@Ryjkyj-Thanks for the research, and Hayward,California explains a lot... What a shithole that place is...San Leandro, Freemont...yucky east bay towns with plenty'o gang-banger action types....

Translation: Your research on the location and particular type of public space has been quite helpful, and serves for myself,to clarify the motivation of the antagonist in this segment: I can personally attest to the roguish character of some of the more colorful examples in The Freemont, Hayward, and San Leandro cities in the "east bay" area of Alemeda county, United States, your average poor,working-class with no small element of infamous "member's only" organizations.

How's the vernacular now, judgey? More to yer particular frame of deference?? (busting your balls)

>> ^Kofi:

As with times immediately after gun massacres "Now is a completely inappropriate time to be asking such questions or raising such issues".
Yah huh. Right.

Romney opened the door. If you're taking cheap shots at FEMA as wasted money when there isn't a disaster, you deserve to have those statements shoved down your throat when its necessity is demonstrated.



>> ^renatojj:
Governments are not the only organizations capable of preparing and dealing with disasters, and they're very far from being the best at it.

Yes, because the Red Cross did such an excellent job with all the donations they received for Haiti and 9/11.

@enoch let me see, charity = helping people (preferably) in need. Disaster relief = helping people in need (due to some disaster). Help me understand why I can't compare the two.

@dgandhi did FEMA do such an amazing job after Katrina that I don't know about? Because there's a very long article on Wikipedia detailing all the criticisms, somebody should remove it.

Government is not wasteful just for being large, it's wasteful for being a monopoly. It's so easy to conceive of the evils of a single corporation becoming a monopoly, but when it comes to government, the issue strangely never comes up.

I understand that's most likely because we can't avoid government being a monopoly, it's the nature of the beast, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it smaller.

You bring up good points about division of labor. What about competition, does that matter in modern society or will that also be overlooked?

If we use this $35B figure, which is allegedly what government needs to do disaster relief work poorly, can't we bring it down by subtracting all the money wasted, or will the private corporations have to operate at the same level of exorbitance?

Does it have to be a single gigantic institution, why can't smaller organizations be triggered in unison by a big disaster?

Also, why does it have to be entirely non-profit, what about the insurance business, doesn't it revolve around risk management and dealing with unlikely events like disasters?

Yes, we pay for a disaster relief infrastructure, but we don't have a choice in the matter, and that knowledge is what makes FEMA a disaster. In our moment of most dire need, we can only count on FEMA and nothing else. They abuse their privilege by being wasteful and inefficient.

Governments are not the only organizations capable of preparing and dealing with disasters, and they're very far from being the best at it.

>> ^Yogi:

Is there an organization I can sponsor who's purpose is to force extinction of creatures? Cause I want this thing and all it's cousins DEAD!


The only organization like that which I know of is http://www.vhemt.org/ but it isn't for spiders...

would you compare the McD french fries to deep fried "real food" potatoes? i think its biased comparing cooked food to uncooked food when it comes to molding or decomposition... in a lot of places where refrigeration isn't available cooking is the method of preserving raw food surplus for later use.... please make your own burger and fries using only organic food... cook them properly then keep them in your lunch box for the next 4 years to compare.

and what does inability to decompose/break down in air have anything to do with digestion or human health, don't you eat grains, spices, grains, beans... honey!... all these things won't get "the thing you find at the corner of your shower" when you keep them for too long... are they "not real food" too

don't get me wrong, i agree that McDonalds is "super" unhealthy, but i doubt if it's because of the reasons you mentioned.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do we need to make the correlating list of Muslim leaders who demonstrate just as much racism, and far more willingness to kill? As I said before - this is not a one sided issue. People like AL wouldn't be voted into power if Isreal wasn't being forced to discuss "peace" terms with guys like Arafat, Abbas, & other terrorists masquarading as politicians.

Agreed, not a one sided issue at all. Still talking with the butcher Sharon might not have been much fun for them either.


The Isreali's elected a guy do deal with the situation as it exists. I don't applaud it, but I can at least intellectually understand it and even sympathize to a degree. Isreal's security has improved tremendously by adopting hard-line positions. Before they were getting bombings regularly. Once they built walls and established buffer zones in Gaza, the Palestinians were reduced to blindly lobbing rockets at random. From the point of view of the average Isreali, the increase in security would be well worth it.

Is it possible these hardline policies have made Israel less safe in the long run?


Other nations take that kind of security for granted. Once it is obtained, then a society has the luxury of generating citizens who are safe enough to have the liesure and idleness required to stew in their own guilty consciences over the 'price' of security. What we have here are a bunch of buttinskys wagging their fingers at Isreal from the safety of their armchairs.

Ummm... more Americans have died in terrorist attacks in the last decade than Israelis.


The Palestinians have it tough - no question. Isreal is really turning the screws and it makes life hard for them. What are Isreal's options? 1. They can give the Palestinians what they want (which is never enough parenthetically) and go back to daily bombings.

To be fair, they never tried option 1. It's not that those mean palestinians always want more, Israel never conceded anything. Even when they did on paper, they never actually did it. They continually built more settlements, and annexed more territory. In fact your wall may just be the most egregious example.


2. They can maintain their stance and keep thier people safe. Hmmm - agree with the people who want to KILL us or defend ourselves...? Not a very tough choice really.

There were more attacks on Israeli soil under Sharon than under Rabin. Who's policies kept Israel safer?

