I’m willing to bet that President Obama’s Christmas address this week will shine with religious significance about as bright as his unusually short Thanksgiving Proclamation, which gave a token reference to God via a quote from George Washington.

Even in Obama’s superstar Christmas interviews with Oprah and Gloria Estefan, there were discussions about Santa, Christmas trees, ornaments, gingerbread houses and even their dog’s Christmas stocking. Obama even gave a Christmas shout-out to all Hispanics. But there was not one discussion of religion or a hint of the real reason for the season.

Gone are the days when presidents and most politicians publicly rejoice in the birth of Christ.

But things were not always this way. As with many of you, I still remember a day even in Washington when Christ was central to Christmas. It was an America that was far less politically correct – an America that wasn’t afraid to stand up for its belief in the babe who was born in Bethlehem.

Here’s a small sample of that America represented in personal and public presidential Christmas proclamations and events, as documented in presidential library archives, at WhiteHouseChristmasCards.com and by historian David Barton in his treatise “Christmas with the presidents.”

On Christmas Day, 1795, President George Washington celebrated Christmas with members of Congress at his Mount Vernon estate, complete with a fox hunt, feast including “Christmas pie,” music, dancing and visiting that at times continued for a solid week.

America’s second president, John Adams, was the first to hold a White House Christmas party.

Thomas Jefferson loved celebrating Christmas, from his youth considering the day as a time of “merriment” and “The day of greatest mirth and jollity.” He threw elaborate parties at the White House and his Monticello estate for family and friends, played his violin, sang his favorite Christmas song, “Adeste Fideles” (“Oh Come All Ye Faithful”), and even gave his slaves a few days off each year to enjoy the holiday due to his abolitionist leanings.

(And let’s not forget, when at the White House during the eight years of his presidency, Jefferson attended church where he did each week in the Capitol building – something that continued through the Civil War – in 1867 it was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly.)

During the 1835 Christmas season, President Andrew Jackson sent out invitations and cards (of sorts) to local children inviting them to an event in the East Room on Christmas Day, in memory of a boy who had never heard of Christmas, never knew his father and whose mother died at a young age. That boy was Jackson himself.

President John Tyler also enjoyed hosting Christmas parties for children.

After a chaotic political season in December 1848, in which intense debate ensued over issues relating to slavery and expanding U.S. territory, President James K. Polk described Christmas Day as “perhaps the most quiet day of my presidential term,” despite apparently not accompanying Mrs. Polk and the children to church on that particular day.

President James Buchanan, a devout Presbyterian, would have his southern Pennsylvania estate extravagantly decorated at Christmas for the community to enjoy (a tradition that is still done to this day).

President Abraham Lincoln read the Bible throughout his life and attended services at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church on a regular basis, including at Christmas time. During the Civil War, he and his wife would visit hospitals on Christmas to help care for the wounded. During one political campaign, he declared “I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general. … I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of … religion.”

In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the bill that made Christmas Day a national holiday.

Being credited with establishing the tradition of posting a Christmas tree in the White House (the first occurrence being with President Franklin Pierce), President Benjamin Harrison was also a deeply devout Christian, who wrote to his son Russell in 1887, “I hope you will renew your Christian faith and duties. It is a great comfort to trust God – even if His providence is [at times] unfavorable. Prayer steadies one when he is walking in slippery places – even if things asked for are not given.”

In 1898, two years before his assassination, the New York Times wrote of the encouragement that President William McKinley and his ailing wife received from these words in their pastor’s Christmas Day sermon: “God’s Christmas gift of freedom has come to the suffering and wronged through the agency of a nation that was obedient to His call, and helpfulness sent forth form angelic lips – ‘Goodwill toward men.’”

Each year on Christmas Eves, President Theodore (“Teddy”) Roosevelt traveled to Christ Church in Oyster Bay, N.Y., and, following the pastor’s sermon, gave one of his famous “sermonettes” on the meaning of Christmas. The service would end with his favorite hymn, “Christmas by the Sea.”

In 1927, in every major newspaper across the land, a Christmas admonishment from President Calvin Coolidge was published in his own hand about “the real spirit of Christmas – if we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us all will shine a star-sending its gleam of hope to the world.”

President Herbert Hoover wrote to the Nation’s Christmas Trees Association on Dec. 25, 1931: “Your annual Christmas service … is a dramatic and inspiring event of national interest. It symbolizes and vivifies our greatest Christian festival with its eternal message of unselfishness, joy, and peace.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared in his Christmas address to the nation on Dec. 24, 1944 (the first Christmas after D-Day), “Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way – because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will. [FDR then prayed for the troops.] We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth in which all the Nations of the earth will join together for all time. That is the spirit of Christmas, the holy day. May that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come.”

President Harry Truman gave these words during his Christmas Eve national broadcast on Dec. 24, 1949, “Since returning home, I have been reading again in our family Bible some of the passages which foretold this night. … We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the Incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone – the love of God and the love of man – will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today.”

President Dwight Eisenhower publicly proclaimed on Dec. 23, 1960, “Through the ages men have felt the uplift of the spirit of Christmas. We commemorate the birth of the Christ Child by the giving of gifts, by joining in carols of celebration, by giving expression to our gratitude for the great things that His coming has brought about in the world.”

It’s well known that President John Kennedy was a Catholic. What’s not so well known is that, in 1957, then Sen. Kennedy disclosed at the National Conference of Christians and Jews Dinner what he believed would remedy the ills in society: “Upon what can we rely? Where can we compete? In what can we find hope for the future? The answer, I believe, lies ultimately in the very principles which we honor tonight – the principles of our Judaic-Christian heritage.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson publicly declared on Dec. 22, 1963, “We were taught by Him whose birth we commemorate that after death there is life. … In these last 200 years we have guided the building of our Nation and our society by those principles and precepts brought to earth nearly 2,000 years ago on that first Christmas.”

