patrick.net

I'm gonna sue - I've never been groped at a theme park. And I look pretty damn good for an old chick.

I've also had my share of nightmares, digestive problems and other permanent injuries. It's a winner, I can just feel it.

I resent the implication that I don't know hot to properly fluff Donald's feathers. First of all, I've fluffed a few feathers in my day.

Secondly, Donald Duck's parent company makes enough money to hire as many fluffers as he needs.

Get your microfiche out and read a paper or two from early last century. When they mentioned 'Palestinians' they were referring to Jews not a bunch of Hamas and Fatah terrorists.

If he didn't sell them out he certainly stirred the pot and didn't do them any favors. Oh, wait wait, this must be that 'transparency' he was talking about.

If I were Israelii and had my way I'd push them back further and keep them pooping in holes in the ground. Bunch of backwards animals.

Microfiche not necessary here is a nice little blog about it:

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/02/indigenous-palestinians-were-jewish.html

The Gold Standard limits how much many a nation can spend by limiting the Money Supply.

Today all currencies are Fiat Currencies - meaning they are valuable because a Central Bank of a Country has created the Currency. This leads to Governments creating Money during times of stress. Historically, Hard currency (gold or silver) was almost always abandoned during times of war. In Modern times Politicians have enjoyed the ability to print Money to support programs that their Voters want. Sadly, many of the voters aren't sophisticated to notice that the Cost of Living rises steadily as the Government creates programs to help the voters. The cost of Chicken, hamburger, gasoline, medicines all increase as the Money supply gets bigger and bigger.

When Gold backs a currency the Treasury or Central Bank needs to buy more Gold as the Money Supply is increased - this places a constraint on Politicians need to help voters every time there is a crisis.
There will still be some economic stress with what ever is used for a currency - Gold included. Gold backing limits the amount of intervention that Central Banks and Politicians can do.

The Bureaucrats can screw up any Monetary system.

Look at FDRs effort to fix the Great Depression - the US Dollar was backed by Gold - FDR passes an a law demanding everyone sell their Gold to the Government. FDR and his bureaucrats felt that increasing Money supply would fix things.
The Money Supply expansion didn't work, every intervention made things worse, and the crisis wouldn't be fixed until after World War II. Nothing like destruction capacity of a World War to get the Manufacturing sector go again.

So, no matter what system we are on Human Politicians are going to feel the need to prevent human pain and suffering - and in the long run this often leads to more pain and suffering. But, it keeps Politicians in office in the short run.

they probably won't touch 401k's because economy revolves around those on wall street.

Pensions (defined benefit plans) sometimes are unsustainable and unpopular with the main street which is why they are cutting into these.

Shrek's central theoretical difficulty is that the high-tax economies: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany -- are doing reasonably well, economically and socially.

Low tax states are not doing so well, except for China, and it's arguable that they're doing "well" for any broad definition.

"Thoroughly screen your applicants. Along with running credit checks, be sure to check eviction records and possible criminal background on all applicants."

I bet people screen a lot harder than that. You can talk to someone for 30 seconds and know if they'll give you trouble or not...sometimes you just have to look at them.

Yeah I'm not sure why Shrek thinks this BIAS OUTBURST helps his position any. He likes quoting Wikipedia though LOL!

wk says

FDR passes an a law demanding everyone sell their Gold to the Government. FDR and his bureaucrats felt that increasing Money supply would fix things.

No FDR and his Fix, no strong Middle class for the last 70-80 years.
No Post War II Housing boom, Baby Boom, no income ladders, no American Dream. Just working to exist, no strong consumerism either from a strong middle class or poor. No cost of living raises.
And Certainly no growth expansion for most of the countries that developed since then. Countries would have no way to fight inflation or deflation. We would probably be at World War 5 by now.

Gold Standard could never be the money standard ever again. It took man kind many millennium to get to the point, where worlds financial stability is as stable as it has been for the last 50 or so years. Spite what Money Hogs and War Pigs would have every one think.

Pretty much any country that plays along with the order of things can have prosperity because it is a global pact, that nations recognize a countries credits to the world virtual money supply. It creates and keeps peace in many ways. While countries might conflict over assets and commodities, they Certainly don't fight over Gold.

The day the world goes to the Gold standard, will be countdown to the end as the Global economy has seen it in the last 10 to 15 years.
That's a lot of people on Cell phones, and internet access, multi media devices, you'll be telling "Alright fun's over, put down your toys, and get back to the rice patties, coal mines, cotton fields, and lumber yards." As that will be the only viable commodities, there will be no need for electronics, the internet, communications(contracts), Big Box retailers, ect... as there will not be a consumer class to afford those things.

