But take a look at the comments following the story. Makes you understand why the Justice Department might be concerned about radicalization of military veterans.
In his campaign for president, Barack Obama pledged a swift end to the war in Iraq, a new commitment to the defeat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strong emphasis on veterans' care and military families and a critical look at Pentagon spending, strategy and conduct in the war on terrorism.
Since his inauguration 100 days ago, Obama has made good on his promise for sweeping change in the military, a new tone in the White House's relationship with troops and a personal investment in easing the burden of military service.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
What does the Military think of Obama's first 100 days?
Looks like a solid B, and given the current political leanings of the US military that's saying a lot:
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Israeli West Bank Settlement Growth, 1972 - 2008
UPDATED, see below.
I've heard critics of Israel claim repeatedly that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased every year since the settlements were founded. This seems counter-intuitive given that you would expect Israel to reign in the settlements during periods of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. So, being a data geek, I decided to check the numbers myself.
I quickly found that it was difficult to locate credible and comprehensive data on settlement population. Lots of sources give partial (and often conflicting) numbers, but I couldn't find any single source with complete population by year back to the early 70's when the settlements were started. As a result I decided to do my own research, and what I discovered is quite interesting.
The critics are right. West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.
Here's a chart showing West Bank settlement population from 1972 to 2008. Click on it for a larger version. All the data is from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.
The data is listed below. The 2008 number is preliminary. Caveats: For a couple of the years I had to calculate the total from the populations of individual settlements. I checked this by doing the same for a year where I had the total from the Bureau of Statistics, and the result matched within a percent. It was necessary to estimate population for a few smaller settlements for the missing years based on their population trends. I reconciled, as best I could, conflicting numbers in different reports from the Bureau of Statistics by again going back to the individual settlement numbers. Many reports are partially or completely in Hebrew, which complicated my research and undoubtedly increased the risk of error. Despite these qualifications, I believe this data is as accurate and complete as reasonably possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAELI WEST BANK SETTLEMENT POPULATION 1972 - 2008
(DOES NOT INCLUDE EAST JERUSALEM)
YEAR POPULATION
-------------------------------
2008 285,800 (preliminary)
2007 282,000
2006 268,400
2005 258,988
2004 234,487
2003 224,669
2002 214,722
2001 198,535
2000 192,976
1999 177,411
1998 163,300
1997 154,400
1996 142,700
1995 133,200
1994 126,200
1993 111,600
1992 101,100
1991 90,300
1990 78,600
1989 69,800
1988 63,600
1987 57,700
1986 51,100
1985 44,100
1984 35,200
1983 22,800
1982 21,000
1981 16,119
1980 12,424
1979 10,000
1978 7,361
1977 4,400
1976 3,176
1975 2,581
1974 2,019
1973 1,514
1972 1,182
UPDATE: In an article published on 6/1/2009, the New York Times claims that previously unpublished Israeli documents show that Israel has approved plans to almost double the number of housing units in West Bank settlements over the next twenty years, from 58,800 to 105,300.
I've heard critics of Israel claim repeatedly that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased every year since the settlements were founded. This seems counter-intuitive given that you would expect Israel to reign in the settlements during periods of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. So, being a data geek, I decided to check the numbers myself.
I quickly found that it was difficult to locate credible and comprehensive data on settlement population. Lots of sources give partial (and often conflicting) numbers, but I couldn't find any single source with complete population by year back to the early 70's when the settlements were started. As a result I decided to do my own research, and what I discovered is quite interesting.
The critics are right. West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.
Here's a chart showing West Bank settlement population from 1972 to 2008. Click on it for a larger version. All the data is from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.
