Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7030)

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:19 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225768)
Here we see that criticism is the equivalent of unfounded attacks and smears. Thinking that someone has thrown someone else "under the bus" is actually a matter of opinion, not objective fact. That means that it is an arguable proposition and not something you can stamp "false".

But the same is true of the Perry truth squad as well. This is true of all response to political attacks that don't qualify as libel or slander.

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:20 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225769)
LOL A Doctor tells you that you have a year to live if you don't start the cancer treatment, and that if you do start it you will live a minimum of five years. You quickly agree to begin the treatments, and die five months later.

Doctors would never promise such a thing if they wanted to keep their licenses.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:34 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rubbernecking (Post 225719)
Link to your common sense. Do you truly believe that the sheer amount of economic activity created just by introducing that amount of money would result in no change in the economy, and if there is a change then does your common sense tell you that it wouldn't be an improvement in GDP, even if too small and accompanied by long term deficit trouble?

Link to my common sense? You made a claim of fact; "Pinkerton one knows that a big majority of economists are joined with the CBO in observing that the stimulus improved our economy and created jobs."

I don't know this. But you don't seem to "know" it either, since you now consider a "big majority of economists" thinking the stimulus improved to economy to be "common sense". Appeals to authority usually involve citing, you know, authority.

Here is what I "know" about the stimulus. Most of it isn't spent on things that even liberals consider stimulative. If State Z has to cut its budget in FY 2010, takes stimulus money, and delays those cuts until 2011, no jobs were created. The same is true of Medicaid spending.

Quote:

It may have been too small and the cost to the deficit may haunt us, but sensible people will agree that the stimulus has had some positive impact and created some jobs.
This is nitpicking. I do not think the stimulus created jobs in nearly the proportion of the spending. I do not think the stimulus was an intelligent or useful way to help the economy. If the stimulus created ten jobs, or a thousand, or a million jobs, it is far too few to be worth the cost. So it is appropriate to dismiss it. No one needs to be polite to the stimulus. No one needs to be careful with language to "respect" the stimulus. No one needs to make sure Mr. Obama's feelings aren't hurt when we discuss the stimulus. No nuance is required; the policy failed both by the metrics of the White House and by any reasonable measure of effectiveness.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:35 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225776)
Doctors would never promise such a thing if they wanted to keep their licenses.

Perhaps you will favor licensing requirements for politicians then. As it stands, it was your metaphor, I was just participating.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:36 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225775)
But the same is true of the Perry truth squad as well. This is true of all response to political attacks that don't qualify as libel or slander.

Do you think it is a bit strange for the President of the United States to create a website where people can report rumors about him?

Now remember; that is a separate category from any media. That means hearing people saying things in real life. Neighbors, friends, coworkers.

You comfortable with that?

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:38 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225778)
Perhaps you will favor licensing requirements for politicians then. As it stands, it was your metaphor, I was just participating.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a successful cancer treatment and a treatment that allows a doctor to guarantee a specific length of uninterrupted life?

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:40 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225780)
Do you seriously not understand the difference between a successful cancer treatment and a treatment that allows a doctor to guarantee a specific length of uninterrupted life?

I am using your medical metaphor to actually make it relevant to the stimulus. Your suggestion of "net new life" is meaningless. Promises were made that shouldn't have been promises, they weren't met. Now fellows like you seem angry that anyone would question new promises on the same topic.

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:40 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225779)
Do you think it is a bit strange for the President of the United States to create a website where people can report rumors about him?

Now remember; that is a separate category from any media. That means hearing people saying things in real life. Neighbors, friends, coworkers.

You comfortable with that?

I am no more or less comfortable with Obama's website than I am with flouridation of drinking water.

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:41 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225781)
I am using your medical metaphor to actually make it relevant to the stimulus. Your suggestion of "net new life" is meaningless. Promises were made that shouldn't have been promises, they weren't met. Now fellows like you seem angry that anyone would question new promises on the same topic.

Obama promised that the stimulus would create more jobs than the Bush recession lost?

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:42 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225783)
Obama promised that the stimulus would create more jobs than the Bush recession lost?

He promised it would create more jobs than it did.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 03:43 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225782)
I am no more or less comfortable with Obama's website than I am with flouridation of drinking water.

