The winds are again blowing in the wrong direction and need to change. For me, March 2015 made me shiver, as some music of hope died.
The March, 2015 election in Israel may have a significant, long-lasting effect on the country's relationships with the rest of the world. It certainly has, for now, stalled any effort to move towards a negotiated settlement with Palestine. The people in Israel know this and the people in Palestine know this.
Because of Benjamin Netanyahu's Election Day statements, there is currently no outlook for reconciliation or a settlement of the Israel-Palestine issues. How can there be? The citizenss of the extreme right followed Bibi's path and voted to stay in their shell of fear and distrust.
Bibi led the way in clearly defining the enemies and evil in the world. He really believes in what he says when he predicts that any concession to Arabs will only lead to Israel's destruction. But what does he believe will happen if Israel continually maintains or hardens its position? Does he believe that over time the Palestinians will eventually cave in - realize that they cannot win, and agree to peace on Israel's terms? Or does he believe that the status quo, the state of conflict that Israel currently lives in, can last indefinitely? If he believes either one, then Mr. Netnayahu is, at best, naive.
The reality is - Palestinian Nationalism, like Zionism, will not go away.
Hamas and Hezbollah will not vanish. Iran is also here to stay,
and may become a larger threat. Israel cannot "win" militarily.
So if we keep the status quo, the moderate voices in the Palestinian
and Arab world will grow fainter and the voices of militarism will only
get stronger.
One sad thing is for sure. We will not hear any proposals for a win-win solution for Palestinians and Israelis coming from Benjamin Netanyahu. I believe he was never interested in a solution. Yes, he claims conditions have changed since 2009 that prevent this, but that just means that he has fallen victim to events rather than controll them. Instead of making serious proposals, he has, since coming to office, blamed the other side for being the obstacle. He is unable to see just how he, too, is an obstacle simply because he continually backs away from any serious effort at conflict resolution. Of course, this is due to his worldview that sees the black and white of good Israel, bad Palestine, and evil Iran that was given to him by his father.
Bibi also believes that he has been better for security than his predecessors because there have been no recent terrorist attacks. Really? Is it better for Israel now to "merely" withstand the rocket attacks from Gaza - as well as the potential of the same coming from South Lebanon? Is Israel really better off today on the Iran threat than it was in 2009? Who is fooling whom here?
So at the moment no one on either the Israeli or Palestinian side is making proposals of reconciliation. I applaud President Obama and others in the world for trying, but it is difficult to deal with the intransigence of both sides.
And the blame game for the lack of peace will continue to be played. Indeed Mr. Yousef Mannayer, in his NY Times article "Israel's Vote is good for Palestine" concludes that Israeli society is okay with the "status quo" and voted for Netanyahu to keep everything as it is - despite the fact that Palestinians are living under terrible conditions with lack of hope.
In my opinion, this lack of hope may drive the Palestinians to more desperate measures.
It should be noted, however, that I have some major differences with Mr. Mannayer. In blaming Israelis for the lack of peace he ignores the fact that his people, too, have allowed extremists to control policy. The election of 2005 followed by the Hamas takeover of Gaza is one example, and while we continually hear of complaints against Israeli oppression, we do not hear constructive win-win solutions from Palestinian leaders to resolve their issues with Israel.
I could go on, but it's time to state where I want things to go. It is critical at this time that the moderate voices of all nationalities and faiths rise up and begin to control the message that we have a better solution than the militarism of Bibi, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (as well as the passivity of Abbas, which is as bad in leadership as militarism). The message of the extremists is fear. But everyone knows that there is an alternate path of reconciliation. Israelis and Palestinians need not love one another, but they can find a way to live together in 2 states, just as the rest of us in the world have agreed to live in peace with our neighbors.
There must first be solutions proposed that are win-win that all sides can agree upon. I know that can be hard. But let me give you an example of where I come from. To me, the state of Israel is the Jewish state where we are free from oppression. From 1948 to 1967 Israel existed just fine without East Jerusalem, and I believe it can continue to exist without it tomorrow. Now I am not conceding East Jerusalem or any piece of land - I am just using it as an example to define the most important goal for the Jewish people (a peaceful, prosperous, independent Jewish state) and a thought process as to how we can get there. What do we really need? - what can we live with? - what are the tradeoffs? These are questions we need to ask.
Once the solutions by both sides (the Palestinians must first ask themselves similar questions) are proposed, any one that works for both needs to be promoted in the media and in the advertising every minute of every day, until it is firmly implanted into the mind, heart and soul of everyone in the region. We will need grass roots support as well as support from large donors.
(For me, while I Jewish American and am willing to participate in Jewish peace organizations - I would rather like to see all peaceful organizations from all nationalities and faiths merge to a common message - a message that promotes tolerance, respect, and coexistence - praising the good deeds of the people of peace as well as condemning the wrongful deeds of the extremists)
Promotion of these messages will change the mindset away from fear and towards reconciliation. I really do believe it is possible. Yes, today the music has stopped, but if we believe in the words of the great song "Turn, Turn. Turn" there will be "a time" and "it's not too late". But to get there we have a lot of work to do.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. I tried, before the election was held, to state my views to Israelis through their media. I got this letter to the editor in the Jerusalem Post published (2nd letter on the page). It got edited quite a bit, some of which I wasn't thrilled about but the basic message was left intact. Unfortunately it didn't change the outcome, but I believe those of us who care for the future still need to speak out.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Mission SnowRemoval
Good morning, Mr. Phelps.