President Richard Nixon was a Quaker and hosted church services in the East Room of White House while he was president, initiated on his first Sunday in office by none other than Rev. Billy Graham.

President Gerald Ford publicly declared on Dec. 18, 1975, “In our 200 years, we Americans have always honored the spiritual testament of 2,000 years ago. We embrace the spirit of the Prince of Peace so that we might find peace in our own hearts and in our own land, and hopefully in the world as well.”

President Jimmy Carter spoke to the nation on Dec. 15, 1977, “Christmas has a special meaning for those of us who are Christians, those of us who believe in Christ, those of us who know that almost 2,000 years ago, the Son of Peace was born to give us a vision of perfection, a vision of humility, a vision of unselfishness, a vision of compassion, a vision of love.”

President Ronald Reagan repeatedly affirmed his and the nations’ Christian faith at Christmas time, like these words on Dec. 16, 1982, “In this holiday season, we celebrate the birthday of One who, for almost 2,000 years, has been a greater influence on humankind than all the rulers, all the scholars, all the armies and all the navies that ever marched or sailed, all put together. … [I]t’s also a holy day, the birthday of the Prince of Peace, a day when ‘God so loved the world’ that He sent us His only begotten Son to assure forgiveness of our sins.”

President George H. W. Bush stated to the nation on Dec. 18, 1989, “At Christmas, we, too, rejoice in the mystery of God’s love for us – love revealed through the gift of Christ’s birth. Born into a family of a young carpenter and his wife, in a stable shared by beasts of the field, our Savior came to live among ordinary men. Yet, in time, the miraculous nature of this simple event became clear. Christ’s birth changed the course of history, bringing the light of hope to a world dwelling in the darkness of sin and death. Today, nearly 2,000 years later, the shining promise of that first Christmas continues to give our lives a sense of peace and purpose. Our words and deeds, when guided by the example of Christ’s life, can help others share in the joy of man’s Redemption.”

President Bill Clinton addressed the nation on Dec. 21, 1999, with these words, “Saint Matthew’s Gospel tells us that on the first Christmas 2,000 years ago, a bright star shone vividly in the eastern sky, heralding the birth of Jesus and the beginning of His hallowed mission as teacher, healer, servant, and savior.”

And President George W. Bush spoke in his Christmas message on Dec. 21, 2007, “During the Christmas season, our thoughts turn to the source of joy and hope born in a humble manger on a holy night more than 2,000 years ago. Each year, Christians everywhere celebrate this single life that changed the world and continues to change hearts today. … Christmas is a time to rejoice and remember the birth of Jesus Christ.”

Will President Obama’s Christmas address rival those Christian confessions of past presidents? Or will his yuletide cheer be another politically correct concoction that has already adorned the first year of his presidency?

Based upon President Obama’s first year’s utter disregard for America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promotion of a secular-progressive agenda and pro-Islamic platforms, the only white Christmas I would count on at the White House is a continued whitewashing of religious tradition in Washington. But does America really need another version of “Away with the Manger”?

First, even during his campaign for the presidency, Obama sarcastically belittled America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist: “Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation”; “The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever”; “Religion doesn’t allow for compromise”: “The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn’t survive its application”; and “To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing.” (See the YouTube video: “Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.”)

Second, President Obama has already denied America’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” (Who are the “we” to whom he refers? Would our former presidents agree with his “we”?)

Third, quite contrary to Obama’s negative tone and sentiments about Judeo-Christian belief, in countless speeches over the past year he has sympathized and supported pro-Islamic theology and practice. Just recently, he encouraged Americans “not to jump to conclusions” about the Fort Hood shooter being a Muslim extremist. And he refused to say anything when the Muslim extremist and president of Iran publicly accused the U.S. of actively planning and plotting to stop mankind’s real savior: i.e. Mahdi, the imam that Muslims believe will be the ultimate savior of mankind.

Fourth, President Obama has enabled an anti-Christian agenda unlike any former president by revising America’s religious history, minimizing the role of religion today, passing secular-progressive legislation and turning a blind eye to issues like atheists’ lawsuit to remove the national motto (“In God We Trust”) off of the walls of the new Capitol Visitors Center in Washington, D.C., or the ACLU’s disposal of Veteran memorial crosses in the Mojave Desert and at Mount Soledad. Every time President Obama has had an opportunity to stand for Christianity in any way, he has not only denied it but disdained it.

A grave manifestation is Obamacare’s incorporation to use federal funds to pay for abortion and thereby force people of conscience who are pro-life to pay for the terminations of life in the womb across the country. (What a tragic piece of legislation to pass in the shadow of the day when we celebrate the birth of the world’s savior, Jesus Christ.)

What President Obama, like many other liberal politicians, needs is a paradigm shift – a new way of seeing America, which is really an old way. It’s the way our founders viewed America, and it incorporates a good ol’ fashioned Christmas proclamation of Christ’s birth. That America is the one I outline in my new (January 2010) paperback expansion of my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” which is ironically the same Christmas gift I’m sending to the president!

And there is one gift that I propose the president give this nation. Since Obama prides himself on being the technological president, in lieu of his Christmas proclamation this year, I suggest that he just send out across the nation the online link to a YouTube video that I had posted under the title, “Ronald Reagan Christmas Address (12/23/81).”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119611

The year 1960 was a monumental one during which this country elected John Kennedy as its president.   But the book 1960 – LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies illustrates once again that more is less.   Instead of writing a book about President Kennedy, Vice President Johnson or the losing presidential candidate Nixon, David Pietrusza attempts to cover them all at once; as a result more is lost than gained.

One basic problem is that the backgrounds and life events of these three separate large characters in U.S. history (and modern politics) are covered rapidly.   For the reader who has already read full biographies of JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, far too much is missed or condensed down to Reader’s Digest style summaries.   On the flip side, the reader who has never read in depth about these figures will likely be unable to comprehend some of what he/she is reading due to the very facts and circumstances that are left out.

