ok... this is enough... time for my anti-SUV rant...

Why do Americans buy SUVs? Three reasons i've ever heard: 1) they're safer 2) they have lots of space 3) they look cool. Personally I don't feel 3) warrants a response as far as responsibility to the earth and fellow beings is concerned... so i'll deal with 1, mostly... Safety-wise, an SUV's driver is more likely to survive a two-car collision, true, but the driver of the other car (when it's not an SUV) is much more likely to be killed, as is true of a pedestrian hit by an SUV (because of the high fender, they crush other cars and people underneath, whereas, for example, as you see in the movies, a person hit by a normal car rolls over the hood). In addition SUVs are about 2x as likely to be in one-car accidents (rollovers, hitting a tree, deer, etc.) because of their inherent instability and difficulty of control. In addition, Consumer Reports ran their usual 5-mph-backwards-into-a-wall test on SUVs and they were surprised to discover that the backs were crushed (thousands of dollars of repairs) where normal cars they ran the tests on simply had a few dents and superficial paint scrapes (a few hundred dollars max). So on top of the repair costs, presumably these collisions would also be more dangerous to rear passengers (especially since, there being no real trunk, the passengers are nearer to the back of the car anyways). So much for safety. As far as space, every Dodge Grand Caravan i've ever seen has more space...

Also, (as i'm sure you know) gas mileage is terrible, as are emissions levels. In fact, many if not most violate US emissions regulations; but the carmakers get out through loopholes in the law. And who's going to crack down... George Bush? Hah! The fact is, it wouldn't be hard for them to make more efficient cars and SUVs, but why should they bother? The fact is the current SUVs sell better than any electric or hybrid car out there, so it doesn't pay for them to design a new ecologically sound product no one will buy. In fact, this points out the biggest SUV problem: Mass-scale domino effect. 3 examples: 1) people feel uncomfortable on the road with large SUVs so they buy an SUV to feel safer, leading to a big ugly loop of more and more people buying them, 2) more people buy SUVs so carmakers don't bother with fuel efficient cars, so there are more inefficient models that people have to choose from every year, leading to even more being bought (yet another loop); 3) really fuel-efficient cars (for example, supercompacts from Europe (of course, where else?)) are banned from American roads because of increased safety standards because of - you guessed it - SUVs and other cars that would crush them. Of course, if you look at 1 and 2, even if they were allowed, no carmaker would bother releasing them here, and no one would buy them. And this all started with individuals thinking they could benefit using a car designed for safaris and offroading to drive to work in the morning.
But whatever. Who cares if they're unsafe gas-guzzling pollutant-spitting deathboxes? They look cool, right?


(sorry, i feel pretty strongly about this one, in case you can't tell :-))

California has taken a step in the right direction with new legislation limiting auto emissions - and since no carmaker wants to make a different model to sell in CA, every carmaker would pretty much limit themselves to CA's laws... For chist's sake, they limit how much water newly-installed toilets can use nowadays (and it's not a lot)... why do we leave an even-more non-renewable resource (gasoline) unregulated to this extent, especially when there's pollution to worry about too? You wanna know? President Bush's spokesperson (Ari Fleischer, god i hate him...): "Mr. Bush believes that energy use is a reflection of the strength of our economy" and "the American way of life is a blessed one and we have a bounty of resources in this country." And this went pretty much unchallenged when we opened the emergency oil reserves last year to keep gas prices down. Almost makes me wanna run away and join some communist Sierra Club revolt. Or just vote for an ecologically motivated candidate for president... or Al Gore, because there's no way for 3rd partiers to get in the white house... of course, that's a matter for another rant on why we should run elections like Italy does... ah well.

no, but i saw a Robert Reich commercial when i was in the hotel in boston 2 weeks ago... that was pretty funny. He looks disheveled, as usual. And believe me, with the money romney's pouring into the commercials, he could do a lot more to save the environment than recycling a few commercial props. I'd sweat the easy big steps (like requiring SUVs not to have crappy gas mileage) before i worried about those cardboard boxes :-). But that would segue into my usual "why i hate SUVs" rant, which i'll leave for another time because i'm tired of giving it.

