Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The map looks almost identical to Obama vs McCain in 2008. IIRC, the only difference is that Obama got one of the NE electoral votes.

Obama also won Indiana.

...It's hard to imagine three similar, consecutive elections. Barring an economic meltdown or a diplomatic/military debacle, nothing is likely to cause the election to simply drift the way of a Trump victory. The area of a 57% to 65% win of the Electoral College is extremely unstable even if it includes the mean. Presidential elections are generally closer to the 270-310 range or over 360 electoral votes, and the Presidential election of 2012 got an unlikely result even if it was close to the mean. The candidate behind by 40 or so electoral votes can believe that with a few lucky breaks and some better application of resources he might still win. Behind 100 or more? He knows that he is losing. Behind 40-100? He must take gambles to have a chance. To take those gambles he must risk some close states for some that aren't so close. Thus one saw John McCain betting everything on Pennsylvania while assuming that Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia would stay with him. Except for Missouri, they didn't stick with him. But he had to bet everything on Pennsylvania if he were to win.

I see evidence in recent polling that Arizona and Missouri are legitimate toss-ups. Trump has so peeved Mormons that Utah (of all states!) could turn against him. Strange things are happening this year.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Naftali Bennett already has advocated Israeli citizenship for the 80,000 Arabs in Area C. I'm not saying that ciitizenship for Arabs in the rest of the West Bank wouldn't be something that right wing Israelis wouldn't have to swallow hard to accept. But if a status quo of essentially statelessness is unacceptable, most Israelis find citizenship for Palestinians who would accept it (and who have not been involved in attacks on Jews) safer than an independent West Bank. Especially since, even added to Israeli Arabs who are already citizens, Israel would still have a solid Jewish majority and the demographics to KEEP a solid Jewish majority. What people don't realise is that Jews and Israelis have no faith or trust in international guarantees of ANYTHING.

I don't think Israelis have faith in a one state solution either. Palestinians are more prolific, and adding 4 million-plus to those already in Israel would endanger its status as a Jewish state.

Let's see: Israel population, according to wikipedia:
"The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2016 to be 8,476,600 people. It is the world's only Jewish-majority state, with 6,345,400 citizens, or 74.9% of Israelis, being designated as Jewish. The country's second largest group of citizens are denoted as Arabs, numbering 1,760,400 people"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Growth rate for Jews in Israel was 1.7%; Arabs 2.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel


Palestine population, from wikipedia:
According to a 2008 article in The Guardian, using PCBS census figures, the Palestinian territories have one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with numbers surging 30% in the past decade (2008). There were 3.76 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, up from 2.89 million 10 years earlier.

According to the U.S. Census, population growth mid-1990-2008 in Gaza and West Bank was 106% from 1.9 million (1990) to 3.9 million persons.

According to the United Nations, the Palestinian population was 4.4 million in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...an_territories

And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine :
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the State of Palestine had population of 4,420,549 people in 2013. Within an area of 6,220 square kilometres (2,400 sq mi), there is a population density of 731 people per square kilometre.[citation needed] To put this in a wider context, the average population density of the world was 53 people per square kilometre based on data from July 5, 2014.

93% of Palestinians are Muslim, the vast majority of whom are followers of the Sunni branch of Islam.

BOTTOM LINE: The solution is either two states, in which Israelis in Palestinian territory become citizens of Palestine, just as Arabs in Israel become citizens of Israel. OR for Israel to become a non-Jewish state in which two equal populations of people who have fought with each other for decades compete for power within it.

Israel right now seems to much prefer the status quo, in which Israel dominates Palestine, although subject to periodic outbreaks of violence in which many more Palestinians die than Israelis. But this policy means that Israel is not respected in the region and the world, and gives terrorists part of their persuasive ideology, and that Israel is partly dependent on pro-Israelis in the USA.

I respect Jews a lot, and wish the Israeli state to exist. I don't support its current government. I think fair solutions will work much better than assuming Israelis should be favored or held to a lower standard by its benefactor state (the USA), and expecting the subject peoples to respect this lower standard, which to them is simply oppression.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The animal was smaller and less powerful and more focused on other industries and revenue streams but it was still the same animal as today.

Indeed it was. The economy as it developed ante-bellum was focused on cotton and slaves. The first major business enterprises in the US were, as Edward Baptist pointed out in "The Half Has Not Been Told", slave labour camps known as plantations that produced cotton on an industrial scale for a world market using a crude behavioural scientific management to get the most labour out of slaves. And very advanced financialisation. Edward Baptist tells us that in the 1830s there were even mortgage backed securities based on mortgages on slaves.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Obama also won Indiana.

...It's hard to imagine three similar, consecutive elections. Barring an economic meltdown or a diplomatic/military debacle, nothing is likely to cause the election to simply drift the way of a Trump victory. The area of a 57% to 65% win of the Electoral College is extremely unstable even if it includes the mean. Presidential elections are generally closer to the 270-310 range or over 360 electoral votes, and the Presidential election of 2012 got an unlikely result even if it was close to the mean. The candidate behind by 40 or so electoral votes can believe that with a few lucky breaks and some better application of resources he might still win. Behind 100 or more? He knows that he is losing. Behind 40-100? He must take gambles to have a chance. To take those gambles he must risk some close states for some that aren't so close. Thus one saw John McCain betting everything on Pennsylvania while assuming that Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia would stay with him. Except for Missouri, they didn't stick with him. But he had to bet everything on Pennsylvania if he were to win.

I see evidence in recent polling that Arizona and Missouri are legitimate toss-ups. Trump has so peeved Mormons that Utah (of all states!) could turn against him. Strange things are happening this year.

It was thought in 2008 that Missouri was a toss-up. And in 2012 that Arizona was a toss-up. People have been waiting for Arizona to flip Democratic like California since 2006. Arizona is a perpetual battlground state--at the state level. Perhaps Trump has peeved Mormons (who are a significant part of the white population of Arizona) to flip AZ this election. If he gets the nomination, which is by no means certain.

Originally Posted by radind

It is a very long run, but that is what the emerging demographics look like to me. I think that the GOP is history and a new party will be required to compete with the Democratic party.

