Re: We Are Good

1

Iran, a country with a third-rate military

Anti-Persian


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
2

I know someone who is a member of AIPAC

Some of my best friends are members of AIPAC!


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
3

Sorry, there should have been quotes around that, to indicate that I was putting words in Ogged's mouth.

I don't personally know any members of AIPAC, AFAIK.


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
4

I would be so happy if someone (OK, Obama) would just tell Americans to calm the fuck down about Iran. Between the Bush NIE that said they're no threat and the clusterfuck that is Iraq, it should actually be an easy case to make to the American public.

Not that I expect this to happen.

A related thing I would love to see would be President Obama reviving the fireside chat, but for deprogramming purposes. Basically, we've been fed a steady diet of Randian/Republican horseshit for 30 years now, and we need someone in the bully pulpit just flat-out knocking this shit down. The Republican Noise Machine will crank up, but soothing, soothing Obama on the teevee can beat them all down.

A man can dream, can't he?

PS - Primary update: I think I've gotten a half-dozen or more robocalls encouraging me to vote for Obama, and exactly one (from Rendell) for Clinton. I would note that I live in a majority-black neighborhood....


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
5

For any Jews on this thread, check out the J Street Project:

http://www.jstreet.org/

Actually, non-Jews should check it out too.

A progressive alternative to the kind of people who wouldn't mind seeing Israel or America close the loop on the holocaust by mass murdering them some anti-semites.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
6

Given that Israel has nuclear weapons, and so is perfectly capable of launching a retaliatory strike itself, what's the real agenda behind AIPAC encouraging the US government to rattle its sabers towards Iran?


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
7

In the next ten years, during which [Iran] might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel

Yes, if they had nuclear weapons (which they don't), or were even anywhere close to having them (which they aren't), and they decided to launch a military attack on Israel (which they never have), and if Israel didn't have a huge nuclear second-strike capability (which they do), then if Hillary Clinton were elected president (which she won't be), she could jet into Tehran and wrestle a buffalo to show them who's who before she "obliterates" Iran.

God, I hate her.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
8

One of these days the Iranian military might become second rate - then what are you going to say? Huh?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
9

I'm not terribly thrilled by J Street so far. They're better than AIPAC, sure, but their positions on settler colonization, Jerusalem, and the West Bank appear to be well to the right of the rest of the world (where "the rest of the world" means "everyone other than Israel and the US"). And these aren't exactly minor issues.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
10

Israel is the country that has for years now been engaged in a full-throated propaganda campaign to goad the world's superpower into "dealing with" Iran

Which is funny, given their history of supplying arms to Iran.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
11

Does AIPAC believe that if the Iranian "problem" were "dealt with" "decisively," by the U.S., then Israel would be substantially more secure? Why? Wouldn't other countries in the region still dislike/threaten Israel's security, so we'd have to go through the same song-and-bomb again in a few years?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
12

Which is funny, given their history of supplying arms to Iran.

But they haven't bought any lately; Israel needs someone to reduce Iran's arms stocks, so they can sell them some more.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
13

11: I can't think of any recent historical examples that would support this theory.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
14

Given that Israel has nuclear weapons

Do tell, Zadfrack!

Actually, when my friend EL moved to Israel/made aliya/realized she could have someone else pay her rent for 6+ mos., she had a going-away costume party where one was expected to dress as a famous Jew. (Incidentally, nearly everyone at the party was a performance artist, no lie.) I wrote on my palm comme ça and went as Vanunu. Although it seems he has converted to some kind of fundie now.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
15

I'd really like to hear a major voice in American politics start saying calm the fuck down about Iran. Or better yet, just a general calm the fuck down. Every two-bit demagogue, think-tanker and mil-complex junkie is constantly hyperventilating over who the next Great Evil will be, but the greatest threat to America is, and always has been, America, and the lunatic need to see boogeymen in every dark corner is no small part of that.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
16

God, I hate her.

