Support NeoGAF

[SouthernDragon]

How about her central thesis is monstrously flawed character assassination?

Ok, can you go beyond that? What of her assertion, that free market economics left truly unleashed requires unusual conditions to be fully implemented in it's truest form, and often ends up centralizing power in the hands of a few men who often work in both areas, government and corporate?

Note, of course, the usual defense of those policies; "The free market didn't fail, the theory itself was failed because it wasn't implemented properly."

 

[JayDubya]

What of her assertion, that free market economics left truly unleashed requires unusual conditions to be fully implemented in it's truest form, and often ends up centralizing power in the hands of a few men who often work in both areas, government and corporate?

It's idiotic and contradictory because if government forces are manipulating the market, it isn't free, so that not only isn't the "truest form," that isn't any kind of form therein?

It's not unusual or original for a extreme leftist to conflate capitalism and fascism; I wouldn't even mind so much if she wasn't slandering a great man and getting gullible people to recite the bullshit she's slinging.

 

[PantherLotus]

^ "Republican theory didn't fail, he was just a bad Republican. Worse, he was a liberal Republican!"

 

[SouthernDragon]

It's idiotic and contradictory because if government forces are manipulating the market, it isn't free, so that not only isn't the "truest form," that isn't any kind of form therein?

It's not unusual or original for a extreme leftist to conflate capitalism and fascism; I wouldn't even mind so much if she wasn't slandering a great man and getting gullible people to recite the bullshit she's slinging.

Huh? The government was manipulating the market, it was deregulating it, reducing taxation and trade barriers, and privatizing itself; it was removing itself from the market, reducing government influence as much as possible. The Chilean market was a true as you can get.

So what is a truly free market for you, then? And how do we get there?

Edit: Capitalism isn't the issue here. It's corporatism.

 

[JayDubya]

Huh? The government was manipulating the market, it was deregulating it, reducing taxation and trade barriers, and privatizing itself; it was removing itself from the market, reducing government influence as much as possible. The Chilean market was a true as you can get.

And? That's fairly ideal. Some things shouldn't be up for a vote.

Also, what you're describing here is not entirely compatible with what you were maligning earlier. If at all.

 

[sonicmj1]

Some oof you Neogaffers are crazy if you honestly think an American President will knowingly let say 15 known terrorist back on the real battlefield of Afghanistan just to let them attempt to kill our troops a few weeks later.

I know this is left country, but it would be nice if we can be realistic on this issue.

Politically, it might be too dangerous to do, but I'd like to give an example showing why this isn't so absurd.

In our legal system, let's say someone is accused of murder. There's plenty of evidence pinning that person to the crime. Yet mitigating circumstances prevent the use of that evidence. Perhaps it isn't gathered according to appropriate procedure. Or perhaps there was something about the way the person was taken into custody or whatever that goes against the letter of the law. Whatever it is, such evidence wouldn't hold, the person would not be convicted, and they would have to go free, however clear the situation might seem strictly on common-sense grounds. These certainly could be people who will go on to commit future crimes

This sort of thing is not an unusual occurrence. We allow it to happen because the rule of law matters. Our legal system is built on certain principles meant to protect the innocent, and to prevent abuse for nefarious reasons. If we discard these principles whenever it is expedient, even if it seems proper, we allow for monstrous and tyrannical abuses of power by our government, an institution which is supposed to defend our security, and could feasibly justify any number of horrible measures to do so.

When we dismissed the rule of law in Guantanamo Bay, making it a sort of extraterritorial realm where government mandate was the only guideline, abuses of power occurred. Prisoners were treated in ways that would have been considered intolerable and inhumane if they had occurred in the US, and people were held without charges and tried in courts that didn't give them proper protections. Some men who wished to commit violence against us or our troops may have been interred, but innocent people were also caught in this system, and they had no way out.

Time and time again, when this nation faces crisis, we discard our principles for the sake of 'security', and time and time again, we look back in horror and astonishment at what we justified. If we are going to restore the rule of law, then stuff like letting suspected terrorists go free will have to happen, if we have no way of charging them. If we are holding people we cannot charge with any crime for lack of evidence, our government demonstrates that it did something wrong by taking people without sufficient justification for doing so. Doing the right thing, and letting them go free, is the only way to properly demonstrate that we are committed to the laws we claim to be governed by.

