I disagree strongly with this analysis as it pertains to the Israeli side. The settlers are a red hearing. There hasn't been an expansion to any settlement in a long time and the Israeli government has demonstrated that they have what it takes to dismantle them if they think its necessary as Gaza withdrawal demonstrated. I also disagree with the portrayal of Netanyahu as some blood thirsty sociopath. Israeli reaction to Hamas' terrorism has been much more restrained under him than it was under his predecessors. He has demonstrated that he can accept a bad deal from his perspective like he did for the release of Shalit. What Netanyahu is not willing to do is enter into a grand bargain that would basically mean nothing for Israel. Like the rest of Isreali society, he has grown cynical of Palestinian leadership.
And more good reason. I believe that the evidence demonstrates that nearly all Palestinians are in the rejectionist camp and that their allies, Muslim or Western, keep encouraging them on in their rejectionism. There are no shortages of examples of people who are ostensibly pro-Israel to basically make a great sacrifice for nothing. I can't think of any pro-Palestinian person encouraging the Palestinians to make any compromise or sacrifice. The message to the Palestinians from their allies is to be obstinate and fight on to the bitter end regardless of the cost. What then Palestinians and their allies want is the destruction of Israel. Anything else would be a tremendous miscarriage of justice to them.
It's worse than that, the anti-Zionists ask Jews to refrain from actions that would be logical in other persecuted groups. We are asked not to have a nationalistic reaction to the exclusions and persecution we had to endure. If we were any other persecuted group, a nationalist reaction would be celebrated or at least understood. However, since we are Jews it's. not tolerated.
I'd say yes, Gaza withdrawal was a failure in many ways. Palestinian leadership so it as an opportunity to launch attacks against Israel rather than do something constructive and people still insist Gaza is occupied when its not.
Hamas uses their control over the Gaza Strip to fire a barrage of missles, i.e. make war as a state against Israel, and oppress women and anybody who disagrees with them.
Um, lets see. Last time I checked Israeli Arabs sat in the Knesset, served in the Israeli government in all positions from minor bureaucratic posts to the Supreme Court and in the IDF. In fact, an Arab Israeli Judge, George Karra, provided over the trial of ex-Israeli Moshe Katsav for rape.
The Jews of the Yishuv have dealt in good faith with the Arabs of Israel/Palestine/the wider Middle East since the late 19th century and were met with rejection every time. After WWI, after the Peel Commission, after WWII and Israel's War for Independence, and after the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War. The Arab response has always been "No Israel, No Israel." Some hide this message and some say it openly but its been the same.
Even after Oslo, Arafat was offered basically everything he wanted by Barak and rejected it in favor of Intifada II, which recent documents and statements have revealed was pre-medited. The Olmert government was willing to give even more than Barak was, relinquishing control over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and got rejected. When Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the response was war rather than something more constructive. Abbas demanded a halt to settlement construction, Netanyahu halted settlement construction and things went no where because Abbas made more demands.
Its Arab leadership in general and Palestinian leadership in particular that argues in bad faith and that keeps trying to refight Israel's War for Independence. When Arab leadership negotiated in good faith like Sadat or like King Hussein of Jordan, the Israeli government responded in good faith even when Israel was under dreaded Likud leadership like it was during the talks with Sadat.
A lot of people call thesmelves progressive because liberal has kind of been made a dirty word in America since the 1970s by the GOP. Thats the main reason why liberals started calling themselves progressive. I also think that a lot of liberals call themselves progressives because the associate liberal with the Democratic politicians that got us into the Vietnam quagmire and its a way to differentiate themselves.
Progressives also see liberals as people to weak to stand up and fight for their own ideas and feel that they constantly cower to conservatives.
I think the idea that liberals/progressives are heathen comes from the version of Evangelical Christinanity that sees everybody who isn't an Evangelical Christian as a heathen because of the emphasis on being born again. Christians who do not fall under this model, Mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Eastern Orthodox Christians are heathen because of this. Non-Christians like me are heathen by definition. Part of the problem is that Evangelical Christians use the generic Christian to identify themselves while other Christians aer more specific usually, referring to themselves as Catholic or Presbyterian or Greek Orthodox or what not. This creates an association between the generic word Christian and the specific Evangelical Christian that really shouldn't exist.
Anonymous is just a sign of the negative sides of the internet. For all its wonders, the internet also gives a lot of petty and not so petty power to people who really shouldn't have it. People use it to bully and shame. We seem to have reinvented the pillory for the twenty-first except this time every community gets to put the non-ideologially correct into it. We really need to a golden rule for the internet, "whatever would be hateful to you in real life, do not do to others on the internet."
