This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).
To become "willfully blind" one first has to know and understand what one becomes "willfully blind" to - thus one must have "seen" it beforehand to gain such knowledge and understanding. More, one could even claim that to have gotten such knowledge one must have a better than 20/20 eyesight. Hence the term is an oxymoron at best.
I had always assumed that Ross had a seat in a Kerry administration. You?
Ross, Albright, Clinton, etc. probably had lots of motives for the charade in which they engaged, only one of which was to maintain the "affection" of the international community by remaining "engaged." My appreciation of George Bush was solidified when he simply refused to deal with Arafat, a liar. He just wasn't going to waste his time.
Every thing, every word, every aspect of human existance, is a weapon for the terrorist's purpose of unseating the target(s). The terrorist's dislodgement, of such that are for you, vulnerabilities, he can sense, and, given your failure to be resolved to defend yourself no matter what, he will direct against, shocking force(s).
Terrorism is the oldest economic means in the Near, Middle, and Far, East. It is a way of life and of death.
Terrorism is a sub-classification of piracy (water is not required for pirates), and resisting terrorism was once upon a time, the primary purpose of extending power over the sea, to bring peace, freedom, and thus grounds for continued commerce ... by force if necessary.
There is a time limit for trusting words, words, words (the fashionable dialog de jeur de lingua "talking heads;" after which, force is required to make the peace happen.
Other people, and so-called "leaders," are only committed to the peace process. They desire only, and they only have the guts (if any), to participate within the most secure windows of opportunity that lay within the protection (for them) that is established by other people who are enforcing the peace.
To wit: Bill Clinton is a coward, and too many other people who will not stand up.
For the most part, if you truly want peace and world peace, then require yourself and your neighbor to stand up for truth and justice and adherence to the laws made through the democratic-republican process that elects representatives who sit in legislative bodies and make the laws.
Be resolved to defend liberty and its worthy heritage, and publicly educate people to these disciplines and exercises by which we fight for freedom every day.
All people who want peace, should be in the fight.
It is from such struggles, that come men and women who most understand the price of failing to adhere to the original intent of peace treaties. They bring to the deliberations, serious failure analysis and sincere desire to forge agreements that are bound by the wording used --- that is to say, no peace document is of any value, when fake boobs in high places insist on ignoring the original intent of both document and its words.
Remember, our Constitution is a peace treaty.
We only have the rights we defend, as long as we are able.
We are only as free as we make the effort to know why.
Does it have the map and the deal that Arafat rejected?