Fire Hydrant of Freedom

GM, perhaps sometime I am missing the point; please make one... rather than posting irrelevant articles.

Regarding English Law, "As for me being wrong, time will tell."  Maybe yes, maybe no, but you are WRONG today and therefore your post was wrong today.  Simply admit you are WRONG; period. Just follow the simple logic...

As for McCain being "confused" I was not referring to any mental disease (I find the man competent albeit not brilliant) simply that he does not seem to have an answer and that he wildly fluctuates on his response to the economic issues of today.  Even the WSJ agreed.  Nothing sinister.  Trying to smear the messenger, yet it was a WSJ article, you posted a lengthy post on Cafferty receiving a traffic ticket; so?  A post on a traffic ticket ... that was just plain silly and inane.

And I doubt "that Obama has concerns about his mental competency due to his history of hard drug use" or if anyone else has a concern; his brain worked well enough to get through Harvard and Harvard Law; he could lose a few brain cells and still be far ahead of McCain.

I can't tell you why the muslim world has so little in the way of accomplishment; I don't know.  I  think many problems contribute to their lack of success; money is not the only answer.  But then by your definition, Africa has achieved nothing, Central and Latin America have achieved nothing, nor has most of Asia and frankly, much of Europe.  They are all "failures" by your "success" definition.  Yet in many of these places, the people are very happy.

And I am glad Israel is a friend, but then I am happy Canada, England, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. are friends too; they are all successful yet they don't demand billions of dollars in aid each year; they are successful and they pay their own way.  These successful countries give money to the needy, they don't beg for money for themselves. As for it being "the right thing to do" I am not sure I know what that means.  Isn't it also the right thing to do to give these billions to education, poverty and disease like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in areas where it is really needed?  Giving and charity is not giving to the rich and successful; it's giving to the needy, isn't it?

Egypt's population in over 10 times that of Israel; yet the aid given is less than half...  And the money buys off Egypt..., but you know that.  As for the rest of the Middle East, they are given crumbs...

But that is not my point.  You said, and I agree, Israel is a rich and successful country; soooo my question is why are we giving them "up to three billion dollars" of foreign aid???  Israel is rich, and I admire their success, but... how would they have done on their own without our money and UN votes???  Frankly, I wonder...  Taking nothing away, but their success is slightly tainted; sort of like my analogy of the rich guy and the poor guy I gave above.  I admire them, both, but...  I mean you said America is the most charitable nation on earth.  So why not to give the aid to countries that really need aid; countries with hunger and disease issues, etc.?  That's what giving" and "charity" is all about, isn't it?  Giving to the needy?  Versus giving to the rich?

Actually GM, my point was not Cafferty (do I really care if he was in a car accident and got a traffic violation ticket? Gee, I got a traffic ticket this month too)
but that the Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch publication (Fox News) came out and skewered McCain.  You know, the WSJ, the same publication that
the conservatives love to quote?  Even the WSJ wonders if McCain knows what end is up!

Here's the article from September 19, 2008 in case you missed it.


Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox.
To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."

Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.

Take "naked" shorting, in which an investor sells a stock short -- betting that it will fall in price -- without first borrowing the shares he is selling from an investor who owns them. The SEC has never condoned the practice, and since 2005 it has clamped down on short selling in any stock that shows evidence of naked shorting. The SEC further tightened its rules against naked shorting just hours before Mr. McCain excoriated Mr. Cox for doing nothing.

The rules announced Wednesday will increase penalties and close loopholes that exempted broker-dealers from the rules against naked shorting. They also make it clear that deliberately selling short a stock whose shares cannot be borrowed is fraud under the Securities Exchange Act. That's all to the good, we suppose; fraud is fraud. But regular short selling is not fraud. It adds valuable information to the market about what investors believe to be the price direction of a stock. Demonizing short-sellers as a band of criminals, or barring short-selling outright in financial stocks, as regulators in the U.K. did Thursday, removes information from the market.