I’ll provide an example of the latter problem.   One of the events that made Nixon a major, but young, political figure in the late 1050’s was his involvement in investigating Alger Hiss.   That is mentioned on just two pages in 1960 and what’s missing is an explanation of the key evidence found against Hiss that Nixon relied upon in alleging that Hiss was a Communist and/or a spy (notwithstanding that Hiss worked in the U.S. State Department for Franklin D. Roosevelt and was once the Secretary-General of the United Nations).   There’s no explanation here of the microfilm found in a pumpkin or the typewriter that was supposedly found to have been used by Hiss to commit a forgery.   For the person who is not familiar with Nixon, it will seem that he is credited for “breaking” Hiss but it will be unclear as to exactly why.   Nixon’s role as a prosecutor is hazy without a sufficient review of the evidence he presented against Hiss.

There’s another issue.   The book jacket states:  “Like The Making of the President, 1960 by Theodore White – yet far more revealing than Kennedy camp insider White could ever be…  (it) has the narrative energy and suspenseful turns and twists of a headlong thriller.   Yet it’s all true.”   Well, we actually don’t know today what is and is not true about what is reported as fact in 1960.   For example, there’s an entire chapter – a somewhat silly one – about Kennedy’s relationships with women (“They were a dime a dozen”); and statements about his father and brother Robert.   But these events happened so long ago that we do not, in fact, know what happened and what was alleged or was the product of someone’s imagination.

It’s also not clear what the impact of this information is supposed to be…  Enough said.   But, for me, the biggest fault with 1960 is that I never felt I was getting to know any of the three figures as human beings.   By contrast, Pietrusza shows some surprising skills by including some write-ups of peripheral figures that come off as much more real and human – individuals with true strengths and flaws.   Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller are two of the figures who come to life in 1960 in a way that the three lead subjects do not.

Finally, this is just not the suspenseful thriller touted on the book jacket.   For an excellent example of a non-fiction political/modern history book that does read like a Capitol thriller, the interested reader can turn to By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld by Bradley Graham.   Rules is an 832-page roller coaster ride that is never dull.   By comparison, 1960 is a 417-page survey that tries to cover the lives of three very large figures at one selected point in U.S. history.   It comes off as simultaneously both too big (focusing on three pivotal lives rather than one) and too small (leaving out too many key details while including a bit too much gossip).   As a result, it simply feels flat in the reading…   But maybe Pietrusza will produce a comprehensive biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey or Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller; either would – no doubt – be quite interesting.

This book was purchased by the reviewer.

A review of 1960 – LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidents by David Pietrusza.

Sometimes I wish that I could have a cooler car and then I have to talk myself down from fantasizing about what Ralph Nader calls “psychosexual dreamboats.”

Would you rather have a really fast car or a really fast boat? Airplane?

I watched Wedding Crashers on the TBS Superstation the other day and there’s this one part where Will Ferrel makes fun of a dude for dying while hanggliding and it is funny as fuck.

It reminds me of whn John Kerry was running for president. I saw some blurb in Time, or some shit picture mag, about him being an avid “kite boarder.” You know, those dudes that ride on the ocean on some kind of wakeboard thing with their body attached to a kite. That was the exact moment I knew he didn’t have a chance. He may have been swiftboated by big bad GOP hatchetmen, but he kiteboarded himself.

Who can relate to that shit? They always showed Kennedy in a sailboat. People like to see people in sailboats. It makes them think about simpler olden times, clean energy, and Jesus. People don’t like to see some fatcat in Martha’s Vineyard trying to keep up with the kids. Rich kids, at that.

I wonder if I’ll ever get a chance to swiftboat somebody. It’s kinda like when you try to tell your mom that the grass she found in your pants pocket is really just grass from the yard cuz you were playing football earlier and it’s not yours, or it’s for a school project and it’s fake. IF YOU SAY IT LOUD ENOUGH AND LONG ENOUGH IT BECOMES TRUE.

Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards Death Boards

Will people even remember Sara Palin in 30 years? People forget stuff fast, like: Iran/Contra, Watergate, Vietnam, USSR v. Afgahnistan.

Why do I have to hear my mom talk to me about death boards, Sarah Palin?

Why has your bullshit catchphrase so penetrated the collective consciousness that intelligent adults parrot it like Arnold Scwartzenagger’s dumbass kid in “Jingle All the Way” rattling off Turbo-Man’s key features?

Everyone on TV can suck this website’s dick. Fuck all yall.

Why don’t yall ever show a dissenting opinion? Why does the spectrum of possible opinion range from send a few more troops to send a lot more troops?

How bout Bill ORiley is Bin laden in disguise. Go shoot him in the dick.

Suc It,
Spezz

Spezz Meckman

Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy in 1962

It’s Time To Remember Who We Are As Americans!

Presidents are not destined to be loved. Virtue does not excite admiration. There is no better way for a President to attract a growing number of enemies than to express himself too explicitly on the multitude of subjects with which he is concerned. It is the little things that divide a nation.

For Kennedy, “power without justice is meaningless.” But politics is not concerned with morality or fine sentiments, and it was for his cold logic and his sincerity that Kennedy was contested, and even detested, throughout his lifetime. Resentment surrounded him on all sides. Not only the hate of the Far Right, the big businessmen, the oilmen or the military; not only the fanaticism of the extremists of the John Birch Society or the Ku Klux Klan. Organizations and corporations with little in common, be they financial, ideological, or simply mediocre or faint-hearted, joined in a common front against the invader. His adversaries included doctors and lawyers, churchmen and speculators, the American Legion, government officials, professional diplomats, and trade unionists.⁽¹⁾ To maintain the balance, the Far Right even joined forces with the utopian left to oppose him. The civil rights President, this intelligent and compassionate President, even counted Negroes, poor people, and intellectuals among his enemies.