I really, really tried to like her, but I feel the same. "We would be able to totally obliterate them"? The fuck?

Also, that map Stormcrow linked to in the food thread showed Iran as one of the few countries which once had McDonald's franchises and no longer does. Points for you, Iran!


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
17

Another relevant post (that is, different from the one to which MY links) from Avorosis:

That's a huge, and newsworthy, change in US policy. First, we don't admit publicly when and if we are going to use nukes. Hillary just did. That's big news. Second, defense experts I talk to say that we have never said publicly that we would use nukes to defend Israel (even though this might be assumed, it's different when you confirm it publicly). Third, we have never before said that we would extend the US nuclear umbrella to defend other countries in the Middle East. Again, Hillary just did.
Just absolutely insane. Anyone wonder to what extent this will be followed up, as compared Flag Pin-gate?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
18

I wholeheartedly endorse every single word of comment 15.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
19

It's annoying to have to rely on the regional power with the third rate army to exercise restraint. We're the superpower. Shouldn't we calm the fuck down?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
20

Somehow, this is related:

Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
Link.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
21

That's a huge, and newsworthy, change in US policy.

But her 35 years of experience make her ready on Day One! She would never blithely make such an amateur-hour pronouncement unless she was distracted by the sniper fire, right?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
22

I'm not terribly thrilled by J Street so far.

I am. They are far to the left of AIPAC and explicitly organized to provide an alternative to the Likudnik agenda. And you know that specifics on settlers and any division of Jerusalem are open to change in negotiations. The basics -- two-state solution, rejection of violence as a solution in Iran/Syria/West Bank, no more settlements -- are all there.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Not that the left ever does that.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
23

To everyone on the outside, things look very different.

everyone?


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
24

God, I hate her.

Do you think Obama is really different on this issue? Don't kid yourself. He's been very anti-Iran, and echoed all the giant scary threat rhetoric.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
25

They are far to the left of AIPAC

That's kinda like being the skinniest kid at fat camp though, isn't it?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
26

Do you think Obama is really different on this issue?

Mmm, I'll have to look into his policy papers on wiping other countries off the map with nuclear weapons. Maybe you have a link handy?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
27

It would be a huge change in US policy if it were actually a change in US policy rather than yet another bit of irritating campaign rhetoric.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
28

Do you think Obama is really different on this issue?

Yes.

Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

Again, the problem isn't this or that candidate, but the parameters of the debate in America, but within those parameters, Obama always gets as close to sane as he can, while Clinton is consistently hawkish, and not just "for a Democrat."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
29

Israel is the country that has for years now been engaged in a full-throated propaganda campaign to goad the world's superpower into "dealing with" Iran, a country with a third-rate military and no nuclear capability.

I love it when a big chunk of a sentence I wrote years ago pops up out of nowhere. Hi, sentence piece! Long time! Good to see ya! I hadn't forgot you!

The framing that has Iran as the unpredictable aggressor is what you see within the walls of the empire.

Yep. Thing is, I do believe Hillary was one of those peacenik hippie freaks who believed we should make nice-nice with the Rooskis. Which rather strongly implies that's it's one thing for VIPs to have their fates depend on the benevolence of assorted Communists, but quite another thing indeed when you know that the country you're talking trash about has a third-rate military and no nculear weapons, and the only people who might get killed are some unimportant grunts.

You almost think some of these folks had guts or something.

Basically, we've been fed a steady diet of Randian/Republican horseshit for 30 years now, and we need someone in the bully pulpit just flat-out knocking this shit down. The Republican Noise Machine will crank up, but soothing, soothing Obama on the teevee can beat them all down.