I thought that the Anarchists were expelled from the International because the Communists thought that anarchism was too religious as a philosophy while Marxism was more scientific?
Like I said in my intial post, it might be worth it to bring over the entire Fantastic Four plus somebody else. Not only do you get Reed Richards, but you get two first class bruisers and ace pilots, and Invisible Woman for defense. They already know how to work as a team and faced alien invasions, super villains, and evil scientists before. With Superman, they'll practically be invulnerable.
If we want somebody whose a powerful magic user but are worried about what they could bring over, why not Belgarath or Polgara. They don't have the Orb of Aldur but each is more adapt at using the Will and the Word than Belgarion.
Belgarion, who gets autocorrected to Bulgarian, isn't dumb pet se. He suffers from Superman's problem, that he is so powerful he doesn't need to think about strategy.
Considering how much our rich are behaving in the real world, no I don't believe that the many of the super-rich will voluntarily depart with their money even to fight evil. Most likely, they will simply find away to get the rest of us to pay while asking for more tax cuts and government contracts.
Rorschach's judgments are questionable at best and I'd rather trust Dr. Manhattan. Honestly, Superman is still the best bet. He is more powerful than Dr. Manhattan and has a much better moral sense, possibly the best among superheroes besides Spider-Man.
I think that its better to describe Dr. Manhattan as apathetic rather than sociopath. A sociopath would actively do bad things for the hell of it, Dr. Manhattan doesn't. Plus, Dr. Manhattan is capable of following orders. He should do fine.
Iron Man and Batman are real superheroes and the benefit of their wealth is that its a frankly unrealistic levels and already directed towards fighting bad people. In this case, resources are superpowers. We also want superheroes that are capable of thinking rather than the dumb muscles ones.
Question: Are hot nerd-wish fulfillment girlfriends and wives considered an innate talent and power of superheroes? If yes than we need to create Spider-Man so we get Mary Jane Watson-Parker to.
We need a good balance of intelligence, strength, power, and emotional balance to deal with this threat becasue we don't want anybodies personal dramas affecting the balance. This leaves us with three options as I see it.
Option A is the Fantastic Four plus somebody from the DC Canon, either Superman or Wonder Woman. The Fantastic Four know how to work well has a team, are used to dealing with mad scientists, super villains, and alien invasions. They also have a good balance of powers and Mr. Fantastic's super-intelligence and science. Superman and Wonder Woman are both the functional equivalent of deities and won't bring too much personal drama to the struggle. Wonder Woman would add a nice gender balance but Superman's sheer power is going to be really useful in this scenario.
Option B will be a to assemble a combination of superheroes from Marvel and DC that have the right combination of smarts, intelligence, power, and riches (so they can contribute their own resources). I'd say in Option B, Superman is a must because of the the immense power and wide range of skills he has. Plus his moral purity and friendly demeanor would be necessary to keep the team in check. Than I'd pick Iron Man. His flaw his his tendency to be a playboy and egotist but he is very intelligent, powerful, and has material resources to contribute because I believe that Stark Industries is a power of Iron Man. Batman is also a must. He doesn't have superpower in the classic sense and he has a lot of personal drama issues. However, he is very skilled, has the resources of Wayne Industries, and his capable of strategic thinking. Thats a must in this scenario. We need some women so we get a proper balance. I'd argue that we create Invisible Woman for her defensive capabilities and She-Hulk.
Option C is to recreate the functional equivalent of deities if we can't recreate deities. That means Superman, the Green Lantern, Marvel's Thor (who is aliens), Dr. Strange, and the Doctor.
I've only been posting for a short time but I've learned that you can have a website filled with divergent views and have discussions that don't end in a shooting match.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Israel, Palestine, and Cosmopolitan”
I disagree strongly with this analysis as it pertains to the Israeli side. The settlers are a red hearing. There hasn't been an expansion to any settlement in a long time and the Israeli government has demonstrated that they have what it takes to dismantle them if they think its necessary as Gaza withdrawal demonstrated. I also disagree with the portrayal of Netanyahu as some blood thirsty sociopath. Israeli reaction to Hamas' terrorism has been much more restrained under him than it was under his predecessors. He has demonstrated that he can accept a bad deal from his perspective like he did for the release of Shalit. What Netanyahu is not willing to do is enter into a grand bargain that would basically mean nothing for Israel. Like the rest of Isreali society, he has grown cynical of Palestinian leadership.
