Categories
Open Thread

The Sound of Children

A wounded Palestinian child screams as she arrives at Shifa Hospital after an Israeli air strike in Gaza City. Like tear-drops in rain.

Source: Fadi Adwan-Getty, Washington Post.

Husk at man alltid apotekno.com skal lese pakningsvedleggene for medisin man skal bruke. 1 omfatter ikke psykologhjelp, behandling hos kiropraktor eller behandling for språk – og taledefekter. Insomni: problemer med å sovne, urolig nattesøvn, problemer med å sove lenge nok ogeller dårlig søvnkvalitet.

402 replies on “The Sound of Children”

David- while your statement about the intention of Hamas may well be correct, it is also the stated aim of Jihadist Islamicists against the west – but we can’t just bomb their entire counties in response.

I watched Fareed Zakaria this morning – he had 4 well-informed guests including Martin Indyk and the moderate Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi, who won the Sydney Peace prize a few years back. All 4 guests agreed that the result of Israel’s current strategy was a strengthening of Hamas. So not only is Israel’s disproportionate reaction immoral and inexcusable, it’s dumb and counterproductive.

I would also argue that if Hamas made a rational calculation on how to destroy Israel and its people, they would conclude that being completely passive was the best way. Pretending to be good, while preparing to get a nuclear bomb over the course of the next 30 years, for example, would be the best way to acheive their aims. But they are not rational even in the pursuit of Israel’s destruction.

jen at 101,

But Israel is not bombing their entire country. If they were, there would be many, many more civilian deaths.

I would also ask you to answer on the moral equivalence issue: Hamas wants to kill all the Jews; Israel does not want to kill all the Palestinians. Who are the least moral?

Katielou,

I agree that Hamas is strengthened by civilian casualties. (Again, Israel knows this and hence does its best to cause as few as possible … which seems to be ignored here). But they are definitely weakened by the killing of their fighters, the destruction of their weaponry and the reduction in their ability to get new weaponry. So it is difficult to say precisely whether they have been weakened or strengthened. I think that Israel believes that it has dealt a powerful blow to Hamas. Hamas sending delegations to Egypt is also an indication to me that they are concerned about their position.

catrina….”Simply put – it’s better to take a bullet standing up than on your knees….”

This is, to say the least, a bit rough on the childen, who don’t get to choose whether to take a bullet or not. This is all insane. For more than 60 years, the Palestinians have fought Israel. The “offer” made to them in 1947 was better than anything available at any time since. Choosing war has been an unqualified disaster for the Palestinians. But they obviously prefer to fight than come to terms with Israel. Are they right? Who can say? Not me, not from the comfort and safety of Australia.

By some perverse logic, Israel seem to have decided that it is acceptable to kill children in smallish numbers rather than all at once. They must have some kind of argument to defend the otherwise indefensible.

These things are just maddening. The war-makers have a grip on the minds of people. It is obviously not possible to re-set the clock, to go back to 1946 or 1947. If the protagonists back then could see what the results their decisions would be, would they have changed their minds? Or would they have pressed on, implacable, ready to drink each others’ blood?

There have been so many mistakes made in the Middle-East, by all sides. It is just tragic that the cost of these mistakes is being born by the powerless and the innocent, no matter how people try to dress things up by declaring this stupidity to be “necessary”. None of it is necessary. This is what comes from generations of war-mongering: death, chaos and despair.

Brace for more Madoff scandals.

Barack Obama’s economic team, already reeling from the financial meltdown, certainly doesn’t need any more headaches. But investigators and Washington officials say that they’re almost certainly going to face one unexpected problem in 2009: More Bernard Madoff-style corruption scandals.

The ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), says he’s confident there’s more bad news on the way.

“History teaches us that if there is a gap in regulatory enforcement, there will not only be one offender that will be devious enough to slip through,” Bachus said. “Unfortunately, when the tide goes out you find out who’s swimming naked, and I suspect that Madoff was not the only one.”

Well if Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) can quote history now, how come he and the Republican Party have learnt nothing from history.
Did they skip history classes. Oh, that’s right, a report released last week showed that Democrats were highly educated Republicans were not.

continued on Politico

Blindoptimist,

I agree that choosing war has been an unqualified disaster for the Palestinians. They have been betrayed and abandoned by the Arabs, who simply use them as a weapon against Israel when it is convenient.

As to Israel choosing to kill smaller numbers of children, the logic is a simple one: an Israeli civilian is worth more than a Palestinian one in the Israeli mind. Thus, they are willing to risk the deaths of Palestinian civilians rather than risk the deaths of Israeli ones. That is an understandable position. But again not a desireable one.

well said BlindOp.
David- I think where you and I are at an impasse is to do with the notion of proportionality. I think there is a moral imperative attached to this, whereas you seem to be saying that the right to self-defence overides that. Or that they could have killed more civilians but they haven’t (yet) so therefore their actions are reasonable. Don’t agree.

I also reject the mindset that it is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.

Death is the end of everything. While there is life, there is hope. Imo, you should only fight if not fighting means death. I see no point in dying for (or killing for) democracy, atheism, freedom, free speech or anything like that. Fighting for the life of oneself or the life of another is the only rational justification that I can see.

In short, if Australia was ever invaded, I cannot see myself joining the resistance unless the invader was murdering people. (And even then I might not be brave enough – who really knows unless tested?)

jen,

I agree that there is a moral imperative to proportionality. And I think that Israel have potentially breached this here. That is one of the reasons why I do not think that the Israelis are good guys (the other reasons have to do with history).

But Hamas is morally worse – unequivocally imo.