I now see the Democratic Party as the party of the poor and intelligentsia of identifiable minority groups, unionized workers, and the hyper-educated. The white part of the intelligentsia splits about 50-50, and the Republicans now have the under-educated and poor whites and the elites of ownership and management. Republicans have the overwhelming power in economics, and in a plutocratic culture that can be decisive for a while... like a Third Turning in which the Free Market becomes an idol in all but name. For the poor the Free Market becomes a Moloch. Minorities have always recognized the Free Market mostly for its freedom to do nasty things to people. White people have been slower to catch onto that fact.

In the 1950s the Republicans had the intelligentsia as a reliable voting bloc -- which probably explains why I see Obama victories closer in style to those of Eisenhower than to those of anyone else. That vote has swung Democratic as the Republican Party has adopted anti-intellectualism as a campaign tool and as public policy.

To truly accept the Free Market one must see the desirability of its most destructive ways. A Free Market is eminently capable of creating great needs in people that the market allows them to meet only in destructive, degrading, and wasteful ways. It can compel people to sell out their dreams in desperation, which is hardly a model of freedom. It can compel people to waste their talents and lure people into underdevelopment of their humanity. It can cast off people just to establish who is Boss -- Wealth that at times can destroy human happiness.

People can succeed as hustlers because of their greed. People can be good workers solely out of need. But achievement of anything else? I'm not so sure.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think Israelis have faith in a one state solution either. Palestinians are more prolific, and adding 4 million-plus to those already in Israel would endanger its status as a Jewish state.

Let's see: Israel population, according to wikipedia:
"The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2016 to be 8,476,600 people. It is the world's only Jewish-majority state, with 6,345,400 citizens, or 74.9% of Israelis, being designated as Jewish. The country's second largest group of citizens are denoted as Arabs, numbering 1,760,400 people"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Growth rate for Jews in Israel was 1.7%; Arabs 2.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

A very different demographic view of Israel. http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/11...phic-time-bomb . It raises questions of whether the Israeli government exaggerated the demographic threat to justify the Oslo Accords to the Jewish People. The actual Palestinian population is more like 2.2 million. Figures have been inflated by such means as counting Palestinians who have emigrated to other countries and THEIR offspring and counting the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem twice. And the birthrate is far lower in the West Bank and for Israeli Arabs than it is for Arabs in Gaza.

Palestine population, from wikipedia:
According to a 2008 article in The Guardian, using PCBS census figures, the Palestinian territories have one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with numbers surging 30% in the past decade (2008). There were 3.76 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, up from 2.89 million 10 years earlier.

According to the U.S. Census, population growth mid-1990-2008 in Gaza and West Bank was 106% from 1.9 million (1990) to 3.9 million persons.

According to the United Nations, the Palestinian population was 4.4 million in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...an_territories

I would treat Palestinian statistics as suspect and inflated. The PA regularly inflates Palestinian numbers. to get more money from the UN and other donors. See http://besacenter.org/perspectives-p...an-demography/ In this case, the UN has an axe to grind. UNRWA's total budget is $1.8 millionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA out of a total budget for the entire UN of$ 5.57 billion, almost 1/3 of the UN's total budget. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaab4164.doc.htm .

Israel right now seems to much prefer the status quo, in which Israel dominates Palestine, although subject to periodic outbreaks of violence in which many more Palestinians die than Israelis. But this policy means that Israel is not respected in the region and the world, and gives terrorists part of their persuasive ideology, and that Israel is partly dependent on pro-Israelis in the USA.

Of course Israelis prefer a status quo they are used to. Based on the real demographics of the West Bank (that 2.2 million figure in Bennet Zimmerman's study includes Gaza) the West Bank is quite absorbable. So if push comes to shove, Israelis will keep Gaza and the West Bank separate and annex the West Bank with full citizenship for agreeable inhabitants before they will allow it to be fully independent. It simply isn't safe for Israel to permit a Palestinian State in the West Bank. And let Gaza alone be Palestine.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I now see the Democratic Party as the party of the poor and intelligentsia of identifiable minority groups, unionized workers, and the hyper-educated. The white part of the intelligentsia splits about 50-50, and the Republicans now have the under-educated and poor whites and the elites of ownership and management. Republicans have the overwhelming power in economics, and in a plutocratic culture that can be decisive for a while... like a Third Turning in which the Free Market becomes an idol in all but name. For the poor the Free Market becomes a Moloch. Minorities have always recognized the Free Market mostly for its freedom to do nasty things to people. White people have been slower to catch onto that fact.

Idol is a good description for a Free Market. I would call it an unattainable myth like Georges Sorel's Myth of the General Strike (the idea that if all workers in all industries could go out on strike there would be rule by workers).
To wit:

Georges Sorel (1847-1922) stated his theory of social myths most clearly in a letter to Daniel Halevy in 1907, from which these selections are taken. Sorel was a socialist, a syndicalist, and after 1917, a vigorous admirer of Lenin. His anti-intellectualism and his passion for revolutionary activity in place of rational discourse made him most influential in shaping the ultimate direction of fascism, especially in Mussolini's Italy.

* * * * *

...Men who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph. These constructions, knowledge of which is so important for historians, I propose to call myths; the syndicalist "general strike" and Marx's catastrophic revolution are such myths. As remarkable examples of such myths, I have given those which were constructed by primitive Christianity, by the Reformation, by the Revolution and by the followers of Mazzini. I now wish to show that we should not attempt to analyze such groups of images in the way that we analyze a thing into its elements, but that they must be taken as a whole, as historical forces, and that we should be especially careful not to make any comparison between accomplished fact and the picture people had formed for themselves before action.

I could have given one more example which is perhaps still more striking: Catholics have never been discouraged even in the hardest trials, because they have always pictured the history of the Church as a series of battles between Satan and the hierarchy supported by Christ; every new difficulty which arises is only an episode in a war which must finally end in the victory of Catholicism.

In employing the term myth I believed that I had made a happy choice, because I thus put myself in a position to refuse any discussion whatever with the people who wish to submit the idea of a general strike to a detailed criticism, and who accumulate objections against its practical possibility. It appears, on the contrary, that I had made a most unfortunate choice, for while some told me that myths were only suitable to a primitive state of society, others imagined that I thought the modern world might be moved by illusions analogous in nature to those which Renan thought might usefully replace religion. But there has been a worse misunderstanding than this even, for it has been asserted that my theory of myths was only a kind of lawyer's plea, a falsification of the real opinions of the revolutionaries, the sophistry of an intellectual.

If this were true, I should not have been exactly fortunate, for I have always tried to escape the influence of that intellectual philosophy, which seems to me a great hindrance to the historian who allows himself to be dominated by it.

