Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.

Whether or not you agree with Hamas' political mandate this is the Palestinian people's democratic right, and they elected Hamas to power based on that mandate. Oppressed nations always vote in the hard liners, this is how it has always been, this is why Northern Ireland now has the two extremist political parties sharing power.

It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.

There will never be peace with borders and checkpoints, boundary dissolution *is* the route to peace.

Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.

There is peace in Northern Ireland even though one of the sharing parties refuses to recognise the North of Ireland as British. This is a stable, tenable, peaceful political position with democratic support. Just as the British forces pulled out of the North of Ireland when this was achieved, so should Isreal have pulled out of Palestine when Hamas was elected- but they did not, and they continue to invade that country.

Many political charters around the world use strong extremist language, this is the way of the world, this is how democracy works, this is what political stability is all about.

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

One Thousand Years
The 100 People Who Made The Millennium
What, no Babe Ruth? How, ask you, could a list of millennium's most important people not include the Sultan of Swat? Plenty of other monarchs failed to make the lineup as well. To get on this team, a person had to change more than just a corner of the world-he or she had to divert the great stream of human history, alter our perceptions perceptibly. A runner edged out Ruth (and Jackie Robinson) by setting a new standard for any owner on two legs. You'll find his name at No. 92 on the following list, which ranks the honorees by importance. Many names will be familiar from the events section, but not all. A few-Watt, Koch, Gutenberg-appear there but not here. Some of history's paramount figures are remembered more for a single accomplishment (such as ushering in the age of print) than for the force of their personalities. Though the actions of the individuals who made the list affected all kinds of people, they are an overwhelmingly male, pale bunch. All but 17 are of European extraction; only ten are women. This reflects not the biases of LIFE's editors and expert advisers but the sociopolitical realities of the past thousand years. For most of that time, as Virginia Woolf noted, women have served largely as "looking-glasses...reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size." Likewise, the millennium's most conspicuous historical movement has been the rise of the West-which means Westerners often borrowing ideas and technology from other peoples, have done a disproportionate amount of global moving and shaking. The next millennium's list of planet-rattlers promises to look strikingly different.
LIFE magazine
http://www.tostepharmd.net/hissoc/top100people.html
I included this in the discussion because I consider it to both vital and relevant. Also, it's from a kick ass book(The 100 Most Important Events & People of the Past 1,000 Years), one of my favorites.
I also feel this is relevant to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

>> ^Grimm:
Russian site...but English trailer and good quality...
http://rutube.ru/tracks/764459.html?v=4e5e02872ece8239f337e6ba1787e924


No. http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/

*dead
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corp."
*bastards

OK, no more Manbaby pressure...I looked deep inside myself and realized I wanted a Lady/critttter rendition of Squink walking me, and now I am truly scarred for life. Uh, no innuendo if you are the grownup I think you are, that would make the scar a keloid...
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
My son will disown me if I manbaby him, as he rightfully should.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
Oh yes, there is a growing consensus...Manbaby! Manbaby! Manbaby that photo!!!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see you still lurking around this video. I don't know if I've ever seen you so angry here. I can't imagine Squink with rabies.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

My son will disown me if I manbaby him, as he rightfully should.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
Oh yes, there is a growing consensus...Manbaby! Manbaby! Manbaby that photo!!!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see you still lurking around this video. I don't know if I've ever seen you so angry here. I can't imagine Squink with rabies.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

Oh yes, there is a growing consensus...Manbaby! Manbaby! Manbaby that photo!!!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see you still lurking around this video. I don't know if I've ever seen you so angry here. I can't imagine Squink with rabies.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

Rabid Squink? No, all it takes is sleep interruption for Squink to go to the dark side. For about five seconds. Then she remembers there's food in the awake world, and she's happy again.

I'm just alittle rabid because I foresee a long summer of Republican expertise at successfully dividing the Democratic party with non-issues. Again.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I see you still lurking around this video. I don't know if I've ever seen you so angry here. I can't imagine Squink with rabies.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

I don't disagree with you. It's not the basic premise. It's the undercurrent. I'm not trying to say that a majority of women will vote for Hillary because of her gender. I'm saying some will. How many? I don't know. But, you can't tell me there aren't women out there who think it's past time for a female president, and more power to them. The guys have really been making a mess of it lately.



