« Corporate Power & Responsibility | Main | what i learned from drumming, so far »

May 11, 2018

Comments

Maybe you should do a bit of reading first:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Trump-s-actions-on-Jerusalem-come-with-12414559.php

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/politics/pushed-by-obama-democrats-alter-platform-over-jerusalem.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

On Israel, both sidism is pretty close to the truth. Usually the Republicans are worse and this issue is no exception, but Democrats for the most part kowtow to Israel. The politics is fairly simple. Most of the people who are single issue voters and/ or donors on this subject are pro Israel. Most liberals sigh, consider the issue hopeless and change the subject.

There is a good case for it being hopeless. The comments below are also good.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/problem-voters-dont-want-another-path

If we had a sane President and a sane political system, well, we would stop doing a lot of things. But one thing we would stop doing is talking about Israel as a wonderful democracy. It is Trumpland with the vast majority of people thinking like Trump.

Here is a piece with a breakdown of the votes supporting or condemning Obama when he didn’t support Israel in a UN vote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/8/anti-israel-vote-makes-democrats-break-from-obama/

Anyway, I am not going to spend any more time arguing this point because the facts are clear. What I would characterize as mindless knee jerk support for Israel is bipartisan, but yes, there is more dissent within the Democratic Party.

I did do the reading, novakant. Look at your own article for poll numbers for Democrats who support this move, and think about the political environment in the US right now.

And, yes, Donald, I agree with the LGM post, and with many of the comments. As baby boomers die off, the politics of Israel will change. Democrats don't support Israeli policies, and younger ones don't justify everything that the right-wing Likud does through the lens of Zionism as the answer to the Holocaust.

Pointing out that some Democratic apologists don't represent their constituents on this matter is vital, and generalizing about "bipartisan" is destructive to the efforts of rank and file Democrats.

I generally think of "bipartisan support" as implying that the context is among people holding office.

I generally think of "bipartisan support" as implying that the context is among people holding office.

No Democratic officeholder would have been caught dead there yesterday.

Perhaps not, but being there isn't the only form of support. You can't ignore what's in the articles at novakant's links. It's pretty plain stuff.

It's pretty plain stuff.

It's political posturing for AIPAC that has nothing to do with political reality. Political reality: what would change if they said something different, except that Democratic office holders would be smeared as anti-Semites? Political reality: no one came through on embassy's move until Trump's nationalist right-wing coalition between Likudists and evangelicals came about.

Our relationship with Israel, as with the entire Middle East, is complicated. And as Donald's LGM link so eloquently pointed out, there's really not that much that can be done unless we root for the extermination of Israel or Palestinians. This is why I don't use Israel-Palestine as a litmus test for politicians except to the extent that what happened yesterday represents another cynical, corrupt financial deal on the part of the Trump administration.

It's political posturing for AIPAC...

I don't think anyone is denying this. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Trump isn't awful. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans on this or any number of issues. What's being pointed out is that we live in a nation where bipartisan support in congress for all sorts of sh1tty policies as Israel is concerned are the reality. Yes, it's a tough situation for Democrats trying to be elected and re-elected. But I think the entire point here is that politics is winning over principle, which you appear to concede.

is the reality. Lost my subject in that mess.

"cynical, corrupt financial deal on the part of the Trump administration."

Don't forget he took a dump yesterday as a shameless, cynical financial deal with the toilet manufacturers and anti-environmentalists.

Then he used extra paper as part of his corrupt financial deal with the lumber industry, then flushed twice just to give the finger to the environmentalists again.

bipartisan support

Again, whether that support actually results in lip service or dozens dead as a direct consequence of US policy is very different depending on the party in power.

Lip service enables, particularly when it is performed through congressional votes and party platforms. From the SF Chronicle link:

Trump’s announcement, however, is the culmination of years of pressure on the White House by a large bipartisan majority of Congress and leaders of both political parties. It represents the fulfillment of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which mandates that the United States move its embassy to Jerusalem, though the bill allows a president to waive that requirement every six months if deemed in the national interest.

In the Senate, that bill was co-sponsored by California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, as well as such leading Democrats as Joe Biden and John Kerry. Only one Democrat (the late Robert Byrd) voted no. On the House side, just 30 out of 204 Democrats voted no, including Bay Area Democrats Ron Dellums and George Miller, along with independent then-Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Since 1995, every president has taken advantage of the waiver to prevent such a provocative move, despite continued bipartisan pressure from Congress. As recently as this past June, just days after Trump issued his first waiver of the requirement, the Senate — with the support of Feinstein and Sen. Kamala Harris — voted 90-0 in favor of a resolution reaffirming the 1995 law and calling on Trump “to abide by its provisions.”

For decades, the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties have called for recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In 2012, then-Los Angeles mayor and now California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa violated party rules by inserting an amendment into the Democratic Party platform recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without the requisite two-thirds majority. In the 2016 party platform, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton successfully pushed for language declaring that Jerusalem “should remain the capital of Israel.”


Don't forget he took a dump yesterday

Keep fighting the good fight Marty.