The man you are looking at is Edward Snowden, formerly an employee with a contracting firm with this agency. He is now the most notorious criminal ever to have committed treason in the United States. He stole documents that, if in the wrong hands, can impede our crucial anti-terrorist operations and give others the ability to attack this country either by bomb or through cyberspace.
Snowden worked with a journalist in Hong Kong, Mr. Glenn Greenwald, whom you see in the next picture. He first left his place of employment in Hawaii and traveled to Hong Kong where he met Greenwald and released details of The Agency's programs to the press. Following this, Mr. Putin in Russia gave him temporary asylum where he continues to leak information.
(BTW: On a side note - Mr. Putin is currently renovating the International Arrivals Building in Moscow, renaming it to the "World's Criminals Asylum Center" - WCAC", and getting it prepped up to receive Mr's. Assad, Mubarek, and Morsi.)
At this point we do not know the extent of knowledge that other foreign governments have obtained from Mr. Snowden's stolen documents.
Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it is to:
1. Capture Edward Snowden, and bring him back to the U.S. where he can face a jury of his peers.
2. Retrieve all stolen documents and either bring them back or destroy them.
3. Find out how much the Chinese, Russians, and possibly other countries have learned from Mr. Snowden
4. Remove a significant part of Mr. Greenwald's anatomy (get help from the Taliban).
Of course, should you or any of your eye-enforce be either caught, killed, or leaked to Wolf Blitzer, the Director will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
Please do not use Ethan Hunt (a.k.a. Tom Cruise) on your mission. He has repeatedly flunked his Polygraph and speaks a horrible Russian accent.
This Microsoft-Windows based Smartphone will self-destruct in 5 seconds as the viruses take effect.
Good luck, Jim
The man you are looking at is Edward Snowden, formerly an employee with a contracting firm with this agency. He is now the most notorious criminal ever to have committed treason in the United States. He stole documents that, if in the wrong hands, can impede our crucial anti-terrorist operations and give others the ability to attack this country either by bomb or through cyberspace.
Snowden worked with a journalist in Hong Kong, Mr. Glenn Greenwald, whom you see in the next picture. He first left his place of employment in Hawaii and traveled to Hong Kong where he met Greenwald and released details of The Agency's programs to the press. Following this, Mr. Putin in Russia gave him temporary asylum where he continues to leak information.
(BTW: On a side note - Mr. Putin is currently renovating the International Arrivals Building in Moscow, renaming it to the "World's Criminals Asylum Center" - WCAC", and getting it prepped up to receive Mr's. Assad, Mubarek, and Morsi.)
At this point we do not know the extent of knowledge that other foreign governments have obtained from Mr. Snowden's stolen documents.
Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it is to:
1. Capture Edward Snowden, and bring him back to the U.S. where he can face a jury of his peers.
2. Retrieve all stolen documents and either bring them back or destroy them.
3. Find out how much the Chinese, Russians, and possibly other countries have learned from Mr. Snowden
4. Remove a significant part of Mr. Greenwald's anatomy (get help from the Taliban).
Of course, should you or any of your eye-enforce be either caught, killed, or leaked to Wolf Blitzer, the Director will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
Please do not use Ethan Hunt (a.k.a. Tom Cruise) on your mission. He has repeatedly flunked his Polygraph and speaks a horrible Russian accent.
This Microsoft-Windows based Smartphone will self-destruct in 5 seconds as the viruses take effect.
Good luck, Jim
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Dangers of Organized Labor's Decline
I am saddened but not surprised by what took place in Michigan yesterday.
I am not a member of a labor Union. I'm a software developer and there are few, if any unions in my profession.
I have very good benefits - 40-hour work week, 4 weeks time off, health insurance, disability, etc.
For these benefits I do not necessarily thank my employer - I thank the Union movement.
Perhaps the decline in Union participation is because the victories it has achieved have largely moved into the mainstream.
(But as we know with examples like Walmart, there is a long way to go.)
I see the defeat of organized labor in Michigan as a Tea Party win, financed by the extreme right oligarchy who are still reeling over the recent Presidential election.
Back in April 2010, when the Tea Party was first gaining strength, I posted a blog stating that the way to defeat them was to display exactly what our world would be like when they came into power:
We are seeing some of this reality now, and my hope is that our citizens wake up to the revelation that their own interests will be further damaged by the Tea Party and the oligarchs. We could be in danger, in a world where "austerity" is being floated around, of moving to a pre-Union society, where all the benefits I described above wither away.
So remember, Unions are not perfect, but the alternative will be a lot worse.
Thanks for reading.
I am not a member of a labor Union. I'm a software developer and there are few, if any unions in my profession.
I have very good benefits - 40-hour work week, 4 weeks time off, health insurance, disability, etc.
For these benefits I do not necessarily thank my employer - I thank the Union movement.
Perhaps the decline in Union participation is because the victories it has achieved have largely moved into the mainstream.
(But as we know with examples like Walmart, there is a long way to go.)