The data is listed below. The 2008 number is preliminary. Caveats: For a couple of the years I had to calculate the total from the populations of individual settlements. I checked this by doing the same for a year where I had the total from the Bureau of Statistics, and the result matched within a percent. It was necessary to estimate population for a few smaller settlements for the missing years based on their population trends. I reconciled, as best I could, conflicting numbers in different reports from the Bureau of Statistics by again going back to the individual settlement numbers. Many reports are partially or completely in Hebrew, which complicated my research and undoubtedly increased the risk of error. Despite these qualifications, I believe this data is as accurate and complete as reasonably possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAELI WEST BANK SETTLEMENT POPULATION 1972 - 2008
(DOES NOT INCLUDE EAST JERUSALEM)
YEAR POPULATION
-------------------------------
2008 285,800 (preliminary)
2007 282,000
2006 268,400
2005 258,988
2004 234,487
2003 224,669
2002 214,722
2001 198,535
2000 192,976
1999 177,411
1998 163,300
1997 154,400
1996 142,700
1995 133,200
1994 126,200
1993 111,600
1992 101,100
1991 90,300
1990 78,600
1989 69,800
1988 63,600
1987 57,700
1986 51,100
1985 44,100
1984 35,200
1983 22,800
1982 21,000
1981 16,119
1980 12,424
1979 10,000
1978 7,361
1977 4,400
1976 3,176
1975 2,581
1974 2,019
1973 1,514
1972 1,182
UPDATE: In an article published on 6/1/2009, the New York Times claims that previously unpublished Israeli documents show that Israel has approved plans to almost double the number of housing units in West Bank settlements over the next twenty years, from 58,800 to 105,300.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Report and Pictures from the Madison Wisconsin Tea Party
I attended the Madison Tea Party yesterday. Very professional and well-run. Americans for Prosperity may be a right-wing corporate front group, but they sure know how to put together an event. Democrats, and the left in general, could learn a lot from these guys.
I arrived early with my cameras and recording equipment, and as soon as I started to set up the nice AFP staffer in the picture below came over, introduced himself, gave me a press packet, explained the event schedule, and offered to arrange interviews with AFP officials or the speakers. There was a media platform, a bit small, but properly positioned to take advantage of the sunshine, and a professional sound and video system with a trailer-sized Jumbotron.
As I said in my earlier post, AFP put tens of thousands of dollars into this event, and organized and ran everything from top to bottom. How anybody could believe this was a grassroots event is completely beyond me, but the crowd lapped it up every time one of the speakers played up the grassroots angle.
It was a big turnout, AFP is claiming 5000, but I think it was maybe 3500 or 4000. I have good crowd pictures if anybody wants to actually count heads. I expected a lot of mainstream conservative Republicans, given AFP's close ties to the Republican Party and because the chair of the Republican Party of Wisconsin was one of the featured speakers, but the majority of the crowd seemed to be libertarians. Anti-tax, anti-government, and deathly afraid of "terrorists", "socialists", and "communists". Mad about taxes and deficits, but whether they were Ron Paul or McCain supporters what they seemed most upset about was simply that Obama won last November.
One thing that surprised me was that the vast majority of the crowd seemed to be from the Milwaukee area. I assume this was driven by righty talkers on Milwaukee radio, so if you can confirm this please leave a comment. The area around Milwaukee, particularly to the west in Washington County, is the most politically conservative part of Wisconsin.
Seems to me that the tea parties are basically an attempt by the Republican Party, working through front groups like AFP, to electorally harness the anger generated by a black president and a poor economy. It's a high risk strategy, given the extremism of people attracted by such movements, but the Republican Party, both in Wisconsin and nationally, doesn't exactly have much to lose. They've driven away moderates, so all that's left are the radicals.
Enough writing, on with the pictures. Click any of them for bigger versions.
I arrived early with my cameras and recording equipment, and as soon as I started to set up the nice AFP staffer in the picture below came over, introduced himself, gave me a press packet, explained the event schedule, and offered to arrange interviews with AFP officials or the speakers. There was a media platform, a bit small, but properly positioned to take advantage of the sunshine, and a professional sound and video system with a trailer-sized Jumbotron.
The crowd started to build as the buses from Milwaukee and other parts of the state arrived. A lot of folks drove to Madison and parked at the Alliant Energy Center, and then took a shuttle bus to Capital Square. Buses, parking, and shuttles were all free, courtesy of AFP.One of the many AFP staffers. Easily identified by their headsets and earnest expressions.
As I said in my earlier post, AFP put tens of thousands of dollars into this event, and organized and ran everything from top to bottom. How anybody could believe this was a grassroots event is completely beyond me, but the crowd lapped it up every time one of the speakers played up the grassroots angle.
It was a big turnout, AFP is claiming 5000, but I think it was maybe 3500 or 4000. I have good crowd pictures if anybody wants to actually count heads. I expected a lot of mainstream conservative Republicans, given AFP's close ties to the Republican Party and because the chair of the Republican Party of Wisconsin was one of the featured speakers, but the majority of the crowd seemed to be libertarians. Anti-tax, anti-government, and deathly afraid of "terrorists", "socialists", and "communists". Mad about taxes and deficits, but whether they were Ron Paul or McCain supporters what they seemed most upset about was simply that Obama won last November.