Then there's Mr. McCain's tirade against the "uptick rule," a Depression-era chestnut that investors could only short stock after a rise in that stock's price. The SEC staff studied the effect of the uptick rule on prices for years, in a controlled experiment involving thousands of stocks. It found the rule had no effect. Other studies, including those that examined the uptick rule's effect on stocks disclosing bad news, also found that it "protected" no one. The SEC's permanent staff has long supported repeal and the SEC's commissioners voted to do so unanimously in June 2007.

While he was at it, Mr. McCain added the wholly unsupported assertion that "speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground." It wasn't very long ago that he blamed speculators on the long side for sky-high oil prices. Then oil prices fell. Now Mr. McCain wants voters to believe speculators are responsible for driving mismanaged financial companies to ruin. The irony is that this critique puts Mr. McCain in the same camp as some of the Wall Street CEOs who have led their firms so poorly. They also want someone (else) to blame.

In case Mr. McCain is interested, overall short interest in financial companies actually declined by 20% between July and the end of August. That's right: Far from driving this crisis, shorts were net buyers of financial stocks this summer, as they must buy stocks back to close their positions and realize their gains (or losses).

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.

It seems McCain is having a bad week

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/how-does-the-wsj-article-affect-mccain/

And elsewhere, he is busy quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt; poor McCain, he must really be confused.

**Ok, let's post in the Israel thread. I'll post all the scientific advances, books published, nobel prizes and contributions to medical science that have come from Israel. You can do the same for that "Palestinians". Want to wager as to who will have the longer list?**

Ahhh GM no doubt you will have the LONGER list; but long isn't everything...   

Maybe you should have a good glass of wine and a cigar; it might be good for you   

Quote from: JDN on September 17, 2008, 10:46:34 PM

Quote from: G M on September 17, 2008, 10:00:55 PM

JDN,

When are you flying off to Al-Azhar university to lecture those islamic theologians on the un-islamic nature of female genital mutilation?

Gosh, did I miss a day of geography class?  To be fair, it's been a while.  But, I mean, isn't Al=Azhar University still in Africa??  Or did it move and I missed it?
Wasn't I (I'm sorry I mean WHO and UNICEF) clear enough in my post above that this is an "African problem", a terrible problem, but it is not necessarily an Islamic problem and rarely does it appear
among practicing Muslims in the Middle East or Europe or the US?  To answer your question, No, I don't plan on going to Al-Azhar in Africa, or Ethiopia, or Somalia, or Yemen,
or ...... or any other place in Africa and lecture on female genital mutilation.

**A perfect example of your utter ignorance on this topic.**

http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/mashaykh_azhar.htm

Al-Azhar is the world's oldest university, older than Cambridge or Oxford. Situated at the heart of Cairo, Egypt's capital, Al-Azhar has been the greatest learning centre for Muslims since it was first built by the Fatimid dynasty in the 10th century AD. 

The Fatimids were of Shiah belief. They erected Al-Azhar as an institution to propagate the teachings of the Isma'iliya madhhab. When the Ayyubids took over Egypt, they turned Al-Azhar into a school that taught the Sunni understanding of Islam.

Rich in tradition and knowledge, Al-Azhar had produced brilliant ulama throughout history. Examples of Imam Suyuti, Imam Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani and Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Haitami bejeweled its glorious past. Contemporary ulama produced by this university include Shaykh Ghazali and Shaykh Sha`rawi. With thousands of others, these giants of Islamic knowledge became the symbol of Al-Azhar supreme position among Muslims, something unrivalled thus far.

Today, Al-Azhar is not just a university, but an institution that vanguard the teachings of Sunni Islam, and an umbrella body to which thousands of ulama affiliate themselves with. The Head of Al-Azhar, called the Grand Imam (Imamul Akbar Shaykhul Azhar), was previously appointed by a committee of Azharian top scholars (shuyukh). But now it is under the appointment from the Egyptian President from the advice of the committee. Recently however, the Egyptian government is getting inclined to leave the matter of appointment purely in the hands of the Azharian ulama.

