What happens when you pay teachers $125K?

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/10/27/teacher-salary-study

Kids learn more and good teachers don't quit, of course! A NYC charter school (TEP) tried it out and saw impressive improvements. After the 4-year pilot, TEP students' test scores were about +1.6 years ahead of peers in math, and +0.4 years ahead in English. And this was not a posh suburban academy, it was an >90% low-income and minority school. 

Granted it was just 1 case, but the results were promising enough that I hope others will try to replicate and scale it up. The school got no additional funding, so the learning gains were basically free. It was able to pay teachers six-figs because they increased avg. class size from 27 to 31, and ran leaner without as many wasteful administrators (middle managers). Everyone employed at that school did both teaching work and leadership/admin stuff, which probably made them feel more empowered and autonomous (key drivers of job satisfaction).

Poor performers did not get the high salary for long; contracts were not renewed for about 1/3 of teachers, and fresh talent was brought in. This motivated teachers to give high effort and maximize their skills/career development. In other words, the ones that could... they earned their pay. And students benefited in the process. Obviously this was only possible at a non-union charter school. Such a program may not "fix" bad inner-city teachers, but at least it has a better chance to retain the good ones (teacher turnover is abysmal in high-needs schools for obvious reasons), and provide motivation for those in between. If we want professional performance, it's not a huge stretch to start treating teachers like professionals. This is especially impactful in high-cost-of-living areas like NYC.

A marathon in Beijing - REALLY!?!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/masks-donned-smog-hit-beijing-marathon-162932085.html#iWAtavG

One of the dumber ideas I've heard about in a while. US soldiers didn't have a choice - they were ordered to fight in our foolish exercise in Iraq. But these runners voluntarily participated and paid money, why!?! Of all the marathons in the world.

I guess this is another reflection of the hubris and obliviousness of Chinese officials. They want to do all the things that the other major global cities do, regardless of feasibility. But how can they put thousands of people in danger for an insignificant race? With all the hard-breathing of a ~3 hr outdoor race during especially hazardous conditions, is that like equivalent damage to a normal person living in Beijing for a month? And don't people know that those dust masks don't do squat against pollutants and particulates as small as smog (2.5 microns diameter, which you need an industrial respirator for)?

But besides the runners, of course millions of people have to live through these horrible conditions for their entire lives (not to mention the questionable safety of their consumer goods, drinking water, workplace conditions, and roadways). The Chinese health system is crap for most people, and the lower-income folks may not be able to afford air purification measures.

Apple and Facebook offer employees egg freezing benefit

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/egg-freezing-as-a-work-benefit-some-women-see-darker-message.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

News broke that Apple and Facebook provide a new benefit to female employees: they will cover the costs of egg freezing up to $20K. Bloomberg Businessweek says this is the "great equalizer" to "liberate" women, but I call BS. It is pretty disturbing to me for several reasons.

We know that tech is fairly misogynist and gender-unequal, especially in leadership and technical roles. Despite Sanberg's "Lean In" evangelism, most FB leaders are male (the major female execs are her, and in the HR dept). Apple and Google are similar. I don't know if the egg freezing benefit is the most crucial thing that women in tech (or prospective women) need now. In this 2011 list, Apple-FB-Google did not make the top 100 best companies to work for as a mom, despite offering great mat-leave, health care, and subsidized onsite day care. Why? Because the stress and workloads are not worth it. You can set up massage and watering stations at each mile of a Marathon course, but it's still a painful grueling Marathon.

What is the egg freezing signaling? A cynic (like me) would conclude that Apple/FB wants its women to fully focus on work (and work super hard) during their fertile younger years (~25-35). Just like their concierge and commute benefits, this is another way that workers don't have to be bothered by "real life", and can just stay in the work bubble thinking about company goals and their career growth all the time (you know, the truly important things in life). They are all about hacking and disrupting everything, so why can't they disrupt family planning too? Who says you can't have it all as a working mom?

But here's the thing, we know that it's illegal for employers to ask about or discriminate based on family. When a worker decides to start a family, often their career trajectory changes permanently, and managers may subtly or overtly perceive them differently from then on. It's only natural. So the egg freezing is a form of insurance, if you will. Those firms hired supposedly child-less younger women. They may be in relationships, but they will mostly be available for the firm 50-80 hrs/week and ~49 weeks/year. That is what the company expects when it hires. So the egg benefit prolongs that arrangement, for a measly sum of $20K (compare that to 1-6 months mat-leave, and all the lost productivity from childcare responsibilities, illnesses, etc. thereafter). And later when the egg freezer decides to finally start a family, the company can marginalize her to a lesser role, eventually replacing her with a man/new young woman. She's already contributed her value to the firm, now she can "go to pasture" and be a mom at Yahoo or Intel.

I could be underestimating Si Valley snobbery, but I think the # of women who will use this benefit will be small, and the # of women thawing their eggs later to start a family even smaller. Biologically, it's more likely they will have kids naturally. But for those who do choose to freeze and have a family via IVF, it won't be a cake walk either. Success rates are under 20% per egg. The mom might be 35-45 at that point. The older you get, the harder it is to deal with the physical strains of motherhood (unless they plan to nanny everything like Marisa Meyer). And by then they would be mid-career, with even more responsibilities and stress vs. their 20's. So is that a better time to start a family? Sure they'll be richer, but it may also be harder to transition from office rock-star to working mommy. So is the egg benefit just a scam from Apple and FB, tricking talented younger women to postpone their family plans to their detriment? And I don't know if there is data on it, but I wonder if child outcomes are different when the parents are older or younger. Of course teen parents are not preferable either, but I wonder if there is such a thing as "too old". Kids will still need their parents when they are 20-30, and it's just harder when they are geriatric by then. 

Lastly, what about the whole cryo-egg/IVF approach? Obviously it is not an option for most women, and is generally monopolized by wealthier white/Asian people (which tech is too). Will this further the rich-poor & racial gaps? Older pregnancies are a larger health risk for both mother and child. One option is a surrogate mom (pay a younger, poorer lady to carry your fetus - she's just renting out her excess capacity like AirBnB, right?). That is such a First World Problem: build vs. buy right? Outsource the non-value-add stuff, so you can focus on making money. Never compromise, innovate to have your cake and eat it too.

But it also reeks of exploitation. It's kind of sick - search for "surrogate mother" and you get a bunch of ads and sites trying to recruit wombs. Obviously demand > supply, especially with the rise of the Chinese upper class. And older couples who want to conceive will often pay any price. Those with medical need should have access to IVF, but what about those who elected to delay parenthood for their careers? That is kind of like paying to jump the line at Disneyland, or for organ donation. Clearly such procedures like IVF are not equal-opportunity, but the poor have the opposite problem - they sometime have too many kids because of lack of education and access to affordable contraception (as we discussed previously during the Hobby Lobby ruling).

There is even "surrogacy tourism" where Western couples lease a Third World womb (really, are they that cheap that they have to offshore it?). A case in Thailand made the headlines because an AUS couple may have "abandoned" one of their twins after discovering he had Down's (they left him with the surrogate Thai mom and returned home with the "desirable" twin). This is just one incident, but you can imagine the ethical and legal minefield that surrogacy presents.

All the sci-fi stuff from our childhood like Brave New World and Gattaca seem to be getting too close for comfort. Those in the "elite" class get all the privileges and get to lead charmed lives (yes, you can have it all when you work for Apple/FB!), and the rest of humanity just serves them, with the narrow/false hope of joining their ranks some day.

