Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Simply Joel]

And a side note...

a friend/burner/cheese/participant is going to Iraq in a few weeks...

so all of this is very personal to me.

[Alpha]

Additionally, I really don't see too many liberals out there defending the constitution, yet they seem to be first in line to exercise their rights as defined by the constitution.

I respect your choice to take a conservative view but I think this is hitting below the belt. As far as I can tell Bush and Ashcroft are the greatest threat to the constitution since pre-civil-rights times; the Patriot Act is an abominable abuse of federal power. There's no shortage of liberal opposition to that.

[theCryptofishist]

(The Western media usually translates "Al Qaeda" back as "The Base", as if a base of terrorists were been referred to.)

The only time I heard it translated it was as "Database."

[DVD Burner]

David Broder; Washington Post, Clarence Page; Chicago Tribune, Thomas Friedman; New York Times, and Tim Russert; NBC's Meet the Press.

What about Jim Lehrer , The BBC world news and DW tv.?

These are definite must do's for me. Nice selection Joel. Glad you dont do the moonie washington times.

Additionally, I really don't see too many liberals out there defending the constitution, yet they seem to be first in line to exercise their rights as defined by the constitution.

I respect your choice to take a conservative view but I think this is hitting below the belt. As far as I can tell Bush and Ashcroft are the greatest threat to the constitution since pre-civil-rights times; the Patriot Act is an abominable abuse of federal power. There's no shortage of liberal opposition to that.

I agree. What's up with the sneek& peek and 215?

[stuart]

at least we get to express a diseenting opinion without the constant fear of physical harm

are you so sure about that? These 'liberals' were out there defending the constitution and look what happened to them.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2 ... index.html


I also reference again the ACLU as a bunch of 'liberals' who defend the constition. I believe they do a lot more constitution defending on a daily basis than anyone stationed in Iraq at the moment. All massively due respect to those brave souls seeing hard times overseas but no one from Iraq came over here and decided we needed things like 'free speech zones' and unlawful incarceration for those that were unable to disperse faster than humanly possible

I also do not look forward to the demise of this democracy. I think we may differ on how close we are to that however.
As far as other news sources and references go, I sure am not throwing mine around like dung. Beware of access journalism wrt politcal reporting.

[stuart]

--Matthew Yglesias


DEMOCRACY-PROMOTION JUMPS THE SHARK. Hubub from the press conference and the 9-11 commission aside, the really significant news today is the report that UN Ambassador John Negroponte is going to be made ambassador to Iraq, thus taking over from Paul Bremer as our man in Baghdad on July 1. For a variety of reasons, the Iraqi transitional government is going to be more "sovereign" than sovereign, so this is a very important job, and since the Negroponte pick apparently represents a victory for Colin Powell over the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, some liberals may be inclined to breath a sigh of relief.
Not me. One thing to note about Negroponte is that he's not an expert on Iraq, the Middle East, the Arab world, Islam, or anything like that. He does, however, have a great deal of experience in the world of counterinsurgency warfare. The problem is that his experience -- running from working for Henry Kissinger during the waning days of the Vietnam War to his later work as ambassador to Honduras -- is all bad. We're talking propping up rightwing dictators, human rights abuses, and misleading the Congress, the American people, and the world:

Negroponte supervised the creation of the El Aguacate air base, where the US trained Nicaraguan Contras and which critics say was used as a secret detention and torture center during the 1980s. In August 2001, excavations at the base discovered 185 corpses, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at the site.
Records also show that a special intelligence unit of the Honduran armed forces, Battalion 3-16, trained by the CIA and Argentine military, kidnapped, tortured, and killed hundreds of people, including U.S. missionaries. Critics charge that Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with the Honduran military while lying to Congress.

In May 1982, a nun, Sister Laetitia Bordes, who had worked for ten years in El Salvador, went on a fact-finding delegation to Honduras to investigate the whereabouts of thirty Salvadoran nuns and women of faith who fled to Honduras in 1981 after Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination. Negroponte claimed the embassy knew nothing. But in a 1996 interview with TThe Baltimore Sun, Negroponte's predecessor, Jack Binns, said that a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women Bordes had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981, and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, and then later thrown out of helicopters alive.