What he should do, should it pass that he becomes President, is to shut up about the problem [Iran]. No meetings, no diplomatic contacts, no negotiations. Let the Weekly Standard people go back to incoherently mumbling to themselves about Hitler. Without the oxygen of press coverage, the entire goddamn problem will go away.

max
['Clinton the Bill always made the mistake of paying attention to these fuckwits said.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
30

The Vanunu story occupies a weird and vivid spot in my memory because when I was polishing up my French in preparation for my grad exams, I read a long retrospective in Le Monde or somewhere. Embarrassingly, I'd never heard of him before that. It was by far the most interesting thing I read in my French newspaper reading, plus it took me much longer to read and get straight than it ever would have in English, thus burning it crisply into my mind.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
31

Although, to be fair, Hillary's site is a lot more sane than what she said yesterday.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
32

What he should do, should it pass that he becomes President, is to shut up about the problem [Iran]. No meetings, no diplomatic contacts, no negotiations. Let the Weekly Standard people go back to incoherently mumbling to themselves about Hitler. Without the oxygen of press coverage, the entire goddamn problem will go away.

Crazy and wrong. The entire goddamn problem will percolate along for years until some other nutjob takes power and needs a war.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
33

One of the things I hate about Bush foreign / military policy is that, as I understand, every area of policy is decided on the basis of Republican electoral needs. Essentially, Bush needs to keep the base close with the theatre of cruelty, and he has to pull in moderates and low-information voters by terrifying them. The hawks are the Republicans who have been least betrayed by Bush (except for the anti-tax people), but a lot of them are unhappy with him now because of his fuckups, and my belief is that his fuckups were electorally motivated. O'Neill in Susskind and DiIulio in his own book said the same about domestic policy.)

This is the long way around to saying that Hillary seems to be doing the same thing here. She proposed quite a considerable change in policy for the sake of looking more hawkish to the voters.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
34

Do you think Obama is really different on this issue? Don't kid yourself.

How drunk are you? Is that wise at this hour? He hasn't seen the need, to date, to threaten a country without the capability to do the relevant harm with a massive (here, nuclear) attack should it magically develop that capability. This is--unbelievably, in small-- the difference between their positions on Iraq. Whatever lies in each candidate's secret heart, it's a tell about their conception of their voting coalition.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
35

PS - Primary update: I think I've gotten a half-dozen or more robocalls encouraging me to vote for Obama, and exactly one (from Rendell) for Clinton. I would note that I live in a majority-black neighborhood....

My cell phone has gotten three from Michelle Obama and three from Hillary Clinton.

A big step forward from 2004 when the only one I got was from Puff Daddy threatening to kill me if I didn't vote for someone, though he didn't tell me to vote for anyone in particular.


Posted by: CN | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
36

Yes, if they had nuclear weapons (which they don't), or were even anywhere close to having them (which they aren't), and they decided to launch a military attack on Israel (which they never have), and if Israel didn't have a huge nuclear second-strike capability (which they do), then if Hillary Clinton were elected president (which she won't be), she could jet into Tehran and wrestle a buffalo to show them who's who before she "obliterates" Iran.

Following up on Apo's point (above), this is basically another anti-flag burning law: it's OK for her to propose it, because it won't go anywhere, because someone else (anti-flag burning law--the courts; here--I dunno, I guess the FP establishment) will prevent us from suffering the ill effects of the change she has proposed but does not really believe in.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
37

The basics -- two-state solution, rejection of violence as a solution in Iran/Syria/West Bank, no more settlements -- are all there.

But those aren't "the basics." The basics for a two-state solution - at least as recognized outside the US and Israel - include borders based on the '67 borders and a self-sufficient and contiguous Palestinian state. In order for a Palestinian state in the West Bank to be contiguous, Israeli colonies are going to have to be dismantled. It's not just a matter of "no more settlements," it's a matter of "no settlements," period.

J Street, however, calls for an agreement that allows for "Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers" - meaning the West Bank colonies stay put, carving up much of any future Palestinian state - and "a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities" - code words for dividing the city based on illegal policies that have displaced much of the Palestinian population. And while J Street expresses a commitment to "Palestinian viability and contiguity," it's awfully hard to see how any Palestinian state is going to be viable and contiguous when massive Israeli colonies are extending into and carving up its territory.