The embassy move had bipartisan support.

So what? What's your point?

Tom Wolfe is gone.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/author-tom-wolfe-dies-87

The West is a whole other country, a country based on a self-serving self-aggrandizing lies:

The claim to being the last real true independent hardworking Americans from people who have been living off the tax payers for generations and not only demand subsidies access to public resources but want that access to be unrestricted.

wonkie, be advised that California is part of the West. Certainly in the minds of Californians. And that description doesn't fit us at all at all.

From the SF Chronicle link

Yes, as I mentioned, I read that.

Can you explain how Democratic "support" "enabled" Trump's actual policy, a policy that had nominal "bipartisan support" for ages, but didn't actually happen? Can you describe another instance where Trump did something because it had "bipartisan support" - especially the support of Democrats?

"Don't forget he took a dump yesterday"

Will his White House staff, or as mp himself calls them, the traitors and cowards, ever stop leaking these matters of national security to the world?

The Presidential mp bowel movements are lovingly and freshly gathered by mp's long-time sycophants working at the White House, photographed in all of their glory, and then FEDEXED to China, where they are divided and packaged in gold leaf and then re-imported to this country tariff-free for distribution and sale in gift shops in the finest mp hotel properties AND the thousands of Shit and GO gas station/convenience stores throughout red states.

The White House Gift shop, across the street from the White House, has ample inventory on hand.

Each tidy package is accompanied by an engraved card signed personally by a Presidential lackey in mp's name, with the statement to his fans "Don't ever say I didn't give you something of value", a photograph of the original BM from whence the reliquary originated, and a red hat with the mp slogan "Make America Regular Again" embossed thereon.

There were early reports that some of his most ardent supporters in mp strongholds around the country were mistaking the shiny little packages for chocolates and most unfortunately consuming them like candy.

An FDA scientist, last seen disappearing into his new office in the boiler room at the Department of headquarters in Washington D. C., suggested that the gift poopies be labeled as inedible and 'only for display" to protect the health and safety of the public, but the White House overruled this move as intrusive over-regulation that violates the Framer's original intent that free Americans can damn well decide to put anything they like in their mouths without the nanny-state yelling "NO! Don't eat that! Oh, gross!"

Reporters from elite coastal newspaper fanned out across the country to interview mp's base about the reported consumption of the contents of the gold-leaf packages and one merely said, "Yum, it's like a box of chocolates. Yew never know what you're going to get. You get use to it, like anything. I've tasted worse. Pass me that glass of gin over there."

Real Americans are stoical, if nothing else.

A subsequent leak from an anonymous White House official confirmed that when President mp was informed of this proposed regulation he proclaimed, "Let the American people eat shit. There's plenty more where that came from. Why shouldn't all Americans be in like Flint?"

The question of limiting the supply of the Presidential manure, and thus causing the value of the gifts already distributed to rise (they could be traded in exchange for medical care, for example) was raised in a Cabinet meeting, with Larry Kudlow, for one, suggesting the Presidential turds could replace the dollar as the American unit of currency ... he even came up with a name ... Shitcoin .... but the discussion was tabled when everyone in the room agreed that limiting the supply of Mr mp's output was impossible given that he is so full of it and produces at both ends all day and every day like a man hellbent on dysentery.


Thank you Marty and Count. I point out the title of this post.

it was only a turd in a gilded lav

Can you explain how Democratic "support" "enabled" Trump's actual policy, a policy that had nominal "bipartisan support" for ages, but didn't actually happen? Can you describe another instance where Trump did something because it had "bipartisan support" - especially the support of Democrats?

It's a failure of leadership. Do you think any Democrats, meaning former or current officeholders, regret going along with these sorts of policies for political expediency now that Trump has acted on this one? Do you think the positions party leader take don't affect how rank-and-file voters think about issues over time? Why don't you tell me how none of this matters? Why don't you tell me how these party votes and party platforms don't mean anything?

Why don't you tell me how none of this matters?

I already did, and you haven't told me how it does matter. Democrats are not responsible for Trump's violation of historical norms. Is the lip service only policy of support for Jerusalem as the Israeli capital a historical norm? Why, yes it is.

The United States can't solve the Israel-Palestine issue. What it can do is avoid actions that exacerbate violence. What politicians have done is talk around that. The US has helped to maintain the status quo because no one is able to see how changing the status quo would make things better.

If you've got the answer, I'm sure that the next Democratic President would love to know what it is.

Somebody help me out here. Trump orders the Commerce Dept to remove the sanctions on ZTE (which not only trades with Iran and North Korea but poses potential national security issues with its phones) because "too many Chinese jobs will be lost" if it is forced to shut down -- which it looked like it was going to. Just days after China announced a $500 million investment in a Trump project in Indonesia.

But he maintains restrictions which look set to drive out of business soybean growers and users of temporary (H-2B) workers -- many of whom supported him. (Well, except for his own companies, of course. Those H-2B visas just roll right along....)

This is "America First" and "good for business" how again...? What am I missing.

FYI, two comments from this weekend (one from Donald and one from the Count) have been moved from the Spam folder and published.

