I stopped being sympathetic towards Israel when, years ago, I was watching a documentary that said in the 1980s Israel identified US spies in the Soviet Union in order to conclude an agreement on Soviet Jewish immigrants. Our ally betrayed us over an immigration deal. Bastards. Unfortunately though no amount of my Googling has been able to corroborate this documentary. Still the possibility has tainted my opinion of the country. I think that permanently changed when I saw this picture today.

Wow that sign raises so many questions. First off does this guy think the word ”juice” as in “orange juice” is also used to refer to Jews? Does he refuse to drink any juice until Palestine is free? Maybe instead he drinks “orange jews”. I wonder at what point did he insert “(zionist)” into his sign. Did he think that would make the sign less inflammatory?

What really amazes me is how many people in the world are on the same side as this Islamic scholar. I don’t begrudge the Israelis from defending themselves. I completely disagree with these demands that Israel stop attacking Hamas in Gaza. Hamas fires off rockets at Israel everyday. Because these are crude handmade weapons, sometimes they kill Israelis and sometimes they don’t. Israel responds to these attacks by bombing Hamas’s buildings and armories. They even send warning messages to civilians in Gaza. Yet Israel gets denounced all around the world. Somehow it’s disproportionate for Israel to strike back. They’re supposed to accept Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets as normal. This is craziness. Ignoring an attack only makes your attacker bolder. They learn there are no consequences for attacking you.

By the way I also reject the idea that by retailiating Israel is only radicalizing the Palestinian population. Believing that means you believe there are Palestinians that are on Israel’s side but are beineg turned away by Israel’s attacks. That is nonsense. No Palestinians support Israel. That population was radicalized when they lost their country sixty years ago. Israel isn’t losing supporters by responding to Hamas’s attacks.

Calling for a ceasefire is idiotic. Hamas won’t negotiate with Israel. There’s zero hope of reaching a peaceful settlement with them. Why push for yet another ceasefire? It will either be broken or simply expire and violence will return either way. Accepting a ceasefire only leaves an opponent, who refuses to negotiate, in power. Hamas will continue to make their rocket attacks and Israel will just have to repeat this same situation again in the future. Israel should reoccupy Gaza and obliterate Hamas. An occupation will be bloody, but at least Israel will protect itself from those rocket attacks.

The WSJ presented an interesting article about a Russian professor, Igor Panarin, who is predicting the demise of the United States in 2010. My issue with this article, and why I say the WSJ has jumped the shark, is that the paper gives no background to the circumstances of this theory. The article is a platform for Panarin to get international publicity. The entire political background can be summed up with: the Kremlin has been looking to blame to the US a lot recently, so Panarin is popular on Russian state television.

How about explaining why the Russian government has been dumping on the US in recent years? Why not discuss how Russia uses Panarin’s theory as part of its propaganda efforts? Can’t we get a little more in depth on Panarin’s research into this theory? The WSJ explains his academic experience, but doesn’t mention how he came up with this theory. What led him to this conclusion in 1998? Why was he even thinking about this question?

Enough bitching about the WSJ’s lazy reporting. For fun, let’s tear into Panarin’s theory. I guess my two general criticisms are:

1. Too much foreign influence.
2. Bad territorial divisions.

I’m not going to say the United States is indivisible, despite the Pledge of Allegiance, but there’s no way the US would disintegrate along these lines.

Atlantic America

There is a part of me that believes the Northeast wants to be in the European Union, but Panarin’s “Atlantic America” stretches too far south and too far inland. I could see New England, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland going that route. Although there is a chance upstate New York would breakaway into its own state and take the same path as Pennsylvania.

The Texas Republic

Panarin lumps most of the South in with Texas, so it might make more sense to call this the New Confederacy. Us Northerners probably make the same mistake and assume the South today is just as united as it was when it tried to secede. I have my doubts. I could see the eastern CSA going one way, and only Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico being pulled into Texas’s orbit.

Mexico dominating this region is laughable. It’s more likely Texas ends up dominating Mexico and annexes Northern Mexico.

