jeffrey smith

Then, if I understand her view correctly, you agree with Rand. I disagree. After all, I asked the question and you understood it. So the question has meaning. It's just not answerable by the human mind. But going back to the big bang and the singularity--where did the singularity come from? You're merely pushing the conundrum back one step. At some point in the process you have to pick among two alternatives--a something which has always been, without a beginning point; or a something which (unlike a human life, and everything else we know of) came into being without any antecedent causes. (You can choose a chain of antecedent causes that never has an initial step, a first cause, so to speak, but that's merely a variation on the idea of something that always been without a beginning.) Whichever alternative you choose, it's irrational. Jeffrey S.

Adding a more Jewish-focused joke. Although it does involved a golf loving rabbi and God. Rabbi X. was a passionate golfer, and one year, hearing about a new course a few hours away, he wanted to play it, but as things stood, he could never get there. Until Yom Kippur afternoon. And the temptation was too strong. Play gold on Yom Kippur? A rabbi? But fortunately the golf course was some distance away, allowing him to fulfill the Talmudic advice for such situations: If you must commit a sin, go to a distant town where you will not be known and therefore will not cause a scandal when you are seen sinning*. So he starts playing. Halfway through, Moses, sitting up in Heaven, draws God's attention to Rabbi X. He's playing golf! On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year! I suppose I should punish him, God says, and leans over to take a closer look. Rabbi X. is at the tee, and swings. God chooses that exact moment to blow a puff of air in Rabbi X's direction. The puff of air becomes a little wind that lifts the golf ball all the way to the hole and drops it in the cup. Rabbi X. has shot a hole in one! That's a punishment? Moses protests. So tell Me, God answers Moses. Who is he going to be able to tell about it? *slightly paraphrased, but the Talmud does actually say that. Jeffrey S.

Don't look now, but the most American of sports (and I don't mean football) is becoming a Brazilian sport http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/latin-rodeo

This seems on point for this discussion http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/why-the-media-seems-biased-when-you-care-about-the-issue.php It's about a 1988 study focused on perceived bias in the media regarding the Arab Israeli conflict. Summary--whichever side you're on, you will perceive the media coverage to be biased against you. Jeffrey S.