What am I missing.

America c'est Trump, and good for Trump's business.

Democrats are not responsible for Trump's violation of historical norms.

Not entirely, but when they go soft on Israel for whatever reasons, they make it easier for Trump to violate a norm that falls short staunch opposition to what Trump has decided to do.

Is the lip service only policy of support for Jerusalem as the Israeli capital a historical norm? Why, yes it is.

See above. Is this lip services the only historical norm that Democrats could have established? Was it actually necessary to maintain the status quo they could see no better alternative to?

Can Democrats do no wrong, because Trump?

If you've got the answer, I'm sure that the next Democratic President would love to know what it is.

Whether or not the US can solve the I-P issue, I don't think it's required to support the sh1tty things Israel does.

who owns the decision of where US embassies will be located?

if it's Trump's, as POTUS, does anyone think he took the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem because of (D) support for that move?

Not entirely, but when they go soft on Israel for whatever reasons, they make it easier for Trump to violate a norm that falls short staunch opposition to what Trump has decided to do.

How?

Whether or not the US can solve the I-P issue, I don't think it's required to support the sh1tty things Israel does.

I agree. I was happy that Obama criticized the West Bank settlements, but it certainly didn't help.

This is "America First" and "good for business" how again...? What am I missing.

you're missing sufficient devotion to Trump. please report to your local Sinclair affiliate for reprogramming.

Can Democrats can do no wrong, because Trump?, full stop.

FTFY.

Or if they can, you're not supposed to say so, which amounts to the same thing.

if it's Trump's, as POTUS, does anyone think he took the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem because of (D) support for that move?

No. I don't think Trump said to himself, "I can get away with this because the Democrats have supported it" or "I want to do this, and lucky for me, I have support from Democrats, because I wouldn't do it otherwise."

What I do think is that the political environment around this decision has been built over time. What I do think is that Trump does bow to public opinion to some degree or other, and that public opinion has been shaped by the political acceptability of our support for, or lack of opposition to, many of the worse things Israel has done.

So not a "proximate cause" to borrow a phase from Guns, Germs and Steel. It's not like the guns the Spanish had when they defeated the Aztecs, but it is like the farmable crops and domesticate-able animals that existed in Eurasia that allowed them the development of technology superior to what existed in the New World.

I'm sure Democrats calculated that this tacit support over decades was the least-bad option, but I think they may consider that calculation to be in error. Call it a mistake if that's a palatable characterization.

I don't want to punish Democrats for it, but pointing out what might be a lesson in history may prevent a similar mistake in the future.

I agree. I was happy that Obama criticized the West Bank settlements, but it certainly didn't help.

I don't know about "certainly." You notice the word "grew" is used in contrast to "boom."

That aside, sometimes people die even though they were given CPR. Does that mean we don't give CPR if things don't look so good?

Folks like the Bundys are rare, and getting rarer. At the time of that particular kerfuffle, they were the only ranchers in Nevada not playing by the federal rules.

If we're going to fuss about Wyoming and Alaska and Montana having Senators, we need to fuss about Vermont and Delaware and Rhode Island as well. (It will be very close as to whether Wyoming passes Vermont in the 2020 census. Montana will almost certainly pass Rhode Island.) Millions of people per US Senator, by modified US Census Bureau region (VA, MD, and DE moved from South to Northeast as part of the urban corridor), July 2017 pop estimates:


NE urban corridor 2.96
South 4.19
Midwest 2.84
West 2.98

I don't want to punish Democrats for it

I'm not interested in punishing anyone for it.

Israel, and the middle east in general, is a mess. Everybody hates each other, and the regional conflicts end up dragging the rest of the world into it.

There have been reasonable attempts at peace, and the principals involved have taken turns blowing them up. And, provoking each other, and making it increasingly harder to imagine how anything like peace could ever be achieved.

In the middle of all that, we - the US - decide to come down solidly on one side of the conflict and take one of the most provocative decisions we could take.

The situation is inflamed, again, and a lot of people end up dead. Which is about the single most predictable outcome that can be imagined.

I don't care who supported it, I don't care who "gets to pick their own capital", it was a bloody stupid move. Unless your goal is to stir up the shit and get a lot of people killed.

I doubt that was Trump's goal, I just don't think he gives a shit about it one way or the other.

You get no argument from me, except that I think Democrats might actually be capable of learning something from it, unlike some others.

I don't want to punish Democrats for it, but pointing out what might be a lesson in history may prevent a similar mistake in the future.

What russell said.

But also, I would recommend that you check out what drives Trump's foreign policy.

And, unless you're willing to go down the very long historical road, I would suggest that historical lessons are not really that easy to discern from this situation.

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out why post-WWII, when many Americans had either lost, or knew people who lost, their entire families in the Holocaust, while the US did nothing to save them, and why they might have thought it was a good idea to stand up for Israel as a safe haven so that such a thing would not so easily happen again. We have come to discover, and even knew from the beginning, that problems existed with that kind of guilt-induced loyalty, and certainly they exist now as Israel's government has become a right-wing authoritarian regime in its own right.

