The debates going on over economic issues stem from, I believe, 2 opposite views of the world that I covered in my initial blog post.
What the "you didn't build it" debate highlights is one side promoting individualism and the other promoting community.
Yes, President Obama's words were taken way out of context. He clearly stated that success doesn't come in a vacuum, but it was taken as though the individual deserves no credit.
In the world of the individualists ("Buchannanism"), only the creativity and hard work by those who start business and make it succeed is what makes America exceptional.
Yet in every company I have worked for that has succeeded,
their successes have, in Management's opinion, derived from the
employees who have made significant contributions to their products and
services.
So we need healthy entrepreneurship AND a healthy environment for those who work for our entrepreneurs.
The moderates acknowledge the sacrifices of entrepreneurs, but say that they succeeded in an environment where our governments were a catalyst. Yes, there are regulations to keep everyone in line, but business success does not come in a vacuum. Our public schools, public roads, public transit, strong common currency, environmental protection, national security and defense, and - yes - health and retirement protection policies have established a place that keeps our country strong and our people protected.
The individualists fear that the country (government) is taking away entrepreneurship. The globalists fear that we may be going back too far to individualism.
I believe that if we make sure we frame our programs as working to solve a specific problem - and not get too tied down in the overall individualism versus community debate - we could make more progress.
Let's take, for example, the debate concerning stimulus and infrastructure.
Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, John Boeher, and Eric Cantor fully support lots of government spending on America's infrastructure, as they know it will create thousands if not millions of jobs (though it will increase our debt).
The only thing is - their infrastructure of choice is the military.
(And now with sequestration approaching, there is some fear that defense will take a big hit. I work in defense and I see it)
So there should be no argument about government needing to invest. The difference is - "in what"?
Another aspect of this debate about business versus government is being able to differentiate "entrepreneurship" from "capitalists" (people who do not produce anything, but simply use money to make money). Particularly when it comes to investment. Thom Hartman spoke to this recently. If I put my own money into my own business and it is successful, I should be rewarded. While it is nice to have outside investment, keep in mind that the investors are, like the Vegas crowd, speculating. They want the business to succeed, and may take part in some business decisions, but in the end their gratification not only comes from the business' success, but from their financial reward as a result of it.
When it comes to taxes, the individualists want to combine the entrepreneurs and the capitalists. They feel that both should pay lower taxes than workers.
I disagree.Those who directly create American jobs should get a break, but for the rest, income is income.
Keep in mind that investment in a company does not always result in American jobs. I have a separate post on this.
In conclusion, we cannot allow scare tactics of "government takeover" to frame the debate about what is best for our country. A lot of what we have done has worked but it needs to be tweaked to work better. To lower our debt AND foster business growth, we need to make sure that our government's investments in projects that will help us grow our infrastructure are properly financed, and we give some extra help to real entrepreneurs.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Israel, the US, and the Republikuds
In Mitt Romney's convention speech, he claims that President Obama "threw Israel under the bus".
The rhetoric of division in this area is getting stronger and nastier, and it's time we fight back.
There is a merger of 2 political parties now - the US Republicans and Israeli Likud - we can call them the Republikuds. They use extreme nationalism and fear to promote their agenda. What is this agenda? That the only way to show support for Israel is make it totally unconditional. No matter what Israel says or does, they are right, and any deviation from this is seen as at least questionable if not totally unpatriotic. Arabs cannot be trusted at all. Iran must be bombed (speaking to them is was a huge mistake).
My universlist-moderate stance respects the Republikuds nationalism and desire to protect Israel, but rejects their condemnations of those who try to seek dialogue for peace.
In a nutshell, I see the Republikuds biggest problem as this: they have no long-term vision as to where Israel needs to go over the next few decades. Since they see the Arabs as mistrustful, they have put themselves in a political protective shell with no way out. This occurs while the non-Jewish population in Israel continues to grow.