Politico.
Former top Bush officials back Holder.

Two more former top Bush Justice Department officials have endorsed the nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general, the latest in a growing list of GOP backers for Holder.

In letters obtained by Politico and expected to be released shortly, Paul McNulty and Larry Thompson, both of whom served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, threw their support behind Holder, who was a deputy attorney general under former President Bill Clinton.

James Comey, another Bush deputy attorney general, has also backed Holder.

continued on Politico

Politico.
First Fan Obama takes aim at the BCS.

When Barack Obama spoke out again on the issue on Friday, Americans again had reason to hope that change may come to not only Washington but — at least as important — also to the widely despised Bowl Championship Series, or BCS.

Stuart Scott, the ESPN anchor, interviewed Obama on the campaign trail last August and recalled him being “adamant” in his support for a playoff system for college football in clips that were ultimately shelved by the sports network.

“We spent a good deal of time talking about that — and he wanted to, he brought it up,” Scott recalled. “If I’m in charge of the BCS and I continue to hear that the president of the United States is unhappy with it, I think I’d think about it in a different way.”

What a way to win over the rednecks. Help make a bigger success of their favourite sports. Sneaky. 😈
continued on Politico

#116 This would be a big change the could see. I wonder who would turn up for the Grand Final? He would probably be guest of honour.

It seems to me that the following is the reasoning path taken by those who think that Israel is worse than Hamas:

P1.) Causing harm is immoral.

P2) Israel is causing more harm.

C) Therefore, Israel is more immoral.

I disagree with this reasoning path. I do not think that moral calculations are necessarily based on most harm – see, for example, my point about accidentally killing 100 people versus deliberately killing 1.

Intent is the main moral issue in my mind. The intent of Hamas is very, very clear, and shows them to be highly immoral; the intent of Israel, while less clear, is indicated by the methods they choose to employ. They could, for example, simply destroy a building with civilians on the roof. However, on at least some occassions they try to clear the civilians from the building before destroying it. This indicates that their intent is not to kill civilians.

Middle East.
I don’t know whether anyone here has noticed. This is an argument NOBODY CAN WIN. That’s why I have kept out of it.

113
David Gould Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“I also reject the mindset that it is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees……..I cannot see myself joining the resistance unless the invader was murdering people. (And even then I might not be brave enough – who really knows unless tested?)”….

…….
At least you may be fortunate enough to be able to exercise some choice in the matter. Whether to die? Whether to kill? Whether to submit? The innocent of the middle east are not offered a choice. They are part of an idiotic lottery in which some must die, in which killing is a banal necessity, in which submission is inevitable (no matter which we things turn out). How bizarre this is.

The Hill
Senate thwarts Coburn filibuster of lands bill.

The Senate voted during a rare Sunday session to move forward on a package that has become known as the “Coburn omnibus” because it is designed to thwart a filibuster by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

The most recent version of the Coburn omnibus is a 1,000-plus page package that consists of more than 160 different provisions governing various land-use issues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to move many of the provisions through the Senate last year but action was held up by Coburn’s use of dilatory procedural tactics.

Reid’s decision to vote on a Sunday to quash Coburn’s filibuster was interpreted by some Senate observers as a non-too-subtle rebuke of the junior senator from Oklahoma. The cloture motion passed 66-12.

Strike one! In this game you can have as many strikes as you like. The more the merrier.

continued on The Hill

I agree that most do not have much wiggle room for choice. However, there is some. Just because your leaders choose to kill does not mean that you have to. That does not mean that you have the choice not to die, unfortunately.

Chris B,

I agree that no-one can win. But winning is not the intention in discussion/debate. Never come to a discussion or a debate with an expectation of ‘winning’. And especially if the topic is the Middle East …

Orbital mind control lasers. Building those should be Obama’s first priority.

David Gould at 96

Ah, so you think that Israel are the bad guys and Hamas are less bad?

No – I think that Israel should take responsibility for and be accountability for the the acquisition of the land referred to as the State of Israel. I think Israel has been milking the holocaust for too long and in a twist of irony, are now faced with the reality that they are are no better. I believe that Hamas is the representative of the Gaza people – and that these people have the right to stand up with a hope for something better.

In what way does firing rockets at civilian targets not equate to deliberately targeting civilians?

Lets think about this. We are talking about the Qassam rocket with a range of between 3 and 10 km, no guidance system. A rocket powered by a mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate (that’s fertilizer by the way). Gee – you could cut a strip of land 10k wide along the Gaza border and you have a total inclusive defence solution. Thing is – Israel is not looking for a solution – because Israel’s actions are not about solutions – it’s about positioning, elections, and political opportunities.

The fact that they are not very good at killing anyone does not remove the intent.

Are they just less intellectually capable? Are they just stupid? Is it a resource problem? What would you do with your intellectual capacity and equivalent resources? How good would you be? Would you be aiming to kill? Would you be aiming to scare? How would I be able to judge you? How would I be able to judge your people? Your suggesting the Palestinian people are not very good at killing. It’s a baseless argument.

So I again ask: how is trying to kill someone and failing differ in a moral sense from trying to kill someone and succeeding?

There are some circles within which that argument could be referred to as baseless and stupid. Let’s perhaps try and speculate on where that thinking comes from. Your statement assumes the intent to kill without consideration or appreciation of the fidelity of the instrument of destruction. Given years of statistical evidence that the kill instrument is about as useful for killing as a packet of aspirin that has passed its used-by-date, compounded by years of statistical information that the kill instrument is rather effective is creating the perception of a threat – well, they could argue that the Palestinians are rather resourceful, intelligent and humane. Or – they could argue that because they are Arabs they’ll never get it together. But they probably don’t want to say that. They probably know that that chances are that Iran or a bunch of other Arab nations could provide a suite of more sophisticated weapons, and they know that you know that the US could put in a missile defence system if this was really anything more serious than the sum total of death by bladder infection. I.e. I say again – it is a baseless argument.