J Street also mouths the usual lines about holding Palestinian terrorists accountable, but says nothing about restitution for or international investigation of the many atrocities committed by the Israeli government from 1948 up through the present day. Indeed, their proposed agreement would reward the Israeli government for decades of colonization, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Like I said, it's better than AIPAC, but that isn't saying much. I don't think any genuine interest in a just end in Palestine is going to from an organization that identifies itself with the good of one particular side ("pro-Israel"), but with the basic rights and humanity of all concerned. Those kinds of organizations, of course, from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch, have come to be loathed by the various pro-Israel groups, and with good reason. Human rights and nationalism have never gotten along.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
38

A big step forward from 2004 when the only one I got was from Puff Daddy threatening to kill me if I didn't vote for someone, though he didn't tell me to vote for anyone in particular.

In 2004, a recording of Danny Glover's voice told my answering machine personally to vote for Kucinich.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
39

||

Can anyone provide me with a blank 2006 1040? I seem to have lost mine, and the bank wants to see a copy. I still have the calcs, and even some of the worksheets, but not the blessed 1040 itself.

|>


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
40

Like I said, it's better than AIPAC, but that isn't saying much.

That's saying a lot.

I don't think any genuine interest in a just end in Palestine is going to from an organization that identifies itself with the good of one particular side ("pro-Israel"),

Probably not, but a better group for people concerned for that one particular side is, it seems to me, a gigantic first step.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
41

One of the things I hate about Bush foreign / military American policy is that, as I understand, every area of policy is decided on the basis of Republican electoral needs.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
42

I think that you guys are misinterpreting what "Never Forget" means. It doesn't mean never let another genocide happen, that much has been proven false, even for people with white skin. It means that Israel will exist, no matter what. Unless and until the various factions involved (Hamas, sponsored by the Iranians for example) are willing to trade the West Bank for the right of return, this is going nowhere. The neocon part of me also realizes that part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was so we could tell Israel to fuck off, cuz we have a new playmate.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
43

Jroth- you can get the form from the IRS website


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
44

There's no reason why "American" should be in 41 either.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
45

Here you go, JRoth. Make sure you note somewhere on the form that you have no google-fu.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
46

42: I don't think anybody's arguing what you think they are.

I think your position may also be confused. No way would Israel acquiesce to right of return; if the choice is between a larger, non-majority-Jewish state and a smaller, majority-Jewish state the former is probably more important.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
47

Make sure you note somewhere on the form that you have no google-fu

The costs of acquiring google-fu are usually deductible.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
48

I'm too annoyed by this development to use my own initiative - I'm leaning on you people in my moment of need.

Thanks, enablers.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
49

The neocon part of me also realizes that part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was so we could tell Israel to fuck off, cuz we have a new playmate.

I feel certain that it's not the neocon part of you.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
50

The neocon part of me also realizes that part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was so we could tell Israel to fuck off, cuz we have a new playmate.

Wha?

Was this part of the super-secret neocon justification? Because I don't recall it being part of the public justifications, which as I recall was mostly "OMG! WMDS! OBL! Reverse Domino Effect!"


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
51

That is what I am saying, Sifu. I'm sorry, but right of return is a non starter. There has been a willingness to make a deal on the West Bank. And I know all the cartographers will be upset, but why not a three state solution, two Arab and one Jewish?


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
52

The Gaza Strip is not a viable state.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
53

I don't think it's the "cartographers" who will be upset by the idea of creating two tiny, non-contiguous states with limited access to water, no clear route for travel between the two, and basically no path to economic viability. I think the term you may be hunting for is "the people who live there".


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
54

Well, SCMT, I am a paleocon after all. Actually a splendid isolationist. If we have to invade somebody, is should be western Canada.