Back in November 2007 when George W. Bush was President, I showed my support for his and Condeleesa Rice's efforts to bring peace at the Annapolis conference. I go into arguments with Israeli settlers and extremist Palestinians who both said they would not "give an inch". When I asked an Israeli protester "What is the future, perpetual war?" he could only answer back by accusing me of "lying".
Our current president, Barack Obama, has made sincere efforts for peace. Yes, he at times was critical of Israeli settlement policy, but he never turned his back on Israeli security. His 2011 proposal of restarting the peace talks with the phrase "1967 borders with land swaps" was no different than George W. Bush's "Road Map" plan that twice called for Israel to "end its occupation of 1967". And on Iran, Obama has been stronger than Bush, but the Republikuds want to use their nationalism for their own political purposes. (An Iranian friend of mine suggests that bombing will backfire because it will strengthen the extremists there - so we need to be careful.)
If there are Palestinians like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish that can potentially take power (see my earlier post), we can move in the right direction. Israel's best interest, especially in the light of uncertainty after the Arab Spring, is to come to terms with the Palestinians and find a win-win solution - of course both sides will have to sacrifice, but the "win" will be the reality of peace, friendship, and prosperity.
In the meantime, we, the moderate Jewish American community, have to repudiate the Republikuds.
Thanks for reading.
The rhetoric of division in this area is getting stronger and nastier, and it's time we fight back.
There is a merger of 2 political parties now - the US Republicans and Israeli Likud - we can call them the Republikuds. They use extreme nationalism and fear to promote their agenda. What is this agenda? That the only way to show support for Israel is make it totally unconditional. No matter what Israel says or does, they are right, and any deviation from this is seen as at least questionable if not totally unpatriotic. Arabs cannot be trusted at all. Iran must be bombed (speaking to them is was a huge mistake).
My universlist-moderate stance respects the Republikuds nationalism and desire to protect Israel, but rejects their condemnations of those who try to seek dialogue for peace.
In a nutshell, I see the Republikuds biggest problem as this: they have no long-term vision as to where Israel needs to go over the next few decades. Since they see the Arabs as mistrustful, they have put themselves in a political protective shell with no way out. This occurs while the non-Jewish population in Israel continues to grow.
Back in November 2007 when George W. Bush was President, I showed my support for his and Condeleesa Rice's efforts to bring peace at the Annapolis conference. I go into arguments with Israeli settlers and extremist Palestinians who both said they would not "give an inch". When I asked an Israeli protester "What is the future, perpetual war?" he could only answer back by accusing me of "lying".
Our current president, Barack Obama, has made sincere efforts for peace. Yes, he at times was critical of Israeli settlement policy, but he never turned his back on Israeli security. His 2011 proposal of restarting the peace talks with the phrase "1967 borders with land swaps" was no different than George W. Bush's "Road Map" plan that twice called for Israel to "end its occupation of 1967". And on Iran, Obama has been stronger than Bush, but the Republikuds want to use their nationalism for their own political purposes. (An Iranian friend of mine suggests that bombing will backfire because it will strengthen the extremists there - so we need to be careful.)
If there are Palestinians like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish that can potentially take power (see my earlier post), we can move in the right direction. Israel's best interest, especially in the light of uncertainty after the Arab Spring, is to come to terms with the Palestinians and find a win-win solution - of course both sides will have to sacrifice, but the "win" will be the reality of peace, friendship, and prosperity.
In the meantime, we, the moderate Jewish American community, have to repudiate the Republikuds.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Fear
On November 4th, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a lone gunman in Tel Aviv. As we mourned, and as President Clinton said "Shalom Haver" ("Goodbye, Friend"), I was struck with the idea that it was nothing less than fear that drove Yigal Amir to perform this horrible deed.
There was (and still is) a fear amongst a segment of the Israeli population that the world, especially the Arabs, want to take something significant away. Whether it is rational or not, we cannot deny the existence of this fear.
