There were recent news that IDF is raiding bussinesses in West Bank, closing and confiscating, accusing them of --- cooperating with Hamas, while allegedly there is a ceasefire with Hamas.

Usually there is a ceasefire, after many months of non-negotiations, and then a series of assasinations and other provocations makes a short work of it. Palestinians are perpetually at fault anyway.

And then, bwahaha, Palestinian will "support extremists", so extremists have to be isolated, so they get support (however feeble) from Syria, so Syria has to be isolated, so Syria can get aid only from the theocracy of Iran, so Iran has to be isolated, but Russia is selling weapons to Iran and China wants to invests there, so we have to isolate Russia, China, and perhaps India for a good measure.

(Many) Israelis have schisophrenia. In the short term, they have no problems, so any "sacrifices for peace", like less beastly behavior in West Bank, are foolish and unrealistic. In the long run, it does not look so rosy, so the response is paranaia and talk of genocide. The combination of utter confidence and abject paranoia is the chief characteristic of "Likudnik" worldview (but how Likudnik it is if Barak subscribes to it?).

Posted at July 11, 2008 11:17 AM in response to A Typical Day in the Wild West Bank

Several points that puzzle me:

1. What is wrong about using octal system (well, when someone writes 10 when 8 should be used in the decimal system, it is easy to figure that out, isn't it?)

2. What is wrong about being a troll? I am in Germany for a little while, and here it seems that "Troll" is viewed positively, e.g. there is a line of products offered by healthfood stores under brand "Troll". In Norway, troll souvenirs abound -- although, with their dark hair and long noses, they are suspiciously close to ethnic caricatures. In Iceland, the surest way to scuttle a road project is to prove that it would offend a local troll.

3. Slapping my forehead hard: so this is where the original "concern trolls" live!

4. Pointless remark number four.

5. Pointless remark number five.

6. Pointless remark number six.

7. Pointless remark number seven.

10. Remark illustrating how the octal system works.

Posted at July 10, 2008 4:08 AM in response to A Question on Trolls

"Rational" is not the same as "nice".

Similarly, "irrational" is not the same as "stupid", but it may mean that an elite feels so secure about the strategic superiority of its state that can plot foreign policy as a way of scoring points in the internal politics rather then for any kind of objective benefit.

Now, consider this:

The outgoing commander of the Fifth Fleet Cosgriff has already said that he considers any Iranian attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz an act of war against "the international community" and that they will not be permitted to do so. So, if Israel attacks Iran and they close the Straits that's a signal for US and perhaps some allies such as the Brits to escalate matters.

Either a bombing by Israel will be a non-event, like the one in Syria, or Iran will indeed do something in Hormuz, as the "matters" will already be escalated. And then what? We bomb, they shoot missiles, very much like Lebanon war, except the world economy is in flames, rather than Beirut. And what do we do after a month of that?

Iranian leaders are actually pretty deft in escalating and de-escalating according to their needs. Judging on what happened when they intercepted a British patrol next to their waters (or within?), their demand would be minimal and "sensible", just enough to make us loose face. But "sensible" enough to get a nod from Russia, China and India.

And if we retaliate, say, against Iranian cities, and Russia will reply by re-supplying Iran with state of the art anti-ship missiles, and the hell will get loose in Iraq, and possibly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who knows where...

Posted at July 8, 2008 6:36 AM in response to Ha'aretz Columnist: An Israeli Attack on Iran Would Be Suicidal

Any nation ruled by religious fanatics, regardless of the specific religion, is not a nation that the world should be comfortable with possessing nuclear weapons, period.

The way I see it, it is hard to tell to what degree the policies of Israel and USA were more rational than policies of North Korea and Iran.

There is really no evidence that Iran pursues nuclear weapons, as opposed to the evidence that Iran pursues the capability to block the traffic in and out of Persian Gulf in case of being attacked. Call it "economic mutually assured destruction", slow, reversible, implementable, and hard to knock-out from the air, as the experience of Lebanon war showed.

So what the attack on Iran can accomplish at this point? It will not destroy the nuclear program that does not exist (weapon program, that is), it will lead to a huge economic and political crisis, and it will connect the American support of Israel with a huge increase of gas prices (hopefully, short lived).

Altogether, a winnable combination for Iran, less so for Israel, and totally, totally stupid for USA.

Posted at July 7, 2008 11:42 AM in response to Ha'aretz Columnist: An Israeli Attack on Iran Would Be Suicidal

In the alternate reality of offensivetoyou, "The Left" lives in alternate reality.

As I was climbing down from Empyrean to empirical, I checked what is happening with good old Zell Miller. Actually, it is hard to tell. He vanished! Is there some mutual exclusion principle, giving place to only one "full Zell" in a given time? If so, Lieberman serves an important function.