-----

This may also be a symptom of the competitiveness of silicon valley.  What else can you offer once money, food, on site massage, etc is covered?  The incentives are only going to get weirder at this point.

-----

I agree that there is an "arms race" re: employee benefits to attract good talent, but remember that Google, Apple, and maybe some others got sued for anti-competitive practices (no engineer poaching collusion to keep comp in check), but FB was not involved. So I guess several forces are affecting benefits. Supposedly US raises are being depressed by the rising costs of health coverage too.

If you took a poll at Apple on what new/enhanced benefits the workforce really wants, I doubt that egg freezing would be high on the list. I think it was a pet project by some HR person to "be innovative" and make some news. I assume the workforce really wants (1) more pay, (2) more vacation (true vacation, as in totally unplugged time), (3) more flex time, and (4) more coaching/training/career dev, not necessarily in that order. But most employers won't budge on that stuff. Speaking of vacation, some companies like Netflix offer unlimited paid vacation. But as you can imagine, this could have the opposite effect (workers scared to ask for a lot of time off, and without a vacation stipend, the firm saves money by not paying out unused balance).

There are some "nefarious benefits" that actually benefit the firm more than the worker. Like offering free dinner - that could encourage workers to stay later (with no OT pay) and the company gets a little more productivity out of them (even if they goof off much of that time). It got so bad at EA that workers sued to reclaim OT and become hourly workers, so at least they get comped for their longer hours. So I think the egg freezing is part of that - it delays family life, which benefits the company possibly at the expense of the worker. 

Leaked tapes reveal "regulatory capture" at the NY Fed

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra

In some cases, managers observed behaviors indicating regulatory capture (in other words, when the regulator is kowtowing and in the pocket of the regulatee) as soon as 3 months after the agent was assigned to the bank. But the greater fault was the lack of policy/oversight to prevent this, and the managerial inaction once it was identified. Corruption and human nature will always be with us, so what is the point of a regulatory agency that can't even properly police itself?

The VA, ICE, ATF, NSA, IRS, Secret Service, CONGRESS... I know these recent negative cases may skew the overall assessment of gov't effectiveness, but do they represent a sufficient mass to conclude that our country is seriously broken? What is the point of paying for a gov't that delivers this level of performance? Well, we know that our gov't works extremely well for certain segments of our society, but our leaders need to remember that the middle class in aggregate represents a larger tax base and voting bloc than the rich (and will always be so).

The foolish drumbeat for war against ISIS

ISIS is a problem for the US and many of our partners, that is obvious. But it is not an acute problem, nor the only problem facing our civilization (you wouldn't know it after listening to many in DC though). And let's be clear; Obama and company didn't decide to intervene militarily to save some poor religious minority stuck on a mountain (that very few of us even knew existed before the summer). ISIS was getting the upper hand against the best Kurdish troops, and the Kurds are the only reasonably trustworthy/capable/secular petro-ally we have left in Mesopotamia. So something had to be done.   

Just because we've pretty much marginalized groups like Al Qaeda (and its affiliates such as AQAP) through cyber warfare and drones, and we're washing our hands of the Taliban (pretty much raised the white flag there), we need a new Islamist bogeyman to fixate on. ISIS has shown some impressive strategy and execution (and atrocious behavior/beliefs) in seizing/holding Arab lands, but of course they exploited a lot of favorable conditions in the region to do so. It is a whole different matter to mount a major attack on a Western power. But that is exactly what everyone is predicting they are up to (and capable of). Heck, they could be already here!

This is what the former director of the Nat'l Counterterrorism Center (Matt Olson) said about ISIS' capability to attack the US: “There is no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the United States”. He added there was “no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop”. [Olson] said said it was “spot on” to conclude that Isis is significantly more limited than al-Qaida was, for example, in the run-up to 9/11, when it had underground cells across Europe and the US. “We certainly aren’t there,” Olsen said. “[Isis] is not al-Qaida pre-9/11”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/isis-militants-al-qaida-911-intelligence-officials

Yet this is what Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte., said about ISIS: "They are coming here. It is about our homeland."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266144/speedreads-watch-sen-lindsey-graham-blast-obamas-response-to-isis

I can't begin to comment how grossly irresponsible and misleading this is from someone who has access to actual intel and expert opinion (and helps craft defense policy as well). And Boehner wants to try to impeach Obama for misconduct? Shitheads like Graham are just repeating the same garbage that led the public to believe Saddam had WMDs. Because when your family and your home are in perceived jeopardy, your better judgment weakens and you may become more susceptible to suggestion.

So why did Obama and company go from a "wait and see" approach with Syria to forming a "coalition" to "destroy" ISIS (without risking any US troops of course)? Cynics would say because public opinion rapidly shifted from 70% against intervention to 60% pro, but they have a point. Why did opinion shift so much? Because of 2 videos of journalists being executed. That shows you how stupid this country is (incl. Obama on down). While those deaths were barbaric and tragic, I'm sorry to say that worse shit is occurring every damn day in many places across the globe (ISIS is doing much worse stuff to non-Americans too - where are those videos?). But those are places that we don't care about (Central Africa, Latin America) or don't have the stomach/chutzpah to really intervene (China, Palestine). More Americans died in Benghazi, and while the GOP had a shitfit about it, no one was calling for war against the parties responsible. Islamic Jihad bombed and killed over 200 servicemen in 1983, and Reagan not only failed to respond, but pulled us out of Lebanon! Very rarely (if ever) do sound decisions result from vengeful, fearful sentiment.

Air power alone will not stop an insurgency - we've seen that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other places. Maybe it will slow ISIS down and take out some leaders (but of course it may also motivate them to try harder to attack our homeland - ironically the very threat that we're working to avoid). So what do we do about the inevitable escalation decision? Remember that Islamists have "home field advantage" and want to provoke the infidel powers into a protracted quagmire. Maybe that's why they released the videos? Will we take the bait again?

Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

It's also an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that the neocon-leaning pundits and politicians, who are vociferously calling for military action, are also funded by America's major defense companies. As overall defense budgets are getting scrutinized and spending in Iraq/Afghanistan is winding down, the death dealers need a new conflict theater to peddle and exploit.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/17/whos-paying-the-pro-war-pundits/

PS - did you wonder why Obama and others in DC refer to ISIS as ISIL, and don't use the official name of Islamic State either? Obviously they don't want to use the word "Islamic" if they can avoid it, which suggests that this is another Crusade or anti-Islam conquest. But the ISIL acronym avoids the hot-button word of Syria. The US is more comfortable with bombing Iraq - we've been doing it for decades and we have relations with the various groups. But with Syria (the conflict that Obama has avoided for 3+ years), it's a total cluster F and we obviously can't tell a moderate rebel from a crazy one. So ISIL allows Obama and company the official excuse/cover to avoid the Syrian portion of the war. This is just a hypothesis of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

Why it's so hard to get out of poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/14/330434597/this-is-your-stressed-out-brain-on-scarcity

The situations and constraints that the poor find themselves in often lead to short-term thinking and counter-productive behaviors. They don't do it because they're irrational and/or like being poor. Even the "self-made Masters of the Universe" (conservatives like Romney, Ryan, Hannity, Trump, etc. who blame the poor for being poor) would likely do no better in their shoes.

Also, the ludicrous propaganda that the poor somehow live large off the rest of us and strategically exploit social programs when they could be working is really backed by no statistical evidence (but of course anecdotes exist). But stereotypes like that make it easier for society to ignore/dismiss/hate the poor, against our compassionate tendencies and the teachings of virtually every religious/moral code known to man.