Ahhhh GM I never said Al-Azhar university isn't a fine university or isn't "rich in tradition and knowledge"; I (a study by WHO and UNICEF - read unbiased source) simply stated that FMG is an AFRICAN PROBLEM ergo Al-Azhar being in Africa represents an African take on the problem.  IF Al-Azhar was in in the Sudan or Ethiopia or Somolia it would be the same; they are all in Africa; got it?  FMG according to unbiased references (often you seem to have a hard time finding these) is a result of poverty and ignorance; yes Islam in Africa supports FMG as does a dozen or more other religions in Africa. And elsewhere, people talk of it, a few people are proponents of it, but not a significant number and even then in nearly every case they are from Africa. That one or a very few Islamic individuals promote it does not make a majority of Muslims supporting it. Most Muslims abhor it and do not practice FMG.  Again, my point, the vast majority of Muslims are good people as are most Buddhists, Christians and Jews, and most....  but all religions have extremists and they are dangerous.  But to bash all Muslims seems wrong to me.

[quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=977.msg21143#msg21143 date=1221687272

@GM:

The piece you post is powerful. Before spreading it around, I find myself wondering about these numbers:

"More than a hundred and thirty million women living today have been victimized by this horrifying crime, and more than two million girls are assaulted by it each year. In other words, we are talking about 6,000 girls every day -- 6,000 girls today."

Lets see.  1.3 billion Muslims= 675,000,000 women.

130/675= approximately 20%.  If we screen out girls too young for the amputation, the percentage is even higher. 

This number seems questionably high to me.  My understanding is that the clitorectomies tend to take place in Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, Yemen-- not through out the Muslim world-- though the larger point of the neuroses about women remains.
[/quote]

Crafty, you are right to question these numbers.  FMG is primarily an African problem; few examples exist anywhere else in the Middle East.  And according to UNICEF it is not an Islamic problem, but one of poverty and ignorance.  UNICEF found "no evidence of FMG in the middle east".  While I always doubt absolute numbers, the tradition predates Islam and primarily is centered in Africa; I am not saying examples do not exist, but the problem is not prevalent (rarely exists?) in the US or Europe among Muslims or even in the Middle East.  Yet FMG is a terrible problem.  But ignorance and tradition is the problem.  IF you have AIDS, but sleep with a virgin in Africa, you are cured??? hmmm No, you just simply spread the AIDS problem....  It's not Islam's fault, but simply ignorance.  Sometimes I think on this forum we blame Islam for every little problem in society today; better to look around us or simply just look in the mirror. 

Once again I acknowledge the logic of your point and once again I invite you to address the underlying question about sharia being the camel's nose inside the tent for something seditious.

Sooo rather than "Crafty" am I to call you Solomon?   

Quote from: JDN on September 17, 2008, 08:48:57 AM

GM: As established over and over ad nauseam, Sharia Courts are CIVIL COURTS; that is the basis and foundation for this whole discussion.  Given that they are Civil Courts, yet not really even a "Court", but rather a VOLUNTARY (both parties must agree) binding place of arbitration, it has no basis or relevancy to the criminal system or English Criminal Law.  In your example above "the women withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the Police, who then called off the criminal investigation."  In similar matters, it's the SAME in America; no complaint, usually no investigation or charge.  Yet IF the women had chosen to pursue CRIMINAL CHARGES, the Police would have finished their investigation and the Prosecutor, both here and in England, would bring CRIMINAL charges IF appropriate.  Their decision to bring charges and the severity of the punishment thereafter, if appropriate, would have NOTHING to do with the decision of the Sharia Court or any other Voluntary Arbitration or Civil Proceeding.

It varies from state to state, I can tell you that my state has very strict laws regarding domestic violence. The state, not the victim pursues charges related to domestic violence. My state statute requires that any time a peace officer finds there is probable cause to believe that dv has occurred, he/she SHALL make a custodial arrest. Failure to do so is official misconduct. If a peace officer in my state were convicted of official misconduct, kiss your career in law enforcement bye-bye.

