Slashdot Mirror

...therefore, we at Microsoft's German subsidiary have turned over to the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, as required by law, the names of all Jewish employees. Microsoft Germany has been assured by no less than Heinrich Himmler himself, that our Jewish employees will be peaceably resettled in the the East.

Um, kristallnacht was in 1933. The Nazis were already very controversial by the time of the 1936 olympic games. So the statement "in 1938 that the Nazi party and Hitler were fairly new, and were not yet seen as that bad" is bollocks.

But, but, it's still vital we all give up our essential liberties for a little temporary freedom, right?

Because the world's so dangerous, what with terrorists, rogue states, the completely proportionate concern about avian 'flu, nuclear proliferation and the tidalwave of violent crime that's sweeping the US, UK and entire western world... and not forgetting, of course, all those evil video games turning our kids into gun-toting killers.

Of course it's important - we're in so much danger it's amazing we make it through each day without being shot, stabbed, infected, exploded or bum-raped to death in an alleyway somewhere, and anyone who says differently is a loony liberal, terrorist sympathiser or against our boys in Iraq.

Right?

"We wouldn't want all of that aid money to be spent on expensive software to create the country's infrastructure when it could just be free in both senses of the word."

Yes we would if the software was bought from a company based in the US.

The main reason the US Government gives aid money abroad is when they know that it will come straight back into the hands of american companies when it is spent and thus benefit the US economy. The huge amount of aid given to israel for defence ($2.2 billion this year http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Isr ael/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) is a case in point as a large portion of it is spent on US military equipment (Including Apache gunships amongst other things).

It is really a way of getting US taxpayers money into the hands of big corporations, rather than it being wasted on things like social security at home.

That's because Jesus was a nut selling a death cult; there are very few useful particulars--just (sometimes) good general advice, much of which had already been given previously and in better form, such as the Golden Rule. Once you go through picking out the good parts, you're making it all up on your own, so you may as well dispense with the pretense of following someone else and get on with thinking for yourself.

Atleast you're famous relative never killed anyone. I'm related to these guys:

• Heinrich von Kleist (only really killed himself, I believe)
• Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist
• Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin
• Ewald Heinrich von Kleist-Schmenzin

Although, the last two weren't quite as bad as the others. And Heinrich was pretty cool. He's pretty much everything I hope to be: A moderately successful poet, unsuccessful in love, who kills himself.

Yeah. I mean, you think they would have noticed that the thing I left out there was a blob of Neutronium. And speaking of that blob of Neutronium I left out there, I wonder how it is that no one ever found it in the centuries afterwards. After all, you might have to pass very close to it, but it would still precipitate a ship out of Hyperspace, and it should damn well show on the Mass Detector.

Look here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#h
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#i
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#j
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#k


MYTH

"The U.S. has always given Israel billions of dollars without expecting repayment."

FACT

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments.

MYTH

"Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help."

FACT

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years.
(...)
Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel's economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven.

MYTH

"U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry."

FACT

Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 26 percent ($555 million of $2.1 billion in 2003) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years. The figures for 2001 are below: (There is a table in the last link)


Furthermore, from the CIA World Factbook entry on Israel:

Budget:
revenues: $48.09 billion
expenditures: $52.11 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars.
thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise)
So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers.

Look here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#h
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#i
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#j
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#k


MYTH

"The U.S. has always given Israel billions of dollars without expecting repayment."

FACT

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments.

MYTH

"Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help."

FACT

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years.
(...)
Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel's economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven.

MYTH

"U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry."

FACT

Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 26 percent ($555 million of $2.1 billion in 2003) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years. The figures for 2001 are below: (There is a table in the last link)


Furthermore, from the CIA World Factbook entry on Israel:

Budget:
revenues: $48.09 billion
expenditures: $52.11 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars.
thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise)
So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers.

Look here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#h
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#i
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#j
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#k


MYTH

"The U.S. has always given Israel billions of dollars without expecting repayment."

FACT

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments.

MYTH

"Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help."

