The glaringly obvious hole in airport security is the political correctness that requires everyone to go through the same security check. Does a 75 year old grandmother from Memphis -who flies regularly - really need to go through the same security check as a 23 year old Nigerian Muslim, who has Yemen stamped on his passport? El Al Airlines is the most secure airline in the world and their first line of defense is psychological profiling. Once someone is flagged (for whatever reason), they must go through a gauntlet of intense security questioning and inspection. The USA is too big and our resources are too limited to examine everyone using the same methods - and the result was what happened on Flight 253. We need to focus our airport security resources on those who are most likely to fit the profile of a terrorist: Individuals traveling either alone or in groups, between the age of 16-45, who may appear to be Islamic, have an Islamic name, have traveled in the past to Europe, Africa, Indonesia or the Mideast, and who appear nervous and can’t easily explain their past or where they are going . Does anyone remember the last time a 50 year old blonde haired Swede, or a 80 year old couple from Stuttgart blew up a plane?
I understand the implications of profiling to one’s civil rights, but we’re not talking about the horrible internment that happened to the Japanese during WW2. We must allow our society to protect itself from an enemy that has no boundaries, and views our civil sensibilities as a weakness to be exploited. After all, doesn't society - as a whole - have the civil right to be protected while in the air?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama’s 1 year foreign policy report card grade: F
President Obama came into the office 11 months ago with virtually zero foreign policy experience, but with an expectation that he could staff his administration with smart people who specialized in the field. In a moment of supreme over-confidence, he announced in a Cairo speech that he was going to “re-engage the Muslim world in a way that would respect their culture”, while at the same time “work to solve the Israeli/Arab conflict” once and for all. This was his stated a foreign policy priority during his first term. While it’s only been 11 months, let’s take an inventory of his accomplishments so far:
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
Monday, December 21, 2009
Is the Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial staff anti-Israel?
Please explain to me why the CA felt the need to report on a criminal incident that perpetrated by one individual in Israel in 1990 in your snip-it entitled "Israel: Organ Harvesting in 1990's reveled" (12/21/09 A4). The "rehashing" of the 1990 incident, especially when framed in an accusatory tone against the entire state of Israel as if it happened yesterday, is nothing more than an overt attempt to demonize the Israeli people. The timing of this regurgitation - 4 days before Christmas - is especially suspect.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
What is love?
Max Fargotstein on on love and Marriage. Written on August 5th, 1970, at age 57 yrs.
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)