Machjo

This Major is impressive: He insists he wishes to remain in the IDF, keep his rank, and either train soldiers or be reserved for the genuine defense of Israel, but will refuse to go into Gaza. One of the so-called refuseniks.

Seems the movement is significant enough:

Now this is a surprising video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA2PsnNGGl0&feature=related It would seem a few officers in elite combat units have already refused to participate in the occupation.

I knew. But I exploited it for emphasis.

Uhhh... didn't you watch the videos? They're self-proclaimed Jews! In the first video, he's an Orthodox Jew!

Here is a good video from the horse's mouth of what daily life is like in an IDF mission:

Another interesting video here:

I found this interesting video of a Jew whose family lived in Jerusalem prior to the foundation of the state of Israel and describes life there at the time. Interesting video:

So where's the propaganda in that article? He's saying that there is a distinction between Zionism, the Jewish faith, Jews, the State of Israel, antisemitism, and anti-Zionism. So to point out that these are each distinct points and that a person could hold any combination of views on each of these points is propaganda? So are you denying the possibility that there may be a wide range of views as opposed to only the black and white view held by some?

A good article clearly written by a man capable of critical thought.

I could see a compromise between republic and monarchy, trying to beget the best of both worlds so to speak, with an elective and constitutional monarchy, with the monarch elected for life, until dethroned, or until retirement, whichever comes first. the question then though would be who determines whether the monarch needs to be dethroned? A 2/3 majority in the House? Some other means? Again, in the end it's probably best for the US to just keep its republic until it can be sure that anything it replaces it with will in fact be better, and not just by a fraction, considering the costs involved in changing the whole system, constitution, etc.

I think we can make a similar distinction parallel to the OP with this one. A person's views on Muslims, his views on Islam, his views on Middle-Eastern nations, and his views on Islamism can be quite different too, just as a person's views on the Jewish Faith, his views on Jews, his views on the state of Israel, and his views on Zionism can be quite distinct. I see the problem on both camps to be a failure to distinguish between these distinct views.

This is way oversimpified. I could break it down to at least the following categories: 1. Hates Jews and wants the State of Israel wiped off of the map. That would be one anti-semitic category. 2. Hates Jews and wants to preserve the state of Israel as a place to send them all off to. 3. Hates Jews but still adheres to international law and so would like the borders of Israel to return to their former boundaries as defined by international law and have Israel abide by international law. Though all three positions above are very different, they'd still be equally antisemitic.Then we have: 4. Friendly towards Jews, believes Israel can do no wrong, and so wants to preserve its borders as is and defends Israel at all times. 5. Friendly towards Jews but still believes the state of Israel ought to be wiped off the map since it does not represent the Jewish people and is occupying another people's territory. 6. Friendly towards Jews but expects Israel to abide by international laws and UN Resolutions, including retreating back to within its legally recognized boundaries. Again, though the three last positions above are totally different and even overlap with the first three, none of the last three are antisemitic. Add to that that there are also two separate campes between those who make no distinction between Jews and the state of Israel and those who do, and these camps themselves are not neatly divided between Jews and non-Jews. Just as there are Christian Zionists who make no distinction between the State of Israel and Jews, there are also ultra-orthodox Jews who deny that the State of Israel is a Jewish state, insisting that Zionism and the Jewish Faiths are incompatible. I personally fall into category number 6 above and do make a distinction between the State of Israel on the one hand and Jews on the other, an recognize that a person's beliefs about the State of Israel, Jews, and Zionists can be distinct from one another. And of course I may very well have missed some other categories too. But as you can see, if the poll failed to make a distinction between one's beliefs and feelings about Jews on the one hand and their views on the State of Israel on the other, then that poll is beyond flawed and reveals nothing about one's position on Jews. To ask one's views on the State of Israel an then confound them with one's views about Jews is like asking a person what he thinks of Canada and then extrapolating from that to see what he thinks of Canada's First Nations and Inuit. Total non-sequitur.

By the way, what worked for Cameroon? It's currently a republic. Did I miss anything?

As for the legal exclusion of Catholics, that is not intrinsic to the concept of monarchy but applies exclusively to the British monarch. If the US had an elective monarch, there would be no guarantee that it would share a monarch with any other nation at any given point in time. It could even happen that it would share a monarch on occasion and on other occasions not. This could also cause problems in joining any kind of Commonwealth owing to such instability on that front. As for an inherited monarchy, then it's difficult to ascertain, since it has its disadvantages too. If the US were to go from republic to monarchy, it would certainly be wise to think it through and ensure they move towards something better than they have now and not worse. Even if it just broke even, it would not be worth all the change just to adopt something no better nor worse. They'd have to be sure it really is a step up, and unfortunately, since both republic and monarchy each have their strong points, it is a tough one to quantify very objectively.