FACT

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years.
(...)
Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel's economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven.

MYTH

"U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry."

FACT

Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 26 percent ($555 million of $2.1 billion in 2003) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years. The figures for 2001 are below: (There is a table in the last link)


Furthermore, from the CIA World Factbook entry on Israel:

Budget:
revenues: $48.09 billion
expenditures: $52.11 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars.
thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise)
So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers.

Look here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#h
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#i
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#j
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/ mf21.html#k


MYTH

"The U.S. has always given Israel billions of dollars without expecting repayment."

FACT

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments.

MYTH

"Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help."

FACT

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years.
(...)
Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel's economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven.

MYTH

"U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry."

FACT

Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 26 percent ($555 million of $2.1 billion in 2003) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years. The figures for 2001 are below: (There is a table in the last link)


Furthermore, from the CIA World Factbook entry on Israel:

Budget:
revenues: $48.09 billion
expenditures: $52.11 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)

The US Aid is about 3 billion dollars.
thats less than 1.5% of the israeli budget! (revenues-wise)
So next time you are saying stuff like "Tax breaks which would not be possible if the U.S. stopped financially supporting the State of Israel" know the numbers.

>>Except the US did not catalyze the rise of the Nazis (while, thanks to Pat Buchanan-types, the US sure sat back and watched them grow!)


You might want to read some REAL history, intead of the redneck propaganda they tout in your public schools:

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-s emitism/ford1.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoca ust/IBM.html
http://aolsvc.bookreporter.aol.com/reviews/0609607 995.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#Henry_Ford _and_Nazism

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23193426
http://www.answers.com/topic/appeasement

OK, the poms are more to blame for the last two, but they had already become a puppet regime of the Americans by then and Chamberlain could not have signed the Munich pact without the discreet endorsement of your government.

Bear in mind that British appeasement of Germeny ended when the Labour party came to power, the same people you hate as "commies".


>>>While the US did engender the Mujahadeen rebels in Afghanistan, it did not engender Al-Quada

Use spellchecker, it's Al Qaeda or Al-Qa'ida (using the standard phenomes characteristic to the Semitic family of languages).

Know your enemy before trying to defeat them.

And yes, Americans did engender Al-Qaeda. They existed back then too, and were it not for stinger missiles supplied by your country to their leaders, the Russians would have crushed Afghanistan like a bug. Were it not for that western-sympathising idiot Gorbachev and his obsession with weakenening Soviet power with all that Perestroika nonsense, Iran would be a puppet government under Soviet control, Afghanistan would be broken, there'd be no 9/11 today, and all nuclear technology would be in the hands of countries run by stable SANE people, intead of mad mullahs who will paint moons and stars on warheads and USE THEM!!!

>>Except the US did not catalyze the rise of the Nazis (while, thanks to Pat Buchanan-types, the US sure sat back and watched them grow!)


You might want to read some REAL history, intead of the redneck propaganda they tout in your public schools:

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-s emitism/ford1.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoca ust/IBM.html
http://aolsvc.bookreporter.aol.com/reviews/0609607 995.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#Henry_Ford _and_Nazism

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23193426
http://www.answers.com/topic/appeasement

OK, the poms are more to blame for the last two, but they had already become a puppet regime of the Americans by then and Chamberlain could not have signed the Munich pact without the discreet endorsement of your government.

Bear in mind that British appeasement of Germeny ended when the Labour party came to power, the same people you hate as "commies".


>>>While the US did engender the Mujahadeen rebels in Afghanistan, it did not engender Al-Quada

Use spellchecker, it's Al Qaeda or Al-Qa'ida (using the standard phenomes characteristic to the Semitic family of languages).

Know your enemy before trying to defeat them.

And yes, Americans did engender Al-Qaeda. They existed back then too, and were it not for stinger missiles supplied by your country to their leaders, the Russians would have crushed Afghanistan like a bug. Were it not for that western-sympathising idiot Gorbachev and his obsession with weakenening Soviet power with all that Perestroika nonsense, Iran would be a puppet government under Soviet control, Afghanistan would be broken, there'd be no 9/11 today, and all nuclear technology would be in the hands of countries run by stable SANE people, intead of mad mullahs who will paint moons and stars on warheads and USE THEM!!!