Me too, actually. Probably because we both consider him to be weak. It is hilarious, none the less.

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:56 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225785)
Me too, actually. Probably because we both consider him to be weak. It is hilarious, none the less.

Not me. I consider it to be a perfectly reasonable approach and vastly superior, both morally and practically to simply letting the rumors go unchallenged.

miceelf 09-15-2011 03:57 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225784)
He promised it would create more jobs than it did.

If people were making THAT claim (rather than no new jobs, er, I mean no net jobs, which means not completely making up for the bush crash) then this would be a different conversation.

tom 09-15-2011 04:48 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225779)
Do you think it is a bit strange for the President of the United States to create a website where people can report rumors about him?

The website is part of his reelection campaign. The key difference is that the site is run like part of a campaign; in no way is the office of the President used to do something here that any other presidential candidate couldn't manage just as easily.

sugarkang 09-15-2011 04:50 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225767)
No. I am saying that no one could be fairly called left leaning who:

1. Believes the tea party are treated unfairly and their criticisms of Obama are accurate
2. Rush Limbaugh provides useful information and is enjoyable to listen to.

I would add that I don't know of anyone I consider left-leaning who voted for Bush in 04, unless they became dramatically less conservative since then, and although the vote for Obama in 08 could be considered an example of such things, 1 and 2 above are even more recent and stronger evidence.

Maybe you don't consider me to be left leaning either. I don't like the Tea Party, but I think they've been treated unfairly. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I hate hearing about the new bullshit that he finds himself in, but the fact that millions of people listen to him tells me that he speaks on behalf of many. Maybe they believe in ridiculous things, but atheists would make that claim about religious people also. As long as Americans with a sizable constituency have concerns, they should be taken seriously.

tom 09-15-2011 04:50 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225716)
These kinds of cracks work better when one is not part of the pro-warrantless wiretapping, pro-indefinite no-charge detention, and pro-torture party.

Also, if his criticism had anything to do with reality. That would also help it work better.

bbbeard 09-15-2011 05:49 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 225741)
Why have you not specified what the consistent US position since the 1967 war and prior to Obama was?

I didn't mention this because I had assumed that everyone had a baseline level of understanding of what is at stake in the Middle East. The U.S. position since the 1967 war has often been described as "studied ambiguity". When Israel occupied the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai as a result of the 1967 war, the U.N. was obligated to attempt to roll back those territorial gains, since it is part of the U.N. charter not to allow countries to seize territory by force. Several different resolutions were debated in the Security Council. The U.S. eventually backed the British proposal, which included the ambiguous condition: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". This became UN Security Council Resolution 242. Why is this ambiguous? Because it doesn't say "all territories occupied in the recent conflict" -- and that is a key distinction, because it leaves open the possibility that Israel might need only withdraw from some of the occupied territories. The U.S. and Britain understood that the pre-1967 boundary was indefensible and they wanted to leave negotiating room for solutions such as a U.N. buffer zone in the Golan; or making Jerusalem an international zone, or even an independent entity like the Vatican City; and for various joint-governance schemes for the West Bank. Those diplomatic options would be short-circuited by a demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders. This is what I recall from my Middle East Studies in college, at any rate.

Turning now to Wikipedia, in a cable to the Spanish Embassy in Cairo, Dean Rusk recounted a discussion between Eugene Rostow and Anatoly Dobrynin:

Quote:

Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
In a speech on 19 June 1967 (after the war but before 242 was passed), President Johnson made this statement:

Quote:

There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.

Certainly, troops must be withdrawn; but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race, and respect for political independence and territorial integrity.
This was a statement which could reasonably be construed as underlying the US push for ambiguity in 242.

Since then, U.S. Presidents have avoided demanding, or even endorsing, a return to the 1967 borders, because this is widely understood as taking the Palestinian side of the conflict, and this would therefore be seen as a hostile move by Israel. U.S. Presidents have largely stuck by the ambiguity of 242.

In one of the Times stories I've already linked, it says

Quote:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries.
I could go on, but maybe you should chew on this first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 225741)
First, you have not specified what Obama has done.

