Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Original post by LessBread The way I see it, the complications have less to do with reality and more to do with illusion management. Agnotology: "Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth." Which is great, but you can pull that card on anything. Reality isn't simple, sorry.

No you can't pull that card on anything. You couldn't pull it on sports or cars or shopping for example. Agnotology fits this issue better than it fits many others. Yes, reality isn't simple, and neither is the reality of agnotology.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: If Obama really wanted to get Israel to do something, all he would need to do would be to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in foreign aide slated for Israel, then take to the bully pulpit to make the case about what he wants Israel to do. With Americans staring down the barrel of austerity cuts, it makes no sense to continue spending billion of tax dollars to support Israeli socialism. The US government sends more money to Israel than it does to many US states. And Egypt too, but you contrasted with Israel so... Even if he could cut off funding (*cough* Congress), it would pretty much demolish his ability to make other policy decisions. Congress does not appreciate complete reversals of policy, especially policy built on decades of work by special interest groups flush with money. You think we have deadlock now?

Congress allocates the money, the president spends it. If the president doesn't spend it, the money stays in the bank. Foreign relations is primarily a presidential power. The president would have to take to the bully pulpit to explain his policy. He could denounce the special interests as foreign agents. He could distract the media's attention with a dump of declassified documents on the issue. The executive branch knows how to harass political opponents when it wants to.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn We actually get some benefit from the Israeli money-pit, since much of the money goes straight to American weapons. Which in Congress-speak directly translates to Jobs. Just another example of Obama killing jobs and playing to his Muslim friends... I can hardly imagine a better Republican bullet point. "Obama kills American jobs and turns the US into a fair-weather friend abroad"

Would that kind of military Keynesianism remain popular in a Tea Party Congress? A Congress where government spending to create any job is at least rhetorically anathema? Republican talking points are so predictable these days. They can always be counted on to cast anything Obama says or does in the most negative light possible. They are easily dismissed as blatantly partisan. And after the games Republican played with the 9/11 first responder bill, those sunshine patriots are in no position to attack anyone as a fair weather friend.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Plus we'll lose one our big levers that we use to get the Israelis to do what we want. The money comes with strings. Without those strings, they might not run hog wild, but our ability to shape their policy will not improve. Settlements, anyone?

I guess you haven't paid attention to the details in recent news about the settlements. Obama had to offer more money to suspend (not stop just suspend) settlement building during the talks with the Palestinians. This indicates that the present funding level didn't come with strings, at least not with any strings that could be pulled, which is striking considering that some of the money dumped in the Israeli money-pit goes to support settlement building.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn I think it would be to our benefit to curtail our support of Israel, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it's easy or wouldn't have any negative consequences.

I didn't say it would be easy.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn As for North Korea, there are several reasons why China is not pushing the regime very hard. Their major concern with the North is keeping in from collapsing, so they're going to keep the kid gloves on. It would be an undeniable disaster for China if the North collapsed. It would be the mother of all refugee crisis on the Yalu, costing them billions and putting other development on hold (economic development being their number one priority). It would also probably involve US and allied troops moving into the North, which is a little too close for comfort for the PRC government. The North would also be more than likely to eventually be absorbed by the South, putting a democratic government with close ties to the US on the border with the mainland. Then you have symbolic ties with the communist government. Not exactly easy to admit the system you supported was hopelessly broken and malevolent to boot. Talk about an image-management nightmare. In conclusion, there are reasons why things are the way they are and why leaders make the decisions they do. Changing things involves more than just -boom!- making a decision. Implementing policy is harder than conceiving it, since implementation in any modern government involves multiple layers of bureaucracy and competing interests.

I agree with most of your comment. I think it's worth pointing out that China does more business with South Korea than North Korea and that there would be much less need for US military presence after reunification. I think the symbolic ties are weak these days. Does anyone really believe that China remains a communist country?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Congress allocates the money, the president spends it. If the president doesn't spend it, the money stays in the bank. Foreign relations is primarily a presidential power. The president would have to take to the bully pulpit to explain his policy. He could denounce the special interests as foreign agents. He could distract the media's attention with a dump of declassified documents on the issue. The executive branch knows how to harass political opponents when it wants to.

Any President after the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 cannot withhold funding for program without congressional approval. Congress has the power of the purse- this is where all the pork and earmarking problems come from.