I see the defeat of organized labor in Michigan as a Tea Party win, financed by the extreme right oligarchy who are still reeling over the recent Presidential election.
Back in April 2010, when the Tea Party was first gaining strength, I posted a blog stating that the way to defeat them was to display exactly what our world would be like when they came into power:
We are seeing some of this reality now, and my hope is that our citizens wake up to the revelation that their own interests will be further damaged by the Tea Party and the oligarchs. We could be in danger, in a world where "austerity" is being floated around, of moving to a pre-Union society, where all the benefits I described above wither away.
So remember, Unions are not perfect, but the alternative will be a lot worse.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, November 23, 2012
After Operation Pillar of Defense
The month of November 2012 has not been boring in world events. Barack Obama won a second term and the right-wing is still in PTSD. The war in Syria wages on. And then there was the Hamas-Israel confrontation known to Israel as "Operation Pillar of Defense" which found new players in the game of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Without having all the facts it is difficult to choose the winner of the latest Mideast clash. What were the goals for Netanyahu; Did he want to eliminate Hamas or simply deter them from launching any missiles? Did Hamas really gain stature as a result of firing hundreds of missiles but not really doing as much damage as they would have liked (thanks, in part to the Iron Dome)? Has President Morsi become a stronger player? Has President Obama reconciled his relations with Israel? Has Abbas's stature been diminished?
I must comment on some statements I've seen. Those who feel that Israel did not "do enough" to Hamas are simply wrong. These people wanted Hamas destroyed. Yes, if that could be done that would bode well for Israel. The problem is that at this point trying to destroy Hamas from the outside would be like trying to destroy the Republican Party in the US. They are far too entrenched in Gaza to be taken out easily. While as of a month ago they did not have support of a majority of Gazans, there did not exist a strong enough alternative.
Likewise, Hamas and its supporters claimed "victory" over Israel. Well, perhaps there was one small victory in that Israel had to negotiate a cease-fire with them instead of with Abbas. But they showed just how vulnerable they are to a stronger Israeli attack. The only defense Hamas has is in their PR claiming "victim". They cannot and will not, in my view, bring their own people any dignity that they deserve.
I am wary of President Morsi. I just hope that despite his public condemnations of Israel and praises of Hamas, he is influencing the latter on accepting a 2-state solution and recognizing Israel.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton did a nice job of standing up for Israel yet influencing Israel's decision not to launch the ground offensive. I think they both know that there is a lot more work to do, but at least for now they helped save lots of lives.
Moving forward, this needs to become an era of proposals. I don't care who makes them, as long as they are reasonable. There needs to be give and take. Both sides needs to sacrifice some of their entrenched views. Movements toward peace by any side need to be praised by both Muslims and Jews. Movements away from peace by either side need to be criticized by both Muslins and Jews. It is never too late for the Moderates of all religions and nationalities to unite in the cause of compromise. Let's change the status quo to the one the Israelis and Palestinians really want - one that has them respecting each other as human beings and allowing them to live their dreams.
Thanks for reading.
Without having all the facts it is difficult to choose the winner of the latest Mideast clash. What were the goals for Netanyahu; Did he want to eliminate Hamas or simply deter them from launching any missiles? Did Hamas really gain stature as a result of firing hundreds of missiles but not really doing as much damage as they would have liked (thanks, in part to the Iron Dome)? Has President Morsi become a stronger player? Has President Obama reconciled his relations with Israel? Has Abbas's stature been diminished?
I must comment on some statements I've seen. Those who feel that Israel did not "do enough" to Hamas are simply wrong. These people wanted Hamas destroyed. Yes, if that could be done that would bode well for Israel. The problem is that at this point trying to destroy Hamas from the outside would be like trying to destroy the Republican Party in the US. They are far too entrenched in Gaza to be taken out easily. While as of a month ago they did not have support of a majority of Gazans, there did not exist a strong enough alternative.
Likewise, Hamas and its supporters claimed "victory" over Israel. Well, perhaps there was one small victory in that Israel had to negotiate a cease-fire with them instead of with Abbas. But they showed just how vulnerable they are to a stronger Israeli attack. The only defense Hamas has is in their PR claiming "victim". They cannot and will not, in my view, bring their own people any dignity that they deserve.
I am wary of President Morsi. I just hope that despite his public condemnations of Israel and praises of Hamas, he is influencing the latter on accepting a 2-state solution and recognizing Israel.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton did a nice job of standing up for Israel yet influencing Israel's decision not to launch the ground offensive. I think they both know that there is a lot more work to do, but at least for now they helped save lots of lives.
Moving forward, this needs to become an era of proposals. I don't care who makes them, as long as they are reasonable. There needs to be give and take. Both sides needs to sacrifice some of their entrenched views. Movements toward peace by any side need to be praised by both Muslims and Jews. Movements away from peace by either side need to be criticized by both Muslins and Jews. It is never too late for the Moderates of all religions and nationalities to unite in the cause of compromise. Let's change the status quo to the one the Israelis and Palestinians really want - one that has them respecting each other as human beings and allowing them to live their dreams.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Debate on Small Business
President Obama's performance improved quite a bit in the second Presidential (town meeting) debate. But I felt it was just about even.
For him to throw a knockout punch I believe he needs to counter his opponent's argument that "Obama will hurt small business and Romney will help it".