middle east update (hate to keep the israel talk going so long, but i think this is important): Israel is in talks with Palestinians negotiating a structured gaza pullout if the Palestinians agree to take over security (rather like what i was suggesting)... thank god... it's a good first step (even if the PA is still corrupt). Peres says "We want to make humanitarian and economic gestures and move towards a ceasefire"... which pretty much covers it: Israel is being good for once and moving towards making the first step towards helping regular Palestinians without compromising on terrorism by responsibly putting the Palestinians in control of security with full delineation of responsibilities (not just dumping it in Arafat's lap; that should make Ryan a little happier). And if it works well (i.e. if Palestinian security can prevent suicide bombings after the ridiculously extreme Israeli restrictions on their living are reduced) it could build the trust needed for a next step towards peace... then again, i'm very optimistic. It's also especially surprising that these talks even happened, given the recent terror attacks against israel, but in a good way. And if a short-term Israeli pullout makes terror attacks disappear of their own accord, i will allow Ryan a big fat "I told you so." I hope for everyone's sake it works out that way and that Hamas is just kidding around when it calls for the complete destruction of Israel, not independent coexistence... you know those Islamic militants and their zany senses of humor... ah well. Sarcasm aside, we gotta at least try it; maybe the optimists are right and lifting restrictions will curb the militant bent in Palestinian society (i sure hope so)... this is probably the last chance short of full-scale uprising/ war that we have for any resolution to the situation at all, much less a peaceful one. Don't screw this up, guys. (Ryan, I think you can meet me halfway on optimism about this one, no? :-))

on israel - i understand the democracy point and yield to that 100%; I never thought it would be so simple as just replacing the PA for true democracy. And the "illiberal democracy" vs. non-democracy distinction is nearly nonexistent, as I see it. Democracy and liberty (eg free press, religion, speech, et al) always seemed synonymous to me. It takes more than an election to make a democracy (if that's all it takes, Stalin ran a model democracy, if a tad illiberal and homicidal, over in the USSR).
However, that does not change the fact that Arafat still has certain responsibilities to his own people which he is neglecting to keep an unneccesary fight going. Step 1 is making sure money goes where it should (not to funding terrorists). Not only will that make the money go where it should, Israel would then unfreeze more PA assets, leaving even more opportunities for improvement in quality of life and education (2 things that are major contributors to liberal thinking). I agree a lot of responsibility falls on the Israelis to foster an open society, but to expect the Israelis to be able to foster a positive environment for Palestinians when the Palestinians' own leader refuses to help his people where they need it is not realistic. Right or wrong of Israel, when there are suicide bombings Israel cracks down (as they unfortunately did today - no need to criticize that one to me, Ryan, I'm with you on that). Arafat encourages suicide bombings by using PA and international money to fund them. That's why I feel absolving the Palestinians of all responsibility because they are simple and not intellectually developed is at least mildly wrong... right or wrong on Israel's side, there's a simple cause-and-effect relationship Arafat understands and could take advantage of easily by simply not encouraging terrorism; but he chooses instead to continue to force the battle onto human rights grounds (much as Hussein tried to end the US embargo by playing the "my poor people are starving" card while he sent millions in aid to terrorism and bought even more weapons). Should Israel act differently? Definitely. But Arafat owes it to his people to drop the posing and help them how he can, even under Israeli occupation. One thing at a time, i think: Push Israelis to reform how they act towards the Palestinians, yes, but don't let Arafat off scotch-free because he and his people don't know any better... Arafat is neglecting his responsibility to his people. And that is priority #1 for what needs to change, as I see it. Expecting the Israelis to have to work around Arafat's double-talk is simply absurd; and thinking PA abuse of funds and corruption would change just because Israel lets them be is also absurd. Regardless of what Israel should be doing, when Arafat holds in his hand a simple first step to both decrease terrorism and help his people at the same time, why does he not take it? Israel is scared and doing really dumb things like locking down towns... and the Palestinians get more desperate and terrorism goes up... and Israel cracks down more... and so on. Expecting Israel to not crack down, even if that's the moral high road, is a little much - unquestionably, in the short term, lockdowns prevent attacks - but expecting the PA not to encourage the Palestinian end of the cycle is perfectly sensible (what benefits do the Palestinians get, especially in the short term, out of terrorism?) Note that i think in the long term, negative reinforcement on the Israeli side is really really bad and really stupid... but the Palestinians hold in their hands a way to help themselves which is being squandered on continuing the cycle... when they change that, then i'd be only too happy to take up a crusade for a gradual end to Israeli occupation.