 

[SouthernDragon]

And? That's fairly ideal. Some things shouldn't be up for a vote.

Also, what you're describing here is not entirely compatible with what you were maligning earlier.

Yes, but how do you get there? I said the government of Chile implemented these reforms, and you said that this didn't count because it qualified as "government intervention." That is, if I understood you correctly.

Oh, and these things shouldn't be up for a vote? They absolutely should be. The actions taken by the United States government constitute an infringement on a nation's and a people's right to self-rule and self-determination. If the people of these countries found that they were better suited with a Keynesian model than a Friedman model, who is the United States to order a coup to overturn their wishes?

Oh, and please explain your second sentence.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Politically, it might be too dangerous to do, but I'd like to give an example showing why this isn't so absurd.

In our legal system, let's say someone is accused of murder. There's plenty of evidence pinning that person to the crime. Yet mitigating circumstances prevent the use of that evidence. Perhaps it isn't gathered according to appropriate procedure. Or perhaps there was something about the way the person was taken into custody or whatever that goes against the letter of the law. Whatever it is, such evidence wouldn't hold, the person would not be convicted, and they would have to go free, however clear the situation might seem strictly on common-sense grounds. These certainly could be people who will go on to commit future crimes

This sort of thing is not an unusual occurrence. We allow it to happen because the rule of law matters. Our legal system is built on certain principles meant to protect the innocent, and to prevent abuse for nefarious reasons. If we discard these principles whenever it is expedient, even if it seems proper, we allow for monstrous and tyrannical abuses of power by our government, an institution which is supposed to defend our security, and could feasibly justify any number of horrible measures to do so.

When we dismissed the rule of law in Guantanamo Bay, making it a sort of extraterritorial realm where government mandate was the only guideline, abuses of power occurred. Prisoners were treated in ways that would have been considered intolerable and inhumane if they had occurred in the US, and people were held without charges and tried in courts that didn't give them proper protections. Some men who wished to commit violence against us or our troops may have been interred, but innocent people were also caught in this system, and they had no way out.

Time and time again, when this nation faces crisis, we discard our principles for the sake of 'security', and time and time again, we look back in horror and astonishment at what we justified. If we are going to restore the rule of law, then stuff like letting suspected terrorists go free will have to happen, if we have no way of charging them. If we are holding people we cannot charge with any crime for lack of evidence, our government demonstrates that it did something wrong by taking people without sufficient justification for doing so. Doing the right thing, and letting them go free, is the only way to properly demonstrate that we are committed to the laws we claim to be governed by.

Bravo... but don't really bother with Mckmas... people have explained this to him and he still backs Obama's policy here... its really no worse then Bush supporters.

 

[JayDubya]

Yes, but how do you get there? I said the government of Chile implemented these reforms, and you said that this didn't count because it qualified as "government intervention." That is, if I understood you correctly.

You didn't, really, but then, I don't think I knew what you were getting at either, because none of this is parsing correctly.

Oh, and these things shouldn't be up for a vote? They absolutely should be. The actions taken by the United States government constitute an infringement on a nation's and a people's right to self-rule and self-determination. If the people of these countries found that they were better suited with a Keynesian model than a Friedman model, who is the United States to order a coup to overturn their wishes?

And yet our country's constitution doesn't grant the United States government the powers to run a Keynesian model. Granted, it does so anyway.

And I mean that in the same sense that freedom of speech shouldn't be put to a vote. Economic and social freedoms shouldn't be up for a vote. We certainly have the legal mechanisms in place to amend away freedom of speech. It shouldn't really be up to a vote, but the best a republic can manage, and pretty much ever, is make a right like that extremely difficult to remove.

 

[Macam]

I'm making some popcorn. Anyone want some?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Then I'll make it simpler.

From what I've read so far, the main thesis of the book is: Purely free market economies (by the definitions of the Chicago School) can only be implemented when a nation-state in a a state of mass shock, allowing for sweeping reforms. Such a tactic is heavily favored by students of the Chicago School, due to their preference for absolutist policies. If some sort of compromise is met, it is a corruption of the free market, and therefore not truly a free market.