>> ^critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??
The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

I see you still lurking around this video. I don't know if I've ever seen you so angry here. I can't imagine Squink with rabies.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191500

This article sums up the problems with the "direct democracy" theory (or the idea that the will of the people is paramount) is a very funny way, particularly the first paragraph.

And California still has the option of amending its own Constitution to prohibit the reading offered by the majority in this case. And re-amending it when another majority takes hold, and re-amending . . .

In my view, the California Supremes both made the right call and fulfilled the role of a judiciary which is not merely to read the polls on a social issue, determine the majority view, and protect the majority. The facts of this case are no different than the facts of earlier miscegenation cases. The Mildred Loving case did not lead to polygamy and dogs and cats marrying each other. Southern Virginians in wide majorities also believed that a black person marrying a white person would lead to Sodom, Gomorrah, and biracial people becoming President (even Southern Virginians are right some of the time).

I have never seen an argument that convinces me that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman harms civil society. No advanced criminal statistics, no economic indicators of commodity prices plunging due to gay people forming families, no social indicators of degraded schools and poor music in church. There are no compelling rational arguments against permitting two homosexual people in love to be recognized as a family by the State.

I have seen plenty of irrational arguments -- ad hominems, mentions of Greece and Sparta, empty slippery slopes, hell . . . Choggie's whole thread here. But we should try the best we can to avoid organizing society on the basis of irrational arguments. If the Bush Administration has taught us nothing else, it has taught us this.

From YouTube description:

Notes: Recently I performed a revised rendition of this piece in Hollywood, obviously with the main point preserved, for "Motion Theory," a Production company in Venice, CA. The scene was shot on New York Street, Paramount studios, Hollywood. At this point, the film may take up to 6 months to produce (scoring, animating, etc). I'm pretty pumped to see the finished result... I have a feeling it will be more powerful than this fuzzy, in-class video, though I hope you still found this original version moving. See pics & read a little about the filming at Paramount here: http://www.b.eaudacio.us/Blog.html

Description of this video:
A businessman on the second tower of the World Trade Centers experiences the United States worst terrorist attack.

*Note! This is VERY unlike typical Mime sketches. It is NOT meant to be funny in any way!

Pretty heavy duty in tone, this piece I performed to fulfill the "Serious Sketch" assignment for TA 277 [Mime] at Whitworth College/University (Comparably my miming abilities have improved dramatically, though I still have a lot to learn!). I approached this piece with traditional pantomime essentials, such as music, costume, etc. Filmed by Thomas Robinson from Cannon Beach OR, an Art major at Whitworth University. I ought to mention that Robinson is not necessarily 'used' to film (hence the digital camera that was used); his cup of tea is primarily still photography--the pictures of which would make your jaw drop. Here's a sample gallery of his work: http://gallery.ecola.us/ )

^Six Types of Progressives.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/valuesmovement

1 Socioeconomic progressives believe that the most important considerations involve money and class. The best solutions are therefore economic and social class solutions.

2 Identity Politics progressives are those who either belong to or identify with a particular oppressed group who desires their liberation and an end to oppression.

3 Environmentalists focus on the sustainability of the earth and the natural environment, the sacredness of nature, and protecting native peoples.

4 Civil libertarians: These progressives focus on the notion that human beings have a fundamental right to live their lives without harassment and harm being inflicted on them by arbitrary power. Issues of freedom, liberty, democracy (equal sharing of power), and individual rights are paramount.

5 Spiritual progressives focus on the nurturant aspects of religion and spirituality. Service, compassion, and community, connects spiritual progressives to other people and the world, and are central to their spiritual practice.

6 Anti-authoritarians: Civil libertarians and anti-authoritarians share a deep distrust of authority. Where civil libertarians specifically emphasize the interplay between the government and individual freedom, anti-authoritarians point to the larger problem of authority in general: how people and organizations with more power can threaten and harm those with less power. Authority figures here are broadly conceived: they can be large corporations, police departments, even parents.

Having had the pleasure of working with the Ray Charles catalog for many years, this is still my favorite song of his, without doubt. There is a FANTASTIC live recording from an ABC era album called oddly enough "Ray Charles LIVE" (ABC/Paramount Records ABC-500) that has this track and is a stunning performance.