Cop killers

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/justice/pennsylvania-shooting/

I don't know why many US police officers are so hostile/scared of urban black men, when it's probably more likely they will be killed by a "white trash" man. The Obama admin. implemented some protective measures during their 1st term and police deaths fell sharply since 2011. Statistically, being a US cop is safer now than the overall workforce average. And many police deaths were self-inflicted due to not wearing seat belts or distracted driving.

Not so for being a black man (and you can't really quit that like a bad job). Supposedly a black person is killed in the US every 1-2 days by police. I'm pretty confident that a sizable % of those were unnecessary.

http://www.occupy.com/article/black-man-killed-us-every-28-hours-police

Re: cop shootings, I couldn't get stats on the races of the shooters. But considering US demographics, it's very unlikely that blacks are the majority of them, despite what gangsta rappers claim. So it is just racism/ignorance that explains police perceptions and treatment of blacks?

http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014

The fad of the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS

http://www.vice.com/read/dumping-a-bucket-of-ice-on-your-head-does-not-make-you-a-philanthropist-813

When even Steve-O gets it and 90% of the participants don't, that is pretty scary.

http://www.craveonline.com/lifestyle/tech-and-gadgets-news/745885-steve-o-slams-celebrities-taking-part-ice-bucket-challenge

FYI on ALS: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/amyotrophiclateralsclerosis/detail_ALS.htm

Like most neuro-degenerative diseases, it is barely understood and no effective treatments or cures exist.

Vets react to Ferguson police

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-15/us-veteran-says-police-response-ferguson-isn-t-country-we-fought-protect (the tweets at the bottom are pretty good too)

This story is so idiotic and some of us discussed it already on FB, so I will try to be brief. I just thank heavens that the Ferguson cops didn't gravely injure and kill a lot of people in their frenzy. Apart from the actual shooting incident (details of which are still indeterminate), the police's "peacekeeping effort"s have been so off the deep end - almost rivaling Kent State territory, or the Occupied Territories.

This is similar to the gun issue, I think. some Americans may believe that tech/weapons/stuff can suffice as solutions to threats and problems (obviously the arms industry wants us to believe that). Maybe it's true that overwhelming force helps when you are trying to wipe out an enemy batallion or seize territory. But obviously the iron fist approach breaks down in occupations/insurgencies (too many examples to list), and should never be the goal of a police operation. Because unlike an army that can withdraw and go home after a victory (and the aftermath of their violence is not really a top concern), the next day the cops have to still live with the people they scared/harassed/hurt - and likely for many more days afterward. That's why managing relationships and de-escalating conflicts are better than "crushing your enemy", and no advanced weapons system can do that better than an intelligent, compassionate, well-trained peace officer (even if they're unarmed, like the UK and Norwegian cops). What happened to having a conversation, especially when many of the protesters were nonviolent and within their Constitutional rights?

As the vets who tweeted in that article said, a show of force can be counter-productive if the objective is to manage an angry population. Clearly the gear by itself is not enough to maintain order long-term, but such weaponry in the hands of undisciplined, untrained, and probably prejudiced/beligerent morons is even worse. "Petty force" by petty bullies, as David Brooks said recently. All that gear makes them feel like Rambo, and Rambo doesn't take no shit from no one (the whole SYG convo we had). If our occupying soldiers (with less gear and employing less heavy-handed tactics) could often coexist with Iraqis and Afghans, who were bigger threats and hated them more than black people may (justifiably) hate US cops, then what are police forces like Ferguson trying to achieve?

I thought the crackdowns on the WTO and OWS protesters were bad, but they look like Boy Scouts in comparison. I fear that episodes like Ferguson are going to happen again and again, because the underlying forces are unchanged or getting worse (us vs. them style policing, surplus wargear that someone wants to find a use for, community inequality/segregation, culture of fear/violence in America). What concerns me is who can/will step in if amateurish police depts like Ferguson go too far? Even with the media everywhere, they didn't care. The police were acting like fascists, as one vet said. I am pretty sure no one is going to lose their job over this though, which adds to the tragedy.

So in the future, if a dept. displays even worse judgment, who will step in to protect the citizenry? That is supposed to be the cops' job, but what happens when they become the threat? Will the governor deploy the National Guard in a timely manner? Courts and investigations happen after the dust has settled, but who will stand up to the cops in the moment? Unfortunately this may make citizens feel like they need to take matters into hands (a la Cliven Bundy and right-wing militias), which will only perpetuate the cycle of distrust/violence and feed the police's mania.

Other links:

Eric Garner case

Police misconduct costs communities hundreds of millions in lawsuits a year

Bill Maher even before Ferguson and Garner happened

Military compared to cops

The aftermath of the Gaza war

Some perspectives on the aftermath of the current Gaza war:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21610312-pummelling-gaza-has-cost-israel-sympathy-not-just-europe-also-among-americans?fsrc=email_to_a_friend
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14552

Sorry for the long commentary below. It just kinda snowballed and I thought these articles made a lot of interesting points.

As before, sentiment in Europe is generally more anti-Israel than in America. This is possibly driven by the larger Muslim populations in the EU, as well as those gov'ts more dovish politics vs. America's. However, the pro-Israel camp is chalking this up to deeply-rooted European anti-Semitism (affecting as many as 165MM Europeans according to some of their think tanks - but then again, when you are a hammer, you see nails everywhere). Strange that the "anti-Semitism" only rears its ugly head when the IDF murders scores of Palestinian kids. I guess they only come out when the liberal, pro-Hamas media incite them? Obviously that is ridiculous, and I think most Europeans don't have a problem with Israel (or worldwide Jewry) when that country isn't breaking laws and hurting people. Unfortunately, there has been some real anti-Semitism too. I am not sure about the death/damage from hate crimes, but some Jewish establishments in the EU have closed as a precaution until the war blows over. Still, some hateful words at an overseas rally is different than a modern military destroying lives and property of poor people, and not compensating them for it (as usual, the international community will pay the tab of Gaza rebuilding - only to be leveled again in the next war).

Globescan took an average of 20 countries' opinions on whether certain nations had overall positive or negative influences on the world. GER, CAN, and UK lead the pack with about a 3:1 ratio of positive-to-negative. US and China are similar at 1:1 (way to be a zero, USA! USA!). Israel is in between Russia and N Korea, at about 1:2 negative (however they can still gloat that they are better than Iran, at over 1:3 negative). I know opinion polls have limited value, and I don't know how they selected respondents, but this seems to suggest that world opinion is generally negative on Israel. Hamas/Palestine was not part of the survey, but I can imagine their rating would be pretty low too. Israel might chalk this up to ignorance or anti-Semitism again, but this survey was about a country's impact on the world, and more Jews live outside of Israel than within it. I think it's a reflection of gov't policies.

In the US, non-Republicans and Americans under 50 tend to evaluate Israel's actions in Gaza as unjustified, while older folks and Republicans (who tend to be Evangelicals) take the opposite view. Regarding age, this is likely influenced by memory - folks over 50 may actually remember the Arab-Israeli wars (when it was an old-fashioned army vs. army fight, not occupying bully vs. poor resistor). So that clouds their perception of the current conflict, and like Fox News, they may only see Israel as the innocent victim surrounded by strong, evil enemies. This is likely how the Tel Aviv propaganda machine wants us to feel, even if it's incompatible with current realities.