In can understand the fear that this myth of the general strike inspires in many worthy progressives, on account of its character of infinity, the world of today is very much inclined to return to the opinions of the ancients and to subordinate ethics to the smooth working of public affairs, which results in a definition of virtue as the golden mean; as long as socialism remains a doctrine expressed only in words, it is very easy to deflect this implies an absolute revolution. You know as well as I do that all that is best in the modern mind is derived from this "torment of the infinite"; you are not one of those people who look upon the tricks by means of which readers can be deceived by words, as happy discoveries. That is why you will not condemn me for having attached great worth to a myth which gives to socialism such high moral value and such great sincerity. It is because the theory of myths tends to produce such fine results that so many seek to refute it....

As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely, without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it so odious to socialists who are afraid of a revolution....

The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost free from any such mixture; by means of them it is possible to understand the activity, the feelings and the ideas of the masses preparing themselves to enter on a decisive struggle: the myths are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act. A Utopia is...and intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing society in order to estimate the amount of good and evil it contains. It is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be taken to pieces, and certain parts of it have been shaped in such a way that they can...be fitted into approaching legislation. While contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of Utopias has always been to direct men's minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the existing system; it is not surprising, then, that so many makers of Utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired a greater experience of political life. A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. A Utopia, on the other hand, can be discussed like any other social constitution; the spontaneous movements it presupposes can be compared with the movements actually observed in the course of history, and we can in this way evaluate its verisimilitude; it is possible to refute Utopias by showing that the economic system on which they have been made to rest is incompatible with the necessary conditions of modern production.

For a long time Socialism was scarcely anything but a Utopia; the Marxists were right in claiming for their master the honor of bringing about a change in this state of things; Socialism has now become the preparation of the masses employed in great industries for the suppression of the State and property; and it is no longer necessary, therefore, to discuss how men must organize themselves in order to enjoy future happiness; everything is reduced to the revolutionary apprenticeship of the proletariat. Unfortunately Marx was not acquainted with facts which have now become familiar to us; we know better than he did what strikes are, because we have been able to observe economic conflict of considerable extent and duration; the myth of the "general strike" has become popular, and is now firmly established in the minds of the workers; we possess ideas about violence that it would have been difficult for him to have formed; we can then complete his doctrine, instead of making commentaries on his text, as his unfortunate disciples have done for so long.

In this way Utopias tend to disappear completely from Socialism; Socialism has no longer any need to concern itself with the organization of industry since capitalism does that....

People who are living in this world of "myths," are secure from all refutation; this has led many to assert that Socialism is a kind of religion. For a For a long time people have been struck by the fact that religious convictions are unaffected by criticism, and from that they have concluded that everything which claims to be beyond science must be a religion. It has been observed also that Christianity tends at the present day to be less a system of dogmas than a Christian life, i.e., moral reform penetrating to the roots of one's being; consequently, new analogy has been discovered between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even reconstruction of the individual -- a gigantic task....

...by the side of Utopias there have always been myths capable of urging on the workers to revolt. For a long time these myths were founded on the legends of the Revolution, and they preserved all their value as long as these legends remained unshaken. Today the confidence of the Socialists is greater than ever since the myth of the general strike dominates all the truly working-class movement. No failure proves anything against Socialism since the latter has become a work of preparation (for revolution); if they are checked, it merely proves that the apprenticeship has been insufficient; they must set to work again with more courage, persistence, and confidence than before; their experience of labor has taught workmen that it is by means of patient apprenticeship that a man may become a true comrade, and it is also the only way of becoming a true revolutionary.

[Source: The full text of Sorel's Letter to Daniel Halevy is presented in his Reflections on Violence (1908), trans. T. E. Hulme and J. Roth, (New York: Collier, 1950), pp.26-56.]

To which I might add that businesspeople are just as subject to the power of myth as working people. What Georges Sorel was for socialism, Ayn Rand was for neo-liberal capitalism.
The truth of the matter is that no market can be completely free any more than a perpetual motion machine is possible. All markets are rigged, consciously or unconsciously.

In the 1950s the Republicans had the intelligentsia as a reliable voting bloc -- which probably explains why I see Obama victories closer in style to those of Eisenhower than to those of anyone else. That vote has swung Democratic as the Republican Party has adopted anti-intellectualism as a campaign tool and as public policy.

Indeed. The Republican Party during and after Reagan discovered the power of myth.

To truly accept the Free Market one must see the desirability of its most destructive ways. A Free Market is eminently capable of creating great needs in people that the market allows them to meet only in destructive, degrading, and wasteful ways. It can compel people to sell out their dreams in desperation, which is hardly a model of freedom. It can compel people to waste their talents and lure people into underdevelopment of their humanity. It can cast off people just to establish who is Boss -- Wealth that at times can destroy human happiness.

People can succeed as hustlers because of their greed. People can be good workers solely out of need. But achievement of anything else? I'm not so sure.

An excellent dystopian novel series that explores this aspect of free markets begins with : http://www.amazon.com/The-Unincorpor.../dp/0765358638. Well worth buying used on Amazon. https://www.goodreads.com/series/621...corporated-man

Originally Posted by radind

I would like to see a viable third party. Four may be too many. It is time to shake up the establishment insiders.

The problem with third parties is that they are unstable. People on one side worry that if they vote third party the other side will win. I'm not sure how Canada's New Democratic Party (which has yet to win government there) manages to stay viable.
Four parties provide a basis for enduring coalitions since they ensure that no one party can have a congressional majority. They may join enduring coalitions to create a de facto two party system (which is what has happened in Australia) but the parties remain separate with all having the possibility of winning seats. And political debts are far more out in the open.
We need to realise that a lot of the dysfunction we are seeing in our two party system stems from the closing off of many previous avenues for compromise.
Before the 1970s, Senators and Congresspeople first and foremost represented their states and districts and were expected to bring home goodies for their states and districts. Those goodies could include everything from pork barrel projects (which got a lot of public works built--they weren't all or even mostly boondoggles) to special bills for the benefit of constituents, including conferring citizenship by Act of Congress. It was these little favours that made possible compromises on Big Issues across party lines. When these little favours became treated as corruption congresspeople became far more elected by mass politics and ideological politics. And became more subject to party line discipline in a manner similar to the British Parliament.
But in a parliamentary democracy, governments can fall and new elections can be called instead of elections being on a set calendar. Thus our congressional system is getting the partisanship of parliamentary democracy with none of parliamentary democracy's flexibility.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No it isn't at all. Not even a little bit. ALL countries need to be held to that standard. Not all can be held to it, but that is their own fault, and they can't lay the blame on anyone but themselves. Yes, that includes Europeans who don't integrate Muslims any better than Israel does. But Palestinians in Israel are discriminated against and scapegoated. Israel needs to be held to a HIGHER standard, because as victims of genocide they above all should have learned not to do it themselves.