A fifth of millennials aren't sure what the Holocaust was. So I imagine dynamic will change.

It's all tragic, and our role in it is not simple, and probably not decisive. This latest move by Trump has nothing to do with Democrats and their flaws.

And one more thing: the historical lesson we should have learned is to support refugees. Support refugees. That's the primary lesson that should have been learned. It hasn't been learned.

We have come to discover, and even knew from the beginning, that problems existed with that kind of guilt-induced loyalty, and certainly they exist now as Israel's government has become a right-wing authoritarian regime in its own right.

Who's "we"?

Who's "we"?

I and many of my fellow Democrats.

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out why post-WWII, when many Americans had either lost, or knew people who lost, their entire families in the Holocaust, while the US did nothing to save them, and why they might have thought it was a good idea to stand up for Israel as a safe haven so that such a thing would not so easily happen again.

There was also the detail that, for a couple of decades after WW II, Israel was the only real democracy in the Middle East (although Lebanon had some moments; as did Iran until the CIA trashed it).

A guy named Arthur Hoppe wrote a column right after the 1967 June War. (Sorry, unable to find an Internet copy. Wonder why the SF Chronicle, which is where I read it, didn't save it....) The US government had just announced that we would be "neutral in thought, word, and deed." The column was entitled "A Guide For Neutral Thinkers." One of the great lines: "Israel is so small and so democratic. And the Arab states are, to put it neutrally, Arab states."

Granted, Likud has changed things for the worse. Or, perhaps, Israel has changed for the worse, which has benefited Likud. But there is still, I think, a lot of political inertia going on in the US.

the historical lesson we should have learned is to support refugees. Support refugees. That's the primary lesson that should have been learned. It hasn't been learned.

I couldn't agree more.

“The embassy move had bipartisan support.

So what? What's your point?”


My point was that Americans in general, including many liberals, bear much of the blame for Israel’s human rights violations. This goes back decades. I agree with much of what sapient says and in general Republicans are worse, especially in recent years but what happened yesterday is not that new. It would have happened without the embassy move. Gaza is a giant prison on the way to becoming uninhabitable. The embassy move rubs salt in the wounds, but the protests in Gaza were about their own misery and Israel was going to shoot them because this is what they do. We support Israel when they “ defend themselves”. We did it in the summer 2014 war when six civilians in Israel died alongside 1500 in Gaza, 500 of them children, many in their homes. We did it in 2009 during the earlier war. I could keep going back. Israel knows they can shoot civilians or bomb them or blockade them and American politicians will say they are defending themselves, sometimes using weapons we supplied. If we had stopped giving them unqualified support decades ago things might not have sunk to the level they have. We are not the innocent well intentioned bystanders here. Our very language is biased against Palestinians. People think they are being balanced when they condemn settlements on the one hand vs. terror on the other. At this point every single casualty in the current mess is Palestinian, yet NYT editorial writers condemn their violence. But nobody important in the West pays attention to Gaza except when the violence gets above a certain level. Palestinian fishermen regularly are fired upon and there is a no man’s land established by Israel on the Gaza’s side of the fence and Gazans are treated like prisoners, all with our tacit blessing, because Israel is just defending itself.

There is a history behind this, but it is a bit more complex than Americans feeling guilt over the Holocaust and siding with Israel, but sapient is right that this played a big role. It has mainly played a role in making people feel like they have to walk on eggshells when discussing this subject. I started following it seriously, reading Israeli revisionist historians and others back in the 80’s and noticed the enormous gap between what I read in books and what I read or heard in American political culture.

I grew up in the South— we moved there literally weeks after the signs came off the water fountains. The way Israel supporters talk about Palestinians mirrors very closely the way whites talked about blacks when I was growing up. Even some of the liberals sound like the white moderates in MLK’s “ Letter From a Birmingham jail”. Americans, liberal or conservative, are in no position whatsoever to lecture Palestinians on nonviolence,yet go to the comment sections at the NYT or read the editors and there they are, lecturing Palestinians on the subject.

One other point which I have made before. Assad reacted to peaceful protests in a similar fashion. Does any sane person think we or anyone should find “ moderate Palestinian rebels” and funnel weapons to them? No, because sane people realize it would lead to a massive bloodbath on both sides. If Iran tried to do this we would go berserk. But it is what we did in Syria.

On this subject and some others I don’t care about the Democrat vs Republican quarrel. Yes, that “ quarrel” is extremely important and it matters a great deal who wins in various November elections and even on this subject the Republicans are worse, but no, this latest atrocity is not just Trump’s fault, since again, the actual killing occurred in Gaza and was about Gaza. People of either party who want to prevent such things will stop making excuses for Israeli brutality and will pressure Israel to remove most of the arbitrary and cruel restrictions they place on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. Trump, of course, is a despicable callous war criminal without a scrap of human decency, but what he contributed to this was his open display of sociopathic indifference to what happened.


