Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 101

SlaveNoMore · 08-15-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

taxwonk
The Isreali conflict began in biblical times, when Nebuchadnezzar first drove the Jews from Judea, while allowing the Phillistines, the ancestors of today's Palestinians to expand byond their then-boundary in Canaan and occupy Judea. Subsequent banishment of Jews from Isreal came during the reign of the Romans, and the Ottoman Turks.

In 1945, the Zionists of Britain and the Unisted States saw the historical homeland of Israel as a place for the millions of Jews displaced from their homes by the Nazi occupation of continental Europe to find safe haven. Anti-semitic influences in the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Empire found it convenient to allow this migration as a means of avoiding the problem of resettlement of these Jews in Europe. They clearly had no stomach to repatriate the land, property, and businesses of which the Jews had been stripped.

Palestine was at the time a British Protectorate. The British, not quite sure what to do about the overcrowding created by the displaced Jews and the Palestinian underclass waffled, hoping that the whole mess could be foisted on the fledgling United Nations. The British, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, had declared Palestine a Jewish Homeland, but they never really took steps to create an independent state, or to mediate the burgeoning tension between Jews and Arab Palestinians.

The Jews newly arrived in Palestine, along with the minority of native Jews who had been kept in ghettos in the cities of Palestine, took matters into their own hands in 1948. In that year, they gave birth to terrorism by blowing up the East Wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Among the terrorists was Yitzhak Shamir, later to be elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The British response was to flee Palestine, summarily dividing it into two halves, one Jewish, one Arab. The Arab League and the Hagunah, the two primary paramilitary terrorist organizations of the Arabs and the Jews then began the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. To make a short story even shorter, the Jews won.

It was during this war, the war started by Egypt in 1956, and the war started by Syria and Egypt in 1967, that large numbers of Palestinians either fled as refugees or were expelled as hostile combatants from Israel.

The Arab League eventually split up into many groups, among the Hamas, the PLO, and Al-Fatah. The Haganah became the Israeli Defence Force, and ultimately, the Israeli Army.

To this day, it is still the official political and limitary position of Hamas that the Palestinian people will not rest until every last Jew in Israel is pushed into the sea.

So, to answer your questions...

1. So, the same rule that says that we don't have to give the country back to the Indians, England is free to ignore the Pope, and Mexico no longer has to pay a ransom in gold to the King of Spain is the reason that the Jews are allowed to be in Israel and they needn't move back to the land that was stolen from them by non-Jewish Europeans in WWII.

2. Israel occupies the West Bank and the Gaza strip because they have always been a historical part of Judea/Canaan/Palestine/TransJordan/Israel. That and because the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Yemenites, Egyptians, and the Arab League lost the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1972.

3. The Jews did not create Isreal in 1948, the British did. However, after the British turned tail and ran, the Jews won the 1948 War. For parallels in other British colonies, see South Africa, no longer ruled by the Afrikaans, Zimbabwe, no longer ruled by white plantation owners, etc.

4. Yes, it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic. However, in order to take such a position, you need to decide at exactly what point in the history of civilization we need to decide who should be in Israel/Palestine. Of course, no matter what point you choose, there will be both Arabs (or Phillistines) and Jews there. And they will be warring over territory.

Excellent summation. Bravo.

taxwonk · 08-15-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Cindy Sheehan, for one.

For someone as irked as you claim to be about her, you spend a lot of time dwelling on her. Personally, I stopped paying attention to her when I learned she got her meeting with Bush. She only remains a story as long as people keep talking about her.

Not Bob · 08-15-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He is a terrorist. Israel is a nation and an ally. Saddam was the leader of a real nation. Arafat was a terrorist. Why can't the left admit it? Why glorify a anti-semitic babykiller?

Apropos of nothing, there is a fascinating article on him in the latest Atlantic Monthly.

I don't disagree with you, but once he "renounced" (yeah, I think it was bullshit, too) terrorism, leaders of both Likud and Labor in Israel spoke to him, so why was it not ok for Clinton to?

For better or for worse, he was regarded by the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza as their leader. Any effort to come to a peaceful resolution would have to involve him.

The Oslo Accords were done directly beween Rabin and Arafat without any meaningful US involvement (other than "sure, you'll love Oslo, Yitzak"). Bill's contribution was to lean on AIPAC not to scuttle the deal. He followed up with Barak and Arafat after the election, but Arafat blinked when he had the chance to be a hero (and Barak apparently knew he would).

And terrorists can go on to form political parties and become responsible leaders -- ask any neo-con about how wonderful Menachem ("I blew up the King David Hotel in 1947") Begin was.

Penske_Account · 08-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Excellent summation. Bravo.

2.

taxwonk · 08-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Nation's Largest Medical Malpractice Insurer Declares Caps on Damages Don't Work, Raises Docs' Premiums

Smoking Gun Document Exposes Insurance Industry Lies by Douglas Heller

Santa Monica, CA -The nation's largest medical malpractice insurer, GE Medical Protective, has admitted that medical malpractice caps on damage awards and other limitations on recoveries for injured patients will not lower physicians' premiums.

The insurer's revelation was made to the Texas Department of Insurance
(TDI) in a regulatory filing obtained by FTCR. The revelation was contained in a document submitted by GE Medical Protective to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards. In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change.

According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%." The company also notes that a provision in the Texas law allowing for periodic payments of awards would provide a savings of only 1.1%. The insurer did not even provide its doctors that relief and eventually imposed a rate hike on its physician policyholders.