Zadfrack, telling Israel to fuck off was not part of the plan, but telling KSA to fuck off was.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
55

Shouldn't the Gaza Strip become part of Egypt?


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
56

55: what? Why? Because it's next to it?

Shouldn't Eritrea become part of Ethiopia?

Shouldn't Armenia become part of Turkey?

Shouldn't Iraq become part of Iran?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
57

And I know all the cartographers will be upset, but why not a three state solution, two Arab and one Jewish?

Because it's no more likely to happen than a two-state solution, and for the same reasons?

The biggest elephant in the room, for me at least, is the fact that the two-state solution looks far less viable than the binational state everyone writes off as a utopian pipe dream. The past several years should have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of anyone who's bothered to pay attention, that Gaza is small enough and poor enough that the Israeli military can more or less shut it down and starve it at will. In what way can that possibly make for a viable state? For that matter, how can the West Bank possibly be viable, either together with Gaza or on its own, either? These are tiny regions starved of money and resources and repeatedly hammered by a much wealthier, much more powerful opponent. How the hell are you going to get a separate, viable state out of that? Giving equal citizenship to the Palestinians and making it all one country looks like the least bad option to me.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
58

The neocon part of me

Given the importance of the problem, you'd think medical researchers by now would have developed an effective neocon-ectomy.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
59

Pay no attention to HRC's comments, folks. If we can just sort out the Israel/Palestine in comments, all possible ill effects may well go away, in any case.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
60

I know that water is a key issue. The seizure of the Golan Heights was only partially about strategic high ground and artillery placements. As for Gaza, there are countries that are smaller. Why not Monaco? (NB, I am not suggesting that this is in any way possible given current realities, but trying a little out of the box)


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
61

As for Gaza, there are countries that are smaller. Why not Monaco?

Because Gaza is one of the poorest places on earth, and Monaco is one of the richest?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
62

the binational state everyone writes off as a utopian pipe dream

Or as tantamount to the destruction of Israel. Where's Farber?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
63

Gaza is poor now, but it is not carved in stone that it must be. Build a casino. Worked for Monaco, worked for the Native Americans, why not for the Gazans?


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
64

62: If enfranchising Arabs means the extinction of Zionism, then I guess I'm anti-Zionist.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
65

worked for the Native Americans

I know you're just trying to be a dick, but it should be noted that building casinos has not, in fact, worked for the Native Americans.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
66

If we have to invade somebody, is should be western Canada.

Baja California should be first. It's already called California!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
67

65: it's worked for the lucky ones!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
68

The trouble with JStreet is that its another large lobbying organization dedicated to influencing the way that America allows Israel to mooch its money and power. This is not a comfort to those of us who feel that Israel is all grown up now, and needs to move out of America's basement.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
69

it should be noted that building casinos has not, in fact, worked for the Native Americans.

That's not what the tv commercials say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VVAfnS1PqY


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
70

66: hell yeah. The War of the Fish Tacos, here we come.

Although as Friedman reminds us, no two countries that have luxury developments by Donald Trump in them have ever been to war with each other.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
71

68: again with the imprecision. Mexico is in America's basement, and Canada is in the attic.

Sheesh, people can't even read maps anymore.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
72

Yeah, Israel's in the beach house.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
73

And Israel keeps borrowing the car and returning it with a empty tank...


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
74

Kegger at Israel!!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
75

We're going to regret not getting a security deposit from Israel.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
76

75: Current rent on Israel is $250 million a month. You think we could be trusted with a check for $500 million?

I'd blow it all on hookers and coke before the surviving member of Ratt even got a chance to join me.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
77

Sheesh, people can't even read maps anymore.

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/mcarthur-large.jpg

What?


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
78

Ok, last year's taxes done. Thanks for the help.

Now, for this I-P thing, if someone could just point me to a blank 2000 Middle East Peace Settlement form, I think I could get this all hammered out.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
79

Israel wears Lebanon like a headdress.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
80

65: that building casinos has not, in fact, worked for the Native Americans.