Someone worried that Clinton can "play Lieberman", but this is impossible, because Lieberman plays "full Zell", and this land can fit only one.

offensivetoyou: "Alternate realities? What the hell are you babbling about? Lieberman says the modern Left believes American policy and culture are responsible for most of the trouble in the world, in contrast to the older Democratic tradition which thought we were a beacon on the hill. No different than competing explanations for any other phenomenon."

I would call it "alternate un-realities". If you ask me, America is responsible for more trouble in the world than most, as befits a country that is larger than most. As far as beacons are concerned, some point to save harbors, and some are lit by the wreckers, hence caution is necessary.

And when Lieberman writes that we should respond to whatever with a show of unity and strength, and probably vigilance and resolve, (also, as David Brooks nicely put it, "steeling ourselves for certain necessary atrocities"), I have this feeling of tinnitus, and this is what rings in my ear "Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuehrer!".

Posted at May 23, 2008 6:58 PM in response to Liberal Pundits Offer Unprecedented Apology

I lost belief in the moral superiority of USA and Israel. Yes, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. do shit here and there, and so do we.

There was quite well functioning truce with al-Mehdi people in Iraq, but no, an inconclusive offensive was commenced, residential neighborhood were bombed for a month, a thousand person were killed, and we have groundhog day again. A strike for freedom? We are buying some extremists in Iraq both to fight others, but we do in in rotation, so aimless slaughter lasts longer and does not totally get out of hand. Militias allied with us have stronger connections to Iran that those we fight (probably including Kurds).

"America stands with you in breaking terrorists networks, and we shall bomb, torture, bribe and subvert until freedom will reign from the Sea of Japan to Atlantic." (Shorter Bush, speaking to Knesset.)

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:45 AM in response to New AIPAC Video! Plus, Hagee & AIPAC Video Classics & What Will Obama Tell Them At their June Confab

One would have to enumerate what is done to encourage ownership and what is done to encourage renting.

Encouraging ownership: (1) interest deduction, (2) deduction of real estate taxes, (3) lax regulation or lending, to wit, excessive ease of taking mortgages with less than 20% down.

Discouraging renting: implicit payment of real estate tax, with no deduction.

There are also question of tax treatment of investing in rental properties versus investing in own home, with strong preferences for the latter.

Many zoning regulations can discourage renting (limits on unrelated persons renting one property) and building specifically for renting (limits on multifamily construction and other density limits, often quite excessive toward low density).

Finally, there was a lot of propaganda for "ownership society", to the point that owning a home was viewed as more moral then renting. Not to mention often repeated advise that money spent on rent are lost, while payments for a home are "building equity and capital gains".

I do not know what happened to regulations that strongly discouraged purchases with very little down payments. Somehow, high risk mortgages were allowed to be packaged as low risk commercial paper. Now I think the markets took care of that

That said, this 5% for yearly rent is false in many markets. Location, location, location.

Dean, what practical steps do you propose? Could one make it more attractive to convert owner occupied properties to rentals? Currently there is actually a penalty in some cases, I think that if you rent your home for one year you loose exemption from capital gains.

Posted at March 3, 2008 6:25 AM in response to The Moderate Income Homeowner Tax

Isnt't abjuration a bit better then renunciation?

Dictionary says that to abjure is to "renounce solemnly". No casual "Abrenuntio". Something more like

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be.

Posted at February 29, 2008 5:46 PM in response to Mister Answer Man: Special Debate Edition!

I will be blantantly partisan and enjoy how the truly salient question become more resonant by bordering with salatious:

"how intimately powerful senators collaborate with lobbyists"

is the operative word "collaborate" or "intimately"?

And now this Senator is accused of being in bed with the very industries he regulates as chairman of committees. Figuratively, of course.

Do lobbyists massage ego of politicians they lobby, or is it something more than that?

Posted at February 23, 2008 5:02 PM in response to For the Times, Self-Doubt on Image Poses Its Own Risk

I read a description of a plan to build a pipeline to send natural gas from Iran to India, so India would get many million tons of hydrocarbons with the price of ca. 50% of that of oil, and Pakistan would get its cut in the form of transit fees etc. Pakistan would get, according to my estimate, 2 billions per year, which could double if Turkmen natural gas would follow the same route.

Needless to say, we use our aid to get influence, and we use our influence to torpedo this scheme. You see, it would give influence to Iran. So, even with triple economic aid Pakistan is a looser. Not that we care.

From this point of view, military aid is the way to go. We bribe directly the folks in the position to set the policy, while economic aid would partially go to people who would actually want to spend it rationally rather than accepting as a bribe. Although economic aid could be structuted to maximize its bribing potential, a real danger exists that do-gooders would get too much to say.

Posted at February 19, 2008 5:18 PM in response to Democracy in Pakistan, Despite Bush Policies