As for Israel, there are several things that need to be pointed out. In 1981, Israel attacked what it believed to a nuclear weapons facility. In 1990, Iraq stated repeatitly that if attacked, it would fire missles into Israel.

Iraq fired 39 scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa, which blew up a bunch of apartment buildings. 75 people died, 4 from suffocation, and the rest from heart attacks. Ultimately, the 'attack' was a poorly executed retribution.

The Falkland War was contentious, just as ownership of the Islands has been contended. The French settled the islands first, then the Spanish expelled them, who were subsequently expelled by the British, who then abandoned it. In 1820 the Argentians set up a colony, that was subsequently blown up by the Americans for harboring Pirates (as in Arrr!). The British didn't colonise it until 1833, when they set up a Naval base.

In 1982, there were many papers in the UK that did not support the idea of war at all, and didn't believe that Britain had a right to those islands anyway. It was largely believed, in Argentina at least, that UK valued the Falklands very little. Had the Argentinian forces attacked Plymouth instead, that would have largely different. It is important to differentiate between what a country views as an overseas asset and home soil.

A few extremists representing no country hijacked four airplanes. Afghanistan did not decide to invade New York. Iraq sent 39 Scud missles into Tel Aviv and Haifa as retaliation. They did not send troops into Israel. Argentina claimed islands it probably had a right to, as it has owned those islands in the past. Britain, as the international community saw it, was not 'attacked' in any threatening way.

European Jewish culture tranditionally encourages being "smart". Families and communities would push children to (a) get an independent means of income so they can drop everything and easily run away from a pogrom and at the same time (b) to excel in their Jewish studies that involves Talmud/Mishna/Gemara, comprising of a challenging discipline of logic and debate.

Culling is a good way to enable evolution, but Jewish persecution (even today) is mostly indiscriminate and doesn't neccesarily allow only the "smart" to survive.

There was no "signal" from the Japanese in any form that indicated anything other than their willingness to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

Yes there was. At the Postdam Conference, amoung other places. This information is an open secret, because the Western Allies didn't WANT a conditional surrender.

That's exactly what they did on Okinawa.

Because they hadn't surrendered yet. An Imperial order to stop fighting would've been obeyed.

AS far as Russia invading, that's even sillier. The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!

Ha ha. Whatever. At the Yalta Conference on February 10, Stalin published a promise to attack Japan exactly 3 months after whenever Germany surrendered. That turned out to be May 8, meaning Japan would be attacked on August 8, which is precisely what happened.

In the real world, he was was eager to invade as much of Japan as possible, so the country could be split up between Communist and Capitalist forces just like Germany was.

The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that's WHY the bomb was dropped. Because it was known that Stalin was going to attack Japan immediately (his armies had been driving from Europe to Asia ever since V-E day). The Bomb let the USA have Japan all to itself, instead of allowing the Soviets to claim some of the territory too.

You know the "Race to Berlin"? The Hiroshima attack was part of a "Race to Tokyo".

I live on the planet where America waged war against fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and ultimately defeated both of them. Your comparison of IBM and Ford's involvement in Nazi Germany versus the full weight of American military and industrial power, not to mention tens of thousands of American lives, is a case of creating equivalency where it doesn't even remotely exist.

The alignment of corporate interests with government interests is obvious to anyone who is paying attention. But that is not the same thing as "evil", particularly given that in my opinion, corporate interests are not inherently evil. Because corporations have been given so much power, their capacity to fuck things up has become greater. Give anyone (churches, government agencies, corporations, unions) too much power, and bad things will follow. But we still have the capability to reign in corporate power. The American electorate is already starting to realize that the "War on Terror" has been oversold.