Fiat money doesn't disappear, it gets absorbed by more people that get a piece of 8 when it is broken off.
That equates to almost everyone's salary reading this post.

No Fiat money, 70% of any nation, will be in the business of being Piss Pot Boy for those who have Gold.

clambo says

The phrase “1967 lines” was a mistake. Either it was intentional, in which case Obama is very mixed up, or an unintentional harmless slip of the teleprompter. Whichever it was, it means nothing will improve over there for the time being. This is why they have diplomats, but Obama is bored in DC with nasty budgets and the economy.

I'm sorry, but this is just balderdash. Here is a joint statement from Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton from last November, from which I will quote:

Bibi and Hillary said

The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution.
...
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States' unshakable commitment to Israel's security and to peace in the region.
...
‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.
‪...

So this is absolutely nothing new and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous. I'm sure Bibi would prefer a Republican president (and so would many Americans), but this is a totally manufactured controversy.

Market yourself. Check out any local business that would have a need for temporary housing for professionals. Hospitals and universities are a good bet. I rent to medical students doing a 1 year rotation in the local medical center. I also market as pet friendly, with a high pet deposit. You can really pick and choose among the desperate pet owners.

So President Obama restates the position of the USA from the resolution of the Six Day War (1967). What's the big deal? All presidents since the Six Day War have talked about a return to the pre-1967 borders. This president actually added "land swaps" that would adjust that line to allow Jewish settlements to be inside of Israel and to allow Palestinian Arab settlements to be inside of a future Palestine.

So there was never an independent country in the world called, "Palestine." Who cares? There hadn't been an independent country called "Israel" since 722 BCE when the Assyrians conquered the northern Jewish kingdom. And then the southern Jewish kingdom called "Judah" was conquered by Babylon in 586 BCE. A minor blip in the record was a period where the Hasmoneans became autonomous rulers of a Jewish country where Israel is today from about 110 BCE when the Seleucid Empire was falling apart until 63 BCE when the Romans conquered the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Romans named their new province "Judea."

After the Bar Kochbah revolt in 132-135 AD the Romans crushed the Jews, attempted to scatter Jews to the various lands of the Empire and renamed the province "Syria Palaestina" joining former "Judea" to the "Galilee." This was the first time the land of Canaan was called Palestine by a ruling power of the territory, if you really want to be very picky.

The name "Palestine" comes from the Philistines who had city states on the shores of the Mediterranean near Canaan since about 1200 BCE. The Greeks called their lands "Palaistine."

The name "Palestine" has a solid historical root. Before the State of Israel was founded it was part of the British Mandate of Palastine on land that was called "Palestine" by the British. The land across the Jordan River was called "Transjordan." All inhabitants both Jewish and Arab were called "Palestinians" under British rule.

The Arabs who lived along side the Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine are not really distinct culturally from the other Arabs in the region. Things have changed for them though such that they have developed their own identity. Such is the modern idea of nationalism.

It's no secret that Netanyahu of the Likud Party (Conservative Party in Israel) may have some dislike for a President who is a member of an alleged "liberal" party.

Also it's no secret that the more conservative Israelis who support Likud, in general, would never consent to pulling back to pre-1967 lines. However, there are liberals in Israel too. (I know that may be a shock to some people around here.) The Labor Party is a moderate-liberal party in Israel. When Ehud Barak was Prime Minister, he was the leader of the Labor Party and he supported (in principle) some return toward the pre-1967 lines.

The more Liberal parties in Israel generally support some sort of 2 state solution and borders that can be negotiated. There are some in Israel who believe that a combined democratic state where Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Israelis share power would be best.

President Obama did nothing more than re-state US policy concerning Israel since the resolution of the Six Day War. He ruffled a few feathers in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza in his speach. He also declared that no one can negotiate with Hamas even though the people of Gaza democratically elected them into power through elections that were observed by international observers and found to be legitimate. That made the Arab Palestinians angry. Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas have reached an agreement to share power over the West Bank and Gaza. By stating that Hamas isn't a party with whom anyone can negotiate, President Obama denied a legitimately elected party the chance to participate in the negotiations process. If we really want Arab democracies we should be aware that sometimes we won't like the governments that get elected in these democracies. That's the nature of democracies.

I'm not sure if President Obama was rattling cages with good reason and intention or whether he stumbled into a mine field unintentionally. Time will tell.

But one thing is clear: President Obama did not throw Israel under the bus and he didn't sell Israel out either. He simply restated US policy concerning Israel since the resolution of the Six Day War.