In early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contras after the U.S. Congress had banned further military aid. Documents show that Negroponte brought the two with a contact in the Honduran armed forces. The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any US involvement, despite Negroponte's participation in the scheme. Other documents uncovered a plan of Negroponte and then-Vice President George H. W. Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government.

This is not the stuff of which a "forward strategy of freedom," as the president likes to term his policies, is made. Even if you take Negroponte at his -- highly implausible -- word, it just goes to show that he's totally incompetant and basically has no ability to keep track of what's going on around him.
Since Negroponte will be an ambassador, he's going to need to be confirmed by the Senate. Questions of Negroponte's suitability aside, I think this would be a welcome opportunity for the legislative branch to start exercizing some oversight over the American operation in Iraq which, until now, has been run as an exclusive executive branch bailiwick staffed largely with partisan GOP hacks. The results are there for all to see, and they aren't pretty.

[Simply Joel]

Additionally, I really don't see too many liberals out there defending the constitution, yet they seem to be first in line to exercise their rights as defined by the constitution.

I respect your choice to take a conservative view but I think this is hitting below the belt. As far as I can tell Bush and Ashcroft are the greatest threat to the constitution since pre-civil-rights times; the Patriot Act is an abominable abuse of federal power. There's no shortage of liberal opposition to that.

Yet all it amounts to is a bunch of whining.

Regarding Bush, Ashcrosft and their supposed threat... The constitution has a method of handling such aberrations... it is called elections, congress and the supreme court... however, what about enemies beyond those stated above.

I am of firm belief that a whole lot of people would like to see the world turned into chaos... civilization as we know it today (pre-Bush) would come to a screeching halt and nobody is going to like it then... think the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, only not as entertaining.

If you really want to change the government, then get involved beyond this means.

[Simply Joel]

--Matthew Yglesias


DEMOCRACY-PROMOTION JUMPS THE SHARK. Hubub from the press conference and the 9-11 commission aside, the really significant news today is the report that UN Ambassador John Negroponte is going to be made ambassador to Iraq, thus taking over from Paul Bremer as our man in Baghdad on July 1. For a variety of reasons, the Iraqi transitional government is going to be more "sovereign" than sovereign, so this is a very important job, and since the Negroponte pick apparently represents a victory for Colin Powell over the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, some liberals may be inclined to breath a sigh of relief.
Not me. One thing to note about Negroponte is that he's not an expert on Iraq, the Middle East, the Arab world, Islam, or anything like that. He does, however, have a great deal of experience in the world of counterinsurgency warfare. The problem is that his experience -- running from working for Henry Kissinger during the waning days of the Vietnam War to his later work as ambassador to Honduras -- is all bad. We're talking propping up rightwing dictators, human rights abuses, and misleading the Congress, the American people, and the world:

Negroponte supervised the creation of the El Aguacate air base, where the US trained Nicaraguan Contras and which critics say was used as a secret detention and torture center during the 1980s. In August 2001, excavations at the base discovered 185 corpses, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at the site.
Records also show that a special intelligence unit of the Honduran armed forces, Battalion 3-16, trained by the CIA and Argentine military, kidnapped, tortured, and killed hundreds of people, including U.S. missionaries. Critics charge that Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with the Honduran military while lying to Congress.

In May 1982, a nun, Sister Laetitia Bordes, who had worked for ten years in El Salvador, went on a fact-finding delegation to Honduras to investigate the whereabouts of thirty Salvadoran nuns and women of faith who fled to Honduras in 1981 after Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination. Negroponte claimed the embassy knew nothing. But in a 1996 interview with TThe Baltimore Sun, Negroponte's predecessor, Jack Binns, said that a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women Bordes had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981, and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, and then later thrown out of helicopters alive.

In early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contras after the U.S. Congress had banned further military aid. Documents show that Negroponte brought the two with a contact in the Honduran armed forces. The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any US involvement, despite Negroponte's participation in the scheme. Other documents uncovered a plan of Negroponte and then-Vice President George H. W. Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government.

