WIP

I have been trying to restrict my posts on Israel and Mid-East topics to one or two threads and have already commented on the blockade elsewhere, since there are just too many and entire new threads do not need to be created for every single topic. Many forums would close unneeded new threads or merge them together. Same thing should happen with all of the spam "climate skeptic" threads here. But, now that I'm here, I was looking for a post that goes into a little more detail on why Egypt has participated in the Gaza Blockade and didn't find it. It needs to be pointed out that after Israel, Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, so that gives the U.S. a lot of clout with the Egyptian dictator. But, more importantly, the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to overthrow the Mubarak Government has close ties with Hamas -- so Egypt has its own reasons for trying to starve out Gaza....and they certainly don't add any legitimacy to the Israeli policy.

No, it's because those of us on the left (I guess that's where I am now) are aware that there is not just one "Muslim faith" that you warmongers on the right have created; since the right is always in need of an external threat, and they have been frantically searching for one since the fall of communism.

What? That Israel has nukes, or that they will only use them as a last resort? Bullshit! You can decide to keep drinking your pro-Israel koolaid at your chosen source, but you are not entitled to change the facts of the story, or deny the obvious. There are many examples in history of the oppressed becoming the oppressors, and in Gaza, Israel has created its own Warsaw Ghetto. For example, the reason for the aid flotilla, and the subsequent IDF piracy of the ships in international waters, and the subsequent execution-style slayings of nine members of the flotilla, are a chain of events created by the unnecessarily restrictions on products allowed into Gaza. The restrictions demonstrate that the argument the blockade is for security reasons only - to be a total lie. From last year in Haaretz: Every time Gazans sit down for a meal, they face a depressing reality. The selection of foods available to them is dictated almost entirely by a harsh policy imposed by the Israeli government, which, as of late, has even refused to allow such innocuous-seeming foods as pumpkins, pasta or beans to cross the border......Can the experts please explain: Why does the Health Ministry recommendation for the diet of Israeli infants and toddlers - "soft fruit such as bananas and avocado, cooked chicken and beef, and cheese cubes" - not apply to Palestinian children? These particular items are all strictly forbidden from entering Gaza, while rice and a limited selection of meat and produce are the only food items in fact allowed to enter. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tough-menu-to-swallow-1.279727 So it's not just a matter of messing with their heads by blocking the entry of foods that are popular in Gaza; the banning of beans, cheese, most meats, comes to mind when I read the latest WHO report that over 10% of Gaza children are so iron-deficient that their growth is stunted...which is of course will be a permanent legacy of the blockade. It calls to mind that infamous statement one of Ehud Olmert's advisers made back when the blockade started, denying that they were trying to starve the Gazans, but were instead putting them on a diet! That declaration showed that the blockade which is causing permanent harm to the health and lives of the residents in Gaza, is not by accident, but is instead part of a deliberate strategy of collective punishment. So the Bush Administration refused to be pushed into launching the air raid against Iran because the U.S. Air Force doesn't try hard enough, or is willing to endure some casualties! Seems a little hard to believe. Have the religious parties in Israel taken full control, and expect God to join them in battle? It's likely that part of the Bush Administrations's negative assessment is related to how badly they were bamboozled by bad intelligence in Iraq. Anyone remember the WMD's? The same bullshit story may be getting ginned up in Iran, since every time the CIA does an assessment, they throw cold water on the hysterical stories that the Iranians will soon have an A-bomb. My suspicions are that this rumoured secret deal that started the thread is evidence that Israel and Saudi Arabia are part of an unholy alliance to take down Iran, with the collusion of other Sunni Arab states. Remember that with all of the navel-gazing bleating about Israel being surrounded by enemies, that there are other nations in the world that are surrounded by enemies...and Iran is one of them. I am no longer so sure that the Israeli Government is a rational player on the world stage.