So, what's the endgame? If it's just civil arbitration, why push sharia courts?

Yes, I understand that here in the US, many states, CA included, are prone to arrest someone (the male) in matters of domestic violence.  I don't necessarily agree and unfairly (perhaps on another forum?) the man is usually arrested regardless of fault.  Actually, statistics show that men and women are equally at fault and often, the woman starts the physical violence. 

That being said, even though one is arrested, a complaint must still be filed by the aggrieved party otherwise there is no case and resulting in the matter being quickly dismissed; the DA rarely will press charges.  It is the similar in English Law; no complaint; case usually dismissed.

As for the "endgame", well perhaps it is an endgame and in 10-20 years they may push for criminal matters too.  However, I doubt if they will succeed.  English Law has been around for a long time and while Voluntary Binding Arbitration seems new, arbitration in general has also been around for a long time.  They can and do work together.  However, while I vociferously argued against your "criminal" law point, one should not negate the influence of Civil Matters on society.  Further, while the cornerstone of arbitration is "voluntary" participation, you could I think argue persuasively that women in Muslim society are often "coerced" in to agreeing to "voluntary" binding arbitration.  An end game that truly does subvert the legal process. 

Yet.

Finally we agree.  You were wrong.  British Law does not condone domestic violence.  And I hope it never does.

"Yet" it may change one day; bring the subject up again if you wish; however for the present, unless laws are legally changed in England such violence is not legally condoned.  As a side note, all of your articles you continue to quote pertain to Civil Law; not Criminal. It is my understanding that you are in Law Enforcement so you clearly know the difference.  Civil Law does allow voluntary binding arbitration; frankly it is encouraged. And, Civil Law permits a greater deal of latitude by the Judge.  Even in America for example, Family Law is very subjective changing from Judge to Judge and from region, i.e. California to let's say down South. Good or bad, I don't know, but it seems to work just fine.

Soooo bottom line, I am right; ABSOLUTELY NO British Law condones or allows domestic violence?
Soooo what you said is totally and absolutely wrong and in error.......

Good!!!  Just wanted to clear that up......

As for "sharia law creeping into the UK's legal system", I thought it was already agreed;
it pertains to Civil Matters only, i.e. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION. That's good!  We do the SAME thing in America!
NOTHING pertains to criminal matters.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

Domestic violence, now with the force of British law! Woo hoo!

"Woo hoo!" maybe, but NO WHERE in you link or anywhere else for that matter does British Law condone or provide the "force of law"
allowing domestic violence.  It's simply not true! It's a fabrication without basis for fact.  Apparently you don't like Muslims, any Muslims,
but like Christians, Hindu's, Jews, et al there are good ones and bad ones.  Did you ever notice there is a lot of domestic violence here
in America among so called, "Christians"?

Dr. Williams as you quoted, "noted that orthodox Jewish Courts already operate."  And, "people may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed upon third party as long as both sides agree to the process."

And in the U.S. people as well may choose any agreed upon third party including religious as long as both sides agree to the process.  Truly, the courts here support and actually insist upon mediation in most civil matters hoping that a voluntary agreement can be reached before the matter needs to go to trial.  And many individuals, for various reasons, prefer binding arbitration.

And to clarify and confirm, in your most recent post Dr. Hasan states that, "Muslim leaders in Britain are interested only in integrating personal law (civil law); Penal Law (criminal law) is the duty of the State."  Anotherwords, he is saying that criminal matters belong to the Court system, but Civil Matters, if both sides agree, belong to binding Arbitration.