---

As for our Constitution, and our country, we're free to fail or triumph within our own boundaries. That's another argument entirely. What I was arguing is that the United States had no right to impose its economic will on other countries.

I have no idea how one argument chains to the other.

 

[JayDubya]

From what I've read so far, the main thesis of the book is: Purely free market economies (by the definitions of the Chicago School) can only be implemented when a nation-state in a a state of mass shock, allowing for sweeping reforms.

And I would say that it's bollocks, but political opportunism is certainly not exclusive to any one ideology.

Only a crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

When what is going on is failing, and badly, it helps to have a storehouse of good ideas to use to step in and advocate change, as that is the best time to do so. Our growing national debt represents one such crisis, and it is a dire one.

This concept is not alien or scary in the least, and the practice of the principle is nigh ubiquitous, yet it is this statement by Friedman that Klein built her thesis on, and then goes on to suggest that Friedman and / or Chicago School economic liberals advocate conspiratorial means or military aggression to accomplish this. This is where she crosses into libel.

 

[SouthernDragon]

And I would say that it's bollocks, but political opportunism is certainly not exclusive to any one ideology.

When what is going on is failing, and badly, it helps to have a storehouse of good ideas to use to step in and advocate change, as that is the best time to do so. Our growing national debt represents one such crisis, and it is a dire one.

This concept is not alien or scary in the least, and the practice of the principle is nigh ubiquitous, yet it is this statement by Friedman that Klein built her thesis on, and then goes on to suggest that Friedman and / or Chicago School economic liberals advocate conspiratorial means or military aggression to accomplish this. This is where she crosses into libel.

Then I pose a question: from a moderate economic climate that incorporates both free market and socialist philosophies, how do you get to a pure free market state?

Secondly, I must ask; if this conspiratorial measure taken by Chicago School advocates was throughly documented, would it still be considered libel?

 

[JayDubya]

Then I pose a question: from a moderate economic climate that incorporates both free market and socialist philosophies, how do you get to a pure free market state?

You make it harder for the welfare / warfare state to function.

You tightly limit the activities of government. You mandate budgetary excess while simultaneously reducing tax revenue. You set in stone, as permanent as you can make them, legal recognitions of economic freedoms.

If that's not possible, in the meantime, you draft up legislative ideas to slowly nudge things the right direction, as well. And when opportunity knocks, you seize that fish.

 

[SouthernDragon]

You make it harder for the welfare state to function. You tightly limit the activities of government. You mandate budgetary excess while simultaneously reducing tax revenue. You set in stone, as permanent as you can make them, legal recognitions of economic freedoms.

That's what happened in Chile, though.

My second question relating to this matter this is: Considering those goals, how do you get to free market economy if the people routinely reject those reforms proposed?

Please take into consideration that some cultures are inherently more collectivist than others.

 

[Deku]

It's idiotic and contradictory because if government forces are manipulating the market, it isn't free, so that not only isn't the "truest form," that isn't any kind of form therein?

It's not unusual or original for a extreme leftist to conflate capitalism and fascism; I wouldn't even mind so much if she wasn't slandering a great man and getting gullible people to recite the bullshit she's slinging.

It is true that no modern developed economy has a truly free market.
But its intellectually lame and lazy to make the tenous claim that because markets aren't truly free that therefore it isn't the free market's fault that the meltdown of 2009 occured.

Though I find the dialectic argument of free vs. unfree to be simplistic, the root of the US economic crises can be linked directly to the cronyism of the 'pro business' white house which allowed corporations to run wild, and for otherwise strong insurance companies such as AIG to bet the bank on insuring the securities backed by tenuous sub prime loans made by the major banks and investment houses. All the while these same entities resisted attempts to regulate the very financial instruments that brought them down.

Leftists like to see the collapse of the US led financial system as a repudiation of American capitalism, though I think its a repudiation of the sort of unregulated financial monstrosities the conservative democrats during the Clinton era and the Bush republicans endorsed. The kind that equated short term gain with growth and unsustainable consumer indebtedness with capitalism and patriotism. 'It's patriotic to shop'

 

[Gaborn]

Flight - This might help you. My sympathies as well for being subjected to that kind of propaganda.