By the way, if you are actually trying to convince me of something, don't tell me that I have my head up my ass, particularly if you're posting as an AC. The Far Right has been calling everyone who disagrees with them anti-American idiots, terrorist sympathizers, and worse. My feeling is that when we fall in to that line of base accusatory argumentation, the ability to see nuance and get beyond rhetoric is lost.

Most Jews have accepted some of the wisdom from the teaching of Moses Maimonides, the Baal Shem Tov, et alia. I will focus on Maimonides.
He argues against literalism ["Finger of G-d" was a literal finger, Monty Python styley]. Most Jews are the same.

Jews think most stories in the Bible are allegories. Jews are certain to consider the creationist literal 7 days as an allegory. Many, including myself believe that G-d guided evolution.

Who decided that Homo-Erectus wasn't erradicated by influenza? Evolutionary theorists would say luck. I would say G-d.

Both would have a hard time proving it.

Meanwhile, granpa Bush was busy dealing with Nazi businessmen. Oh yeah, mod me down in flames if you like.

... but don't forget the rest of the sentence: "and he certainly had some troubling views on Jews, for instance". Take a look at: this article for a little more information.

The 'stability of the gulf' statement is very much arguable - look at it there right now - there's a hell of a lot of unrest created directly by intervention. I've heard reports that at least some of the sources cited for 'murdered millions' are leaky at best, and 'routinely tortured children' is mainly appealing to emotion. Checked out Saudi Arabia recently?

Don't get me wrong, Hussein was/is a nasty fucker, and I'd be happy to see him shot in the balls, but there are plenty of other nasty fuckers around. How come, if the rationale is human rights, is the US not bombing the shit out of these guys?

[think of the phrase "devil's advocate" when you read this]

"On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?"

Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?

Since the Salem Witch trials?

Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people?

Since the Crusades?

Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children?

Since the Inquisition?

Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals?

Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)?

Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?

Since .... I could go on and on.

When does following a worldview or belief system which is responsible for such acts become ethically and moraly indefensible? Those are some pretty bad things if you ask me. It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?

Interestingly, comparing copies from the Cairo Geniza with current texts, the rate of "bit rot" has been very low.

74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years.

Insightful, indeed.

In turn, the Israeli government subsidizes a sizable fraction of the economy. As of 1999, about one-third of all gainfully employed Israelis worked directly for various branches of government. This does not include the military.

So in many cases, the decision to continue doing something in an area of high terrorism is a political and strategic one, not an investment decision. Even if something doesn't make economic sense, it may be subsidized anyway. In particular, the "settlements" movement is heavily subsidized.

This isn't necessarily bad, but any comparison with the US economy has to take that into account.

This is not entirely correct. From the Israel Facts & Myths database:

"Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 26 percent ($555 million of $2.1 billion in 2003) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years."

Well there's Jewish Zionist/Fundamentalist (which is what I'm referring to), Jewish (like a lot of Christians) and Jewish well that's what I sign on the dotted line.

The communist ways I was referring to where things like kibbutz and Zionism.

I didn't stereotype, I just made a generalisation just like the word Jewish is a generalisation.

Kibbutz are described as ....

'The kibbutz (Hebrew word for "communal settlement") is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfilment of the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; a home for those who have chosen it.'

Sounds communist to me.

'throughout the middle ages in Europe'

It should also be noted that the Jews more or less 'invented' interest, and in the Magna Carta it states,
"10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan can be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond"

I'm not Jewish and don't have a Jewish upbringing but I have been told on a number of occasions that Jews aren't expected to charge each other interest and such like. Were they just paranoid?

It is possible to be communal within a community but capitalist and 'wanting to take over the world' outside, did your mum charge you minimum wage to help you out as school?

The Inquisitions, also contrary to popular belief, did not kill people. It was the authority of Kings who didn't know theology who killed people. Inquisitions actually were set up to save people from death

These are just revisionist lies..

The Inquisitions, especially the Spanish Inquisition, were the height of fair trials for the time period - in fact, much of our current court system is derived from the expertise of the Inquisitions.