As to it being a psychological attack, it is interesting that you use that phrase while knowing that the intent of Hamas is to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.

And just where did I suggest that the intent of Hamas (or anyone else) is to kill as many civilians as possible? David – seems to me that your making things up.

Another question: if Hamas fired rockets into Israel knowing that Israel would respond and knowing that such a response would endanger civilians, are they also morally culpable for the civilian deaths?

They are morally responsible for the consequences. Potential consequence go much further that the simple death of a civilian. Consequence include a future, self determination, a possibility for the idea that one’s children can aspire to something better.

The Israeli government is democratically elected, too. It could be argued that they are standing up for the rights of the Israeli people – specifically, the right not to have missiles fired at them. But maybe that is not a right that you think Israeli civilians should have?

So it’s back to ‘oh-my-god-it’s-another-fatal-urinary-bladder-infection-epidemic’ argument? More people die in Isreal from suiside (but given Jewish mothers and that whole guilt thing it’s maybe justifiable). Thing is David that your puffing it up out of all proportion.

As to Hamas and their democratic election, they certainly were democratically elected. However, I am sure that you did not miss their murderous military takeover of Gaza, which equated to a coup against a democratically elected president.

No argument there. But at the same time I don’t have an issue with that (but that’s a lot more about establishing and maintaining control in a volatile space).

By Post Author

118
David Gould Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm..” This indicates that their intent is not to kill civilians….”
….
How do you know for sure? You can only rely on what they say. If you measure the IDF by what they do as much as by what they say, then they clearly chose targets where there will be civilian casualties. For mine, this is a bit like the driver of a car who runs down pedestrians on a cross-walk, even though he could see them on the road, and who later pleads that he was trying to get to the Post Office in a hurry and did not really want to harm the pedestrians. The driver is using obfuscation to avoid blame. This is no comfort to the dead and injured.

The fact that the pedestrians may have been involuntarily placed on the road in heavy traffic is another thing altogether.

David-
I am not objecting to the militants on either side killing each other – seems to go with the decision to fight.
this whole discussion is about innocent people being killed.

DG – I too believe that the only chance the Palestinian people have is to take the high moral ground and keep it. Hamas has no place in that process.

For those arguing that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians – perhaps you should consider that the IDF could, if they truly wished, kill every single Hamas member in Gaza City. Of course it would leave the city as a radioactive ghost town – but it would take one plane and one bomb.

Even without resorting to nuclear weapons the IDF could kill tens of thousands. The truth is that the IDF will accept inflicting significant civilian casualties in its quest to damage Hamas, but each death carries a cost to the political will behind the operation. It is tactically intelligent to minimise civilian casualties.

As for the morals of the situation – forget it. How moral was Belsen, Hiroshima, the carpet bombing of Berlin, the use of Napalm in Vietnam? Don’t look for morals in a war.

Catrina,

I will respond to this part first:

“Are they just less intellectually capable? Are they just stupid? Is it a resource problem? What would you do with your intellectual capacity and equivalent resources? How good would you be? Would you be aiming to kill? Would you be aiming to scare? How would I be able to judge you? How would I be able to judge your people? Your suggesting the Palestinian people are not very good at killing. It’s a baseless argument.”

It is not baseless. They are not very good at killing simply because they have limited resources. The Palestinians simply do not have the military capacity of a modern industrial state. However, their intent is clear. It is spelled out in their policy documents; it is spelled out in their actions.

As to what I would do with my intellect and the equivalent resources, I would commit completely to peace. Assuming that I had had my intellect poisoned by religion, I would plan for the long term: I would endeavour to acquire nuclear weapons, thus giving me the capacity to carry out my intentions.

The fact that Hamas operate in ways that are not in their own best interests is not unusual in human behaviour. It is due to limited information, combined with religious ideas, combined with the fact that they are being manipulated by others who do not have their best interests at heart in the first place.

DogB – g’day.
‘Don’t look for morals in a war”.
and surely that is the point . It is not, and will never be the answer to this horrible situation. A new approach is required, and as supposedly intelligent beings it is time that we demanded this instead of endlessly repeating the age-old excuses and justifications.

Oops – that should read: The intentions of Hamas are clear. As it is written, it implies that that is the intent of the Palestinians.

blindoptimist at 127,

No, I rely on what they do. As DogB says, if the Israelis wished they could kill a lot more civilians. Further, we know that there is a price to pay for excessive civilian casualties. Thus, Israel have a clear motive to minimise as much as possible given their war aims and the situation on the ground any civilian deaths and injuries.

As to the post office situation, this is to do with the proportionality argument. I have already said that I think that Israel have possibly exceeded this in some actions. However, this again does not equate to deliberately murdering civilians. Intent is a major part of our legal system, particularly when it comes to killing.

David Gould at 98

I would also point out that the charter of Hamas calls for the elimination of the state of Israel, as well as including the following:

And the constitution of the United States of America assigns an African American to half that of a white American. I would suggest that your clutching at straws with this argument. What matters are the actions that the parties have taken during negotiation processes, cease-fires and the like.