There is a big difference between discrimination and mass murder. And there have been other victims of genocide. Rwandans, Cambodians. Armenians. Nobody holds THEM to any higher standards than any other nations. Frankly, Israel is fairer than European nations toward minorities. And fairer than Americans. Despite provocations on both sides, the number of total casualties in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 has been 51,000. See http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab...ties-rank-49th. A tragedy but hardly genocide. By point of comparison, 675,000 people died in the 1954-1962 Algerian-French conflict.

They have not. Instead they became oppressors themselves, and people excuse them for it. It's the Germans who learned. Those who say that criticizing Israel is anti-semitic, are themselves treading the road to fascism. This idea is probably the biggest roadblock to Arab-Israeli peace. Pro-Israeli people are too fanatic and hypersensitive. I run into this frequently. It's nonsense, and it has to stop. For the best interests of Israel.

The current refugee situation will show us how much the Germans have learned. And it will take 20 years or maybe 88 years to find out.

Governments need to be criticized when they do wrong. Jews are not the Israeli government, and being against the Israeli government is not being against Judaism; but the people choose their government, so they are responsible for electing creeps like Netanyahu, just as America is for electing creeps like Bush (or potentially, Trump or Cruz). The USA enables Israel's bad behavior. If we didn't, Israel would have to behave, and then it could live in peace.

If the US does not support Israel, Israel will simply reorient toward China, (which Israel is in the process of doing) a nation that values innovation as long as they don't have to be the society that encourages it. The Chinese have a very different idea of human rights than Westerners do and for that reason expect less of their allies than Western nations do. And the Chinese have no cultural basis for anti-semitism since for the most part they do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God at all.

Israel and Palestine can't be one country, because Israel insists on a Jewish state, and it insists that it owns all the land in Palestine. It is Israel that does not recognize Palestine, and NOT the other way around.



Nor can they do it if Israel kills thousands of Gazans and razes their cities after blockading them for years, all in retaliation for a few harmless attacks.

Harmless? Blowing up the city of Sderot is harmless?
The Palestinians of Gaza can end the blockade whenever they are ready to depose their leaders, make peace with Israel and accept that Gaza is all they get and make the most of it. Which will not happen as long as the UN enables the conflict to continue.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We could end up with for all practical purposes a single-party democracy -- and democracy will depend upon democracy within the Party and its openness to the People. That's how South Africa works. That is better than the prospect of having a fascist or Communist Party on the brink of getting power that it will abuse.

It wouldn't be the first time we had single party democracy. The 1800-1828 "Era of Good Feelings". And the effective one party state from 1860 until 1884.

I see the Republican Party becoming an authoritarian party. The factional rifts are a power struggle for control of the Party, and not a real contest of ideas. There can be rifts within even a totalitarian Party, as in North Korea (pro-Soviet, pro-China, and nationalist at one time), Nazi Germany (its "left" Strasserites and the Hitler clique intent on winning the support of the conservative landowner and industrialist interests), and the Soviet Union between the demise of Lenin and rise of Stalin. In the end the winning factions kill off the losing factions in Party purges. This is all incompatible with the American past -- but Hitler was a break with the German past, a heritage less despotic than in other countries. Wilhelmine Germany had some traces of democracy.



In both cases the new party rifted from the unwieldy Big Tent Party that found itself with constituencies with diametrically-opposed interests for which reconciliation was impossible. In the 1930s the Republican Party became a shell; it would attract disaffected Democrats after World War II ended and the New Deal coalition lost its cause for cohesion.

Now that's an interesting question. Why DID the Democrats lose cohesion post WWII? The Republicans kept their cohesion after the Civil War and even for a while after Reconstruction ended. The Compromise 1T after the American Revolution featured a great deal of cohesion.
Perhaps it wasn't so much a loss of cohesion as the Business Class starting to battle back after the Depression and WWII in a way that the Colonial Ruling Class (most big landowners in the Colonies lived in Great Britain and Tories were driven into Canada or killed) and the Slaveocracy (who dominated the ante-bellum US economy) post Civil War were crushed. This didn't happen during the New Deal. Roosevelt relented after the attempted Business Coup. And after WWII and with the fear of Communism being encouraged, the business class started it's long climb back to power.
The first eight of those twenty years are practically over, if you see Obama 2008 as an analogue of FDR 1932. It's not a perfect analogue. At least one set of binary match-ups so far projects a Republican win of the Presidency (Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich). That becomes moot if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee.

The 2008 Election was more analogous to 1928 than to 1932. What might have happened had the Crash occurred a year earlier. I'm not the first observer to wonder if the country might have been better off in the long run if we had gotten four years of failure under John McCain.

Originally Posted by I said

I now see the Democratic Party as the party of the poor and intelligentsia of identifiable minority groups, unionized workers, and the hyper-educated. The white part of the intelligentsia splits about 50-50, and the Republicans now have the under-educated and poor whites and the elites of ownership and management. Republicans have the overwhelming power in economics, and in a plutocratic culture that can be decisive for a while... like a Third Turning in which the Free Market becomes an idol in all but name. For the poor the Free Market becomes a Moloch. Minorities have always recognized the Free Market mostly for its freedom to do nasty things to people. White people have been slower to catch onto that fact.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Idol is a good description for a Free Market. I would call it an unattainable myth like Georges Sorel's Myth of the General Strike (the idea that if all workers in all industries could go out on strike there would be rule by workers).

To wit:
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) stated his theory of social myths most clearly in a letter to Daniel Halevy in 1907, from which these selections are taken. Sorel was a socialist, a syndicalist, and after 1917, a vigorous admirer of Lenin. His anti-intellectualism and his passion for revolutionary activity in place of rational discourse made him most influential in shaping the ultimate direction of fascism, especially in Mussolini's Italy.