This is not the stuff of which a "forward strategy of freedom," as the president likes to term his policies, is made. Even if you take Negroponte at his -- highly implausible -- word, it just goes to show that he's totally incompetant and basically has no ability to keep track of what's going on around him.
Since Negroponte will be an ambassador, he's going to need to be confirmed by the Senate. Questions of Negroponte's suitability aside, I think this would be a welcome opportunity for the legislative branch to start exercizing some oversight over the American operation in Iraq which, until now, has been run as an exclusive executive branch bailiwick staffed largely with partisan GOP hacks. The results are there for all to see, and they aren't pretty.

Sturat, it would be a wee bit more clear to me if you were define where an editorial comment you post from another source ends and your opinion begins....

GOP hacks are so unlike the hacks of the Democratic party?

[Simply Joel]

at least we get to express a diseenting opinion without the constant fear of physical harm

are you so sure about that? These 'liberals' were out there defending the constitution and look what happened to them.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2 ... index.html


I also reference again the ACLU as a bunch of 'liberals' who defend the constition. I believe they do a lot more constitution defending on a daily basis than anyone stationed in Iraq at the moment. All massively due respect to those brave souls seeing hard times overseas but no one from Iraq came over here and decided we needed things like 'free speech zones' and unlawful incarceration for those that were unable to disperse faster than humanly possible

I also do not look forward to the demise of this democracy. I think we may differ on how close we are to that however.
As far as other news sources and references go, I sure am not throwing mine around like dung. Beware of access journalism wrt politcal reporting.

I have one brief concise rule to live by... "Don't let the authorities get involved in my life and/or business." apparently the protester in Miami failed to follow such a rule.

and.... too many people in too small of space... and that includes cruise ships, football/baseball/basketball arenas... and far too soon... Black Rock Desert. if there is too much of a crowd, you probably won't see me there.

simple rules for simply joel

[Simply Joel]

Please note... I am not trying to convince anyone of anything... yet I can assure you. Where I live, most folks are supportive of "getting those folks that are trying to destroy Western Civilization." and I find it disconcerting that I am "the voice of reason" among them yet I am perceived at almost 180 degrees from most posting here.

DVD, Stuart and others have asked what my position is.... well, here is one position....

there are bad people (enemies, internal and external) out there, and if we (you and i) are not vigilant, they (those bad people) will take our shit (freedom, security, safety, food and water) away... and sometimes it requires sacrifice, and always requires someone taking responsiblity.

chew on those thoughts for awhile... before responding...

[Simply Joel]

April 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Questions of Interest
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Yes, the republic is in danger," a friend said. "But what's going to happen to interest rates?" O.K., let's take a break from politics.

Over the past two years, interest rates have been very low. Last June the 10-year bond rate hit a 48-year low. Even three weeks ago the rate was still below 4 percent, a level last seen in 1963.

If the economy fully recovers — or even if investors just think it will — interest rates will rise sharply. In its World Economic Outlook report, to be issued tomorrow, the International Monetary Fund urges the Federal Reserve to prepare the economy for higher rates to "avoid financial market disruption both domestically and abroad."

But how far will rates rise? Let's not get into Greenspan Kremlinology, parsing the chairman's mumbles for clues about the Fed's next move. Let's ask, instead, how much rates will rise if and when normal conditions of supply and demand resume in the bond market.

My calculations keep leading me to a 10-year bond rate of 7 percent, and a mortgage rate of 8.5 percent — with a substantial possibility that the numbers will be even higher. Current rates are about 4.3 and 5.8 percent, respectively; you can see why the I.M.F. is worried about "financial market disruption."

Why 7 percent? Well, in the past 20 years the average yield on 10-year bonds has, in fact, been about 7 percent. Why shouldn't we think of that as the norm?

Some people say that unlike past interest rates, future interest rates won't include a premium for expected inflation. Indeed, over the past 20 years the average inflation rate was 3 percent, considerably higher than recent experience. But in the first three months of 2004, prices rose at an annual rate of more than 5 percent. That number included soaring gasoline prices, but even the "core" price index, which excludes food and energy, rose at a 2.9 percent rate.

More to the point, investors expect considerable inflation over the next 10 years. The spread between "inflation protected" bonds, whose payments are indexed to the Consumer Price Index, and ordinary bonds indicates an expected inflation rate of 2.5 percent during the next decade.

