What I Like About the A-11

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks Mike, but for some reason the paper you referenced bears the title, "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction". What exactly does, "gave rise to what is known as the "Bush Doctrine" actually mean.

No, the Bush Administration did not specifically name this document the "Bush Doctrine", but the principles it outlined is what became known as the "Bush Doctrine" because it was produced, endorsed and implemented by the Bush administration. It is the documentation you asked for but appear to be unwilling to accept. Who actually came up with calling the "Bush Doctrine" I don't know, but I'm sure someone takes credit for it and if you search long enough you may find a first reference out there somewhere.
Are you trying with all this to somehow imply no Bush Doctrine exists and/or no-one knows what it really is despite all evidence to the contrary? Read the opening quote by the Pres on the document itself that was produced by the White House to get a head start.

[ajmc]

Mike, I'm not disputing that the "The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" likely represents what even the Bush Administration might consider the "Bush Doctrine". What I'm trying to suggest is that when referencing something specific, you need to call it by it's proper name, not whatever nick names it's been given. Gov. Palin could have avoided a lot of unnecessary flack, if she simply responded, "What exactly do you mean by the "Bush Doctrine", and then went on to address specific points that were suggested. It was a loaded question, designed as a "gotcha" and it was successful

Let me try and step back from a political analogy and point back towards football. We all know how inportant Rule 2 is, because the definitions there are the only definitions that matter to the game of NFHS football. You can look up tripping in the dictionary and it's a little different than the tripping definition included in Rule 2.

But, if you were to trip an old lady carring a football down mainstreet, a policeman might still arrest you because his definition doesn't make allowance for tripping a runner, even though the old lady was carrying a football. When a Pop Warner coach yells "chop block" from the sideline, it's very possible that his definition of chop block is very different than what you know is the official NFHS definition, which is the only one that matters.

All I was trying to suggest about the term "Spirit of the Rule" is that it very often is used in a broad, often vague sense, and means different things to different people, so there is no single "official" definition to specifically relate it to. Basically it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Was this rule likely intended to relate only to scrimmage kick situations, probably. Was there any idea to expand the exception to prohibit formations that nobody though of, probably not, because nobody envisioned the A-11 Offense when the rule was written. Does the language used in the current version of the numbering exception leave room to drive a truck through, absolutely. Does that circumvent or exploit the rule, absolutely. Is that exploitation dishonest, illegal, immoral or unethical, really doubtful.

All this weeping and gnashing of teeth about the "Spirit of the Rule" is little more than a smoke screen. Whether you don't like what it does, or how it set about doing it, doesn't matter. It doesn't violate the rule, and exception, as currently written, so the only choices available are rewrite it, or let it continue as is. That decision will be made by the rule makers and they're not going to pay a lick of attention to all the insults, speculations, presumptions and the rest of a lot of pure BS.

I anticipate there will be some sort of revision and I hope it just answers this question without creating a bunch more unanticpated consequences. We shall see.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

"Here's what I like about the A-11: it goes to eleven."

The best assessment, now or ever, of the a-11.

And the current administration's doctrine will not be all that relevant in less than two weeks.

[JRutledge]

ajmc,

It is sad that the main point of this, you do not even understand what we are really talking about. You are too caught up in what you feel someone thinks personally about you than what we are actually discussing. If you are I quit officiating tomorrow, not many people would care. And you think that because you do not understand something, this is personal?

You have more to learn than I gave you credit for.

Happy off-season.

Peace

[UmpJM]

Now see, there's part of the problem. No wonder poor Sarah couldn't answer the question. Others knowledgeable in the arena suggest that this document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

originally published in September, 2002, and then subsequently updated and republished in March, 2006 is the definitive statement of "The Bush Doctrine".

I believe the phrase "The Bush Doctrine" was first used by rabid neocon wingnut, I mean respected conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer in February, 2001 in reference to the extreme unilateralism already being evidenced in some of the Bush Administration's policy decisions and actions.

Although the Bush Doctrine is hard to nail down because it changes all the time, the enduring precepts basically espouse the right of the US to wage "preemptive war" (most recently endorsed by Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo), an approach to foreign policy that says f**k you to the rest of the world, ignores the existence of the US Constitution, and discounts actual facts and informed counsel in favor of wishful thinking.

Happy to clear that up for everyone.

JM

P.S. I'd be happy to wager a large sum of money that the current occupant has never actually read any of the documents that are alledged to articulate the principles of "The Bush Doctrine".