MannyGoldstein
MannyGoldstein's JournalBoth right. Both wrong. But only one really bears responsibility.
I read a post earlier today that bemoaned the lack of comments by Jewish posters on the tragedy in Gaza. For what it's worth, here's my take:
A horrible mess in the Middle East, many are dying, many more injured. It has been this way, more or less, for more than 60 years.
The Israelis have a good points! They're tired of rockets getting lobbed at them, and sharing a border with folks that want to annihilate them is a bad situation.
The Palestinians have good points! They're terribly oppressed by the Israelis, who helped themselves to Palestinian land.
Good points, but much suffering and death. For many years this has been true, and nothing improves. The Palestinians suffer more, their desperation and hatred of Israel grows. The Israelis see the increased hatred and become more dug in. And the wheel goes around again.
Neither side will ever win. Wars are almost never won without so utterly decimating the enemy that they lose all will to fight. Think firebombing of Dresden or Sherman's march to the sea. The Palestinians are simply incapable of it, and the Israelis are unwilling to inflict the necessary horrors that are orders of magnitude above what we're witnessing today.
If neither side can win, then the only way forward is for one side to unilaterally act to create a tenable situation. And only one of these two sides really has the power to do this, and that is Israel. It's been that way for decades. Israel is a powerful and prosperous nation that has the wherewithal to make things right here. Until Israel unilaterally finds a way to establish a Palestinian state, and to allow decent lives for the Palestinian people and bright futures for their children, there will be no peace.
It is all on Israel to do the right thing here, and it has been for many years. There is no practicable solution that will stop the rockets and polemics overnight. But give people decent lives, give them a reason to believe they can create a better tomorrow, and they'll start thinking about making a better tomorrow instead of thinking about killing the people who turn their lives and dreams to shit.
I'm not an expert on Israel, but I have no doubt that they, like us, have a military-industrial complex that causes all manner of mischief to keep their citizens afraid and in a state of perpetual war: there's good money in this evil. Israel, like the US, must find a way forward that shoves these extraordinarily-harmful people out of the way so we can live in decent, functional, and caring societies. The way into the light is to embrace peace as boldly, as vigorously, and as unilaterally as we've embraced war.
We must all give peace a chance. It's our only chance.
Announcement: the Democratic Underground Book Club
First up, Fifty Shades of Gray.
I'm sure there are a few others on DU who, like me, are tired of reading all of this bombast without knowing what the heck people are talking about. And some of the bomb throwers might want to read the thing too.
Sign up below, details to follow.
Hamas rejects cease-fire, NY Times wants legal pot, US ups involvement in Ukraine war,
but DU is set ablaze by badly-written pseudo-porn that seems like Teletubbies compared to the stuff that's free on the Internet.
(I downloaded the first bit of 50 Shades for free on Kindle. Wretched stuff.)
Idunno what the right way forward is, but this ain't it.
Dumb question: what's a Socialist?
I'm trying to wrap my brain around the concept of Socialism, and I have some questions...
1. Is there a *best* definition of Socialism? I've always vaguely understood that it has to do with government ownership of things that could be owned privately, but every country has some degree of that except perhaps the Libertarian paradise of Somalia. Based on the name, I'd think that Socialism might mean "a focus on Society"?
2. Is there a good measure for determining which countries are Socialist and which aren't, or the degree of Socialism in each country? Some measure of wealth redistribution perhaps?
The reason I ask... I heard Bernie Sanders being interviewed the other day, and he spoke of the differences between the "Socialist" countries in Europe and the US, and he was dead on: those "socialist" countries are doing well, and their 99% lead good lives without the garbage we face here. I'm also impressed by Kshama Sawant's efforts in Seattle, getting a living minimum wage enacted. So maybe *I* should fly the Socialist flag... but I'm trying to figure out what it is!
Any help in sorting this out is appreciated!
Bernie Sanders: Pulled out from under the bus.
It's wonderful to see how Bernie's been rehabilitated in the eyes of Sensible Democrats. Not so long ago, Bernie was an unrealistic fringe player spouting crazytalk.
Times have changed.
Now Bernie is a sage, his every utterance and action examined and loudly proclaimed by the Sensible Set (as long as it's not some inconvenient claptrap, like "Let's not starve and freeze old people by diverting their Social Security benefits to tax cuts for the rich"
.
"Bernie agreed with Obama!" "Bernie voted for X along with Democrats!" "Bernie didn't attack Hillary".
It's wonderful that Bernie's getting the respect and attention that's his due, and I'm confident it will continue if/when he launches his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President.
Regards,
First-Way Manny
She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY not runn... um... uh...
That difficult woman from Massachusetts continues to be difficult:
In a new interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), ABC's Jeff Zeleny does something a journalist should have done a long time ago: press her on her use of verb tense.
Noting Warren's stock response to whether she will run for president is "I am not running," Zeleny makes the completely valid point that such a statement is quite a bit less than Shermanesque.
Here's the video, and here's the exchange:
ZELENY: You've said 'I am not running.' Is that still your answer today?
WARREN: I am not running.
ZELENY: I noticed it's in the present tense, though. 'I am not running.'
WARREN: I'm not running.
ZELENY: Does that mean you've ruled out running, or all you'll say is, 'I am not running'?
WARREN: I am not running for president.
An awful setback for the Resistance-is-futile-so-don't-even-think-about-it crowd. Darn.
Don't #%^* with Bay Staters
When King George was being an asswipe, the good people of Massachusetts kicked his troops the #%^+ out of here in short order and started a revolution.
The Bay State was the first state to have public education, first to end slavery, first to legalize trade unions, and the first to embrace gay marriage. The US Constitution is modeled on Massachusetts' state constitution, the oldest living constitution on the planet.
And now... Elizabeth Warren, a governor who says "you #%^*ing me? Let the kids stay here, they're kids and they need our help", and an earthquake in labor relations that experts say they haven't seen since... well, ever.
On behalf of my fellow Massholes, I say... you're welcome. Let's make this a nationwide thing, OK?.
UPDATE: Heh! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025284087
Glenn Greenwald MUST be stopped.
Glenn Greenwald is a hard-core Libertarian out to destroy Democrats, and I need your help to stop him.
Does anyone on DU know Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, or Michael Moore? These three are badly deluded and must be re-educated ASAP! Just look at the crazy things they've said about known-Libertarian Greenwald:
"Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left's most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much much better."
- Rachel Maddow
"The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald's blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now."
- Michael Moore
"The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."
- Bill Moyers
If you can reach out to these people and tell them how deluded they are, many of us would be mighty thankful.
Regards,
What-NSA-overreach? Manny
P.S. The following post is absolutely not evidence that the NSA is pooping on the Fourth Amendment. If you even click on this link, you're a Libertarian Putin defender: New Surveillance Whistleblower: The NSA Violates the Constitution - TheAtlantic
Hey fellow Third Wayers... Am I right? Or am I right?
A few things that some on the "Left" don't seem to understand:
1. If you don't totally trust the US government, then you love Putin.
2. If you don't totally trust US corporate media, then you're an RT defender. And, you love Putin.
3. If you criticize any actions by the Western powers in Ukraine, you are a staunch backer of the separatists. And an RT defender who loves Putin.
Let's not kid ourselves anymore. DU is filled with Ukrainian separatist sympathizers, RT defenders, and Putin lovers. It sickens me.
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
Loyal American, unlike those on the "Left"
Profile Information
Name: Manny GoldsteinGender: Male
Hometown: Greater Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Remulak, as far as I can tell
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,589