On the contrary, there are things which are by their nature not comprehensible to the human mind, and therefore not capable of rational description and analysis. Consider, for example, whether or not the universe had a beginning. Either it had a beginning or it did not; either it started--and if so, how could something come to be when absolutely nothing was there before?--or it did not--and if so, how could something exist without having a beginning, without having a cause? Both alternatives violate common sense: things come to be from other things, and things always have a starting point and something that caused them to be; and to have an answer one way or another would require us to go outside the universe, which is of course not possible. but there is no other alternative available. Religion posits God, which merely pushes the irrationality back one level, but in doings so, religion merely admits that the answer is not answerable by the human mind: it's merely an admission of the irrationality. I think Rand's answer, by the way, was that this question (and others of similar nature) is not answerable and therefore to ask it is not legitimate. Jeffrey S.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POST THIS ABOUT HOW HAMAS HAS OFFERED A FAIR PEACE AGREEMENT?... DON'T YOU READ ANY OF THE LINKS I GIVE YOU OR AT LEAST WATCH THE YOUTUBE CLIPS? I just went throough all previous 13 pages of this thread, and found no links having to do with Hamas' alleged offer of peace (in fact, none of your links seem relevant to Hamas at all), and one youtube that doesn't embed properly in my browser--btw, neither do the clips you link/embedded in your answer tonight. And you seem to have forgotten that I don't view the Arab Peace Initiative as anything more than a propaganda exercise, because the terms are either too vague to have any worth as a peace document, or don't rule out the rejectionist demands. But as far as I know, Hamas has not even gone that far. Do you understand this hadith at all and the time and situation that this is referring to? Do you even understand the science of Hadith and how week the chain of narration on this one is? Hamas isn't just saying 'Let's all go and kill some Jews because it's in a hadith'.. Perhaps you should study a little more about it. Correct. It's saying "let's kill Jews" and using the hadith as an excuse. They have stopped suicide bombings.. Regarding the Qassam rockets, well they stopped using them when the Israelis agreed to a ceasefire and stuck to it until the Israelis broke the ceasefire.. How about the Israeli government start adhering to the ceasefires they agree to and stop the blockade on the Palestinians which is causing them to starve and then the rockets will stop.. Or do you believe that only non-Arabs have the right to use violence to solve conflicts? I believe that no one has the "right" to use violence to solve conflicts. And a ceasefire during which Hamas rearms itself as quickly as possible is not a true ceasefire. NEGOTIATE WITH THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE, THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE PALESTINIANS THEMSELVES TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF THROUGH POPULAR ELECTION. meaning either negotiate with a body that can not guarantee its promises will be kept at all, or with Hamas with its rejectionist charter. I haven't asked for a one state solution, it's too impractical.. Do you even read my posts before you comment or do you just assume that I believe certain things? From the beginning I've stated quite clearly that I believe that the Arab Peace Initiative which Hamas HAS agreed to is a fair deal. Have you even read into the iniative? Yes, and as indicated above, found it wanting. And after going through those previous dozen pages, you seem to think that the one-state solution is the just and proper solution, and if you referred to the two state solution as acceptable, I missed it. So concluding you favor a one state solution was logical, but based on incomplete evidence. They call death to Israel and death to America.. I disagree with these statements, but it's rhetoric due to the interference of the US in Iran and due to the occupation of Palestinian land.. The Iranians aren't planning to attack Israel.. Israel however is practicing to attack Iran and has just dispatched two warships to the Gulf and also has a submarine there. You have some secret knowledge about Iranian intentions? Because no one knows what they are planning, including possibly the Iranians. Jeffrey S.

This is a very complex situation. The Palestinians living in other Arab countries surrounding them are in fact refugees, refugees in any country are only given limited rights to work and live and most decide to become citizens if such countries allow them to. However, the Palestinians don't want to become citizens of other countries though, they want to go back to their own country that they were forced out of in 1948 and 1967 due to war, much of the reasons why they fled was due to fears of massacres by Zionist fanatics, when news spread that this happened and the fanatics said they'd carry out more the people fled for their lives.. This was a part of the Zionist plan from the beginning because they believed that they couldn't keep a secure Israel if the Jewish population was only at 60%. Then when the Palestinians fled for their lives and the Israelis didn't let them back in, the Israelis enacted absentee property owners acts which allowed them to take all of the land of the Palestinians that had fled.. The above is, if not accurate, at least backed up by credible evidence, except for the sentence I italicized, which is pure speculation. You also leave out the impact which Arab leaders had in urging Arab Palestinians to leave their homes so as to stay safe from the fighting while Arab armies, in the expectation of returning once Arab victory was secured. (Obviously these people are still waiting). You are also leaving out the fact that had the Arabs accepted the proposed partition plan--which the Jews did accept--there would have been no war at all. And you are also leaving out the other refugees of 1948: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands Notice the last sentence, an assertion that exactly mirrors your own speculation on Zionist motives. But contrast the current state of these refugees with those of the Palestinian refugees. The pertinent point here is that originally Jordan was part of Mandatory Palestine--it's called Transjordan because it's literally the part of Palestine that is over (meaning east of the Jordan). This unity goes back at least to biblical times, when, out of the original Twelve Tribes of Israel, two and a half tribes settled in the areas east of the Jordan (see the Book of Numbers for details). Transjordan came into existence by British fiat; they wanted to give the Hashemite family some territory to make up for their loss of the Arabian Hejaz to what is now the Saudi royal family. For the same reason, the British also installed a member of the family on the "throne" of Iraq. So the Palestinian claim to Transjordan is not a fantasy. The phrase I italicized is erroneous, as evidence by, among other things the Balfour Declaration, which called for a Jewish National Home, and the UN Partition plans. Adonis, you don't seem to understand one important point: in 1929 (I'm picking that year as the first year when major communal violence occurred, to avoid any possible misunderstandings) Jews were there, living peacefully and legally. They didn't get there by force, by what you called "military occupation" or anything else a libertarian should object to. They have the right to be there, to form their own state, because they were there, living in peace (or as much peace as Arab violence would allow). Palestinian permission was not needed. Any more, I should add, than Israeli permission is needed to declare a Palestinian state. In answer to your rhetorical question, the answer is of course, "no". But there is no real parallel between your question and what actually happened. BTW, what treaty are you referring to? As noted above, the mandate was not to establish a Palestinian state in the sense you are using it. (Are you aware that for most of the pre-1948 period, Palestinian was a term that was applied to both Jewish and Arab residents of the territory?) And what, by the way, in your opinion, could be rightfully claimed by the Jews who were living in Palestine before World War II, who wanted their own country? Then you must also be against sanctions like those that were put on Iraq from 1991-2003 that killed more than 1.5 million Iraqis, more than 500,000 of which were children under the age of 5. Sanctions are just as deadly, if not more than war.. The difference was that Hamas' attacks on Israeli cities were due to their lack of guided weapons and their understanding that Israelis will go into their bomb shelters, meaning that civilians would stay off of the streets.. They did this to bring them to the negotiating table because they refused to negotiate a new fair ceasefire.. You talk as if rockets were the only possible alternative....and that Israel had no reason to believe the potential ceasefire would be honored for long. Jeffrey S.