Near the time of the assassination, I was reflecting on this, and I wrote a long letter to an Israeli newspaper, and shipped it via Telex (this was pre-email days). I don't know if it got received or published, and I don't have a copy, but I remember a bit what I said.
Fear, I said, is one of the basic emotion that exists in humans. It preceeds mistrust and hate. Mistrust and hate preceed much of our violence.
We have seen this work at all levels of interaction - whether it is animal to animal, person to person, group to group, nationality to nationality, religious group to religious group, person to country, or country to country.
It is easy to see these days where fear exists: Many of the Israelis fear the Arabs and Persians, many of the Arabs (and Persians) fear the Israelis and the West. One side feels that the other side wishes to take away its wealth or pride or freedom or even existence.
Even domestically, there are fears by one ethnic group for another, by one race for another.
The fears are perpetuated from generation to generation. This is often done by a demagogue in a group. Also by our "teachers" - be it religious leaders, educators or politicians.
At the Million Man March, which was near the time of Rabin's assassination, I walked around the National Mall with a sign of protest. I stated that we should not be influenced by messages of fear, as I felt that Mr. Farrakhan was giving us just that. I caught some flak from the attendees, but I think many of the people there understood.
So let's take Israel and Palestine. There are many examples in the world, but this one is closer to my heart.
The Israeli people have recent history to help generate fear. Not just the Holocaust, but the current fear that Arabs do not want them in the land they currently reside in. They point to evidence such as the anti-Israel education in Arab schools.
The Arabs see Israelis as a powerful force (thanks to the US) that wishes to take away Arab land and pride.
The fear has given rise to leaders who perpetuate it.
The media promotes these leaders.
Looking from the outside on this, I see a way out, but it is going to have to start with one basic premise:
The fear must be eliminated - as much as possible.
This is as much grass-roots as top-down. For example, I attended the Unity Walk 2 Sundays ago. This was a gathering of all religions and cultures to find bonds and our commonalities. This was, for me, all about removing fear. Juan Williams got raked over the coals for confessing to his fears of other cultures (NPR took this way too far in my opinion), but in this Unity Walk setting, I could admit to my own fears and realize that the people there had more warmth, more trust, more in common with me than I ever thought, and I was able to form bonds, not walls.
We had leaders of each of the 3 major religious communities speak. These people were great speakers.
However, they spoke to our choir, and I do not hear their voices heard outside this safe gathering nearly enough.
Try to imagine what things would be like if we could expand our sense of community. Instead of placing all your trust in the closest family, friends and neighbors, imagine what the world would be like if we saw that many of our own fears were irrational. Our neighbors might be of a different culture but still possess the basic human elements of compassion.
I, a Jew, am trying to see this in those I am told are my "enemies", such as the Arabs of Palestine.
In reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's incredible book "I Shall Not Hate", I see the expressions of compassions from a man I am initially supposed to hate. I am supposed to mistrust and hate him because he expresses the desire for a state for Palestine (which for many imply the elimination of the Jewish state). But I see in his book words that reach out with compassion. Not only that, but Izzeldin says that many of his countrymen agree with him, so I should try to replace my mistrust with trust.
And Izzeldin also says that most Israelis, whom he used to see on a daily basis at the hospital he worked at (as a Fertility Doctor) are perfectly capable of forming bonds of trust - once they know that the people facing them are not out to take things away. He says that if Palestinians and Israelis could only find their commonalities by simply having the simple positive interactions, we could go a long way in solving this conflict.
How can we build on this? How can we bring these 2 groups with a long, strong history of conflict together?
What I see as a partial solution is to tell others about Izzeldin's book and have them read it. At least that's a start. It might influence a few minds and hearts. We'll see.
I am also in touch with Dr. Abuelaish and hope to meet him soon, so that we can cement the bond we have recently formed, and come up with ideas as to how to influence others towards reducing our fears and increasing trust and respect.
Thanks for reading.