That article also mentioned another example of Big Oil's criminal negligence that hasn't been discussed yet; note that BP is refusing to allow the fishermen who've been hired as cleanup workers to wear breathing masks. Apparently they are endangering the health and lives of cleanup workers for PR reasons....guys wearing breathing masks makes the scene look polluted and toxic! And yes there is precedence for this careless endangerment of human lives: During the Exxon Valdez spill, health problems among cleanup workers became so widespread, so fast, that medical doctors, among others, sounded warnings. Dr. Robert Rigg, former Alaska medical director for Standard Alaska (BP), warned, “It is a known fact that neurologic changes (brain damage), skin disorders (including cancer), liver and kidney damage, cancer of other organ systems, and medical complications–secondary to exposure to working unprotected in (or inadequately protected)–can and will occur to workers exposed to crude oil and other petrochemical by-products. While short-term complaints, i.e., skin irritation, nausea, dizziness, pulmonary symptoms, etc., may be the initial signs of exposure and toxicity, the more serious long-term effects must be prevented.”[1] Unfortunately, Exxon called the short-term symptoms, “the Valdez Crud,” and dismissed 6,722 cases of respiratory claims from cleanup workers as “colds or flu” using an exemption under OSHA’s hazardous waste cleanup reporting requirements.[2] Sadly, sick Exxon cleanup workers were left to suffer and pay their own medical expenses. I know of many who have been disabled by their illnesses – or have died. http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/05/02/lessons-from-the-exxon-valdez-spill/

Wrong again! but which Exxon fought for 20 years until the Supreme Court lessened its burden to just $507 million). http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/05/02/lessons-from-the-exxon-valdez-spill/

That energy density you refer to was created over vast scales of time, and we are using them up in a split second on the geologic time scale. Setting the evidence that the environment cannot sustain our carbon-intensive economy much longer, the simple fact remains that arctic, deep sea oil drilling, and tar sands, serve as evidence that the easy to access oil is drying up already. The Oil Age will end either willingly with alternative energy sources, or when a dirty, dying, decrepit civilization has exhausted the last of the tar sands and shale oils.

I wasn't using that phrase as an absolute, come on, common sense should tell you that we are all aware that there are pockets of oil, and dirty oil - such as tar sands and shales that will be pulverized for their oil content. There are not "huge" numbers of oil reserves close to the surface, unless you are counting tiny pockets of oil that are too small to be worth developing. The cost of these deep ocean rigs was apparently enough to cause BP execs to get cheap and cause this latest disaster. They were anxious to get it in production as quickly as possible, and they were apparently willing to cut corners and make this gamble that has turned into a disaster for everyone who lives along the Gulf. The reason why the American and British oil companies went to the Middle East was because it is the cheapest to develop -- but now that oil is running out. Shipping costs don't make up for ocean rigs that have to drill down three miles into mile-deep water just to get at the oil. If cheap oil was still plentiful, they wouldn't be going there pure and simple. No, they were criminally negligent! And so are the politicians and government agency appointees who were supposed to be monitoring off shore oil development to ensure it's safety. Did anyone ask BP if they had the capacity to deal with a blowout 5000 feet below the surface? No, they just took their word for it (along with kickbacks) and declared that since there was no risk of a blow out, there was no need for environmental impact studies. And what is BP doing now...as of today? We are almost two months into this disaster, and all of the hopes are that they will hit their target when the first relief well is drilled in August. Past experience with Ixtoc and other disasters have shown that it can take many attempts before a successful relief well is drilled.....and when you factor in all of these costs that makes deep ocean off shore drilling pretty god damned expensive! BTW how safe are Canada's offshore rigs? Some day we may find out how easy it is to solve the same problem in our northern oceans! You are a little past date with this response. This may have made sense on day one, but right now this is about the stupidest thing anyone has said here lately! So, little is understood about how ecological systems work that it will take years to understand the full impact of this disaster ( a lot depends on how much more oil and toxic dispersants are added to the Gulf) but I won't be surprised if most of the Gulf of Mexico is turned into a dead zone. This stupid idea that the earth can be used as a garbage dump and take whatever a growing human population dishes out needs to be stopped before we join the list of animals that have become extinct over the last few centuries.

Well, we're not all addicted! I moved so that I could be closer to my place of work and not have to drive there every day. And there are alternatives to gasoline. No, our corporate masters won't allow governments to take serious steps to phase out the oil economy. They fund a web of conservative think tanks and PR agencies to fill the airwaves with disinformation on climate change, the future availability of cheap oil, and the real costs of changing to alternative technologies. It's a shame that a majority of people are so easily swayed by continual repetition of lies, but that's the way it is! More likely we'll all be dead before that day arrives!