First off, let me note that your phrase "military occupation" is, to put it mildy, a fantasy. But that's something for another post (literally--I intend to reply to another of your posts after I finish this one). Where in fact has Hamas offered a two state solution (meaning without evasion offered to recognize Israel as a Jewish state coexisting peacefully with a Palestinian state, which is how most people think of a "two state solution")? I know of no such offer, or anything remotely like it, beyond offers of a "truce", meaning no fighting but no recognition and no giving up of the overall ambition to have an Islamic Palestine. Can you point me to such an offer. Here's what the Hamas Charter says. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html Not much room for negotiating or otherwise arriving at a two state solution there, is there? Not much room for anything other than a shariah ruled Islamic state, actually. That comes several paragraphs after this lovely little quotation of a Hadith: And see in Article 17 a claim that Freemasonry and Rotary Clubs are Zionist organizations. "The Holy War of 1936" is more usually called the Arab Revolt of 1936-39--here is Wikipedia's article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine And here's a shorter description from an organization called Palestine Facts http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1936-39.php Reading some of the other pages, Palestine Facts seems to be decidedly pro-Israel. Which is why, Adonis, you should read it. Perhaps it will make you aware of some things your Muslim brothers don't mention in their narratives. Well, stopping the use of suicide bombers and Qassam rockets, would be a start. Now, please tell me, with whom are the Israelis supposed to negotiate? The Palestinian Authority seems to lack either the capacity or the desire to do so on behalf of all Palestinians. Who is going to bring the extreme rejectionists like Hamas to heel? I see no sign of anyone inside Palestinian society even attempting to do so. And, for my own information, what exactly do you personally consider a proper fair and just peace agreement? You seem to indicate that you think the only proper, fair and just result would be a unified state in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side. I hate to tell you this, but the Israelis are not going to accept, for the simple reason that they don't trust the Palestinians to keep the peace once the state is established. Palestinians have been resorting to communal violence since the 1920s--the 1936-39 revolt was simply the most serious and longest lasting of those episodes. And Palestinian statements from non-PA sources don't exactly refute that notion. I wasn't referring to his statement, but others statements by members of the mullahcracy over the years. The real question is not whether Iran, the main backer of Hezbollah, has threatened Israel, but whether if it obtains nuclear weapons it will actually carry through on those threats. Jeffrey S.