One thing that surprised me was that the vast majority of the crowd seemed to be from the Milwaukee area. I assume this was driven by righty talkers on Milwaukee radio, so if you can confirm this please leave a comment. The area around Milwaukee, particularly to the west in Washington County, is the most politically conservative part of Wisconsin.
Seems to me that the tea parties are basically an attempt by the Republican Party, working through front groups like AFP, to electorally harness the anger generated by a black president and a poor economy. It's a high risk strategy, given the extremism of people attracted by such movements, but the Republican Party, both in Wisconsin and nationally, doesn't exactly have much to lose. They've driven away moderates, so all that's left are the radicals.
Enough writing, on with the pictures. Click any of them for bigger versions.
This sign says it all.
A friendly teabagger. Seems like the folks with the most extreme signs are often the least informed. This guy couldn't put together a coherent argument to save his life, but he sure knew he was right and everybody who didn't agree with him was wrong.
The crowd, or as much of it as I could get in one picture. Mighty white, not that I expected otherwise.
Plenty of libertarians.
Jumbotron. Very nice. Very expensive. Boy, right-wing grassroots organizers sure have a heck of a lot more money than left-wing grassroots organizers.
One of the main themes of the event was trashing Jim Doyle.
Another Doyle fan.
Not much love for Obama. I didn't see any blatantly racist signs, not that AFP would have allowed them, but anything short of that seemed to be fair game.
It's Nobama with the "O" replaced by a hammer and sickle! After all, any black president who was once a community organizer is by definition a communist!
More of the communist theme. I doubt many of these folks could even define communist, but they know one when they see one.
When calling Obama a socialist or communist just isn't enough, there's always the terrorist card.
...Anti-Christ works too.
Let's see, Obama, Hitler, Marx... Wait a minute, where's Saddam Hussein? I guess the crazy right-wing sign painters must be slipping...
I asked this guy if his sign meant that he also opposed laws restricting abortion. He said "Oh no. That's completely different..." He also had no idea how much other western countries spend per capita on health care, or how life expectancy and other healthcare outcomes compared. But he sure knew that government-run healthcare doesn't work and will destroy our country!
Yeah, impeach those damn congressional socialists! All ... one of them!
A sore loser.
There were a few birthers, but not as many as I expected.
Scot Ross and the One Wisconsin posse. They were able to get right up in back of the speaker's platform with their signs. The AFP folks actually had to protect Scot and his crew from the teabaggers. Guess they didn't want a fight to spoil their carefully constructed media image of moderation and rationality.
Right-wing American political philosophy summed up in one sign. We're all just helpless victims of God and the wealthy...
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Teabaggers are Coming to Madison...
...and Appleton, Eau Claire, Fort Atkinson, Fond Du Lac, Lacrosse, Racine, and Wausau. See below for links and details.
I find the Tea Party movement quite interesting. A prime example of how conservatives are manipulated by their corporate and political masters. While I'm sure that a few Tea Parties really are local grassroots efforts, most are organized and funded by conservative astroturf organizations and the GOP. Very well funded, judging by what I see here in Madison. More on that GOP connection in a later post.
When I mention the rather obvious top-down organization of the Tea Parties to my conservative friends, one of the standard responses I get is "So what, you do whatever MoveOn tells you to do!" Now, I've organized several anti-war events through MoveOn, including two that were attended by over four hundred people, so I know a bit about how this stuff works. The only support I got from MoveOn was access to their web tools to list my events. That's it. No money. No staff. No logistics support. No training. No Rush Limbaugh or Fox News hyping things 24/7. And absolutely no help, or even recognition, from the county or state Democratic Party.
Now compare that to the upcoming Madison Tea Party. Somebody is putting up mighty big bucks for this event. Several tens of thousands of dollars from the looks of it. Free buses from all over Wisconsin. Free parking and shuttles from the Allient Energy Center (a great idea, but not cheap). A big sound system and crew. Professional web presence and PR. All very nice, but not very grassrooty.