So you can't claim that interest rates will be far below historical levels because inflation is gone. And on the other side, we need to think about the impact of budget deficits.

That last sentence will send the deficit apologists to battle stations (sorry, I can't avoid politics completely). For many years, advocates of tax cuts have insisted that the normal laws of supply and demand don't apply to the bond market, and that government borrowing — unlike borrowing by families or businesses — doesn't affect interest rates. But there's no argument among serious, nonideological economists. For example, a textbook by Gregory Mankiw, now the president's chief economist, declares — in italics — that "when the government reduces national saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this year's structural budget deficit — what the deficit would be if cyclical factors like a depressed economy went away — at 3.9 percent of G.D.P. That's almost twice the average during the past 20 years. Standard estimates say this should push up 10-year interest rates by around one percentage point.

Finally, there's the upside risk. As I've pointed out before, the twin U.S. budget and trade deficits would set alarm bells ringing if we were a third world country. For now, America gets the benefit of the doubt, but if financial markets decide that we have turned into a banana republic, the sky's the limit for interest rates.
Now for the obvious point: many American families and businesses will be in big trouble if interest rates really do go as high as I'm suggesting. That's why the I.M.F. is urging the Fed to get the word out.

And one suspects that the fund, which, like Alan Greenspan, tends to convey messages in code, is firing a shot across Mr. Greenspan's bow. A number of analysts have accused Mr. Greenspan of fostering a debt bubble in recent years, just as they accuse him of feeding the stock bubble during the 1990's. Just two months ago, Mr. Greenspan went out of his way to emphasize the financial benefits of adjustable-rate, as opposed to fixed-rate, mortgages. Let's hope that not too many families regarded that as useful advice.

[Alpha]

Yet all it amounts to is a bunch of whining [by the liberals]

That's your take on it. It might also be said to be opening a subject for public debate, in an effort to build democratic support for one's viewpoint instead of subverting the process as is so often done.

Regarding Bush, Ashcrosft and their supposed threat... The constitution has a method of handling such aberrations... it is called elections, congress and the supreme court...

The balance of power between the three branches of government has increasingly been skewed toward the executive branch. I'm quite sure the authors of the constitution would be apalled by the amount of power that the executive branch weilds today. Remember that it takes an act of Congress to declare war. For fifty years presidents have been circumventing that process by deploying hundreds of thousands of troops all over the globe without officially declaring war.

As for elections, the Supreme Court chose our current president. Democrats can only hope for more of a landslide victory this time.

If you really want to change the government, then get involved beyond this means.

What makes you so sure I'm not?

[Alpha]

There are bad people (enemies, internal and external) out there, and if we (you and i) are not vigilant, they (those bad people) will take our shit (freedom, security, safety, food and water) away... and sometimes it requires sacrifice, and always requires someone taking responsiblity.

chew on those thoughts for awhile... before responding...

Having chewed awhile, here's my reaction. I agree with you 100%. It's crucial that a nation with so much wealth and so many resources have a strong department of defense.

Unfortunately our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with defending the homeland nor even the homeland's interests, unless you count oil. Today Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak made the following remarks:

Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region. At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it. (Reuters)

The problem with our current administration's foreign policy is that we are making new enemies and alienating our allies.

[Alpha]

I have one brief concise rule to live by... "Don't let the authorities get involved in my life and/or business." apparently the protester in Miami failed to follow such a rule.

You'll fit in just fine with the Montana militias.

and.... too many people in too small of space... and that includes cruise ships, football/baseball/basketball arenas... and far too soon... Black Rock Desert. if there is too much of a crowd, you probably won't see me there.

Word to that. I think you and I have a lot in common, as long as we weren't discussing politics. :-)

[Simply Joel]

I have one brief concise rule to live by... "Don't let the authorities get involved in my life and/or business." apparently the protester in Miami failed to follow such a rule.

You'll fit in just fine with the Montana militias.

and.... too many people in too small of space... and that includes cruise ships, football/baseball/basketball arenas... and far too soon... Black Rock Desert. if there is too much of a crowd, you probably won't see me there.

Word to that. I think you and I have a lot in common, as long as we weren't discussing politics. :-)

Being a member of the Montana militia (whoever/whatever the heck that is) would be in violation of another one of my simple rules "I never want to be a member of an organization that would actually have me as a member."

