Aside from the profanity, that's about the most sensible summation I've seen so far on this whole kerfuffle lamp. The blockade is there to prevent arms smuggling to terrorists. Would it be nice if Isreal didn't do this? Sure, but wake me up when the Palestinians start abhorring violence and the need for Isreal's security precautions goes away. Isreal sets up the blockade and a bunch of hippies run it. It doesn't take rocket science to predict that there are going to be morons on these boats who are looking for trouble. Isreal should have been better prepared for this. So far I've seen nothing that required firing on these boatniks, aside from their own stupidity for deliberately provoking one of the most no-nonsense military organizations on the planet.

*promote the awesome collaboration of isreal/ethiopia!

You can't escape politics; even in academia I couldn't escape it.

‘Escape’? I encounter it, but am fortunate enough to be in a position where it does not impact my day to day job function.

It surprises me that you are too lazy to develop yourself so that you are in a position to get your ideas across. You seem to be a person that values hard work in the face of adversity.

I’m in a top-heavy organization, and the last thing it needs is another manager. With only about 1,200 employees we have 7 people at the “EO” level, 50+ VPs, 125+ directors. Believe me, we are no-where near short of ‘chiefs’. We need more ‘indians’ – more highly qualified & skilled professionals. It’s a good company; I see no need to try to ‘manage’. To do so would turn the nature of my work away from in-depth analysis towards a more simple, business-decision oriented truncated approach. I’d move from data, to budgets. From study to meetings. I prefer to tear a topic down to its roots rather than skim above it at 50,000 feet.

In the face of uncertainty, 'gut feel' and the intuition derived from experience often does trump a fancy stochastic model.

I don’t have a beef with QUALIFIED people who make a decision against data. I have great respect for business guys who are skilled, intelligent, thoughtful, and have the ability to make a ‘gut’ business decision after weighing the options. Such people can take my detailed analysis – put it in the hopper – and make a decision that isn’t totally data-driven, but accounts for other things. The reason my company does well is because most of the business guys are of this sort. I respect them, and don't feel the need to add myself to their number when there are more than enough of them to take care of things. I'm best off where I am - doing the detail research they don't have time for.

Obama is he is NOT that kind of person. He is the ‘other’ kind that you meet in a business meeting... They have made a decision before they walk in the door, or have heard a single fact. They do not try to learn, or educate themselves, or respectfully consider other experts when making decisions. They only seek to justify decisions that they already made in everyone’s absence. Such persons are more than happy to use data - but only as long as it agrees with what they want. The second the data disagrees with them then the tiniest, most illogical of excuses will suffice to bat it aside as faulty. Thankfully there aren't too many of them where I work. But they're there sometimes.

When Obama encounters someone who presents facts, research, opinions, or approaches contrary to his own – he manifests himself as the small, petty, vapid man that typifies this sort of ‘bad’ business decision maker. The good ones are precious. The ‘bad’ ones like Obama are a blight on any organization they darken with their odious presence.

How many times did Bush screw up words, sentences, and concepts, trying to make a point

Did you see the thread, “Why do Republicans believe lies about Obama”? In it, people say that news-driven talking points are sucked up by intellectual sponges and parroted back unthinkingly. Your opinion about Bush is based on the very same practice, but sponsored by the left. It was grossly exaggerated. Bush did a lot of dumb things, but he proved himself more competent and intelligent than Obama in many respects. Obama can't handle himself with diplomacy (case in point with Isreal), but Bush did it easily and naturally.

You say I ‘don’t get it’. I can only shrug and say you are the victim of groupthink, and have no logical grounds for your specious position. For example – you say I supply no list of economists. I can easily do so.

http://www.adsavvy.org/consensus-war-300-top-economists-disagree-with-obamas-no-disagreement-remark/

But – as is usual – folk of your stripe will ignore fact and try to weasel away from the reality that I've proven you completely, totally, and irrevocably wrong. I am the one here that provides links, data, and information to justify my arguments. People such as yourself only climb up on rhetorical soap-boxes and fling poo.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal.

How is an administration ‘centrist liberal’ when it moves to take over the financial industry, the automotive industry, the medical industry, the insurance industry, and energy – while at the same time feeding billions in stimulus money to big unions & trial lawyers? All of Obama’s positions are RADICALLY far-left. Isreal, education, taxes, role of government, deficit spending, Supreme court nominee, you name the issue and Obama has proven he is way out left. This is why independent and moderate voters (who voted for him) have abandoned him in droves to the point where his approval rating is cratering to George W. Bush levels.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'GRITtv, Laura Flanders, Isreal, Iran, Republicans, Tea Party' to 'GRITtv, Laura Flanders, Israel, Iran, Republicans, Tea Party' - edited by marinara

That was a poor performance from both talking heads. Cenk is wrong about Isreal, they ceeded bits of the westbank within the last decade.

