Monthly Archives: January 2019

Ninnies

Posted on by
Why the contradicting opinions? As best viagra pill drops in sales since the introduction of identical-function pills such as vardenafil (cialis) and Tadalafil (generic cialis). Much of that changed with the coming forth of the cheap viagra Going Here pill back the 1990s. A man has to take it at least 40 to levitra sales online 6 hours in your body. It viagra sales in canada contains sildenafil citrate, an FDA -approved chemical that successfully treats the erectile dysfunction in males.

Every time I follow the media, I am astonished at the number of women who claim to have been misled and cheated and bamboozled and exploited by those devilishly clever creatures, men. Now it is a question of a man using a fake name and fake photographs to develop any number of more or less illicit relationships with any number of women. Sequentially or simultaneously, it does not matter. Now a man claims to own a modelling agency or work as a fashion photographer in order to achieve the same objective. Now he pretends to be a war hero, which gains him prestige in women’s eyes. Now a psychotherapist or physician, which provides him with opportunities to be alone with them, talk to them the way they like to be talked to, feel them up, and perhaps have sex with them. And now he makes false promises of all kinds of remunerative jobs in foreign countries, only to enslave his victims when they arrive.

Years ago there was published a volume called, Women Who Love too Much. As experiments on Tinder have shown, quite some women keep up the relationship even after the man in question has been exposed as, or confessed to be, a jailbird, or pedophile, or pimp, or whatever. So foolish are many women that, having slept with a man, it sometimes takes them ten or twenty or thirty years as well as psychological counseling to understand that, in “reality,” they were raped or abused or whatever. Just as I was writing this piece, opening Israel’s main newspaper, I learnt of a man who had “abused women’s mental plight in order to get close to them and obtain millions [of shekels] from them.”

Judging by the media, whereas women never stop raising complaints about men for the opposite to happen is relatively rare. Is that because men are smarter than women and less likely to be tricked? Frankly, I doubt it. Sex hormones are among the most powerful persuaders around. In people of both sexes they often take priority over brains, especially if the people in question also suffer from loneliness or are in any kind of trouble. As Sisera, ask Holophernes, both of whom lost their lives at the hands of treacherous women. Not to mention the scene in Basic Instinct (1992) where a woman uses an icepick to kill a man during the sexual act itself. I am more inclined to think that men are far less likely to complain about incidents of this kind. And with good reason, for in case they do complain they are much more likely to be turned into laughing stock.

A woman who feels she has been tricked or exploited by a man can normally open the faucets and let the tears flow. If necessary she can even expose herself, as many have done throughout history and many will doubtless continue to do. Doing so, she can count on obtaining help from both from men—what man does not dream of playing the role of the rescuer who later receives his appropriate reward?—and from her feminist sisters. Not so men. As one seventeenth-century English judge, Thomas Egerton, put it: “He sat not there to relieve Fools or Buzzards, who could not keep their Money from their wives.”

By their own accounts, women are easily influenced. They are also hopelessly weak, hopelessly foolish, hopelessly unable to resist the predations of those wicked creatures, men, who keep outsmarting them. Recognizing this situation, lawyers have devised a strategy, known as the Svengali defense (after the lead male character in Maurier’s 1895 novel, Svengali), intended to get accused females off the hook by shifting the blame to the men who around them. How such miserable creatures can demand “equality” is beyond me.

To prevent more problems from emerging, here are a number of proposals that can be put into effect immediately.

1. Women should be confined to the home. In case they go out, then only with male permission and under male escort.

2. All of women’s contacts with strange men should be either supervised or suspended.

3. Women should be banished from the Net as well as all other forms of electronic communications. Their mail should be censored.

4. Women should be prohibited from having bank accounts.

Do you think it can’t be done? It can. Just look at history. And at Afghanistan, of course.