[Don Muerto]

there are bad people (enemies, internal and external) out there, and if we (you and i) are not vigilant, they (those bad people) will take our shit (freedom, security, safety, food and water) away... and sometimes it requires sacrifice, and always requires someone taking responsiblity.

Oooh, the mythical 'they' as boogeyman.

So, Joel, in a modern context who does this mean? Al Qaida? Are they trying to take our freedom and safety away? This happened in a vacuum? We were minding our business and some 'bad people' noticed that we have freedom and food and water and just couldn't wait to take it?

Poppycock.

The 9/11 attacks were a predictable outcome of US foreign policy. The US has been fucking with the middle-east since the British gave up her colonies there. We have installed, propped up and deposed brutal dictators (yes, plural), we support Israel in its illegal occupation and oppression in Gaza and the West Bank, and covet and grasp at their resources, not vice versa. We gave the hijackers the motivation, the opportunity and even the weapons to carry out this attack.

Were they wrong to do it? Yes. The killing of innocent civilians is wrong, and both sides of this do it without compunction.

Pull your head out of the cloud of illusion we spin here in the US about our inherent 'goodness' and the evilness of those that oppose us. It's neither accurate nor productive for solving the problem.

[Simply Joel]

Did I post this already?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 18, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Kicking Over the Chessboard
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

At first, I thought I'd write a column that just ripped President Bush for declaring that the United States — after decades of neutrality — has decided to oppose the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel as part of any final peace settlement. Why is the president dragging America into the middle of this most sensitive Israeli-Palestinian issue? You're telling me that just because Ariel Sharon has to persuade the right-wing lunatics in his cabinet to undo the lunatic settlement mess that Mr. Sharon himself created, America has to pay for it with its own standing in the Arab world?

And while I was at it, I also thought I'd write that it is an abomination for Mr. Bush to say that Palestinians had to recognize "the new realities on the ground" in the West Bank — the massive Israeli settlement blocks — without even mentioning the fact that those "new realities" were built in defiance of stated U.S. policy and they have been just devastating to Palestinian civilians, who've seen their lands confiscated, olive groves uprooted and community fragmented.

But then I thought I also had to write to the Arab leaders wailing over the Bush statements and ask them a simple question: Where have you been? Saudi Arabia's crown prince comes up with one peace plan, one time, for one day. That was it. There's been no follow-up — not a single imaginative, or even pedestrian, Saudi, Arab or Palestinian initiative to sell this peace plan to the Israeli people. And what did the Palestinians think? That years of insane suicide bombing of Israelis wouldn't drive Israel to act unilaterally?

But after I got all these prospective columns off my chest, I decided what I really wanted to say was this: I'm fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I'm fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East. All it has produced is death, destruction and endless "he hit me first" debates on cable television. Arabs, Israelis, Americans — everyone is sick of it.

So now President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air. I don't like his style, but it's done. The status quo was no better. So, frankly, now I'm only interested in three things:

First, will Mr. Sharon win the backing of his right-wing coalition for his Gaza withdrawal plan — which has set off the biggest ideological split in the Jewish right since Camp David? If Mr. Sharon really does split his party and manages to withdraw all Israeli settlements and forces from Gaza, there will only be a far right in Israel and a far left, and a huge center — which is what stable, sane politics requires. That would be a sea change in Israeli politics. Israelis will prove to themselves and to the Arabs that they can, under the right conditions, break the grip of the settlers. The Arabs will never again be able to say: "Why should we do anything? Israel will never leave the settlements anyway." Moreover, Israel will very likely have to form a national unity government — of Labor and Likud — to pull this off, and only such a coalition could reach a negotiated final peace with the Palestinians.

Second, will the Bush team make sure that Mr. Sharon, or his successor, fully withdraws from Gaza as promised? The Bush folks are experts at throwing up chessboards and then leaving the room, with the pieces bouncing all over the floor, and not doing the follow-up (see Iraq) because it interferes with their domestic political agenda. Having given up real U.S. negotiating assets to get Mr. Sharon to move, if Mr. Bush turns a blind eye to any Sharon stalling, U.S. interests will be badly damaged.

