do you have the link to the hackernews article?

i think the hope with obama is that he is smart enough to be flexible and will change his mind if current method does not work

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Not sure. Look it up in http://news.ycombinator.com/ or http://ycombinator.livejournal.com/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

excellent essay and a very poignant personal story. the parallel is neitehr tight nor perfect, of course - lots of folks graduate from elite universities without having inhaled a trace of humanism. i mean humanism as something nonsectarian, above religion and political persuasions.

i think - like vityokr above - that Obama is a pragmatist first and foremost. all that sweet talk - as the muslims correstly suspect - is a smokescreen. he is not going to do anything to endanger America.

for example - our bombing Iran would likely result in the obliteration of Israel by its dear neighbors, and in a couple more 9/11s here.

Israeli outrage against Obama is about settlements and 2-state solution, and i agree with him completely, although i understand what my israeli friends anre saying, too - a palestinian state has a big chance of turning into Hamasstan that will push for extension into the "zionist entity". scary.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

> our bombing Iran would likely result in the obliteration of Israel by its dear neighbors

LOL

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

that was a profound, well-thought-out, literary comment. THANK YOU!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

double LOL. Or should it be ROFL?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Any way you like it. I'm not even sure what is funnier, the proposition that the only thing that's been stopping Israel's 'neighbors' from obliterating it is US's failure to bomb Iran, or the fact that 2 out of 4 Israel's actual neighbors have peace accords with Israel, and the remaining 2 are not in the position to harm Israel in any significant way.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

let's not get facts in the way of emotionalizing. "Empathy", remember?

Although I think this is funnier: "bombing Iran would likely result in ... in a couple more 9/11s here".

A recycled "Don't start war with Iraq! We'll anger whole Muslim world and get multiple 9/11s here!" cries of 2001

(Reply to this) (Parent)

He already did. Started with the economy. See the graph here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/the_obama_recession.html.

Unemployment rate is already higher than the maximum rate if nothing would be done - by his team estimates, not some right-wing extremists.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

oh, i saw this one already i don't have enough knowledge to either take it or dispute it... there was an interesting review of a book by Richard Posner - basically saying the Depression is not a product of ay administration but a natural result of market powers. he was blasting Obama for trying to blame the crisis on the reps - but if we believe him, the re is not falut of the reps or the dems. have you read this?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

" a book by Richard Posner - basically saying the Depression is not a product of ay administration but a natural result of market powers."

This is a very old theory. I studied it at the school and at the university in the USSR. So, I am not interested in such theories for a long time already.

Both parties are at fault, since both of them supported the left-wing policies.

"oh, i saw this one already i don't have enough knowledge to either take it or dispute it..."

You see, this is as official and reliable as it could be. Unemployment date, past projections - it's all documented.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Sowa, i am no match to you in this, i am really without the right education to talk economics. seriously, one needs a little knowledge to have an opinion... i thought Cema was talking mostly about the foreign policy, and about hte interesting parallel in the article he linked - about the bad neighbor, and the tactics needed with him. thre i dare to have a small opinion. but not the economy. you are telling me Obama's economic policies are resulting in a deeper depression.. i.e. in harm to us... maybe. maybe not. i don't have the tools to evaluate and/or dispute this... i was seaying was - Obama's foreign policy will not result in damage to the US of A...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Obama's foreign policy will not result in damage to the US of A..."

I believe that he already damaged the foreign policy by declaring USA weakness (very much like in the story). But what proof of this will you accept? What should happen for you to agree? Something spectacular, like nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel? Or you would blame it on them, not on O. appeasement policies? Or may be confirmed nukes in Iran possession will be enough? Or you don't care about this?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

i don't think there has been damage so far...

here i can argue some.

1) all of his mealy-mouthed talk aimed at the muslims - is.. just talk. he can declare weaknesses and "reach out" to the muslim world all day - this does not change policy. the savvier arabs picked up on that. he did profess an unbreakable bond with Israel. this was THE ONLY part of those 3 speeches that was not hot air...

2) nuclear exchange, as you say, between Iran and Israel, is alas a possibility. i don't think we want to live to see this.. but the analysts in my alma ( WW) think it is coming. i hope they are wrong! ( Cema would say they are another elite group in an elite uni!)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

My question is: what will convince you that O damaged US foreign policy?

Depending on you answer, I may say: yes, this did not happened yet, or even very unlikely to happen. Or I may say: let's wait a little. Or that it is happened already, but you didn't noticed (this is unlikely, I believe).

Without a benchmark, it is nearly impossible to argue. For example.

1) You separated his speeches into two parts. About one you say that it is just talk, about other - it is unbreakable. And I think that there are two parts, but it is the part about the unbreakable bond with Israel which is just talk.

O is already twisting arms of Israeli's. He even refused to assign somebody of decent stature to talk with a recent delegation. He refuses to talk about the Iran treat, insists on halting the natural development of the settlements. One part of the former Palestine should be Judenfrei in his (not really his, all "progressives" agree on that) vision, the other should accord equal right to both Arabs and Jews.

2) So, if this possibility turns out to be reality with O in office, would you agree that his foreign policy failed?

P.S. Have no idea what WW is.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Answer: i guess time will comnvince me, and only time. Carter did damage US foreign policy despite being teh most well-internioned of people. still is.

i could give you a horror scenario - but i don't think even that would have meant that O is at faulty, same as i do not blame Bush for 9/11 like many people do. i partially blame Clinton, actually.

re 1) i hope you are wrong. but i see your point - why am i saying his overtures to arabs are TALK, and to Israel we pledge unconditional support?

the answer is _ ALL is talk. BUT. if he starts withdrawing financial and military help to Israel, or ( even less likely) starts supporting Hamas, yes, that would mean you are right. hope not!!