From Superiority to Stalemate

Posted on by

R. D. Marcus, Israel’s Long War with Hezbollah, Washington DC, Georgetown University Press, 2018.

As former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said in 2006, when Israel first invaded Lebanon twenty-four years earlier, Hezbollah did not yet exist  (though some of its parent organizations, which later merged, did). On the ground, what resistance the Israelis encountered was mounted primarily by Yasser Arafat’s PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) guerrillas. Many of them fought bravely enough. It was hardly their fault that they were unable to stem the advance of six Israeli divisions with as many as eight hundred tanks between them. To say nothing about the Israeli Air Force which, having dealt a crushing blow to its Syrian opponents, enjoyed  as complete a dominance of the air as any belligerent at any time and place could ask for. Come August of that year and some 11,000 of Arafat’s men were evacuated to other countries. A bit like the Romans, following their defeat at the hand of the Samnites in 321 BCE, being forced to pass under the yoke. What a triumph for Israel—or so almost all Israelis and not a few foreigners thought.

Contrary to Israel’s expectations, though, this occasion did not mark the beginning of the end. It did not even mark the end of the beginning. Instead, guerrilla operations continued both in- and around Beirut and along the narrow, winding roads that led from Israel’s northern border towards the city. From time to time there were also rocket attacks on Israel itself, claiming some casualties, disrupting day-to-day life, and leaving the Israelis furious but basically impotent.  Increasingly as time went on, the guerrillas who carried out the attacks tended to belong to a Shiite organization known as Hezbollah, meaning God’s [Allah’s] Party. So puny was it that, at first, the Israelis hardly registered its existence. They called its men, Hezbulloth; a term that meant, roughly, the same thing the Kaiser had in mind when, very early in World War I, he spoke of the “contemptible little [British] Army and called on his commanders to crush it underfoot.

What happened next is well known. The contemptible little army took time and hundreds of thousands of casualties ere it was finally able to find its feet against the formidable Kaiserheer. By the time it did, though, its forces on the Western Front alone had expanded from six divisions to about sixty. On the way it spawned the world’s first independent air force, which was separated from the army in the spring of 1918. It had also perfected its methods of combined arms warfare to the point where they were second to one. Always extremely well-armed and supplied, it was commanded by generals who, though perhaps not always brilliant and enterprising, were tough and absolutely determined to carry out their mission to the end. It was the only force belonging to a major belligerent that went through the entire war without either being routed or rising in mutiny, as happened to all others at one point or another.

Back to Hezbollah.  It has Earlier, because of a scarcity of availability of efficient impotence remedy, most men had no possibility however to stay with this condition get free viagra greyandgrey.com for years. Optimistic roles of greyandgrey.com levitra sale Soft Tabs 60mg Men being hit by the disease such as impotence, then you have to take a keen interest to reveal every opportunity that can ensure the best protection and prevention of the costly levitra. Chiropractic maintain throat Discomfort Chiropractor throat agony therapy is focuses on minimizing the actual throat pain or even prevent the swelling from applying pressure generic sildenafil 100mg on the nerve. Men, who buy penis pumps in UK, would testify for the fact that pumps are not only enhancement devices, but also help them improve their ability to control their ejaculation. viagra levitra not, of course, won World War I or anything like it. Starting from very modest beginnings, though, it has succeeded in pulling itself up to the point where it currently maintains a balance of terror with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), widely acknowledged as one of the most modern and most powerful on earth. The present book is essentially a history of Israel’s attempts to prevent this from happening. Starting in the mid-eighties when it was a question of fighting lightly armed guerrillas with little organization, training, and experience. Passing through the nineties when the IDF in Lebanon built a string of heavily fortified strongholds to guard against further attacks and used heavily armored vehicles to patrol among them. Passing through the years 2000-2006 when, having retreated across the border, it largely limited itself to retaliation for Hezbollah’s occasional cross-border attack. Passing through the 2006 Second Lebanon War when, as well as invading southern Lebanon, it mounted a full scale air attack on its enemy, demolishing the latter’s long-range missiles but utterly failing to do the same to the short-range Katyusha rockets. All this, while trying now in one way, now in another, to adopt the so-called RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) of those years and adapt it for its own purposes.

From 2006 on a tense stalemate has prevailed, leaving the two sides free to glare at each other across the border. Whoever is interested in the way the IDF, with all its fighter-bombers, drones, missile defenses, tanks, artillery, computers, etc. etc. got to this point can find many of the details in Marcus’ book. Ditto for anyone who cares about the career of the man at the center of it all, Brigadier General (ret.) Shimon Naveh. Reflecting the IDF’s inability to come to grips with the problem, for about ten years Naveh was in charge of the efforts to provide it with a coherent doctrine for doing so. Only to come out with one so convoluted and so arcane that no one could understand it. In the end, his efforts were terminated by the State Comptroller.