Michael-- So you don't think it is a well known fact that Hamas's stated purpose (formalized in their charter) is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and that they adhere to the maximalist rejectionist attitude? I think it is well known enough that I don't have to provide "evidence" of it. No one disputes it, not even Hamas. I've referred before the peace talks which preceded the Intifada, in which Barak made what he felt was a very substantial offer on behalf of Israel. Adonis does not think it was a very substantial offer, and he may be right. But the important thing that proves that the Palestinians were not interested in living in peace with Israel was the fact that they made no counteroffer--they had no plan to suggest, nothing to put on the table as an counter to Barak's offer. That again is public knowledge that no one denies. And then I see Adonis trying to excuse Hamas' actions and that of the Palestinians, without any apparent idea that he's supporting thereby an agenda that is at best racist, and at worst genocidal, and speak up about the cognitive dissonance involves (to call it by the most amicable terms available).... I see Adonis channelling Arab propaganda, and warn both him and the other readers here that it is a highly biased version that includes some non facts, that it can't be taken as the basis for any intelligent discussion, and you think I'm not being credible?! And for everyone's information, I'm not a rabid Zionist. I'm a Jew who has a various times in his life been insulted and sometimes assaulted because he's a Jew, who has had doors metaphorically shut in his face because he's a Jew--here in the USA, the land of enlightenment and all that--who has family, friends, friends of family and family of friends that live in Israel under the threat of Hezbollah and Hamas and their plans for a Jew-free Palestine (not to mention Iran's ambitions for a bomb with which it's publicly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth). If you want to meet a rabid Zionist, go meet a religious settler in the West Bank. Jeffrey Smith

For example, this was floating around today: (IsraelNN.com) The ancient precursor of the Old City road leading from Jaffa Gate to Mt. Zion has been uncovered -- exactly where a famous ancient Mosaic map says it should be. http://www.israelnat...ews.aspx/135956 Can that be agreed to by both parties? Also, Michael makes an excellent point about "evidence/facts", a "fact" that supports your argument that you find in an opposition source is golden. Negative evidence is extremely probatively powerful. Finally, the best way to prepare your case is to vehemently argue and construct the oppositions case as if it was your own. Let's begin. Adam The article itself is unexceptionable, but it does illustrate the perils of figuring what's going on in the Middle East, becase it's from Arutz Sheva, which is essentially the media outlet for the religious settler movement, the folks who, for instance, thought that leaving the settlements in Gaza was not just a bad thing to do from the political and military standpoint, but also a grave national sin which invites God to pour his wrath down on Israel, and are willing to destroy the Israeli army and government to make sure that they can hold on to their West Bank settlements: they think God told them to live there (and incidentally, bully and sometimes commit violence on neighboring Arabs). Anything they say, and anything published in Arutz Sheva, should be treated as highly biased against the Arabs. Jeffrey S.