He could do those other things, but only at the price of destroying his hopes of getting anything else done. And there are a lot of things to get done. He could Harass, but he shouldn't if he wants any movement on other parts of his agenda.

Quote:

Would that kind of military Keynesianism remain popular in a Tea Party Congress? A Congress where government spending to create any job is at least rhetorically anathema? Republican talking points are so predictable these days. They can always be counted on to cast anything Obama says or does in the most negative light possible. They are easily dismissed as blatantly partisan. And after the games Republican played with the 9/11 first responder bill, those sunshine patriots are in no position to attack anyone as a fair weather friend.

The Right also has a solid base in evangelical Christians who intensely support Israel. And Obama still has more than enough history to continue alienating the Tea Party until the Sun dies.

Casting negative light is how you win elections. Blatantly partisan is par for the course. The 9/11 Bill is not going to be remembered in 2 years... the Republicans have repeatedly shown they know how and where to spin, and what to shove under the rug.

Quote:

I guess you haven't paid attention to the details in recent news about the settlements. Obama had to offer more money to suspend (not stop just suspend) settlement building during the talks with the Palestinians. This indicates that the present funding level didn't come with strings, at least not with any strings that could be pulled, which is striking considering that some of the money dumped in the Israeli money-pit goes to support settlement building.

We offered them 20 F-35's, which would entail a disruption in deliveries to other partner nations in the program. Apparently the aid is delivered in one lump sum, so the ability to shape Israeli policy is limited to the macro level at the beginning of the fiscal year. Which is yet another reason to curtail it, I agree.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Prinz Eugn I think it would be to our benefit to curtail our support of Israel, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it's easy or wouldn't have any negative consequences. I didn't say it would be easy.

You said:

Quote:

If Obama really wanted to get Israel to do something, all he would need to do would be to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in foreign aide slated for Israel, then take to the bully pulpit to make the case about what he wants Israel to do.

I said it would be more complicated than you thought (ergo more difficult). The difficulty is in that the President has less control over funding than you believe, and that the political cost of taking to the bully pulpit over this issue is too high to ever realistically consider.

Quote:

I agree with most of your comment. I think it's worth pointing out that China does more business with South Korea than North Korea and that there would be much less need for US military presence after reunification. I think the symbolic ties are weak these days. Does anyone really believe that China remains a communist country?

Actually, that's a really interesting issue that I don't think has really been looked into (to my knowledge). There is a strong nationalist streak linked to the government, which involves the glorification of the revolution and the Party in general. So I think the link to Communism is morphing to patriotism/nationalism more than an actual practiced ideology. We should ask frankst about that.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Original post by LessBread Congress allocates the money, the president spends it. If the president doesn't spend it, the money stays in the bank. Foreign relations is primarily a presidential power. The president would have to take to the bully pulpit to explain his policy. He could denounce the special interests as foreign agents. He could distract the media's attention with a dump of declassified documents on the issue. The executive branch knows how to harass political opponents when it wants to. Any President after the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 cannot withhold funding for program without congressional approval. Congress has the power of the purse- this is where all the pork and earmarking problems come from. He could do those other things, but only at the price of destroying his hopes of getting anything else done. And there are a lot of things to get done. He could Harass, but he shouldn't if he wants any movement on other parts of his agenda.

Given the Tea Party Congress that will soon take power, he shouldn't hold out any hope for his agenda; However, if he started talking up the "line item veto" he could probably trick the TP crowd into overturning the Impoundment Control Act. But given the general lawlessness that the executive branch operates on and is willing to turn a blind eye towards these days, he could thumb his nose at the law and do what he wanted to - just like Bush and Cheney. And if challenged in the public discourse, he could make the case, like this one: U.S. Can't Afford Military Aid to Israel.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Would that kind of military Keynesianism remain popular in a Tea Party Congress? A Congress where government spending to create any job is at least rhetorically anathema? Republican talking points are so predictable these days. They can always be counted on to cast anything Obama says or does in the most negative light possible. They are easily dismissed as blatantly partisan. And after the games Republican played with the 9/11 first responder bill, those sunshine patriots are in no position to attack anyone as a fair weather friend. The Right also has a solid base in evangelical Christians who intensely support Israel. And Obama still has more than enough history to continue alienating the Tea Party until the Sun dies. Casting negative light is how you win elections. Blatantly partisan is par for the course. The 9/11 Bill is not going to be remembered in 2 years... the Republicans have repeatedly shown they know how and where to spin, and what to shove under the rug.