By Post Author

129
DogB Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“….. It is tactically intelligent to minimise civilian casualties…”
..
Maybe, DB, maybe. I am not ready to cede such good intentions to the war-makers. The war-parties that have the ascendancy in Israel and Gaza benefit from perpetuating conflict. Seeing how the IDf are willing to fire on the UN and the Red Cross, on schools and hospitals, and how Hamas are happy to fire into housing blocks, I think it is reasonable to suppose they do these things intentionally.

Since we can all see that death propagates more death, that grief cultivates revenge, I am wiling to bet that the warriors of Israel and Hamas know these things too. The difference is, they are willing to use these things for their own ends, whereas we are lucky enough not to have to make these appalling choices.

Catrina,

“No – I think that Israel should take responsibility for and be accountability for the the acquisition of the land referred to as the State of Israel. I think Israel has been milking the holocaust for too long and in a twist of irony, are now faced with the reality that they are are no better. I believe that Hamas is the representative of the Gaza people – and that these people have the right to stand up with a hope for something better.”

I know this argument is popular, but I do not think that it can be credibly made. Israel is no way equivalent to Nazi Germany in their actions – not even close. I will leave that point there, as it is incredibly emotive, obviously.

I am unclear what you mean by ‘being accountable for the acquisition of the land known as the state of Israel’. Can you elaborate?

Hamas may well be the representatives of the people of Gaza. However, that does not make them in any way moral. I am sure that you have read their charter.

Catrina at 134,

I think that you are the one clutching at straws here. Even if the constitution of the United States included such a thing – I honestly do not know – the fact is that it was written over two hundred years ago and thus cannot be used as a representation of what people in the US believe now.

The charter of Hamas was written only 21 years ago. Further, there has been no refutation of it despite international calls for Hamas to make those refutations. Instead, there have been affirmations of their intent as recently as last year during the ceasefire. (I am not including similar statements made this year as they are obviously being made in the heat of battle and can be discouted as rhetoric).

Hi Jen

Agreed.

Neither side are in the ‘right’ here. Solutions will involve compromise, but you have to admit that one side being represented by a political/military group with the stated aims of eliminating the Jewish people would seem to make a compromise solution a little difficult.

The Palestinians are the weaker side militarily. They have zero chance of enforcing their will on Israel. They must, for the sake of their children, realise this. Once they do they will see the solution.

The truth is that if the Palestinians could come up with a ‘Gandhi’ this conflict would be over in five years.

blindoptimist,

Tactical intelligence is not the same as good motives. Just pointing that out. 😉

Catrina,

“So it’s back to ‘oh-my-god-it’s-another-fatal-urinary-bladder-infection-epidemic’ argument? More people die in Isreal from suiside (but given Jewish mothers and that whole guilt thing it’s maybe justifiable). Thing is David that your puffing it up out of all proportion.”

The thing is, a fatal urinary bladder infection epidemic is not a moral agent in the sense that we tend to think of things. (Humans are not either, but that is beside the point – I do not want to get into a free will discussion on top of this one!)

Thus, Hamas, by choosing to kill civilians, even if ineffectually, are making a decision on which they can be morally evaluated. Their success or otherwise at murder is not the issue when carrying out that evaluation.

Hi David, after a break form the blogosphere, i’ve been sandbagging on here for a little while.

On moral equivalence, you seem to framing the issue as one of Israel vs Hamas as if Hamas = Palestine well Palestine Hamas. I have read posts from people here decrying the death of Palestinian civilians, you could not honestly interpret this as concern for Hamas could you? I don’t think you could deny that there are elements within the IDF and the Israeli government and population who want to see the eradication of Palestine, so the moral equivalence would be whether the fascist right of Israel is any better or worse than the fascist right of Palestine?

You ask perhaps mischievously whether the unintended death of hundreds is more or less immoral than the intended death of one, I would not prescribe such innocence to the actions of the IDF. It seems pretty apparent to me that Israel was not happy with the election of Hamas and has been determined since the election to punish the Gazan people for electing an unauthorised party, and also undermining Hamas’ ability to govern the region, lest they demonstrate their ability to do so, peacefully and efficiently.

Anyway, Happy New Year. 🙂

133
David Gould Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
blindoptimist at 127,

“…..Intent is a major part of our legal system, particularly when it comes to killing.”

If you assess things by what Israel do, then you would have to conclude they intend to kill their targets. In a way, the distinction between civilians and non-civilians is lost in the circumstances. The targets are all enemies – combatants, enlistees, irregulars, supporters, political corelates, sacrificial numbers, willing or not, armed or not.

Israel could choose to fight Hamas using other means. But they choose heavy munitions, armour, rockets and automatic weapons. No-one has forced them to choose widespread death. They could have chosen medicines, food, fuel, housing, schooling and economic opportunity. Surely Israel cannot pretend that making war is merely accidental.

Neither side can hold the moral high ground in this.
But when I launch a missile into a building in the full knowledge that there are children inside, and that it will kill them, and I do so with steely intent based on my belief that there is also my enemy within then i am making a clear choice that the cost of those dead children is justifable. That is the difference IMO between what Israel is actively doing vs, The hope that if I launch a crude rocket it may or may not hit something. In the former there is no doubt I will kill those children. in the latter – I may, but probably not, even if I wished I could. I think there is a difference.