It sounds like voluntary ("both sides agree to the process") (civil matters) arbitration to me.  Nothing wrong with that.  Good and fair for everyone.  And if you don't like it, i.e. you don't agree to the process, hire a attorney and take it to court; it is your choice.  And your legal bill.  To oppose it seems like a racial reaction against Muslims to me; if not Muslims, we would all say to all that binding arbitration in civil matters is just common sense for everyone as long as all parties voluntarily agree to join in the  system.

GM, I don't understand.  As I mentioned, here in the U.S. many divorces, inheritances, and other civil matters are often resolved through binding arbitration.  The parties are free to chose any particular arbitrator and there are benefits to both parties.  And of course, BOTH parties must waive their right to trial and submit to to binding arbitration; it's actually very fair; faster and more efficient than going to court. The system overall works quite well and is supported and encouraged by the Court System here in America.  It is my understanding that the same is being offered in England; why is this same and successful alternative to litigation "just another step towards the death of europe."? 

This site comes recommended to me:

www.NewsBusters.org

I looked at this site; rather than impartial information, it's so biased it's.......

For example, I like and do a lot of photography. One of the comments on this site was that the angle of the camera on Palin and Gibson during their interview was intentionally biased against Palin.  The site went on to say, in contrast, look at two examples of Obama and Hilary; notice how the camera makes them look equal...  But the site didn't mention that the one particular camera shot that they chose as an example had Gibson (over 6'0" tall and Palin around 5'4") standing and facing each other.  Of course there are height differences.  What the article left out is that in most of the interview they were both seated (the two of them looked equal) and/or the camera was on Palin alone looking quite strong.  The site is dribble; simple biased reporting rather than factual news.  Now I am not a Palin for VP fan, but as one site said, "she appeared confident, disciplined and responded in a manner that showed her readiness to lead."  Now maybe you do or don't like her answers to Gibson, or that Gibson was "too" aggressive (that is his job and Palin should be able to handle it) but that is another issue.   But don't absurdly slant the facts and blame the cameraman because you don't like how Palin did in the interview.

Other foolish examples exist on the same site. No facts; it's simply biased reporting in it's worst form.  To paraphrase GM, maybe they should sell McCain/Palin T shirts on their site.

I don't remember Kerry "denigrating this country" and later having run for President.  Like McCain, I do remember him serving his country and fighting in Vietnam.  I do remember Kerry received more than one Purple Heart.  And, I do remember he returned to America after serving his country and opposed the war as did hundreds of thousands of Americans.  Also, I understand he spoke of atrocities being committed by American soldiers.  Perhaps true - I don't know.

Frankly, given that he had served, I found his opposition to the war much more credible than the average "love child" smoking dope and preaching peace.  Of course one can oppose war still love your country. Also, one should stand up and criticize atrocities if they are being committed.   And one can still honorably run for President having done so.  Our freedom includes the right of free speech to oppose government policies that we disagree with.  Freedom of speech is basic to our society and it is a very valuable freedom that cannot be found in China, Russia, or many other places in the world today.  I don't get your point; of course someone can vocally oppose the war today and still run for president at a later date.  And they may be a great president.

Over to you JDN 

Gee thanks Crafty   

Doug said, "... maybe we have another way of settling this..."  While I haven't played
squash in a while, I think I will start practicing...  My odds, albeit weak, still might be better on the squash court   

PS Is the question this particular case?  I too am against and agree with Thomas that "modern" courts have wrongly given a carte blanche
to "public purpose" and eminent domain.  Yet, often the "public purpose" should provail; it depends upon the need and circumstances.  Hospitals, roads, schools, etc. are all important for the public good.

As an example of abuse, in a nearly town (Alhambra) the city has given heavy handed notice (eminent domain) and intends to destroy a large public (privately owned) parking lot (note - parking is in short supply) and two small businesses.  Why?  To build a strip mall...  One has to wonder...  Why is the city interceding and claiming eminent domain... I don't get it.

As for Thomas, he sleeps on the court and in general puts me to sleep.  He is not a leader and rarely writes the majority opinion.  He seems  to merely follow Scalla and rarely speaks.  That said, I too often agree with his vote.  Yet I hope for more from people on the Supreme Court.

