“I’m not sure how the ‘Flypaper’ strategy strikes most readers, but to me it-looks like the latest variation of a strategy dating back millennia-to Sun Tzu where I believe it was described as taking something-of great value from-your enemy and holding it.- Julius Caesar employed it in a campaign in Asia Minor were his army-aggressively-took control of the local food and water supply and switched to the defense and ultimately slaughtered a desperate enemy.- In our own history, the Confederacy’s last hope at Gettysberg was broken when Lee with little choice attempted and failed-to take the Little Round Top, a hill he could not permit the Union forces to hold.
-In more modern times it is described as being strategically aggressive and tactically defensive.- No strategy always works, but historically forces that employ this one tend to survive better than those upon whom it is employed.- Perhaps among your readers there is someone with amore expansive knowledge of military history who can expond in more detail.
-Meanwhile, I for one am convinced that who ever is behind the ‘Flypaper’ strategy knows his stuff.” – more reader feedback on the Letters Page.
MORE CONSERVATIVES AGAINST THE FMA: Here’s a shocker: some federalists and conservatives actually don’t believe that states should be denied the right to decide for themselves what is and is not a marriage. Here’s the link to the open letter to Senator Cornyn. Money quote:
The proposed amendment interferes with the rights of states, rights that have been consistently recognized since the founding of our Nation. Under our federal system of government, family law has long been the province of the states. A basic principle of American democracy and federalism is that government actions that control a citizen’s personal life and liberty — such as government actions that control people’s decisions about whom to marry — should be made at the level of government closest to the citizen, rather than by the U.S. Congress or by the legislatures of other states.
States already actively regulate marriage; for example, 37 states specifically prohibit marriage between same-sex couples. That is a choice that they are now free to make. The Amendment will wrongly deny those states — which is to say, the states’ citizens and their representatives — this choice.
But the religious right is not interested in people or states having the ability to decide for themselves! Where would that leave us? They might disagree with the fundamentalists. Here’s another interesting follow-up from Eugene Volokh. And a simple reality check: at the height of the summer backlash, before any real public discussion of the matter, the polls showed only 50 percent support for the FMA. That’s barely enough to credentialize a law, let alone an amendment to the Constitution.
THE PERILS OF PAKISTAN: Bernard-Henri Levy lays out the case for suspicion.
The Dish 