There is also a slight difference between misbehaving in a grocery store and blowing up buses and cafeterias. Using cute simplistic analogies is at the very least inadequate to the international situation, if not dishonest. I do agree that Israel's negative reinforcement plan is ill-conceived (not really planned at all, actually; like i said in my last post, a clear positive reinforcement policy needs to be made by Israel), but Hamas is hardly comparable to a kid acting up a little in a grocery store. Then there's the unproven assumption you make that since they're not liberal they must be simplistic and uneducated, when many of the bombers were fairly well educated (see Ignatieff article on human rights as imperialism below; i think you'll find it interesting)... but i won't go there; i'll leave the philosophy for another time.


I think the main problem when it comes to talking about this stuff is that Israel supporters tend to talk terrorism and security (which is perfectly understandable) and pro-Palestinians tend to talk simply about human rights (also perfectly understandable). Short-term security is not everything; but neither is human rights (gasp!). Human rights are not natural and intrinsic; they're just a really good thing for the development of our model of a liberal democratic world (see human-rights philosophy: Isiah Berlin, Michael Ignatieff, et al). Call me utilitarian, but everything needs to take a backseat to the question: What will help the most Palestinians and Israelis live safe, healthy, free lives?

note on the UN: yet another reason Israel is not too favorable to the UN: in 1967, UN peacekeeping forces just got up without a peep and left the Sinai peninsula where they were stationed when Egypt's Nasser told them to leave because he was going to come through and attack Israel... tell me again what peacekeeping forces do again, if not keep peace? I agree some kind of oversight is needed to everything going on, but unfortunately the UN isn't good at very much besides political games... it sounds dumb, but peace in the middle east is too important and delicate to trust to politics. But i guess it'll come down to the UN sooner or later (point conceded to Ryan); Israel should at least try to act now so they help define some of some of the terms of the UN's invasive involvement and aren't stuck with something they don't want (namely, UN involvement as a "peacekeeper" (read: incompetent border guard), which is what Arafat has been pushing for). The reason for that is that terrorism would get in more often, if anything, since the UN would be more lax on security and not allow proactive action to prevent terrorism from the Israelis (oh, stop that, bad hamas, please no more, the UN would say), and Israel would not be allowed to act at all to fight it (since it's a sovereign nation, the UN would hold them responsible for invasive actions, but there's nothing the UN can do about hamas... mutual responsibility would be impossible for the UN to enforce, as international law, to both sides, so things would get thrown off balance even further). I think the UN should have, right now, strictly limited involvement in the oversight of PA reform and humanitarian efforts for the Palestinians - even also in reforms in how Israelis treat humanitarian action in occupied territory (there is room for Israeli improvement, to say the least). (Incidentally, mutual and undeniable responsibility is the #1 reason i'm in favor of a Palestinian state... Israel cannot plausibly deny the applicability of the Geneva convention to their case and the Palestinians can no longer plausibly deny their ability to apply it to militants in their own territory, as both sides did in Jenin...)

And on anti-Semitism: a funny story (or not so funny, actually, someone dies): In Canada an Orthodox Jew was stabbed to death by a skinhead in a kosher pizza place. Immediately much of the Jewish world cried "hate crime! Anti-semitism!". When the dust cleared a little, what was discovered was this: The shaved-headed man wandered in, stoned, to the restaurant with friends looking for pot. Patrons directed him to the gas station down the street (just to get him out of their hair). He returned a few minutes later, enraged at being lied to, and stabbed the first person in the restaurant to look at him funny. Unfortunate? Yes. Hate crime? I think not.
Remember the boy who cried wolf? yeah. So i'm with you to some extent on the whole issue.

I'm bored of the Israel issue; both sides are being stupid about it and letting themselves continue the vicious cycle of terror-crackdown-terror-crackdown... that's what it comes down to, at its heart. Both Israel and the PA could do a lot right now to help the Palestinian people's plight, and neither is taking even simple steps. Bah.

Can we move on to the totally unrelated question of American and international birth control policies at some point? I find that much more interesting right now (especially as I know relatively little about it right now, unlike the Israel situation, so I think it would be enlightening to discuss).

you know, i 100% agree with you on the overreaction of today's jews... not about the rise of anti-semitism, because by many measures it has been on the rise, especially in countries like Poland (see ADL surveys), but about the treatment of all pro-Palestinian sentiments as anti-semitic. A friend of mine on the internship program i am part of (which is Jewish) started, as part of her work for Jews for Social Justice, an open discussion forum for criticism of Israel for Israel supporters. There was quite a backlash. Personally, I support Israel but I feel there's a lot they could be doing better... but some of my friends have the attitude that Israel can do no wrong, and those who think otherwise are Nazis. I think Israel's done quite a bit wrong, but unfortunately they are now stuck in a cycle of violence with no simple way out... but I have friends who sincerely believe that most Palestinian supporters, deep down inside, do not think Israel has a right to exist at all. It must be very sad to be stuck in such a black-and-white world.