So, who's paying for all this? Americans for Prosperity appears to be the major culprit. AFP is basically a corporate-funded astroturf group that has an anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-regulatory agenda. They seem to particularly have it in for environmental regulations. Just like Exxon-Mobil, although I'm sure it's just a coincidence. AFP also has strong ties to the Republican Party, which might explain why they didn't make a peep when George Bush was destroying our economy and turning a huge suplus into record deficits. Be a good dittohead and repeat after me: Republicans good, Democrats bad. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Republicans good, Democrats bad...
Here are all the Wisconsin Tea Parties I know about. This site has the biggest list I've seen, although it doesn't include them all. Given how paranoid, bigoted, and violence-prone many of the teabaggers already are, I'd suggest giving them a wide berth.
Still, it might be kind of fun to yell "Get a job!" if you just happen to be passing by...
---------------------------------------------
Appleton - Fox Banquets, 111 E. Kimball
April 15, 5:30 pm - 7:00pm
Eau Claire - City Hall
April 15, 12:00 noon - 3:00pm
Fort Atkinson - Municipal Building, Main Street
April 15, 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm
Fond Du Lac - Veterans Park (across from City County Government Building)
April 15, 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
Lacrosse - Location TBA
April 15 - Time TBA
Madison - Capital Square
April 15, 11:00am - 1:00pm
(Facebook page)
Racine - City Hall
April 18, 2009 - 12:00 - 1:00pm
Wausau - City Square Downtown
April 15, 2009 – 5:00-7:00pm
(Facebook page)
I find the Tea Party movement quite interesting. A prime example of how conservatives are manipulated by their corporate and political masters. While I'm sure that a few Tea Parties really are local grassroots efforts, most are organized and funded by conservative astroturf organizations and the GOP. Very well funded, judging by what I see here in Madison. More on that GOP connection in a later post.
When I mention the rather obvious top-down organization of the Tea Parties to my conservative friends, one of the standard responses I get is "So what, you do whatever MoveOn tells you to do!" Now, I've organized several anti-war events through MoveOn, including two that were attended by over four hundred people, so I know a bit about how this stuff works. The only support I got from MoveOn was access to their web tools to list my events. That's it. No money. No staff. No logistics support. No training. No Rush Limbaugh or Fox News hyping things 24/7. And absolutely no help, or even recognition, from the county or state Democratic Party.
Now compare that to the upcoming Madison Tea Party. Somebody is putting up mighty big bucks for this event. Several tens of thousands of dollars from the looks of it. Free buses from all over Wisconsin. Free parking and shuttles from the Allient Energy Center (a great idea, but not cheap). A big sound system and crew. Professional web presence and PR. All very nice, but not very grassrooty.
So, who's paying for all this? Americans for Prosperity appears to be the major culprit. AFP is basically a corporate-funded astroturf group that has an anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-regulatory agenda. They seem to particularly have it in for environmental regulations. Just like Exxon-Mobil, although I'm sure it's just a coincidence. AFP also has strong ties to the Republican Party, which might explain why they didn't make a peep when George Bush was destroying our economy and turning a huge suplus into record deficits. Be a good dittohead and repeat after me: Republicans good, Democrats bad. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Republicans good, Democrats bad...
Here are all the Wisconsin Tea Parties I know about. This site has the biggest list I've seen, although it doesn't include them all. Given how paranoid, bigoted, and violence-prone many of the teabaggers already are, I'd suggest giving them a wide berth.
Still, it might be kind of fun to yell "Get a job!" if you just happen to be passing by...
---------------------------------------------
Appleton - Fox Banquets, 111 E. Kimball
April 15, 5:30 pm - 7:00pm
Eau Claire - City Hall
April 15, 12:00 noon - 3:00pm
Fort Atkinson - Municipal Building, Main Street
April 15, 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm
Fond Du Lac - Veterans Park (across from City County Government Building)
April 15, 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
Lacrosse - Location TBA
April 15 - Time TBA
Madison - Capital Square
April 15, 11:00am - 1:00pm
(Facebook page)
Racine - City Hall
April 18, 2009 - 12:00 - 1:00pm
Wausau - City Square Downtown
April 15, 2009 – 5:00-7:00pm
(Facebook page)
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Scariest Gaza Video I've Seen...
"They are forcing us to kill their children to defend our children."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Drudge Trashes Madison (Again)
Matt Drudge, the closeted gay conservative proprietor of The Drudge Report, has taken another of his periodic shots at Madison. Drudge posted a link to a story titled "City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'", from The Business & Media Institute.