Romney and Ryan got up on stage and claimed that Obama will raise taxes on small business. Ryan cherry-picked a statistic by claiming that 53% of "small business income" will be subject to increased taxes. They claimed that this will result in more lost jobs. Finally, they claimed that Obamacare will be a job killer.
Here's how I would argue their false assertions:
1. Ryan's 53% claim has already been debunked by factcheck.org. He included, in his definition of small business, large hedge fund companies. The number of small businesses that will be affected by higher taxes are relatively few (about 3%), as ONLY profit over $250,000 will be subject to increased taxes.
2. But even with some increased taxes and new health insurance requirements, does that kill jobs? Ask the small businesses that have gone under in the last decade. I've asked them and they have pointed to 2 different factors. The first is the decrease in consumer spending. The second is the increase in rents. Nowhere is taxes or healthcare mentioned. If less people are coming into small business stores to buy, or people are buying less, there will be less staff working at the business. Furthermore, if the reduced traffic causes losses, the business closes.
So what caused this decreased spending? If you correctly state the Bush Great Recession, you win the debate point.
Also, I've heard from at least 2 businesses that landlords are charging astronomical rents. Why are they doing this? Because they can! Because there are large businesses waiting in the wings. I can give you an example. A strip mall near me in Rockville has a bagel restaurant, hair salon, and furniture store amongst other things. There is also a TGI Fridays. All of the businesses in this mall, with the exception of the Fridays, are going to be taken down in order to put up a new Walmart. Conclusion: we are in an era of domination of large business over small business - and it is being helped by the greed of some landlords.
So, in summary, the notion that Obama's polcies and plans hurt small business are bogus. Mitt Romney does not want to acknowledge this because he is hell-bent on blaming Obama.
Mitt Romney says he understands business. What he really understands is the big business "mindset" - the mindset of maximizing profit by minimizing expense, no matter how much profit, no matter where the expense comes from. Think about this - what does the right wing dislike? They hate the minimum wage. They hate labor unions (even the small "David" unions that go against the "Goliath" businesses). They hate anti-trust laws. They hate regulation. They claim all is anti-free market, anti-freedom, anti-America. But think - how much of what they want to do away with are those things that have a benefit to you and me?
We've come a long way in 230 years - from ending slavery to ending child labor to controlling monopolies to giving workers better conditions to the New Deal to Social Security and to Medicare. And we're still going in that direction. The claims that "business will be hurt" go back to the arguments to keep slavery. Yet we've survived quite well with every law that improves our lives.
And when has business gone bad? Think of all the major slowdowns: 1929, 2008. Taxes caused this? Of course not. It was bad business decisions caused by simple greed of large business to maximize their profits, the profits of those who sold us the bad decisions, and the heads of the companies who got either a huge salary or a golden-colored parachute.
So if you hear that our President hurts small business, think about the facts, and think about your values. Do you want a world of the big business mentality, or do you want a world where all citizens of this country can pursue the true American dream?
Thanks for reading.
For him to throw a knockout punch I believe he needs to counter his opponent's argument that "Obama will hurt small business and Romney will help it".
Romney and Ryan got up on stage and claimed that Obama will raise taxes on small business. Ryan cherry-picked a statistic by claiming that 53% of "small business income" will be subject to increased taxes. They claimed that this will result in more lost jobs. Finally, they claimed that Obamacare will be a job killer.
Here's how I would argue their false assertions:
1. Ryan's 53% claim has already been debunked by factcheck.org. He included, in his definition of small business, large hedge fund companies. The number of small businesses that will be affected by higher taxes are relatively few (about 3%), as ONLY profit over $250,000 will be subject to increased taxes.
2. But even with some increased taxes and new health insurance requirements, does that kill jobs? Ask the small businesses that have gone under in the last decade. I've asked them and they have pointed to 2 different factors. The first is the decrease in consumer spending. The second is the increase in rents. Nowhere is taxes or healthcare mentioned. If less people are coming into small business stores to buy, or people are buying less, there will be less staff working at the business. Furthermore, if the reduced traffic causes losses, the business closes.
So what caused this decreased spending? If you correctly state the Bush Great Recession, you win the debate point.
Also, I've heard from at least 2 businesses that landlords are charging astronomical rents. Why are they doing this? Because they can! Because there are large businesses waiting in the wings. I can give you an example. A strip mall near me in Rockville has a bagel restaurant, hair salon, and furniture store amongst other things. There is also a TGI Fridays. All of the businesses in this mall, with the exception of the Fridays, are going to be taken down in order to put up a new Walmart. Conclusion: we are in an era of domination of large business over small business - and it is being helped by the greed of some landlords.
So, in summary, the notion that Obama's polcies and plans hurt small business are bogus. Mitt Romney does not want to acknowledge this because he is hell-bent on blaming Obama.
Mitt Romney says he understands business. What he really understands is the big business "mindset" - the mindset of maximizing profit by minimizing expense, no matter how much profit, no matter where the expense comes from. Think about this - what does the right wing dislike? They hate the minimum wage. They hate labor unions (even the small "David" unions that go against the "Goliath" businesses). They hate anti-trust laws. They hate regulation. They claim all is anti-free market, anti-freedom, anti-America. But think - how much of what they want to do away with are those things that have a benefit to you and me?