As far as last weeks missile strike... i think, even from a long-term backlash POV, not just the human rights POV, it was really damn stupid of them. I will criticize that outright. But I also think there's no moral equivalency between the "collateral damage," as much as it sucks and as much as i think it's inexcusable, and the deliberate targeting of noncombatants (see HU cafeteria). At least Israel is aiming for military targets... the terrorists almost never do. Talk about international law violations.
And giving the PA "infrastructure money" would be counterproductive at best. The PA, from day 1 of Oslo, used funding illegally to buy heavy arms (arms that were forbidden to the PA under Oslo and definitely unnecesary to the PA's "police force," such as antitank rockets) that should have been going to water, sanitation, etc. I can't stress enough the need for international oversight... Israel took a big first step last week, unlocking a lot of the funds that were earmarked for the PA from taxes and such; but they had to put the condition on it that it not be used for terrorism... i mean, the PA (and Saudi Arabia has taken up the financial backing too) gives payments of thousands of dollars and stipends to the families of suicide bombers, pays full soldier's salary to jailed terrorists, and, in the words of Arafat, the PA officially gives "priority to the sons of martyrs when it comes to awarding scholarships." So tell me again how Arafat fights terror? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but taking funding when it comes and directing it towards rewards for terrorists would generally be considered incentive, not dissuasion... look, i'm not saying there's nothing wrong with what israel's doing, but the least Arafat could do to fight terror, police force or no, would be to end preferential treatment for terrorists. That's why I say international oversight is neccesary. Can you blame Israel for holding back money which would in no small part be used to encourage more suicide bombings? It really really breaks my heart to see kids in Gaza dying from malnutrition (hell, i can't even stand to see cows and chickens suffer)... but you have to take a long, hard look at what Arafat has really done with the money he does have. The Saudis (according to their own accounting) raised $56,500,000 for Palestinian martyrs and imprisoned terrorists... think of how many starving kids that money could've gone to if there was any accountability whatsoever in the PA.

"the 10 year old who lost their house to Israel in the first intifada is todays 20 year old suicide bomber iin the second intifada."
Hell, how many of those 10 year olds whose houses were destroyed in Intifada 1 could've had them rebuilt with just the Saudis' money and not have felt the need to become intifada 2's 20-year old suicide bombers? That's a lot of money to throw solely into the cause of taking care of those who kill Israeli civilians; and that's just from foreign aid from one country. Near as I can figure, Arafat's been causing more suffering for the Palestinian people on this system, when he has such potential to do good... "PA infrastructure" my ass. Damned vicious cycle again... when the PA has no money, desparation among Palestinians go up; when the PA has money, incentive to terrorists goes up, offsetting the decreased desperation the modest gains in quality of life provide... either way we're all screwed under the current system... does anyone else find this absurd? Yeah, i think it hurts Israels image both in the international community and in the eyes of the Palestinians to keep such a tight hold on the Palestinians, but what would you have them do right now that would not immediately jeopardize the lives of thousands of people (Israeli and Palestinian)? It's just a tad naive to think that pulling out to 1967 borders and giving the PA free access to "infrastructure money" will solve anything. It can't happen right now... but after the PA reforms its budgeting and at least stops actively supporting terror, and channels the millions it sends to jailed Hamas members on to creating that necessary educated middle class you mention, i agree 100% Israel should help the PA out and "occupation" on a democratic note.