The false premise here is that for some reason Isreal is always held 100% 'responsible' for the Palestinian plight. Uh uh. There are at least three seats at the table. The Pals need to be far more aggressive at stomping out their extremist factions and behaving like a peace-seeking people. Then Isreal will have cause to believe that providing them territory will not result in security comprimises.

So instead you are suggesting that the Palestinians are 100% responsible. Why are the Palestinians the only ones who need to show good faith here? The problem is that neither side trusts the other side to follow through on their promises... both with good reason. Hamas receives support because it is the only organization that actually provides infrastructure to the Palestinians. They are the only ones building roads, schools, hospitals, providing aid, etc... Perhaps if Israel showed some good faith by doing those things, Hamas would struggle to recruit.


And (most critically) the REST OF THE FREAKING ARAB WORLD needs to stop pretending they are innocent bystanders in all this mess. Yeah - it sucked that the Palestinians got shafted after WW2. But the Pals wouldn't be in so much trouble if guys like Egypt, Syria, Lybia, and everyone else was willing to cut them some slack as opposed to expecting Isreal to just go away.

Well, I'd just as soon the rest of the Arab world quit pursuing their present course of action, which is less innocent bystander, and more aspiring nuclear annihilator. I don't think the little border wall is going to protect anyone from that.

I will never understand that "people will abuse the system" argument. Of course they will. There are people who abuse any system. Currently, we have people who are taking untold millions of dollars from the government and pocketing it. I'm a little less concerned about people who manage to game the welfare system. Ultimately, that is about writing the laws intelligently and enforcing them, not the system itself.

I do not believe that government should be the only resource for people to fall back on. Firstly, people should get help from their family and friends. Secondly, charity organizations might be of assistance. But as a last resort, government is the only organization that can make sure nobody slips through the cracks. It's not working very effectively right now, but it has that potential. That can't be done by a charity. If there is a charity that provides food, shelter, health care and job training to everybody nationwide, please let me know because I would like to support them.

>> ^adambomb42x:
I do not believe mob-rule is absolute freedom. If the mob decides to infringe upon an individual freedom, them who is to stop them?

That's kinda my point. Absolute freedom means there is no police to stop you or others from doing whatever you want. If someone wants to take something from you, you would have to defend yourself. If a group wants to take something from you, you would have to form a group for defense. At that point, whoever forms the strongest group would be able to do whatever they want to anybody else. There is no guarantee that the strongest group would be benevolent. That's called Ochlocracy, or mob-rule. That's why most libertarians still want some form of government, if only to maintain the peace and enforce contracts. Just be aware that is not "absolute freedom".

By the way, I looked at voicingopinions.com, and it's one of those message boards where the images in the signatures are ten times larger than the posts themselves. I wouldn't be caught dead on a message board like that.

A short film highlighting the work of Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) in Israel. RHR is an organization of Israeli rabbis committed to defending the human rights of all people in Israel and in the territories under Israeli control: Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, young and old, rich and poor, citizens and foreigners.

Who they are:

Rabbis for Human Rights on January 21st, 2000

“Happy are those who keep the judgments, and practice righteousness at all times”. - Psalm 119

Rabbis for Human Rights is the only organization in Israel today concerned specifically with giving voice to the Jewish tradition of human rights.

Rabbis for Human Rights teaches a different understanding of the Jewish tradition.

Rabbis for Human Rights is the only Israeli rabbinic organization comprised of Reform, Orthodox, Conservative and Reconstructionist rabbis and students.

Rabbis for Human Rights counts among its members rabbis in national leadership positions, as well as educators and congregational rabbis capable of influencing change from the grass roots.

Rabbis for Human Rights is an important outlet for information on human rights in Israel and the territories.

Rabbis for Human Rights is widely respected by journalists and other human rights organizations, and is often quoted in international media.

Rabbis for Human Rights received the “Speaker of the Knesset’s Award for the Quality of Life in the field of Enhancing the Rule of Law and Democratic values, Protecting Human rights, and Encouraging Tolerance and Mutual Respect.

Rabbis for Human Rights is the rabbinic voice of conscience in Israel.

Rabbis for Human Rights was founded in 1988, in response to serious abuses of human rights by the Israeli military authorities in the suppression of the Intifada. The indifference of much of the country’s religious leadership and religiously identified citizenry to the suffering of innocent people seen as the enemy was a cause of concern toRabbis for Human Rights organizers.

Rabbis for Human Rights reminds and demonstrates to both the religious and the non-religious sectors of the public need to be reminded that Judaism had another face. Human rights abuses are not compatible with the age-old Jewish tradition of humaneness and moral responsibility or the Biblical concern for “The stranger in your midst.”–even in the face of the danger to public order and safety which the uprising represented.

Rabbis for Human Rights membership includes some ninety ordained rabbis,plus a number of rabbinic students.

Rabbis for Human Rights has no affiliation with any political party or ideology. Its members are Israeli citizens.

Rabbis for Human Rights brings specific human-rights grievances to the attention of the Israeli public and to pressure the appropriate authorities for their redress.

Rabbis for Human Rights is involved in ecumenical dialogue and educational activities. In addition to dealing with violations of human rights of West Bank Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Rabbis for Human Rights concerns itself with foreign workers, the Israeli health care system, the status of women, Ethiopian Jews, an Israeli bill of rights, to name only a few issues.

Rabbis for Human Rights publishes scores of timely books and articles. Our latest book, Life, Liberty and Equality In the Jewish Tradition by Noam Zohar has been very warmly received.

http://rhr.israel.net/