Judging by the book Marcus, whom I have never met, is a fine scholar. There doesn’t seem to be an Israeli senior officer whose wisdom he has not sought. His work will no doubt appeal to military analysts interested in understanding the conflict in question and, perhaps, fitting it into the way other armed forces around the world are going. What the reader will not find is more than a handful of pages on how Hezbollah’s “innovation and adaptation” to the IDF’s infinitely greater firepower enabled it to survive and expand from practically nothing into an organization fully capable of holding Israel at bay. A pity, that, for to my mind at any rate it is the most important and most interesting question by far.

Guest Article Brexit: A Divorce Like Few Others

Posted on by

By

Anna Kucirkova*

The medicine is consumed actively to recover the usa discount cialis long lost sexual potency in a person. But to avail a quick and long relief you should go to internet to cheapest viagra . The pills are modern, safe and improved remedy of finding instant relief from male disorder effectively. cheapest generic viagra You ought to recognize that not all scenarios from diabetes will demonstrate being diabetic indications unless of course you might have been living under cialis 5mg cheap a rock, you need to know of all the categories and their symptoms thoroughly.

Even if you’re a casual follower of the news, no doubt over the past couple of years you’ve seen a story or two about Brexit.

Short for Britain Exit, Brexit is the messy divorce between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) that it has been a member of for the better part of 25 years (unofficially it dates back to 1951).

While the vote to break away from a unified Europe won a very narrow passage from British citizens back in 2016, the separation itself has been even more contentious.

Let’s take a closer look at Brexit, and how a small movement to regain a small measure of independence transitioned into a full-on family squabble amongst our European allies.

You’ll want to keep a stiff upper lip for this one.

What is Brexit?

In June of 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Union. In an amazingly close vote, with over 70% of the voting age population turning out, abandoning the EU won, by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.

Isn’t the UK comprised of a few entities? Was it all unanimous?

Yes, it is, and no it was not.

England voted in favor of Brexit – 53.4% to 46.6%. So too did Wales, voting 52.5% versus 47.5%.

Scotland and Northern Ireland, however, went the opposite direction. Scotland overwhelming voted in favor of staying in the EU by a wide margin – 62% to 38%. Northern Ireland was a bit more modest, but still very much in the stay column 55.8% to 44.2%.

How did all of this come about? (Part I)

There is a very long answer going back decades that we could dwell on and on about, and it still would not satisfy what ultimately led the UK to leave the EU in the rearview mirror.

In other words, its very, very complicated.

However, you can connect the dots on a few recent confluences that ultimately drove the UK to where it is today. First though, it’s important to understand what the EU is and its role in Europe.

What is the European Union?

Excellent question.

The EU had its early roots in post-World War Two Europe where there was a willingness among countries devastated by war to start working more closely together. Obviously, the conventional wisdom being nations whose interests align with each other probably won’t go to war.

Unsurprisingly, the EU has avoided major cross-border conflicts since 1945.

Since that time the EU model had several iterations.

The EU as we know it came about with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Since that time it has grown to include 28 member countries, 19 of which share a single currency – the euro.

As it stands today, the EU is a true single market. Goods and services and people and capital have the luxury to move freely between the member nations. There is a parliament that guides political standards over a number of issues including transportation, the environment, and even certain consumer protections.

By now you’re probably saying “that doesn’t sound so bad to me.” Well…

How did all of this come about? Part II

As early as 1975, the UK saw its control over its relationship with European allies start to erode. That was back when the European Economic Community comprised only nine members.

As the EU grew into its current form, a growing number of British citizens (particularly the Conservative Party) began questioning the power it held over its member countries. In some regards, it rendered them unable to make certain decisions for themselves, having to instead defer to the greater EU.

An extended run of prosperity and economic growth masked a lot of these concerns (it also did not hurt to have two pro-EU Prime Ministers in power during this run). For almost two decades, the UK and the EU seemed a harmonious fit.

So what happened?

2008 happened.

The confluence of events we mentioned earlier include the following: the financial crash of 2008, an increasing resentment by many British citizens of larger numbers of migrants entering the UK (mainly from poorer, newly minted Eastern European countries to the EU), and the overall drop in living standards across the country.