Finally, if Mr. Sharon does pull out of Gaza, the Palestinians will have a chance to reposition themselves in the eyes of Israelis. They will have a chance to build a decent ministate of their own in Gaza that will prove to Israelis they can live in peace next to Israel. It will be hard and they will need help. Gaza is dirt poor. But if the Palestinians show they can build a decent state, it will do more to persuade Israelis to give up more of the West Bank, or swap land there for parts of Israel, than any Bush statements or Hamas terror. This is the best chance Palestinians have ever had to run their own house without the Israelis around. I wish them well, because if they do well, everything will be on the table.

This is a real crisis for all parties. And as Paul Romer, the Stanford economist, remarked to me the other day about a different issue: "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

[Simply Joel]

Oooh, the mythical 'they' as boogeyman.

I don't consider terrorists and criminals to be mythical.

Remember back in '99 when 3 armed Nevada citizens were walking across the playa towards the entry gate? Do you think they were out "snipe hunting" or on their way to relieve BRC LLC of the daily receipts? Were those guys the "boogeyman" as you assert.

Pull your head out of the cloud of illusion we spin here in the US about our inherent 'goodness' and the evilness of those that oppose us. It's neither accurate nor productive for solving the problem.

I don't believe we are inherently good, but I don't assume we are inherently bad, as your comments infer. What we do have the best of what is available regarding representative government, a constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Got a better idea, present it. I am all ears, or in this case eyes.

[Simply Joel]

Main Entry: in·fer
Pronunciation: in-'f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·ferred; in·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French inferer, from Latin inferre, literally, to carry or bring into, from in- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
Date: 1528
transitive senses
1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire -- L. A. White> -- compare IMPLY
2 : GUESS, SURMISE <your letter... allows me to infer that you are as well as ever -- O. W. Holmes died 1935>
3 a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought b : to point out : INDICATE <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him -- Shakespeare> <another survey... infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves -- H. R. Chellman>
4 : SUGGEST, HINT <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive senses : to draw inferences <men... have observed, inferred, and reasoned... to all kinds of results -- John Dewey>
- in·fer·able also in·fer·ri·ble /in-'f&r-&-b&l/ adjective
- in·fer·rer /-'f&r-&r/ noun
synonyms INFER, DEDUCE, CONCLUDE, JUDGE, GATHER mean to arrive at a mental conclusion. INFER implies arriving at a conclusion by reasoning from evidence; if the evidence is slight, the term comes close to surmise <from that remark, I inferred that they knew each other>. DEDUCE often adds to INFER the special implication of drawing a particular inference from a generalization <denied we could deduce anything important from human mortality>. CONCLUDE implies arriving at a necessary inference at the end of a chain of reasoning <concluded that only the accused could be guilty>. JUDGE stresses a weighing of the evidence on which a conclusion is based <judge people by their actions>. GATHER suggests an intuitive forming of a conclusion from implications <gathered their desire to be alone without a word>.
usage Sir Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.

[Alpha]

Friedman's article is interesting to me, because he focuses on the Israeli pull-out of Gaza. That's something everyone agrees upon except for the right-wing settlers there. What's so inflammatory is the notion that Sharon and Bush can decide to leave settlements in the West Bank, despite pre-1967 borders that those settlements clearly defy.

If Bush was going to throw his support behind one position or the other, why didn't he support the borders that were determined peacefully, BEFORE the Israeli occupation?

(that's an honest question; I don't know much about the Israel/Palestine conflict)

[stuart]

Sturat, it would be a wee bit more clear to me if you were define where an editorial comment you post from another source ends and your opinion begins....

fyi

when I am posting others articles I do not add any editorial post script of my own. All words were the original authors.

[stuart]

elections, congress and the supreme court

yeah, we all saw how well that worked on '00. members of the court who throughout their extensively documented history have done nothing but bleat on and on about states rights suddenly do a u-turn and decide the federal government needs to step in and override the florida constitution.

[Simply Joel]

elections, congress and the supreme court

yeah, we all saw how well that worked on '00. members of the court who throughout their extensively documented history have done nothing but bleat on and on about states rights suddenly do a u-turn and decide the federal government needs to step in and override the florida constitution.