There was (and still is) a fear amongst a segment of the Israeli population that the world, especially the Arabs, want to take something significant away. Whether it is rational or not, we cannot deny the existence of this fear.
Near the time of the assassination, I was reflecting on this, and I wrote a long letter to an Israeli newspaper, and shipped it via Telex (this was pre-email days). I don't know if it got received or published, and I don't have a copy, but I remember a bit what I said.
Fear, I said, is one of the basic emotion that exists in humans. It preceeds mistrust and hate. Mistrust and hate preceed much of our violence.
We have seen this work at all levels of interaction - whether it is animal to animal, person to person, group to group, nationality to nationality, religious group to religious group, person to country, or country to country.
It is easy to see these days where fear exists: Many of the Israelis fear the Arabs and Persians, many of the Arabs (and Persians) fear the Israelis and the West. One side feels that the other side wishes to take away its wealth or pride or freedom or even existence.
Even domestically, there are fears by one ethnic group for another, by one race for another.
The fears are perpetuated from generation to generation. This is often done by a demagogue in a group. Also by our "teachers" - be it religious leaders, educators or politicians.
At the Million Man March, which was near the time of Rabin's assassination, I walked around the National Mall with a sign of protest. I stated that we should not be influenced by messages of fear, as I felt that Mr. Farrakhan was giving us just that. I caught some flak from the attendees, but I think many of the people there understood.
So let's take Israel and Palestine. There are many examples in the world, but this one is closer to my heart.
The Israeli people have recent history to help generate fear. Not just the Holocaust, but the current fear that Arabs do not want them in the land they currently reside in. They point to evidence such as the anti-Israel education in Arab schools.
The Arabs see Israelis as a powerful force (thanks to the US) that wishes to take away Arab land and pride.
The fear has given rise to leaders who perpetuate it.
The media promotes these leaders.
Looking from the outside on this, I see a way out, but it is going to have to start with one basic premise:
The fear must be eliminated - as much as possible.
This is as much grass-roots as top-down. For example, I attended the Unity Walk 2 Sundays ago. This was a gathering of all religions and cultures to find bonds and our commonalities. This was, for me, all about removing fear. Juan Williams got raked over the coals for confessing to his fears of other cultures (NPR took this way too far in my opinion), but in this Unity Walk setting, I could admit to my own fears and realize that the people there had more warmth, more trust, more in common with me than I ever thought, and I was able to form bonds, not walls.
We had leaders of each of the 3 major religious communities speak. These people were great speakers.
However, they spoke to our choir, and I do not hear their voices heard outside this safe gathering nearly enough.
Try to imagine what things would be like if we could expand our sense of community. Instead of placing all your trust in the closest family, friends and neighbors, imagine what the world would be like if we saw that many of our own fears were irrational. Our neighbors might be of a different culture but still possess the basic human elements of compassion.
I, a Jew, am trying to see this in those I am told are my "enemies", such as the Arabs of Palestine.
In reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's incredible book "I Shall Not Hate", I see the expressions of compassions from a man I am initially supposed to hate. I am supposed to mistrust and hate him because he expresses the desire for a state for Palestine (which for many imply the elimination of the Jewish state). But I see in his book words that reach out with compassion. Not only that, but Izzeldin says that many of his countrymen agree with him, so I should try to replace my mistrust with trust.
And Izzeldin also says that most Israelis, whom he used to see on a daily basis at the hospital he worked at (as a Fertility Doctor) are perfectly capable of forming bonds of trust - once they know that the people facing them are not out to take things away. He says that if Palestinians and Israelis could only find their commonalities by simply having the simple positive interactions, we could go a long way in solving this conflict.
How can we build on this? How can we bring these 2 groups with a long, strong history of conflict together?
What I see as a partial solution is to tell others about Izzeldin's book and have them read it. At least that's a start. It might influence a few minds and hearts. We'll see.