Ultimately, those concerns morphed into the UK wanting three things: to be free from EU imposed rules and fees, to once again control the majority of their lawmaking, and to regain full command of their border controls including the direct management of immigration numbers.

This ignited a rise in support for the UK Independence Party, which, you guessed it, wanted out of the EU. The pressure from the group moved the ruling Conservative Party to offer up the EU referendum.

And that’s the short version.

Wow. So what’s happening now? Are the UK and EU really breaking up?

It looks that way, although there remains plenty to sort through and not a ton of time to do it.

In March 2017, current UK Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which outlines the procedures for any country that decides to leave the EU. It provides two years to negotiate an amicable split. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, they can extend the deadline or take the Fleetwood Mac route and go their own way.

That latter part sounds harsh.
That’s because it is.

If there’s no deal, all treaties are rendered null and void, and the UK has to effectively start from scratch when dealing with the EU.

Publically, those in power in the UK have said a deal will get done, though Theresa May has also stated that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” It’s worth noting that the UK government and several agencies are already planning for the clean break, no deal scenario.

Considering the two year period to strike a deal began in March 2017, there are less than five months to go to figure out what to do.

Have any exit plans been put forth?
Yes. The UK hammered out a plan, called the Chequers Plan, that attempted to appeal to a wide range of views within the UK, including those who opposed Brexit.

The significant points include the UK having the authority to negotiate its own trade agreements while presenting a compromise on the trading of goods and application of tariffs.

It also signals for the end of the free movement of people between the UK and EU and offers up a “mobility framework” to govern how people travel between EU nations and the UK.

How was the Chequers Plan received?

Not well. In the UK, two of the lead negotiators for Brexit resigned over it.

The EU flat out rejected it.

To this point, however, Theresa May stands firm that the Chequers plan proves the best compromise for all parties involved.

How has the UK been handling this – economically speaking?

Okay. Their economic fortunes have mirrored that of most other industrialized nations, remaining relatively health even with Brexit deadlines looming.

Their unemployment is at 4%, a 43-year low. Inflation sits at a steady 2.2%. The economy has grown since 2016 – 1.8% in that first year after the vote, then a near identical rate in 2017, and a slower pace of 0.8% for the first part of 2018.

The one negative is that the pound remains weak against both the dollar (down 10%) and the euro (down 10% to 15%).

What about Northern Ireland and Scotland, who voted against Brexit?

Northern Ireland comes with its own set of complications as it shares a 300-plus mile border with EU member the Republic of Ireland.

Sensitive to the regions previous long-standing conflict, the Troubles, both the UK and the EU favor keeping an open border between the Irish. The EU put forth a proposal that would keep Northern Ireland in line with their trade standards, which the UK opposes.

The UK, in turn, suggested a “common rulebook” for how goods maneuver between the entities, setting up an electronic border of sorts. This is part of the larger Chequers plan, which the EU rejected.

A “backstop” plan was also proposed by May as last recourse, which would temporarily keep the UK and EU aligned, trade wise. The EU rejected this as well.

Scotland, two years after the vote, still stands opposed to Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has used rhetoric like “democratically unacceptable” concerning Scotland’s position of being tied to the UK even as they want to stay in the EU.

She’s also requested a referendum on the final Brexit deal and a longer transition period (which we cover below) to account for the needs of opposing groups.

What actually happens if the parties make a deal?

Should a deal be reached, it would first have to be approved by a minimum of 20 EU members that have at least 65% of the EU population.

From there, a 21-month transition period (from March 2019 to December 2020) would go into effect, allowing all involved parties, including businesses, to prepare for a Europe after the official split from the UK. This also leaves extra time to finalize any lingering details.

Also during this timeframe, the UK can make its own trade deals (but they cannot take effect until January 2021), and free movement will continue (fulfilling a request by the EU).

Again, the transition period happens if the UK and EU come to an agreement.

And what if no deal is reached?

As we noted earlier, ties are immediately severed and long-held treaties on an endless array of subjects automatically end. Some in the UK claim that such a break would be a “national disaster” while other claims that language is simple “scaremongering.”

Though we doubt it will be as harsh or as painless as some claim, in reality, nobody’s sure what will happen in the event of a clean break.

If that does come to pass, one can only hope that the UK would at least get to keep the Beatles first issue vinyl collection in the divorce.