Agreed! Except that it is not likely that the oil barons will bow out gracefully, or even make serious attempts to diversify their companies (as BP was pretending to do) since 7 of the top ten largest corporations in the world are oil companies. This industry is just too profitable for them to stop or allow governments to shift away from the oil economy until they've pumped that last drop of oil out of the ground.

Right! But you think it's fine to support the Christian Zionists over here who want Israel to fulfill their role in Prophecy!

So let's double down and bring on the nukes! During the long Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had enough sense to realize that the era of winner-take-all wars was coming to an end, so they fought a strategic battle of fomenting revolutions and military coups, along with the occasional proxy war as a substitute to total all out war. In the new cold war that pits the USA against Russia, China, the Muslim World and a possible alliance with other nations that oppose U.S. hegemony; we have been led to believe that the only crazies out there who would actually use nukes are the Iranians, or some other Muslim nation that has the bomb. But, now some of us are getting suspicious that Israel is also a reckless, unstable regime that jeopardizes the world with its nukes. Over the years, the assumed wisdom has been that Israel only has those secret nukes as a trump card or last resort defense. But now it looks like they are actively trying to provoke a regional war to unleash a nuclear attack. It has become pretty damn obvious to everyone including Israel's most ardent defenders, that Israeli governments are no longer interested in any sort of peace process, since they have decided in recent years to go it alone and build walls and blockade Palestinians in occupied territories. They are trying to starve out the Palestinian population in Gaza with the blockade, where 40% of children are showing signs of malnutrition. So, exactly what makes them so confident that they are going to have their cake and eat it too? The IDF struggled in battles with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008 against mostly home-made rockets and missiles. Their tanks are vulnerable to Russian-made rocket-propelled grenades; their ships are vulnerable to Chinese missiles obtained by Hezbollah; and the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles that are being sold to Iran, may also find their way to Lebanon...... so what makes Israel so confident that they do not have to even make an attempt at a peace agreement? Unless, they are already planning to use the nukes on Iran. If the U.S. doesn't feel confident that they can hit all of the secret underground targets in Iran, how the hell do the Israeli's think they can do it.... unless their bombing raid will be a nuclear attack.

Yeah, we should all be thrilled about how they are all getting together to start WWIII. Iran, Turkey, Syria vs. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia....until the other dance partners join in. We've been hearing about this since your hero decided it would be a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein and install a Shiite government in Iraq. The Saudis and many other Arab states won't say it publicly, but they fear an Iran with nukes because of the power to advance the interests of Shiite minorities in their countries. But the Iranians won't give up their quest for a A-bomb until the Israelis come clean about their nukes.

There is a fundamental problem trying to deal with the climate issue, since it is slow moving and takes a collective effort (of global proportions) to solve it. It's hard enough trying to get international cooperation on the little things, so it wasn't much of a surprise that all the G8 countries were trying to look green at the Copenhagen conference, while doing little of substance.

Because the fringe groups are growing in number -- that's why! Check the growth in active "patriot" militia groups that have started since Barack Obama became president that are tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is a confluence of factors that are fanning the flames of fascism right now: economic recession and uncertainty, a black president, the increasing size of the non-white portion of the population. Those two Egyptian Copts were beseiged by a mob who targeted them as enemies as soon as they heard them speaking Arabic...and they didn't listen to their claims of being Christians. Who knows what would have happened if police didn't move in and pull them to safety. But mobs who believe the conspiracy theories of the agitators and propagandists who spoke at that rally will graduate to more extreme actions eventually. There has been enough evidence presented in this thread to show that this mosque-opposition movement is based on nothing but lies, hysteria and misinformation, but facts don't matter to a movement that has needed a new foreign enemy since the fall of communism. ????????????? Read your history! The Romans destroyed the Third Temple when they sacked Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Two churches were built on the site afterward -- the last one was destroyed during the wars between Byzantium and Persia. By the time the first Caliph arrived in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was being used as a garbage dump.........the mosque wasn't built there till about a hundred years later. What kind of zealotry is that? If you want to live in denial, that's your choice! But the writing was on the wall for the secular Israeli state as soon as the first Likud government was formed. There has been a gradual rise in size and power of the Orthodox Jews. Their religion cannot be fulfilled until a fourth temple is built on the Temple Mount. The only question is how many are going to wait for the messiah to come and destroy the mosque first, and how many want to go ahead and do it themselves. It's worth noting, that traditionally, the Orthodox Jews didn't believe in returning to the Holy Land until the messiah led them there. If most orthodox got tired of waiting for the messiah and decided to move to the man-made Israeli state, what are the odds that the majority will object to tearing down the mosque and building a new temple when they decide the time is right?