Many anguished intellectuals felt that he had taken advantage of his position to seduce their brothers into betraying their vocation. For them, the professors from Harvard were putty in the hands of the professional politicians. They saw the President’s interest in philosophy and the arts as a ruse designed to neutralize their opposition by absorbing it. They thought it a shame to exchange first-class intellectuals like those in the vanguard of the New Frontier for second-class politicians, and for them a politician could only be second-class. They also claimed that Kennedy, like Carl Sandburg, was too progressive for the United States. Others, far above in their ivory towers, considered that the respect of the intellectual had nothing to do with the tragic problems of the times, the practical aspects of which very often eluded them. As for the liberal intellectuals, they criticized Kennedy for not launching an ideological crusade. They found the President too timid. They would have liked to see more lost causes, more big deficits, more lofty designs. They wanted him to eliminate the conservatives. The fact that Kennedy became almost as popular as Eisenhower reinforced their suspicions. They were unable to accept the idea of a popular President. For them, his popularity was enough to disqualify him as a intellectual or a liberal.

The utopian left went even further. It thought that the President should adopt a policy of strict neutrality in the Cold War. It felt that a really liberal President should follow in the footsteps of Switzerland, Sweden, or even India. It was totally opposed to nuclear dissuasion, be it preventive or coercive, and its creed was “better Red than dead.” The lowliest of the intellectuals accused Kennedy of “subversion, sabotage, corruption, blackmail and treason.” Revilo P. Oliver⁽²⁾ was later to write in The Conspiracy: “As long as there are Americans, he will be remembered with disgust. If the United States is saved by the desperate efforts of her patriots, a grand and glorious future can be ours. But we shall never forget how close we came to total destruction in the year 1963.”

Had Kennedy set out to “destroy” the United States when, on April 27, 1961, he expounded his ideas on government service?

“No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest . . .

“Of course, public officials are not a group apart. They inevitably reflect the moral tone of the society in which they live. And if that moral tone is injured — by fixed athletic contests or television quiz shows — by widespread business conspiracies to fix prices — by collusion of businessmen and unions with organized crime — by cheating on expense accounts, by the ignoring of traffic laws, or by petty tax evasion — then the conduct of our government must be affected. Inevitably, the moral standards of a society influence the conduct of all who live within it -the governed and those who govern.

The ultimate answer to ethical problems in government is honest people in a good ethical environment. No web of statute or regulation, however intricately conceived, can hope to deal with the myriad possible challenges to a man’s integrity or his devotion to the public interest. Nevertheless formal regulation is required — regulation which can lay down clear guidelines of policy, punish venality and double-dealing, and set a general ethical tone for the conduct of public business.”

At the end of his speech, the President declared that he was issuing an order:

a) prohibiting federal employees from accepting gifts;

b) prohibiting federal employees from using information not available — to the public for private gain;

c) prohibiting federal employees from using their authority to induce others to provide them with things of value;

d) prohibiting federal employees from accepting outside employment when such employment was considered “incompatible” with their government service.

He added that he intended to issue more detailed regulations concerning the conduct of Presidential appointees. Finally, he announced that a member of the Cabinet would be designated to coordinate all questions concerning morality in government.

Obviously, this exordium was greeted with little enthusiasm by certain federal employees. Still, they had the moral satisfaction of rereading what Kennedy had already said about them on January 30, 1961:

“I have pledged myself and my colleagues in the Cabinet to a continuous encouragement of initiative, responsibility and energy in serving the public interest. Let every public servant know, whether his post is high or low, that a man’s rank and reputation in this Administration will be determined by the size of the job he does, and not by the size of his staff, his office or his budget. Let it be clear that this Administration recognizes the value of dissent and daring — that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change. Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: ‘I served the United States government in that hour of our nation’s need.’”

The “initiative,” the “sense of responsibility” and the “energy” of the State Department became one of the President’s immediate preoccupations when he took office. “Foggy Bottom” was an enigma to Kennedy. “The State Department is a bowl of jelly full of people who are constantly smiling,” he told Hugh Sidey of Time. He felt that no one really ran it, and his directives and remonstrances to Dean Rusk had little effect. The only solution was a thorough-going reorganization, and had the White House had the opportunity, it would have undertaken the job. Instead, the President’s assistants confined themselves to acid comments like the following: “This is only the latest and worst in a long number of drafts sent here for Presidential signature. Most of the time it does not matter, I suppose, if the prose is tired, the thinking banal and the syntax bureaucratic, and occasionally when it does matter, State’s drafts are very good. But sometimes, as in this case, they are not.”

Kennedy and his advisers wanted a complete renovation of American foreign policy — not only of its style and its methods, but also of its orientation. The old hands at State considered this activist crusade as totally naive. The “striped-pants set” at Foggy Bottom had little confidence in this Platonic empire in modem dress. They regarded the New Frontier as closer to illusion than to hope. They believed that the wisdom of a policy is less important than its continuity, and that the mark of an amateur diplomat is his inability, or his refusal, to see that any change in policy, even for the better, implies a recognition of past error and is consequently detrimental to the national prestige. The professional diplomat thrives on routine and avoids making waves. He replaces a forceful expression with a milder phrase. He dissimulates the realities of this “seething planet of revolutionary violence, ferocity and hate” with euphemisms like “this great struggle for freedom,” the “free world,” and “national sovereignty.”⁽³⁾

Dean Rusk is certainly a good man, but as Secretary of State he lacked purpose. He bitterly resented the impertinent and welcome interference of the White House in the affairs of the Department of State. Like most of his subordinates, he felt that the capacity of words, phrases and style to dominate the political or economic realities of the modern world should never be underestimated — that a press conference is no substitute for foreign policy.