?? They've made lots of new friends like Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
81

The Clinton threat was really a coded message to Saudi Arabia, of course.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
82

Again, I know you people are just trying to be dicks, but try googling "native american poverty" sometime.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
83

I wasn't trying to be a dick. I was trying to make a stupid joke about gambling.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
84

Gee stras, you mean if your tribe's reservation doesn't happen to be along a major highway from a major US city to the gambling capital of the world it might not have the same kind of draw? Why are you harshing my mellow, man?


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
85

Europe wears Italy like a jackboot.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
86

84: Okay, now you're just actually being a dick. You're aware that these casinos aren't exactly evenly and equitably distributing their earnings throughout the tribes, right?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
87

82,83: And I a stupider one about Republican assholes.

ST and I are just playing Dumb and Dumber to your Ernest and Ernester.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
88

South Africa wears Lesotho like a beauty mark.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
89

And the man-on-the-(Chinese)-street thinks Clinton should be President (At 3:16: "She's a woman, she's a bit gentler. You Americans like to go to war."). Boy, is he in for a shock.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
90

87: Like I said, trying to be a dick.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
91

Stras, did you read my comment? I know full well that there are four tribes making money on the casinos, and the rest aren't. Most of that is pure dumb luck in where the reservation is located or the fact a highway goes through it. Plus the fact that Southern Californians have made a habit of driving to Vegas for the weekend, but Morongo is closer.

If you want to talk about injustice, do you know what is happening with the Indian Affairs Oil and Gas lease lawsuit? Billions of dollars unaccounted for, over hundreds of years.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
92

90: But failing!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
93

"No way would Israel acquiesce to right of return; if the choice is between a larger, non-majority-Jewish state and a smaller, majority-Jewish state the former is probably more important."

I agree they won't agree to it, but I don't think it would be a major demographic threat, if you restrict the right to the refugees, excluding their adult children and relatives. There were only 650 000 of them, and not a lot of people born before 1948 is going to have children.

Hundreds of thousands of old people isn't nothing, but opinion surveys have indicated that the vast majority of refugees aren't interested in returning. I think the right of return wouldn't in the end be a big deal.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
94

North Korea wears South Korea like a condom.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
95

93: well, okay, but if you're talking about a right of return for only the original landowners, then what? Does their land revert to Israeli control when they die? Do their kids inherit it? I mean, you either have real right of return or you say to a bunch of old people "sure, you can come hang out in Israel for the next dozen years until you die. Leave the kids!" which doesn't seem like something anybody's going to that excited about.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
96

So when people make phallic comparisons like 94, do people immediate think of Sweden? Do Swedes think of Sweden?


Posted by: Klug | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
97

...if you restrict the right to the refugees, excluding their adult children and relatives.

Pretty big "if" there, bro.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
98

96: Sweden wears Finland like balls?

Norway rides Sweden bareback?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
99

do people immediate think of Sweden?

Florida. At least until we annex Baja california.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
100

98: And Denmark?


Posted by: Klug | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
101

||

In other news, the word "terrorism" now evidently means "anything really bad or violent." For example:

INDIANAPOLIS -- Two juveniles were being questioned early Tuesday afternoon after a pregnant bank teller was shot in the lower abdomen in what police characterized as an outrageous act of terrorism during a bank robbery on Indianapolis' east side.

|>


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
102

I think Palestinians would be fine with that, as long as all refugees got restitutions and an apolgy. Like I said, relatively few actually want to return.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
103

I know full well that there are four tribes making money on the casinos, and the rest aren't.

RRRRRRGGGGGGHHHH. This is exactly my point. It's not that "there are four tribes making money on the casinos, and the rest aren't." The "tribes" aren't making money at all. A handful of members in those tribes have made money, while the lion's share of profits have gone to the non-Indian corporations who actually operate the casinos.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
104

So when people make phallic comparisons like 94, do people immediate think of Sweden?

