I have a question:

If the trickle down theory does not help those at the bottom in a good times, why should it hurt in bad times?

Posted at August 10, 2007 9:37 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

It seems to me that the analogy is false. The evil of Hitler was not that he went to war. The evil was how he treated citizens of his country and conquered countries.

The appeasement of Hitler and the disdain of it had nothing with controlling his evil. I am not aware of any statesman of the time saying: we have to stop Hitler to save the Jews. Indeed, I would think that to be anti-Churchillian.

Moreover, it could be argued that the Republican isolationists and the corporations (including Bush's relatives) had no quarrel with the Nazi's internal policies (they just wanted to make money).

The Democrats should really call Bush on this.

Posted at September 6, 2006 11:41 AM in response to Recanting and Understanding

Good questions.

There is one obvious answer: It's Clinton's fault.

Posted at September 6, 2006 11:13 AM in response to Recanting and Understanding

Good for Waters. He should perform where he wants to perform.

As for the wall.

First, it is not unheard of for a person to build a wall partially on his neighbor's land. Happens all the time.

Second, Palestine is not and has never been an independent state. Sure, they want to be one, but it has not happened.

Third, borders have not been set. The 1967 borders were set in 1948 as a ceasefire line with Jordan. When Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, all bets were off. What is to prevent those inside the wall from becoming Israeli citizens? Nothing. Indeed, those in Jerusalem have that option, but have not taken it.

Fourth, give another solution that will work. Remember, Israel only wants the bombings to stop. Also remember, Israel has given up settlements in Gaza and is willing to give up settlements in the west bank. Further, remember that it is the Palestinians and their allies that have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel.

Fifth, there was a bombing in Tel Aviv yesterday. Hamas voiced its support. These are people you want Israel to declare are their peaceful neighbors?

Posted at April 18, 2006 12:18 PM in response to Kudos to Pink Floyder Roger Waters

Maybe there are seven? I heard that General Clark was not a happy camper, either. Maybe he does not count because he is a politician.

Posted at April 14, 2006 1:37 PM in response to Throwing Rummy from the Train

I had an epiphany. The unions support immigrants because it is the immigrants who will support the unions.

Where and when did the unions rise? It was certainly in the northeast, and, they became a force, if I remember correctly, in the early 20th century. It became a force just after the children of immigrants began working in blue collar jobs. The union organizers were the sons and daughters of the Eastern European Jewish immigrants, the Irish-Catholic immigrants, and the Italian immigrants, began to work. In California, Cesar Chavez organized the sons and daughters of the Mexican immigrants.

These sons and daughters stood on the shoulders of the coalminers, steelworkers, and railroad workers who braved the robber barons. The unions see an opening -- and it is a big one.

Were I a big business Republican, I would be afraid, very afraid.

I think democrats should adopt a phrase coined by a great actor, who happened to be a president. "A rising tide raises all boats", or something like that. If the immigrants are legalized, are unionized, and are paid a living wage, everyone wins.

But wait, what about those who have to pay for the workers? Well, they win, too. Who do you think these immigrants will turn to to buy supplies. Proctor and Gamble will win. Sears will win. Walmart will win -- big. GM, Ford, and Chrysler might win. Who will lose? No-one, I think.

Economically, this is a win/win situation. The only ones who will lose are those who oppose immigration, for they are anchored to the bottom of the sea. If the tethers are not long enough, they will drown.

Posted at April 11, 2006 10:24 PM in response to Why Won't the Downtrodden Scapegoat the Immigrants?

Come on. Israel, as a general policy, has never wanted to occupy the majority of the West Bank. This is not analogous to the colonial aspirations of the Europeans from, say, the 15th to the 20th centuries.

The main purpose, for the most part, of Israel's occupation is security. Look at where the majority of the settlements are/were. They are outside Jerusalem (some of which city includes area annexed after 1967) and on strategically located hilltops.

Granted, there are a distinct minority of settlements in cities. Those are zealots living in the midst of Palestinians for a political/religous reason. For those settlements, I believe the Israeli government should withdraw support. If the settlers want to live there, why not? Of course, they would have to become Palestinians, or live as resident aliens, but that will be their choice (and, in theory, their Arab neighbors should not persecute them).

To place the entire blame for this situation on Israel is dishonest. It was not Israel who controlled the high ground between 1948 and 1967 and regularly infiltrated Jordan or Egypt (which controlled Gaza and the West Bank) without cause. It was not Israel that fired down from the hills at farmers. It was not Israel that threatened to drive its neighbor into the sea.

This situation is unprecedented. I really cannot think of a time in recent (say, since 1600) history where 1) a country C1) defeated another country (C2) that had attacked it; 2) C1 took over part of C2; 2) the people of C2 not only wanted C1 to leave its territory, but wanted to destroy C1 in its entirety; 3) and C1 left C2.

In other words, you are asking Israel to take unprecedented action.

You see, the majority of Israelis likely think their control of the West Bank is not good. However, not controlling the West Bank would be worse.

Want proof? Look at what is happening in Gaza. Israel gave Hamas what it wanted. What to the Gazans do? They shoot small arms and rockets into Israel. Yes, Israel retaliates -- it cannot perpetually turn the other cheek.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. Unlike the freedom movements in India and many Affrican nations, who wanted solely to send the Europeans back to Europe. Until that ends, Israel will be hard pressed to leave the West Bank and will likely need, for its own security, to protect its citizens.

The only solution that would meet your needs is to cede Israel out of existence. I suspect that Israel will not take this route.

Posted at March 7, 2006 12:57 PM in response to The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Settlements in Present Tense