patrick.net

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.

The US Government started getting really in encouraging the US Citizens to buy Real Estate, especially the less wealthy, in the early 1990s.

who knows when this bull market ends, but I think your government indicator lesson isn't very accurate.

On the other hand, the Republicans won the same seat with 73% of the vote just a few months ago running against (mostly illusionary) tax hikes and deficit spending. There is a lot to dislike in Ryan's plan, but at least its coherent and outlines what would be necessary to achieve low taxes and high military budget that are Republican priorities. I fear that our political system isn't going to bring us to an understanding that the things we think we want (very low taxes, Social Security and Medicare at near-current levels, a world-dominating military, and a balanced budget) are incompatible. Instead we'll just have more wave elections from one side to the other.

Ah, sweet:

Beat GOP nominee Jane Corwin, 48 percent to 42 percent. Tea party candidate Jack Davis took 8 percent of the vote.

Man I love the Tea Party. Maybe it's not a GOP astroturfing but a deep-cover Democrat Party instigation.

Wow, she didn't get over 50% of the vote. Most of the news stories leave that out...

"As opposed to the non-existent Dem alternative?"

Obama has released a budget. You really have a bad habit of spreading misinformation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/

ObamaCare did not cut funding from Medicare. It cut from Medicare Advantage, which is Medicare in name only. It is made up of private insurers.

And if the Obama budget is not enough, there is also the Progressive Caucus Budget. So that is 2 Democratic budgets versus 1 Republican budget.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Nate Silver has a good analysis. The Tea Party candidate in this race has a history of running as a Democrat, and about a third of his support came from liberals. There was also a Green candidate who got one percent. So it's unlikely this race was actually spoiled. Pretty stunning victory for a race where the Republicans would normally expect to win by 12 points in a neutral political environment with evenly matched candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/six-months-after-midterm-disaster-hopeful-signs-for-democrats/

It's a shame that you can't touch health care in this country without the electorate taking you out to the woodshed and beating you senseless. But turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

Two hundred and thirty five members of the House voted for Ryan's bill. You can bet the Democrats are going to hammer them for their support just as mercilessly. The Senate is going to vote on it, too.

Porposing the Medicare voucher plan in the first place was a dumb idea. The Republicans knew full well that it would NEVER get 60 votes in the Senate or be signed into law by Obama.

And it is only going to get worse for the Republicans once Harry Reaid forces the Senate Republicans to vote on the Ryan budget. Scott Brown is running as fast as he can away from it, probably because he is afraid of Elizabeth Warren beating him next year and using his Medicare vote against him.

HousingWatcher says

It cut from Medicare Advantage, which is Medicare in name only. It is made up of private insurers.

ie Medicare Part C, the GOP's gift to the insurance industry when they were in the majority, 1995-2006.

Msilenus writes and says "Two hundred and thirty five members of the House voted for Ryan’s bill. You can bet the Democrats are going to hammer them for their support just as mercilessly. The Senate is going to vote on it, too."

Agreed. Here's what they didn't vote for: They didn't vote to end tax loopholes for corporations. They didn't vote to raise taxes on the rich. They didn't vote to close the tax loopholes which make the rich richer.

The Congressional Budget Office long ago said that after four years of surpluses under Clinton the deficit would be repaid by now. Then came Bush, two wars, $4.35 trillion in new deficits and lower taxes for the rich.

The real point is to hobble the government by talking about spending but not talking about taxes.

Obama or some other politician needs to come 100% clean and explain to Americans where we are and what has to be done.
I still believe the Gang of Six (err, Five) is our best hope; there are still adults in the Senate. If they ever put out a plan, it will be interesting to see if folks in Congress have the guts to vote for it.

And when the Republicans passed Part D, aka the prescription drug plan, they passed it knowing full well tha it contained a doughnut hole that woudl make it hard for peopel to afford drugs on it.