[Morgoth]

Didn't the Hamas rocket attacks start after Israel assassinated one of their leaders with a missile?

Or do I have my timeline all mixed up?

Either way, although it's hard to claim that either side is in the right, it seems to me that if this conflict is going to move beyond bombing raids and invasions every few years one of the parties will have to man up and make some unpopular choices.

I can't see that ever being Hamas, so if Israel wants peace I think they're the ones who'll have to try for it.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 20 November 2012 - 08:11 AM

[D'iversify]

Who did what first is irrelevant - its playground logic that does nothing to ameliorate the murderously tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye nature of the conflict. As for Hamas being psychotic extremists who believe Islam must destroy Israel and kill Jews - yes that's true, its in their manifesto. However, it's also in Likud's manifesto that they don't accept the right of Palestinians to self-determination and advocate the right of the settlement of 'Judaea and Samaria' (read: the West Bank). Not to mention the whole 'Empty Land' narrative that still gets floated in Israeli right wing circles. And I've not even brought Melanie Philips into the picture yet. So yes, Hamas and Likud deserve each other.

Not to say that many of the slightly more left wing parties are much better when it cmes to foreign policy - after all, Kadima were responsible for the last escalation in fighting, no doubt trying to get Likud voters onside.

 Shinrei, on 20 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

 Terez, on 19 November 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Not only were they funded by borrowing, they were largely funded by a special sort of borrowing that added to our debt without showing up in Bush's budgets.

Exactly - and apparent lack of knowledge about this sort of thing by my republican friends gets them all confused when I don't vote republican - "But you believe in fiscal responsibility!" the cry incredulously.

It amuses me how in one of the early American Dad episodes, Stan Smith refers to himself as a 'deficit-loving Republican', which sounds completely at odds with the GOP's position on the deficit today but actually completely reflects the Bush administration's attitude to budgeting (and shows that aspects of liberal America were already concerned with the deficit prior to the recession).

[Tapper]

 Morgoth, on 20 November 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Didn't the Hamas rocket attacks start after Israel assassinated one of their leaders with a missile?

Or do I have my timeline all mixed up?

Either way, although it's hard to claim that either side is in the right, it seems to me that if this conflict is going to move beyond bombing raids and invasions every few years one of the parties will have to man up and make some unpopular choices.

I can't see that ever being Hamas, so if Israel wants peace I think they're the ones who'll have to try for it.

No, you have it mixed up, I think. There has been an increase in rocket launches over the past months - the question there is who is launching - so it might be that Hamas is only entering the launch-business on a big scale since Jabari was killed. Apparently, Hamas has a tempering influence on some even more extreme groups since they are in government by being the biggest bear in the den.

basically, the cycle as it stands is as Cause kind of described. Militant palestinians want to show their new toys and big dicks, Israel wants to show they lack foreskin but have balls twice the size, and at some point decides that it needs to restore its dominance by going in big (basically, destroying the capacity for organized violence).

The Jabari assassination was probably an attempt to take out the brain of Hamas' military potential, but it seems it has unwanted side effects as Jabari was susceptible to Egyptian pressure, where it is uncertain if his successor(s) will be.

I don't think election time has an influence on the cycle of violence itself, but it seems a simple deduction that the disturbances/ resolution of them will influence the elections, so the current muscle flex by Netanyahu before the elections instead of after are at the very least partly politically motivated.

The Haaretz interview with Gershon Baskin about Jabari and the side effects has been published in a lot of papers/places, so you probably read it already, but if not: http://www.huffingto..._n_2152231.html

[Tapper]

 Cause, on 19 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

 worrywort, on 19 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

If it happens every few months, then why would this extraordinarily outsized reaction by Israel not stand out as being election-oriented? If it's business as usual, wouldn't both action and reaction be normal sized?

It ebbs and flows all the time. This is not the first time a serious offensive has been considered or launched. Besides this is the first time in years, maybe ever (I cant be sure), that a rocket has hit Tel Aviv and the first time in 42 years they have fired one at Jerusalem. Don't you think that escalates things? Was it an election year last time? During the war with Lebanon? Israel assassinated a top Hammas official and Hammas is threatening 6 million Israelis with indiscriminate rocket fire (The fact that they are so bad at it does not mean it can be ignored). The situation that is happening now is unavoidable so long as things stay as they are.