President Kennedy wanted to be his own Secretary of State. He had always been interested in foreign affairs, and if he didn’t always know where he would end up, at least he always knew where he was heading. At the White House, he was surrounded by a team of advisers known as the “Little White House,” the pillars of which were McGeorge Bundy and Robert Kennedy.⁽⁴⁾ A British liberal magazine, the New Statesman, wrote in 1963: “America has not one Secretary of State but half a dozen,” and added, “American diplomacy as a result has the improvised flavor of a touch football game on the White House lawn.” The author might as well have been talking about United States foreign policy in the pre-and post-Kennedy eras. American diplomacy has never been equal to the power of the United States and its international objectives.

The New York Times reported that American Peter W. Galbraith, the United Nation’s number two man in Afghanistan, proposed having the White House replace Afghan President Hamid Karzai shortly after that country’s troubled presidential election.  It is unknown if the White House or the Administration was directly involved with this scheme since they have plausible deniability and have since sacked Galbraith.

This Karzai effort seems eerily reminiscent of a coup plotted by the Kennedy Administration in 1963 to overthrow then South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem.  That miscalculation was one step in the ladder that led to America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

There are other similarities between the Kennedy and Obama administrations.  Both Presidents were/are young when elected, both were/are charismatic, and both brought newcomers into their administrations with little real-world experience.

The Kennedy Administration was involved in serious international crises earlier in that presidency.  This included the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile crisis, and our entry into the Vietnam War.  The Obama Administration is now in the process of escalating the Afghanistan War and has other significant international challenges, including the North Korean and Iranian nukes.  Hopefully Obama will fare better than Kennedy did in foreign affairs.

There is a huge difference between John Kennedy and Barack Obama.  While Kennedy was a liberal by modern standards, his views were so far to the right of Obama that he would be considered a “Tea Partier” in today’s Democratic Party.  How things have changed.  The Democrats are now controlled by the radical Left and the Republicans are controlled by blind ambition.  Sad!

Humility is the quality or state of being humble; to be humble means to rank low in hierarchy or scale. This definition best describes the willingness of members of the Kennedy clan to ignore the ranking in hierarchy associated with the wealth, glamour and photogenic quality of a privileged family to opt for service to others. Whether it’s the careers of the Kennedy brothers John, Robert and Edward serving in the executive and legislative branches of government fighting injustice in behalf of the less fortunate, or their sisters Eunice and Jean reaching out nationally and internationally to those with mental disabilities (The Special Olympics and the Very Special Arts) they represent profiles in humility.

I guess they learned from their Irish Catholic background the Christian practice of service to their neighbors. They recognized their neighbors to include the poor, the elderly, the disabled, victims of discrimination and war and those denied basic human rights. They knew that the “least of our brethren” are our neighbors too. Edward Kennedy recognized that the folks he vacationed with at Martha’s Vineyard were his neighbors but also were the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans too. Like wise Martin Luther King Jr. knew that the sanitation workers of Memphis were his neighbors. President Obama and the Congress are creating health care legislature acknowledging that those without health care are our neighbors.

To whom much is given much is expected. The Kennedy’s seem to have followed this scripture as their creed. You might not be as financially fortunate as a Kennedy but if you know of someone less fortunate than you and they have a need that’s your neighbor

President Obama has become the paler, lighter version of John Kennedy, and that creates a quandry.  JFK was far more charismatic, far more accomplished, and demonstrated a resolve and courage that Obama has not.  The Kennedy family was dazzling in a way the Obama family strains to match, and yet ultimately fails to equal.  Yet in the end, both are now charismatic young Democratic presidents who couldn’t really get anything done.

And it’s beginning to look like Obama is going to have to make the hard decisions about Afghanistan that JFK never had to make about Viet Nam.

Clearly, the accomplishments of Kennedy’s presidency actually occurred after Johnson took over.  I don’t think that Biden has that in him, he’s too old and never was an LBJ to begin with.  I think that if Obama is going to accomplish anything real (disregarding the “solid B+” grade he gave himself, and the wistful Nobel Peace Prize) he’s going to have to carry his own water.  I believe that JFK would have figured that out.  Given enough time, perhaps Obama will figure out what it takes to get anything real done.  I suspect he will not, and rely on a public relations machine, fanatically loyal followers, and smoke/mirrors.

A couple of months ago, I described how Obama could get health care “done”.  That was a recommendation of substance: use all eight Congressional sessions, knock down the obvious first, evaluate and report along the way.  He hasn’t called me, and neither have any of his people, so I conclude he isn’t a serious person on this topic.  He seems to be satisfied to declare victory and abandon the field (very unJFK-like, I should say).

Our President is shrinking before our eyes.  That is not in our best interest, especially in foreign affairs.  When foreign leaders and foreign peoples see Obama’s vulnerability and limits, they will be merciless.  With George Bush they held their scorn and reserved their criticisms until he was out of office because they knew Bush would have scorned them right back.  If Obama shrinks very much more, we will all be an object of international ridicule, and this time I don’t expect anyone to wait for him to leave office.

For a politician who knew so well how to run a campaign and win an election, he needs to swivel 180 degrees and bring that brilliance (whatever that was) to bear on being an equally brilliant President.  G’night all, and may God continue to bless America.

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM—What has Israel contributed to the impasse in the peace process, and to the suffering of Palestinians?

That is a question several have asked me, often with a follow up charging that I have not responded.

I have responded, more than once. Those convinced of Israeli culpability either have not understood my English, or they are not satisfied with my explanations. When I do not list the severe errors that they hold dear, they accuse me of evading the question.

Israelis have made no shortage of accusations against their own government for “missing opportunities.” Usually this means not offering enough, or not taking advantage of the possibilities of Palestinian receptivity with a generous offer.

No doubt Israel has not made its offers attractive enough. The question is, could Israel have offered enough to satisfy Palestinians and other Arabs, and lessened restrictions on the West Bank and Gaza, without endangering its own security?