Catrina,

“There are some circles within which that argument could be referred to as baseless and stupid. Let’s perhaps try and speculate on where that thinking comes from. Your statement assumes the intent to kill without consideration or appreciation of the fidelity of the instrument of destruction. Given years of statistical evidence that the kill instrument is about as useful for killing as a packet of aspirin that has passed its used-by-date, compounded by years of statistical information that the kill instrument is rather effective is creating the perception of a threat – well, they could argue that the Palestinians are rather resourceful, intelligent and humane. Or – they could argue that because they are Arabs they’ll never get it together. But they probably don’t want to say that. They probably know that that chances are that Iran or a bunch of other Arab nations could provide a suite of more sophisticated weapons, and they know that you know that the US could put in a missile defence system if this was really anything more serious than the sum total of death by bladder infection. I.e. I say again – it is a baseless argument.”

The fact is, Hamas cannot get its hands on sophisticated weaponry. We know that sophisticated weaponry is difficult for even states to acquire. Iran, for example, while being a semi-modern industrial state with lots of oil wealth (okay: it no longer has lots of oil wealth and its economy is fucked, but it was once wealthy) has not been able to develop missile or warhead technology (let alone the sophisticated electronics systems required for accuracy and countermeasures evasion that the US has) of any great sophistication.

Hamas and the Palestinians more generally simply do not have the ability to develop anything much at all. They rely on getting stuff from others. This is difficult, as most nations are not willing to give their best stuff to others. It is further complicated by the fact that Israel and others, such as the US and Britain, are doing their best to prevent Hamas acquiring anything sophisticated.

jen at 143,

That is the most basic point on which we differ, I think. (Especially when you consider that it is Hamas who are using civilians as a cover for their activities).

Hey you can’t do a not equal sign in wordpress?
I meant to say Palestine not equal Hamas.

135
blindoptimist Says: “Maybe, DB, maybe. I am not ready to cede such good intentions to the war-makers…”

That’s my point. These aren’t ‘good intentions’ at all. It is a cold blooded tactical decision. Killing kids is bad press – to the Israeli war machine that’s the only significance in civilian casualties. On an individual level the feelings and emotions of the Israeli people may be (and probably are) vastly different.

Hamas’ motives are less clear and rooted in equal parts of fanaticism and desperation.

blindoptimist at 142,

Why would I conclude that? Israel certainly intend to kill those who fight them. But as has been pointed out, civilian deaths are not good for Israel in any way. Thus, the motives would seem clear. And the actions from Israel that try to minimise casualties demonstrate that.

However, I would agree with both you and jen that war is not the only option that Israel could have chosen. To that extent, they certainly chose to inflict civilian casualties. But so did Hamas by standing and fighthing. So in that regard Hamas and Israel are equivalent. When you add on the other aspects, however, Hamas is worse than Israel.

CQ Politics.
Obama Cites Health Care Efficiencies as Top Challenge.

The scope of the economic crisis will prevent him from fulfilling some of his campaign promises, President-elect Obama said Sunday, but he reiterated his desire to eliminate privately run alternatives to Medicare in order to squeeze efficiencies out of the health care system.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Obama singled out Medicare Advantage plans as an example of government initiatives that don’t work, adding that eliminating the plans and other cost-cutting could free up $200 billion to spend on expanding health care.

“What our challenge is going to be is identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don’t work, and making things that we have more efficient,” Obama said.

The privately run, government-funded Medicare Advantage program has rapidly accumulated enrollees since it was created in 2003 (PL 108-173). It is a legacy of the Bush administration and congressional Republicans’ efforts to inject free-market forces into the entitlement program. Under the initiative, private insurers sell plans directly to seniors and are paid by the federal government for each beneficiary. The average payments are higher than the per-patient cost of traditional Medicare. In return, insurers are supposed to charge seniors lower premiums and provide enhanced benefits.

Obama and other Democrats say the payments are too generous and represent a giveaway to the insurance industry.

continued on CQ politics

David Gould at 145

Especially when you consider that it is Hamas who are using civilians as a cover for their activities)

While Israel positions it’s civilians as the manipulable voting demographic.

By Post Author

HusseinWorm at 141,

I had hoped not to be framing it that way. If I have, I apologise.

However, there have not been too many people arguing that Hamas is a villain of the highest order – at least until pushed. And even then, many here believe that Israel is a greater villain.

As to the right of Israel, sure. But the battle here is between the state of Israel and Hamas. The state of Israel is not operating in a way to wipe out Palestine and clearly the government and the military are not controlled by the people who want to. Hamas is and does (and is, in fact, the government of Gaza to boot).

The comparison is between the state of Israel and Hamas. The state of Israel, while comprising people with the views you raised, is not acting on those views.

If you want to compare the state of Palestine with the state of Israel, then what you state would be correct. But that is not my intention.

Mind you, it is really good to see we can have a good debate/discussion, compared to the other place of abuse. I’d just like to send a cheerio to the Three Amigo’s.

Catrina,

Yes, manipulating people is the equivalent to putting them on rooves to stop people you know have moral qualms about killing innocents (or at least tactical reasons not to do so) from bombing you …

Sorry. Not credible.

DB, I would go further than you. I think killing civilians is a deliberate tactic. For PR reasons, this has to be deniable, but IDF has clearly set out to cause the maximum amount pain consistent with public “acceptance”. They did so in Lebanon and in the occupied territories in the past. This is a tactic aimed at prolonging and intensifying the war and at increasing the costs of this 60 year-war to the Palestinians. Israel may be willing to make peace, but only on its own terms. If this means killing or maiming children, then no problem, they will kill and maim children.

I think so too David. I am trying to get to the basis of our disagreement without getting lost in all the obscurification nd confusion of what is a obvioulsy a complex and truly terrible situation. Intent and capacity are linked IMO.

CQ Politics
Obama on What Lincoln Means to Him, and the Dog Decision.