The Right, if it rejects fascism in principle, commonly attributes much of the horror of Fascism, National Socialism, and Ba'athism to utopian socialism. Of course this ignores that one of the most virulent and persistent manifestations of fascism, Ku Kluxism, has race-based subjection (if not outright slavery, and I would not trust those creeps on that) as its core and no element of socialism in any form.

It may be the utopianism that creates the peril of ideologies and political crazes. I can't say that this is the most obvious reality of political reform of any kind, but for any political ideology to succeed it must be compatible with human nature. Fitting Humanity to some political ideal contrary to human nature, no matter how well intended the ideal is, will result at best in the implosion of the ideal, and at worst, monstrous tragedy.

Second, economic dreams must fit the realities of science and mathematics defining what is possible and what is not. A free market at the least punishes the hare-brained scheme of feeding pork to pigs as a way of getting food. (I chose pigs because they will eat anything; dogs would also suffice, except that the idea of eating dog meat offends more people). The first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics have economic consequences, and those who fail to heed those laws will face ruin.

* * * * *

Originally Posted by Georges Sorel

...Men who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph. These constructions, knowledge of which is so important for historians, I propose to call myths; the syndicalist "general strike" and Marx's catastrophic revolution are such myths. As remarkable examples of such myths, I have given those which were constructed by primitive Christianity, by the Reformation, by the Revolution and by the followers of Mazzini. I now wish to show that we should not attempt to analyze such groups of images in the way that we analyze a thing into its elements, but that they must be taken as a whole, as historical forces, and that we should be especially careful not to make any comparison between accomplished fact and the picture people had formed for themselves before action.
I could have given one more example which is perhaps still more striking: Catholics have never been discouraged even in the hardest trials, because they have always pictured the history of the Church as a series of battles between Satan and the hierarchy supported by Christ; every new difficulty which arises is only an episode in a war which must finally end in the victory of Catholicism.

In employing the term myth I believed that I had made a happy choice, because I thus put myself in a position to refuse any discussion whatever with the people who wish to submit the idea of a general strike to a detailed criticism, and who accumulate objections against its practical possibility. It appears, on the contrary, that I had made a most unfortunate choice, for while some told me that myths were only suitable to a primitive state of society, others imagined that I thought the modern world might be moved by illusions analogous in nature to those which Renan thought might usefully replace religion. But there has been a worse misunderstanding than this even, for it has been asserted that my theory of myths was only a kind of lawyer's plea, a falsification of the real opinions of the revolutionaries, the sophistry of an intellectual.

If this were true, I should not have been exactly fortunate, for I have always tried to escape the influence of that intellectual philosophy, which seems to me a great hindrance to the historian who allows himself to be dominated by it.

In can understand the fear that this myth of the general strike inspires in many worthy progressives, on account of its character of infinity, the world of today is very much inclined to return to the opinions of the ancients and to subordinate ethics to the smooth working of public affairs, which results in a definition of virtue as the golden mean; as long as socialism remains a doctrine expressed only in words, it is very easy to deflect this implies an absolute revolution. You know as well as I do that all that is best in the modern mind is derived from this "torment of the infinite"; you are not one of those people who look upon the tricks by means of which readers can be deceived by words, as happy discoveries. That is why you will not condemn me for having attached great worth to a myth which gives to socialism such high moral value and such great sincerity. It is because the theory of myths tends to produce such fine results that so many seek to refute it....
As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely, without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it so odious to socialists who are afraid of a revolution....

The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost free from any such mixture; by means of them it is possible to understand the activity, the feelings and the ideas of the masses preparing themselves to enter on a decisive struggle: the myths are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act. A Utopia is...and intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing society in order to estimate the amount of good and evil it contains. It is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be taken to pieces, and certain parts of it have been shaped in such a way that they can...be fitted into approaching legislation. While contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of Utopias has always been to direct men's minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the existing system; it is not surprising, then, that so many makers of Utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired a greater experience of political life. A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. A Utopia, on the other hand, can be discussed like any other social constitution; the spontaneous movements it presupposes can be compared with the movements actually observed in the course of history, and we can in this way evaluate its verisimilitude; it is possible to refute Utopias by showing that the economic system on which they have been made to rest is incompatible with the necessary conditions of modern production.

For a long time Socialism was scarcely anything but a Utopia; the Marxists were right in claiming for their master the honor of bringing about a change in this state of things; Socialism has now become the preparation of the masses employed in great industries for the suppression of the State and property; and it is no longer necessary, therefore, to discuss how men must organize themselves in order to enjoy future happiness; everything is reduced to the revolutionary apprenticeship of the proletariat. Unfortunately Marx was not acquainted with facts which have now become familiar to us; we know better than he did what strikes are, because we have been able to observe economic conflict of considerable extent and duration; the myth of the "general strike" has become popular, and is now firmly established in the minds of the workers; we possess ideas about violence that it would have been difficult for him to have formed; we can then complete his doctrine, instead of making commentaries on his text, as his unfortunate disciples have done for so long.
In this way Utopias tend to disappear completely from Socialism; Socialism has no longer any need to concern itself with the organization of industry since capitalism does that....

People who are living in this world of "myths," are secure from all refutation; this has led many to assert that Socialism is a kind of religion. For a For a long time people have been struck by the fact that religious convictions are unaffected by criticism, and from that they have concluded that everything which claims to be beyond science must be a religion. It has been observed also that Christianity tends at the present day to be less a system of dogmas than a Christian life, i.e., moral reform penetrating to the roots of one's being; consequently, new analogy has been discovered between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even reconstruction of the individual -- a gigantic task....

...by the side of Utopias there have always been myths capable of urging on the workers to revolt. For a long time these myths were founded on the legends of the Revolution, and they preserved all their value as long as these legends remained unshaken. Today the confidence of the Socialists is greater than ever since the myth of the general strike dominates all the truly working-class movement. No failure proves anything against Socialism since the latter has become a work of preparation (for revolution); if they are checked, it merely proves that the apprenticeship has been insufficient; they must set to work again with more courage, persistence, and confidence than before; their experience of labor has taught workmen that it is by means of patient apprenticeship that a man may become a true comrade, and it is also the only way of becoming a true revolutionary.

[Source: The full text of Sorel's Letter to Daniel Halevy is presented in his Reflections on Violence (1908), trans. T. E. Hulme and J. Roth, (New York: Collier, 1950), pp.26-56.]

