I am currently reading From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. This is one I started a long time ago but never finished. I am picking up where I left off.
The book essentially refutes much of the conventional wisdom on the conflict in "Palestine." She is not a historian, but a journalist. She did a lot of research for this and sites many original sources. As I am not a Historian, I am going to try to be skeptical of this book, but I am an empty slate on this history.
Here is a quote from a recent section I read:
"The disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be 'settled Arab indigenes for a thousand years" were in fact a "heteroeneous" community with no 'Palestinian' identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, no Arab identity either: 'The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; else where they are of the most mixed race.'
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Harsh Words
Iranian Wants Israel 'Wiped Off the Map' - October 27, 2005 - The New York Sun - NY Newspaper.
Rome wanted to do this once. And they renamed it Palestine.
Rome wanted to do this once. And they renamed it Palestine.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Hugh Hewitt On Reading
From "In But Not Of:"
First, to scare you: after recommending about 14 books, Hugh says,"Fourteen volumes may seem like a lot, but they are not. In fact, that number should be a small portion of the reading you routinely do over the course of a year."
Second, the suggestion: Hugh says, "The world is full of terrible books, both those that are time wasters and those that are deeply, horribly wrong about the way the world works and how it came to be this way. The first sort are mistakes, but the latter can be deadly. Which is why there is no such thing as an innocent suggestion of a book to read." He is refferring to the writings of Marx and Hitler. He goes on, "So it is best to get your suggestions from reliable individuals--individuals whose charater impresses you as much as their intellect."
Any book recommendations?
First, to scare you: after recommending about 14 books, Hugh says,"Fourteen volumes may seem like a lot, but they are not. In fact, that number should be a small portion of the reading you routinely do over the course of a year."
Second, the suggestion: Hugh says, "The world is full of terrible books, both those that are time wasters and those that are deeply, horribly wrong about the way the world works and how it came to be this way. The first sort are mistakes, but the latter can be deadly. Which is why there is no such thing as an innocent suggestion of a book to read." He is refferring to the writings of Marx and Hitler. He goes on, "So it is best to get your suggestions from reliable individuals--individuals whose charater impresses you as much as their intellect."
Any book recommendations?
Friday, October 21, 2005
Thoughts on "In But Not Of"
I am reading Hugh Hewitt's In, But Not Of : A Guide to Christian Ambition.
I am enjoying the book, and although it is geared more for high school Juniors and Seniors, I will probably end up heeding some of his advise.
The thing that disappoints me is that he is inconsistent. He began the book by giving an example of three people who influenced the world the most in a positive way (i.e. defeating the spread of Communism) in the last century: Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and some Russian author critical of the USSR (not Ayn Rand). I am not convinced that any of these people followed Hugh's advise. Now, he does qualify that as Americans, our best bet is to influence Westerners, and thus goes on to say how to gain influence over Westerners.
And what about Bono? Sure his foreign policy is a bit flawed (i.e.. let's subsidize corrupt governments), but his did a lot of good in Ireland and no one can reach more people about the plight in Africa. He probably broke every rule in Hugh's book. Had he followed them, I doubt he would be as influential.
Despite this inconsistency, the book does carry wisdom and is easy to read.
I am enjoying the book, and although it is geared more for high school Juniors and Seniors, I will probably end up heeding some of his advise.
The thing that disappoints me is that he is inconsistent. He began the book by giving an example of three people who influenced the world the most in a positive way (i.e. defeating the spread of Communism) in the last century: Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and some Russian author critical of the USSR (not Ayn Rand). I am not convinced that any of these people followed Hugh's advise. Now, he does qualify that as Americans, our best bet is to influence Westerners, and thus goes on to say how to gain influence over Westerners.
And what about Bono? Sure his foreign policy is a bit flawed (i.e.. let's subsidize corrupt governments), but his did a lot of good in Ireland and no one can reach more people about the plight in Africa. He probably broke every rule in Hugh's book. Had he followed them, I doubt he would be as influential.
Despite this inconsistency, the book does carry wisdom and is easy to read.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Commerce Clause
The commerce clause in the US Constitution give Congress power "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." Before the 1942 reading of this clause, the Federal government was very limited on what laws it could impose by the 10th ammendment which states, "The powers not delgated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
After 1942, all a lawmaker needs to do to "override" the 10th ammendment is to show how a law will affect commerce between states. There are not many restrictions that won't somehow affect commerce between states so this makes the scope of the commerce clause limitless.
Michael MCConnell once wrote to show the absurdity of overreaching federal law, "Assume there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70 percent of State A, and only 40 percent of State B, wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B decide to move to State A.
I read about this concept in Mark Levin's "Men in Black". I fell in love with the 10th ammendment, and I hope for its return, even if it means that the pledge is recited in some states and not others.
After 1942, all a lawmaker needs to do to "override" the 10th ammendment is to show how a law will affect commerce between states. There are not many restrictions that won't somehow affect commerce between states so this makes the scope of the commerce clause limitless.
Michael MCConnell once wrote to show the absurdity of overreaching federal law, "Assume there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70 percent of State A, and only 40 percent of State B, wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B decide to move to State A.
I read about this concept in Mark Levin's "Men in Black". I fell in love with the 10th ammendment, and I hope for its return, even if it means that the pledge is recited in some states and not others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)