A coffee spill at meeting of BP executives. They don't seem to be able to handle this one either!

The problem is that our brain creates a sense of mind that is unified and separate from, but controls our bodies. The conscious sense of mind is important to help us function in everyday life, but it leads to notions that our minds are non-physical and must continue on after death of the body.

From our understanding of what existence means, the rules of physics show that particles and entire universes can pop in and out of existence. I am not a physicist, but my interest in physics books written for a general audience, that started with Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" was motivated by how poorly our intuitive notions of how things should work are completely out of step with the way things work at very small and very large scales where the rules of General Relativity apply. Our intuitive understanding of solidity, cause and effect, and existence, are rules that work in the physics of "middle dimensions" where we live and work; but it appears that they are rules that are useful for our needs, but not accurate descriptions of reality. Our intuitions also predispose us towards teleological explanations (everything has a purpose!) and vitalism (life forces). These intuitions keep giving rise to supernatural beliefs in spirits, souls, special healing energies, and belief that the universe and us had to be created by a life force. These sorts of phenomena never pass tests to determine if they exist, yet belief in them carries on. Even many atheists who claim they don't believe in God, still carry on with other supernatural beliefs. So, for the longterm, I'm skeptical about whether more than a minority of people will embrace naturalism. But, that's okay with me as long as we don't adopt pseudo-medicine in medicare plans, provide religious exemptions to mandatory childhood vaccinations, creationism in science textbooks, religious courts, and before I forget -- end government funding for Catholic schools once and for all!

There have been some environmentalists who have floated the optimistic notion that maybe the Gulf Blowout will be a defining moment when Americans realize that having to wade into mile-deep waters and drill three miles into the Earth's crust for the last remaining drops of oil means that it is time to phase out the oil economy -- but even in Louisiana, which has had it's state bird facing extinction as well as its shrimp industry, still has Republican and Democratic politicians sucking at the teat of Big Oil: Louisiana leaders want Gulf drilling to resume Politicians say moratorium is a knee-jerk reaction Louisiana lawmakers have railed against the moratorium, saying it could put more than 100,000 people out of work, shutter businesses and destroy livelihoods. A bill asking the administration to shorten the moratorium passed the Legislature unanimously. I would have thought that an oil leak that will likely turn the entire Gulf of Mexico into a dead zone would be enough reason to stop future deep sea drilling until the oil companies at least figure out what to do in such disasters; but nooooo, those jobs (not to mention kickbacks and campaign donations from Big Oil) are too important to stop just because no one knows how to fix this disaster.

Apparently, feeling empathy means assuming collective guilt and failure to do so is a lack of empathy! In other news, I got an email link about the little festival in New York on Sunday, organized by Ayn Rand fanatic Pamela Geller, and Islamic pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer. A funny thing happened when this crowd who claim not to be motivated by racial prejudice, surrounded two Middle-Eastern looking men who were speaking Arabic: At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims. "Go home," several shouted from the crowd. "Get out," others shouted. In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque. "I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face. But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety. "I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/07/ground_zero_mosque_hate

Even if it's true, it's not something that I am going to be concerned about. I would say that if your sexual arousal is only stimulated by members of the opposite sex, or conversely by members of the same sex -- that's as absolute as things will get. I recognize that there is a bisexual middle ground, which researchers believe is much larger among women than among men, but there are people at opposite ends of this scale; so we can't all be even a little bit bisexual. I didn't say most people, I said most men -- and there is a lot of obvious differences between men and women regarding sexual attraction. Women's sexuality is more complicated and more flexible than men's -- that's just the way it is, and likely a big reason why there is a lot less information about lesbians that there is about male homosexuals; men are easier to figure out for the researchers.