But do they support Israel more than they support the USA?

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: I guess you haven't paid attention to the details in recent news about the settlements. Obama had to offer more money to suspend (not stop just suspend) settlement building during the talks with the Palestinians. This indicates that the present funding level didn't come with strings, at least not with any strings that could be pulled, which is striking considering that some of the money dumped in the Israeli money-pit goes to support settlement building. We offered them 20 F-35's, which would entail a disruption in deliveries to other partner nations in the program. Apparently the aid is delivered in one lump sum, so the ability to shape Israeli policy is limited to the macro level at the beginning of the fiscal year. Which is yet another reason to curtail it, I agree.

First he asked: Obama Pushes Israel On Settlement Issue (May 29, 2009)

Then he bribed: An American bribe that stinks of appeasement (20 November 2010)

Then he gave up: U.S. drops push for Israeli freeze on settlement construction (December 7, 2010)

He never threatened to cut off military aid of $3 billion per year. He could probably justify that using the catch all excuse of his status as commander in chief.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: Quote: Original post by Prinz Eugn I think it would be to our benefit to curtail our support of Israel, but I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that it's easy or wouldn't have any negative consequences. I didn't say it would be easy. You said: Quote: If Obama really wanted to get Israel to do something, all he would need to do would be to threaten to cut off the billions of dollars in foreign aide slated for Israel, then take to the bully pulpit to make the case about what he wants Israel to do. I said it would be more complicated than you thought (ergo more difficult). The difficulty is in that the President has less control over funding than you believe, and that the political cost of taking to the bully pulpit over this issue is too high to ever realistically consider.

There were two components in that "all", both components are complicated. I probably should have used the word "what" instead. I suspect that such threats are often made behind closed doors. Perhaps a future wikileaks cable will confirm that. I don't think the political cost will be unpayable and as I suggested above, it could be driven down with document dumps and intelligence leaks.

And turning back to the original analogy, Hu Jintao doesn't have the constraints on his actions that Obama has, so the comparison was weak to begin with.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn Quote: I agree with most of your comment. I think it's worth pointing out that China does more business with South Korea than North Korea and that there would be much less need for US military presence after reunification. I think the symbolic ties are weak these days. Does anyone really believe that China remains a communist country? Actually, that's a really interesting issue that I don't think has really been looked into (to my knowledge). There is a strong nationalist streak linked to the government, which involves the glorification of the revolution and the Party in general. So I think the link to Communism is morphing to patriotism/nationalism more than an actual practiced ideology. We should ask frankst about that.

My understanding is that Chinese communism has always relied on nationalism for it's success.

I apologize in advance for going a tad off-topic, but w/r/t Kim Jong Il, the latest Onion is totally worth it.

Quote:

Original post by Prinz Eugn It would be an undeniable disaster for China if the North collapsed. It would be the mother of all refugee crisis on the Yalu, costing them billions and putting other development on hold (economic development being their number one priority).

I see your point and agree on many (non-mentioned, but perhaps implied levels), but I'm not sure if the refugees as such would be that a great crisis. The Chinese mega-Corporations would get labour and housing shouldn't be that difficult for the government to deal with (hey, it could turn into PR too):

• The ghost towns of China: Amazing satellite images show cities meant to be home to millions lying deserted
• China's Desert Ghost City Shows Property "Madness" Persists
• Work stops on Chinese ghost town

Though, one could try to amuse oneself and try to figure out, to which extent the current societal instability in China results from unemployment (or absence of well-enough paying jobs) or is the result of other problems in the housing market.

(Now, humanely, it would be a crisis. Plus the Chinese probably wouldn't want to deal with the "problems" regarding non-economic issues.)

[Edited by - Naurava kulkuri on December 29, 2010 1:09:40 PM]

Regarding the original question, some things, but I would like to know more. :-) Did you visit Kirnu? What do you know about Japanese, Slavic, Vietnamise or Viking mythodology? Do you see any specific connections? Do you go to movies often? :-) (I'm just being vague here with broad strokes, our knowledge, or points of view, probably wouldn't coincidence otherwise.)