The story says that Madison is doing absolutely terrible things, such as considering zoning rules that would...
What's that? Madison property values have held up far better than the country as a whole? And Forbes just rated Madison as the best place in the whole darn US of A to find a job?
It's enough to make a conservative's head explode!
Or not. You see, facts are for liberals. Conservatives simply "create their own reality." Which is something they've had plenty of practice doing over the last eight years.
The story says that Madison is doing absolutely terrible things, such as considering zoning rules that would...
"...adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address or mitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use)."And that we're...
"...dramatically limit(ing) free enterprise and personal liberty, all in the name of environmental sustainability."How awful! No doubt all these loony liberal policies have destroyed Madison property values and driven unemployment to French-like heights!
What's that? Madison property values have held up far better than the country as a whole? And Forbes just rated Madison as the best place in the whole darn US of A to find a job?
It's enough to make a conservative's head explode!
Or not. You see, facts are for liberals. Conservatives simply "create their own reality." Which is something they've had plenty of practice doing over the last eight years.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Tammy Balwin Votes to Unconditionally Support Israel's Attack on Gaza
Yesterday Representative Tammy Baldwin voted for a resolution that unconditionally supports Israel's attack on Gaza, and places full blame for both the attack and the resulting civilian deaths on Hamas. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. Here's the heart of it:
To say that this resolution presents a simplistic and rather one-sided view of the conflict is an understatement. It reads as if it came straight from AIPAC, which it probably did. I doubt it accurately reflects US public opinion, and it certainly puts us in direct opposition to almost every other country in the world. But the real problem is that it makes it even more difficult for the US to play a constructive role in any negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
As I argued in my previous post, I believe that Israel, as a Jewish state, is doomed. The attack on Gaza will do nothing to change that. The only real question is if Jews will be allowed to continue living in Israel when it inevitably becomes an Arab-majority nation. The US can help ensure that they will by working for a equitable negotiated settlement to this conflict. Or we can keep doing what we've been doing, and guarantee that the Jewish People will once be again scattered to the corners of the earth.
--------------
The full text of the resolution is below. Unfortunately it's not linkable on the House's website. It passed 390 to 5, with 22 "present" and 16 not voting. The Wisconsin congressional delegation voted for it with the exceptions of Gwen Moore and Steve Kagen. I believe Kagen is recovering from knee surgery and wasn't there.
--------------
Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
H. Res. 34
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas's unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter;
(2) reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and verifiably dismantle its terrorist infrastructure;
(3) encourages the Administration to work actively to support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza , as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure, including the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel, and thereby allowing for the long-term improvement of daily living conditions for the people of Gaza;
(4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected to the maximum extent possible, expresses condolences to innocent Palestinian and Israeli victims and their families, and reiterates that humanitarian needs in Gaza should be addressed promptly and responsibly;
(5) calls on all nations--(A) to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders, and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians; and(6) supports and encourages efforts to diminish the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories, and strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace with Israel;
(B) to lay blame both for the breaking of the `calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas;
(7) calls on Egypt to intensify its efforts to halt smuggling between Gaza and Egypt and affirms the willingness of the United States to continue to assist Egypt in these efforts;
(8) calls for the immediate release of the kidnaped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been illegally held in Gaza since June 2006; and
(9) reiterates its strong support for a just and sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict achieved through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in order to ensure the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel.
To say that this resolution presents a simplistic and rather one-sided view of the conflict is an understatement. It reads as if it came straight from AIPAC, which it probably did. I doubt it accurately reflects US public opinion, and it certainly puts us in direct opposition to almost every other country in the world. But the real problem is that it makes it even more difficult for the US to play a constructive role in any negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
As I argued in my previous post, I believe that Israel, as a Jewish state, is doomed. The attack on Gaza will do nothing to change that. The only real question is if Jews will be allowed to continue living in Israel when it inevitably becomes an Arab-majority nation. The US can help ensure that they will by working for a equitable negotiated settlement to this conflict. Or we can keep doing what we've been doing, and guarantee that the Jewish People will once be again scattered to the corners of the earth.
--------------
The full text of the resolution is below. Unfortunately it's not linkable on the House's website. It passed 390 to 5, with 22 "present" and 16 not voting. The Wisconsin congressional delegation voted for it with the exceptions of Gwen Moore and Steve Kagen. I believe Kagen is recovering from knee surgery and wasn't there.