Pot Heads aren't that extreme, I'd venture to say the most successful grower/dealers don't touch the stuff. Dealers that do, only dabble to finance their stash. They certainly aren't big enough to have grow operations.

The government always prints more money than the gold it holds.

If it says $35/oz, it just means that it costs $35 to mine 1 oz of gold.

In some countries (like old China), it is illegal to buy gold :)
Or during some time, the government will sell you fake gold.

I find it interesting that folks living here in America should be so bothered about the Middle East instead of easing ourselves away from that messed up region. Don't we have enough on our hands ? Look at the devastation wrought by all the tornadoes in the South and midwest and we are busy concerning ourselves about Israel and Palestine.
I as an American care only for my country and am not bothered about what seems to be an intractable problem that only the two warring parties need to mutually sort out. The Middle East means nothing to me and I do not care.

lenar says

US now looks like a nation that can’t engage in a long-lasting treaty, any treaty that may last longer than a presidency term. Strangely, this aspect and it’s long term political damage rarely come into the spotlight.

Presidents are perfectly free to do this. This is why actual treaties have to be ratified by 2/3rds the Senate and have the force of Constitutional law.

Long term damage caused by Obama’s international policy will make Carter look like Churchill.

You're confusing not sucking up to Israel with damaging the national interest.

This is normal, because everyone with an opinion on this puts the national interest of Israel ahead of our own.

It's really quite obvious.

It's also obvious that the GOP and Israel lobby are now lying about this "change", too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/nothing-new-in-the-idea-that-67-borders-should-guide-peace-talks-updated/239162/

"there should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg

It's really quite stunning how the GOP M.O. these days is just outright lying.

I wonder if it is really going to work. I think the electorate threw them out of power in 2006 for lying about Iraq in 2002-2003 (it wasn't the economy because the economy was still holding together).

We'll see if the electorate is smart enough again to understand what is going on now.

That's great, hope they go after more mortgage brokers, realtors, and not only them, but the accountants who prepared the fake paystubs and tax returns for the buyers; and the bankers who gave false VOD's....

How are these crooks getting caught now years later? Are people turning them in? Are the bank / gov agencies tracing back foreclosed loans??

I'd love to throw a few names in their bucket for investigation..

Blatant lying is right.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/print/20080110-3.html

"It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.

I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure."

-George W. Bush

Exactly the same policy. (Note that "pre-1967 borders," "1967 borders," "1949 armistice lines,", and --for completeness-- "green line" all refer to the same thing.) Nevermind that Obama isn't obliged to carry Bush's policy forward --he's not, though it behooves the country for him to be careful about deviations-- he actually did carry it forward. In total and in only slightly different terms.

It's simply amazing what Netanyahu stirred up in the U.S. media by responding to a remark along the lines of "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" with a non-response like "we're not going back to the 1967 lines." Just goes to show how sensitive a matter Israel is.

One beef with simchaland's otherwise excellent post: You cannot negotiate peace with someone who insists on murdering you eventually. Israel thus cannot negotiate with Hamas. It's not a matter of legitimacy, it's a matter of patently obvious bad faith. The fruits of such discussions could only be another "peace for our time."

You might be right about the government, but the people certainly want peace. Most of them, anyway. It's impossible to know for sure about what the government really wants, of course. And the situation is muddied by considerable complexities.

But I suspect you're wrong even about Netanyahu. Note where he doesn't object to what Obama and Bush said. See esp: "contiguous." It seems likely that Israel is prepared to cede a corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank.

For my part, I believe that they really do want peace, and aren't interested in the gross size of the state beyond a necessary depth to achieve defensible borders. They won't cede East Jerusalem. But a corridor? Outlying territory? Monetary compensation? Water rights? All on the table, I believe. But only if they think they can achieve a lasting peace.

A great many settlers are nuts, of course. And they do have power, which is unfortunate. But the other side has its nuts too, who also have power. Perhaps more of it, relatively speaking. I don't like any of these nuts, but there is such a thing as a lesser evil. It isn't always the underdog.

msilenus says

You might be right about the government, but the people certainly want peace. Most of them, anyway.

Hey, Israel is an almost direct democracy. For last several decades most of Israelis vote for the most hawkish party available. If you substract Arab voters, it's practically absolute majority. What's more, most doves there are from the high and middle class, which naturally are exposed to international infuences. As for the working class, 80-90% of them voted for the major warmonger at any election since 80th.