Personally though, I would be in favour of an elective constitutional monarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy It would thus benefit from the advantages of constitutional monarchy while avoiding some of its flaws.

Good point. Sorry about that. And granted I guess there would be no obligation for the US to join the Commonwealth. If it should choose an elective monarchy, then there is no guarantee that it would be the Queen of England; and even if it were, the two would still be two separate issues, though my guess is the US would see an advantage in joining the Commonwealth if it ended up sharing a common monarch.

There's a flaw in the article though; if the US should have a monarch, it would not have a president. This would mean that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would likely become the Prime Minister. Unless of course it would involve a complete restructuring of the US government to become a Constitutional Monarchy. Then there is the question of the rules of successorship. Would it be an elective monarchy or an inheritance-based monarchy? If the latter, would the US simply rejoin the Commonwealth? Though constitutional monarchy does have its advantages over a republic, let's not assume that all constitutional monarchies are the same.

Will it have a chance to retort to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh9BUnk6q8&feature=player_embedded

We're not downplaying any possible affair; we're downplaying the source: the Star!

Gore may very well have cheated on his wife. But seriously, I'm sure we could have found a link to a more reliable news source than the Star! Any self-respecting person would not rely on the Star or the Enquirer to back up a claim.

Seems we're birds of the same feather you and I. We both know a quality news source when we see it.

I don't read the Enquirer. I'm sure even a blindfolded dart thrower who's been spun around a few times will hit the target every now and then if he just keeps throwing randomly in every which direction. But no, I rely on the Star and the Enquirer as much as I do on the Onion as my preferred news source, especially when it comes to matters of state.

And this must all be true. It comes from the Onion after all

And the Gore and Tipper article: Gores Enjoying Best Sex Of Their Lives MARCH 20, 2002 | ISSUE 38•10 "For far too many years, we didn't have time to really focus on us," Gore told Matt Lauer during an interview on Today. "Between raising the kids and running for office and everything else, there always seemed to be something that took precedence over romance. But now, with the kids all grown up and a job that doesn't take up every waking moment of the day, I can finally enjoy some nice moments of intimacy with my beautiful and, dare I say, sexy wife." Gore said that in the past 12 months, he and Tipper have "rekindled the flame of passion" in their marriage, taking time each day to lavish attention and affection on each other. Citing one such example, Gore said that last Friday, he came home from a speech at the American Bar Association's annual convention to find Tipper waiting for him in the bedroom in a lace teddy with a rose between her teeth. She then handed him a book of "love coupons" redeemable for a variety of sexual favors. "It's that sort of spontaneity that keeps things exciting in a marriage," said Gore, lovingly stroking his wife's hair. "And, believe me, things were pretty exciting that night." Added Tipper: "Al can be a real tiger." According to Gore, the frequency of his sexual activity with Tipper has increased significantly in the past year. "I must say I'm very satisfied with our current volume of lovemaking," said a visibly relaxed Gore. "Did I say satisfied? I meant overjoyed. In fact, things are so good, I may have to seriously rethink my plans to make another run for president in 2004!" Though she admitted she's "never been much of a thrill-seeker in the sex department," Tipper said a number of her recent intimate encounters with her husband have involved an element of risk: On Feb. 25, she said, the couple "got amorous" just moments before an endorsement appearance for South Dakota senate candidate Tim Johnson. A week later, they coupled during a cross-country flight to California. "Forgive me if I blush, Matt," Tipper told Lauer, "but Al and I actually made love about half an hour ago, right before coming on this show." Despite their current inflamed passion, the Gores said their sex life did not instantly reignite upon departing Washington last year. "After losing the election, Al was really depressed for a while," said Tipper, a longtime crusader for mental-health issues. "With depression, as you may know, there typically comes a loss of sexual appetite. Over time, though, he gradually realized that this was a good chance to rediscover parts of himself he'd forgotten. That's when we began our sexual re-awakening." Not since Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter left the White House for Plains, GA, in January 1981 has there been such an upswing in post-Executive Office coitus. "Things are less hectic, but it's not like we're loafing around doing nothing," Tipper said. "Al's been doing fundraising for his political action committee, and I've been busy speaking at Democratic fundraisers, as well as continuing my work as honorary chairwoman for the National Mental Health Awareness Campaign. But in no way does any of that diminish our desire to spend a romantic evening together in a bubble bath, surrounded by scented candles." Added Gore: "The difference between our current work lives and the way it was before is that now we come home energized. Our work keeps us apart just enough to heighten our passion. It's a great feeling, coming home from a fundraiser all pumped up and being able to transfer that energy into carrying my wife to bed and letting nature take its course, if you know what I mean." "It's like right after we were married all over again," a flushed Tipper said. "I don't want to get too specific, but some of the things we've done would cause quite a scandal in Washington circles." Exchanging smoldering glances, the Gores ended the interview and disappeared backstage.