Do you understand that this may not be the first source of information a Muslim would turn to for objectivity? Or even an independent? Sure, there will be radical Islamist stuff there, and rightly so. But from first blush to someone not familiar with it, it looks like the whole approach will be slanted that way. Sort of like watching MSNBC about conservatives. You criticize the sources Adonis uses. Is this is the best you can do as a response that you think would convince him--or an independent person reading this thread--of anything? Don't worry about holding Adonis to the same standard. He has to meet it, too, if he hopes to be taken seriously. The bar is the same for everyone. Michael You mean radical Islamist stuff like this? http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3960.htm The context is an Egyptian journalist who met with the Israeli ambassador. This is in Egypt, the country that actually has a peace treaty with Israel. If MEMRI is cherrypicking, then it's cherrypicking among government spokespeople and establishment figures for most of its content; when it runs something from an extremist, it labels them as extremist and it runs full translations, so all the qualifications and nuances of a statement are given to the leader. For instance, another article gives a video of a PA minister declaring that jihad will never end--but it provides the full video, so you also get to see his statement that sometimes violence is not appropriate for jihads, which makes a big difference in what he means. The fact to be established is not how influential moderate voices are or are not; the fact to be established was how Adonis' claims are run of the mill statements from the Arab side, without any apparent awareness that some of his information is, to put it mildly, inaccurate. And I have supplied facts; if I don't provide a precise citation for something I say, it's because I'm referring to something that is, or should be, common knowledge, such as the maximalist rejection of Israel contained in the Hamas charter. Jeffrey S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_he_me/us_insurance_rates_wellpoint WellPoint's defense of itself makes it sound like it wants a coercive version of Obamacare. 1)It complains that the proposals for mandating individuals to buy are too weak, and should have fewer loopholes and more potent enforcement penalties. 2)It rests its case on a point that proponents of Obamacare have been arguing for some time in favor of mandated insurance--that healthy people tend not to buy insurance, thereby affecting the risk pool and premium levels. Jeffrey S.

Jeff, Are you kidding me? Adonis actually does go looking for facts. He's over here. You're certainly not over where he is. And look what "facts" you (and others) are giving him. Claims that he's a Jew-hater who refuses to understand and wants another Holocaust. And you spice it with refusal to look at his facts. This is so easy to fix, I am amazed that people don't do it. Especially on a forum devoted to reason. Look at claims objectively and present objective facts. There. That's the answer. You don't need to do anything else. If that does not reach Adonis, you reach the reader. In this respect and from what I have read, he has been doing a lot better (and that means a lot by far) at reaching the independent readers of this thread than those who rebut him. That is, until he starts that anti-Israel Zionism scapegoating stuff. That really undermines him with independents when he does that. I can almost sense people turning off during the hostilities you guys fling back and forth. Why not do like Dershowitz did in The Case for Israel? Here is a quote from p. 7: Now that's rational. Instead I have been reading the "speculation presented as fact" system of argument and watching it inflame all around. There is one thing I don't think the anti-Adonis posters here get. His reference for knowledge is not Ayn Rand or Little Green Footballs. He lives in another community where people--many of them very good people--discuss current issues, etc., from a different perspective--from a Muslim perspective. The only way to penetrate that perspective is with facts. You won't reach everyone, just those open to facts. And that's true outside the Muslim world. That's just the way people are. Some are hard-liners and some are independent thinkers. The purpose of discussion is to reach and interact with independent thinkers. They are the ones who change the world for the better. There is one surefire way to close off examination of the facts: present a different point of view and call the people you are talking to evil garbage when they present their point of view. How do you expect to communicate that way? Then there is the issue of glossing over the