Wheels Tupay wrote:Deal struck. Hopefully both sides respect the agreement and relations begin to warm.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal ... 22943.html

kimbatiste wrote:I define terrorism as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. The next time Israel plants a bomb in a Tehran cafe, maybe we have something to talk about. This is not to suggest that Israel is blameless. While I understand that collateral damage is going to be a part of any conflict, Israel can and should do more to prevent it. But that is something different than intentionally blowing up a bus of Israeli tourists.

Iran can have nuclear weapons if it wants, the majority of the rest of the world simply won't trade with them as a result. If your point is that it is wrong for the world powers to impose its will on developing countries, fair point, but this is probably the wrong example on which to take a stand.

drsmooth wrote:UC Berkeley math nerd/"lecturer" (how far above "TA" is that?) writes letter to students explaining why he is a scab

Apologies for my inflammatory title which is only intended to get you to click through to a pretty great letter from said nerd to UC Berkeley students on the virtues of social & political engagement from a guy whose discipline is not known for producing people proficient (say 3 times fast) in such activities.

But my title made you click, didn't it? Huh? Didn't it?

Monkeyboy wrote:I guess it's a good thing that Iran won't be trying to get the nukes. To be honest, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.

What would happen if we unveiled a program that looked like Obamacare, in a place that looked like America, but with competent project management that produced a working website?

California is, however, an especially useful test case. First of all, it’s huge: if a system can work for 38 million people, it can work for America as a whole. Also, it’s hard to argue that California has had any special advantages other than that of having a government that actually wants to help the uninsured. When Massachusetts put Romneycare into effect, it already had a relatively low number of uninsured residents. California, however, came into health reform with 22 percent of its nonelderly population uninsured, compared with a national average of 18 percent.

Finally, the California authorities have been especially forthcoming with data tracking the progress of enrollment. And the numbers are increasingly encouraging.

For one thing, enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage. Just imagine, by the way, how different press coverage would be right now if Obama officials had produced a comparable success, and around 100,000 people a day were signing up nationwide.

Equally important is the information on who is enrolling. To work as planned, health reform has to produce a balanced risk pool — that is, it must sign up young, healthy Americans as well as their older, less healthy compatriots. And so far, so good: in October, 22.5 percent of California enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, slightly above that group’s share of the population.

What we have in California, then, is a proof of concept. Yes, Obamacare is workable — in fact, done right, it works just fine.

There won’t be a moment when the clouds suddenly lift, but the exchanges are gradually getting better — a point inadvertently illustrated a few days ago by John Boehner, the speaker of the House. Mr. Boehner staged a publicity stunt in which he tried to sign up on the D.C. health exchange, then triumphantly posted an entry on his blog declaring that he had been unsuccessful. At the bottom of his post, however, is a postscript admitting that the health exchange had called back “a few hours later,” and that he is now enrolled.

And maybe the transaction would have proceeded faster if Mr. Boehner’s office hadn’t, according to the D.C. exchange, put its agent — who was calling to help finish the enrollment — on hold for 35 minutes, listening to “lots of patriotic hold music.”

Monkeyboy wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:I define terrorism as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. The next time Israel plants a bomb in a Tehran cafe, maybe we have something to talk about. This is not to suggest that Israel is blameless. While I understand that collateral damage is going to be a part of any conflict, Israel can and should do more to prevent it. But that is something different than intentionally blowing up a bus of Israeli tourists.

Iran can have nuclear weapons if it wants, the majority of the rest of the world simply won't trade with them as a result. If your point is that it is wrong for the world powers to impose its will on developing countries, fair point, but this is probably the wrong example on which to take a stand.

I think you need to look at Israel's history in the region a little more closely, particularly the actions of Sharon and Netanyahu. They don't call Sharon the butcher of beruit for nothing. The Israeli people elected Sharon Prime Minister, too, which sends a message to Iran how the Israeli people think they should deal with their Arab neighbors. People with little power resort to terrorism because they don't have the ability to go through normal channels. I'm not defending their actions, since I see those actions as both disgusting and self-defeating, but we shouldn't act like they happen in a vacuum or without reason/purpose.

Besides, we have also supported the types that have put bombs in buses when it has suited our interests, as has Israel.

I should reiterate that I don't like Iran having nukes. I just don't trust Israel with those nukes any more than Iran, except that Israel wouldn't use them against us, while Iran might.

pacino wrote:took Boehner a day, eh? if i'm not enrolled by the time I THINK about applying, it's too long!!!

JFLNYC wrote:The Arabs created the "Palestinians" for situations just such as these: To be victims in political disputes with Israel. Ask yourself where are the Palestinians' Arab brothers in all this? If there's a humanitarian crisis on the scale you're suggestion, why aren't the incredibly wealthy Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia airlifting in water and toilets and airlifting out those who need treatment? Why are they not offering asylum to their Arab brothers? Why do they never seem to want to lift a finger to help the Palestinians themselves but, rather, say the only solution is for Israelis to leave?

Monkeyboy wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:The Arabs created the "Palestinians" for situations just such as these: To be victims in political disputes with Israel. Ask yourself where are the Palestinians' Arab brothers in all this? If there's a humanitarian crisis on the scale you're suggestion, why aren't the incredibly wealthy Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia airlifting in water and toilets and airlifting out those who need treatment? Why are they not offering asylum to their Arab brothers? Why do they never seem to want to lift a finger to help the Palestinians themselves but, rather, say the only solution is for Israelis to leave?

When did I say that Arabs in the region aren't also to blame? Never, that's when.

Monkeyboy wrote:I am merely pointing out that Israel has done it's fair share of terrorism of one kind or another. They don't blow up buses because they don't need to blow up buses.

Monkeyboy wrote:I was also pointing out that it is understandable that Iran would not feel safe with their main enemy right next door with a boatload of nukes pointed at them, especially given some of the things Israel has done over the years. I can also perfectly understand why Israel would feel less safe if Iran had the bomb. But that was an interesting strawman.

Monkeyboy wrote:As for your question, Israel has the full backing of the US and many of the Arab states in the region also support or are supported by the US. They are caught between and they have chosen the money or protection over the people of Palestine. Plus, you make it sound ridiculously simple when it's not that at all. All Arabs aren't alike anymore than all Christians are alike. Why were the Protestants and Catholics always at each others' throats? They are the same, they should always work together, right? Nope, also not that simple. Why would an Arab state risk their necks going up against a foe they can't defeat? So, boiled down, I think the answer to your question is a combination of alliances and self preservation and not really caring that much about a group of people who aren't them.

Monkeyboy wrote:The subtext of your message also seems to say that this girl is somehow not being honest. I can say there is literally no other student who I would vouch for over this student. She is, almost without a doubt, the student most respected by teachers here, in large part because of her integrity and kindness. She is genuinely heartbroken over the situation.

She was particularly upset because she said, "and nobody knows about it.... nobody is doing anything about it."

Monkeyboy wrote:... the UN declared the 19th of November "World Toilet Day."

jerseyhoya wrote:The Supreme Court got it right in Citizens United