Googlefight! You enter in two words and see which is more common on Google. And you get to see a cool graphic of stick figures fighting. So, for example, Moses beats Moshe.
Hillel Gross' Address at the 10th Anniversary of the Lincoln Square Synagogue Beginners Service.... This video was recorded at the 10th Anniversary celebration of the Lincoln Square Synagogue Beginners Service on February 23, 1986 held in Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan.See here.
Sent along by my wife - about a possible solution for the quagmiasma (mix of quagmire and miasma) in Iraq is to partition into 3 sub-states. In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change ItPic from here. Backpost finished on 2009-11-29 - yet another one that I let sit around even though it was totally finished. Gak.
by Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, October 24, 2006
As coalition policy reaches a crisis, may I resurrect an idea I have been flogging since April 2003? It offers a way out of the current debate over staying the course (as President George W. Bush has long advocated) or withdrawing troops on a short timetable (as his critics demand).
My solution splits the difference, "Stay the course – but change the course." I suggest pulling coalition forces out of the inhabited areas of Iraq and redeploying them to the desert.
This way, the troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, but remote from the urban carnage. It permits the American-led troops to carry out essential tasks (protecting borders, keeping the oil and gas flowing, ensuring that no Saddam-like monster takes power) while ending their non-essential work (maintaining street-level order, guarding their own barracks).
Beyond these specifics, such a troop redeployment would imply a profound and improved change of course. It means:
Letting Iraqis run Iraq: Wish the Iraqis well but recognize that they are responsible for their own country. Or, in the words of a Times of London headline, "Bush to Iraqis: you take over." The coalition can help but Iraqis are adults, not wards, and need to assume responsibility for their country, from internal security to writing their constitution, with all due urgency.
Seeing violence in Iraq as an Iraqi problem: The now-constant violence verging on civil war is a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one, an Iraqi problem, not a coalition one. The coalition should realize it has no more responsibility for keeping the peace between Iraqis than it does among Liberians or Somalis.
Terminating the mammoth U.S. embassy in Baghdad: The American-created "Green Zone" in Baghdad is too high profile already, but work now underway to build the biggest embassy in the history of mankind, a 4,000-employee fortress in the heart of Baghdad, will make matters significantly worse. Its looming centrality will antagonize Iraqis for years or decades to come, even as it offers a vulnerable target for rocket-wielding enemies. Scheduled to open in June 2007, this gargantuan complex should be handed back to Iraqis, the over US$1 billion spent on it written off as a mistake of war, and a new, normal-sized, embassy built in its stead.
Ending the coddle: The inept, corrupt, and Islamist leadership in Baghdad discredits the Bush administration's integrity; conversely, Washington's embrace makes it look like a stooge. Other Iraqi institutions – my pet peeve is the National Symphony Orchestra in Baghdad – also suffer from the patronizing embrace of American politicians. Muslim sensitivities about rule by non-Muslims makes these rankling offenses.
Reducing coalition ambitions for Iraq: From the start, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was too ambitious and too remote from American interests ("Operation Coalition Security" would have been a better moniker). Give up on the unattainable goal of a democratic, free, and prosperous Iraq, a beacon to the region, and instead accept a stable and decent Iraq, one where conditions are comparable to Egypt or Tunisia.
The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.
Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.
The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.
A promising poll from Quinnipiac University has Lieberman leading Lamont 52 to 37. Even more interesting, see the full breakdown of Joe's support.
This is one blessing about keeping kosher - I am not confronted with the food at State Fairs where they are able to deep fry anything and everything - including liquids, at least according to this AFP story: Fried Coke a big hit at US state fairs
In conformation to what I sent this morning, here's the disgusting Robert Novak confirming that the GOP expects to lose the House but keep the Senate - which is enough for at least some impeachment issues.
Here's a letter I sent to the TPM in response to this. I'm very glad you wrote this post. I have been saying this to people for a long time - that the reason we feel that the Democrats have 'no leadership' etc is because the press has been trashing the party because they have been pretty consistent losers, so why bother looking for signs of leadership. If we do win in November I suspect there'll be a dozen of new leaders popping up (usually the ones who will be in charge of the potentially dozens of investigations).