Talking head guy is wrong to get upset after setting up a strawman argument. Using a strawman to define someone's position is a lame way to debate the audience and not the participant.

meh...
i wouldn't call it a smack down.
two different opinions on the isreali/palestinian conflict and it appeared cenk let his emotions get the better of him but he made some salient points.
in my opinion the biggest being "you want isreal to be at war forever",because that is the crux of their discourse.
one person recognizes isreals right of ownership and the other recognizes palestines right.this is bound to create friction due to it being polar opposites of each other.
the whole talking over each other is annoying though.
nice post bud.

i was just gonna go off on a rant...
this infuriates me to no end.
over 80 years..80 fucking years these people have lived under an occupation.
while my government siphons off funding for the homeless and mentally ill and hands it to isreal.
billions..BILLIONS..and then my government gives isreal the military equivalent of food stamps.
here is a few billion scooter,but you can only use this monopoly money on american made weapons of mass destruction.
if you REALLY want to see some atrocities perpetrated by the isreali government,look up "the massacre at beit hanoun".
and my government is just as complicit and responsible.
now i am not coming down on the isreali people.i know quite a few and not one is proud of what goes on, but you know what really sets me off?
fucking fundamentalist christians here in the states!
"well the bible says the land is a gift from god for his chosen people"
oh..well forgive me..that is just so chock full of stupid it has to be true..right?
bah...this disgusts me....

Generally speaking the world knows Israel stomps on the human rights and lives of the Palestinians to a sickening degree. It's the standard operating procedure to pump out PR that detracts from that... like this stuff. It's great a handful of Haitians are getting an xray from the PR stunt but it's not because Isreal has superior benevolence.

Also, the reason other hospitals aren't set up well is because the ports/airport/infrastructure are wrecked and it's a huge bottleneck to get anything where it needs to go. I'd be curious if they set this thing up where it was needed or just the first place they could get to that wasn't very effective.

I hope I'm wrong and Israel is now all sunshine and lollipops.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Could you give me a pointer where that is detailed in the video? I'm not inclined to watch the entire thing right now and can't seem to find it, having skipped through a few times.

Anyhow, I'm not putting it past the US government to do some nasty shit, but this just doesn't make any sense for the reasons I've outlined before - which I notice you didn't comment on. As long as the supposed plot doesn't make any sense I'm going to require some pretty solid evidence before I believe it existed at all.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
here ya go rebuilder:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Building-the-World-Trade-Center-Towers-1811
watch this.
it is a documentary (choggie's post ironically)which it details the construction of the towers.
specifically pay attention to the architects and engineers when they discuss how the towers will react to MULTIPLE plane crashes into the tower.

Edit: actually I meant to post this in the video comments, but I guess this is good too.

i do not know the exact point in the video where the architectual engineer lays out the parameters for plane impact but i recall quite clearly that the fuel capacity and dimensions were equal to a 727 and that the towers were designed to not only absorb an impact but MULTIPLE impacts.
you should watch the film,it is very interesting and considering this engineering feat was done in the early 70's..wow.

as for the WHODUNIT scenario,
well..thats a bit more complicated and while there is a very strong circimstantial case,along with many suspicious activities concerning the federal governments role in 9/11.
there is no evidence..only conjecture.
STRONG conjecture..but that is not evidence.
so i dont take a stand on conjecture.
but i will share some of the concerns i have off the top of my head.
1.the federal governments "conspiracy theory" concerning 9/11 does not hold up under scrutiny.
2.the findings of the 9/11 commission and popular mechanics fail under scrutiny also (follow the money)
3.the physics is all wrong for the towers to have "pancaked".i know it's been 28 years since engineering school but thats too obvious.
these are just a few things that have never been fully clarified and they bother me.because we really DONT KNOW.did our government create a false flag operation?
i dont know but i do know what we are being told is bullshit.
take into consideration historical context and the economic climate at the time and a list begins to emerge.
was it al-qeada?unlikely
isreal?possible
USA?possible
a multi-national group?possible
but if you look at any one group the one things that really nags me being a former military man is that there should have been no way ANY other entity could have pulled this off without federal governments assistance.
and that means that not only did our government KNOW about 9/11 but helped precipitate it.

but there is no evidence...so while i can speculate all day and night i will not accuse.but you have to admit,it paints a disturbing picture when you look at the enormity of it all.
no one wants to admit that their own government assisted in the slaughter of thousands to push through a political agenda that included and illegal war and the theft of billions.
any way you cut it,there is something very wrong going on here.
i hope this inarticulate rant helped some rebuilder LOL.
till next time.
namaste.

It is amusing to listen to the GOP talk. Often the stuff they accuse democrats of, they, themselves, have done worst. And one usually doesn't have to look beyond ten years, to find exactly when and where the GOP was a bigger hypocrit. It is like, they hope liberals are as stupid, dim-witted, and uneducated as conservatives who keep voting them in to office. Like, no one will look back in to history, and see if their actions and words reflect their current B.S.