I am also in touch with Dr. Abuelaish and hope to meet him soon, so that we can cement the bond we have recently formed, and come up with ideas as to how to influence others towards reducing our fears and increasing trust and respect.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Israel and The Arab Spring
A thought came to me today while I was reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's book, "I Shall Not Hate", and having just read the newspaper about Syria and the growing tensions between Israel and Egypt (due to an accidental killing of Egyptians during an Israeli reprisal raid against Palestinian terrorist attacks):
The argument of some in Israel and the US is that we should fear the "Arab Spring", because it may let loose the "anti-Israel & anti-West" side of the Muslim Arabs and put them in power or influence.
I'm seeing this from another angle or perspective:
Basically it is this: If the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis was today fully settled, there would be absolutely nothing to fear in the Arab Spring.
This statement doesn't blame one side over another (in the failure to resolve the dispute). I've heard both sides of the argument and the only thing I blame is intransigence.
From reading Dr. Abuelaish and from what I see in the polls in Israel and Palestine, I believe that the people are ready to settle.
If the 2 sides had settled by now, we'd all be welcoming the Arab Spring in open arms, wouldn't we? We'd have states in the Mideast closer to the Israeli and democratic Arab model than we have today. Isn't this what we want, especially if neither side regards the other as a threat?
If you do fear the Arab Spring, what is your response? (If you believe I am naive, read my very first post.)
I'll have a review of Dr. Abuelaish's book in a future post.
Thanks for reading.
The argument of some in Israel and the US is that we should fear the "Arab Spring", because it may let loose the "anti-Israel & anti-West" side of the Muslim Arabs and put them in power or influence.
I'm seeing this from another angle or perspective:
Basically it is this: If the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis was today fully settled, there would be absolutely nothing to fear in the Arab Spring.
This statement doesn't blame one side over another (in the failure to resolve the dispute). I've heard both sides of the argument and the only thing I blame is intransigence.
From reading Dr. Abuelaish and from what I see in the polls in Israel and Palestine, I believe that the people are ready to settle.
If the 2 sides had settled by now, we'd all be welcoming the Arab Spring in open arms, wouldn't we? We'd have states in the Mideast closer to the Israeli and democratic Arab model than we have today. Isn't this what we want, especially if neither side regards the other as a threat?
If you do fear the Arab Spring, what is your response? (If you believe I am naive, read my very first post.)
I'll have a review of Dr. Abuelaish's book in a future post.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Somebody Else's Troubles
I heard of replay of an old Steve Goodman song from the 1970's - "Somebody Else's Troubles". I decided to re-print the lyrics with one change on the third verse making it more appopros for today. In case you haven't heard of him, Steve wrote "City Of New Orleans" and was considered by many to be one of the best solo performers of his time. He was a high-school classmate of Hillary Rodham. Died of leukemia in 1984. This song makes a terriffic statement
Yesterday I went downtown and saw an old-time picture show
And the hero got a pie in the face.
He didn't like that and he stormed around the screen,
But everybody else was laughin' in that place.
That's cause it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
Did you ever pay for something that you didn't do ?
And did you ever figure out the reason why ?
And when the doctor says this gonna hurt me a lot more than this hurts you,
Did you ever figure out that that's a lie ?
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything will be alright.
And I saw the politician, follow his party line,
He said, "We all have to tighten up our belts."
But he didn't look any thinner than he did a year ago
And I wonder just how hungry that man felt.
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
Just as long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
When all he ever saw is people cryin'.
First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he'd received on my behalf
He said, "Steve, business just gets better all the time."
And it ain't too hard it to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna alright.
Yesterday I went downtown and saw an old-time picture show
And the hero got a pie in the face.
He didn't like that and he stormed around the screen,
But everybody else was laughin' in that place.
That's cause it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
Did you ever pay for something that you didn't do ?
And did you ever figure out the reason why ?
And when the doctor says this gonna hurt me a lot more than this hurts you,
Did you ever figure out that that's a lie ?