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

To which I might add that businesspeople are just as subject to the power of myth as working people. What Georges Sorel was for socialism, Ayn Rand was for neo-liberal capitalism.

The truth of the matter is that no market can be completely free any more than a perpetual motion machine is possible. All markets are rigged, consciously or unconsciously.

Sorel is as batty as any intellectual. History is a test of objective truth. The general strike almost always proves an excessive and destructive way to seek redress of economic grievances. Obviously some capitalists are worse than others, which explains why I refuse to buy any products made by the Koch syndicate. Of course I expect most of the owners and executives of Procter&Gamble and Kimberley-Clark to be rapacious reactionaries -- but at the least they are not in on the hostile takeover of American democracy as the Koch brothers are. Knowing that the Koch brothers have no operations in India, I can have reasonable confidence that by buying textiles manufactured in India I can keep from wearing politically-toxic clothing without being a nudist.

Libertarianism is itself utopian because it cannot recognize the conflicts between freedom. Does one have the right to sell oneself and one's progeny into hereditary peonage? For a libertarian purist, that could be a right. The right to use certain drugs implies the right to impose the nastiness that those drugs bring out in people upon people who made no such choice. (Ask me about oxycodone, which is being used on my father in the wake of a hip fracture... he now has paranoid delusions about me seeking to put him away). Such contradictions demand some resolution, most likely one-sided determinations that will make one of the parties unhappy. Brute force in which the more ruthless and powerful person prevails? No thanks. I prefer the rule of law even at the cost of some of my dreams.

Plutocracy, essentially freedom for elites but tyranny for everyone else, is contrary to every major religion. Good reason exists for the survival of religion in its many forms. It is far easier to impose ethical standards if people fear God for gross violations of human dignity.

Human nature is simply too complicated for any effort to find ultimate reality through reason alone. For good reason the most fortunately-educated people are those who know the great literature. Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hugo, and Dostoevsky can tell us things that no social scientist can -- things that none of us can theorize. If I had to rely entirely upon one creative or scientific authority for all knowledge to the exclusion of all else, then that person would be Shakespeare, even with full knowledge of his limitations. Who else can tell us the hazards of personal revenge, vendettas, and thuggish government? Three great plays.

Advice to Americans this year: read Macbeth or expose yourself to some performance of the play (even if a cinematic version). It seems to fit this electoral year. Also consider Richard III. We might learn something before it is too late.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I now see the Democratic Party as the party of the poor and intelligentsia of identifiable minority groups, unionized workers, and the hyper-educated. The white part of the intelligentsia splits about 50-50, and the Republicans now have the under-educated and poor whites and the elites of ownership and management. Republicans have the overwhelming power in economics, and in a plutocratic culture that can be decisive for a while... like a Third Turning in which the Free Market becomes an idol in all but name. For the poor the Free Market becomes a Moloch. Minorities have always recognized the Free Market mostly for its freedom to do nasty things to people. White people have been slower to catch onto that fact.

In the 1950s the Republicans had the intelligentsia as a reliable voting bloc -- which probably explains why I see Obama victories closer in style to those of Eisenhower than to those of anyone else. That vote has swung Democratic as the Republican Party has adopted anti-intellectualism as a campaign tool and as public policy.

To truly accept the Free Market one must see the desirability of its most destructive ways. A Free Market is eminently capable of creating great needs in people that the market allows them to meet only in destructive, degrading, and wasteful ways. It can compel people to sell out their dreams in desperation, which is hardly a model of freedom. It can compel people to waste their talents and lure people into underdevelopment of their humanity. It can cast off people just to establish who is Boss -- Wealth that at times can destroy human happiness.

People can succeed as hustlers because of their greed. People can be good workers solely out of need. But achievement of anything else? I'm not so sure.

Although the GOP can still compete at the state level in certain states, there does not seem to be a path to compete at the national level ( Electoral College). I am concerned about the wealth disparity and don't expect much change from the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The problem with third parties is that they are unstable. People on one side worry that if they vote third party the other side will win. I'm not sure how Canada's New Democratic Party (which has yet to win government there) manages to stay viable.
Four parties provide a basis for enduring coalitions since they ensure that no one party can have a congressional majority. They may join enduring coalitions to create a de facto two party system (which is what has happened in Australia) but the parties remain separate with all having the possibility of winning seats. And political debts are far more out in the open.
We need to realise that a lot of the dysfunction we are seeing in our two party system stems from the closing off of many previous avenues for compromise.
Before the 1970s, Senators and Congresspeople first and foremost represented their states and districts and were expected to bring home goodies for their states and districts. Those goodies could include everything from pork barrel projects (which got a lot of public works built--they weren't all or even mostly boondoggles) to special bills for the benefit of constituents, including conferring citizenship by Act of Congress. It was these little favours that made possible compromises on Big Issues across party lines. When these little favours became treated as corruption congresspeople became far more elected by mass politics and ideological politics. And became more subject to party line discipline in a manner similar to the British Parliament.
But in a parliamentary democracy, governments can fall and new elections can be called instead of elections being on a set calendar. Thus our congressional system is getting the partisanship of parliamentary democracy with none of parliamentary democracy's flexibility.

I could see the attraction of a multi-party system in a different form of government.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten...part048282.php
… "use of a proportional representation system almost guarantees that Germany will have a multiparty system. But in order to avoid chaotic hyper-fragmentation among parties (as found, for instance, in Italy) Germany enforces a threshold of 5% for a party to enter into the Bundestag. Essentially, any party that fails to gain at least 5% of the national vote is excluded from parliament, a provision that has proven useful in promoting centrism and marginalizing extremes, including both neo-fascist parties and the remnants of the old Communist Party in East Germany.”…

I really don't want a permanent three-party system, but would like a viable third party to replace the GOP. The GOP could just vanish or become one of the many independent parties on the fringe.
I tend to lean toward the views of Popper on the benefits of a two party system. The problem in the USA now is that the GOP is currently dysfunctional and a new party is needed.( Unless the GOP could follow Popper and reform after intense self-criticism). It is likely that the formation of a new party would take considerable time( decades).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...pper-democracy
… "All this is done away with if the constitution of the state incorporates proportional representation. For under proportional representation the candidate seeks election solely as the representative of a party, whatever the wording of the constitution may be. If he is elected, he is elected mainly, if not solely, because he belongs to, and represents, a certain party. Thus, his main loyalty must be to his party, and to the party’s ideology; not to people (except, perhaps, the leaders of the party).”…


… "The immediate consequence of proportional representation is that it will tend to increase the number of parties. This, at first glance, may seem desirable: more parties means more choice, more opportunities, less rigidity, more criticism. It also means a greater distribution of influence and of power.”…


… "As things stand, an inclination to self-criticism after an electoral defeat is far more pronounced in countries with a two-party system than in those where there are several parties. In practice, then, a two-party system is likely to be more flexible than a multi-party system, contrary to first impressions.”…

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...
Second, economic dreams must fit the realities of science and mathematics defining what is possible and what is not. A free market at the least punishes the hare-brained scheme of feeding pork to pigs as a way of getting food. (I chose pigs because they will eat anything; dogs would also suffice, except that the idea of eating dog meat offends more people). The first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics have economic consequences, and those who fail to heed those laws will face ruin.