Even, though the system there could be manipulated in some cases to do some peace movements, it's clear that the people there certainly DON'T want peace. Most of them, anyway.

bdrasin says

I never will understand how a bunch of right wing Christians think they know what is best for Israel. People who know nothing about Israeli politics and have no stake in the outcome other than how it affects US politics. If being in favor of a two-state solution based roughly on the pre-1967 border (and with an independent but demilitarized Palestine) makes one anti-Israel than a majority of Jews are anti-Israel. The alternative is war for ever. FYI I an Jewish and have several relatives living in Israel.

It's all nice, but I think it's time for Americans to care about American interests first, rather than those of Israel. That would serve both America and any other nation much better. (including Israel).

FYI I lived in Israel for 14 years, 4 out of which I spent in military, and have several relatives living in Israel, including my daughter and 2 granddaughters.

It's every President's dream to be the one to solve the Arab / Israel stalemate and create long lasting peace to the region. They will try anything, even the dumbest ideas to achieve that dream. Other than hitting Jerusalem with a hydrogen bomb, and removing what both sides desire, I don't think ever lasting peace is possible.

michaelsch says

Hey, Israel is an almost direct democracy. For last several decades most of Israelis vote for the most hawkish party available. If you substract Arab voters, it’s practically absolute majority.

Why talk about subtracting the Arab voters -- That's not very democratic, is it? How about subtracting the votes of Israelis living outside the pre-1967 ceasefire lines, since Arabs living in the same areas aren't allowed to vote? This is a really big problem for those of us who want Israel to exist as a Jewish state and a democracy; the occupation is absolutely poisonous because it forces these kinds of distinctions.

thunderlips11 says

A story not much discusssed, and certain to draw the Ire of Israeli partisans, is that there has been a “Reverse Aaliyah” of educated people (generally liberal/left-wing) FROM Israel.

The smart, professional ones have few, sometimes no children. The rabid settler right-wing types breed like rabbits, and are either welfare cases or corporate welfare cases.

You are exactly right on this, and this is the real threat to Israel.

Israel just wants the land? They're all hawks and always elect conservative governments? How long is your memory --five minutes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Fuck "recent decades" --this was six years ago. We aren't even talking Clinton-era. Previous U.S. administration. Post 9/11. We were already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel just up and left Gaza. Gaza promptly elected Hamas. Hamas' political platform vis-a-vis Israel is, sumarized: "Push the Jews into the sea."

If you credit Israel's hawkish stance as a democratic reflection of the will of the Israelis --which I concede it may well be for the nonce-- then you have to face some unsettling truths about what the "democratic legitimacy" of Hamas means. Please excuse me if I forgive the Israelis adopting a more hawkish stance in years subsequent to the election of Hamas.

Was the Gaza pullout an isolated freak whim of a transient liberal administration? Look at the longer-term historical record. See the ceding of the Sinai to Egypt. The terms of which were, summarized: a) Demilitarized Sinai. b) Suez stays open to Israeli shipping. c) Egypt recognizes Israel's right to exist. d) Aid from the U.S. to Egypt. e) Israel cedes the entire Sinai penninsula to Egypt. Israel ceded an enormous chunk of land for very little more than a secure border.

To sum up, in case some of the points have been forgotten in the course of reading an admittedly longish post: Israel has a long history of trading land for peace. See Gaza pullout and Camp David Accords. All Israel wants is security. All its demands stem from that concern.

thunderlips11 says

Israel may simply implode.

the economic challenge of Israel is daunting.

8 million people in 8 million square miles.

About the area of Massachusetts, but 1.5 million more people to feed.

The Palestinian territories are even worse, 3 million people in 2.3 million square miles.

Israel is right with India and Haiti in terms of population density, ~1000 people per sq mile.

The Netherlands, Taiwan, Singapore and ROK are worse, but they all have either entrepot trade and/or a manufacturing base to compensate.

Israel does have reasonably good insolation in the Negev -- ~ 2.2MWhr/m2, about 75% of the best sites (eg. Australia).

msilenus says

If you credit Israel’s hawkish stance as a democratic reflection of the will of the Israelis –which I concede it may well be for the nonce– then you have to face some unsettling truths about what the “democratic legitimacy” of Hamas means. Please excuse me if I forgive the Israelis adopting a more hawkish stance in years subsequent to the election of Hamas.

It's all rooted in much earlier events than formation of Hamas. As of today we have two societies fed up on hatred. Neither one of them could survive without that permanent hatred.

Supporting either side in this conflict places us in a very wrong position. We are essentially forced to participate in hatred we don't need.