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything will be alright.
And I saw the politician, follow his party line,
He said, "We all have to tighten up our belts."
But he didn't look any thinner than he did a year ago
And I wonder just how hungry that man felt.
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
Just as long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
When all he ever saw is people cryin'.
First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he'd received on my behalf
He said, "Steve, business just gets better all the time."
And it ain't too hard it to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna alright.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
After The Latest Deluge - time for a new Party
The major storm has passed, and we're picking up the pieces.
Congress passed the debt ceiling increase, contingent on many budget cuts. Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning their respective positions, and it's time for vacations.
It is yet to be seen whether or not I will have a job past November, when the DOD contract I am on runs out. I'm reasonably confident I'll either be refunded or find something else. But I am concerned about many Americans who have been made more vulnerable in the past few months.
Unemployment is very high. Layoffs have been slowing down (except for companies like Merck, who laid off 15,000), but the jobs have not been coming back. I do not see any slowing of foreclosure rates.
Yet the safety nets are being torn by those who believe we cannot afford them. As I've stated in an earlier post - what we do with our "pie" of money is totally our choice. Pure capitalism - everyone fending for themselves with little government intervention - is one of the choices. Whatever is chosen, some people gain and some people lose.
The reason some people lose is not necessarily because they don't try or know how to win. Think of a child brought up in a community of lower-income people and who gets a substandard education. Should we blame this child for being behind when he/she reaches adulthood? Let's consider our values about this.
So how do we create our pie, and how do we divide it up? I don't have the exact answer, but I definitely would like to see as large a pie as possible divided in an "equitable" (not "evenly") way. Here's where tough choices come in since you don't want to shrink the pie or cause the worst-off to have the smaller slices.
The budget deal (along with other policy decisions in the past year) is a "tradeoff" that will, unfortunately, impact those who can least afford it the most. What will be hit? Schools, housing, and the safety nets. What won't be hit? taxes on those who have high-paying jobs or investments.
It's clear how the tradeoff works in this case. And believe me, we really did have choices.
So we got worried about our debt. We focused less on unemployment. Funny, because interest rates did not go up. In fact, I'll be refinancing this week at almost an all-time low. The housing market doesn't suck because of government debt. It sucks because there was a bubble that burst (for reasons pointed out very well in the movie "Inside Job").
This Congress had choices. The Republicans had choices. The Democrats had choices. The President had choices.
I have come to the conclusion that it is time for another political party to take shape. It needs to be focused on the "center", acknowledging that everyone has responsibilities towards both themselves and others. I'm only beginning to think about who would lead this, but the name Colin Powell comes to mind. (Others are people like Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman). Whoever it is must be on the bully pulpit at all times, clearly showing us direction.
On another subject: Congress wants a debt-elimination commission. Who to head it better than Bill Clinton? (sorry, Clinton haters, he IS the best man for the job)
More to come. Thanks for reading.
Congress passed the debt ceiling increase, contingent on many budget cuts. Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning their respective positions, and it's time for vacations.
It is yet to be seen whether or not I will have a job past November, when the DOD contract I am on runs out. I'm reasonably confident I'll either be refunded or find something else. But I am concerned about many Americans who have been made more vulnerable in the past few months.
Unemployment is very high. Layoffs have been slowing down (except for companies like Merck, who laid off 15,000), but the jobs have not been coming back. I do not see any slowing of foreclosure rates.
Yet the safety nets are being torn by those who believe we cannot afford them. As I've stated in an earlier post - what we do with our "pie" of money is totally our choice. Pure capitalism - everyone fending for themselves with little government intervention - is one of the choices. Whatever is chosen, some people gain and some people lose.
The reason some people lose is not necessarily because they don't try or know how to win. Think of a child brought up in a community of lower-income people and who gets a substandard education. Should we blame this child for being behind when he/she reaches adulthood? Let's consider our values about this.