I understand Indian Reservations are "sovereign nations"; but only at the "generosity" of the USG.  This sovereignty can be easily restricted, changed, or taken away and further, as you pointed out, "the USG retains federal jurisdiction of tribal lands."  As for the State of CA it seems to regulate their ability to gamble (number of machines, etc.) and also the sheriff's contend (although debateable) that they have "free and unrestricted access".  At minimum, Sheriff's do have the right to investigate crime, arrest, etc.  That being said, I have dealt with Indian Tribes before and it is a pain in the ass legally speaking.  But that is another subject.

But Israel?  It is hardly a good analogy.  No one has jurisdiction over them, rather Israel is the one with jurisdiction.  Your analogy is contrary to the situation in the Middle East.

A better analogy is the one pointed out in the article.  Prime Minister Olmert himself used the comparison to the South African-style struggle.  He implied that Israel is like South Africa and is in essence now imposing an apartheid system.  Morally, most would say that is wrong and as even Olmert states that it is wrong and the world will one day turn against Israel as it did turn against South Africa. 

Now, Israel has direct control over four million Palestinians in the occupied territories.  They have been under Israel's military rule for 40 years!  Much of the world has already turned against Israel for subjecting the Palestinians to being second class people.  The analogy to apartheid is real and repulsive to most people in a democracy.  And as the article points out, the Palestinian population is growing; soon they will be the majority.

If they say, as the article points out, let us have one country and demand equal rights and are the majority,  the Palestinians will control and Israel will change from being a "Jewish democracy" to a multiethnic post Zionist democratic state.  That is a true democracy, everyone's desire, but I understand your point, it would be disastrous for the Jews of Israel.

The article's point; Israel is between a rock and a hard place with no easy way out.  Not today, not next year, but the time will come.  But it will come and I bet the the world with vote "democracy" (one cannot vote in good conscience for apartheid) and not for the Jews.   Hopefully, a solution can be found before the Palestinians become a democratic majority.

PS as for the use of the term "Palestinians" note Israel Prime Minister Olmert uses the term himself therefore I assume it has come in to common usage.

Come on GM you can do better than that...

Actually Robert Rubin although "old" is still younger than McCain.  That is my worry; simply put, McCain is too old for the job.  And Rubin, although brilliant (more than I can say for McCain or Palin), has had no foreign policy experience.  Biden, short of a former Secretary of State, has the most "experience" of anyone possible.  As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he has done more than simply "listen" to the experts.  His knowledge and contacts are vast.  His experience will be a great asset to Obama.  "Executive decisions" hmm what "executive decisions" did Palin make as a mayor of a town with less than 5000 people???  That's a joke I presume?  Or governor for only two years of perhaps the least populated state???  That's experience???  Please...Palin might be a brilliant political pick, but please don't talk about her "experience".

Time to move     I understand.

But GM, I am curious about your response to the above article on the conundrum
of democracy in Israel.  And Rachel's opinion as well would be appreciated.

Post where ever you think appropriate.

[
**Israel is a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. Most Israelis are secular Jews.**

**I disagree. I've spoken to more than a few that have gone on missions and they tend to cite such things as:

"On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"**

I disagree: I think you misunderstood.  While food is nice and so is water/wine, and that may help conversions, however, the Kingdom of heaven is for those who believe; period.  How "nice" you are is just frosting on the cake, but "believe in me and you will be saved".  And so you can do all the good works you want, but if you don't truly believe and follow the Lord, you are damned.  It is very cut and dried; there is no grey.  That being said, if you truly believe, then you will help the hungry and thirsty and those that are fed and given water may be more prone to believe.  But the point is without belief, regardless of all your good works, you are going to hell.  Nobody gets invited to heaven without belief regardless of what good works they did.