I saw wj’s comment about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East in its early decades. Its Palestinian citizens lived under martial law in that period. ( I am talking about before the 67 war, so no, not about the West Bank.). Palestinian refugees who tried to sneak back home were frequently shot. Benny Morris in “ Israel’s Border Wars” says several thousand were killed in the late 40’s through the early 50’s.

Being a democracy does not necessarily mean a country has a good human rights record.

It hasn't been learned.

Not even by "we"?

Everything my friends on the right fear about refugees is the very thing that will happen because of our failure to support refugees. You reap what you sow, and we are sowing hate for America in all the politically and economically unstable parts of the world where we refuse to do our share. That's just the selfish consideration. Forget about simply helping people for its own sake.

The bipartisan political support for the legitimacy of the Israeli state (I shall abjure use of the term 'Zionist entity') in Palestine runs pretty deep, and simply cannot be denied:

1) Western guilt wrt to the Holocaust.
2) Offload that guilt by sending the few remaining children of the One God to Palestine...look, no anti-semitism here any more! No Jews!
3) Support for "plucky" "democratic"(except for Israeli arabs) Israel amidst a sea of inferior/backward (shhh! brown) Muslims.
3) The importance of those with Jewish heritage in the New Deal Democratic Party coalition.

Political choices made by the Israelis since the '67 war of conquest put them firmly on the path to becoming an officially apartheid society. Our unstinting support for these policies has assisted and reinforced that effort.

I don't see them getting of this treadmill.

The past, as they say, is prologue.

If there is one issue that could tear apart what's left of the Democratic Party New Deal coalition, this is it.


For info on human rights violations by all factions, the Israeli group B’Tselem is probably the best source.

Here is a list of their publications. They have a lot of other reports scattered on their website.

https://www.btselem.org/publications

See also this:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/problem-voters-dont-want-another-path

"plucky" "democratic"(except for Israeli arabs) Israel

I must be missing something here. Last I looked, Israeli Arabs had the vote. Indeed, I suspect that's one of the reasons that Israel doesn't just annex the West Bank: their Arabs do have the vote. Members in Parliament and everything.

So how to avoid giving the vote to the Palestinians from the West Bank if you just take over? Just grandfather the existing Israeli Arabs, maybe? But then, what do you do when there's intermarriage?

On the other hand, if you give them the vote, you just became a minority. Oops! (Something the far right in the US can probably relate to....)

Obama signed a historically unprecedented 38 billion military aid deal with Netanyahu, the biggest in US history - and this is just a fraction of the arms the US has been and will be selling to ME countries espc. Saudi Arabia.

On this subject and some others I don’t care about the Democrat vs Republican quarrel.

Nor I. Hence my question.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is not "just Trump's fault". But it was his decision.

So, I'd say he's a large part of the problem here.

If you want to yell at (D)'s too, just to make sure we're being fair, that's fine.

Good and bad policies and/or behavior regarding Israel don't really break along strictly US partisan lines. And people who support Israel, or not, do or don't do so for a really varied mix of reasons.

It appears to be an intractable situation. It was good for Jewish people to have a polity, so they wouldn't be subject to the whims of every other nation on earth. And, the Palestinians got screwed, basically they were told to clear out of places they'd call home for generations.

Making that work will take tremendous forbearance and the careful nurturing of trust and good will. For some number of generations.

That's not really happening, and there's enough blame to go around for pretty much everyone to have a slice.

I must be missing something here.

I would agree. I would also posit that you have not spent a lot of time reading up on the Palestinian point of view wrt this whole tragedy.

The fact that Israeli arabs can vote does little to accurately describe their actual existing civic situation since 1948.

They are not full civic citizens as is commonly understood in the great and good USA.

See here for example. For a more militant take, try this.

both sides

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley walked out of a UN Security Council session when the Palestinian envoy, Riyad Mansour, started to speak.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/republicans-party-ethnic-cleansing-multiple-nations

might as well vote Green!

Sorry, earlier, WJ asked about Trump bailing out the Chinese company. One thing that was a problem (and makes it understandable why some of Trump's military advisers might have actually been encouraging him to do this) is that if the company had gone under, China would have been encouraged to nationalize their talent by bringing them into the quasi-military sector. Imagine Google or Facebook were going under and someone had the great idea of hiring all their engineers to help with various military computer applications.

a few links
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/2/17310870/pentagon-ban-huawei-zte-phones-retail-stores-military-bases

https://www.economist.com/china/2018/05/03/when-china-and-america-spar-over-technology-it-is-about-far-more

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/oct/08/china-huawei-zte-security-threat

However, I feel pretty certain that Trump and his core of advisors was not thinking about this, they were pushed by Trump because he was bribed.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/is-china-straight-up-bribing-donald-trump-zte

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/15/just-about-everything-is-odd-about-trumps-support-of-chinese-firm-zte/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e661778ff5da

They are not full civic citizens as is commonly understood in the great and good USA.

Bobby, I read your first article. I must be exceptionally dense today, for I'm not seeing where they are "not full civic citizens." The closest I see is that the parties which are primarily made up of Arab Israelis haven't been part of a government. Also Arab Israelis are not subject to compulsory military service (although they can serve and some do); but then, so de facto are Orthodox Jews.