And "respecting their freedom" only means that you aren't willing to apply collective guilt to them, but instead expect them to assume collective guilt voluntarily. Considering the threats that have already been made, including from a West Coast radio talk show host, actively inciting someone to burn it down, I would say that the rabble-rousing could very well make the mosque the focus of a terrorist attack. The building in question, was not destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, and has been in use afterwards. The reasons for tearing it down for a new building are due to its age and structural integrity, so it may have been available anyway. That's because there's no comparison between the two. The U.S. Embassy in Iraqis a fortress designed for the purposes of a permanent occupation. Iraqis know this because a building that costs 600 million dollars to build, and will be staffed by 4000 people, including the contractors, is proof that the U.S. intends the Green Zone to be a permanent occupation base of operations. Is the mosque part of a foreign occupation base in New York? No, and that's been pointed out by others several times already.

I would agree that men who get worked up about homosexuals and how they are threatening our moral values are more than likely at least somewhat bisexual, and their upbringing about how sinful it is, makes them extremely conflicted. An actual heterosexual man who believes the same stuff is not going to obsess over this issue, and men who have become enlightened by modern scientific evidence are not going to be trying to throw speedbumps in the way of gays who are just trying to pursue happiness on their own terms. By my definition, unless you get a rise out of it, it's not erotic. I know there are psychologists who go on about male-bonding being evidence of latent homosexual attractions, but unless there is actual sexual arousal involved, I don't buy it. And that's where we part company. I don't see the evidence on male sexual attraction pointing to universal bisexuality. The best evidence indicates that we have a spectrum of sexual preference that runs from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. We don't all share the same level of attraction. And I'm not sure how large that bisexual middle ground is, but I'm sure it doesn't represent the majority of men. It is apparently one of the reasons why girl/girl porn is so popular. Some of us don't want to look at guys on a porn video. It's worth noting that most of research on sexual attraction and homosexuality centers on men; women are more difficult to study because female sexuality isn't as cut and dried as it is for us. Women can change sexual preferences during their lives, and I don't really believe that men can do this. It seems to be based on physical factors and set for life when we are in our early teens.

So I'm just not smart enough to appreciate your wisdom! That's the ultimate ruse. "property is only available because of the terrorist attacks; " Yes, I heard that one before, and it only makes sense if you are applying collective guilt to all Muslims, which you keep insisting you are not...so your arguments make no sense on any reasonable level. There is no logical reason why Muslims should feel collective blame for an Al Qaeda terrorist attack if they do not believe that terrorist attacks are permissible as waging jihad. Once again, I asked if Christians should refrain from building at or near the site of the Federal Building in Oklahoma, because an argument based on collective guilt should apply equally to Christians as well as Muslims.

If you can't articulate your feelings in logical reasons why others should feel the same way after 10, 15, or 20 posts, then there is no argument based on reason or facts. None of the facts presented a compelling case for trying to stop a Sufi imam from building a mosque two blocks away from the trade center, it was just an endless repetition of this is wrong...this is wrong...this is wrong...which seems to be a compelling argument to you, but it doesn't work for me.

This example illustrates the differences between men who have different sexual orientations. You see "lot of naked, sweaty man-flesh pressed together" when you watch a UFC match, whereas I have never seen anything erotic in watching MMA fights. On the other hand I don't find the fledgling sport of women's MMA to be very erotic either...maybe because the girls are generally pretty butch looking....now foxy boxing, or girls wrestling in oil....now that's erotic! This homoerotic thing does mirror the rhetoric of anti-gay leaders who keep referring to young men being "lured" into a life of sinful homosexual activity. This is where they let the cat out of the bag, because if they thought like a heterosexual man, they wouldn't be worried that heterosexuals would be doing their sinning with dudes! When it comes to male sexual orientation, there is a spectrum of preferences from exclusively heterosexual - through varying shades of bisexual attraction - to exclusively homosexual. And if you find MMA or WWE wrestling to be homoerotic, you have to be at least somewhat bisexual to get this sort of reaction to watching it.