Could it have gone after the really bad people, and allowed other Palestinians freedom of movement, including opportunities to work in Israel?

To those questions there is no absolute yes or no.

Moreover, it is overly simple to discuss “Israel” as a policymaking entity, just as it is overly simple to discuss “The United States” or any other democracy.

Democracies have dominant policymakers, but those individuals cannot overlook the pressures received from domestic allies and antagonists, the constraints of economics and international politics. Israel’s political spectrum is wide and boisterous, with demands for spending more on social services or doing more to pursue peace with the neighbors. There are religious Jews more concerned with observing the Sabbath than anything else, intense religious nationalists who feel they have a deed from the Almighty for the whole of Eretz Israel, and young couples, with or without a religious motivation, who want the best housing they can acquire for the least money.

One result of all these pressures is about 500,000 Israeli Jews living on land that Palestinians claim as their own. For numerous Palestinians, all Israelis are living on Palestinian land.

There may have been missed opportunities since the crucial events of 1948 and than 1967, but they have not been obvious.

Israeli policymakers have generally not moved any more heroically or decisively than policymakers in other democracies. Israel has limped along following what its officials perceived as opportunities and constraints, rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the present and future, then an assiduous pursuit of a rational strategy. Over the years settlers have demanded construction, suburbanites have demanded homes on cheap land, Palestinians have not come forward with attractive offers, and inertia has done its work. Politicians typically do what is easiest, not what one or another group of deep thinkers with controversial ideas claim is wisest.

Occasionally there is an heroic moment in politics, but often they end badly. Remember John Kennedy ordering an escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, and George W. Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan with aspirations to make them stable democracies?

Among the tough nuts currently facing those who would bring peace to the Holy Land are those half a million Jews living where others do not want them. No one should expect a Jewish government to move them, especially after the removal of a few thousand Jews from Gaza brought rockets instead of peace.

Those faulting the Israeli government for missing opportunities have their favorite moments when they are convinced peace was at hand. Camp David in 2000 was one of those. Analysts quarrel about offers made, Palestinian responses, the presence or lack of counter offers, or whether the whole thing was made hopeless by the Palestinian narrative of being the sole party that has suffered, and having the weight of Islam on their side.

Without trying the impossible of solving this or other disputes about moments in history, I have no trouble faulting the Palestinians for mistakes greater than those of the Israelis. It has not be wise for them to insist on what the side with greater power has viewed as unacceptable: the right of refugees and their families to return, and 1967 borders. They have spoiled their chances further by incitement of their own people, and violence against Israeli civilians. The result is a profound lack of trust, which threatens the viability of any negotiations.

The claimed “punishment” of all Palestinians because of a few bad applies is another issue without a simple answer. Armies do not operate like the local police. They do not have complete control over the population, and the people they would arrest have the means to resist them. Are the Israelis less considerate of the local population than other active armies? The question provokes loud claims rather than conclusive answers. The Goldstone Report on Gaza demonstrates predetermined conclusions and reliance on questionable testimony that renders it a hostile document rather than anything reliable.

Is Gaza the world’s largest prison, as claimed by those thinking they are on the moral high ground?

Blockade is a conventional way of warfare, not objectionable when waged against an enemy who targets one’s own civilians, and fails to provide a prisoner the elementary rights assured by the rules of warfare. The IDF monitors levels of food, fuel and medications allowed into Gaza. Reports are that the people eat better, and are healthier than those in much of the Third World. Part of the explanation is the United Nations, which had been providing food, housing and medical care for 60 years, as well as protection for fighters and stores of munitions in its facilities. The Palestinians suffer as a result of all that assistance, insofar as they have been kept from looking after themselves.

You have heard of welfare dependence. The Palestinians represent the world’s worst case.

Add Obama to the problems currently facing both sides. He has lessened whatever meager prospects there were by his overreaching demand of a total freeze of settlement building, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and then backing down and praising Israel’s partial compliance. The combination has turned both the Israelis and the Palestinians against him, lessened his credibility as a mediator and the prospects of peace in the near future.

There have been several years of relative quiet, considerable economic development, and fewer Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. If Palestinians can see those signs as better than violence, it may help to keep the heroes out of action. The crucial element of trust among Palestinians as well as Israelis may then grow to the point where meaningful negotiations are feasible.

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University

TRUCAJ – “Forrest Gump” (1994) – întâlnirea cu… John Lennon (decedat în… 1980)

ORIGINAL – John Lennon & Yoko Ono în Tony Cox’s Show

TRUCAJ – “Forrest Gump” (1994) – întâlnirea cu… John F. Kennedy (decedat în… 1963)

***

© Alexandru Dan Mitache • 2009

]]> http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/palins-dangerous-anti-intellectualism/ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:17:55 +0000 sarahpalintruthsquad http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/palins-dangerous-anti-intellectualism/

Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin signed a book outside Barnes & Noble Booksellers at Woodland Mall in Grand Rapids on Wednesday evening.

A dangerous divide has been developing for some years in America, between those who are comfortable negotiating the wide array of knowledge and information sources now available, and those who are not. It is in many aspects a class divide, one side characterized by wealth, professional degrees, security and complacency, the other by shrinking incomes and high credit card debt, anxiety about the future, and anger at those in power.

One U.S. Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, recently called this America’s greatest present danger, more potent than our international entanglements, the financial crisis, health care, energy or environment. The “tea party” protests over health care and immigration policy are one manifestation of that divide. Another, related, is the current response to Sarah Palin.

Palin has become the champion of a new wave of populism. People attracted to her are outraged over federal bailouts for Wall Street bankers, resentful of benefits accorded illegal immigrants, incensed over the notion of federally funded abortions, and perhaps most disturbing, suspicious of education. A fairly consistent analysis of the Palin phenomenon concludes that she is the happy beneficiary of this protest coalition, having happened into her celebrity role by the accident of timing, a willing but passive instrument. But her willing embrace of the role of symbolic embodiment of protest makes her as much a generator as recipient of it.