The Californian Republic

Panarin just lumped the Pacific and Rocky Mountain states together here. With the US disintegrating I don’t see these states uniting. Arizona isn’t going to join with California. There’s too much animosity. Native Arizonans resent the wave of colonizing Californians that swept in over the last five years, but there haven’t been enough Californians settling to tip the balance of power in the state. Arizona is more likely to go with Utah.

Utah is my next point. Left on its own Utah would declare itself the Deseret Republic long before ever considering a union with California. Utah’s Mormon majority has been getting diluted over time, but I think it will still hold strong for at least two more generations. I could see southern Idaho, northern Arizona (southern Arizona could become Texas territory) and maybe most of Nevada jumping on board that. Clark County, Nevada may end up as a new extension of California as its business interests would seek protection and stability from the largest political group in the region.

It’s possible Washington and Oregon would want to be part of a nation with California. I don’t consider that so far fetched. Idaho, the part that didn’t join Deseret, is more likely to go with Montana though.

Thinking the Chinese are going to step in and call the shots in the New California is silly. The Chinese cannot project power across the Pacific. They don’t have a single aircraft carrier yet. If you’re thinking they will threaten New California economically, well then you’re forgetting that California’s largest industry is actually agriculture. Assuming the farmland isn’t left desolate after our civil war, California should boom from an agriculturally funded rebuilding.

The Central North American Republic

Again I think Panarin lumped in states with little in common. In a time of crisis would states from the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Midwest join together? I doubt it. Maybe liberal border states like Minnesota and Michigan will join Canada, but the rest would find their own way. At best they would fracture into nations along those geographic lines (Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Midwest) I mentioned.

The Freak States

Hawaii, if it didn’t remain independent, would become Japanese. There are plenty of Japanese living there as is. China would have to go on the rampage in the Pacific for Hawaii to fall under its control.

This last part is especially laughable and makes me think this theory is just a fantasy concocted by a bitter Russian nationalist. I didn’t read Panarin’s full presentation, but unless he writes that Russia will invade and slaughter its citizens, Alaska will not join Russia. There is just no way that will happen. The most likely choice is that it remains independent. The second most likely is that Alaska joins Canada. The third is that Alaskan scientists evacuate the entire population to the Moon and proclaim it the Lunar Republic! Alaska joining Russia willingly comes after that.

I feel that Panarin’s redrawn map of the US shows a lack of understanding of our regions. What he produced is way too simplified to be realistic. Also remember that he’s saying this will happen in 2010. That date is a nail in the coffin for his theory. Even what I wrote about the US disintegrating wouldn’t be realistic for decades. The US has political problems but nothing that would lead to civil war. Maybe things will get worse in the 2030s and civil war will be realistic then. There’s no way it will happen by 2010. Panarin’s theory is like taking a marker to a map and divvying up a country. It’s fun for political nerds but has no place in reality.

This is so damn predictable I don’t know why I’m bothering to write about it. I guess because it pisses me off so much. Remember not too long ago the White House and Treasury agreed to give GM and Chrysler a $17 billion loan to make it through next fiscal quarter? That loan had a few conditions that were supposed to force the domestic auto manufacturers to make the hard decisions that would lead to them becoming profitable long-term. One of these conditions was:

Reduction of the total amount of compensation, including wages and benefits, paid to their U.S. employees so that, by no later than December 31, 2009, the average of such total amount, per hour and per person, is an amount that is competitive with the average total amount of such compensation, as certified by the Secretary of Labor, paid per hour and per person to employees of with Nissan Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, or American Honda Motor Company whose site of employment is in the United States.

By the end of 2009 compensation costs (wages + benefits) should be the same, on average, as what the foreign auto companies are paying to manufacture in the US. Going by memory, I believe there was also a February deadline for submitting a plan that would show how compensation would be cut. Does this seem reasonable to you? Do you find it excessive to ask workers to accept wage cuts when the company is considering bankruptcy? The UAW seems to.

The UAW has stated they will seek to renegotiate this stipulation. By “renegotiate” I imagine they mean “completely kill”. I’m not surprised in the least. Greed, laziness and ineptitude are synonymous with unions and the UAW is the king of unions. They will bring down these companies because they’re too stupid to see the damage they cause.