 

[JayDubya]

My second question relating to this matter this is: Considering those goals, how do you get to free market economy if the people routinely reject those reforms proposed?

Depends. Have things degraded to the point where revolt / revolution / secession are viable and justifiable options, or not?

If not, you keep on advocating, you compromise where you need to to nudge things, and you hope for an opportunity.

If so, well, see the Declaration of Independence. When a government not only won't recognize essential liberty but actually becomes harmful to those ends - well, mob rule tyranny is tyranny just the same.

How that action is conducted is itself subject to moral scrutiny, however. Not all revolutions are just, and some with just causes become very ends-oriented, means-be-damned.

But its intellectually lame and lazy to make the tenous claim that because markets aren't truly free that therefore it isn't the free market's fault that the meltdown of 2009 occured.

I don't know of anyone here who made that claim.

 

[Deku]

I don't know of anyone here who made that claim.

You implied it in your posts. or rather you implied it in your continued belief that a free market as you imagined it in your head is still ideal.

 

[electricpirate]

Apologies for the incoming stream of conciousness dump, but I've been thinking a lot about obama's speech and detention policies.

Military tribunals as Obama proposed I think are acceptable, though the details lie in execution of them. The real crime of the bush era ones was the twisted 1984 esque nature of them, and the reforms Obama have proposed go a long way from getting us out of that. It still needs an outside judge, and the scope needs to be narrowed on how they are used.

I don't see much of a difference between this policy and prisoner of war status, but I don't see that fact brough up a lot. From there I started looking into prisoner of war definition along the lines of the geneva conventions. From there we get to fact that we have wars with amorphous ends and enemies that will never surrender, just change and metastisize.

So now we have people that are basically Prisoners of a War that never ends, so how can we release them safely? But the idea of never releasing them runs totally counter to everything I believe. This is kind of where I get stuck, prisoners of a war that we can't end. I guess what gets me is the vaugness of that section of his speech. In one breath he promises not to release terrorists right as he promises that detention won't be unbounded. I really wish there were more details there, because I felt like his other actions so far have been justified.

 

[Tamanon]

It's sad, but legally speaking, it would've been a lot easier if all the terrorist suspects were killed rather than imprisoned.

 

[JayDubya]

You implied it in your posts.

No, I didn't, because I don't believe that.

You actually think I think that the reason banks behaved stupidly is because they weren't free to behave stupidly enough?

No. I absolutely think they should be free to behave stupidly, and as applicable, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

I also think that by interfering to save them from their own stupidity, you reinforce something that absolutely should not be reinforced.

 

[Gaborn]

Apologies for the incoming stream of conciousness dump, but I've been thinking a lot about obama's speech and detention policies.

Military tribunals as Obama proposed I think are acceptable, though the details lie in execution of them. The real crime of the bush era ones was the twisted 1984 esque nature of them, and the reforms Obama have proposed go a long way from getting us out of that. It still needs an outside judge, and the scope needs to be narrowed on how they are used.

What happens if and when a detainee wins his tribunal hearing? Where is Obama going to let them go? Because, you know, under the law he'd kind of have to to be better than bush.

I don't see much of a difference between this policy and prisoner of war status, but I don't see that fact brough up a lot. From there I started looking into prisoner of war definition along the lines of the geneva conventions. From there we get to fact that we have wars with amorphous ends and enemies that will never surrender, just change and metastisize.

So now we have people that are basically Prisoners of a War that never ends, so how can we release them safely? But the idea of never releasing them runs totally counter to everything I believe. This is kind of where I get stuck, prisoners of a war that we can't end. I guess what gets me is the vaugness of that section of his speech. In one breath he promises not to release terrorists right as he promises that detention won't be unbounded. I really wish there were more details there, because I felt like his other actions so far have been justified.

The problem is they're in an amorphous legal status and have no right to be set free at some point and no procedure for letting them go in the event they win their hearing. That's pretty much what Bush did, keep people locked up EVEN IF they won their detainee hearing.