I thought I was perfectly clear. What Obama has done is overturn 44 years of US policy toward Israel by stating that the 1967 borders should be the baseline for negotiations. This is understood by the diplomatic community, and by most Israelis, as a demand for a return to the 1967 borders with only minor adjustments. If the 1967 borders are the "baseline", then Israel has no position for insisting that Jerusalem remain undivided. They have no position for demanding the demilitarization of the Golan. The framework that Obama says he wants would mean that Israel could only retain a united Jerusalem by giving up other pre-1967 territory. It means they could only get a Golan buffer zone in exchange for other pre-1967 territory. Do you understand this? Do you understand why this is unacceptable to Israel -- and should be to us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 225741)
Is it the contiguity provision of his statement to which you most object?

No, what I object to is siding with the Palestinians over Israel and baselining the 1967 borders. I'm not sure why Mr. Pinkerton backed down on the 1967 borders part of the statement, other than that Mr. Corn was yelling that "Obama didn't say that they had to shrink back to their 1967 borders!" and "He didn't tell Israel to do this!". BTW I think Pinkerton was completely wrong when he implied the 2004 Bush policy demanded a return to the 1967 borders. In the letter to Sharon Bush wrote

Quote:

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Note "changes that reflect those realities" does not mean "start with 1949 [i.e. pre-1967] borders and swap from there". That's the change in policy that Obama has wrought: he wants to start negotiations with the pre-1967 borders, which has never been U.S. policy before. Note on the other hand that Bush did recognize the goal of a contiguous Palestinian state, so again I'm not sure why Pinkerton focused on that issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 225741)
Second, let us suppose that relations with one of our staunchest allies are inflamed. So what? Why should a rational person be worried about this, where "rational person" means someone who is primarily concerned about US strategic interests in the world? Is the "special" American relationship with Israel helping or hindering the primary US interest in the Middle East, which is reliable access to energy? Is it helping or hindering the US interest in arresting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism?

If you don't understand the need for allies in a hostile world, I'm afraid I won't be able to fix that in this thread. If you don't understand the value of democracy in a despotic region of the world, I probably can't fix that, either.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 06:30 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225787)
Not me. I consider it to be a perfectly reasonable approach and vastly superior, both morally and practically to simply letting the rumors go unchallenged.

I don't think its perfectly reasonable to report your neighbors and friends to the government for things they say. It is clearly morally inferior. And it is impractical. But since the President has shown an inability to accomplish very much, I suspect the Attack Watch is meant mostly as a treasure trove of whining for his Presidential Library, which he should be able to start work on in about a year and a half.

stephanie 09-15-2011 06:32 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 225795)
What Obama has done is overturn 44 years of US policy toward Israel by stating that the 1967 borders should be the baseline for negotiations.

Jeffrey Goldberg on this claim.

Also:

Interview with Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert on the two-state solution and a workable solution.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 06:32 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225788)
If people were making THAT claim (rather than no new jobs, er, I mean no net jobs, which means not completely making up for the bush crash) then this would be a different conversation.

People don't need to say it. Its implied. Obviously Perry doesn't believe it has created "no" jobs. This is nitpicking, Pinkerton is absolutely right. If the stimulus created 100,000 jobs for $770 billion, saying it created "no jobs" meaning no net jobs, but implying insignificant job creation as well, would be perfectly fine in the nature of political rhetoric.

tom 09-15-2011 06:52 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225796)
I don't think its perfectly reasonable to report your neighbors and friends to the government for things they say. It is clearly morally inferior.

Except that's not part of the project. Your opposition to this website is based in large part on things you're making up.
Now the Hitler/Soviet comparisons make a lot more sense, thanks for clearing that up.

Hume's Bastard 09-15-2011 06:56 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225587)
I agree. These guys get some very interesting fires going, and I much prefer David Corn on Bloggingheads to David Corn on TV.

I second that, and what sugarkang wrote! AGW will vanish! The economy will recover and vault forward! We'll have flying cars! And, every person on the earth will get laid tonight! Corn and Pinkerton are back!

miceelf 09-15-2011 07:24 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225790)
Maybe you don't consider me to be left leaning either. I don't like the Tea Party, but I think they've been treated unfairly. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I hate hearing about the new bullshit that he finds himself in, but the fact that millions of people listen to him tells me that he speaks on behalf of many. Maybe they believe in ridiculous things, but atheists would make that claim about religious people also. As long as Americans with a sizable constituency have concerns, they should be taken seriously.