Well maybe I’m being too harsh. I shouldn’t fault them for this course of action. This is a no risk decision because the UAW knows there won’t be a bankruptcy. Bush is too wimpy to allow it at the end of his term. Obama is going to take office next month and we know all Democrats are bought and paid for by unions. Obama will step in and toss aside any notion of lowering UAW wages. The spigots will turn, the tax money will flow and the UAW will continue to grow fat. They may even ask for pay increases. After all these hard workin’, blue collar folk deserve a raise [INSERT CRAP REASON]

Suggested Crap Reasons:

• to get Main Street working again.
• to preserve the middle class.
• to keep the American dream alive.
• before those fat cat executives get anything.

I’ve seen a few news reports that went to Michigan to get man-on-the-street interviews with auto workers. I’ve never seen an interview with an employee of Nissan or Toyota. I would love to hear how they feel about their tax money going to prop up the wages and benefits of UAW workers.

I’m certainly not happy with it and I work in the auto industry. The idea of it makes my blood boil. I was actually tempted by the 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid. It’s no secret that after owning a Mazda3 for three years my eye is wandering. The Fusion hybrid gets 36 mpg highway and 41 mpg city, and looks pretty good (except for the Gillette Mach3 grille). The price is decent too at $27k MSRP. I would consider this car except now that the UAW refuses to live with real world wages, I’m disgusted. I don’t want anything made by union members. From now on whenever I plan a big purchase, I’ll look here at the list of UAW made products. I refuse to buy any of these.

That ending makes a bit more sense than the real ending. It’s a Wonderful Life isn’t the straightforward Christmas tale we think it is. There are lots of facets to consider when you take a moment to scratch the surface. Or you could just search blogs online and find what other people think.

Since I was a child there was one aspect of the movie that really bothered me. We, the audience, are left to think the money problems at the Bailey Building & Loan are taken care of thanks to George’s friends coming to his aid. I think the bank examiner tears up the arrest warrant for George too. That really bothers me. Just because George scraped together another $8,000 doesn’t mean you can ignore the fact that the Building & Loan’s books don’t add up. George should still be arrested and there should be a criminal investigation. He, and possibly Uncle Billy, would be sent away to jail for a few years. That’s hardly a happy ending, but it’s real and obvious. Who believes everything would be set right by simply collecting another $8,000? That movie ending is just lazy writing.

While I’m nitpicking, you know what else bothers me about that movie? George Bailey is such a total whiner. We’re supposed to see him as nobly sacrificing himself for his friends and family. All I can see is a pushover. Giving up his world travels to pay for his brother Harry’s college education was a selfless act, as was running the Building & Loan during that education. However, once George’s father was dead and Harry refused to take over that job, George should have had the independence to live his own life. Instead he cocooned himself in pity. Poor George, he has “no choice” but to stay in Bedford Falls and run a savings and loan. Did it ever occur to him that years of experience running a savings and loan could be used to further a career in banking? Why didn’t he ever pursue a job with a bank in another town? He could have packed up the family and that hot wife, Donna Reed, for a better job that would earn him more money so he could afford to see the world.

If anything you can finish It’s a Wonderful Life and learn the lesson that dedicating yourself to serving the community leads to a bleak life of disappointment. George stuck with the Building & Loan to give Bedford Falls an alternative to Potter’s evil bank. It never fulfilled him. Don’t live your life for others. If you take care of yourself, then you’ll have a wonderful life.

As another Festivus passes I’m a bit concerned about what it means. Strictly speaking, Festivus has no meaning. It was conjured up by a comedy writer working for Seinfeld. It exists to make Frank Costanza look that much crazier.

In the years since Seinfeld went off the air, Festivus has been kept alive by some diehards. I always considered the holiday pretty hilarious. I’ve never celebrated it but it seemed like a good excuse to have fun with friends. Yet to my amazement it seems that some people are starting to look at Festivus as serious competition for Christmas. I was reading a post on Hot Air suggesting Festivus be adopted as an “official” atheist holiday. That itself is ridiculous, but scary were some of the reader comments in that post.