facts Adonis presents. I mentioned that he glosses over the facts I present, but I have seen people do the same with him, over and over. The only effective way to answer facts is with other facts. Better ones if you can find them. You compare them. You judge them. You judge the sources. Then you come to rational conclusions. But you do not ignore facts, regardless of where they come from. There is no other way. If you present facts from sources like Dershowitz gives and the person says, "I refuse to look at those facts," or presents propaganda slogans as rebuttal, then--and only then--do you have a right to say he is not open to facts. Vice-versa, that same principle applies to you, to me, to everyone. You call "refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications" which leads to "a new Holocaust" a charitable interpretation? Good Lord! What would bashing look like? What you said is speculation presented as fact. That is exactly what I am talking about. You don't even know how Adonis arrived at his conclusions or whether he is open to looking at other sources and perspectives or not. Your premise is that you already know. In my view, that is poor speculation at best. But I don't think it is poor speculation. I think it is casting stones. Michael The problem with Adonis is that he goes looking for facts only among one type of source--those that back the Palestinian side. He's shown no indication that he's encountered sources of any other nature--not pro-Israeli sources, not sources that at least make an honest attempt to report the facts impartially. It's rather like reading an rabble rousing Arab newspaper. He seems to be unwilling to look at any sources which might differ from his preferred narrative, almost all of which is anti-Israel/Zionism scapegoating. Had he not confined himself to this sort of information source, he would know that much of what he's recited as history is untrue. He'd know that to talk of the Allies going to war against Hitler for the sake of the Jews is fantasy, that to talk of Israeli massacres of Arabs in 1948 beyond the solitary instance of Deir Yassin is rubbish. He'd know that Arabs resorted to communal violence a number of times during the British Mandate--I linked upthread to the Wiki articles relating to that. He'd know that the Christian Palestinians are being persecuted by their Muslim fellow Palestinians. He'd know, in short, that all the crimes and sins of which he accuses Israel, have their exact parallel on the Palestinian side. He condemns Israeli racism, but seems unaware of its mirror image, Palestinian racism. He supports the Palestinian goals wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the Palestinian goals are not to live in peace with the Jews in some sort of peaceful Holy Land; the Palestinian goal is a Palestine that is ethnically cleansed of Jews, where at best a small number of Jews are allowed to live on sufferance by a Muslim majority. This is openly declared by Hamas and similar groups, and the only counter to this by Palestinian Authority are statements and promises aimed at American/European audiences, not aimed at their own people. This may be because the PA really shares the same goal; or it may be because the PA feels incapable of pressing the issue and doesn't want to enter a fight it knows it will lose. If you're not familiar with the MEMRI website, I think a visit there would be instructive. Yes, people who support the Palestinians may not realize this through being unaware of the actual facts. They may be aware of it, but believe that a Palestinian state is still just or necessary, once the Palestinians jettison the program of genocide--and usually these people state their opinion fairly plainly. I haven't seen Adonis do that. The only other possibility is that they are aware of the facts, and don't care or actually support the goal of a Jew-free Israel. So, yes, to say that Adonis is willfully ignorant of the facts of the matter is the charitable alternative. If I were wanting to bash him thoroughly, I'd adopt the alternative and state he knowingly supports a genocidal program. But I'm not. He's condemned suicide bombing, and racism in principle, so I will readily ascribe his support of intended genocide and active racism on the part of the Palestinians to ignorance and not malice. You will notice, if you go back through this thread, that there is stuff even on this issue on which he and I agree--most importantly, the issue of Israeli settlements--and where I agree with him (or at least think he has a valid argument on his side) I have said so. I've looked at his facts, if I'm not already familiar with them. But on the larger issue I think he is just reflexively reciting what he hears from Muslim anti-Israel sources. Jeffrey S.