* Anna Kurcikova is a Texas-based copywriter working for Connex Digital Marketing. Over the last three years she has specialized in economic and geopolitical affairs. 

Things I consider Sacred

Posted on by
Less serious side cialis generic pharmacy effects may include: warmth or redness in your face, neck, or midsection;* Stuffy nose* Headache* Upset stomach* Back tormentThis is not a complete rundown of reactions and others may happen. What is the duration of effects? The onsite of action of buy viagra india medicine is noticed within short span of time (approximately 30 minutes) and its effectiveness goes for 6 hours. When patients were told they had cancer, the psychological reaction of the patient showed a correlation sildenafil cost http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/04-13-16-DDA-MINUTES.pdf with their white blood cell count and physical immunity. Many good people will take advantage of the Healing Power of Ashwagandha cheap viagra canada downtownsault.org Tackle the stress of life changes by adding ashwagandha to your diet.

As some readers will have heard, Israeli writer Amos Oz died this week. I myself never met him—the closest I got was having his wife, Nili, as my student almost fifty years ago. And listening to one or two of his speeches. I have, however, read most of his books. Some I liked, some I did not. The three I liked least were Black Box (1987), To Know a Woman (1989), and Judas (2014). Those I loved best were My Michael (1968), A Perfect Peace (1982) and A Tale of Love and Darkness (2002). A Perfect Peace in particular, while not one of his best-known books, did a marvelous job evoking the Israel in which I grew up before 1967 and of which, like practically all Israelis at the time, I was immensely proud. Each his or her tastes, I suppose.

But his books are not what I want to write about today. Rather, I was intrigued by a lecture he delivered back in November 2016. At the time I was unaware of it and did not attend it; but having my attention drawn to it a few days ago, it made me think. The title? Things I Consider Sacred, of course.

So here are some of my own thoughts about that topic. Unlike Oz, I’d like to start with some things I most definitely do not consider sacred.

Not the giant statue of the Buddha in Hong Kong, beautiful as it is, which I once visited along with about a zillion other people crawling about like ants. And this was before anyone knew what selfies are!

Not the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, where there are so many visitors that one cannot even crawl. Just stand like a sardine in its tin; all that is missing is oil.

Not the self-appointed servants of god, too many of whom are parasites, bigots, fanatics, or all of those. Too many of them speak of god, but what really motivates them is power and greed.

Not numerous “Sacred Sites” in Israel and abroad, whose only real claim to fame is that they were fought, and in many cases still are being fought, over, causing innumerable people to shed the blood of others. I respect them so as not to offend the feelings of others; but that is all.

Not god, in whom I do not believe. To me, as to Epicurus some 2,300 years ago, he is merely a human invention meant to help us cope with certain things, such as suffering, injustice, and, above all, our fear of death.

Now to things I do consider sacred. Such as make me gasp with wonder and bring tears to my eyes. Such as I would hate to see disturbed in any way. Such as enable me to momentarily forget how cruel, how terrible, the world often is; and such as, by their splendor, make life worth living. Some of them I have in common with Amos Oz, most not. Judging by his lecture, he seems to be more interested in social justice and less moved by beauty for its own sake than I am. Or perhaps he just uses the word “sacred” in a different way from mine.

Here are a few examples. Mine, not his.

“The sun in all its might,” scattering the clouds, to quote the Jewish prayer book.

An undisturbed view of a forest, or a desert, or sea, with as few man-made objects in sight as possible.

The description, in the Iliad, of Hector taking leave of his wife and infant son for the last time.

Some of Vermeer’s paintings with their unique combination of intense domesticity and subdued, almost dreamy, light.

The theme song from Taxi to Tobruk (1961) that does not have a trace of sentimentality about it. Ariel Ramirez’s Missa Criolla, which always makes me wish there were a god I could worship like that. And others too numerous to list.

The Nike of Samotrache, to my mind the greatest piece of sculpture ever done.

The sight of a well-toned body, animal or human, in action; e.g. running, jumping, playing tennis, and the like.

Young children absorbed in play. Like the one, probably just over a year old, I saw the other day. She could not walk yet, but that did not prevent her from imitating other children and trying to climb a ladder.

The woman I love. Not because she is a saint; thank goodness, she is not. But because love is an essential part of our humanity which she, above all other people and things, allows me to exercise.