The West is also seeing Israel become less Western. The Economist says that this could be driven by the 1990s influx of 1MM Eastern European Jews who were less educated than previous waves of emigres, and not accustomed to democracy and Western thinking (they may have lived under the Soviet regime). They are part of the "might makes right" camp, and may be more accepting of brutality to ensure a strong, secure Jewish State. This has manifested itself in internal media censorship, marginalization of the peace movement, more racism toward Palestinians, and possibly the rise of Likud over Kadima a few years ago. The West may have less in common culturally with Israel now, thereby reducing the likelihood that we will agree on policies, priorities, and tactics. Maybe that is why many in the West are outraged about the civilian casualties and expect the IDF to hold themselves to higher standards than that. Whereas the Israelis may take it less seriously, or prefer to focus on Hamas' role in the casualties - whether accurate or not (stop using them as human shields, if you didn't fire rockets we wouldn't have to invade in the first place, they don't accept our right to exist, etc.). Still, allies don't have to totally understand each other to have a fruitful relationship. However, what has the West really gotten out of its relations and investments in Israel? Israel would say that they are the front lines of the War on Terror (similar to Pakistan, but the difference is we fully acknowledge the problems associated with our partnership with Pakistan), and they keep madmen like Assad and Ahmadinejad in check. I don't buy that, because Sunni nations in the area can fill that role if Israel wasn't involved (and they would likely do it less belligerently). Israel obviously contributes a lot of good to the world in terms of science, commerce, and human capital - but I seriously question their value to US strategy/interests in the region (esp. for the price tag - both financial and perceptual).

Israel could be reacting to this souring Western sentiment in 2 ways, both of which are not helpful for the future. (1) If Europe and younger, non-Republican Americans are so anti-Semitic, we won't be able to count on them when times get tough. Therefore, let's just do what we want and not care about their opinions. Pro-Israel lobbying will make sure US aid will still flow and we'll prevail. (2) We need a PR offensive in the West. To counter all the pro-Palestinian lying voices on social media, let's shout louder and re-hash the IDF's talking points. Westerners are just being deceived; let's show them the truth.

Re: (1), it's never a good thing when a state is accountable to no one. It's not that Israel isn't reliant on other nations (not necessarily for survival, but they are not immune to sanctions either), but those partners are unlikely to administer the tough love if Israel oversteps its bounds. Or in other words, people may rather let Arabs/Palestinians suffer than dealing with the costs of disciplining Israel. Re: (2), it's sometime true that many people will believe a huge lie, but usually the public can sniff out BS. I say this time and time again, but if your side is so right, why do you need to bend over backward to convince people? It should be self-evident. Like no matter how many millions the Chinese spend on PR and what defaming things they say about the Dalai Lama, I think very few non-Chinese will side with them on the Tibet issue. 

---

Regarding the fragile ceasefire now and potential peace resolution, Norman Finkelstein (the DN link) has an interesting, and disconcerting take. The vast majority of Israelis support actions like the current Gaza war (because they feel it makes them safer, costs them little, and hurts their sworn enemy), and are not that serious about working hard for a two-state solution (little to gain from their perspective and potentially a lot to lose in terms of national pride/Zionism and security). Unfortunately, their history in Gaza has only reinforced this. After Sharon pulled the settlers out, Hamas took over and the rockets started to rain down. Israel was "forced" to invade at least 3 times. Maybe some in Israel feel that it was better when they outright controlled Gaza (now they are more like prison guards). So the land-for-peace model seemed to fall on its face, and Israelis may have less faith in it for the future.

So re: Gaza, some refer to it as "mowing the lawn." Every now and then, they have to blow stuff up, to keep them off balance for the next time Israel "has to" invade. So this current invasion is not about the 3 Israeli teens, not about the rockets, and not about the tunnels supposedly infiltrating Israel proper (you see how the gov't changed its premise for war mid-stream just like the Bushies?). Regarding the teens, there is no proof that Hamas was behind that, and some new evidence suggests the contrary. That was a tragedy, but not justification for a war. Regarding the rockets, the new Egyptian regime (that took over after Mubarak) destroyed most of the smuggling tunnels on that border, so it is very unlikely that Hamas is well stocked or equipped with newer "super rockets" from Iran that are supposedly deadlier. Regarding the tunnels into Israel - a tunnel has 2 openings, right? Why go through the effort of invading Gaza and killing thousands when Israel can just destroy the tunnel openings on their side any time they want (if such tunnels exist)? Also, attacking hospitals and a power plant have nothing to do with those stated goals. So this war is more and more looking like just mowing the lawn. They learned their lesson from the problemating Lebanon invasion. They don't want Hamas to "fortify" Gaza and make it harder for them if a serious invasion becomes necessary. Hamas is a lot weaker than Hezbollah, but they have been building tunnels and defenses within Gaza. That could help explain why the IDF death toll this year was around 60 soldiers, vs. 10 in their 2008 Cast Lead invasion. But they have spent this month destroying all that Hamas stuff. So clearly Gaza is not "independent" if Israel has this level of destructive influence on a whim.

Finkelstein thinks that the ceasefire will hold because Israel has finished mowing the lawn for now. Israel ends an invasion when (a) their objectives are met or (b) there are no more targets to attack except ones that would involve an unacceptable level of civilian or IDF deaths. Even the IDF realizes that if they went deeper into the most populated areas of Gaza, the death toll could be 5-10X higher, and then they might have real issues with the int'l community. Also, if they press on, they risk losing more soldiers - and being a conscript army, the Israeli public is very sensitive to losses. That's why they bomb targets to hell (in spite of collateral damage) before they put boots on the ground. But still, no more targets are available in Gaza without incurring higher risks. He also predicts that Hamas will agree to peace with the conditions that the blockade is lifted and Fatah polices the border crossings. That would essentially neutralize Hamas' ability to put up any meaningful resistance in the future, and I am not sure how many functional rockets/ammo they still have in storage. So in a sense, this lawn mowing strategy has worked for Israel. The rockets and small IDF losses were minor annoyances, but they eventually may get Hamas to disarm and fade out of relevance. If that plays out, it would set a scary precedent for Israel and other occupying powers. Take the hard-line approach but blame the resistance for the violence. You have the resources and staying power, so keep the pressure on and starve the resistance into irrelevance. This is pretty much what Syria, Sudan, and Russia did/are doing. So no one has to make a deal or make concessions for peace, you can beat the resistance into submission.

Children fleeing Central America

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jul/29/why-nicaraguan-kids-arent-fleeing-to-the-us/

I found this interesting. Of the 50K or so children picked up at the US-MEX border in the last 6 months, most of them are from Guatemala/Honduras/El Salvador, yet very few are from neighboring Nicaragua.

Of course Honduras is the murder capital of the Americas (if not the world), so Nicaragua by default has less violence. All of those countries are pretty poor, but Nicaragua has much less drug gang violence and a different immigration history with the US. It stems from the Cold War. The US interfered in the affairs of all those nations to support pro-US, right-wing forces against leftist opponents. For Nicaragua, the US backed the Contra rebels against the Sandinista gov't (which, with popular support, overthrew the US-backed Somoza dictatorship beforehand). Because of that, the US was more welcoming of Nicaraguan refugees in the 1980s, similar to pro-American Cubans and Hmong. So the ones who wanted to leave may be already here. In addition, after the civil war Nicaragua invested more in functional law enforcement, community development, and proactive gov't (without America's help). The Sandinistas were recently elected back to power.