Populist protest is nothing new in America. Andrew Jackson quite deliberately created the first wave of popular anger at elite power in our political history and rode it successfully into the presidency before the Civil War. Later, William Jennings Bryan captured the wrath of farmers and small merchants displaced and disadvantaged by emerging industrialism at the end of the nineteenth century, running as the standard-bearer of both the Democrat and Peoples’ Parties. But industrialization had benefited too many people, and the reforms he advanced seemed too threatening to a majority of the electorate. Franklin Roosevelt organized populist anxiety over the future of the American economy into an electoral coalition that carried him through four successful elections, and saved capitalism in the offing. The civil rights movement of the 1960s proved too potent for John Kennedy to ignore, hard though he tried initially, and by embracing it he became one of its heroes.

These are populist success stories, even Bryan’s, for much of the reform the Peoples’ Party advocated was realized in the Progressive Era. But populist protest has succeeded only when it has offered a positive program and enjoyed effective leadership. Without these, it has faltered and dissipated. It seems unlikely that Palin, having abdicated as governor, will be able to provide operative direction for the current movement.

While the present tea party unrest follows somewhat this long populist tradition, it is unusual in at least one respect: distrust of education.

Though in her book Palin explains that her college journey was interrupted frequently because she had to work to earn her tuition, at other times she has disparaged education. Her poor showing in the Katie Couric interview and her manifest disinterest in the details of governance suggest someone for whom information is not important. In the election campaign and on her book tour Palin has represented herself as ordinary, a person whose values come from the cultural experience of hard-working, Christian common folk who regard more than rudimentary schooling as unnecessary. There is more than a hint of anti-intellectualism in her message and her demeanor. Impatience with critical analysis and appreciation of the complexities and ambiguities of reality is characteristic of many of the faithful attracted to her rallies and book-signings.

Throughout American history education has been understood as a pathway to economic advance, responsible citizenship and human fulfillment. But that assumption is subject to considerable challenge today. Yet it is still true that high school and college completion leads to higher lifetime earning. And the disadvantaged sense the truth that their powerlessness corresponds to their failure to understand government and other power structures. Thus, as Palin’s populism encourages anti-intellectualism, it represents a significant disservice to the very people she purports to champion. It’s a disservice that’s a danger for them, and for American society.

Steve Haycox
Anchorage Daily News

While Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website in the world and the number of people using it continues to increase, recent research has discovered that its volunteer editors have been leaving in vast numbers and this trend looks set to continue. Does this mean Wikipedia has had its day?

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger created Wikipedia in 2001 with the aim of empowering people with knowledge by compiling a free encyclopedia for everyone in the world. It uses open source software and is a non-profit organisation relying on fundraising. In 2007 it had grown to 2 million articles and today it has more than 14 million articles in over 250 languages.

Many think Wikipedia’s success has been due to its simple yet radical principles; anyone can write and edit Wikipedia’s articles. However, Andrew Lih, the author of “The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia“, sees Wikipedia as merely having extended the hacker culture of a free and open cyberspace to mainstream Internet users.

Students the world over use Wikipedia as a resource whether their teachers or parents like it or not, or are aware of it or not. I’ve come across lecturers who despise it with a passion, while others accept their students’ use of it. I actively discourage my university students by focusing instead on the importance of approaching online sources with a critical head. Yet I have to admit relying on Wikipedia when I want to find out information quickly (Wikipanion is one of only a few iPhone applications I use on a daily basis). I hang my head in shame, but also wonder why people are preferring to only use Wikipedia passively.

One reason put forward for the rapid decline in volunteers is the increase in bureaucracy, which has taken the original fun out of freely contributing content. Wikipedia adopted additional rules to exercise more control and avoid entries like John Seigenthaler being wrongly accused of involvement in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy (and, my personal favourite, that David Beckham was an 18^th century Chinese goalkeeper), but in doing so could be seen as becoming more like the organisations it originally set itself apart from. Yet without good quality control, Wikipedia is an unreliable resource which can’t be taken seriously.

But how will the lack of editors affect Wikipedia? Losing 49,000 English language editors in the first three months of this year must have some impact. Are we seeing the demise of free user-generated content or is it merely a natural evolution?

I just came over from Aldo Vidali’s Luminous Compass where I found a very rare video of John Kennedy from his days in office where he gives the system a true lambasting. I dare say Republicans must have been soiling their pants at this one and are probably regretting that it has resurfaced. Especially now!! Eva Colinger is on the prowl again this time in Nicaragua and pointing out that the U.S. is up to its old tricks again. I wonder if anyone in the White House is savy to any coup attempts down in South America? It seems to me that there is some rattling of War Drums in the air.

You might want to go over to the Luminous Compass and read the latest.

The Dangerous View Ahead

You might also want to check out these articles. They are in Spanish but not a good translator can’t handle.

EEUU manipula a sociedad civil en Nicaragua, dice experta

“No debemos de ceder espacios”

Nicaragua denuncia financiamiento de EE  UU

Chaves might want to tighten up the borders for any “Spooks”. No doubt they are already crawling around. Remember 2002!!!

Sunday was the 46th anniversary of President John Kennedy’s assassination. Two hours and 8 minutes after Kennedy was shot, Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn aboard Air Force 1. The hastily arranged swearing-in ceremony marked a number of firsts in American history.