The above makes you more left-leaning that Ann Althouse. Which is my point.

miceelf 09-15-2011 07:31 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225798)
People don't need to say it. Its implied. Obviously Perry doesn't believe it has created "no" jobs. This is nitpicking,

Well, if Perry simply meant that the stimulus created jobs, but not enough jobs to completely counter the loss of jobs from the crash, the rest of what he said (e.g., zero divided by two is zero, so therefore the jobs bill won't create any jobs either) makes no sense, one, because dividing the net number of jobs created makes no sense mathematically, and two because the argument would be that the stimulus did not enough good rather than no good, so it wouldn't follow at all that a structured-in-a-completely different way would also do no good, or even that a structured-in-completely-different-way jobs bill would fail to completely counteract the job loss.

Its also insane to claim that anything attempting increase the number of people working fails unless it reduces the number of unemployed to zero, or to completely counteract a severe shrinkage in jobs. By that logic stitching a severe wound "doesn't work" because it doesn't restore the lost blood.

So people assuming Perry actually meant "no jobs" might have actually been charitable, because it is arguably LESS insane than his argument if he meant "no net jobs"

whburgess 09-15-2011 08:09 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225804)
Well, if Perry simply meant that the stimulus created jobs, but not enough jobs to completely counter the loss of jobs from the crash, the rest of what he said (e.g., zero divided by two is zero, so therefore the jobs bill won't create any jobs either) makes no sense, one, because dividing the net number of jobs created makes no sense mathematically, and two because the argument would be that the stimulus did not enough good rather than no good, so it wouldn't follow at all that a structured-in-a-completely different way would also do no good, or even that a structured-in-completely-different-way jobs bill would fail to completely counteract the job loss.

Its also insane to claim that anything attempting increase the number of people working fails unless it reduces the number of unemployed to zero, or to completely counteract a severe shrinkage in jobs. By that logic stitching a severe wound "doesn't work" because it doesn't restore the lost blood.

So people assuming Perry actually meant "no jobs" might have actually been charitable, because it is arguably LESS insane than his argument if he meant "no net jobs"



Your ( and Corn's) refutation of him is a good reason why Perry, and others, will continue to benefit politically from saying Obama's created zero jobs.

TwinSwords 09-15-2011 08:58 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225603)
Sulla vs. Brucds: A Play in One Act.

(SULLA and BRUCDS are walking in a desert. They encounter STARVING MAN, too weak from lack of food to walk)

BRUCDS: It looks like this guy is in pretty bad shape. Let's give him something to eat.

SULLA: I dunno. We've got to keep some food for ourselves, you know. Would it be better to cure him with my JAR OF LEECHES instead?

(Sulla brandishes JAR OF LEECHES)

BRUCDS: I don't think LEECHES are what he needs; he's starving. And besides, we've only got to walk a mile and a half to reach the nearest grocery store. We can spare some food for him.

SULLA: Oh, ok. We'll try it your way. Here, give him this GRAHAM CRACKER.

BRUCDS: One GRAHAM CRACKER? That obviously won't be enough to help him. Can't we spare my SANDWICH?

(BRUCDS pulls a SANDWICH out of his pack)

SULLA: No. It's the one GRAHAM CRACKER or nothing.

BRUCDS: Well I guess it's better than nothing.

(BRUCDS feeds STARVING MAN the GRAHAM CRACKER. Time passes. STARVING MAN's condition does not substantially improve.)

SULLA: I think it was a mistake to feed him the GRAHAM CRACKER. See how he hasn't gotten better?

BRUCDS: Well of course he hasn't gotten better! One GRAHAM CRACKER is clearly not enough. Why don't we give him my SANDWICH?

SULLA: Look, we tried it your way, and it didn't work. This proves that your food-based treatment is, if anything, counterproductive. I don't trust you to take care of this STARVING MAN. It's time to pull out my LEECHES.