No thank you.

I and my family will continue to celebrate Christmas as we always have… with a few symbolic gift exchanges (with a few special gifts for the kids), giving to those in need (all year round but especially celebrating it in Jesus’ name at this time), and most of all, remembering that the true and sole reason for ‘Christmas’ is to celebrate Jesus Christ, our lord and savior, whom was born into this world, and died in this world, so that we may all have eternity in heaven… if we/you CHOOSE to.

Amen!

FlatFoot on December 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM

My only question…. why even, in half hearted jest, adopt a device written into a script for a comedy that was admittedly about nothing? Oh , unless, you assume my faith is nothing?…..I’m sure that wasn’t anyone’s intent? hmmmmm?

MNDavenotPC on December 23, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Jude 18 – How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I’m not offended by Festivus, if anything, I find it sad and pathetic.

But I think I understand why some are offended.

First off, Christmas ITSELF has been transformed from a religious to a secular holiday.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, now there is a ‘joke’ holiday to even further remove people from Christmas.

And, is it REALLY a puzzlement to some why a ‘joke’ pointed toward a day believed holy by many people…

…is considered a bit offensive?

Sure, some need to grow thicker skin, but when something you hold very, very dear is made fun of…

…people tend to get a little cranky.

Religious_Zealot on December 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM

But Christmas isn’t being made fun of. Christmas’s insane commercialism is. Festivus was only invented, in the mythology anyway, because Frank Costanza was fighting with another parent over a toy to give as a Christmas present. Frank had to get away from that rampant competition over gifts. I suppose a sober minded person could have suggested having Christmas without the gifts, but then we wouldn’t have much of a Seinfeld episode now would we?

Festivus is hilarious and meaningless, and doesn’t preclude anyone from also celebrating Christmas. It’s just an excuse for a party really. Why complain about that? Sulking and lecturing others about the “evils” of Festivus is so petty.

SERENITY NOW!

Some People Have a Knack for Getting Right to the Heart of a Matter

White woman: How are things with John?
Asian woman: I don’t know. He’s just not manly enough for me. He listens to Miss Saigon at the gym. Maybe he has an Asian fetish.
White woman: Sounds more like he has a dick fetish.

–E Train

Overheard by: Brad
via Overheard in New York, Dec 16, 2008

Here’s an unexpected benefit to Barack Obama’s election. With George Bush’s term ending and the US still a sovereign nation, the North American Union conspiracy is safely discredited.

You’ve never heard of this? Well that’s because you only hear the mainstream media who, of course, are part of the conspiracy. Yes, NAFTA is actually a nefarious plot to merge the US with Canada and Mexico. That plan to build a big highway that runs from Mexico to Canada is just phase one of the NAFTA superhighway that will tie up the continent.

What utter crap. It’s not that I can’t believe government officials would be involved in a conspiracy. It’s that creating a North American Union completely favors the United States. Population-wise and economically we tower over Canada and Mexico. Any union would essentially be America taking over those two countries.

Don’t even try and tell me the real objective of any union is to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. We have plenty of fights about the Constitution now without Canada or Mexico in the fray. Whether or not people are allowed to have guns is a constant fight. First Amendment issues are a consistant bitch-fest. Americans can lose their cherished rights today without this North American Union. Frankly the creation of the NAU has the potential to enhance some rights. A document that would fuse the three countries would be so scrutinized, there’s no way any rights in the US Constitution would be allowed to fall by the wayside.

The US would dominate the NAU economically. We have the world’s largest economy today. Canada and Mexico added together and doubled still do not come close to comparing. The Federal Reserve would remain the central bank. New York City would remain the financial capital of the continent. The US timber industry in the current Pacific Northwest would be hurt by cheaper timber from Canada, but hey timber is only one industry. Manufacturing probably wouldn’t change a great deal. Whatever companies that were going to move to Mexico did so ten or more years ago. Modernizing the decrepit Mexican economy could actually be a boon to American companies.

And I don’t believe for a second that we would be using Ameros for money. The US uses the dollar. Canada uses the dollar. Mexico uses the peso. Two versus one says the NAU has dollars. The real fight will be whose faces go on those dollars.