Do you throw something away because it doesn't work the way you think it ought to?

IMHO, congress should be reviewing the executive branch's overstepping in accordance with (IAW) their constitutional mandate (source: David Broder).

Maybe we ought to read the instruction manual (Constitution) again, and again and again.

and, not to let it go unnoticed... once again, no constructive or remedial actions are mentioned, observed or suggested...


is this a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

[Simply Joel]

and yet another opinion to provoke thought....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 17, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A More Humble Hawk
By DAVID BROOKS

I didn't get this job because I was self-effacing, but today I'm really going to beg for your indulgence. I thought it might be useful to describe the doubts and thoughts going through the mind of one ardent war supporter — me — during these traumatically bloody weeks in Iraq.

The first thing to say is that I never thought it would be this bad. I knew it would be bad. On the third day of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an essay for The Atlantic called "Building Democracy Out of What?" I pointed out that we should expect that the Iraqis would have been traumatized by a generation of totalitarianism. That society would have been brutally atomized. And that many would have developed a taste for sadism and an addiction to violence. On April 11, 2003, I predicted on "The NewsHour" on PBS that we and the Iraqis would be forced to climb a "wall of quagmires."

Nonetheless, I didn't expect that a year after liberation, hostile militias would be taking over cities or that it would be unsafe to walk around Baghdad. Most of all, I misunderstood how normal Iraqis would react to our occupation. I knew they'd resent us. But I thought they would see that our interests and their interests are aligned. We both want to establish democracy and get the U.S. out.

I did not appreciate how our very presence in Iraq would overshadow democratization. Now I get the sense that while the Iraqis don't want us to fail, since our failure would mean their failure, many don't want to see us succeed either. They want to see us bleed, to get taken down a notch, to suffer for their chaos and suffering. A democratic Iraq is an abstraction they want for the future; the humiliation of America is a pleasure they can savor today.

Second, let me describe my attitude toward the Bush administration. Despite all that's happened, I was still stirred by yesterday's Bush/Blair statements about democracy in the Middle East. Nonetheless, over the past two years many conservatives have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration's inability to execute its policies semicompetently.

When I worked at The Weekly Standard, we argued ad nauseam that the U.S. should pour men and matériel into Iraq — that such an occupation could not be accomplished by a light, lean, "transformed" military. The administration was impervious to the growing evidence about that. The failure to establish order was the prime mistake, from which all other problems flow.

On July 21, 2002, my colleague Robert Kagan wrote the first of several essays lamenting the administration's alarming lack of preparation for post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the administration seemed content to try nation-building on the cheap.

Many of us also assumed, wrongly, that the administration would launch a fresh postwar initiative to globalize the reconstruction effort. My friends at the Project for the New American Century urged the U.S. to go to the U.N. for a reconstruction resolution, to build a broad coalition to aid rebuilding and to establish a NATO-led security force. That never happened.

Despite all this — and maybe it's pure defensiveness — I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing. To his enormous credit, the president has been ruthlessly flexible over the past months and absolutely committed to seeing this through. He is acknowledging the need for more troops. He is absolutely right to embrace Lakhdar Brahimi's plan to dissolve the Governing Council and set up an interim government. This might take attention away from the U.S, and change the atmosphere in the country.

It's also inspiring to see the Iraqi center working so hard to keep political conflict under control, especially during these horrible weeks. Every time they get a chance to vote, Iraqi citizens show they are ready for democracy. A young diplomat, Tobin Bradley, is going around the country organizing local elections. In almost every case, the parties that do best are professional and practical, emphasizing the people's concrete needs.

This time, unlike 1920, say, Iraqis can see a panoply of new and thriving democracies. They have witnessed Iran's horrible experience with theocracy. Once the political process moves ahead, nationalism will work in our favor, as Iraqis seek to become the leading reformers in the Arab world.

We hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right about the big thing.