If anything I would say the timing with Irans nuclear ambitions is more interesting. If Israel invades Gaza its good for Iran and bad for Israel as I see it.

Anyway we seem to heading off topic.

It is too bad that Hamas is also the elected government in Gaza. Secondly, Israelian strikes are seldom as precise as they seem to be made out - there's a lot of collateral damage. In the end, it is always the citizen population that suffers, on both sides of the fence.

Hopefully the current crisis will see the Palestinian Authority restored and bring some calm for the next couple of years, but there are only losers here.

[Morgoth]

Not to mention that this is the worst time possible for Israel to become unpopular in Egypt. The smart thing to do as far as I can see would have been to solidify a stable, and perhaps even somewhat friendly relationship to Egypt's new government.

First impressions are important, and what happens now will take a substansial part in the formation of the Egyptian narrative when it comes to foreign policy.

Not to mention that Turkey's effort to present themselves as the big man in the middle east pretty much forces them to side with Palestinians, and though I doubt Edrogan feels much sympathy for Israel, he is at least a reasonable man. Given the opportunity Turkey's rethoric could easily have become relatively peacefull towards Israel, but the events of the last few years considered in the light of Edrogan's wish to become president (with extended powers I might add), makes it almost impossible for Turkey to do anything but condem Israel as a terrorist nation. No matter how much they want to be friends with the EU.

In addition there's the inevitable islamic government in Syria, and what seems to be a very slow collapse of the king's rule in Jordan. Israel have very few options, and with this sort of attacks it would seem they're even throwing those away.

[D'iversify]

 Morgoth, on 20 November 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Not to mention that Turkey's effort to present themselves as the big man in the middle east pretty much forces them to side with Palestinians, and though I doubt Edrogan feels much sympathy for Israel, he is at least a reasonable man. Given the opportunity Turkey's rethoric could easily have become relatively peacefull towards Israel, but the events of the last few years considered in the light of Edrogan's wish to become president (with extended powers I might add), makes it almost impossible for Turkey to do anything but condem Israel as a terrorist nation. No matter how much they want to be friends with the EU.

Israeli-Turkish relations were excellent prior to the fatal Gaza flotilla farce of May 2010. Whatever the activists' motives and defensive capabilities, given that they were completely outgunned, killing 9 of them was inexcusably heavy handed tactics.

[Terez]

 Shinrei, on 20 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

 Terez, on 19 November 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Not only were they funded by borrowing, they were largely funded by a special sort of borrowing that added to our debt without showing up in Bush's budgets.

Exactly - and apparent lack of knowledge about this sort of thing by my republican friends gets them all confused when I don't vote republican - "But you believe in fiscal responsibility!" the cry incredulously.

I have forgotten the details of your citizenship. Do you have a dual citizenship? Do you still live in Japan, but vote by absentee?

[worry]

At least we have somebody fighting the good fight over there: http://www.buzzfeed....cooper-is-ownin

[Terez]

Yeah, someone in my feed retweeted the coconut flan one. Hilarious.

[worry]

A pretty solid argument by Ezra Klein on why raising the retirement age as a means to "save" Social Security is such a bone-headed, even cruel idea: http://www.msnbc.msn..._word/#49911791

He also wrote an editorial on the same subject, if you prefer to read: http://www.washingto...retirement-age/

[D'iversify]

A good analysis of the aftermath of the latest Israel-Palestine flare-up: http://www.crisisgro...ampaign=mremail

[Shinrei]

Quote

That’s what’s galling about this easy argument. The people who make it, the pundits and the senators and the CEOs, they’ll never feel it. They don’t want to retire at age 65, and they don’t have short life expectancies, and they’re not mainly relying on Social Security for their retirement income. They’re bravely advocating a cut they’ll never feel.

But you know what they would feel? Social Security taxes don’t apply to income over $110,000. In 2011, Lloyd Blankfein’s total compensation was $16.1 million. That means he paid Social Security taxes on less than 1 percent of his compensation.