And more good reason. I believe that the evidence demonstrates that nearly all Palestinians are in the rejectionist camp and that their allies, Muslim or Western, keep encouraging them on in their rejectionism. There are no shortages of examples of people who are ostensibly pro-Israel to basically make a great sacrifice for nothing. I can't think of any pro-Palestinian person encouraging the Palestinians to make any compromise or sacrifice. The message to the Palestinians from their allies is to be obstinate and fight on to the bitter end regardless of the cost. What then Palestinians and their allies want is the destruction of Israel. Anything else would be a tremendous miscarriage of justice to them.
"
It's worse than that, the anti-Zionists ask Jews to refrain from actions that would be logical in other persecuted groups. We are asked not to have a nationalistic reaction to the exclusions and persecution we had to endure. If we were any other persecuted group, a nationalist reaction would be celebrated or at least understood. However, since we are Jews it's. not tolerated.
"
I'd say yes, Gaza withdrawal was a failure in many ways. Palestinian leadership so it as an opportunity to launch attacks against Israel rather than do something constructive and people still insist Gaza is occupied when its not.
"
Hamas uses their control over the Gaza Strip to fire a barrage of missles, i.e. make war as a state against Israel, and oppress women and anybody who disagrees with them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/gaza-marathon-cancelled-hamas-bans-women
Meanwhile their sometime ally in the war against Israel blames the recent massacre of Muslims in Burma on Jews:
http://hurryupharry.org/2013/03/01/puppetmasters/
At what point do we get to call a duck a duck.
"
Um, lets see. Last time I checked Israeli Arabs sat in the Knesset, served in the Israeli government in all positions from minor bureaucratic posts to the Supreme Court and in the IDF. In fact, an Arab Israeli Judge, George Karra, provided over the trial of ex-Israeli Moshe Katsav for rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Katsav#Rape_and_sexual_harassment_case
Meanwhile, more people have been killed in the recent conflict in Syria than the entire Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948.
"
The Jews of the Yishuv have dealt in good faith with the Arabs of Israel/Palestine/the wider Middle East since the late 19th century and were met with rejection every time. After WWI, after the Peel Commission, after WWII and Israel's War for Independence, and after the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War. The Arab response has always been "No Israel, No Israel." Some hide this message and some say it openly but its been the same.
Even after Oslo, Arafat was offered basically everything he wanted by Barak and rejected it in favor of Intifada II, which recent documents and statements have revealed was pre-medited. The Olmert government was willing to give even more than Barak was, relinquishing control over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and got rejected. When Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the response was war rather than something more constructive. Abbas demanded a halt to settlement construction, Netanyahu halted settlement construction and things went no where because Abbas made more demands.
Its Arab leadership in general and Palestinian leadership in particular that argues in bad faith and that keeps trying to refight Israel's War for Independence. When Arab leadership negotiated in good faith like Sadat or like King Hussein of Jordan, the Israeli government responded in good faith even when Israel was under dreaded Likud leadership like it was during the talks with Sadat.
On “9 Things Progressives Are NOT”
A lot of people call thesmelves progressive because liberal has kind of been made a dirty word in America since the 1970s by the GOP. Thats the main reason why liberals started calling themselves progressive. I also think that a lot of liberals call themselves progressives because the associate liberal with the Democratic politicians that got us into the Vietnam quagmire and its a way to differentiate themselves.
Progressives also see liberals as people to weak to stand up and fight for their own ideas and feel that they constantly cower to conservatives.
"
Yes, a lot of Evangelicals place great pressure on being politically conservative and for members of the church to conform to those standards.
"
I sometimes joke that Christianity is simultaneously the world's largest and smallest religion because of this.
"
I think the idea that liberals/progressives are heathen comes from the version of Evangelical Christinanity that sees everybody who isn't an Evangelical Christian as a heathen because of the emphasis on being born again. Christians who do not fall under this model, Mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Eastern Orthodox Christians are heathen because of this. Non-Christians like me are heathen by definition. Part of the problem is that Evangelical Christians use the generic Christian to identify themselves while other Christians aer more specific usually, referring to themselves as Catholic or Presbyterian or Greek Orthodox or what not. This creates an association between the generic word Christian and the specific Evangelical Christian that really shouldn't exist.
On “The Vile Cowardice of the Modern Anarchist.”