That’s not to say you can’t get an Amero today! Daniel Carr, designer of the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, went ahead and created some Amero coins. You know Christmas is coming and there are a few 2008 Ameros left. What better way is there to baffle historians in a thousand years than with fake currency from a fictional nation?

Out of the blue Caroline Kennedy decides she wants a Senate seat. This interview with Caroline’s cousin Kerry on MSNBC seems to be the first step that I’ve seen in talking up Caroline’s “qualifications”.

Kerry’s arguments for Caroline seem to be that only a woman can represent women, therefore Caroline is qualified. Oh and she’s written some books and hosted some foreign leaders at the Kennedy Library so clearly she’s Senate material. The interview made me do a double take because I thought that interviewer (what’s her name?) was doing a better job papering over Caroline’s lack of credentials. Remember the Gary Ackerman question Kerry deflected by rattling off some of Caroline’s accomplishments and saying Ackerman probably isn’t familiar with them? The interviewer actually responds with “clearly not”. What kind biased answer is that? She might as well have stopped the interview to call Ackerman a no-nothing fool who hates women.

By the way, let’s discuss Ackerman’s comment.

“I don’t know what Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J.Lo.”

How can that be construed as sexist? It’s a flippant remark for sure, but it’s only sexist if Ackerman is deriding Kennedy for being a woman. He’s not. Ackerman is deriding her for being a lightweight. To have that interviewer throw the idea out there that its sexist to oppose Caroline Kennedy is either lazy journalism (assuming it must be sexist because she’s a woman) or is just a way to carry Kennedy’s bag and try to silence any critics.

The best part was around 4 minutes, 20 seconds when MSNBC starts showing clips of JFK. That is the most irrelevant thing to do. Are they actually saying JFK is endorsing his daughter’s “run” for Senate 45 years after his death? Maybe they’re trying to stir up some nostalgia among the Baby Boomers; oh JFK’s daughter is a piece of Camelot and we must blindly support whatever the Kennedy family wants. *SWOON*

I really hope New Yorkers reject this ridiculousness. Caroline Kennedy has no experience in government. Have her spend a few years as a mayor of a little town, then a few more in the state house. After that we can talk about her maybe being qualified for the US Senate. She’s only being considered because her last name is Kennedy. Imagine if Jill Smith announced she wanted that seat. Smith is a lawyer and wrote a few books on Constitutional law. She also hosted fund-raisers for charitable organizations. Is Jill Smith qualified for the Senate? Then neither is Caroline Kennedy. The Senate is not Delta House where they have to let a pledge in because an alumni was already a member.

Everyone should read this editorial from Polish economists Leszek Balcerowicz and Andrzej Rzonca about the dangers of these fiscal stimulus plans. All these MBAs and PhDs around the world seem to assume throwing money into the economy will automatically get consumers to spend it. If you want to dress it up in fancy-talk: A strong Keynesian stimulus would revive the economy by providing money for production. The business owners receiving these government orders and employees receiving wages would naturally go out and spend that new money, providing further stimulus to the economy.

The problem is that isn’t reality. As Balcerowicz and Rzonca say, and I totally agree with them, consumers haven’t stopped spending because they lack money. They lack confidence and won’t part with their money unless they’re sure their income is secure. This is so obvious, I’ve been annoying everyone who makes the mistake of talking to me about the economy with this since October. Yet those MBAs and PhDs who populate the world’s central banks and treasuries are blind to it. They assume pushing money out into the economy will always translate into spending. I guess they assume we’re all zombie shoppers who lack the brainpower to hold on to a dollar.

Balcerowicz and Rzonca warn of some bad economic consequences of this Keynesian binge. I’ve been worrying about that through all of November. The US economy has weathered recessions before, but when has the government conjured up this quantity of debt in an effort to spend us out of a recession? I can’t imagine that the consequences won’t include massive inflation. Hedge funds have been dumping their investments, which has depressed commodity prices; that includes gold and silver. I suspect Q1 of 2009 will see strong price rises in precious metals as hedge funds finish dumping their assets. I may just turn into a gold bug.