If we lifted that cap, if we made all income subject to payroll taxes, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would do three times as much to solve Social Security’s shortfall as raising the retirement age to 70. In fact, it would, in one fell swoop, close Social Security’s solvency gap for the next 75 years. That may or may not be the right way to close Social Security’s shortfall, but somehow, it rarely gets mentioned by the folks who think they’re being courageous when they talk about raising a retirement age they’ll never notice

The irony, it burns.

[Illuyankas]

What's ironic about that? Seems like good advice to me.

[Terez]

 Illuyankas, on 23 November 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

What's ironic about that? Seems like good advice to me.

He's talking about the fact that Klein is proposing that the cap be lifted (or raised) on Social Security deductions so that the rich pay more.

Quote

That’s what’s galling about this easy argument. The people who make it, the pundits and the senators and the CEOs, they’ll never feel it.

Of course, it's not a direct comparison since the poor and even the middle class by definition 'feel' it more profoundly than the rich.

[worry]

It's ironic because the world is ending in 2012 so nobody's making it to 62, 65, or 70 anyway.

[Shinrei]

It's ironic because he says it's not fair because the rich won't feel the effect of a later retirement age. But at the same time, it's ok to make them pay more for a program for which they won't receive any benefit.

[Illuyankas]

I don't have children and am not planning on having any, why should I pay taxes towards schools or children's healthcare when I'm never going to receive any benefit from it? It's not like they're part of the same country or species or overall humanity as me or anything, so FYGM to them.

[worry]

I would suggest there's actually some benefit to living in a nation that doesn't let the mass of its retired people subsist on a pet food and skid row housing level budget after ~50 years of work, even if you yourself are quite financially comfortable for several lifetimes over. I would suggest that a definition of "fair" that doesn't differentiate between the rich and the rest in terms of progressive financial contribution to the social contract isn't a definition worth considering. I would also suggest that despite the cries of the suffering rich (http://24.media.tumb...gbo1_r1_500.png) that somewhat easing the tail end of life for lower income people takes priority over padding their egos/bank accounts that much further. I would even go so far as to suggest that no man is an island.

I mean I would suggest all that, if it wasn't self-evident. And if it wasn't terminally exasperating having to repeat it every time somebody bends over backwards to defend the rich against reasonable taxation.

[Terez]

 Shinrei, on 24 November 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

It's ironic because he says it's not fair because the rich won't feel the effect of a later retirement age. But at the same time, it's ok to make them pay more for a program for which they won't receive any benefit.

Most of the rich have a sizable portion of their money in investments which generally benefit from low unemployment and a thriving consumer economy, both of which would be adversely affected by raising the retirement age, so the claim that there is no benefit is short-sighted. There are even good arguments that it would be all-around beneficial to the economy to lower the retirement age. Payroll taxes are the most regressive of the federal taxes, which is part of why Bush was able to justify eliminating the income tax for so many (the other part being the across-the-board tax cut which made little economic sense, particularly considering his spending habits). Generally, tax cuts for the poor and middle class are far more beneficial to the economy because 1) no matter how high taxes are, investment will always be profitable, and 2) the working class spends all its money, hence our net negative savings.

[Shinrei]

 worrywort, on 24 November 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

I would suggest there's actually some benefit to living in a nation that doesn't let the mass of its retired people subsist on a pet food and skid row housing level budget after ~50 years of work, even if you yourself are quite financially comfortable for several lifetimes over. I would suggest that a definition of "fair" that doesn't differentiate between the rich and the rest in terms of progressive financial contribution to the social contract isn't a definition worth considering. I would also suggest that despite the cries of the suffering rich (http://24.media.tumb...gbo1_r1_500.png) that somewhat easing the tail end of life for lower income people takes priority over padding their egos/bank accounts that much further. I would even go so far as to suggest that no man is an island.

I mean I would suggest all that, if it wasn't self-evident. And if it wasn't terminally exasperating having to repeat it every time somebody bends over backwards to defend the rich against reasonable taxation.

What I'm trying to "defend the rich" from is not reasonable taxation, but from the suggestion that it falls to them to fund the vast majority of the "social contract", which is what was being suggested. "Look, if we soak the rich, they can pay for all of the shortfall! Lucky us!"

You will not see me coming out and claiming that the rich should pay no more than the middle class, or that they have no responsibility towards others. I think I could keep myself warm all winter just by burning all the strawmen Illy has been giving me recently...