(SULLA removes JAR OF LEECHES from his pack, and proceeds to attach LEECHES to STARVING MAN. STARVING MAN groans.)

BRUCDS: I need a stiff drink.

LOL!

That was brilliant.

miceelf 09-15-2011 09:39 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225807)
Your ( and Corn's) refutation of him is a good reason why Perry, and others, will continue to benefit politically from saying Obama's created zero jobs.

Yes, because people hate math and stuf.

But, Perry's defenders are arguing that when Perry says zero jobs, he actually means any number less than 7.9 million.

If that HELPS him, god help us all.

bbbeard 09-15-2011 09:57 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 225797)

Your link is to a CS Monitor column by Dan Murphy, not Jeffrey Goldberg. With all due respect to Mr. Murphy, he simply does not understand the diplomatic issue in question. He refers obliquely to the tense relations between the George H.W. Bush administration and Israel, but does not link to any particular policy statement that is equivalent to what Obama said. Bush 41 differed with Israel on the status of East Jerusalem, and was opposed to Israel's settlement policy. But he never went beyond the ambiguity of UNSC 242 to demand that negotiations start with the pre-1967 borders. When Murphy ends with

Quote:

Now, the language of Bush's comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same.
...it's clear that (a) he senses without understanding that there is a substantive difference between the two policies, but (b) he is clueless about the difference, so (c) he is literally pleading for someone to explain. It's a little late for Murphy, but there is a big difference between negotiations starting from "the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities" (Bush 43's policy) and negotiations starting from a "baseline [of] the pre-1967 borders" (Obama's policy). The former tells both parties to start with a map that reflects the changes since 1967, while the latter tells both parties to start with the 1949 borders and negotiate land swaps. To paraphrase our esteemed Vice President, this is a big f***ing deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 225797)
Interview with Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert on the two-state solution and a workable solution.

All I gleaned from the Livni interview was that she's happy her political rival is being pressured by the United States. She never mentions 242 or the pre-1967 borders.

Olmert recounts his failed negotiations with Abu Mazen. Note that Olmert's starting position in those negotiations was not Obama's policy, but something closer to what George W. Bush envisioned. His going-in position -- which he also declared his final offer -- envisioned Jerusalem as an open international city, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and no mention of the Golan. However, he did endorse a contiguous Palestinian state, a goal of both W and H, through the clever use of the third dimension (take that, Khan!). He later discusses negotiations with Syria over the Golan, but he does not endorse Obama's plan, which is -- once again, I have to make sure you get this -- to start negotiations assuming Israel's withdrawal from the Golan, with no baseline for Syrian concessions.

Olmert's plan was generous in the extreme. But, as the Australian's Greg Sheridan comments,

Quote:

Olmert is right to paint this offer as embodying the most extensive concessions, and the best deal, ever offered to the Palestinians by an Israeli leader. But his very experience with this offer raises several questions. Could he have delivered its terms if the Palestinians had accepted it? Perhaps international momentum would have enabled him to do so, and, in fact, Olmert's Kadima party did remarkably well in the election which followed his prime ministership. Could any Israeli government today realistically make such an offer? The answer would seem to be no.
It has been said that Mr. Obama is a terrible negotiator. The same would seem to apply to his "baselining" negotiations for others, as well.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 10:04 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tom (Post 225800)
Except that's not part of the project. Your opposition to this website is based in large part on things you're making up.

Oh isn't it? What is a rumor? Tell me where I'm wrong. Rumors aren't things you hear in real life? Barack Obama isn't President of the United States? Sending a message to people who work for the President isn't 'reporting'? Where is the error, exactly?

Quote:

Now the Hitler/Soviet comparisons make a lot more sense, thanks for clearing that up.
Don't forget Mussolini. Our President does love his poses.

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 10:06 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225810)
Yes, because people hate math and stuf.

But, Perry's defenders are arguing that when Perry says zero jobs, he actually means any number less than 7.9 million.

If that HELPS him, god help us all.

Any number less than 7.9 million? Would you like to go ahead and put a marker down telling us how many jobs were created? 7.8 million? 7 million? 4 million? 1.1 million?