Aside from weighing in on the front-and-center issues – like the economy and national security – Barack Obama provided some personal insights on ABC’s “This Week” on the influence Abrahm Lincoln has had on him and his Inaugural preparation – and an update on choosing the dog he promised his daughters.

Obama has already decided to do a version of Lincoln’s train ride from Illinois to the capitol for his Inauguration and to use the Lincoln bible for his swearing-in.

Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that as he thinks about his much-anticipated inaugural address, he thinks about Lincoln’s second one. “You start getting intimidated, especially because it’s really short,” Obama said. “You know, there’s a genius to Lincoln that is not going to be matched.”

continued on CQ Politics

Abraham Lincoln was also a member of the Republican Party when it was great.
Abraham Lincoln

ie – the one thing that to date has prevented nuclear war (since Hiroshima obviously) is the known capacity of nuclear weapons to cause such immense damage, therefore no one (yet) has used them.

HusseinWorm at 146:

Hey you can’t do a not equal sign in wordpress?

You mean something like: ≠?

I meant to say Palestine not equal Hamas.

As in Palestine ≠ Hamas?

🙂

By Post Author

blindoptimist at 154,

Do you think that such a strategy works? In my opinion, such a strategy does not work. Civilian deaths strengthen the hand of the enemy. Can you give examples of it working?

(Obviously, it not being a good strategy does not mean that Israel would not do it: as I have said previously, people operate against their own best interests on many occassions).

DG, why do you suppose that Israel do not want to kill children? They continue to do it. They can always choose not to. They cannot say they intend to liquidate the innocent, because they know how appalled world opinion would be. How could they acknowledge this was a planned and calibrated policy, especially after the holocaust? But really, they kill and then they tell lies. This should not be a big shock. Telling lies is a petty crime compared with the real matter of widespread, intentional murder. I think that the Israeli war-parties want to cause the maximum permissible amount of pain to the people of Palestine. Why would they want to do otherwise? Punishment is something everyone who has experienced fear and destruction can understand. Afterall, war is not a time for half-measures. Whether you are winning or losing or don’t know the difference, war is a time for blood and death. That is the horror we are all observing.

It makes me think the world would be a better place if Germany had won the Great War in 1915, as they almost could have. The Ottoman Empire may not have disintegrated. There would be no Palestine and no Israel – only the tourist province of Syria. There may have been no WW2 and maybe no Revolution in Russia. The world would definitely be a better place, though who would have said so at the time.

David Gould at 162

Just to be clear:

Just to be even clearer:
* Israel aiming for the long term destruction of the Palestinians;
* Hamas addressing the immediate needs of the Palestinian population;
* Gaza: the theatre of operations;
And lets not forget the picture at the top of this page: the consequence of fighting against insurmountable odds for that essence of humanity – for that possibility of change – for the chance that the little girl will live and grow up in a better place.

By Post Author

Catrina at 160, that’s the one. I was trying to do my dodgy Visual Basic type not equals sign but on second thoughts it could just as easily be misinterpreted as an attempt at a HTML tag.

161
David Gould Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“blindoptimist at 154,

Do you think that such a strategy works? In my opinion, such a strategy does not work. Civilian deaths strengthen the hand of the enemy. Can you give examples of it working?”

……
DG, I think the war-parties all benefit from perpetuation of the conflict. It suits them. War is what they do best. Hamas and the Israeli parties need each other in this gruesome tete-a-tete. How would the IDF respond to a Gandhi? Or how would Hamas answer a policy of reconciliation? They wouldn’t know what to do. They prosper from conflict. They must, or they would surely have chosen another future by now…..

Israeli reservists sent to Gaza.

Israel has confirmed that reserve units have been sent to the Gaza Strip, as its campaign there enters a 17th day.

But military officials denied this heralded a new phase in Israel’s offensive against Hamas militants.

Earlier, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel was nearing its military goals and operations would continue.

Reports suggest diplomatic efforts between Egypt and Hamas in Cairo are progressing, as envoy Tony Blair heads to the city for talks on Monday.

continued on the BBC site

I have a friend who is trained in the Israeli army reserve. Her and her family are gradually moving out here. She is now an Australian citizen. They are only too pleased to be out of that situation. Her parents live close to the Lebanon border. A missile did land close to her one time. She is very cute, and says she looks mean with an M16 rifle.

BBC News.

Obama and the Gaza crisis.

US President-elect Barack Obama has signalled clearly that he intends to grapple with the problems of the Middle East from the outset of his presidency.

Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, underlined the point.

“What the Gaza crisis has done is to remind us – as if anyone really needed reminding – that the Middle East is not stable,” he said.

“And it won’t wait for the new administration to decide when it is ready to address it.”

But what can the Obama administration do differently?

continued on the BBC site.

Chris B at 169

She is very cute, and says she looks mean with an M16 rifle.

Chris – As a matter of principal I have to inject some competition here. I have a photo of me in a badly torn leather jacket, with a AK47, and an iPod.

By Post Author

154
blindoptimist Says: “DB, I would go further than you. I think killing civilians is a deliberate tactic. For PR reasons, this has to be deniable, but IDF has clearly set out to cause the maximum amount…”

Oh, I see your point. Hm, perhaps. If so the IDF isn’t all that good at it.

879 Palestinians killed in 17 days of fighting works out at about 50 per day of which perhaps half are civilians. If the intent was to kill randomly a single sniper with a rifle could probably do better than that.

BBC.

Iraqis ‘capture leading militant’.

Iraqi security forces say they have captured leading Sunni militant Tha’ir Kadhim Sraiwi.