Yoni's recipe (I work with what we have right now, no retroactive solutions like "barak does not visit the Dome of the Rock so Intifada never happens, boom, we got peace"): PA reform (or possibly just start over from scratch with a new government) including adherence to international law like kicking Hamas, al-Aqsa and Tanzim military ops out of civilian areas, international supervision of its budgeting and allocations, and a clear, written Israeli plan with definite conditions for pulling out (eg. if there are no suicide bombers from such-and-such town for 2 weeks, 1/2 the IDF soldiers will leave). Yes, I actually am placing some of the responsibility on the Israelis... i think the fact that the "occupation" is indefinite (whether or not that is for genuine security reasons) is a big part of what's wrong right now (see the IDF pullout from Jericho since it wasnt' a terror base; there was no real explanation given as to what conditions precisely would make Israel pull out from other towns). When there's clear conditions for pullout , and there's no competing incentives (like the current hundreds of millions in official PA aid to terrorists and suicide bombers), and quality of life is improving (an inevitable part of PA reforms and international oversight making money go where it belongs), then, maybe then, fewer Palestinians will feel a a need to go blow up their neighbors across the checkpoint. A compelling case can then be made for a complete end to the cycle of terror and retaliation, and the Israelis may feel comfortable sharing an area the size of New Jersey with a new [democratic] sovereign neighbor. Anyone else think that makes some small amount of sense?

Of course this isn't likely to happen anytime soon... everyone's got too many years of rhetoric, broken promises, and dead bodies to trust in each other that much this soon (not to mention the international community will sit on their hands as usual so no reforms will happen in the PA)... And that makes me incredibly sad... so simple and beautiful in theory, yet so impossible in fact (well, unlike many ivory-tower academics, at least i can admit that).


On an unrelated note, exactly how many bombings does Hamas get to use last week's missile strike as an excuse for? Gotta hand it to them, give them a PR opportunity and they'll milk it for all it's worth.

to Kevin on Israel - the "risk" to non-combatant civilians is factually pretty low on both sides (2000 deaths total in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, from what I understand). As far as desperation due to crappy living conditions or perceived risk/ "inhuman" treatment/ random incarcerations, I agree (malnutrition among young Palestinians is at an all-time high, which sucks totally from both a human rights POV and the POV of Israel being "the villain" in the eyes of the people they want peace with)... that's why I'm a strong supporter of Palestinian statehood ASAP.. but the question, as I see it, is how to position the creation of a state in a way that the two can coexist. That's not easy when the current official government of the Palestinians declares the capital of the other its own territory, or when Israeli settlers (officially sanctioned or not) to create settlements with the only purpose of preventing the Palestinians from getting the land. If nothing else, it's harder to blame Israel for Palestinian suffering when there is no "occupation" or anything. I think right now Israel is in a catch-22 situation: the more invasive the incursions and border searches, the more immediate terror attacks are stopped, but it sparks more in the long run. I've also heard about the "relocation plans," and i've heard very impassioned arguments in its favor from co-workers. I think it's stupid, if nothing else, from a international relations point of view (even my co-workers who are unapologetic about the nationalistic or human rights side of things can grasp that much without their having to concede any wrongdoing on Israel's side). I think Israel will have a much more plausible claim to a moral high ground when the only excuse that can be made for terror attacks is territorial, not human rights, as the case will be when there are two side-by-side states.

To Ryan: I just think the fact that most of the sources the UN pulled its report from are pretty pro-Palestinian (not that that's always a bad thing; Human Rights Watch, even if a tad overzealous, provide a needed service) underscores even more how much it shows there was no covered-up massacre. the WSJ today reported the final UN estimate is about 14 of those killed in Jenin were unarmed. That's awfully low for an operation on that scale in an area mixed with 14,000 unarmed Palestinians and 200 al-Aqsa and Tanzim gunmen. I still think the Israelis were retarted not to cooperate with the UN; but I understand that when it came to a fact-finding mission they were afraid of a biased group coming in and seeing only what they wanted to (the UN hasn't exactly been Israel's best friend, generally speaking). I think if the report had been issued by, say, a group of representatives with political agendas, rather than just Kofi Anan, as it was in the end, a much different spin would've been put on the data. And can you blame me for speaking negatively about the PA as a source when they state outright they consider Jerusalem entirely their own territory?