For those other nations, the US supported the repressive, corrupt, right-wing regimes in power against leftist insurgents. So refugees fleeing those nations were not as welcomed in the US (and no specific provisions were written for them). It could be coincidence, but it's likely that the US support for those less democratic, more brutal regimes paved the way for the lawlessness, violence, and misery today. Therefore, do we have somewhat of a moral obligation to help the fleeing kids?

Is Israel's invasion of Gaza good for their interests?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/sean-hannity-russell-brand-response-geraldo_n_5637081.html

This is the only time I'll be referencing a Hannity video. :) When even the united front of FNC is fraying over Israel's conduct in Gaza, you know the conflict has turned a page. Geraldo, a self-proclaimed Zionist who "would die for Israel" and apparently has a Star of David tattoo, said that the excessive carnage caused by the IDF is counter-productive to the interests of the Jewish State. It's increasing anti-Semitism (or at least reducing support for Israel), and not getting any closer to their stated goal of disarming/destroying Hamas.

Israel has air superiority. Why can't they have gunships and drones circling 24-7 to shoot at potential missile sites BEFORE they launch? Returning fire on a site where fighters may have already vacated seems stupid - especially when that site is a humanitarian one. And shelling is the worst military response - lower accuracy and higher chance of collateral damage. That is the lazy man's approach (which also shows a lack of caring, especially when they have other options at their disposal). Bullets may also hit the wrong people, but at least it won't level buildings and crush kids. I am not sure if Hamas has surface-to-air missiles, but it seems to me that Israel is not making all reasonable efforts to minimize risk to noncombatants. This is possibly due to the perception among some in Israel that all Gazans are fair game because they dislike Israel and tolerate/support Hamas.  

But since the Torah gets invoked from time to time on this issue, take a look at Genesis 18. God would even spare all of Sodom if he could find 10 innocents living among the wicked. I am not a Bible expert, and it seems that Sodom got wiped out by fire and brimstone later (maybe no innocents were found? :P), but I think there are at least 10 innocents among the slain in Gaza. I wonder what the IDF rabbis would say to that. And Abraham is the PATRIARCH of the Jews, not some peacenik or Israel hater.

Abraham pleads for Sodom:

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it." 29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it." 30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it." 32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." 33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Where are the consequences for Israel for Gaza?

A pretty good summary of the Palestinian's plight from Rashid Khalidi: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/collective-punishment-gaza

Maybe few people really care about the Palestinians' suffering, but I hope that these current atrocities at least make the Israelis disgusted enough with their gov't/military to demand some changes. If they follow the outside free press, Israelis can't be happy with the commentary (much less the actual actions carried out ostensibly for their protection). Possibly the int'l community could consider boycotts/sanctions/colder relations with Tel Aviv, because after all we did that to Apartheid South Africa, Cuba, and Iran - and those regimes were far less murderous. Someone has to be held accountable, but alas the US has veto power in the UN.

It may not make much difference anyway, when the US continues to support the Israeli machine. Major figures on the Hill (incl. "progressive" leaders) denounced the UN report of Israeli war crimes and reiterated their unwavering support. In Washington, no major figure made a statement after the UN school bombing left 15 kids dead (only Obama's WH press secretary said it was "indefensible"), but when reports surfaced that Hamas may have kidnapped ONE Israeli soldier, you'd think Pearl Harbor was bombed again. In light of the outrageous body counts this month, the deadlocked Congress was able to overwhelmingly approve $225MM for the Iron Dome (maybe that is just a "defensive" system, but the donation frees up funds for Israel to buy offensive weapons). No infrastructure bill, no jobs bill, no immigration bill (until today at least), and no progress on the multitude of other pressing issues. In light of all the spending cuts and austerity, we will continue to finance the killing of unarmed noncombatants. I don't get it.

Another good interview if you can't get enough misery and injustice: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

Millennials are less supportive of Israel than older Americans: link

Pacific Gas and Electric's gross violations after gas pipeline negligence

This is pretty ridiculous: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201407300900

Remember their negligence over the San Bruno, CA gas line explosion that killed 8 and destroyed millions in property? Well they are getting sued because it was revelaed that the company exchanged over 7K emails with the CPUC (state agency regulating utilities) while being investigated by them. That is like OJ having a regular side conversation with the LA Superior Court before the trial started. But that is the revolving door, where many in the CPUC are former utility workers, and maybe hope to work at PG&E in the future. Can you believe that PG&E has not paid a dime in fines so far, and the incident is 4 years old? With these new charges, they now could be on the hook for around $4B. I divested from them long ago out of disapproval, but you might want to as well to save your money.

If only we could go 100% solar. These morons are verging on BP territory.

On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses.

In December 2012 the California Public Utilities Commission decided that 55% of the long term costs for PG&E pipeline inspection and safety upgrades of $229 million will be borne by electricity rate payers.

An unfortunate consequence of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/07/28/330767266/taliban-in-pakistan-derails-world-polio-eradication

If you have followed the OBL story and/or saw "Zero Dark Thirty", maybe you are familiar with the fact that the CIA exploited a hepatitis vaccination program in Pakistan to locate OBL through DNA matching. Unfortunately, word about that got to the Pak Taliban, and now they don't trust any medical vaccination programs.

Humanity has been spending billions trying to eradicate polio for decades, and we are mostly successful everywhere BUT Pakistan. Since 2012, vaccination workers have been targeted and killed (about 60 dead), and families in Taliban-controlled areas are intimidated and discouraged from getting vaccinated.

The Taliban say that is is outrageous that the CIA would use a humanitarian program as cover for its operations. Of course it's also outrageous that they are killing medical workers and families trying to protect their kids, but their paranoia/savagery has some justification. Yet another unintended consequence of some smarty-pants at Langley (or Jessica Chastain) thinking this would be great way to find OBL. I understand if that was "the only way", but the most global and well-funded intel org in the world had 10 years to find OBL through other channels (incl. torture), and failed. So now they put thousands of lives at risk just to take out an ailing, marginalized terrorist. 

The Jewish identity and Birthright angle of the Israel-Palestine conflict

"...the rabbi spoke of those who hate Israel and hate the Jews, but did not speak of the Israeli army, which is burning children alive; did not condemn the hate of Israelis for Palestinians. He spoke of peace, but he spoke of peace as a thing to force on the Gaza strip, not a thing for both sides to work toward... I think no one can possibly be reading the Torah anymore because this is not what we were told to do, this is not how we were told to act, and if you believe Israel is yours because God says so, how can you ignore the rest of what he said?"

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/26/israel_is_not_my_birthright/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"After the 2006 Lebanon war, Brandeis researchers found that Birthright alumni were more likely than other young American Jews to view Israel’s military conduct as justified... Initially, [American youth turned fallen IDF soldier Max Steinberg] didn’t want to go on the Birthright trip, but once he did, it changed him... It turns out that it’s not that hard to persuade young people to see the world a certain way and that Birthright is very good at doing it."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/max_steinberg_death_how_birthright_convinces_american_jews_to_embrace_israel.html

Israeli and Palestinian motivations for war and peace

As usual with Israel and the west bank, is there a good guy here?  From Israel's standpoint there doesn't seem to be a path to a "free" Palestine that doesn't threaten Israelis.  On the other hand this is an overwhelming force advantage for Israel that is killing civilians in large numbers.  

So while I agree perception of support can be tough in either case we are stuck with bad options and diplomatic dead ends.  