--------------
Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
HRES 34 EH
Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;
Whereas Hamas has been designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;
Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with the Quartet's (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) requirements that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;
Whereas in June 2006, Hamas illegally crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces, and kidnaped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today;
Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars against Israeli population centers since 2001, and has launched more than 6,000 such rockets and mortars since Israel withdrew its civilian population and its military from Gaza in 2005;
Whereas Hamas has increased the range and payload of its rockets, reportedly with support from Iran and others, putting hundreds of thousands of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza;
Whereas Hamas locates elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields;
Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement on December 27, 2008, that `We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there';
Whereas on December 27, 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, `For approximately seven years, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens in the south have been suffering from missiles being fired at them . . . In such a situation we had no alternative but to respond. We do not rejoice in battle but neither will we be deterred from it. . . .The operation in the Gaza Strip is designed, first and foremost, to bring about an improvement in the security reality for the residents of the south of the country';
Whereas the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including shortages of food, water, electricity, and adequate medical care, is becoming more acute;
Whereas Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks carrying humanitarian assistance and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since the current round of fighting began on December 27, 2008;
Whereas on January 6, 2009, before the United Nations Security Council, Secretary Rice stated that: `The situation before the current events in Gaza was clearly not sustainable. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis lived under the daily threat of rocket attack, and frankly, no country, none of our countries, would have been willing to tolerate such a circumstance. Moreover, the people of Gaza watched as insecurity and lawlessness increased and as their living conditions grew more dire because of Hamas's actions which began with the illegal coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. . .A ceasefire that returns to those circumstances is unacceptable and it will not last'; and
Whereas the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will ensure the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
- (1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas's unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter;
- (2) reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and verifiably dismantle its terrorist infrastructure;
- (3) encourages the Administration to work actively to support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza , as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure, including the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel, and thereby allowing for the long-term improvement of daily living conditions for the people of Gaza;
- (4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected to the maximum extent possible, expresses condolences to innocent Palestinian and Israeli victims and their families, and reiterates that humanitarian needs in Gaza should be addressed promptly and responsibly;
- (5) calls on all nations--
- (A) to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders, and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians; and
- (B) to lay blame both for the breaking of the `calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas;
- (6) supports and encourages efforts to diminish the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories, and strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace with Israel;
- (7) calls on Egypt to intensify its efforts to halt smuggling between Gaza and Egypt and affirms the willingness of the United States to continue to assist Egypt in these efforts;
- (8) calls for the immediate release of the kidnaped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been illegally held in Gaza since June 2006; and
- (9) reiterates its strong support for a just and sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict achieved through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in order to ensure the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and a viable, independent, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
If I Were an Arab...
Probably the best summation of the Israeli-Palestinian mess I've ever seen, and the reason Israel's attack on Gaza is doomed to failure, is this quote from David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel:
This is why a military solution, short of outright extermination, will never bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No matter how successful it is in the short term, Israel's attack on Gaza is simply guaranteeing that the next generation of Palestinians will want to keep on fighting.
In the end Israel must either reach some sort of negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, or it will be destroyed. Not militarily, but demographically. The Palestinian population, both inside and outside of Israel, is growing far faster than the Jewish population. The reason Hamas keeps lobbing rockets into Israel isn't because they ever expect to do any significant damage, it's because doing so makes Israel a rather unpleasant place to live, which discourages Jewish immigration and encourages emigration. The Palestinians may be stuck where they are, but many, if not most, Israeli Jews aren't. They can return to their home counties, and they will if it gets bad enough inside Israel. About half of all Americans who have immigrated to Israel have since come back to the US. They are the real targets of Hamas' rockets.
No matter what Israel does, within fifty years it will no longer exist as a Jewish state. How Israel treats the Palestinians between now and then will determine if Jews are able to remain in their ancestral homeland, or if they will be driven out, just as they drove out the Palestinians.
It doesn't look very promising.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures from the conflict. Some are quite disturbing:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html
Legal status of Palestinians:
http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=179
Good analysis from Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/gaza-2008-micro-wars-and-macro-wars.html
Jane's analyst says a military victory over Hamas isn't possible:
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=13286
Israel's secret web propaganda campaign:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/01/05/gaza-foreign-ministry-media-manipulation/
The UN map below shows the location and size of Palestinian refugee camps and Palestinian populations around Israel. Click on it for a larger image.