• The ceremony was conducted by Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes, making Johnson the first — and thus far only — U.S. president sworn in by a woman.
• Air Force 1 was still on the ground at Love Field Airport in Dallas when the ceremony was conducted, giving Johnson — a proud Texan — the distinction of being the only U.S. president sworn in on Texas soil.
• Johnson, who was not Catholic, is the only U.S. president to take the oath of office using a Catholic Missal. The Catholic prayer book was used because aides could not find a Bible aboard Air Force 1. Johnson was not the first president sworn in without a Bible. Shortly after the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt took the oath without using a Bible or any other book. Franklin Pierce affirmed the oath of office in 1853 using a law book, as did, John Quincy Adams in 1825. Adams used a law book that contained a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Thirteen year old Francis was found in a urinal in Majestic, eating his own flesh. He is mentally challenged and abandoned. His

 hunger drove him to eat his own flesh. He put his wrists to his mouth and chewed then. John Kennedy saw this child and embraced him. He brought him to ‘Morning Star,’ a home he runs for abandoned children. He has 55 children in the house, of which 20 children are mentally challenged.

A quarry which is just 200 meters from the home, has made life difficult for these children. The noise from the quarry scars the challenged children, who scream and have sleepless nights. It affects them so much that one among them Krishna passed away a few days ago. “He hated the noise, and would scream. One day after he heard a blast, he gave a loud shriek and fell on the ground. I took him to the hospital, but he passed away the next day,” said John. The impact of the blasts has also left cracks in the house.

When John’s repeated visits to the mines and geology department yielded no results, he filed a case in the civil court. The blasts stopped three weeks ago, but not the problems. The quarry owner Bachegowda cut the water pipeline of the house. For two weeks, John had to buy water from private suppliers. “We need 4,000 litres of water only for the challenged children. They pass out wastes wherever they are. So we need water to keep them clean,” he said.

John filed a complaint in Devanahalli police station, but the pipelines remained broken.

Two days ago the children of the home themselves fixed the pipeline. But John has been getting threats to his life. The quarry owners also tried to force him to sign on papers stating that the quarry poses no problems.

The hearing of the case was on Thursday, and is now adjourned to February 19. But when John was near a Photostat shop in the court premises, the quarry owners snatched the documents in his hand and tore them. Luckily he had another copy of them.

John found his first child on the roadside 19 years ago. The child is now 24 years old and is a pharmacist. He brought him in a one room house, and from then on there was no looking back. He picked up kids from dustbins, railway tracks, urinals and roads.

His latest child is eight year old Philip. He sits in a pram, and his physical and mental growth is that of a one year old. This challenged child was found abandoned on the road side. “He was stinking and I thought he would die in my arms, but by God’s grace, there is a lot of improvement now.” Another child like Philip, Joseph was found laid on the railway track. Joseph can now sit on a chair. Both these children cannot stand the sound of the quarry. “They can’t even stand thundering and rain. The quarry noise, makes them yell and cry.”

Thirteen year old Tata Sumo looks like a three year old. He has a hole in his heart. John found him laid on a railway track. Murali was also found on the railway track. But his stomach was cut open. John not only saved his life, but also gave a new life. Arul was found eating cow dung on MG road.

John has been helping the needy from a very young age. When he was a student at St Joseph’s College, he used to collect the clothes of beggars on weekends and wash them at the hostel. He then founded ‘Morning Star.’ It is located in Chalagatti, near Yelahanka in Bamgalore.

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM— One should never say never. However, Probably not is a fair guess.

Closest to me is one more round in the endless conversations among officials about peace between Israel and Palestine.

The latest we hear is that Israel is willing to stop building settlements, stop taking Palestinian land, and will remove “illegal” settlements once negotiations begin.

Does that mean stop creating new settlements, stop adding on the fringes of existing settlements, or stop building within existing settlements?

Can we assume that it does not include a promise not to build within Jerusalem, given the loud assertions of the prime minister, supported by large majorities in Israeli polls?

So far the Palestinian leadership has not moved down from the lofty position it reached as a result of earlier rhetoric by the American President and Secretary of State. They are still insisting on a complete freeze, including Jerusalem, as a condition for starting negotiations.

And that nasty problem of Gaza is still hanging.

If we look at facts on the ground, the picture becomes even more complicated, in ways that challenge simple portrayals.

Reliable sources indicate that Israel has slowed or stopped construction in sensitive neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The most recent flap about Gilo involves planning approvals by one level in a complex bureaucracy. In the best of circumstances, the people involved may be at least a year away from actual construction.

Are the realities–whatever they are–enough to satisfy the White House or the folks claiming to run things from Ramallah?

That is not apparent. Residents, architects, and contractors can complain about delays or rejections in their applications for construction, but the Israeli politicians who are claiming to represent their people assert that there is no freeze, and American and Palestinian politicians claiming to control their realms are drawing lines that may or may not represent reality.

So who’s to judge?

And so far we’ve been dealing with the smallest of details, unimportant to anyone other than a few thousand residents and business people concerned about homes and profits.

Think of this as a lesson in government, taught by a retired professor of public administration. In short, obfuscation or disinformation is the language of politicians, and the bureaucracy is the government. The politicians blather on at the top, and often do not know, and do not control what happens among those formally responsible to them. John Kennedy once said, “There is always a schmuck who doesn’t get the word.”

The professor says that there is more than one schmuck, they are not likely to think of themselves as schmucks, and they have their own readings of the laws, rules, and their responsibilities. And, to be sure, some of them are schmucks, i.e., either lazy, ill informed, or intent on using their bit of power to do what they want, no matter what others may say.

The lesson is relevant for officials,clerks, and advisers in units dealing with local planning in Israel, policy formulations and implementation in the White House and State Department, and whoever is currently doing anything or speaking to the media in Ramallah and Gaza.

Somewhat more important issues like the Iranian nuclear program, and the future of those millions in Iraq and Afghanistan are also dependent on the claims and assertions of those who must demonstrate their knowledge and control, when actually they are far from well informed and control only a bit of what happens.

It should be no surprise that there are also schmucks, and individuals convinced that they know best at all levels of everybody’s military.

Are we on the road to peace here? Stability in Iraq? Something or other in the place called Afghanistan? A solution for Iran’s messianic aspirations?

Never say never, but probably not is a decent answer.

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University.