 

[Azih]

No. I absolutely think they should be free to behave stupidly, and as applicable, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

But everybody else in the economy has to reap their whirlwind too.

 

[SouthernDragon]

I'll be reading the article, Gaborn. Both the article and the book claim each other is a liar, so I can't trust the claims made by either at the moment. Looks like I'll have to look at the source documents for "The Shock Doctrine" to determine it for myself.

And just as I have abstained from looking down on you two, please don't patronize me. It's rather grating.

And welcome back, Gaborn.

 

[besada]

I know this is left country, but it would be nice if we can be realistic on this issue.

It would be nice if you had a shred of principle about anything, but we can't always get what we want.

 

[scorcho]

I don't know about you, but the last thing I think about when Pelosi is mentioned is pussy galore.

Stay classy, San Diego.

Edit: And topping off my pages-back post on Israel, Bibi's decided to win Obama's support for a strike on Iran by continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. To think, I thought Bibi would be a hindrance to Obama's efforts in the region. Oh how misguided I was.

 

[worldrunover]

I don't know about you, but the last thing I think about when Pelosi is mentioned is pussy galore.

Stay classy, San Diego.

Wow. I'm not even mad. That's amazing.

lol

 

[ChoklitReign]

dont ask dont tell will go. But it'll be an issue he punts to his second term most likely

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/

Looks like you're right. But yeah, his first term is going to focus on the economy and the environment.

 

[scorcho]

Wow. I'm not even mad. That's amazing.

lol

I'm awaiting the inevitable RNC ad depicting the WH surrounded by watermelon. They already have a candidate to help deliver the message.

 

[Mandark]

Edit: And topping off my pages-back post on Israel, Bibi's decided to win Obama's support for a strike on Iran by continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. To think, I thought Bibi would be a hindrance to Obama's efforts in the region. Oh how misguided I was.

I'm trying to sort out the current situation and figure whether it's completely depressing or just mostly depressing.

Netanyahu doesn't seem to want a permanent peace, even on Israel's terms. They've won and it's okay to keep building settlements and creating facts on the ground while suffering occasional explosions.

Meanwhile it's getting more and more tangled with the Iran issue. Both the Israeli and Iranian governments say the US needs to get the other in line before they can negotiate, and no way does Iran back off nukes if they think Israel is planning to bomb them.

Then again, maybe Israeli fear of Iran gives the US a lever to actually get a deal done? It's hard to see the US putting any real pressure on Israel on other issues. Blech.

 

[scorcho]

I can't see anything but stasis in the region for the next few years. Bibi is perfectly happy stalling a two-state solution, and if he has help from random Hamas attacks to 'justify' his policies, then all the better.

Meanwhile, as that harretz article pointed out there is little chance that Israel can stop Iran's nuclear program at all. And the chances that Obama would agree to or assist in a strike is, well, about as likely as Bibi agreeing to a two-state solution.

 

[Kak.efes]

edit: woops, wrong thread :lol

 

[scorcho]

More nuclear fun! SK alleges that NK conducted another (potentially failed) nuclear test - http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/05/24/world/international-korea-north-test.html?_r=1

North Korea conducted a nuclear test on Monday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a ruling party official as saying.

YTN Television quoted the South Korean weather agency as saying it detected a tremor indicating a test at 0054 GMT.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak had called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers over the test, Yonhap said.

North Korea had recently said it would again test a nuclear device -- its first was in October 2006 -- in reaction to tightened international sanctions after it fired a long-range rocket in April.

News of the test hit South Korean financial markets, sending the main KOSPI share index down four percent in late morning trade, while the won dropped more than 1 percent against the dollar.

Obama should yawn and point a finger at China to deal with the matter.

 

[gcubed]

But everybody else in the economy has to reap their whirlwind too.

which is precisely the reason why a libertarian candidate will rarely get double digits support... people wont vote against their own well being

 

[GhaleonEB]

Mullen: Military to comply if gay ban changes

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's top military adviser said Sunday the Pentagon would comply if Congress repeals the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, but added the U.S. armed forces are already stretched thin fighting two wars.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is working on an assessment of what — if any — impact overturning "don't ask, don't tell" policies would mean for the military. In the meantime, the Pentagon plans to follow the existing rules, which say gays and lesbians can serve in the military if they do not disclose their sexuality or engage in homosexual behavior.