"Palestine should be Judenfrei in his (not really his, all "progressives" agree on that) vision, the other should accord equal right to both Arabs and Jews"

unfair, eh? agree, especially given the ratio of arab states to jewish states.

but then - what IS fair, in your opinion??
i believe in this - plan A - Israel says no, no palestinian state is possible, we are going to slowly reclaim our historical land - that is honest, but where do the arabs go, then??
or, plan B, if Israel says, yes let's hava a palestinian state but control it closely to prevent another Gaza - then not expanding settlements but abolishing them to create a reasonable border would be the next step.

plan A seems insane. plan B has problems, but appears more "fair" to both sides. what do you say, professor?

WW is Woudrow Wilson school at p-ton where i sat out quietly many middle-eaast-related debates.

2) if this is a reality that he literally betrays and abandons israel - NO T LIKELY - i will move to israel and that would be teh end of that.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Carter did damage US foreign policy despite being teh most well-internioned of people. still is."

Agree with the first part. Totally disagree with the second. I don't know any other open anti-semite among recent US Presidents. His islamophilia and admiration of Khomeini are at the roots of all problems in this part of world that we have now. His hypocrisy (ср. анекдот про надувное бревно для Ильича) is beyond any limits.

Next, you changed you position. Now it is ALL talk. So, we agreed on an important issue: O commitment to the Israel is JUST TALK.

Concerning your plan A (it is not my plan, neither N's, I believe, but let me comment on it anyhow). I am not sure that you are aware of the fact the very notion of "Palestinian people" is of quite recent vintage. It did not existed in 1970, for example. So, there are no palestinians, there are arabs. And there are dozens of arab states, including extremely rich and with huge territory. They, not Israel, should be pressed to become part of solution, not a (hidden) part of the problem.

I noticed that you posted this question in your journal. To my regret, the discussion there turned out to be not particularly pleasant. And main part in it is taken not by you (there are no your comments at all), but by you dear friend Taki Net. I respect your feelings for this particular user, but my feelings are quite different (and I hope that you will respect them also). So, commenting there is out of question.

Actually, I wrote about these issues, but not in my journal. Once quite recently, once several years ago. But I don't want us to intrude into these journals with our conversation.

Here is an offer. I create a small group of friend, including you and cema@lj, and excluding all about whom I have reasons to believe that they cannot participate in a decent discussion (of these issues). I post links to these two discussion, open only to this group, and we may talk there.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

okay.. let's try..yes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Done.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

>> if he starts withdrawing financial and military help to Israel... <<

If I may:

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for
advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_israel0424_05_27.asp

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Things like this have been happening in the past, one action could be explained away. Of course, in case of Obama we already seem to have the preponderance of evidence that he is trying to impose his view on Israelies and push it through with arrogance.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree. I guess I am viewing Obama as being on the wrong side overall, thus I react to these things differently now. During the time of Bush, I would be calling the White House comment line, but with Obama - I do not see what would be the point...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

date -> rate

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Economy is a separate issue, however. My understanding is that the role of the US presidential office in economical matters is very different from his role in foreign affairs (and defense).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

It used to be the case. Even in the past, not exactly. FDR policies only in the area of the unions extended the Great Depression by 5 to 7 years, according to a recent study (not by a right-wing think-tank, but by academics).

Nowadays, when some body of commissars, reporting only to the president, decides which auto-dealerships to close (the ones which donated to GOP), the situation is different. This just one instance of the new situation.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, the commissars are a dangerous step in that direction.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

80+% of dealers donate to the GOP, look here http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html . So I don't think the car dealer example is a valid one.

In general, with all the stimulus money scheduled to be pumped out in 2010, it should lift the economy enough to buy the midterm election. After that, who knows.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't trust this site; it is a pro-H outlet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Once again, I'll refer to this author (or rather to consensus in the comments) for reaction to VDH' article.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Yeah.

P.S. Oblio's comment makes another important point: It is disturbing enough that we need to speculate about Obama’s “real” intentions etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

decoding is an operative word. Welcome back to the days of Soviet doublespeak.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Indeed, it reads nice, but did not parter with his elite views yet. It is clear form his hopes for H coming to terms with the reality.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I am not sure which way it goes. It is lonely on the top, and however tight president's ties with his team may be, at some point he is certain to feel the depth of responsibility that is in his hands. What he will do with it is a question, of course. Some may rise up to the challenge (like Truman did), some may not. Also, there is a lot on Obama's plate now, too much for an experienced statesman and way too much for a less experienced like him.

I wrote statesman, not sure he is one; too many politicians, not enough statesmen.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think that non-elite education is worthless for the most part. Ever been to the physics class with 350 students in attendace?
Ever had a TA not speaking any of 3 languages you know (including English). Ever had English professor making basic Grammar errors?

Welcome to the state school, MFs- and don't complain.

Just my 2 cents.

VB

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

There is a difference between quality education and elite education. I do not really share the (common recently) anti-Ivy League sentiment. However, I do not think that good non-"elite" schools provide education of lower standards. There is a difference in the CV or resume, and there are ways for a graduate from an elite school to capitalize on the name, but the point is that the name is overvalued.

(Reply to this) (Parent)