Sulla the Dictator 09-15-2011 10:23 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225804)
Well, if Perry simply meant that the stimulus created jobs, but not enough jobs to completely counter the loss of jobs from the crash, the rest of what he said (e.g., zero divided by two is zero, so therefore the jobs bill won't create any jobs either) makes no sense, one, because dividing the net number of jobs created makes no sense mathematically,

Why? If he correctly states that the stimulus created no new net jobs, assumes this jobs bill won't either, and divides this jobs bill by the cost of the last one, then there is nothing nonsensical about the math. X=0. X/2=0.

Quote:

and two because the argument would be that the stimulus did not enough good rather than no good,
Perhaps I am being too generous. When I say that I don't think the stimulus did enough good, I am saying that it did very little good, and the expense was astronomical, meaning that overall, the stimulus was very bad.

Quote:

so it wouldn't follow at all that a structured-in-a-completely different way would also do no good, or even that a structured-in-completely-different-way jobs bill would fail to completely counteract the job loss.
Actually the way this is structured is to do the Keynsian part of the stimulus "for real" (Which is an indictment of the first stimulus), where the infrastructure stuff is a larger part of the package (Though again, basically the same size as the original stimulus). Here are two vital things that remain missing:

1. No wage flexbility. Jim McDermitt was basically out there saying construction jobs that don't pay $40 an hour are useless to a recovery! This as a bullshit excuse to focus these jobs on union shops. I don't know about you, but rewarding Union contributions to the Democratic party shouldn't be a priority right now.

2. No EPA or DoI waivers for projects, turning "shovel ready" from fantasy into reality. No proposal for a mechanism for expediting waivers in such a case. Maybe some enterprising reporter can go check out what the environmental impacts of the Hoover Dam are, cross check those against current regulatory impediments, and get the President on record before Rachel Maddow makes an ass out of herself in front of that structure again.

So it didn't work the first time. The Keynsian/Krugman stimulus stuff is about the same size as the last stimulus, and that was a flop. So what are you so excited about?

Quote:

Its also insane to claim that anything attempting increase the number of people working fails unless it reduces the number of unemployed to zero, or to completely counteract a severe shrinkage in jobs. By that logic stitching a severe wound "doesn't work" because it doesn't restore the lost blood.
No, it is like stitching a wound while keeping the bullet, and the damaged organs inside the person without any attention, and saying it "doesn't work". I'm not a doctor, but again I'll say that in my medical opinion, that doesn't work. When that doctor comes around to fix my gunshot wound, I'll take my chances with the next guy.

miceelf 09-16-2011 12:51 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225813)
Any number less than 7.9 million? Would you like to go ahead and put a marker down telling us how many jobs were created? 7.8 million? 7 million? 4 million? 1.1 million?

Well, you are arguing that even if it created 7.89999 million jobs, it would be net zero, because it would be less jobs than were lost. I think most economists are saying the first stimulus created 3 to 4 million jobs.

But, yeah, it was a waste of time. Because, after all, being down 4.9 million jobs is exactly the same as being down 7.9 jobs. Why even bother creating any jobs at all, unless you can create 7.9 million of em?

miceelf 09-16-2011 12:58 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225814)
Why? If he correctly states that the stimulus created no new net jobs, assumes this jobs bill won't either, and divides this jobs bill by the cost of the last one, then there is nothing nonsensical about the math. X=0. X/2=0.

Except that you can't create a formula for net where a stimulus of half the size would create half as many jobs. Because net is Y-X, where Y = the jobs lost. It's a constant. So, if Y-X = 0, it doesn't make sense to claim that Y-(X/2) would also be zero; it could be literally any number OTHER THAN zero. Unless Y is 0. Which doesn't make sense, unless Perry meant jobs, not net jobs.

In case you're ever in the situation, where you need to take care of a bullet wound yourself, it would be useful for you to know that the best medical practice isn't always to take the bullet out, even in the safe reaches of a hospital. Depending on where the bullet is, getting it out can easily do much more harm than good. Many very good doctors leave many bullets exactly where they are, and in fact patch up the wound.

miceelf 09-16-2011 01:01 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225814)
The Keynsian/Krugman stimulus stuff is about the same size as the last stimulus, and that was a flop. So what are you so excited about?