America has too much to worry beside Israeli interests.

michaelsch says

It’s all nice, but I think it’s time for Americans to care about American interests first, rather than those of Israel. That would serve both America and any other nation much better. (including Israel).

I could not agree more. Right now we have no choice but to be involved because of the amount of foreign and military aid we give them; we will no doubt need to wind this down.

U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt tends to run about $4.5 billion. Not cheap: .04% of GDP. Oil imports were running 2% of GDP back in 2004, when oil was at $60/barrel. Ballpark figures.

Relatively small fluctuations in oil prices cost us far more than our entire foreign aid budget. Oil prices respond immediately to political instability in the Middle East. See Libya. The OPEC oil embargo was directly related to the Yom Kippur war.

You can argue that washing our hands of Israel would also lead, eventually, to more stability. I wouldn't disagree with that. Walking away would be tantamount to condoning ... well ... whatever Israel's neighbors decided to do with Israel.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

So do you have children Shrek? Teaching them to shoot at pictures of the President?

And Kucinich and Paul both have the same chance of being president: ZERO.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/004171.html

I guess realtors ruin people's lives in multiple ways.

You're right. The military aid roughly doubles the numbers. Same ballpark. Point stands.

On the strategic front: you did not mention Iran, with its close ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria and history of arming them. Many analysts view Hezbollah in particular as an Iranian proxy-asset. Good relations with Egypt are far from guaranteed, going forward: Israel isn't terribly popular in that future-democracy.

It's not hard to imagine a Hamas uprising and/or Hezbollah raids (acting as a proxy for Iran) escalating into a regional war with Egypt and Syria as early as next year. Perhaps unlikely; but, certainly: the weaker Israel is, the more likely such things become.

thunderlips11 says

It’s legal to buy Gold in China again, and man are they buying

I don't know about now.

20 years ago, if you buy gold. Then try to resell it back. The bank will tell you it is fake.

I'll double down on that right on.

And HW, it is a LONG way 'till November 2012...

While we're talking about cutting aid to Israel, we should stop proping up the Saudi Royal Family, cut off aid to Egypt, cut off any aid we send to the Palestinians, stop sending aid to Jordan, get out of Iraq, etc., etc., etc...

The folks who are anti-Israel tend to ignore all the billions we give to Arab governments and to Arab peoples to manipulate the entire region.

Arabs tend to forget about the billions the US sends to them.

If we can get the Europeans and the Russians to stop sending aid to Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt while the US stops sending any aid to Israel or any Arab entity, the region would be less militarized because there would be much less money going around to buy weapons in all countries in the Middle East.

If the entire West plus Russia stopped treating the region as colonies and protectorates, all peoples there would become much more willing to negotiate with each other instead of using foreign aid to threaten each other.

Arab countries and Israel would find their own balance if all aid was cut off to the entire region. All of them would suddenly realize that cooperation and mutual dependence would bring not just peace but prosperity.

Those who believe that Israel is hated by the common Egyptian must not know any Egyptians and have never been to Egypt. This Jew has been to Egypt and knows many Egyptians. The average Egyptian wants a secular domestic government that doesn't get them into dangerous and expensive conflicts with neighbors over religious ideology. They don't love Israel but they also don't hate Israel either. They do resent foreign intrusion and manipulation in their domestic affairs and in the affairs of the Middle East.

We'll see what happens in Egyptian elections this year. I think many who don't know Egyptians will be very surprised to see the results if the elections are run legitimately.

An Article on Gold from China - translated by Google - the article makes the claim that the Government sees Gold as an Investment to funnel new Capital away from necessities of life and reduce the inflation effects of economic growth in China:

中国的黄金热和美元的失去未来
"The Chinese government changed its policy

For a long time, the Chinese government does not allow too many people buy gold. But it also changed. Now the Chinese Government to encourage people to buy gold. China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan recently talked about the gold market in Shanghai, the three trends. One trend is that the gold will be more into private hands. The background behind this idea is developed in China's capital market, millions of dollars, rich in recent decades the Chinese people do not know how their financial management. Many people now buy property, leading to skyrocketing real estate prices.

Now, all have entered the Chinese market, speculative areas, including raw materials, and even food, prices have risen a lot. China's inflation reached a new high of two years. The gold to absorb funds. People can put money into the precious metal itself useless to go, and will not lead to the continuation of raw materials and food prices skyrocketing, so that industry and the people suffer."

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dw-world.de%2Fdw%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C14741339%2C00.html

When the government encourages people to do something, it is usually an indication the top.

I still remember George Bush wants to use Social Security fund to buy stock.