Fair, huh? Fair in what sense? Fair in determining the truth of a matter, or fair in exposing the depraved depths a person will go to coerce a person into admitting their non-belief in Catholic dogma? I think Galileo might have an opinion here.

Build it into a menorah?

Why not, hey why not make a beowulf cluster out of it, 9 stands for 9 computers. Make them out of P4s and you won't even need to light it, just let the CPUs spread the glow of the warmth. Perfect gift for the holidays for our brothers of the jewish faith.

For those who don't know what one is check check this out.

Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas and for those who happen to be on the road this year, remember that it only takes one lose nut in a car to crash it... so keep you head screwed on straight! {grumble grumble tourists not knowing road rules grumble grumble}

To raise a question, and put my Fatalistic hat on:
If Act of G-d similar to Jacob and the famine in Egypt is definitely going to occur, why not make Hay while the sun shines, in preparation for the famine??

So the scientists would have to show that any Kyoto-agreement like cut would be beneficial overall, not just putting your finger in a dyke. If we concentrate on trying to avoid it, and fail to make preparations, it could end up worse. This is not to deny that some companies and countries are evil and irresponsible muthafukkas. All this impending doom stuff is still unsubstantiated beyond this guy.

The scientists need more funds to conduct studies.

> But your point about the hostality is wrong. Actually throughout most
> of history, the presecuted Jewish people found safety with the Muslims. ...
> The "conflict" started after one of the world wars,

That is wishful thinking on your part. Jews were much persecuted under Islamic rule as well.
As this link documents:


When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)


Jews were persecuted in the middle-east, north Africa, and in Europe.
IIRC, one of the few countries where Jews were not persecuted is India (specifically South india), where a small Jewish population has existed since 300-500 AD.

Negotiations? Are you kidding? In July 2000 at Camp David, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat unprecedented offers - basically everything he could ask for, all the territories and a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat said no and at that point [1] decided to start the current war (no, it's not an "Intifada") in October later that year. Who do you want Israel to negotiate with now?

And do you have any better suggestions as to how Israel should wage its war on terror? Don't start telling me anything about leaving the occupied territories, as Palestinian terror existed [2] long before Israel occupied any of the land currently under dispute.

[1] and here.

[2]

that's grants and loans, too. that $40bn figure has no bearing in reality.
overview
details

that's grants and loans, too. that $40bn figure has no bearing in reality.
overview
details

Guess the Games have become about money too now.

I have a fast car. I like driving fast. I regularly break the speed limit. I have no excuse; I am a good driver, but if I'm caught it's my fault, period. I pay the fine and probably watch out a bit more in the future.

But, you know what? I live in a small, central European country that is regularly used by large truck convoys to get from A to B. A lot of the drivers, despite mandated rest stops and trip recorders are tired, doped up on speed, bored, inattentive, whatever.

A few days back, I was tootling along on the highway, actually doing the speed limit for once, looking for my exit, with big fricken heavy transports ahead of and behind me. Out of nowhere, don't ask me, I didn't see him approach, this monster freighter passes the guy behind me and, not seeing my little Audi, decides he wants to be where I am. What do I do? I punch it. Real fast. 200 km/h ensured that I was not where that truck was going to be. 80 klicks over the limit is one hell of a ticket here, and you try talking your way out of that one, especially with an overzealous cop.

Same thing last week--an over-tired old guy in a sedan (must have fallen asleep at the wheel) veers out next to me. Once again, punch it and get away. Yes, there are legitimate grounds, however thin and contrived they may seem, to break traffic rules. An unfortunate side effect of playing big brother to casual speeders (like me) is that you also, inevitably nail the innocent. And frankly, I do not trust police bureaucracy to adequately differentiate between the two.

As for No more need for speed camera or police resources wasted on policing the roads. -- well guess what? Who nails tailgaters? Drunk drivers? People who recklessly endanger others in various ways? I _like_ having cops knocking about my roads. One helped me when we broke down in the middle of nowhere once.