Ignoring the law of gravity can also have consequences. I am curious as to how you apply the third law of thermodynamics to economics.

http://www.physicsplanet.com/article...thermodynamics
… "C.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can’t get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable).”…

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I now see the Democratic Party as the party of the poor and intelligentsia of identifiable minority groups, unionized workers, and the hyper-educated. The white part of the intelligentsia splits about 50-50, and the Republicans now have the under-educated and poor whites and the elites of ownership and management. Republicans have the overwhelming power in economics, and in a plutocratic culture that can be decisive for a while... like a Third Turning in which the Free Market becomes an idol in all but name. For the poor the Free Market becomes a Moloch. Minorities have always recognized the Free Market mostly for its freedom to do nasty things to people. White people have been slower to catch onto that fact.

In the 1950s the Republicans had the intelligentsia as a reliable voting bloc -- which probably explains why I see Obama victories closer in style to those of Eisenhower than to those of anyone else. That vote has swung Democratic as the Republican Party has adopted anti-intellectualism as a campaign tool and as public policy.

To truly accept the Free Market one must see the desirability of its most destructive ways. A Free Market is eminently capable of creating great needs in people that the market allows them to meet only in destructive, degrading, and wasteful ways. It can compel people to sell out their dreams in desperation, which is hardly a model of freedom. It can compel people to waste their talents and lure people into underdevelopment of their humanity. It can cast off people just to establish who is Boss -- Wealth that at times can destroy human happiness.

People can succeed as hustlers because of their greed. People can be good workers solely out of need. But achievement of anything else? I'm not so sure.

Increasingly ownership and management are Dems. This is especially true when you get away from the old school "industrials" and especially true of Boom / Gen X who now dominate ownership and management. The things I hear in hallway conversations. If I were Classic "I'm tough raised by toughs" Xer I'd probably be resisting the urge to deck most of the people in the big offices.

Originally Posted by radind

Although the GOP can still compete at the state level in certain states, there does not seem to be a path to compete at the national level ( Electoral College). I am concerned about the wealth disparity and don't expect much change from the Democratic party.

The GOP is developing a monolithic hold on some States, particularly in the South. It can arrange things so that the Democrats fall well short of a necessary majority for achieving anything in a State legislature, which means that the GOP agenda will have no effective opposition. If you don't like it in your state, then move to another state.

Economic inequality usually intensifies throughout a Third Turning (which of course happened) and leads to a speculative boom that ultimately destroys the unsustainable inequality that hustlers grabbed. In a Fourth Turning, such gets reversed... although this time, the crooked financiers and hustlers didn't get ruined enough to keep them from funding reactionary politics of the Tea Party variety.

The key to the reduction of economic inequality in a 4T is that the easy money disappears. High profits vanish, and economic actors that can't cut their costs (which include their own lavish self-indulgence and bureaucratic cronyism) go under. Start-up businesses appear because such are the only means available for having any reasonable future for most people. It may surprise people -- but the 1930s were a good time for starting a business. It's the long-term, low-yield, high-touch business that the owner can't run from that creates wealth for twenty years later. People don't usually think in a time-frame of twenty years, but in a 4T that is all that is left in business. There will be plenty of short-term concerns with survival.

Originally Posted by radind

Ignoring the law of gravity can also have consequences. I am curious as to how you apply the third law of thermodynamics to economics.

http://www.physicsplanet.com/article...thermodynamics

… "C.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can’t get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable).”…

That's how I see it.

It is telling, but much of the addition of a scientific basis to economics comes from chemists who dabbled in economics and found that chemical models involving energy (thermodynamics) well fit economics. Thus

(1) There is no free lunch -- everything requires some inputs
(2) all economic activities require investment just to protect against rot and wear, and
(3) many inputs cannot be recovered, at least cheaply. In other words, you cannot again get the oil that your industrial process or transportation used.

The equations for mathematical economics are much like those for chemistry. The monetary equation MV=PT

(M-money supply, V- velocity of money, P-price level, T-level of transactions)

works much like the perfect gas law PV=nRT

(P=pressure V-volume, n a constant, R-number of molecules, T-temperature).

Take it from someone who washed out of chemistry because his lab work was too clumsy and ended up in economics.

Originally Posted by radind

Ignoring the law of gravity can also have consequences. I am curious as to how you apply the third law of thermodynamics to economics.

Those 3 laws ignore life and consciousness. They are invalid, particularly to living systems like human economics.

Originally Posted by radind

Although the GOP can still compete at the state level in certain states, there does not seem to be a path to compete at the national level ( Electoral College). I am concerned about the wealth disparity and don't expect much change from the Democratic party.

Although at this point, that is the only group from which anyone CAN expect any change. Most of the failure is due to the constant blocks by the Republican Party, which promotes inequality as part of its fundamental ideology.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Libertarianism is itself utopian because it cannot recognize the conflicts between freedom. ... Such contradictions demand some resolution, most likely one-sided determinations that will make one of the parties unhappy. Brute force in which the more ruthless and powerful person prevails? No thanks. I prefer the rule of law even at the cost of some of my dreams.

Plutocracy, essentially freedom for elites but tyranny for everyone else, is contrary to every major religion. Good reason exists for the survival of religion in its many forms. It is far easier to impose ethical standards if people fear God for gross violations of human dignity.