"The president has made his strategic intent very clear, that it's his intent at some point in time to ask Congress to change this law," Mullen said. "I think it's important to also know that this is the law, this isn't a policy. And for the rules to change, a law has to be changed."

During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to overturn the Clinton-era policy and pledged that gays and lesbians could serve openly in uniform. But he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. He has not set a deadline for repeal, has given the Pentagon no direct orders and has kept Capitol Hill guessing about when he might ask for a change in the law.

Mullen said the military would not start on a timeline until Congress acts.

Obama's go-it-slow approach has drawn criticism from gay rights groups, including activists and fundraisers who met in Dallas to organize a grassroots lobbying effort to force Obama's hand.

Last week, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs stood at the White House podium and reiterated the president's eventual goal, although he said the administration was fine with Congress taking the lead on the potentially divisive subject.

"Try as one may, a president can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America," Gibbs said. "But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress."

Gibbs' counterpart at the Pentagon issued a similar statement.

Obama's top advisers — in uniform and in politics — have urged restraint despite the issue's resonance among the president's liberal base. They want Obama to move with a deliberate plan that accounts for all potential consequences during wartime.

'We have a lot on our plate'

Retired Marine Gen. James Jones, the White House's national security adviser, said this month he was not sure the policy would be overturned.

"We have a lot on our plate right now," he said.

There is concern that reopening the socially and politically divisive question of gays and lesbians in the ranks could place an additional burden on a military stretching to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Buying time serves both the Pentagon's desire for caution and Obama's desire not to pick an unnecessary fight. Former President Bill Clinton never fully recovered from his miscues over the gays in the military issue early in his first term.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30914485/

 

[charlequin]

Netanyahu doesn't seem to want a permanent peace, even on Israel's terms.

No, Netenyahu doesn't want peace; he wants to win. His strategy is built around the idea that Israel can deal a death of a thousand cuts to the Palestinians through slow and steady settlement expansion until there's basically nothing left of Palestinian territory. It's absolutely unacceptable and we shouldn't be providing any aid to them as long as they keep it up.

I'm hoping that our government actually takes advantage of this Iran situation to gain leverage on Israel, and the consistent message State's been taking on it ("no, we won't talk to you about Iran until we deal with this settlement problem") is a good start.

 

[speculawyer]

No, Netenyahu doesn't want peace; he wants to win. His strategy is built around the idea that Israel can deal a death of a thousand cuts to the Palestinians through slow and steady settlement expansion until there's basically nothing left of Palestinian territory. It's absolutely unacceptable and we shouldn't be providing any aid to them as long as they keep it up.

Yep. People always bring up that Hamas's official party platform is not to recognize Israel and to drive the Israelis into the Ocean. Well, the Likud party's platform is to not recognize claims of Palestinians and to drive them into the Jordan river. How are they any different? The differences is they are Jews . . . the 'chosen people' according all the Christians in the USA. So their view wins. Objectively, that is just total bullshit.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

The Palestinians
Declaration of a State

A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. The government firmly rejects attempts of various sources in the world, some anti-Semitic in origin, to question Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital, and the 3,000-year-old special connection between the Jewish people and its capital. To ensure this, the government will continue the firm policies it has adopted until now:

No diplomatic activity will be permitted at Orient House. The government stopped the stream of visits by heads of state and ministers at Orient House, begun under the left-wing government.

The presence of the Israeli police in eastern Jerusalem will be increased. This in addition to the new police posts and reinforcements in the neighborhoods.

The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in 'City of David'.

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

The two sides need to negotiate something. And to some degree, I wouldn't care if these two sets of religious nutbags continued killing each forever . . . but the the fact that the dispute exists and we are perceived as pretty much 100% on one side, that makes us targets of terrorism.

 

[Killthee]

Gay US diplomats to receive equal benefits
By Mathew Lee

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that gay American diplomats will be given benefits similar to those that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy, U.S. officials said Saturday.