Michael: But one has to watch out for the opposite tendency, which appears among a lot of Beck's fans (not, as far as I know, Beck himself)--that to be educated or intelligent makes one inherently worse. In fact, the best thinkers--that is, the people who best put their brainpower to work on a consistent basis--I've met have been, in general, hillbillies who took education seriously. Jeffrey S.

Brant, You want to bet? Reread this thread. Some of the arguments I've read remind me of the way Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo behaves. People want a scapegoat to trash so badly they incorrectly attribute an idea to a person, even when he has explicitly said he does not hold that idea, just so they can bash him. They are salivating for a scapegoat. Since none is at hand, this dude will do. He doesn't fit? No problem. We'll make him fit, by God! That is wrong. Even the people who do this know it's wrong. But it feels soooooooooooooooo good to vent... If you think Adonis's philosophy is wrong, why so selective? What is wrong with the principle of wanting to be left alone to believe as he wishes? And wanting to find tools to spread this idea among Muslims, so that they too explicitly think about leaving others alone to believe as they wish? That's the real reason I think Adonis is seeking out libertarians. He has specifically stated this and it has been ignored, time and time again, as people start pushing him and trying to make him out to be an Islamist terrorist. Is that the part, the freedom part he seeks to practice and spread, the part you find evil? That is part of his philosophy, after all. So, do you find that evil? Of course not. That part gets blanked out. That part is not considered to be a part of his philosophy by those pushing hard. You know why? Because underneath it all, the premise is: This Muslim has bad character, so he couldn't possibly mean it. That's the bottom line. The philosophy is only a pretext to hate a person without knowing him. (Just like Adonis does with Zionists.) Michael The problem I have with Adonis not what he says he believes, but rather his apparently uncritical acceptance of what "his" side says regarding Israel and the Palestinians. If he actually went looking for the facts, he would find that a large segment of the Palestinian population wants the Jews expelled or killed, that this attitude long predates the events of 1948, and that much of what he's reciting as apparent facts is false or at least seriously doubtful. For instance, he said a couple of days ago that the Allies went to war with Germany for the sake of the Jews. That's patently false--for one thing, the Holocaust did not really begin until WWII began and its full scope became known only gradually, and was only clear after the war ended--and, after all, it was Hitler who invaded Poland, not the other way around. More fundamentally, it ignores the fact that if the only thing involved were the fate of the Jews, Hitler would have been allowed by the Allies to do whatever he wished. After all, no attempt was made to stop him from ravaging the Jews of Germany before the war started; and finding a country to emigrate to from Germany was not an easy thing if you were a German Jew in the late thirties. Britain was actively blocking Jewish migration to Palestine for the sake of pleasing the Arabs, and few countries were willing to accept more than a handful of Jewish emigres. The US was only marginally better at this than most other countries. That's why Jews fleeing Europe ended up in places like Shanghai, for instance. In 1946 and other Jews could conclude two things: first, that no one really gave a damn about protecting Jews (although they knew that already), and if genocide could find a home in Germany, where Jews were prosperous and well assimilated in a thoroughly modern country, than it could find a home anywhere, even in the United States. So they decided, once and for all, that they had better get serious about protecting themselves. So Adonis, by adopting the full pro Palestinian position, is condemning racism on the one hand but justifying a specific application of racism on the other hand. That doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, but the most charitable interpretation that we can adopt is willful ignorance--refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications of the position he's adopting. And the full implications of the Palestinian position include a new Holocaust aimed at the Jews of Israel. Jeffrey S.

The telephone bell was ringing wildly, but without result, since there was no-one in the room except the corpse.-- Charles Williams, War in Heaven. And, although I don't have a copy in front of me to give you the full text, the opening of Jane Austen's Persuasion. Jeffrey S.

On CBS, among the data points used to illustrate today's blizzard, was the fact that the FedGov has been closed for the last three days, costing a $100 million a day in--get this--lost productivity--as if productivity and government have anything to do with each other. Jeffrey S.

A recent illustration of how Muslims are eager to sit down, consider the facts, and work out a rational, peaceful relationship with Israel: http://www.ocregister.com/news/oren-61482-ocprint-uci-speech.html Note especially the reliance on the authority of the UN Human Rights Council. Given the membership of that council, condemnation by the UNHRC should be an honor any freedom loving company should actively seek... And here's an instance of how, well before the events of 1948, the Arabs of Palestine were willing to live in peace with neighboring Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots And the links other Wiki articles on that page

Michael--as counterpoint to the kvetching here, let me report that since the server came back up, the problems about which I was complaining a few days ago have vanished, and the site seems back to normal. Dragonfly--I think repeated logging out indicates a connectivity problem (timing out, probably), which may be with your ISP. Jeffrey S.

Could be worse. I live about five miles from the stadium. Can you spell "traffic jam"? Jeffrey S. (Who Care!)

