HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 22, 2006 Philip Gailey wrote and opinion piece entitled: “Women have shown they can lead. U.S., take note” and it caught my attention because Philip, although right in that there have been some great women leaders, cannot prove his assertions yet about the modern day crop of the female elected. It is true that the “new chancellor of Germany is Angela Merkel” and the key emphasis of that statement should be on the word “new”. Ms. Merkel has not proven herself a leader yet, nor has the country proven it is going to follow her leadership as it develops. Ms. Merkel has “proven” she can get elected. She has not yet “shown she can lead”. It is also true that Chile has “recently elected Michelle Bachelet, a socialist Party leader and pediatrician (what one has to do with the other is anyone’s guess) as their country’s new president.” Again the emphasis should be on the word “recently”. Not only has socialism proven itself unworkable in most truly democratic societies, being a social tax burden that separates rich from poor, but Ms. Bachelet hasn’t been tested by the many social ills of Chile. She has “proven” she can get elected, but again she has not “shown she can lead”. Mr. Gailey tells us that “Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a Harvard-educated banker, was sworn in last week as President of Liberia. Again proving that a female can get elected; but a two or three month old administration that hasn’t accomplished anything yet is still not proof that a female can lead. So Mr. Gailey’s current crop of examples are not really the support he needs to tie these women to the likes of “Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister known for good reason as the “Iron Lady” [who was] “tough as nails.” “So was Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi women who led major democracies [commanding] international respect”. And then Mr. Gailey tries to make his point: “Which brings us to Hillary Rodham Clinton… As everyone knows, she is planning to run for President in 2008, a job her husband held for 8 years (stating the obvious). He continued: “I may be wrong, but I think many Americans are ready to see a woman in the oval office, even if they are not wild about a Clinton restoration.” Thatcher, Meir and Gandhi were certainly proven leaders. To try to place Hillary Clinton in that mix is a personal affront to Woman’s History Month. Yet Mr. Gailey’s boost for another Clinton presidency is apparent in his sentence: “For all the Clintons put us through, they didn’t come close to doing the damage to our country and its standing in the world that Bush and Cheney have done.” So Mr. Gailey’s bottom line is that Hillary may suck but she’s better than Bush. I have to laugh. No. I have to puke. Then there is Robert Fisk’s: “War reporting gelded by euphemisms” where he decries all the ways the media has bent over backwards (or forwards) to sanitize war reporting. To display where Mr. Fisk’s anti-Semitism lies you just need a couple of his sentences. Quote: “Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly “colonies”, and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment we started using the word “settlements” But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word settlements was replaced by “Jewish neighborhoods” or even in some cases “outposts”. To continue: “Similarly, “occupied” Palestinian land was softened by many American media reports to “disputed” Palestinian land…” and he goes on to describe his chagrin over calling the “wall” that Israel put up for security a “security barrier”. Mr. Fisk wants to call a “colony a colony” and “occupation what it is” and a “wall a wall”. Okay. According to the promises to Abraham made by the true God then everywhere Israel builds belongs to Israel and anyone else there is the “occupier”. The Palestinians are not a cultural group. They are a terrorist organization that was forced to “occupy” Israeli territory because their own Arab fathers had rejected their extremism and murderous activities. It is the Palestinians who “occupy” land that does not belong to them. The “wall” is there to keep murderers from killing any more innocent women and schoolchildren. It is not Israelis who walk into Palestinian occupied Israel to blow up innocent Palestinian terrorists. The wall is there to keep murderous Palestinians from leaving their occupied Israeli lands to kill innocent Israelis. I hope that clears things up a bit. That brings me to Ruth Marcus and her column: “Dance at hearings is out of step with reality” where Ms. Marcus is upset that Samuel Alito didn’t answer any of the questions posed by Democratic posers the way he needed to in order for the committee to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. How dare Alito pull a Ginsburg and not describe in detail how he would personally overthrow Roe v. Wade as bad law. How dare he suggest he would strictly interpret the Constitution and not try to find that wiggle room so necessary for liberals to claim unwritten rights to sexual privacy and abortion. Alito knows how to dance. Fifty-eight Senators approved Samuel Alito; all the democratic posturing aside. I believe the States of the Union are going to be getting some of the right usurped by the Federal Branch back under their control. That’s as it should be. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 500 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
