christianity in a controlled, scholarly environment instead of having to rely on flawed information derived from their friends or contacts on the street?
Mangers in the public square threaten the fabric of our society. A fat (or should that be Atkins Deprived?) old man in a red suit is a clearly religious symbol that must be eradicated at every turn. Songs referencing Christmas, Santa, Reindeer, or even hint that they might support notions of a peculiarly Christian Winter Festival must be censored in the interests of preserving weak minds unable to defend themselves from an evil universe and unfortunate enough to lack parents with the concept of personal responsibility for themselves or their offspring.
Yet, when is that last time a big stink was made over a publicly displayed menorah? Whose son or daughter hasn't come home endlessly singing "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel" until you wanted to either throttle them or at least convince them to start a rousing chorus of "999,999,999 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"?
So until all you self serving publicity hounds with far more time on your hands than true conviction develop enough intellectual honesty to fight any expression of religion in any guise, including those that do not fall beneath the umbrella of Christianity, I will continue to reject your childishness.
I will sing Christmas carols. Not only do I enjoy them, they have the added benefit of annoying you.
I will put up a Christmas tree. And decorate it. And stand it in my front window to inflict upon any who may happen to drive by my home.
And I will not succumb to the pressure to use phrases such as "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays". I am not ashamed of the fact that I was raised in a Christian denominated household, nor that I retain at least a few of the values of my upbringing.
The taboo phrase of December is offered as a pleasantry, in a spirit of fellowship and good cheer. It is not an epithet hurled against another. Any offense is drummed up by the recipient rather than offered by the giver.
So, and please accept this in the spirit it is delivered, Merry Christmas to all.
And to all, a good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)