The only place I can remember seeing the word flounce, outside of here and SLOP, is Tigger’s song from Winnie the Pooh. Definition time, from Merriam Webster: intransitive verb a to move with exaggerated jerky or bouncy motions: also to move so as to draw attention to oneself b to go with sudden determination noun a strip of fabric attached by one edge; also : a wide ruffle ... It seems you’re trying to evoke the noun meaning with your reference to petticoats, yet you used the word as a verb. Tut-tut. If you wanted the noun you should have written: “…so I can’t be a flounce”. But it’s ok, we’re all accustomed to making allowances for your faulty prose. Whichever one inspires you to cut the crap, to live and let live. No more essays about how other’s contributions aren’t up to your standards, you've hit that note too many times. Some people think your contributions are long winded and prententious. Admission’s free, and no one has to visit all the exhibits. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> I've heard "flounce" used as a verb for many years. Amusingly, given that Mr. Perigo uses it so routinely, it almost always referred to certain behaviors associated with overtly gay men. Jeffrey S.

Some time ago I saw an article which made a point of "reminding" its readers that Rand was essentially a Russian novelist who happened to write in English. Unfortunately, I don't remember who wrote it or where I saw it. Jeffrey S.

Glad to have your input to this forum. Adam Presenting the soul as female uniting with God as male is a very traditional set of imagery in Western spirituality, starting with the traditional interpretations of the Song of Songs (Oh, that he would kiss me with the kisses of his lips!) which picture the believer as the female partner and God as the male partner/King Solomon. It goes far beyond Augustine, and pops up in places that you don't necessarily look for it--for instance, several of Bach's cantatas contain duets or sequences of arias in which the soprano represents the believer and the basso/baritone represents God answering her or partnering her. Jeffrey S.

Some basic facts imposed on a matrix of Rand-as-shrew. I find the Fountainhead visual amusing: the hero grasping what I presume to be a slide rule. Or is it a telegraph ripped from the ground by the oversized hero?--Or, as it might be interpreted by a reader not familiar with Rand's writings, a really big cross... Jeffrey S.

There are two things we have to keep in mind: what the stock market supposedly is(A), and what the stock market actually is . In A, investors make decisions based on what they believe the future of the individual company is--whether it will be profitable or lose money: if they believe it will be profitable (or more profitable in the future than it is now) they will buy it, and if they believe it is less profitable, they sell it: and market forces work out what the consensus of the company's value is: if consensus is optimistic, share prices rise; if pessimistic, share prices fall; and thus we can determine what the general view of a company is by the trend in its share prices. in B, investors make decisions based on what they believe the future of the stock price (or index price) will be--whether other investors will buy it, and so make the price rise; or whether other investors will sell it, and so make the price fall. Predictions of the company's actual value are therefore secondary; what really matters is predictions of what other people will think of a company. This shift has serious implications, because it involves shifting decision making from something focused on economic trends and forecasts to something focused on mass psychology. The investor is not trying to predict what value a company will have, or how profitable it will be, at the end of a certain time period; rather, he is trying to predict what other investors will think of a company at the end of that time period. Actual profit and loss type of data may work into that forecast, but they will be only one of several things, and sometimes the least important. This tends to bring enough volatility into the market that I don't believe an accurate forecast is really possible, although at this point I would predict the market will either decline this year (probably not a large amount, but a significant amount nonetheless) or stay at the same level. That's based in part on my view of what the economy will be like over the next year or so, and in part on what I think investors will be like over the next year or so. My personal opinion is probably influenced by my one foray into the stock market: I bought into a mutual fund when the Dow was about 10,000 during the Clinton years; saw it rise for a couple of years and then fall back, and sold just before it got back to the price at which I had entered it in the early Bush years. (I invested $10,000; and received back at the end $10,144.) In fact, because of the Bush tax cuts, I actually lost a little money (the capital gains taxes I had paid on paper gains were not equaled by the taxes recouped when I sold and could declare losses that were just as papery as the gains because the tax cuts came in between). So now I stick to CDs. Yes, I'm aware of the effects of inflation versus low interest rates, but I'd rather have that than the agitata of investing in stocks that go all over the place for no reason at all. Jeffrey S.