Wait, we were down 7.9 million and the last stimulus created between 3 and 4 million.

And you are arguing that if the next one creates THE SAME AMOUNT AS the last one, it will be a failure?

Do the math on that one. What's two times 4?

Hell, assume the range is the worst case. Are you seriously saying that being down 1.9 million jobs vs. 7.9 million makes no difference at all?

tom 09-16-2011 01:41 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225812)
Oh isn't it? What is a rumor? Tell me where I'm wrong. Rumors aren't things you hear in real life? Barack Obama isn't President of the United States? Sending a message to people who work for the President isn't 'reporting'? Where is the error, exactly?

You claimed, earlier :
Quote:

I don't think its perfectly reasonable to report your neighbors and friends to the government for things they say.
This characterization is wrong for two reasons:

1. There is no spot in the "misinformation" report on that website where they ask for the names of your neighbors and friends. It's clear that they're interested in the kinds of misinformation floating about, and not in collecting information about specific individuals.

Evidently they want to know how prevalent certain bits of misinformation are, and whether they are gaining traction mostly through websites, email, talk radio, word of mouth, etc. It's like when a business asks its customers "How did you hear about us?" It's not so they can keep close tabs on who is or is not talking about them, but rather so they have some data that will help them to more effectively get their message out.

2. The information submitted via the website is not reported to "the government". It is reported to the 2012 Obama Campaign. I already pointed this out in another response to you in this thread:

Quote:

The website is part of his reelection campaign. The key difference is that the site is run like part of a campaign; in no way is the office of the President used to do something here that any other presidential candidate's campaign team couldn't manage just as easily.

Sulla the Dictator 09-16-2011 01:51 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225821)
Wait, we were down 7.9 million and the last stimulus created between 3 and 4 million.

That is a strange way to figure it. The stimulus "created" about 1.2 million jobs, including temporary jobs. That wasn't what was promised, of course. Four million jobs were promised.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fi...hart-JPG_0.jpg

Quote:

And you are arguing that if the next one creates THE SAME AMOUNT AS the last one, it will be a failure?
Are you saying that $1.3 trillion spent to create 2.4 million jobs is some kind of good deal? You can send a $25,000 check to every unemployed person for about the same money. How good an idea is that?

Let me guess, for $14 trillion, you can bring us to 0% unemployment?

Quote:

Do the math on that one. What's two times 4?
Sorry, I only measure job creation by new jobs. You know, like how every single previous government program has worked. I don't count "saved jobs" as a valid metric. I should report you to #AttackWatch for patronizing the President with this unique measurement!

Quote:

Hell, assume the range is the worst case. Are you seriously saying that being down 1.9 million jobs vs. 7.9 million makes no difference at all?
I'll go on record. 2.4 million jobs is not worth spending 1.3 trillion dollars.

Don Zeko 09-16-2011 03:04 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225831)
Sorry, I only measure job creation by new jobs. You know, like how every single previous government program has worked. I don't count "saved jobs" as a valid metric. I should report you to #AttackWatch for patronizing the President with this unique measurement!

So if a state has a budget shortfall and is about to lay off 500 teachers, but then they don't have to because the ARRA patched the whole in the state's budget, those 500 jobs don't count? If anything, saving jobs like this is better than creating new jobs because you keep people in jobs that they are experienced in and avoid the various difficulties of even a short job search. And in fact, since the official end of the recession we've seen private sector job growth that would have reduced the unemployment rate had it not been offset by public sector job losses. Job losses that could have been prevented through deficit spending by the federal government.

ledocs 09-16-2011 07:56 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
bbbeard said:

Quote:

Olmert recounts his failed negotiations with Abu Mazen. Note that Olmert's starting position in those negotiations was not Obama's policy, but something closer to what George W. Bush envisioned. His going-in position -- which he also declared his final offer -- envisioned Jerusalem as an open international city, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and no mention of the Golan. However, he did endorse a contiguous Palestinian state, a goal of both W and H, through the clever use of the third dimension (take that, Khan!). He later discusses negotiations with Syria over the Golan, but he does not endorse Obama's plan, which is -- once again, I have to make sure you get this -- to start negotiations assuming Israel's withdrawal from the Golan, with no baseline for Syrian concessions. (bold added)
You seem to be eliding over the issue of the West Bank settlements. That is, are all lands now a part of existing Israeli settlements on the West Bank and outside of the Green Line going to be included within the newly negotiated borders of Israel, some of those lands, or none of those lands? I thought the basic position in the failed negotiations of the Clinton and Bush administrations was that some of those lands would probably be included within the newly negotiated borders, not none of them, not all of them. If so, that formula is indistinguishable from return to Green Line with swaps.