It's sweet the way Norway and Sweden spoon together. Of course, you've got Finland in there, too, but you know how those Scandinavians are about free love.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
105

you know how those Scandinavians are about free love

Dirty hippies.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
106

strasmangelo, what's important is that the GDP of the tribes have increased. That means the per capita GDP has also increased. The redistribution of that income is a mere technicality, and a matter for the invisible hand's partner, the ineffable trickling-down rising boat.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
107

A handful of members in those tribes have made money, while the lion's share of profits have gone to the non-Indian corporations who actually operate the casinos.

A separate issue. I also know that one of the tribes is kicking members out, for various reasons, but sure seems like money to me.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
108

101: It says right there in the article that the shooter was black. I thought the rule was that terrorists had to be brown.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
109

96: I remember in my first Swedish language class for all the exchange students at Jönköping University, the instructor drew a big outline of Sweden on the whiteboard, and the entire class burst into the giggles because it looked exactly like a big, empty condom.

So yeah, its phallic...


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
110

Apparently I pwned 107 by making his same point in a tone of voice that implied that nobody would seriously make that point because it was so stupid.

Does this count as pwning in two different ways?


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
111

109: At least I'm not the only geography perv.


Posted by: Klug | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
112

The reason why everyone finds those Henning Mankell books so compelling is that the Skane region is located right at the frenulum of Sweden.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
113

A separate issue.

"A separate issue"? It's the same damn issue, you second-rate Shearer knock-off! You claim that casinos have enriched a handful of tribes, and I've pointed out that they don't even meet this incredibly limited definition of success, because the profits aren't going to the tribes, they're going to a few members and outside groups. How is that a separate issue?

Honestly, your serious replies are dumb enough that I can't be expected to tell them apart from your joking replies.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
114

Swedes don't, but I remember reading when the euro coins were introduced, that the continentals joking about the northern part of the map of the EU.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
115

RRRRRRGGGGGGHHHH.

I always knew stras would transform into the Hulk if he got angry enough.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
116

you second-rate Shearer knock-off!

Best Unfogged insult in memory.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
117

Big map.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
118

Gah, don't google "frenulum".


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
119

Well, I beg to differ on two counts. First, I am at least a Shearer knockoff of the first rate. Second, it surely is a separate issue of how whatever profits there may be are divided within the tribe as opposed to outside of the tribe or with other tribes. One could easily have a revenue sharing plan that divided the spoils equally among tribes and have a problem on home that filters into individual pockets.

The main point, as I thought the joke tv commercial pointed out, is that tribal gaming is not about "self reliance".


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
120

i'm curious, i heard that the US government pays a subsidy or welfare, how it is called, to each native American, but when it happens that a Native American goes to the college the government cuts all that money not only his/her but also for all the family members discouraging them to get education, is it true?


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
121

Perhaps this comes of a lifetime in New England, but I am sincerely surprised that people believe that Indian casinos throw off profits to all and sundry of the relevant nation, rather than a small, self-selected set.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
122

117: When you look at that map, you really wonder what Ukraine is doing to the rest of Europe. Man, I'm immature.


Posted by: Klug | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
123

121: I actually had no idea. Is this something they can blame the white man for? Or is it rotten governance on the part of tribes?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
124

Second, it surely is a separate issue of how whatever profits there may be are divided within the tribe as opposed to outside of the tribe or with other tribes.

Sure, this is a separate issue, in the sense that the lack of inter-tribe revenue sharing wasn't the issue that was originally being referenced (with points like "building casinos has not, in fact, worked for the Native Americans" and "these casinos aren't exactly evenly and equitably distributing their earnings throughout the tribes") -- I'm pretty sure that all along Stras was pointing out that very few people, even fewer of whom are Native American, actually make money from the casinos, even members of those tribes that are in a good position to run profitable casinos. Your point about how very few tribes are in that position is an extra bonus not-a-solution feature.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
125
INDIANAPOLIS -- Two juveniles were being questioned early Tuesday afternoon after a pregnant bank teller was shot in the lower abdomen in what police characterized as an outrageous act of terrorism during a bank robbery on Indianapolis' east side.