Anonymous is just a sign of the negative sides of the internet. For all its wonders, the internet also gives a lot of petty and not so petty power to people who really shouldn't have it. People use it to bully and shame. We seem to have reinvented the pillory for the twenty-first except this time every community gets to put the non-ideologially correct into it. We really need to a golden rule for the internet, "whatever would be hateful to you in real life, do not do to others on the internet."
"
I thought that the Anarchists were expelled from the International because the Communists thought that anarchism was too religious as a philosophy while Marxism was more scientific?
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #6: The League Of Gentlepeople That Are As Extraordinary As Possible Without Alan Moore Suing Us for Trademark Infringement”
Like I said in my intial post, it might be worth it to bring over the entire Fantastic Four plus somebody else. Not only do you get Reed Richards, but you get two first class bruisers and ace pilots, and Invisible Woman for defense. They already know how to work as a team and faced alien invasions, super villains, and evil scientists before. With Superman, they'll practically be invulnerable.
"
If we want somebody whose a powerful magic user but are worried about what they could bring over, why not Belgarath or Polgara. They don't have the Orb of Aldur but each is more adapt at using the Will and the Word than Belgarion.
"
Belgarion, who gets autocorrected to Bulgarian, isn't dumb pet se. He suffers from Superman's problem, that he is so powerful he doesn't need to think about strategy.
"
Considering how much our rich are behaving in the real world, no I don't believe that the many of the super-rich will voluntarily depart with their money even to fight evil. Most likely, they will simply find away to get the rest of us to pay while asking for more tax cuts and government contracts.
"
I'd rather have Mary Jane Watson and Lois Lane than the enterprise. Yes, I know I sound like a broken record on this point.
"
Will it bring girlfriends and wives? Will he get Louis Lane and Mary Jane?
"
Rorschach's judgments are questionable at best and I'd rather trust Dr. Manhattan. Honestly, Superman is still the best bet. He is more powerful than Dr. Manhattan and has a much better moral sense, possibly the best among superheroes besides Spider-Man.
"
I think that its better to describe Dr. Manhattan as apathetic rather than sociopath. A sociopath would actively do bad things for the hell of it, Dr. Manhattan doesn't. Plus, Dr. Manhattan is capable of following orders. He should do fine.
"
Iron Man and Batman are real superheroes and the benefit of their wealth is that its a frankly unrealistic levels and already directed towards fighting bad people. In this case, resources are superpowers. We also want superheroes that are capable of thinking rather than the dumb muscles ones.
"
Question: Are hot nerd-wish fulfillment girlfriends and wives considered an innate talent and power of superheroes? If yes than we need to create Spider-Man so we get Mary Jane Watson-Parker to.
"
Yes, I'd imagine that it would encompass some of the worst villains of all time like Doctor Doom, Lex Luthor, and possibly some Disney villains.
"
We need a good balance of intelligence, strength, power, and emotional balance to deal with this threat becasue we don't want anybodies personal dramas affecting the balance. This leaves us with three options as I see it.
Option A is the Fantastic Four plus somebody from the DC Canon, either Superman or Wonder Woman. The Fantastic Four know how to work well has a team, are used to dealing with mad scientists, super villains, and alien invasions. They also have a good balance of powers and Mr. Fantastic's super-intelligence and science. Superman and Wonder Woman are both the functional equivalent of deities and won't bring too much personal drama to the struggle. Wonder Woman would add a nice gender balance but Superman's sheer power is going to be really useful in this scenario.
Option B will be a to assemble a combination of superheroes from Marvel and DC that have the right combination of smarts, intelligence, power, and riches (so they can contribute their own resources). I'd say in Option B, Superman is a must because of the the immense power and wide range of skills he has. Plus his moral purity and friendly demeanor would be necessary to keep the team in check. Than I'd pick Iron Man. His flaw his his tendency to be a playboy and egotist but he is very intelligent, powerful, and has material resources to contribute because I believe that Stark Industries is a power of Iron Man. Batman is also a must. He doesn't have superpower in the classic sense and he has a lot of personal drama issues. However, he is very skilled, has the resources of Wayne Industries, and his capable of strategic thinking. Thats a must in this scenario. We need some women so we get a proper balance. I'd argue that we create Invisible Woman for her defensive capabilities and She-Hulk.
Option C is to recreate the functional equivalent of deities if we can't recreate deities. That means Superman, the Green Lantern, Marvel's Thor (who is aliens), Dr. Strange, and the Doctor.
On “Progress”
I've only been posting for a short time but I've learned that you can have a website filled with divergent views and have discussions that don't end in a shooting match.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.