I note that, in the US, neither the Libertarian nor Green parties have been part of a government (e.g. had members elected to Congress and part of the majority party caucus). Does that mean that their members are somehow not full civic citizens?

Is there discrimination? Sure. Ask folks here if you think the US lacks that problem for various segments of the population. (Just which segments is a matter of some dispute. ;-)

On making it stop (circling back to the title of this post).

H/t Cheryl Rofer at BJ.

This raised comment on LGM might be of interest.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/problem-voters-dont-want-another-path

I tend towards this position. I also see sapient's point that the Democratic support for Israel was largely because it was assumed that it would never come to pass. This comment from the above post

Like I said in the last thread, the price of entering into an alliance with right-wing Christian fanatics in America is one that the Israeli far right doesn't believe they'll ever have to pay. It's like if a stranger offered me ten million dollars on the condition that if I ever go to Dagobah I promise to eat Yoda's gross stew. I'm taking the money.

The same applies to Dems who kowtow to AIPAC. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling we are going to know exactly what Yoda's stew tastes like.

" I have a bad feeling we are going to know exactly what Yoda's stew tastes like."

Swamp drainings.

LRB published this useful piece by Henry Siegman

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n10/henry-siegman/two-terrorisms

On the both sides question, it would be helpful if people stopped thinking the US was an honest broker. By being such a moron, Trump has pretty much buried that notion once and for all. But we were never an honest broker. The only President I could ever truly imagine even trying to be one would be Carter. As ex President, he write that very prescient book Peace or Apartheid back in 2006 and was blasted for it.

But it is just factually not helpful to approach every issue from the viewpoint that it is a morality play involving Democrats vs Republicans. That’s appropriate if we are talking about which party to vote for or if someone wants to argue for voting Green, but that isn’t my point or anyone’s point here. And anyway, yes, as is usually the case, Republicans are worse on this issue.

On making it stop (circling back to the title of this post).

janie's link is to an article discussing the idea that what trump voters want from the rest of us is respect.

what is it that i am supposed to respect?

how exactly is that respect supposed to be demonstrated?

i think trump voters made a truly crappy choice. and. in many cases, for not such great reasons. so i'm not sure what, exactly, i'm supposed to do with all of that.

i respect people's right to vote for who they wish. i also respect my own right to find others' choices to be foolish and reckless.

and they should respect my right to that opinion, it seems to me. two way street. right?

we're told that if we don't show sufficient respect, they will go and vote for trump again.

well, you voted for him last time, so? is this some kind of weird exercise in hostage taking?

be nice to us, or the nation gets it again?

how is that attitude supposed to inspire anything resembling respect from me?

"And anyway, yes, as is usually the case, Republicans are worse on this issue."

How? The vote in the Senate was 90-0. But somehow the Democrats voted that way because they dudnt bieve it would happen while Republicans really meant their vote? Karen Gillibrand sponsored and pushed the resolution.

For a change they were all on the same side, they all suck or they're all heroes. Live with it.

But it is just factually not helpful to approach every issue from the viewpoint that it is a morality play involving Democrats vs Republicans

sapient, perhaps, is an unabashed (D) partisan. and i'm not saying that as a criticism of sapient, we all have a point of view.

other than that, i'm not sure who you are addressing with this point.

US foreign policy has been tremendously favorable to Israel, and generally unfavorable to the Palestinians. not always, and not on every point, but generally. by definition, that excludes honest brokerage. we have a favorite.

For a change they were all on the same side, they all suck or they're all heroes.

they all suck.

bad call. solves nothing. makes nothing better, makes many things worse. sheer pandering on their part.

on this, they all suck.

we all get to live with it, but folks on the ground in israel and gaza and the west bank more so than most.

I see that the so-called-liberal MSM is ramping up again the argument that "those mean coastal elitists FORCED Hartlandt Amerikans to vote for Trump!"

I confess. I was a TOTAL meany. I held a pistol to their heads and FORCED them to vote for Trump.

I regret doing that now.

I should have pulled the damned trigger, instead.

wj,

The first article was an introduction. I suggest again that you familiarize yourself with the writings of those who take exception to your understanding.

google "Iraeli arabs + second class citizens."

Thanks.

We Americans gave up the ghost on even-handedness in Palestine when we allowed "Judeo-Christian" to become a non-risible term in our public discourse.

The Troubles in the Middle East will not end before religion ceases to be taken seriously -- over here as well as over there. They may not end then, either; it's a necessary but possibly not a sufficient condition.

Alas, we will not find out in our lifetimes. The one thing to which "both sides do it" will apply until we are all comfortably dead is an unhealthy obeisance to religion.

--TP

Great essay, lj. Thanks for the link.

"Judeo-Christians". Jeebus. And Jeffress, a guy who preaches Jews are
going to Hell, gives a prayer at the opening of the embassy.

Here are John Judis' thoughts on Israel at 70.

Did you see the photograph of Jared Kushner in Jerusalem? Is there any image of him that doesn't make your skin crawl?