----

I am curious - how would a free Palestinian state actually threaten Israel more than the status quo (and the facts suggest that Jews are very safe in Israel today, just as most Americans are very safe from Jihadists)? That is of course contingent on Hamas being marginalized/under control and Fatah mostly running things, but even if a Pal. state was run by Hamas, they are not exactly ISIS. What could they do to Israel that they are not already doing now (i.e. what do they have to lose to give peace a chance)?

The settlements (populated by some of the most extremist elements of Jewish society) are provocative to Palestinians and frankly unsustainable for Israel. You get rid of them, and IMO the Palestinians have one less reason to fight. Same thing with the checkpoints, embargo, night raids, etc. I think Israel has the most to fear from the hardcore Zionists if they broker a peace accord. The zealots would try to overthrow the gov't (like our Tea Party on crack), feeling betrayed because all the land was promised to them by a 3K year old book (remember how some Zionists revolted when Sharon - who is far from a peacenik - had the IDF remove the settlers from Gaza?) Out of respect, I accept the Zionists' rights to their beliefs - but then they have to accept the costs that such beliefs impose. So to reiterate, I think the Israeli government's lack of interest in peace is not really driven by the Palestinian "threat", but a fear of the domestic repercussions. And maybe after such a long track record, I think it's fair to say that racism/bad blood/hubris are also a factor - the Israelis in power don't want to give the Palestinians (who they see as beneath them) the "victory" of peace and a self-governed homeland of their own. They may prefer to fight forever (and punish the Palestinians forever), because they know they can't lose and no one will stand in their way (apart from maybe a suicidal, nuclear Iran in a very unlikely scenario).

I think this is the 5th invasion of Gaza in 12 years. I don't think their objectives are purely security driven either. It's punitive and frankly mean/sadistic depending on your point of view. There's no strategic need to attack ambulances, hospitals, and international monitors/press. But that is what they do. Like what Efrati said about the Territories - some of what the IDF does is just to show everyone who's running things. That is not righteous, that is not defensive... it's bullying. And it's not just punishment for the Gazans choosing Hamas (as if they really had a choice), because the IDF is operating harshly (but obviously less harshly) in the W Bank too. IMO, all of it is punishment for the Palestinians refusing to fade away quietly into the night. They simply won't just die off or go away, and let the Jews enjoy their purely Jewish homeland. So the IDF and Israeli gov't are going to make their lives hell in perpetuity. Clearly it could be worse; it's not like the IDF is employing Boko Haram or North Korea tactics every day. The IDF/Israeli gov't have some decency/limits/respect for laws of course, but I feel that their disturbing actions/policies are permeated by this undercurrent of bigotry/bullying/resentment/what have you.

Maybe what I've said in this email is pretty controversial and offensive. I am sorry for that, but this is my assessment of the situation. I have to emphasize that my criticisms are focused on the Israeli military/gov't (run mostly by extremists) and the sectors of society that enable/profit from the Occupation/violence. I know that many Israelis are rational people who would love to give peace a chance. But like the Keret article, they may be under a lot of social/ethnic pressure to just toe the line and go along with what the Jewish State declares. And for the record, plenty of Israeli civilians and IDF reservists, active, or retired soldiers have spoken out against these tactics and/or refused to participate (sometime under physical threat from hawkish Jews).

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/24/amidst_brutal_operation_in_our_name
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=795070259362236467#editor/target=post;postID=6027526199283616770;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=78;src=postname
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/israel
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-07-24/anti-war-voices-israel-face-threats-and-violence

----

Clearly Israel isn't the categorical good guy.  Sort of my point.  But before Gaza or Palestine becomes independent, is there any other Islamic state (or ethnically middle eaten state) that either doesn't or hasn't wanted to destroy Israel?  Are there democracies anywhere near as free or open as Israel?  Compare Palestinian acceptance in Jerusalem to Jewish acceptance in Tehran or Dubai or Baghdad or pick a place.  

While you might argue it can't be worse and perhaps that is true the position of power Israel has over Palestine could never be accepted over a sovereign country.  And whether or not that is moral from the Israeli state's perspective it is better for security.  Unless you believe a free Palestine won't elect Hamas or be an enemy to Israel.

----

Well, Israel and Egypt have had a long-standing peace (mostly brokered and paid for by the US). Turkey is a big military trading partner with Israel. And I am fairly sure that Pakistan, Indonesia, and others don't want war with Israel any time soon. In fact, the 30K minority of Jews still living in Iran are generally not mistreated (it is the most Jew-friendly nation in the region outside of Israel, despite the stupid things that Ahmadinejad has said in the past). So in the Iranian case, it seems Persians justifiably dislike the actions/policies of the Israeli gov't, and do not wish harm on all Jews (dispelling another Israeli myth). I believe that is the case for many Arab-Muslim countries. A lot of countries don't like each other in the world, but they generally know how to coexist or at least refrain from violence. The other Arab-Muslim states have not attacked Israel for decades, if ever.

I think Israeli propaganda often exaggerates the hatred and "mortal dangers" they are under, when they are often the aggressor and clear economic-military power in the region (with strong US backing). Part of that may be intended to elicit Western sympathy, due to the emotional associations with past persecutions. Jews have not been treated well for most of history, but those bygone events do not really characterize the Jewish situation in 2014 (other peoples today are suffering much worse ethnic persecution with less ability to defend themselves - such as the south Sudanese, Syrian Sunnis, etc.).

Just because many of Israel's neighbors have a comparatively worse record on freedom, good governance, and tolerance - I'm not sure if that absolves Israel of its failings in those areas. Keep in mind that Israel doesn't really have a free press vis-a-vis Palestinian matters, Israeli Arabs are institutionally discriminated against, Jewish fundamentalists sometime terrorize moderates and non-Jews, and the Israeli gov't is responsible for more war crimes and civilian deaths than most of its neighbors (except for Saddam's Iraq and Syria recently). A growing % of Israelis openly chant "kill all Arabs" just like the converse (i.e. there is mutual hate and no side is "innocent").

I believe that an independent Palestine will not be a greater threat to Israel than the status quo of Palestinian abject poverty and armed resistance to occupation. Most peoples in the world do not want to live under a religious fundamentalist regime. Palestinians and Arabs might like/support groups like Hamas-Hezbollah because they are the only ones with the audacity to fight back against Israeli oppression (propaganda from their side glorifying the struggle and making them look like heroic martyrs). But in the absence of war/occupation, their status/raison-d'etre fades away, and they are exposed as horrible rulers that few people endorse (people generally prefer dancing and booze over burkhas and beards). So that is why I think it is highly unlikely that Hamas would come to lead an independent Palestine, much less rally the country to fight Israel state-to-state (which would be a sure victory for Israel).


Again, I think Israel's fear-mongering over the 2-state solution (or giving any concessions to Palestinians) is a propaganda play. Their reasoning is basically: why give Palestinians more rights/land/etc. when their only goal is the destruction of Israel? They assume (or want us to believe) that Palestinian violence is driven by unrelenting anti-Semitism and suicidal intolerance, when in fact it is mainly resistance to Israeli brutality/injustice. Hate obviously plays a role, but rarely in history have the oppressed not expressed hatred against their oppressors. And that may be one of the Palestinians' key strategic flaws - they didn't have the courage/discipline to stick to nonviolent resistance a la Mandela/Gandhi. But maybe they figured that approach would likely fail due to Western support/bias for Israel?

"Israel's other war" by E Keret

"We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it."