The Medical Protective document can be downloaded from:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insu...p/rp004689.pdf

"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said FTCR's Executive Director Douglas Heller.
"Medical Protective's rate increase and this smoking gun document prove that the insurance industry cannot be trusted on the issue of malpractice caps."

Medical Protective and other supporters of medical malpractice caps have repeatedly argued that damage awards are the primary reason for skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums. For example, in a March 2004 report. GE Medical Protective stated that capping non-economic damages is a "critical element [of reform] because in recent years we have seen non-economic damages spiraling out of control." [from Health Care
Crisis: Causes and Solutions]

The Texas rate increase and the actuarial data submitted by the company contradicting the oft-stated importance of caps should lead policymakers to look to insurance regulation, rather than malpractice caps, as a solution to high premiums, according to FTCR.

"While medical malpractice caps limit the rights of injured patients, they do not lower doctors' premiums. If lawmakers and physicians want to reduce costs, they should start fighting to reform insurance companies rather than restrict patients' rights," said Heller.

The nonpartisan FTCR pointed to the success of regulatory intervention in California in fighting planned medical malpractice rate hikes. Since 2003, the California Department of Insurance and FTCR have stopped $50 million in rate hikes proposed by the largest medical malpractice insurers, using Proposition 103, the state's insurance regulation law enacted by voters in 1988.

As in Texas, California has a $250,000 cap on damages (California's limits, however, have been in place since 1975). And, as in Texas, large California insurers have proposed major rate hikes on doctors in recent years despite the caps.

GE Medical Protective sought a 29.2% rate hike in California.

However, because of California's system of insurance regulation, FTCR was able to challenge the hike resulting in the company reducing its rate proposed increase by 60%. Unlike California's system, the Texas Insurance Commissioner, who disputed the need for Medical Protective's increase in that state, does not have the regulatory authority to block inappropriate insurance increases.

"In California, Texas and throughout the country, malpractice insurers like Medical Protective continue to push for higher premiums for doctors, regardless of whether or not the state has caps on damages.
Insurance regulation, not caps, has been the only successful weapon in the battle against skyrocketing premiums," said Heller.

Not the First Industry Admission That Caps Fail

In 1986, after insurers and doctors lobbied for, and Florida lawmakers enacted, a cap on non-economic damages for medical malpractice claims, insurers Aetna and St. Paul increased doctors' premiums. The companies argued that, despite earlier promises, malpractice caps do not actually lead to savings for doctors, much in the manner of Medical Protective in its recent Texas filing.

According to a St. Paul Insurance company study provided to the Florida Department of Insurance at the time:

"The conclusion of the study is that the noneconomic cap of $450,000, joint and several liability on the noneconomic damages, and mandatory structured settlements on losses above $250,000 will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice."

"Time after time insurers present caps as the panacea for high insurance rates only to argue that caps actually have a negligible impact when it comes time to send doctors the bill," concluded Heller.

Posted with permission from Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

Hank Chinaski · 08-15-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have lost all credibility. With you stupid fucking Hillary Clinton photoshops, and your autistic posting and re-posting of the Robert Byrd/Klan robes photoshop, and the elephant ass-fucking the donkey (although that at least was honest in that it genuinely portayed your current politcal discourse. You have become a parody. A satire of whatever it was that you honestly wanted to say.

dissent. i don't beleive Penske has any less credibility than he did 60 days ago.

ltl/fb · 08-15-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dissent. i don't beleive Penske has any less credibility than he did 60 days ago.

He has less with me.

Shape Shifter · 08-15-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
He has less with me.

He had some?

Penske_Account · 08-15-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, there is a fascinating article on him in the latest Atlantic Monthly.

I don't disagree with you, but once he "renounced" (yeah, I think it was bullshit, too) terrorism, leaders of both Likud and Labor in Israel spoke to him, so why was it not ok for Clinton to?

Clinton pushed a peace plan that likely would have assured Israel's destruction. His motivation was his legacy, not Israel. The leaders of Likud and Labour made a calculated and probably nauseating decision in no small part because the US was pushing it and to some extent Israel's survival depends on us.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

For better or for worse, he was regarded by the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza as their leader. Any effort to come to a peaceful resolution would have to involve him.

so any effourt to come to a peaceful resolution of the War on Terror will involve the US have negotiated discussions with bin Laden?

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

The Oslo Accords were done directly beween Rabin and Arafat without any meaningful US involvement (other than "sure, you'll love Oslo, Yitzak"). Bill's contribution was to lean on AIPAC not to scuttle the deal. He followed up with Barak and Arafat after the election, but Arafat blinked when he had the chance to be a hero (and Barak apparently knew he would).

I look at the article but reality caues me to pause on any thought that the US was not the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

And terrorists can go on to form political parties and become responsible leaders -- ask any neo-con about how wonderful Menachem ("I blew up the King David Hotel in 1947") Begin was.

Unlike Begin, Arafat never stopped using terrorism as his primary tool.

ltl/fb · 08-15-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He had some?

On a personal level. Not so much on this board.

Penske_Account · 08-15-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
For someone as irked as you claim to be about her, you spend a lot of time dwelling on her. Personally, I stopped paying attention to her when I learned she got her meeting with Bush. She only remains a story as long as people keep talking about her.

Or the left wing MSM keeps reporting on her. You should copy your post to Katie Couric so she has the memo too.