I miss my mother, but I'm glad she didn't live to see this.

we're told that if we don't show sufficient respect, they will go and vote for trump again.

well, you voted for him last time, so? is this some kind of weird exercise in hostage taking?

be nice to us, or the nation gets it again?

It sounds like "If we don't get what we want/think we deserve, we'll shoot ourselves in the (other) foot next!" Right out of Blazing Saddles, but without the amusement factor.

Sorry, Bobby, I misunderstood what you trying to tell me about the two sources.

"Buy this magazine, or we'll shoot this dog."

The Troubles in the Middle East will not end before religion ceases to be taken seriously

or, before it actually *is* taken seriously.

not disputing your point tony, just affirming it from another perspective.

Robert Farley makes a good point about what the US could actually do about Israel.

tl;dr: not much

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/bibi-looks-east

Thanks, ral, for the Judis article. It begins, "When I start railing about Israel’s government — he’s “Netanyahoo” as far as I am concerned — some of my co-religionists chide me for singling out Israel and exempting Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China from my complaints. My usual reply is that as a Jew I feel morally complicit in what Israel’s government does; I don’t feel that way about what Putin or Xi does."

Unfortunately, as Americans, we should perhaps start feeling morally complicit in what Putin does, since some of us elected his agent.

From JanieM's link:

In the world Republicans have constructed, a Democrat who wants to give you health care and a higher wage is disrespectful, while a Republican who opposes those things but engages in a vigorous round of campaign race-baiting is respectful. The person who’s holding you back isn’t the politician who just voted to give a trillion-dollar tax break to the wealthy and corporations, it’s an East Coast college professor who said something condescending on Twitter.

This is how we got Putin, er ... I mean, Trump voters.

so i'm not sure what, exactly, i'm supposed to do with all of that.

recognize them as your betters. give them everything they want. and keep quiet about it.

"F*ck your feelings, libtard!"

Respect.

recognize them as your betters. give them everything they want. and keep quiet about it.

I've tried that. It does not work, either.

it will never work for you. that's by design.

so i'm not sure what, exactly, i'm supposed to do with all of that.

Well, you are not going to be able to talk your way out of it, so of course Clinton Democrats are at a loss.

The wealth, culture, good jobs, important educational and media institutions, financial centers and gov't offices etc are mostly on the coasts. Or metropoles.

Fix this.

Fix this.

Or maybe you can ask some of your entrepreneurial friends to build start ups in racist backwaters?

As an example, over at the bad place someone said close to:"Populism has always been about racism."

And I'm like, WJ Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech was a total dog-whistle to the KKK? Had nothing to do with grain prices and debts?

But there is an fine example as to how coasters suppressed flyovers.

Cross of Gold equals predictable low inflation, favors finance, real estate, companies who hoard their money instead of buying equipment, mergers, takeovers, etc.
The regime we have been in since the early eighties, that period of the hollowing out of the middle class etc etc and the successful liberation movements and gross empowerment of Ivy Leaguers. Just...lots of stuff.

Also according to Hodgson, Luxemberg, Hilferding, and Lenin for the Old Ones, imperialism and war, but we have kinds known that since Thucydides.

Athenians telling the Milesians that at least they aren't helots. Spartans are so much worse!!! Then killing them all.

Or maybe you can ask some of your entrepreneurial friends to build start ups in racist backwaters?

That's where net federal dollars flow from the coasts and the metropoles to, so it should be pretty easy, right?

Snark aside, I don't really mind money flowing to those places. They need it. I just wish it would be used to create conditions that would allow those places not to need those federal dollars in the future. I'm not sure what I'm doing here in New Jersey to hold people in, say, Alabama back.

The wealth, culture, good jobs, important educational and media institutions, financial centers and gov't offices etc are mostly on the coasts. Or metropoles.

Nice catch with "or metropoles".

I make pretty good money. I live in a place that costs a lot to live. My basic quality of life is about the same as somebody who lives in, for example, northeast OH, or AZ, or FL, and who makes about half of what I make.

I know this because I have family in OH, and AZ, and FL.

So, WTF.

Check out who the largest employers in the US are, and where they are located.

Check out where retail and consumer goods is mostly located as an industry.

Check out where agriculture, mining, oil and gas are located as industries.

You say JP Morgan, I say Exxon Mobil. You say Wall St, I say Irving TX.

Enough of this stupid victim bullshit. There's a point in what you say, but it ain't about geography.

"Enough of this stupid victim bullshit. There's a point in what you say, but it ain't about geography."

Dunno. Might be something in the water.

Probably not LEAD so much as "essence of FoxNews". Still causes severe brain damage.

Simply reverse continental drift, so North America gets its interior ocean back. Then a large part of the flyoverniks will have become coasties too. Either they will kill themselves out of self-hatred or go to war with the inhabitants of the new Eastern and Western Flyover regions.

The Troubles in the Middle East will not end before religion ceases to be taken seriously

or, before it actually *is* taken seriously.

not disputing your point tony, just affirming it from another perspective.