We've come a long way in 230 years - from ending slavery to ending child labor to controlling monopolies to giving workers better conditions to the New Deal to Social Security and to Medicare. And we're still going in that direction. The claims that "business will be hurt" go back to the arguments to keep slavery. Yet we've survived quite well with every law that improves our lives.
And when has business gone bad? Think of all the major slowdowns: 1929, 2008. Taxes caused this? Of course not. It was bad business decisions caused by simple greed of large business to maximize their profits, the profits of those who sold us the bad decisions, and the heads of the companies who got either a huge salary or a golden-colored parachute.
So if you hear that our President hurts small business, think about the facts, and think about your values. Do you want a world of the big business mentality, or do you want a world where all citizens of this country can pursue the true American dream?
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Romney's Shallow Foreign Policy
I caught much of Mitt Romney's Virginia speech on foreign affairs last week. The first word that came to mind was "shallow", which I found out later, was also Madeline Albright's description.
The first question I would ask is: other than thumps of his chest and calling Obama weak, what does Romney have to offer?
It is one thing to be critical of the current President. But there was no thoughtful criticism, just hot air rhetoric. In fact, it appeared to me that Romney's only goal in this speech was to attack Barack Obama.
For example, Romney's one phrase about Osama Bin Laden rightly praised the military and intelligence forces, but left out the Commander In Chief. Is Romney so disdainful of Obama that he deliberately chooses to ignore any possible praise? Is this the best behavior we can expect out of our possible chief diplomat?
On the issues of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Russia, Romney offered absolutely no true critique or insight. He either agreed with Obama (though he did not acknowledge this), or he said he would somehow be "stronger" - that's IT.
On Libya and Syria Romney chose the rhetoric over the facts. How would he, as President, react on the current, very fluid situations? Send the troops? If yes, how many would he take out of Afghanistan?
I didn't hear a peep about Pakistan, one of the most difficult challenges we face.
Finally, Israel-Palestine. As a local sportscaster used to say - "let's go to the videotape".
Between his Florida "secret" speech and his address to the Israeli Knesset, Romney has all but given up on the Palestinians. Calling the problem "unsolvable", and declaring that the they do not "want peace", Romney was resigned to a policy of "kicking the ball down the road, hoping that something happens" (hmmm - so Romney believes in "hope" after all :-)).
In his (public) Virginia speech, he calls for the 2-state solution. If I were Mahmoud Abbas, would I take this as a sincere proposal?
Granted, Israel's moral and political foundations need to be praised, as Romney rightly did (and Obama regularly does). But as in the "47 percent" remark, Romney, in his speech did not back away from his dismissal of Palestinians. So how, I must ask, does Romney propose to bring the 2 sides together?
I've expressed my frustrations with Abbas and Netanyahu. I don't think they speak to the realm of possibility. They are mired with the past injuries to their respective peoples and choose to influence with fear and nationalistic pride rather than thoughful negotiations.
But Mitt Romney will make no better a leader. In fact, with his attitudes, I don't think Mitt Romney could today even pass the test to be a low-level diplomat.
I hope President Obama can make the case for his leadership over Romney in the next debate.
Thanks for reading.
The first question I would ask is: other than thumps of his chest and calling Obama weak, what does Romney have to offer?
It is one thing to be critical of the current President. But there was no thoughtful criticism, just hot air rhetoric. In fact, it appeared to me that Romney's only goal in this speech was to attack Barack Obama.
For example, Romney's one phrase about Osama Bin Laden rightly praised the military and intelligence forces, but left out the Commander In Chief. Is Romney so disdainful of Obama that he deliberately chooses to ignore any possible praise? Is this the best behavior we can expect out of our possible chief diplomat?
On the issues of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Russia, Romney offered absolutely no true critique or insight. He either agreed with Obama (though he did not acknowledge this), or he said he would somehow be "stronger" - that's IT.
On Libya and Syria Romney chose the rhetoric over the facts. How would he, as President, react on the current, very fluid situations? Send the troops? If yes, how many would he take out of Afghanistan?
I didn't hear a peep about Pakistan, one of the most difficult challenges we face.
Finally, Israel-Palestine. As a local sportscaster used to say - "let's go to the videotape".
Between his Florida "secret" speech and his address to the Israeli Knesset, Romney has all but given up on the Palestinians. Calling the problem "unsolvable", and declaring that the they do not "want peace", Romney was resigned to a policy of "kicking the ball down the road, hoping that something happens" (hmmm - so Romney believes in "hope" after all :-)).
In his (public) Virginia speech, he calls for the 2-state solution. If I were Mahmoud Abbas, would I take this as a sincere proposal?
Granted, Israel's moral and political foundations need to be praised, as Romney rightly did (and Obama regularly does). But as in the "47 percent" remark, Romney, in his speech did not back away from his dismissal of Palestinians. So how, I must ask, does Romney propose to bring the 2 sides together?
I've expressed my frustrations with Abbas and Netanyahu. I don't think they speak to the realm of possibility. They are mired with the past injuries to their respective peoples and choose to influence with fear and nationalistic pride rather than thoughful negotiations.