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”During and shortly after its formation, Israel ethnically cleansed (al Nakba) much of the Palestinian population. This might have worked had Israel's neighbors been willing to accept and resettle the Palestinians, but they weren't. Instead, the Palestinians piled up in refuge camps on Israel's borders like so much driftwood. And they're still in those camps, more than fifty years later, because Israel won't let them return, and the countries that host them won't allow them to become full citizens.
This is why a military solution, short of outright extermination, will never bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No matter how successful it is in the short term, Israel's attack on Gaza is simply guaranteeing that the next generation of Palestinians will want to keep on fighting.
In the end Israel must either reach some sort of negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, or it will be destroyed. Not militarily, but demographically. The Palestinian population, both inside and outside of Israel, is growing far faster than the Jewish population. The reason Hamas keeps lobbing rockets into Israel isn't because they ever expect to do any significant damage, it's because doing so makes Israel a rather unpleasant place to live, which discourages Jewish immigration and encourages emigration. The Palestinians may be stuck where they are, but many, if not most, Israeli Jews aren't. They can return to their home counties, and they will if it gets bad enough inside Israel. About half of all Americans who have immigrated to Israel have since come back to the US. They are the real targets of Hamas' rockets.
No matter what Israel does, within fifty years it will no longer exist as a Jewish state. How Israel treats the Palestinians between now and then will determine if Jews are able to remain in their ancestral homeland, or if they will be driven out, just as they drove out the Palestinians.
It doesn't look very promising.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures from the conflict. Some are quite disturbing:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html
Legal status of Palestinians:
http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=179
Good analysis from Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/gaza-2008-micro-wars-and-macro-wars.html
Jane's analyst says a military victory over Hamas isn't possible:
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=13286
Israel's secret web propaganda campaign:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/01/05/gaza-foreign-ministry-media-manipulation/
The UN map below shows the location and size of Palestinian refugee camps and Palestinian populations around Israel. Click on it for a larger image.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Loss of Big Three Would Cost Wisconsin 85,000 Jobs
A new research study from the Economic Policy Institute says that if the big three automakers go out of business it will cost Wisconsin about 85,000 jobs, and drive our unemployment rate up an additional 0.8%. Not good.
EPI is a somewhat left-leaning think tank which receives some of its funding from labor unions, and the study will undoubtedly be attacked for that reason. But the question should be if EPI's methodology is justified, and therefore if its estimates are accurate. I'm not an economist, but here's what I found when I researched the numbers.
EPI breaks job auto-industry dependent jobs into three categories: Direct, indirect, and re-spending. Direct jobs are the 123,000 people who work for the Big Three. Indirect jobs are in industries that supply parts, materials, and services to the Big Three. EPI estimates indirect jobs by looking at how much the Big Three spend on parts, materials, and services as a proportion of the total income of those industries in the US. Pretty straightforward, and EPI comes up with 650,000 indirect jobs.
Re-spending jobs are those that result from the roughly 775,000 workers in direct and indirect jobs spending their salaries. Here's where it gets trickier. EPI calculates a re-spending multiplier of 1.7; in other words, every auto-industry job results in an average of 1.7 jobs in the consumer retail and service industries. Sounds reasonable, and certainly within the range of similar economic studies, but EPI doesn't really explain how they derived it. The reference they give is to the appendix of another EPI paper that doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of the auto industry. So although the 1.7 number is probably in the ballpark, it's the easiest thing in the paper to attack because EPI did a lousy job justifying it.
Anyway, taking everything together, EPI estimates that 2.1 million US jobs will lost of the Big Three go under. And a big bunch of those jobs will be right here in Wisconsin.
If you're wondering why Republicans seem so reluctant to help US automakers, yet just a few weeks ago were tripping over themselves to throw money at banks and insurance companies, the EPI study provides a clue. Can you guess which part of the US the will be least damaged by a failure of the Big Three?
Turns out it's Washington DC...
EPI is a somewhat left-leaning think tank which receives some of its funding from labor unions, and the study will undoubtedly be attacked for that reason. But the question should be if EPI's methodology is justified, and therefore if its estimates are accurate. I'm not an economist, but here's what I found when I researched the numbers.