For example. Republicans talk about, spending a trillion dollars on health care. This health care would cover 94-96% of Americans (who could keep their health insurance if it was better). This trillion would be spent over ten years, lowering the debt that is created through medical issues and bankruptcies. This, Republicans say, is not needed, as only the rich and elite, should be allowed health coverage.

Now, here is the hypocriticy in action:

2003-2009, six years, of paying $500 billion (a conversative number) for the war in Iraq. That's three trillion dollars in six years. The grand majority of that money was given to defense companies, and other 'cantering' companies like KBR. We were told by Republicans (most notably the Bush Administration), that Iraq had (and I quote) "Massive stock piles, of weapons of mass destruction". These WMDs were threating our allies in the Middle East (read: Isreal). So we invaded, put 50K-80K people to the sword, got 12K+ of our soldiers killed, and injuried another 70K of our soldiers. Not a single time, did Mr. Bush meet the coffins of our honored dead at Dover AFB. And in the end, we STILL< did not find a single WMD. Some how, we went from "massive stockpiles" to "nothing", after spending $3 Trillion dollars.
And that's just one of a few thousand things wrong with the GOP. After all, the GOP feels torture does not voilate any code of law, including God's. The way in which regulators, regulations, and systems put in place to monitor and keep markets from doing things they were not allowed to do....ultimately led to the collapse of the economy a year ago.

Yes, Republicans can't handle taking responsiblity for their actions. And they hope conservatives are to uneducated to notice. So far, it looks like its working.

Where to start?

The professional website provided in the description says someone named Joseph Moshe Bar is a retired professor of "plant pathology and weed research" in Isreal. He looks like he's 70 or 80 years old.
A picture of the guy in the Volkswagon incident looks 25 years younger than the guy on the professional website given in the description. Articles I googled say his neighbor and mother say he's got mental problems (off his meds).
1) Wrong age, name differs
2) Photos don't match
3) Wrong profession
4) Don't see proof they're both from Isreal
5) The one they arrested's nuts

Obviously not the same guy.

But ignoring that...

Apparently someone of the same name called a radio talk show with a conspiracy story about a company making H1N1 vaccine attacking the people of Ukraine with either mutated H1N1 or the Plague bacteria.
1) With something that nutty - could we at least hear the call?
2) How do you mix up H1N1 virus and Plague bateria? Wildly different.
3) Why would a pharma company want to kill the people of Ukraine? Just a bit risky to quarterly profits no?

According to the Washington Post and The Guardian (UK) People are afraid H1N1 might be worse in the cold winters of Russia/Ukraine/Etc but the number of cases of Flu deaths is actually down 10% from last year. The political situation in Ukraine is kind of nasty right now and the candidates are preying on people's fears in an election season. So, not really anything like the way he characterized it in his video.

Also - nice touch to imply Obama's to blame towards the end.

I'm Danish, mate.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
> With the % of obese travelers in the US, I'd rather they didn't, gwiz

gwiz is from UK right? they're almost as fat. demon yer from isreal right? wouldn't there be chunks missing from everyone and shrapnel stuck in everyone there from your ongoing attempts to blow each other up? all americans are fat, and all isrealis are maniacal vigilante maniacs right

> With the % of obese travelers in the US, I'd rather they didn't, gwiz

gwiz is from UK right? they're almost as fat. demon yer from isreal right? wouldn't there be chunks missing from everyone and shrapnel stuck in everyone there from your ongoing attempts to blow each other up? all americans are fat, and all isrealis are maniacal vigilante maniacs right

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

Perhaps - but holistically speaking when the 'end-game' objective of both the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world is the 100% explusion (1 way or another) of Isreal from the region, then you have to ask just exactly how "less safe" can they be no matter what position they take?

To be fair, they never tried option 1. It's not that those mean palestinians always want more, Israel never conceded anything.

I intend no offense - but that's baloney. Isreal's entire policy in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was concession after concession. At one point when Clinton was in office they had a deal right on the table that gave the Palestinians 90% of everything they wanted. Did Arafat sign it? Of course not. He rejected it flat out. I'm not saying that 'only Isreal' has been trying here, but to imply that Isreal has never conceeded ANYTHING is pure horse hockey.

So instead you are suggesting that the Palestinians are 100% responsible.

No - I'm saying the Pals need to stop talking 'peace' while planting bombs. Israel has no reason to offer concessions to a party that is openly hostile.

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.

Agreed, but I'm talking about the fact that Arab countries could be doing a lot to help the Pals. Give them land. Give them infrastructure. Help them out. Instead they funnel money to Hamas, which may do some good things but also does a TON of bad things. They can't actively support terrorism and pretend they are not culpable.

>> ^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.