But Mitt Romney will make no better a leader. In fact, with his attitudes, I don't think Mitt Romney could today even pass the test to be a low-level diplomat.
I hope President Obama can make the case for his leadership over Romney in the next debate.
Thanks for reading.
Regaining The Debate Momentum
I write this less than 3 weeks before the 2012 Presidential election. I am very concerned - Mitt Romney is gaining in the polls. And the more I see of Romney, the worse I feel about who he is and what many of his supporters think.
I divide Romney supporters into 2 groups. First, the die-hard conservative Republicans - the ones that either broadcast on Fox News or get their information from it. Second, the more independent voter who looks to see who is the more competent.
Obama was on a roll for the past few weeks getting the votes of his base and the independents. Romney's campaign suffered from suspicions due to his lack of transparency. He did not reveal his tax liability and how he shelters his money. He didn't give an explicit explanation that shows how his tax reduction will bring the deficit down. He didn't say publicly how exactly he would deal with the Arab-Israeli dispute, or Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, China, or Russia.
Then came some damaging events for Romney: the secret recordings in Florida - which gave insight into at the very least his attitude towards a large part of the electorate. His "47 percent" remark drew enormous criticism. Romney at first said it was "unelegant" but did not show remorse. The pollsters detected that there was a growing mistrust as Romney's numbers fell.
However, at the first debate, Romney made a comeback. He did so without revealing any more of his plans, and without showing any remorse on the "47-percent" remark. He did it by first portraying our current economic state as Obama's failure, and then stating that the usual conservative free market approach coupled with a universal tax cut will be the way back to prosperity. In the debate (unlike the recording) he only hinted at the "47-percent" by framing opposition to government solutions as only "against the government" policy (especially Obama's), not against "the people" who receive the government benefits. Clever, and it went unchallenged.
I didn't catch all of the debate. I was driving home and listened to some of it on radio. It was clear that Obama was unprepared. I was screaming the rebuttals to Romney at my windshield but Obama failed to go on the offensive. I remembered that I had seen the lackluster Obama before - it reminded me of some of the 2008 debates. When I got home I saw the split-screen TV that had Romney calmly smiling during Obama's answers - which gave him another advantage since Obama seemed nervous.
A few days later my fears became justified: the polls now show Romney ahead. Clearly the independents shifted.
I cannot explain what happened to Obama, and I hope he does a better job in the next 2 debates (more on this later), but I wish people understood exactly what Romney was selling.
A few examples:
First, his philosophy on government. In an era of high deficits AND high unemployment, it's easy to say government tries to do too much and claim that if only we brought down government spending and gave the money back to "you, the taxpayer" a massive number of new private sector jobs would be generated. More on this later.
Second, the notion that the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) leads to a end of choice (freedom).
Finally, the specifics of his tax policy and the deficit issue. The Republican argument that we pay too much taxes always has appeal, and the easiest thing to do in a campaign is to claim that everyone, yes everyone, benefits from their solution.
I wish Obama had brought up that we are a country evolving in finding solutions to problems. Let's not forget how we ended slavery. It was a government-based solution that was opposed by business. But the overriding concern over the business interest was the moral way we treat each other as human beings and citizens.
The same holds true for child labor laws, worker protection laws, and minimum wage. Government has intervened. But even though businesses have to pay more, we have some degree of ensuring some morality in the employer-employee relationship. There's almost always going to be that business interest - morality tradeoff.
(As an aside, isn't it ironic that Conservatives deal with the immigration issue by calling for a "fence" but not really going after businesses that hire illegals. I don't see guns and rallies in front of those businesses. Perhaps it is because those businesses benefit from the illegals' lower wages?)
The concept of Government investment is, as we know, nothing new. But it is interesting that Republicans, in the 1936 Presidential campaign, claimed that FDR's New Deal was and will continue to be a substantial failure. Again, they use the same arguments that we hear today - that we cannot have prosperity if the government takes "our" money and it it's always better to satisfy the business interest. The Republicans' morality believes that the "freedom" of striving for profit is, and will generate good behavior. We've seen lots of examples that say - "not always".
Another aspect in our country's moral evolution has been in retirement and health care. Keep in mind - Social Security and Medicare are more like insurance policies - not entitlement programs. The conservative objection is that these are compulsory. But these are programs that benefit retirees - people who have paid into a system that just guarantees that you get back what you put in. The free market could get lucky and do just as well or better - but there are no guarantees. So we've evolved to favoring some safety for our seniors - do we want to turn back on this?
The evolution of health care requirements for non-seniors, as I see it, affects both the public and private sectors. The public sector expanded programs to cover some disabilities and to those who are living in poverty. The private sector implemented health insurance so that individuals and families can buy into a pool of health benefit money so long as they agree to the rules set by the insurer.
I'm not sure exactly why health care costs have risen so much, but I see several factors. As a child, my father had insurance to cover only "emergency" events and long hospital stays. I was not covered under any policy. The rare "normal" doctor visits were paid for out of pocket. Fortunately, I was a healthy child. My father, however, had a serious heart condition and died at age 62 (I was 16) when he suffered his first heart attack. I don't know if bypasses were available back in 1970, but I doubt that any preventative procedure would have qualified for emergency insurance. But we didn't have the money to pay for it out of pocket, so my Dad took his chances.