Mr Sraiwi is thought to be the leader of militant group Ansar al Sunna, believed to be behind a Baghdad market bombing in 2008 which killed 40 people.

Mr Sraiwi is also wanted for the killing of 17 off-duty policemen in 2006, authorities said.

There has been no independent verification of his arrest, says the BBC’s Jonny Dymond, in Baghdad.

continued on the BBC site

167
blindoptimist Says: “DG, I think the war-parties all benefit from perpetuation of the conflict. It suits them. War is what they do best. Hamas and the Israeli parties need each other in this gruesome tete-a-tete.”

Absolutely. That’s why I see little hope for the immediate future of the area.

“How would the IDF respond to a Gandhi?”

If this mythical creature convinced the Palestinians to lay down their arms and protest peacefully (no rock throwing) for, say, three years – then it wouldn’t matter what the IDF thought. IMHO the Israeli people would demand peace.

“Or how would Hamas answer a policy of reconciliation? They wouldn’t know what to do. They prosper from conflict. They must, or they would surely have chosen another future by now…..”

Unfortunately I tend to agree with you here. I’m not sure Hamas can be negotiated with. On the other hand I would hope the general population would respond well.

BBC.

Well that’s it. I guess I’m just going to have to you Yahoo or MSN now. 😈

Carbon cost of Googling revealed.

Two search requests on the internet website Google produce as much carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle, according to a Harvard University academic.

US physicist Alex Wissner-Gross has conducted research into the environmental impact of “googling”.

Environmental physicists are worried about the environmental impact of information technology.

A recent study estimated the global IT sector generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines put together.

Mr Wissner-Gross’s study found a typical Google search on a desktop computer produces about 7g (0.25oz) of carbon dioxide.

If you enter another request you obviously end up with double that amount, which is the roughly the equivalent of boiling an electric kettle for a cup of tea.

continued on the BBC site.

Bugger – and here I am putting on the kettle and Googling Alex Wissner-Gross while I wait for it to boil. Would a glass of chilled Chardonnay be more carbon friendly?

By Post Author

BBC
Ants ‘get aggressive with cheats’

Worker ants in colonies with a queen are physically attacked by their peers if they try to reproduce, a study says.

In ant society, workers normally give up reproducing to care for the queen’s offspring, who are also their brothers and sisters.

The researchers found that chemicals produced by the sneaky ants gave away their fertility status.

I’ve heard that the fundies are trying to introduce a similar scheme for when the Republicans return to power.

continued on the BBC site

179 Catrina I’ll drink to that. By the way is your email working again? It wasn’t on the weekend.

Chris B at 181
Yes and no (a.k.a intermittent) – have a rather complicated environment and one of the strategic elements has gone pair shaped on me (recent takeover of a company in Belgium that is causing me grief). I’m still working on it.

By Post Author

well Catrina- I have a photo of me with a daisy chain on my head, smoking a joint and listening to Jimmi H. And it was taken last week 😈

The Huffington Post.

Memo to Obama: Think Bigger.

There are three serious dangers in the debate about the stimulus package. The first is that President Obama will think too small. The second is that he will think too bipartisan. The third is that the public will be swayed by myths, such as the claim that infrastructure spending just takes too long to gear up, or that the deficit is the paramount problem.

The economy is now collapsing at an accelerating rate. With the 2008 job loss at the worst annual level since 1945, and even sound businesses unable to get ordinary credit from a traumatized banking system, this will quickly become a classic downward depression spiral unless government acts at a very large scale, and fast. The GDP probably shrank at a rate of at least five percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, and the nosedive will be worse this quarter.

continued on The Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post.

Sex in 2009: Five Predictions From HBO’s Sexpert.

A friend once described his sexual appetites this way: “A hungry junkyard dog is more fun than a poodle.” He’s going to be one happy puppy after he reads my five predictions for sex in 2009:

1. You’re going to have a lot more of it.
The recession that hit your pocket will tickle your crotch. Call it Recession Sex. If you’re coupled, you’re going to spend more time at home and at some point that TV’s gotta be turned off. The nesting impulse will increase your resting pulse. That’s the good news. The bad? As discretionary income goes down, indiscretions go up. Oops. If you’re single, you’ll have the time but not the money to fritter away at bars. You won’t wait for the last-call yard sale so you’ll probably lower the bar to increase your odds.

more of this fun is continued on The Huffington Post.

The Onion.
Sixth Senate Page Dragged Away By Congressional Swamp Creature.

The disappearance of a sixth Senate page in less than two months has renewed old fears in the legislative branch, leaving many to wonder if the legendary congressional swamp creature has returned.
On Monday, investigators identified the mysterious creature’s latest victim as 17-year-old Molly Denault, a Dayton, OH native and high school junior who was appointed as a fall semester page by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). According to police reports, Denault was delivering a stack of legislative materials to the Senate when the amphibious man-beast seized her on the steps of the Capitol building, dragged her across the National Mall by her ankle, and disappeared into the reflecting pool.

Witnesses have identified the 7-foot-tall, lumbering, marsh-dwelling beast as the very same swamp creature that has roamed Capitol Hill for over 200 years.

continued on The Onion

The fundies and wowsers run the country again. Just proves the minorities maintain control.

Longer lasting sex ad flops again.

The entrepreneur who promised Australian men longer last sex has fallen foul of British advertising authorities, following the erection of almost 200 of the signature brash billboards across greater London.

More than 450 Londoners have lodged complaints with the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority in the past fortnight over the campaign, which is almost identical to its equally controversial Australian forerunner which was first pulled in its original form last August.

continued in the Age

The International Herald Tribune.