EPI breaks job auto-industry dependent jobs into three categories: Direct, indirect, and re-spending. Direct jobs are the 123,000 people who work for the Big Three. Indirect jobs are in industries that supply parts, materials, and services to the Big Three. EPI estimates indirect jobs by looking at how much the Big Three spend on parts, materials, and services as a proportion of the total income of those industries in the US. Pretty straightforward, and EPI comes up with 650,000 indirect jobs.
Re-spending jobs are those that result from the roughly 775,000 workers in direct and indirect jobs spending their salaries. Here's where it gets trickier. EPI calculates a re-spending multiplier of 1.7; in other words, every auto-industry job results in an average of 1.7 jobs in the consumer retail and service industries. Sounds reasonable, and certainly within the range of similar economic studies, but EPI doesn't really explain how they derived it. The reference they give is to the appendix of another EPI paper that doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of the auto industry. So although the 1.7 number is probably in the ballpark, it's the easiest thing in the paper to attack because EPI did a lousy job justifying it.
Anyway, taking everything together, EPI estimates that 2.1 million US jobs will lost of the Big Three go under. And a big bunch of those jobs will be right here in Wisconsin.
If you're wondering why Republicans seem so reluctant to help US automakers, yet just a few weeks ago were tripping over themselves to throw money at banks and insurance companies, the EPI study provides a clue. Can you guess which part of the US the will be least damaged by a failure of the Big Three?
Turns out it's Washington DC...
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Give Thanks for Turkey Basters
So, big turkeys are "inefficient breeders", which means there's one more thing we should all give thanks for tomorrow: The humble turkey baster. Turns out that without this versatile tool far fewer of us would be able to enjoy a traditional Thanksgiving meal...
Comments are now open for big turkey jokes.
Anderson, who has bred the birds for 26 years, said the key technical advance was artificial insemination, which came into widespread use in the 1960s, right around the time that turkey size starts to skyrocket. The reason is that turkeys over 30 pounds are "inefficient" breeders: It's difficult for them to actually perform the natural mating act. With artificial insemination, the largest birds can still be used as sires, even if they have a hard time walking, let alone engaging in sexual reproduction.
"You can spread the one tom around better. It adds a whole new level of efficiency. You can spread him over more hens," Anderson said. "It takes the lid off how big the bird can be. If the size of the bird keeps them from mating, then you're stuck."
Comments are now open for big turkey jokes.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
"The Last Time We Vote For Bigotry"
My title is from a Huffington Post article in which the author argues that gays should never again back a presidential candidate, like Obama, who doesn't support gay marriage. While you can debate the effectiveness of such a strategy, it looks like it's already happening. Exit polls from November's election show a startling trend: Gays have deserted the Democratic party at rates far higher than any other group.
The chart below, from pollster.com, shows shifts in presidential voting patterns compared to 2004. Groups below the horizontal line voted more Republican in 2008 than in 2004. While Obama did amazingly well with almost every demographic, there are three groups where he lost votes compared to Kerry: "Small town" (-6%), "Decide last three days" (-8%), and "Gay" (-11%).
(Click on the chart for a version you can actually read)
Although I don't have the data to prove it, my guess is that this is a result of Democratic-leaning gays not voting, rather than gays as a group becoming more Republican. If so, this likely occurred more in safe states like California than in swing states like Wisconsin.
This trend will probably continue, and perhaps even accelerate, until the Democratic Party finally elects a presidential candidate who openly supports gay marriage. While it's unlikely to affect the top of the ticket, it could have an impact in close races further down the ballot.
In the past Democrats have almost always paid a price for supporting gay rights. In the future they will increasingly pay that price for not doing so.
The chart below, from pollster.com, shows shifts in presidential voting patterns compared to 2004. Groups below the horizontal line voted more Republican in 2008 than in 2004. While Obama did amazingly well with almost every demographic, there are three groups where he lost votes compared to Kerry: "Small town" (-6%), "Decide last three days" (-8%), and "Gay" (-11%).
(Click on the chart for a version you can actually read)Although I don't have the data to prove it, my guess is that this is a result of Democratic-leaning gays not voting, rather than gays as a group becoming more Republican. If so, this likely occurred more in safe states like California than in swing states like Wisconsin.
This trend will probably continue, and perhaps even accelerate, until the Democratic Party finally elects a presidential candidate who openly supports gay marriage. While it's unlikely to affect the top of the ticket, it could have an impact in close races further down the ballot.
In the past Democrats have almost always paid a price for supporting gay rights. In the future they will increasingly pay that price for not doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)