When you combinine the growth of private plans that cover non-emergency treatments as well as the public sector plans for the disabled and disadvantaged, we see more expenditures in health care than in my father's day. You can look at it a couple of ways: now that we have insurance, the costs seem more transparent. This is good in that it takes a lot of the worry away and people really get treated early and live longer. But the downside is that expectations for coverage rise as we expect our out-of-pocket expenses to go down.
I have no great answers to this, but what I can say is that the Republican message that the ACA results in less individual freedom is bogus. I can speak from personal experience that it is Insurance Companies, not the Government, not the doctors, that are the impediment to the care I often need. For example, it is the insurance company that dictates what medication I should take for my allergy. My doctor was eventually able to get what I needed approved, but I pay more for it because it isn't the medication of "choice".
Romney and the Republicans want to sell the notion that the Government is intruding too much. But under ACA, we still have private plans. The "intrusion" is that these plans must meet the standards that doctors and consumers want, even if it digs into the insurer's profitability.
Thus, my exit question for Health Care is: Do we want to continue to have health care decisions be totally market (read: profit) based, allowing people to fend for themselves, or is our moral code OK with having some regulations so that everyone in this country knows that he or she won't go broke due to bad luck with his or her health?
If we can keep the costs down, if we can still enforce some individual responsibility in both health care and retirement, and if we can make sure there is no fraud, I'll go along with Obamacare and not privatize Social Security.
Regarding tax policy: We've been down this road before. Romney and Ryan are showing Santa Claus and hiding Scrooge. You cannot hide an important question such as "how do you get more revenues when you are cutting taxes" behind a answer such as "I'll work with Congress to figure this out". I hope Obama finds a way to make sure Romney doesn't get away with this.
Related to taxes is the issue of the deficit. As Bill Clinton urged, do the math. Compare the 1990's to the last decade. Look at the fact that the increases in unemployment under Bush resulted in higher unemployment insurance costs (and keep in mind that our citizens paid for this up front, so they are not "entitlements"). Romney and Ryan need to answer to the Clinton line that the Republicans "got us into the mess, complained that Obama didn't get us out fast enough, and want to be put back in charge".
I hope the Obama campaign gets a few ideas from this writeup and the next 2 debates go much better. I will write a foreign policy piece shortly.
Thanks for reading.
I divide Romney supporters into 2 groups. First, the die-hard conservative Republicans - the ones that either broadcast on Fox News or get their information from it. Second, the more independent voter who looks to see who is the more competent.
Obama was on a roll for the past few weeks getting the votes of his base and the independents. Romney's campaign suffered from suspicions due to his lack of transparency. He did not reveal his tax liability and how he shelters his money. He didn't give an explicit explanation that shows how his tax reduction will bring the deficit down. He didn't say publicly how exactly he would deal with the Arab-Israeli dispute, or Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, China, or Russia.
Then came some damaging events for Romney: the secret recordings in Florida - which gave insight into at the very least his attitude towards a large part of the electorate. His "47 percent" remark drew enormous criticism. Romney at first said it was "unelegant" but did not show remorse. The pollsters detected that there was a growing mistrust as Romney's numbers fell.
However, at the first debate, Romney made a comeback. He did so without revealing any more of his plans, and without showing any remorse on the "47-percent" remark. He did it by first portraying our current economic state as Obama's failure, and then stating that the usual conservative free market approach coupled with a universal tax cut will be the way back to prosperity. In the debate (unlike the recording) he only hinted at the "47-percent" by framing opposition to government solutions as only "against the government" policy (especially Obama's), not against "the people" who receive the government benefits. Clever, and it went unchallenged.
I didn't catch all of the debate. I was driving home and listened to some of it on radio. It was clear that Obama was unprepared. I was screaming the rebuttals to Romney at my windshield but Obama failed to go on the offensive. I remembered that I had seen the lackluster Obama before - it reminded me of some of the 2008 debates. When I got home I saw the split-screen TV that had Romney calmly smiling during Obama's answers - which gave him another advantage since Obama seemed nervous.
A few days later my fears became justified: the polls now show Romney ahead. Clearly the independents shifted.
I cannot explain what happened to Obama, and I hope he does a better job in the next 2 debates (more on this later), but I wish people understood exactly what Romney was selling.
A few examples:
First, his philosophy on government. In an era of high deficits AND high unemployment, it's easy to say government tries to do too much and claim that if only we brought down government spending and gave the money back to "you, the taxpayer" a massive number of new private sector jobs would be generated. More on this later.
Second, the notion that the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) leads to a end of choice (freedom).
Finally, the specifics of his tax policy and the deficit issue. The Republican argument that we pay too much taxes always has appeal, and the easiest thing to do in a campaign is to claim that everyone, yes everyone, benefits from their solution.
I wish Obama had brought up that we are a country evolving in finding solutions to problems. Let's not forget how we ended slavery. It was a government-based solution that was opposed by business. But the overriding concern over the business interest was the moral way we treat each other as human beings and citizens.
The same holds true for child labor laws, worker protection laws, and minimum wage. Government has intervened. But even though businesses have to pay more, we have some degree of ensuring some morality in the employer-employee relationship. There's almost always going to be that business interest - morality tradeoff.