Posted by: russell | May 16, 2018 at 07:05 AM

I'm sorry to say it, russell, but I don't know how people can take their religion more seriously than to be willing to die -- or kill -- for it.

Equating the religion of your grandparents to the religion of a stranger's grandparents and equating both to a harmless yearning for goodness and compassion is not taking religion seriously. It is a commendable attitude, but it is closer to apostasy than to piety.

--TP

The wealth, culture, good jobs, important educational and media institutions, financial centers and gov't offices etc are mostly on the coasts. Or metropoles.

Fix this.

That might actually be possible. Think about all the states going thru incredible contortions trying to attract the next Amazon (or whoever) facility. Suppose Wyoming or Idaho won. A couple of those could, given the low native population, drastically remake their polity and culture. (Note that there are still huge areas of California which are lightly populated and culturally nothing like LA or San Francisco. But they don't drive how the state is run.)

Of course, it would be seen as an attack. But sometimes co-opting the opposition is a good tactic.

I'm sorry to say it, russell, but I don't know how people can take their religion more seriously than to be willing to die -- or kill -- for it.

A really, really good start would be to start paying attention to the parts which talk about kindness, being good to strangers, etc.

In my observation, people who decide to kill "for their religion" start from wanting to kill people, and cherry-pick from their religion to justify doing what they want to do anyway. Which isn't my idea of taking your religion seriously.

In my observation, people who decide to kill "for their religion" start from wanting to kill people, and cherry-pick from their religion to justify doing what they want to do anyway.

Or they're largely ignorant of whatever religion and only recently started being "religious," leaving the cherry-picking to someone else who is using them as a soldier or suicide bomber.

This, from our local paper:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has determined that the intelligence community was correct in assessing that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election with the aim of helping then-candidate Donald Trump, contradicting findings House Republicans reached last month.

“Our staff concluded that the [intelligence community’s] conclusions were accurate and on point,” the panel’s vice chairman, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Wednesday in a joint statement with Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., its chairman. “The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton,” Warner continued. [emphasis added]

Note, all you guys who are down on Republicans across the board, that this was a joint statement from the Republican chair and the Democratic vice-chair.

Anyone want to bet on how long until the outraged tweets from the White House start?

Simply reverse continental drift, so North America gets its interior ocean back.

might be easier to build a very large dam across the Mississippi, somewhere in northern Louisiana.

Note, all you guys who are down on Republicans across the board, that this was a joint statement from the Republican chair and the Democratic vice-chair.

I was happy to see this, wj. I'm wondering whether some of that cooperation came at the price of Warner's vote for Haspel.

Enough of this stupid victim bullshit.

Funny, I get in trouble when I say this as in, "For F sake, an old man tickled you in front of a crowd. Deal"

But our folk are good and true and brave, and Mississippians are just bad people, who deserve to suffer and die, and just shut up about it. They're oppressing me with their victim bullshit, and I'm the real victim for having to listen.

Why do you listen anyway? I don't.

Why do you listen anyway? I don't.

Yeah, I've noticed that.... ;-)

But our folk are good and true and brave, and Mississippians are just bad people, who deserve to suffer and die, and just shut up about it.

Yeah, except Democrats are generally more apt to making policies that prevent suffering and dying, so I'm sure who "our folk" are. And I'm pretty sure no one here ever said anything remotely like people in Mississippi should suffer and die.

Also, too, I don't claim to be a victim of mean Trump voters. I only point out the hypocrisy of demanding respect without giving any. I imagine others here would say the same.

hsh,
respect is a one way street, and all exits are to the right. hannity made me type that.

More from LGM on smug libruls:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/no-magic-words-can-dispel-idea-liberals-smug-elitists

Here are the real victims:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/15/number-of-billionaires-worldwide-wealth-x-census

I'm sure they feel empty inside.

wj: A really, really good start would be to start paying attention to the parts which talk about kindness, being good to strangers, etc.

That would be some good cherry-picking, no doubt.

Sort of like picking out the occasional example of Republican decency and using it to justify the continued existence of the GOP :)

My point is that decent Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Republicans are decent in the same way as decent atheists are, but they don't get to define Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Republicanism. The fundamentalists and the extremists have a say too, and they can point to the same Scriptures as the decent people profess (or pretend) to revere.

All religions may contain teachings which amount to some version of The Golden Rule, but they each contain some other precepts -- otherwise they would not be distinct religions. I claim that a withering-away of religion would leave The Golden Rule intact, while reducing the True Believers (and their Scriptural claims to land, or supremacy, or authority) to a laughingstock, more pitied than feared.

--TP

I'm sorry to say it, russell, but I don't know how people can take their religion more seriously than to be willing to die -- or kill -- for it.

That's cool Tony, no worries.

Mississippians are just bad people, who deserve to suffer and die, and just shut up about it.

I actually have no beef with the people of MS. Not in any way that fits your characterization, anyway.

They're oppressing me with their victim bullshit

As far as I can tell, ain't nobody from MS peddling victim BS here.

Unless... where are you from?

lj is originally from MS, IIRC.

Trump voters killed net neutrality.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)