[stuart]

[quote]"Don't let the authorities get involved in my life and/or business." quote]

you are doing it right now using the internet. Do you propose to build your own roads wherever you drive as well? You said you thought our nation needs to defend itself from aggressors. That is true, but it involves the government getting involved in your life to do so. I find myself to have some fairly libertarian points of view myself but like any other idealolgy when you take it to an academic level of purity it smacks of utter nonsense. I am glad there are taxes and that I have to pay them. I would be dead otherwise. I am glad the feds get involved in regulation. The free market, whether you find it effecient or not, is an undisciplned, a-moral beast. I desire it's negative interference in my life (black-outs, cancer, bad operating systems) as little as the feds negative interference.

Those protestors got the authorities involved in their life because they wanted the 'free (highly structured system of tariifs designed to erode local sovereignty) market' to get the fuck off their backs. Those authorities involved themselves in those protestors lives before they even hit the streats. The authorities took sides in a political debate. That's a no-no.

[Don Muerto]

Alpha, they want to retain their hold on those areas because they contain significant water resources. That is what the settlements are about.

Compare these maps:

West Bank Water Resources

Settlements and Cities & Settlement Blocs

(Settlements to be kept are Maale Adumim, Givat Zeev, Ariel, Etzion bloc, and Hebron where 400 ultra-nationalist Jews live amidst 120,000 Palestinians)

Separation wall route

As you can see, the separation wall deviates furthest from the Green Line where it can capture water from the Yarkon-Tanninim Aquifer on the western edge of the West bank. According to mideastweb.org this aquifer "...supplies Israel with about 340 million cubic meters of water annually, which are used by the Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv area. Palestinians use about 20 million cubic meters a year." It does not correspond well to the illegal settlements Sharon has vowed to keep.

[Simply Joel]

"Don't let the authorities get involved in my life and/or business." quote]

you are doing it right now using the internet. Do you propose to build your own roads wherever you drive as well? You said you thought our nation needs to defend itself from aggressors. That is true, but it involves the government getting involved in your life to do so. I find myself to have some fairly libertarian points of view myself but like any other idealolgy when you take it to an academic level of purity it smacks of utter nonsense. I am glad there are taxes and that I have to pay them. I would be dead otherwise. I am glad the feds get involved in regulation. The free market, whether you find it effecient or not, is an undisciplned, a-moral beast. I desire it's negative interference in my life (black-outs, cancer, bad operating systems) as little as the feds negative interference.

Those protestors got the authorities involved in their life because they wanted the 'free (highly structured system of tariifs designed to erode local sovereignty) market' to get the fuck off their backs. Those authorities involved themselves in those protestors lives before they even hit the streats. The authorities took sides in a political debate. That's a no-no.

Here I remain, hiding in plain site.

[Don Muerto]

but I don't assume we are inherently bad, as your comments infer

I inferred no such thing. What I stated was that viewing us as the good guys and anybody in disagreement as the bad guys is probably not a very good foreign policy basis.

As for boogeymen. Sure bad people exist, but you were using a non-specific "they" to justify a need for 'vigilance', 'sacrifice' and 'responsibility'. In the context of your posts and clippings, I took these to mean 'illegal military invasion', 'massive civilian casualties' and 'denial of culpability.'

[Guest]

two points, Joel can you change your name to Cutnpaste? more to the point.
Don Muerto to change what you said just a little bit. Israel must have the water from the west bank. Those hills make the state of Israel viable, solely because they are the water resource for Israel. So whether spoken or unspoken, Israels actions whatever they are, must retain access to the water. Imagine a foreign nation holding the Sierra Nevada and denying that water to the rest of California... There would have to be war.

Sad.. but reality intrudes on the politics of left or right, Palestinian or Israeli regarding water.

As Mark Twain said (about the Great American West) "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over".

[Simply Joel]

The 9/11 attacks were a predictable outcome of US foreign policy. The US has been fucking with the middle-east since the British gave up her colonies there. We have installed, propped up and deposed brutal dictators (yes, plural), we support Israel in its illegal occupation and oppression in Gaza and the West Bank, and covet and grasp at their resources, not vice versa. We gave the hijackers the motivation, the opportunity and even the weapons to carry out this attack.
Pull your head out of the cloud of illusion we spin here in the US about our inherent 'goodness' and the evilness of those that oppose us.

I consider the above to be inference.



If it quacks, waddles, has a bill for a beak and webbed feet, oil coated feathers that allow it to float atop water... it is a duck.