Another quality op-ed from Keret, questioning why some people expect others to show love for country with such extreme hatred for the "enemy", and intolerance for any other opinion besides total unwavering support for war. His article also reminded me of America after 9/11, and sadly Germany between the wars too: the terrible right-wing nationalist rhetoric that the country would prevail if it wasn't for "the enemy within" subverting their efforts. If Israel wants to level Gaza to the ground, nothing can stop them - not dissidents, liberals, traitors, or Arab-lovers. Same thing with America in Iraq - we can destroy the whole country if we wanted to. But the question is: will that make us safer? Will our unrestrained violent actions prevent the enemy from ever returning? Of course the answer to the second question is "no" (if the IDF could magically wipe out Hamas, another org would take its place), and the answer to the first question is still a source of debate.

And as Jon Stewart said, showing concern for the gratuitous murder of women and kids in Gaza is not the same as supporting Hamas and being anti-Semitic. I thought the person who killed kids (or condoned others doing it) was the asshole. Now in Israel (and sometime in the US), it seems that the real asshole is the person expressing regret over child killings. Sometime we have to step back, take a deep breath, and recognize the insanity of our prejudices.

Furthermore, the intolerance of dissent from ostensibly free societies is really troubling. Disasters occur when people don't speak up and allow biases people to make rash decisions. If the hawks are so certain of the righteousness of their cause and soundness of their strategy, then why squelch debate? If I know that 2+2=4, what do I have to fear from the person claiming that the answer is 5? Maybe the hawks are worried that the disloyal, subversive cowards will convince the gullible populace that the answer is actually 5, and support will turn against them. If that is the case, then that exposes the utter contempt that the hawks have for the intelligence of the citizenry that they claim to be protecting.

Resistance Suppression and the IDF

A friend shared this video with me from a former IDF soldier (Eran Efrati) who was so troubled by his experiences in the Territories that he is now a spokesman for a group trying to spread the word to Israel proper and the outside world on the injustices and implications of the Occupation. It's 40 min, but worth it IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hqlmrZKd8&sns=em

Some highlights:

-When Efrati was a boy, he remembered his grandma crying hysterically at night from PTSD from her Nazi death camp experience. It jarred him to the bone when he heard a Palestinian mother crying the same way after his unit killed her unarmed son.

-In Operation Cast Lead (the first Gaza invasion in 2008-9), the IDF ground troops were surprised with what they saw. They were pumped up to kick ass and do the urban fighting that they had been trained for, but by the time they set foot in Gaza, there was nothing left to fight. The navy and air force had already destroyed everything, and all they saw were rubble and corpses.

-While the US still gives Israel billions in aid (some of it military), Israel also has a billions-dollar war export industry. They have sold/currently sell resistance suppression tools/training to foreign governments - some of whom are terribly repressive and undemocratic (Pinochet's Chile, Mobutu's Congo/Zaire, Apartheid SA, the PRC). So they have a financial incentive to continue the Occupation, and even use the Territories as a "lab" to try out new innovations.

In the end, I think Efrati presented a good message for the US audience: we might not care about the Palestinians who are so far away, but we could be next - because US police are getting Israeli training to be more brutal and militaristic. If one day we have to protest our gov't, or we become the "enemy of the state", then we will be treated like the new Palestinians. Who in the world is going to help us, if we never bothered to help the Palestinians? I hope our laws and rights will protect us if that dark time comes, but clearly many people have had their rights violated by the cops (and gov't) during the War on Terror, OWS, and just crossing the street.

Bill Maher on the militarization of the US police (which seems to be enabled by resistance suppression training/tools tested in the Territories). Ironically, Maher spent the first half of the show crapping on the Palestinians and praising Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVywCqvmC0E

Ethics and young people

NPR had some good stories about this today.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/07/14/331346884/for-most-kids-nice-finishes-last

Should universities consider student EQ in admissions, not just the typical achievements? Those skills can be important for career and life success too, not to mention better leaders and a healthier society. As my favorite president Teddy R said, "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society" (emphasis mine).

This comes on the heels of a $7B federal fine on Citi for all sorts of professional/ethical violations associated with its MBS business (as usual, no one goes to jail). The fine is a tax-write off and about 7 months of profits to Citi - hardly a trip to the woodshed.

---

What should it mean to "be a man"?

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/330183987/the-3-scariest-words-a-boy-can-hear

Peace in the Holy Land?

Vice News video series on the killed teens, rockets, and air strikes

Op-ed on the difference between wanting peace and being willing to compromise with your enemy

This is obviously not a new story, but I think Keret raises a good point regarding attitudes and conviction about the peace process in mainstream Israel. I think a lot of people on both sides would like "peace", but what they really mean is justice/vengeance/possibly genocide on the Palestinian side, and winning (or at least preserving their many advantages) on the Israeli side. But it's very scary if Israelis take a passive attitude towards peace, like it's not something that their hard work will achieve. It will either happen or it won't - or much worse - it can only come from Yaweh.

How about the people on both sides (especially decision makers) who are willing to give things up and help the other side for peace? Are they labeled as out-of-touch doves? Clearly peace benefits all parties except the bigots, zealots, and hawks on both sides. I really hope they are the minority, but unfortunately they have a lot of institutional power.

Let's dispel some myths though:

1) Israel is the only free society in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs do enjoy a much better quality of life and more rights than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but they are clearly 2nd class citizens. Do you think they would be treated fairly if they were on the verge of overtaking ethnic Jews in the voting base? Israeli actions in the West Bank are clearly undemocratic and actually illegal/war crimes in some cases.

2) Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Even if Hamas' primitive rockets and suicide bombers had murder rates on par with their "heyday" during early 2000's, it would take them 8,000 YEARS to kill just 1/3 of Israeli Jews (2M at a rate of 250/year). Yes, it is unacceptable for your neighbor to try to kill your people every chance they get, but security measures like the Wall, checkpoints, and now the Iron Dome (even with 15 sec smartphone alerts) are so effective that the chances a rocket kills someone or a suicide bombers gets through are almost nil. Obviously Israel should remain diligent and prevent Hamas from acquiring more powerful weapons, but they don't have to over-react to each murder which only exacerbates the violence cycle.

3) Israel has the moral high ground because its forces are less barbaric than Hamas. Clearly Israeli society is more developed and peaceful than the Palestinians', but we're not exactly comparing apples-to-apples. In an asymmetrical war, the disadvantaged side has no choice but to turn to barbarism. That doesn't absolve them of guilt, but it's a pretty weak argument for Israel to say, "At least we try to avoid killing civilians; that is Hamas' explicit goal." Their marketing materials here. Israel still has killed way more kids than Hamas could ever dream of. Maybe some of that is due to Hamas' human shield strategy, but still - no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger (and to their credit, sometime the IDF does abort missions if the civilian presence is too great). But they often value the chance of hitting their target greater than the kids who were in the way. And that is something that most civilized societies would discourage. Still, I think the world is immune to the images of grieving parents and charred remains. Apart from Amnesty Int'l and whatnot, no one is outraged by Palestinian deaths anymore. So both sides should abandon this futile approach.

---

I was thinking about the following proposal, and others have likely presented it already. Hamas is a big obstacle, or at least their military wing (i.e. the difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA), to a prolonged ceasefire. Israel can't defeat Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. militarily without breaking many laws, killing thousands, and isolating themselves internationally, so why don't they incentivize Palestinians to do it - hopefully peacefully? Israel has punished all of Gaza for their political choices, with a crippling (and illegal) embargo and occasional air strikes/invasions - causing terrible poverty/social problems on par with Afghanistan. Therefore, why can't Israel enter into a binding contract with the peaceful portion of Palestinian society:

Get Hamas to disarm/disband and have Gaza form a unity gov't with Fatah. Stop the weapons smuggling and dealings with Iran. Allow int'l inspectors to enforce that. If they do, then Israel will 100% lift the embargo, donate billions in development aid/jobs/services, and allow a partial return of West Bank property to Palestinians with legit claims. If the Palestinians violate the contract, then Israel has the right to go back to the status quo, and vice versa.