I guess the question, as I see it (and this is not rhetorical) is: How can two side-by-side states be created in such a way that the Palestinian one will not engage in a territorial war against the Israeli one? While I agree that a major reason Palestinians turn to suicide bombings is the human rights abuses and low quality of life, those are fairly new reasons for an old philosophy... namely, the "push Israel into the sea" philosophy Arafat and the PA still espouse. Creating a Palestinian state based on that (which would be exactly what creating a Palestinian state right now would do) would be creating a legitimized threat to Israel's very existence in the form of an internationally recognized military force... I agree that desperation creates suicide bombers; but if not planned carefully, statehood will inevitably create the much more dangerous threat of a large number of people raised on anti-Israel propaganda by the PA in legal possession of tanks and warplanes. The casualties in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict up to this point would be nothing but a footnote in the carnage a full-fledged war would create (compare the approx. 2000 total dead in palestinian-israeli conflicts to any major international war, and you'll see what i mean). And it would happen: a territorial war only needs to be bred by hatred, ignorance, or scapegoating (see Pakistan vs. India on Kashmir, Germany vs. the world in their battle for "living space" in WWII); desperation is no longer needed as it is for suicide bombings. Israel will also no longer be able to proactively police its own borders without it being considered an act of war (but then again, the Palestinians can then be held responsible then for violations of international law such as housing terrorists or basing military ops in villages).

I'll be the first to agree with Kevin that not all Palestinians are bad, and certainly the majority are not terrorists; but unfortunately most Palestinians are currently not very friendly towards Israel (again, i'm going to avoid talk of blame for that; I agree a lot of it is Israels fault; but I will just discuss the conditions and how they can be changed rather than playing the blame game). I think phase 1 in any plan for statehood should involve improved living conditions for the Palestinians before anything else, and getting rid of the "desperation factor" is step 1 of the only chance to prevent Israel from being the target of all of a new Palestinian state's frustration. But here again Israel's in a catch-22... the PA mismanages funds that should go to the people, often squandering it on military costs (if not outright contributing to terror); and Israel can't administer the funds themselves without being yelled at more for "occupation"... perhaps some sort of agreement at some international fund in charge of distribution is the only way to get a decent start at helping the Palestinians? Thoughts? I'm waiting for Ryan and Kevin to rip me a new one on this ;-). Also, notice how this would be a lot easier of an issue if it were purely a national issue and no religious differences got involved? (no religious settlers talking about how God promised us all of Israel so we can't compromise; no martyrdom rhetoric on the Palestinian side... how much simpler would things be then?)

Oh and on "tracked" education: In 6th grade, a friend and I were doing rather well in math class. The teacher decided that rather than making us sit and stare into outer space while she taught at the class's pace (which was what was happening) she would send us off with our own work during math class... needless to say, with a boring Algebra I textbook and no supervision, we were slowed down enough to rejoin the class by the next year :-). I think the best system would probably be all the non-LD kids ("good" and "bad" students) in one class, with well-planned and administered curricular supplementation for those who would be "honors" in the current US system... i mean, the best academically would be one-on-one tutoring tailored for each kid; the best socially (and for the "dumb" kids) is an egalitarian system with everyone in one class. Really bright kids will not be reaching their potential if they're not encouraged to take additional academic opportunities to what is offered to everyone, but to avoid an elitist system and to avoid an "averaging" (the "dumb" kids get pushed to succeed beyond the current tiered system's standards for them, but the "smart" ones can't really tap their full potential) you've gotta compromise somewhere.. (am i making sense here?)

Oh and the big news: James Traficant's signature hair is actually a toupee. This is big enough that CNN is carrying the story: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/01/traficant.hair.ap/index.html.

OK unrelated to kev's post: remember when everyone was talking about the "Jenin Massacre" a few weeks back? From day 1 it was suspected that the Palestinians (as they've done in the past) were ever-so-slightly exaggerating claims of what happened. The UN finally got out a report (to be released today) of what happened. The Palestinians' old claim: 500 were killed. The UN: less than 26 Palestinian civilians were killed (out of 52 total; most were of the group of 200 palestinian terrorists using the town as a base, according to the report). And 23 Israeli soldiers were killed as well. So how is it a massacre when just as many Israelis are killed (on purpose) as innocent Palestinians (accidentally)? There's a tendency to believe everything an underdog says; I think this kind of proved that one needs to take even the most belligerent claims of anyone with a grain of salt - an overestimate by more than 1,800% of the number of civilians killed could hardly have been a little mistake on the Palestinians' part. Plus, the UN (not generally known for support of Israel - they've officially voted to condemn Israel more than any other nation ever, including China, Iraq, or apartheid South Africa) criticized the Palestinian terrorists for using civilian centers as bases. It's unacceptable: if the terrorist organizations such as Hamas really believe their own modern rhetoric about fighting a war against Israel, then why don't they treat it like a war and leave their own civilians out of it? When they declare war on Israel but use their own people as human shields by basing military ops (even their military wing's director, as in last week's case) in populous areas, how come Israel gets the bad PR? (note: this rant is making no claims about Israeli-Palestinian human rights issues or anything; this is purely a military-terrorism related article. I personally thing Israel should pull out of the west bank as soon as it's viable from a security point of view and when there is a viable plan for the creation of an independent democratic Palestinian state). When they go in on foot, trying to minimize casualties, it's an "invasion" and a "human rights abuse," but when they stay in the air they get criticized even more... Not that i support civilians getting killed (hell, i don't even like it when animals die, much less human beings); but what's Israel supposed to do - sit on their hands and wait until terrorist leaders stop ordering and planning attacks of their own volition, paint bullseyes on their chests and walk into their local Israeli army outpost to give themselves up? Israel's already out of towns like Jericho because there's no terrorist base operating out of there... if the Palestinian people would simply refuse to be a human shield and force terrorist organizations to make bases outside of densely populated civilian areas, "occupation" would end that much faster, I think. Not to mention that Hamas is violating international humanitarian law by basing in towns, according to the UN report.