So how do we create our pie, and how do we divide it up? I don't have the exact answer, but I definitely would like to see as large a pie as possible divided in an "equitable" (not "evenly") way. Here's where tough choices come in since you don't want to shrink the pie or cause the worst-off to have the smaller slices.
The budget deal (along with other policy decisions in the past year) is a "tradeoff" that will, unfortunately, impact those who can least afford it the most. What will be hit? Schools, housing, and the safety nets. What won't be hit? taxes on those who have high-paying jobs or investments.
It's clear how the tradeoff works in this case. And believe me, we really did have choices.
So we got worried about our debt. We focused less on unemployment. Funny, because interest rates did not go up. In fact, I'll be refinancing this week at almost an all-time low. The housing market doesn't suck because of government debt. It sucks because there was a bubble that burst (for reasons pointed out very well in the movie "Inside Job").
This Congress had choices. The Republicans had choices. The Democrats had choices. The President had choices.
I have come to the conclusion that it is time for another political party to take shape. It needs to be focused on the "center", acknowledging that everyone has responsibilities towards both themselves and others. I'm only beginning to think about who would lead this, but the name Colin Powell comes to mind. (Others are people like Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman). Whoever it is must be on the bully pulpit at all times, clearly showing us direction.
On another subject: Congress wants a debt-elimination commission. Who to head it better than Bill Clinton? (sorry, Clinton haters, he IS the best man for the job)
More to come. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Intransigence
If you care about Israel or Palestine, here is some must-see TV.
The link below is to a a video that features a debate-discussion between Palestinian diplomat Saib Ariqat and an Israeli TV reporter:
It tells, perhaps, the whole story about what is going so wrong over in this region.
To me, it boils down to one word:
intransigence.
By both sides.
Both sides repeat their very emotional arguments. Although they are civil, you can feel the enormous tension. (You can assume that many of the arguments made by the Israeli journalist represent the government's position.)
The Palestinians need to hear the words "67 borders with land swaps", and "stopping settlements" - otherwise there is no trust. The Israelis have to hear "Jewish state", or there is no trust.
I firmly believe that the people of both countries would be willing to trade intransigence for peace. Just ask them..well, they've already been asked and they said so (see my earlier post).
Yes, Israelis would like to see the status quo changed. If we say to them "You can increase your prosperity, as from now on you would have to pay less taxes (less defense spending) and thus have even more economic freedom and security", wouldn't they take it?
Yes, Palestinians want out of their poverty and political isolation. If we say to them "You can have a free country that is world-accepted and your children can have a better future", wouldn't they take it?
So what is everyone waiting for?
The Answer: The leaders - who think only from their narrow nationalistic perspective.
The Answer: The leaders - who think only from their narrow nationalistic perspective.
With that comes the problem of the allowance of mainstream media to showcase the extreme viewpoints without adequate rebuttal time for the moderates (see my NY Times letter of September 2006). We see the flotillas and riots, not the people working behind the scenes for reconciliation. For every segment that displays the negative, why not interview someone like Dr. Abuelaish?
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is, from day one, attempting to get each side to moderate their views. For this he is being told that he is not a "friend".
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is, from day one, attempting to get each side to moderate their views. For this he is being told that he is not a "friend".
"J Street" and "Peace Now" does some good, but we need a unified, grass-roots multi-national, multi-religious movement that can overcome purely nationalistic ones. If someone can point me to them, please reply to this post.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. My senator, Ben Cardin, wants Congress to state that they oppose the move by the Palestinians at the UN in September. I also believe that the Palestinian Government is making a mistake (it will only increase the intransigence) but if Cardin adds to the bill a call for a stop of Israeli settlements, a call for full (yes, repeated) Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state, and an agreement based on 1967-with-land-swaps, I would gladly support it. In its present form it is one-sided and does nothing for peace (which I assume Cardin really wants). I want everything to be win-win. (BTW: J Street supports the UN move - I differ with J Street)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)