Both sides have reasons why they want/need to continue the killing: Israel to protect itself and defeat Hamas; Hamas and its supporters because they have nothing to lose - life is so shitty for them they might as well resist to the death. Take both of those reasons away, and then peace becomes the rational option. But as the Keret op-ed suggested, this will require both sides to take a risk and give up something that they hold dear (the right to resist for Palestinians, a military stranglehold for Israel). Of course this is 99% unlikely, since there is so much entrenched distrust/hatred, on top of the segments of their societies that actually like the status quo. Add to that the religious extremists who believe that their side has divine claim to all the land and a mandate to wipe out the other side.

Some interesting links

Kinda sad, but by no means particular to the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup

Though I wonder if dom. violence rates are actually rising over time, or if reporting is just increasing (the latter being a positive change I suppose).

Hyundai has a different take on the emotional effects of a big football win on a culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7v5pf0aN2Q 

And the narrative seems to be backed by some science at least! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2526937/Sporting-success-DOES-trigger-baby-booms-Spains-birth-rate-rose-16-Barcelonas-2009-Champions-League-victory.html

---

Also about the ISIS stuff: the CIA has been training "non-extremist, non-jihadist" Syrian rebels in Jordan in unconventional war tactics to fight the Assad regime. Some folks (ironically both on the far left and far right) are accusing our gov't of not screening those folks very well (a hard task) and inadvertently training fighters who later joined ISIS, J. Al-Nusra, and other extremist groups.

Granted I couldn't find reputable news sources that covered this story, but I can imagine that it's been hard to verify claims and apply journalistic rigor. However, it wouldn't be the first time (Viet Minh, Mujahadeen, Contras, right wing Cubans, etc.).

http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mi6-the-cia-and-turkeys-rogue-game-in-syria-9256551.html

----

Yet another red flag associated with fracking: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00026&segmentID=2

In the Marcellus Shale in the East, fracking is surfacing radioactive rock material from deep underground, and wastewater is showing very high levels of radium-226 (associated with bone cancers, half-life of 5K years). Fortunately for the drillers, they got an environmental exception, because for everyone else - radioactive water needs special disposal. But in PA, it's treated the same as household sewage.

Hobby Lobby ruling and contraception

Considering the Court's makeup, it was expected. It won't help the GOP win over more young women. I guess corporations continue to enjoy most individual rights but avoid many of the responsibilities/punishments.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

-Ginsburg dissenting opinion

----

I suppose it's not surprising, but it still sucks. Ginsburg wrote a great dissent though, for whatever that's worth. 

What's funny about the ruling is that the prevailing opinion seems to want to restrict the ruling, by applying it only to "closely-held corporations with strong religious beliefs" but that can still apply to a significant number of companies with numerous employees. For example, the Mars corporation would qualify, especially because there is no test to be administered for "strong religious beliefs" so any company can essentially claim they have those. The funny bit (to me anyway) is that I get the impression that they thought there were being restrained in their conservatism with this ruling. As if they were saying "no no it's not all corporations who can deny you birth control coverage, just these certain ones!"

----

I get his once we assume their freedom if religion was infringed RFRA says the gov must attempt to accommodate.

But how is the offer of health insurance that includes birth control legally distinguished from a paycheck that pays for an abortion?  Aren't both compensation which are offered at the discretion of the employer? 

I think I saw it mentioned somewhere that hobby lobby covered birth control etc prior to the aca apparently without issue.

----

I actually had the same thought about their paychecks. Ginsburg had a great line about how if it's against someone's religion then I guess they don't have to follow any laws they don't want to.

In fact, I would recommend this article: http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-justice-ginsburgs-real-talk-in-her-hobby-1598003837

Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.

----

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327071978/how-many-companies-will-be-touched-by-courts-contraception-ruling?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140701

Thx for the comments and links, guys. Yeah as you said, the majority opinion claimed that they were being really restrictive as to which org's this ruling could apply to, but really the language was anything but. NPR estimates that 90% of businesses are "closely held" (employing >50% of our workforce),  as in 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the firm value (IRS definition). Maybe this is an example why political appointees/Beltway lifers without much experience in the "real world" may not be the best candidates for a lifetime SC appointment where US society is literally at their mercy. And the ACA already exempted religious nonprofits and small businesses from covering contraception, so that is millions more Americans.




http://ocsotc.org/


In school I worked on a business case (similar to the link above) advocating that oral contraception should be available over-the-counter. It's really a no-brainer, and that's how it works in Catholic Mexico and other nations. This has been discussed for years, but the understaffed and political football FDA has yet to act. "Plan B" (the morning-after pill) is available no-questions-asked after a pharmacist consultation, but it's more expensive and doesn't reduce menstrual symptoms (also I believe there is some controversy as to what age range it is available to). Now, women can only get the pill after a yearly or quarterly visit to their OB-GYN, and awkward pelvic exams are often mandated prior to giving out an Rx. This is obviously time consuming and expensive, esp. if the patient doesn't have coverage.




Sure, I can imagine that drug companies may lose $ if the pill goes OTC and is subject to generic competition and market price pressures (like most other products!), and I guess OB-GYNs may stand to lose business too (some legitimately care and it's their medical opinion that regular exams are the best thing for their patients - so they need to link it to the pill Rx in order to get women to comply). But most major health org's worldwide say the OTC pill is an overwhelming improvement with very little downside (except for right wing Christian ire I suppose). And we are just talking about decades-old, well-validated, super-safe, cheap basic hormone pills. The fancy next-gen stuff can still be Rx for consumers who want it. Unintended pregnancies and menstrual symptoms are a huge cost on societies, and disproportionately affect women. So is that the problem - women have most of the responsibility and incur the suffering, but the men are writing the laws and enjoying the pleasure of sex without the consequences? Since there is practically zero medical/sociological/economic evidence to support the restriction of contraceptives, I can only assume that this is another manifestation of the "war on women". Conservatives claim to love freedom and liberty, but have this fixation to try to control female behavior. It's really bizarre. Maybe we can take them at their word and it's all about religious values and "morality". If so, then why don't they pony up and pay more taxes to help all the unintended mothers raise those kids? The US is probably the most hostile developed economy for working mothers - so how about changing those laws and norms first, and then you can restrict contraception coverage as much as you want.  


----

For the 4th, here is a disturbing story that hasn't got much coverage: the US accepts non-citizens into its Armed Forces (often with the "promise" of citizenship at honorable discharge), but if those vets are caught in a crime (even a petty one like DUI or financial fraud) - the laws of the land require automatic deportation. Maybe deportation is justified for some crimes, but there has to be exceptions or at least a review process for non-citizen vets who served faithfully for years and got caught in one mistake. It's like the penal system in general - how can we claim to be civilized people, yet we judge and label criminals by the worst moment of their lives? Someone could be a productive worker and loving parent, son, brother, and neighbor for 99% of his life, but once they are in prison, they are henceforth known as "robber" or "drug user".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rjCvgRkq0

----

And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/google-glass-daily-show_n_5491565.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_daily_show_anti_vaxxers_are_the_climate_denying_nutjobs_of_the_left/