OMG You mean there is one more unpopular than George Bush?

Public support for Japan PM plunges to new lows.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso’s public support has plunged to new lows, according to media polls released Monday, amid rising dissent within his ruling Liberal Democratic Party and emboldened opposition parties who are calling for him to resign.

Polls by the Asahi newspaper and Kyodo News agency both showed his approval rating had fallen to 19 percent, while a Yomiuri newspaper poll put it at 20 percent. The surveys, which also showed increasing support for the main opposition party, mark Aso’s lowest results yet.

Aso assumed office in September as the global economic crisis began to unfold. There was wide speculation he would immediately call snap elections, but he has said he must first pass legislation to boost Japan’s economy, which is mired in a recession.

continued on The International Herald Tribune.

Bloomberg
Japan Opposition Offers Budget Deal If Aso Agrees to Election.

Ichiro Ozawa, leader of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, offered his party’s support in passing a budget on condition Prime Minister Taro Aso agree to the timing of a lower house election.

“If we can agree on the prerequisite that there should be a lower house election, then I would be willing to enter talks” on the budget and related bills, Ozawa said in an interview with public broadcaster NHK.

The Liberal Democratic Party, which has controlled Japan’s government for almost the entire postwar period, is losing popularity as the recession erodes consumer sentiment. Aso’s support rate fell to 16.7 percent, Jiji Press reported last month, lower than his two predecessors when they were forced to resign.

The DPJ controls the less-powerful upper house of Japan’s parliament, which allows it to stall legislation. Internal LDP dissension may force Aso to negotiate with Ozawa, as he can’t be certain of the ruling coalition’s two-thirds majority in the lower house, which enables passage over upper-house objections.

continued on Bloomberg

Politico.
5 coming confirmation collisions.

Confirmation hearings for Barack Obama’s Cabinet picks kick into high gear this week, and the ride for most of them is going to be smooth.

Testimonial dramatics are more the province of Supreme Court nomination hearings – and five of the 15 Obama appointees are Senate alums, which means they’re likely to get even more deferential treatment than your average Cabinet nominee.

Still, every once in a while, a prospective secretary of something does enough to raise some senator’s hackles that the well-scripted process becomes high melodrama.

In 1959, Dwight Eisenhower’s pick for Commerce, Lewis Strauss, clashed so explosively with New Mexico Sen. Clinton Anderson – then the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy – that their spat helped turn Allen Drury’s “Advise and Consent” into a bestseller and then a Hollywood film starring Henry Fonda.

continued on Politico.

Daily Kos: Category: Job Creation. Bush: Worst. President. Ever.

Most economists ridicule the idea that what we’re experiencing now could ever become anything like the Great Depression. And, says Reuters, they all point to the same statistic: 25% of Americans were out of work in the worst of the 1930s and we’re nowhere near that disaster.

But the definition of joblessness has changed since then. Not just in 1994, but also under Lyndon Johnson in the late 1960s, when discouraged workers out of job for more than a year were erased from the statistics. Out of work, out of luck, and out of sight.

Figures collected for Reuters by John Williams, from the electronic newsletter Shadowstats.com, suggest that, while we are not [at Great Depression levels yet], the comparison is not as outlandish as it might initially seem.

By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today’s jobless rate would be closer to 16.5 percent — more than double the stated rate.

“I expect that unemployment in the current downturn, which will be particularly deep and protracted, eventually will rival, if not top, the 25 percent seen in the Great Depression,” Williams said.

Politico.

Land mines ahead for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, ever the preparation junkie, is cramming for Tuesday’s confirmation hearing — intent on downplaying old disagreements with Barack Obama and parrying questions about her husband’s overseas entanglements, aides say.

Barring a bombshell revelation, all sides expect Clinton to be speedily confirmed as secretary of state. But her rendezvous with the Foreign Relations Committee at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday still offers its share of potential land mines.

Nobody’s fonder of huddling secretly with a close-knit, tight-lipped clutch of advisers than Hillary Clinton. And she’s been huddling plenty in recent days, gaming out defenses to possible attacks against her husband while synchronizing her policy positions with Obama to avoid embarrassing public disagreements on Iraq, Iran and Israel.

“If they hit her on any personal stuff or on the Bill s—t, she’ll hit the ball out of the park,” said a longtime adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Continued on Politico.

Politico.

Burris may breeze into Senate.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) suggested Sunday evening that Democratic leaders may not require that a Senate panel review the appointment of Roland Burris before he is sworn in as the next senator from Illinois.

“This thing changes by the day,” Durbin said. “We’ll have to wait and see.”

Last week, Durbin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that Burris could become the next senator from Illinois if he testified before a state impeachment committee and got a signed certification from Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White — and if the Rules Committee and the full Senate voted to seat him.

continued on Politico

Politico.
Meet the (new) press.

That change we keep hearing about won’t be restricted to the president’s quarters.

When incoming press secretary Robert Gibbs approaches the podium in the White House Briefing Room, a new cast of notebook-clutching, laptop-tapping reporters will be there to greet him as the five biggest news networks are all switching up their chief White House correspondents to cover the 44th president.

The new faces will be Chuck Todd (NBC), Jake Tapper (ABC), Chip Reid (CBS) and Ed Henry (CNN). Although Fox News hasn’t named a replacement for Bret Baier — who just took over “Special Report” — the betting money in Washington is on correspondent Major Garrett, who covered the Obama campaign. While all the correspondents played significant roles during the 2008 election, their White House experience varies from several years to none at all.

continued on Politico

Comments are closed.