The problem I have with a Palestinian state right now: it would not want peace with Israel. The PA feels it's the right of the Palestinians to own all of Israel, including Jerusalem - they see all of Israel as an "occupied territory". In the PA's official report to the UN see attachment 1 to Kofi Annan's report), they repeatedly say how Israel "exists in the Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, as an occupying Power." I think it's a wake-up-call to those who think peace is as easy as having two side-by-side Jewish and Palestinian states to think that the Palestinian state would see Jerusalem as Palestinian territory.

On the other hand, Israel has got to stop being so goddamned stubborn and screwing up their PR because they don't really care about what anyone else thinks. They didn't even cooperate with the UN fact finding mission... given that a lot of the report echoes the PA statement verbatim, it's pretty surprising it criticizes the Palestinians at all. One wonders how much better for Israel the report would be if the primary sources for the UN statement were not Palestinian. Stupid, stupid Israel.

The US has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country (eg. double the rate in England). That rate has gone down over recent years; and I guarantee you it is not because American teenagers have stopped having sex, that's for sure :-).

Unfortunately, Kevin's suggestion to the right-wing involves compromise on an issue, and one that the right sees as a moral rather than practical issue. Their issue is not "how can we prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies most effectively given the modern climate" but rather "how can we spread around Jesus stuff?"

Although, on the other hand, how passing out bibles is promoting a message of monogamous abstinence is beyond me; in Genesis, Jacob's son Judah had sons; his first son died, and then when his first son's wife remarried Judah's second son, he died too. Judah (while still married to his wife, mind you) then hired his former daughter-in-law as a prostitute (she was in a disguise by the city gates so he didn't know it was her). He got her pregnant and eventually had to own up to the deed. And mind you, Judah was the forefather of King David (and, if you accept the claim of most Christian groups, the ancestor of Jesus as well). So how again do we learn abstinence from the Bible?

And Ryan, I think the best part of the article was that out of the tens of thousands of readers of the local paper (and that's in North Carolina, not exactly the most liberal of states), only 7 cancelled their subscriptions over it :-).

they finally got around to kicking James Traficant out of office (ask Kevin about this guy... he's out of his mind!) He's a congressman convicted of all sorts of fun crimes like taking bribes and falsifying tax returns. Anyways, the vote was 420-1 to kick him out. Guess who the 1 was?... Gary Condit, who else? At least he took the "people in glass houses" adage to heart on this vote. Kinda funny. And sad at the same time. (read the article)

Dude! Even the aspiring poets blog is getting political now... Let's stop the insanity. In a move of similar magnitude to the founding fathers' separation of church and state, I have taken the visionary step of separating politics from the personal-news/social-event-planning/dream-interpretation/poetry-writing/whining-about-having-no-lives stuff that the other Batcave-spawned blogs are for. If you want to, you can call it a fight against the postmodern influence weaseling its way in where it doesn't belong (not everything should be a no-holds-barred blend of every bit of news and pop culture that can possibly be mentioned). Join here to rant freely about Communism, socialism, Palestinian liberation, Palestinian suicide bombings, the loss of freedom of speech, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. In short, I aim for this page to be the New Jersey of the Batcave (it gets all the garbage! Ha! Ha... now kevin will hack in and destroy my computer. I probably shouldn't have said that). Anyways, here it is, kiddies... you can run amok politically now!