As for the Golan, I would assume that the Golan would be demilitarized and under international patrol of some sort, even under this Obama plan that represents an existential threat to Israel's security, according to you.

Here is the blog post by Geoffrey Kessler in "The Washington Post" that seems to provide the basis for your position and your posts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aT7G_blog.html

Here is a blog post by well-known anti-Zionist Walter Russell Meade (that's irony, folks), written just after Obama's May 19 speech, in which Meade fails to take any notice of the simultaneously subtle but monumental differences in US policy (that's more irony, folks) towards Israel as between Bush 43 and Obama.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...is-inner-bush/

Quote, from that Meade blog post:

Quote:

His [sc. Obama’s] policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.
What Americans, and particularly American Jews, should be upset about is Israel's occupation and land grab throughout the post-1967 period. What Americans should be concerned about is the advancement of American interests in a way that is consistent with a generally liveable world. Even if we grant that Obama has changed US policy towards Israel, why is that obviously a bad thing? There has been no peace settlement with the Palestinians. My assumption would be that such a peace settlement would be greatly in the interest of the US, as well as in the interest of both Israel and Palestinians. Whatever has been tried in the past has not worked. There has been no settlement. Therefore, something has to change. Perhaps part of that something should be US policy. Indeed, common sense would tell us that three things have to change, at a minimum, in order for there to be a settlement: Israeli intransigence, Palestinian intransigence, and US policy, which, in my view, has been too concerned in the past with placating Israel.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Kessler blog post elides over the question of the correct interpretation of UN Resolution 242. Kessler says that the formula for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories was left deliberately ambiguous by those negotiating the resolution. The ambiguity is that the resolution did not use either the definite article “the” or the pronominal adjective "all" to modify "occupied territories." Neither did it say "some occupied territories." Suppose that a series of edicts or laws has been issued. Now a governmental authority issues a statement that says that citizens and residents shall comply with “relevant edicts or laws previously issued by the government.” Would that mean “all relevant edicts or laws previously issued,” or just some of them? I think it would much more probably mean “all relevant edicts or laws.” I can see that the resolution as issued was negotiated and meant to be somewhat ambiguous, but the resolution of that ambiguity, insofar as there can or will be one, would tell in favor of “all occupied territories.”

P.S. Roger Cohen speaks for me, here:

Quote:

The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people. They must be vociferous in their insistence that continued colonization of Palestinians in the West Bank will increase Israel’s isolation and ultimately its vulnerability.

That — not fanning Islamophobia — is the task before diaspora Jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

P.P.S. I just listened, somewhat distractedly, to what appears to be quite a good very recent dv on recent developments in the Middle East, as they affect Israel and US-Israel relations. I will listen to certain parts again. But the point is, Israeli and US strategic interests are not congruent. Walt-Mearsheimer were totally correct about that, and their view is now coming to be shared by some important factions within the US military-strategic elite. This is not the view of radical left-wingers.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/386...9:46&out=31:17

Ocean 09-16-2011 08:54 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
I'm curious to know, where do you think the rest of the money went? I mean the money that was wasted because it didn't create jobs (according to your calculations). What happened to it?

miceelf 09-16-2011 10:32 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225845)
I'm curious to know, where do you think the rest of the money went? I mean the money that was wasted because it didn't create jobs (according to your calculations). What happened to it?

If it saved jobs, it doesn't count. I suspect that's your answer.

Imagine you are developing a drug to treat cancer. You enroll 1000 end-stage cancer patients in a trial. A year later, 999 of them are alive and one has died.

This, of course would mean your treatment is a failure. There are fewer people alive than when you gave them the drug. So the obvious conclusion is that the drug has zero (net) effect.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.