Speed cameras? Go ahead. Put them by tunnels, construction sites, schools, blind curves, anywhere a speeder can _really_ endanger others. But don't start with this blanket surveillance horseshit--it's not going to make anyone safer, and will inevitably be misused as a revenue generator for cash-strapped PDs. No, I don't think this reasoning is an excuse so I can go on speeding--I am not a dangerous criminal, but I DON'T WANT TO BE WATCHED 24/7 OUT OF BASIC PRINCIPLE.

As for the rest of your post, well thought-out and written. Look up "Hollerith machines" for more info--link here.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you about the SUVs.

but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

The Failure to Speak Up Against the Nazis - Martin Niemoeller

Maybe you guys in the US need to start speaking out, as your government seems to be taking away your rights in the same manner. Eventually you won't have any left.

While this is something of a straw man argument, consider what the Holocaust would've been like if the leaders of the country could find every member of the Jewish community, hiding or not, because they were wearing tags?

No need to imagine. The Nazis used a low tech method of doing this - yes it did not have remote tracking, etc, but made it very obvious if someone was Jewish. The Nazis forced Jewish people to wear badges.

From the article: The chip can't be removed, but will be deactivated after Macedo's term as attorney general expires, he said.

Now, did Mexico implant 160 government employees with non-removable chips at the behest of the Bush Administration?

According to Fox News (emphasis orthogonal's):

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration announced Tuesday [6 July 2004] that it has resumed sharing a wide range of financial information with Mexico with the aim of trying to catch money launderers (search), drug dealers and terrorist financiers.

In April, the United States had suspended sharing such information with Mexico, dealing a blow to cross-border crime fighting, which had resulted in the arrests of several high-profile drug lords.

The U.S. government did so after sensitive information provided by the [U.S.] Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network was leaked by Mexican officials. After the suspension, the network outlined a set of steps that Mexico should take before the United States would agree to resume information-sharing.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that Mexico has since taken steps to safeguard sensitive financial information it receives from the United States and other countries.

REPORT FROM THE FIELD: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AT WORK

Evidently the Patriot Act is working on a scale not yet approaching:

~ 3000 murdered on 9-11

American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. This list also includes injured Americans since Oslo 1993

120,000 Americans of Japanese origin who were detained (not tortured a la Saddam, not abused a la frat party hijinks in Iraq) in American concentraion camps during WWII

'Johnny' Walker (the Marin County Jihad-dude) was actually charged with Federal crimes and did a plea bargin, currently serving ten-years. Was never charged under the "big bad scary evil" Patriot Act. If anything he was treated like a hostile nut case on the Afghan battle field prior to transport to US Federal prisons for trial ... did you see the video of him on CNN? A nut case who didn't get his Ritalin dose in high school

Basically your answer boils down to ... ZILCH ... no one ... nobody ... in short "no harm no foul" ... can we say this is a manufactured crisis?

Give me a jingle when the "shitlist" number reaches the:

~ 3000 murdered on 9-11

American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. This list also includes injured Americans since Oslo 1993

120,000 Americans of Japanese origin who were detained (not tortured a la Saddam, not abused a la frat party hijinks in Iraq) in American concentraion camps during WWII

Unlike the US, India has had a woman as the head-(honcho)-of-state for quite a while. It was sad to see the bruhaha (about how far women had come in the US) when a woman was just put on the VP ticket, when there have been many democracies in the world that have elected women to the highest position in the government long before the largely symbolic woman on the VP ticket (for one of the major parities) stunt.

AFAIR, women in India have held high political positions (Chief Minister of states) for over 50 years, and Indira Gandhi first became Prime Minister in 1965 (?). So it's not really a big deal.

What is a big deal is the fact that Abdul Kalam (President) is a Muslim, Manmohan Singh (Prime Minister) is a Sikh, and Sonia Gandhi (President of the ruling Congress Party) is a Catholic. All hold elected positions. This has happened in a country made up of ~80% Hindus.

If this is not a resonding success story for secular democracy, I don't know what would be.

We'll just have to see how long it takes the US to elect a woman/black/hispanic to the top spot.