Yeah, it sucks how the word "terrorism" is being rendered meaningless. But note the second paragraph of the same story:

Attorneys for the suspects denied the terrorism charge, saying their clients were instead conducting enhanced interrogation, and were therefore immune from prosecution.

And further down in the story:

Procedural liberalism expert Eric Rauchway said that, because the two hadn't been convicted of anything, they are still be eligible for tenure at Berkeley.

Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
126

Really awesome post.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
127

101 - This jackass who wanted to build a bomb to blow up his high school is being charged with intent to use "weapons of mass destruction", apparently. Hey, there were WMDs in Iraq!


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
128

If the Indians don't start distributing those profits more equitably, Hillary Clinton will totally obliterate Harrah's Cherokee.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
129

To be fair, I'd say that Shearer is a second-rate TLL knockoff.


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
130

America is screwed. But I am so fucking exhausted right now that I am unable to offer any assistance. Sorry.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
131

I love it when a big chunk of a sentence I wrote years ago pops up out of nowhere.

Max is a second-rate Farber knock-off.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
132

115: Yes, but will he be played by Lou Ferrigno, or will they just use CGI effects?


Posted by: zadfrack | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
133

129. Shearer was commenting here long before I was. He is also considerably less flip. I cop to being a glibertarian, but then again this is the internets, and no one knows I'm a dog.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
134

132: Angry stras.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
135

Is whatever passes for the Palestinian government still pushing a hard pro-natalist policy?


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
136

America is screwed. But I am so fucking exhausted right now

Screwing a nation of 300 million people will do that to a person. Still, congratulations on your perseverance.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
137

123: Both, I'd speculate.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
138

This jackass who wanted to build a bomb to blow up his high school is being charged with intent to use "weapons of mass destruction"

And apparently his parents had no idea of his wish to blow up his school, yet on the basis of the delivery of a truckload of fertilizer to their house and their discovery of his journal, turned their son, a boy with no priors, over to the cops. Newsflash: if you paid a little attention to your kids, maybe you could get them help when they needed it. Or, you know, at least ship them off to military school the old-fashioned way.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
139

117: According to that map, Switzerland, contrary to popular perception, is the gaping asshole of Europe.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
140

on the basis of the delivery of a truckload of fertilizer [...] turned their son, a boy with no priors, over to the cops

They could have just done what my dad did in that same situation and take him out behind the barn and make him smoke that entire truckload of fertilizer.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
141

139: If you happen to be hiking through a little valley during manure-spreading, it can seem that way.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
142

120 -- Read, it's not true.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
143

what i found http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_1/1_1/5-esq11-a.asp
i heard that Native Americans are discouraged getting higher education from my coworker, a Korean PhD student, so it was not true


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
144

Switzerland, contrary to popular perception, is the gaping asshole of Europe.

He may not be popular, but this is precisely my Austrian-born FIL's perception of Switzerland.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
145

140: Apo's Millions.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
146

109: At least I'm not the only geography perv.

There's a B. Kliban cartoon, "Map Filth," which shows the outline of the U.S. with a speech bubble coming out of Chesapeake Bay: "Hey Europe! Eat my Florida!" Not to be found online, it seems.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
147

Richard Reid's shoe bomb was a weapon of mass destruction. I'm sure someone with good fu can find it, but I think it was the PATRIOT Act that defined it very broadly. I found 18 USC 2332a which incorporates by reference "destructive devices" from 18 USC 921. A hand grenade, but not a hand gun, is a WMD under US law.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04-22-08 5:53 PM
horizontal rule