Human nature is simply too complicated for any effort to find ultimate reality through reason alone. For good reason the most fortunately-educated people are those who know the great literature. Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hugo, and Dostoevsky can tell us things that no social scientist can -- things that none of us can theorize. If I had to rely entirely upon one creative or scientific authority for all knowledge to the exclusion of all else, then that person would be Shakespeare, even with full knowledge of his limitations. Who else can tell us the hazards of personal revenge, vendettas, and thuggish government? Three great plays.

Advice to Americans this year: read Macbeth or expose yourself to some performance of the play (even if a cinematic version). It seems to fit this electoral year. Also consider Richard III. We might learn something before it is too late.

Good thoughts; good advice.

[QUOTE=MordecaiK;554317]

I would treat Palestinian statistics as suspect and inflated. The PA regularly inflates Palestinian numbers. to get more money from the UN and other donors. See http://besacenter.org/perspectives-p...an-demography/ In this case, the UN has an axe to grind. UNRWA's total budget is $1.8 millionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA out of a total budget for the entire UN of$ 5.57 billion, almost 1/3 of the UN's total budget. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaab4164.doc.htm .

I would trust the UN. And the Israelis certainly would not want to risk absorbing a population that would actually create one Palestinian State, in effect, and drown the Jewish state as a minority within it.

Of course Israelis prefer a status quo they are used to. Based on the real demographics of the West Bank (that 2.2 million figure in Bennet Zimmerman's study includes Gaza) the West Bank is quite absorbable. So if push comes to shove, Israelis will keep Gaza and the West Bank separate and annex the West Bank with full citizenship for agreeable inhabitants before they will allow it to be fully independent. It simply isn't safe for Israel to permit a Palestinian State in the West Bank. And let Gaza alone be Palestine.

It is quite safe, if the Palestinians are allowed their freedom and their land. Otherwise no, it is not safe.

It is quite simple and the truth can't really be avoided.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

There is a big difference between discrimination and mass murder. And there have been other victims of genocide. Rwandans, Cambodians. Armenians. Nobody holds THEM to any higher standards than any other nations. Frankly, Israel is fairer than European nations toward minorities. And fairer than Americans. Despite provocations on both sides, the number of total casualties in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 has been 51,000. See http://www.danielpipes.org/4990/arab...ties-rank-49th. A tragedy but hardly genocide. By point of comparison, 675,000 people died in the 1954-1962 Algerian-French conflict.

These others were not given a state which displaced whole peoples. It is not fair to not only discriminate but subjugate another people and steal their land, as Israel keeps doing in spite of US and UN warnings that it is illegal to do so.

The current refugee situation will show us how much the Germans have learned. And it will take 20 years or maybe 88 years to find out.

But we know they have learned a lot already, and have been the most accepting of Syrian refugees of any country.

If the US does not support Israel, Israel will simply reorient toward China, (which Israel is in the process of doing) a nation that values innovation as long as they don't have to be the society that encourages it. The Chinese have a very different idea of human rights than Westerners do and for that reason expect less of their allies than Western nations do. And the Chinese have no cultural basis for anti-semitism since for the most part they do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God at all.

Which should all be just fine, as far as I'm concerned. They won't be caught up in the compulsion to defend them and cowtow to their every desire, because of the Israeli lobby and 58 electoral votes here in the USA. They won't take on the burden of being the target of hatred and terrorism like the USA has taken on.

Harmless? Blowing up the city of Sderot is harmless?
The Palestinians of Gaza can end the blockade whenever they are ready to depose their leaders, make peace with Israel and accept that Gaza is all they get and make the most of it. Which will not happen as long as the UN enables the conflict to continue.

I've never even heard of such a city. All I heard about was that Hamas lobbed a few harmless missiles into Israel, with none killed, and the response was that Israel levelled Gaza and killed 2 or 3 thousand in response, as well as continues a crippling blockade. I don't know how the Gazans manage to survive, let alone be prolific. But they do. They are quite heroic.

Israel can't require that Gaza depose their leaders, any more than Gaza can require Israel to vote out its corrupt, thug leader. The UN does not enable the conflict to continue. Israel enables the conflict to continue, although Hamas is not blameless and needs to change its policy too.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Naftali Bennett already has advocated Israeli citizenship for the 80,000 Arabs in Area C. I'm not saying that ciitizenship for Arabs in the rest of the West Bank wouldn't be something that right wing Israelis wouldn't have to swallow hard to accept. But if a status quo of essentially statelessness is unacceptable, most Israelis find citizenship for Palestinians who would accept it (and who have not been involved in attacks on Jews) safer than an independent West Bank. Especially since, even added to Israeli Arabs who are already citizens, Israel would still have a solid Jewish majority and the demographics to KEEP a solid Jewish majority. What people don't realise is that Jews and Israelis have no faith or trust in international guarantees of ANYTHING.
The kind of ethnic cleansing you are talking about would only be seriously considered if an ISIS type regime took over in Jordan. In a situation like that, especially if ISIS was not reversed by international intervention, all bets would be off and very likely ALL Sunni Muslims would be considered to be security risks. But in a situation like that there would be widespread ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the Middle East too (there already is ethnic cleansing in Syria and Iraq).

Israel is increasingly dominated by increasingly reactionary Sephardic and Middle-Eastern Jews whose ancestors did not experience the Holocaust (and so do not have the restraint against genocidal actions that the Ashkenazi Jews have) and have a genocidal hatred for Arabs. I remember hearing about suggestions from these types of stripping Israeli Arabs of citizenship and deporting all of them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those 3 laws ignore life and consciousness. They are invalid, particularly to living systems like human economics.

I think we know that the 3 laws are abstract and cannot represent people, but the analogies to real systems ( including economics) can be useful.
There are many versions of the ‘laws’ including this one:
First law...you cannot win
Second law...you cannot break even
Third law…you will always lose. —My take on this one is that perpetual motion is not possible.

http://m.teachastronomy.com/astroped...Thermodynamics
The three laws of thermodynamics can be summarized as follows:


• Energy can change forms, but the total amount of energy in a system, including heat energy, is always conserved.


• The entropy, or disorder, of a system always increases, so as energy changes forms the amount of heat energy tends to increase.


• It is impossible to remove all the heat from a physical system.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Although at this point, that is the only group from which anyone CAN expect any change. Most of the failure is due to the constant blocks by the Republican Party, which promotes inequality as part of its fundamental ideology.

We have different opinions and we will just have to watch to see what happens as the Democratic Party takes more control in the next 10 to 20 years.