As for Israel, is it truly a parliamentary democracy"?  hmmm I am a big fan of Israel, I only wish them well, but a true "democracy" it is not. If that was true, then the Palestinians should soon be in charge; one man one vote?  Isn't that a democracy?  And while "most Israelis are secular Jews" they are still Jews. It is a Jewish State.  I think most Israelis would admit they are a Jewish State and be proud of it.

[/quote]

I understand being an aviator by definition means you cannot be stupid; rather you must be an intelligent person not to mention have physical ability.   Although I wonder how fast an Admiral's son would be washed out.  However the argument on the table was the degree of God given intelligence.  I think McCain is a fine person and he is far far from stupid.  And experience counts.  My young and even beautiful attorney friend whom I mentioned is very very bright, but as Crafty mentioned, sometimes her common sense is very lacking.  But give her time...she has the basics. 

As for "hero" I am sincerely curious about your opinion.  To perhaps repeat my question, please understand I have the greatest respect and gratitude for Soldiers, Policemen, Fireman, etc. but are they all "heroes"?  Or is the "hero" the special individual who goes above and beyond at risk to themselves?

Look, I went to Columbia Law School-- not Harvard but not too shabby either.  My Constitutional Law prof was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I've been around these people and my clear sense of it is that a goodly number of them are as clueless about the real world as they are bright.  They think to cleverly articulate a synthesis of positions matters in the real world.

Definitely "not too shabby"; outstanding actually.  And you are very bright (even if you lapse once in a while and are a Republican)    And in BO's case being chosen Editor of the Law Review means he too is quite bright.  I understand your point that many of your classmates were clueless; but forgive them they are usually near the age of 25.  Fifteen years later, I bet most of your classmates are bright, articlulate, informed, and accomplished (whatever form that may take).   God (and hard work) gave them, and you, and BO higher intelligence than the average.  Definitely higher than a low graduating person at Idaho or someone near the bottom of their class at Annapolis who was admitted on connections.  Intelligence is not a prerequisite for higher office, but it would be nice if they were even above average.

PS  I think Ginsburg is fabulous; did you take good notes in her class?  You should review them   

I think Susan Reimer said it perfectly; I am glad you printed the whole article.

By the way, "what election has Hilary won?"  Ahhh, you might not like her, but did you forget
she is a U.S. Senator from the State of New York.  Again, like her or not, but the experience
of Hilary, her education, her intellect, puts Palin to shame.  I understand Reimer's point.

Palin was mayor of a town of 9000 (I don't know offhand any towns that small) and
governor for two years of a State with a raindeer population greater than the number of people. 
She's not too bright (nor is McCain), she seems to be a "nice person" but second in line to be President??? 
Especially one who already is 72 and has had cancer??? Surely McCain could have done better???

If you truly wanted a qualified woman, how about Rice?  First class, very very bright, and experienced.

We were driving back up to my mom's in upstate NY from NYC last night when we first heard.  Who?  WTF?  My first reaction was pandering and a foolish choice for a 71 year old man.  Saw the Brit Hume Report when we got in and there was a very nice piece on her; she seems very interesting but still the idea that she could step in just doesn't seem plausible.  For me its not much of an answer to say that she has more experience than BO. 

This WILL be interesting to see how this plays out.

Frankly, she has a lot less experience and education (mayor of a very small town and governor for two years of Alaska, a State with more Reindeer than people) than BO who could use a little more experience himself therefore I think Biden was a good choice.  And this is the woman who will be if elected, second in line, a heartbeat away from a President who will be 72 at the beginning of his term???  Bottom line, she seems like a fine woman, but someone with NO experience.  The fact that she is a woman (pandering?) an NRA member (good) and a mom of five (good for her) and is adamantly against abortion (her choice, but I believe it should be the free choice of a woman) does not nearly qualify her to be President.
 

Enter Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin may very well prove to be a not particularly gifted amateur,

As you say, she is not EVEN a particularly gifted amateur, much less an experienced professional.  Being President of the United States is the toughest job in the word, therefore someone who isn't even "a particularly gifted amateur" should never be in charge.