This leads into your question, though, of why Bush/Rove look so confident about November. I guess by the "Mandate of Heaven" post you are tending to believe it's a bluff. Personally, I believe it's because these schmoes are so disgusting that they know that a 1% victory is the same as 51% and they see the same board we do. They may have put so much money in one of the scary tossups (MO, VA, NJ) for GOTV that they know that despite massive gains, the Democrats will fall 1 short of the majority. And that's all they need.
The musical revelry hits a speed bump when we start talking about his close friend Willie Nelson, whom he calls the "hillbilly Dalai Lama," and with whom he currently has a double-or-nothing wager. Willie took him for a grand on how the Iraq war would turn out (Kinky thought Bush and Blair would be "heroes"). Kinky now stands to win two grand if Joe Lieberman beats Ned Lamont--eight thousand if you count his Lieberman side bets with other suckers. Kinky's an inveterate gambler who takes "fact-finding trips to Vegas," though "these days, I'm bettin' on Texas." Still, of Lieberman, he says, "That f--er better win."
I have no idea if this guy is correct, but this discussion is awesome; see the 7th post down (by Stokes Pennwalt). In [Bush's] stump speeches, the president concentrates on terror and taxes. And the contrast he draws between terror-fighting, tax-cutting Republicans and wimpy, taxaholic Democrats is reasonably accurate. But it's failing to attract independents or lure disgruntled conservatives back to the Republican fold. Should Democrats capture the House, "they would raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money," Bush said at a rally in Chicago last week. "It's amazing what happens when you cut taxes. The economy grows [and] you end up with more tax revenues." On national security, he said, "If the security of the United States is the most important issue, then part of this issue is which party has been willing to step up and give those charged with protecting you the tools necessary to do so." He didn't need to identify which party has and which hasn't.
THE North Korean regime’s obsession with racial purity has led to the killing of disabled infants and forced abortions for women suspected of conceiving their babies by Chinese fathers, according to a growing body of testimony from defectors
A letter I sent TPM, Re: Is It All Foley? - about the dismal state of the GOP's electoral chances in November: Dear Josh,Pic from here. Backpost put up 2009-12-08.
I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina.
The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people. The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context. Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility. Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communities across America were losing native children. Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war. Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.
None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered. Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun. Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? I'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard.
I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it). Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign. North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq. Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning. The WMD were ready to be aimed at us. Because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq. It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.
Then Foley. Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people. The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didn't look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home.
And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit. Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc. This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.
Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocrisy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianists. The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys. They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff. That, I believe, is the real snapping point. To use a crude metaphor its as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff.
However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think. Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master. It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes. And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think. Adrien Brody? Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!
As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth. So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the outrages mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year. And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.
My 25 cents.
All the best,
JC
Tomorrow they will announce the Nobel Peace Prize, the most important - and most farcical - prize of them all. Because we live in a degenerate age, the best way to calibrate who will win is to go to a sports betting site, like this one (Centrebet). Note, Slate sent me to this link.
Dear Senator Lieberman,
A letter I sent to SullivanThis is regarding [your blog post about] the religious right and George W. Bush. [*link dead]When I was a rabbi in NYC I heard this a lot after 9/11 - that it was better to have Bush in office than Gore because Bush is an uncomplicated thinker and a man of action. I argued that he was an idiot and it's never good to have idiots in charge, even if - by pure chance - they do something you agree with. I also said, and I have witnesses, that since he was immoral, it was dangerous to support thugs because of the inevitable backlash.
I am an orthodox Jew and I have heard some in the right-wing Jewish community say similar things to the quote you had from CNN:"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord. "Whenever I hear someone say something like that I invariably reply, as an amateur theologian, "yes, Bush was placed as president by the Lord... but as a punishment."
The scary thing is that I don't know anymore if I am joking.
All the best for a good, new year
This article from the Zenit News Agency proves my point on why Ratzenberg was elected: Papal Address at University of Regensburg, "Three Stages in the Program of De-Hellenization." That is, that his record is as a right-wing strict Catholic who will strengthen the core of the religion in Europe - and then the rest of the world - against the encroachment from both secularism and of Islam. He's a fighter, and his expected short term (he's pretty old) will be one of religious conflict.