In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are "unfair and must end," as they harm U.S. diplomacy.

"Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad," she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers," she says.

"At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do," Clinton says.

Among the benefits that will now be granted gay diplomats: the right of domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports, government-paid travel for their partners and families to and from foreign posts, and the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad.

In addition, gay diplomats' families will now be eligible for U.S. government emergency evacuations and training courses at the Foreign Service Institute, the message says.

The announcement, expected this week, was provided to the AP by a State Department official who is a member of the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies organization. Two department officials not affiliated with the organization confirmed its accuracy.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publically about the changes.

Previously, the State Department had withheld some benefits from the families of gay diplomats, citing the Defense of Marriage Law, which had restricted federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

One former ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned from the foreign service in 2007 to protest the restrictions. Guest was a part of the Obama administration's State Department transition team and played a major role in lobbying for the changes.

Clinton told members of Congress last week that she would soon announce the revisions.​

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

PHOTOS Memorial Day

Yvonna Golla touches her son's grave marker prior to a Memorial Day ceremony at Crown Memorial Park in Pineville Monday. Her son, Cliff was killed in Iraq in 2006.

Confederate flag supporters gather at Elmwood Cemetery Saturday afternoon. About 50 people attended a rally to show their support for keeping a Confederate flag flying (at left) at the city-owned cemetery.

A soldier is hugged in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery May 25, 2009 in Arlington, Virginia. Section 60 is one of the main places where those who died while serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.

U.S. Lt. Col. Theresa Sheppard from Navarre, Fla., cries during a Memorial Day observance ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, May 25, 2009. On Monday the U.S. forces based at Camp Eggers gathered wearing khaki, camouflage and blue blazers to salute their latest dead comrades, 1st Lt. Roslyn Schulte, or Roz, from Ladue, Mo., and Shawn Pine from San Antonio, Texas, a former Army ranger who was working as a contractor to train Afghan army soldiers.

A saluting U.S. soldier is reflected on a photo frame of 1st Lt. Roslyn Schulte from Ladue, Mo., during a Memorial Day observance ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, May 25, 2009.

A U.S. soldier salutes near the helmet of 1st Lt. Roslyn Schulte during a Memorial Day observance ceremony at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, May 25, 2009.

Kara Goodwin, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, sits at the grave of her boyfriend Navy Seal SO1 Joshua Harris who died in Afganistan, in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery May 25, 2009 in Arlington, Virginia. Section 60 is one of the main places where those who died while serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.

Christy Young, left, of Fort Drum, N.Y., Stephanie Dostie, of Fort Campbell, Ky., and her daughter Bayleigh Dostie, 9, visit the grave of Dostie's husband U.S. Army Sgt. First Class Shawn C. Dostie, who died serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2005, Monday, May 25, 2009, on Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va.

President Barack Obama lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns, Monday, May 25, 2009, at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va.

 

[PantherLotus]

**BREAKING NEWS: Report: N. Korea test-fires 2 short-range missiles off its east coast**



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30935610/

 

[PhoenixDark]

What Would Gingrich Do

 

[sc0la]

**BREAKING NEWS: Report: N. Korea test-fires 2 short-range missiles off its east coast**



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30935610/

3:00 am phonecall eh. :/

 

[sc0la]

What Would Gingrich Do

Tweet about it.

 

[Oblivion]

**BREAKING NEWS: Report: N. Korea test-fires 2 short-range missiles off its east coast**



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30935610/

Were they nucular?

 

[ChoklitReign]

Were they nucular?

 

[polyh3dron]

aaaand Joe Biden was right. International crisis, check.

 

[PantherLotus]

I was hoping this was just posturing. Was the nuke test confirmed as real? 6 months ago they couldn't even fire a real missile further than 60 miles.

 

[polyh3dron]

I was hoping this was just posturing. Was the nuke test confirmed as real? 6 months ago they couldn't even fire a real missile further than 60 miles.

Well I wouldn't be TOO worried. NK always fails at everything. NEVER FORGET:

 

[AniHawk]

Really? We're worried about North Korea? Really?