(As an aside, isn't it ironic that Conservatives deal with the immigration issue by calling for a "fence" but not really going after businesses that hire illegals. I don't see guns and rallies in front of those businesses. Perhaps it is because those businesses benefit from the illegals' lower wages?)
The concept of Government investment is, as we know, nothing new. But it is interesting that Republicans, in the 1936 Presidential campaign, claimed that FDR's New Deal was and will continue to be a substantial failure. Again, they use the same arguments that we hear today - that we cannot have prosperity if the government takes "our" money and it it's always better to satisfy the business interest. The Republicans' morality believes that the "freedom" of striving for profit is, and will generate good behavior. We've seen lots of examples that say - "not always".
Another aspect in our country's moral evolution has been in retirement and health care. Keep in mind - Social Security and Medicare are more like insurance policies - not entitlement programs. The conservative objection is that these are compulsory. But these are programs that benefit retirees - people who have paid into a system that just guarantees that you get back what you put in. The free market could get lucky and do just as well or better - but there are no guarantees. So we've evolved to favoring some safety for our seniors - do we want to turn back on this?
The evolution of health care requirements for non-seniors, as I see it, affects both the public and private sectors. The public sector expanded programs to cover some disabilities and to those who are living in poverty. The private sector implemented health insurance so that individuals and families can buy into a pool of health benefit money so long as they agree to the rules set by the insurer.
I'm not sure exactly why health care costs have risen so much, but I see several factors. As a child, my father had insurance to cover only "emergency" events and long hospital stays. I was not covered under any policy. The rare "normal" doctor visits were paid for out of pocket. Fortunately, I was a healthy child. My father, however, had a serious heart condition and died at age 62 (I was 16) when he suffered his first heart attack. I don't know if bypasses were available back in 1970, but I doubt that any preventative procedure would have qualified for emergency insurance. But we didn't have the money to pay for it out of pocket, so my Dad took his chances.
When you combinine the growth of private plans that cover non-emergency treatments as well as the public sector plans for the disabled and disadvantaged, we see more expenditures in health care than in my father's day. You can look at it a couple of ways: now that we have insurance, the costs seem more transparent. This is good in that it takes a lot of the worry away and people really get treated early and live longer. But the downside is that expectations for coverage rise as we expect our out-of-pocket expenses to go down.
I have no great answers to this, but what I can say is that the Republican message that the ACA results in less individual freedom is bogus. I can speak from personal experience that it is Insurance Companies, not the Government, not the doctors, that are the impediment to the care I often need. For example, it is the insurance company that dictates what medication I should take for my allergy. My doctor was eventually able to get what I needed approved, but I pay more for it because it isn't the medication of "choice".
Romney and the Republicans want to sell the notion that the Government is intruding too much. But under ACA, we still have private plans. The "intrusion" is that these plans must meet the standards that doctors and consumers want, even if it digs into the insurer's profitability.
Thus, my exit question for Health Care is: Do we want to continue to have health care decisions be totally market (read: profit) based, allowing people to fend for themselves, or is our moral code OK with having some regulations so that everyone in this country knows that he or she won't go broke due to bad luck with his or her health?
If we can keep the costs down, if we can still enforce some individual responsibility in both health care and retirement, and if we can make sure there is no fraud, I'll go along with Obamacare and not privatize Social Security.
Regarding tax policy: We've been down this road before. Romney and Ryan are showing Santa Claus and hiding Scrooge. You cannot hide an important question such as "how do you get more revenues when you are cutting taxes" behind a answer such as "I'll work with Congress to figure this out". I hope Obama finds a way to make sure Romney doesn't get away with this.
Related to taxes is the issue of the deficit. As Bill Clinton urged, do the math. Compare the 1990's to the last decade. Look at the fact that the increases in unemployment under Bush resulted in higher unemployment insurance costs (and keep in mind that our citizens paid for this up front, so they are not "entitlements"). Romney and Ryan need to answer to the Clinton line that the Republicans "got us into the mess, complained that Obama didn't get us out fast enough, and want to be put back in charge".
I hope the Obama campaign gets a few ideas from this writeup and the next 2 debates go much better. I will write a foreign policy piece shortly.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Candidates' Economic Worlds
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.
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.
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)
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Flight Over the Debt Ceiling
A public-service announcement:
Scene 1: A view of a large airplane - United States Airlines.
The plane has over 300 million scared passengers.
There are 536 pilots. About half dressed in blue, half in red.
Pilot In Chief Barack Obama - We're running out of fuel, folks. This plane will crash soon. We have to do something now.Rep. Eric Cantor - We can survive only by changing our gas to Red Gas.
Senator Harry Reid - Red Gas is what we used from 2001-2008 and we almost crashed. No, we need Blue Gas.Republicans in unison - Red Gas!
Democrats in Unison - Blue Gas
Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.Passenger 1: C'mon, pilots, this is no way to fly a plane. Can't you all decide on some compromise?
Passenger 2 (an uncanny resemblance to AlanRockville): But we don't really need a compromise, we can just land and then decide which fuel to put in.
Cantor: Absolutely not! We do not land until we put the Red fuel in! That goes first!
Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.Reid: OK, I'll take 20 percent Blue, the rest Red.
Cantor: No way! This plane cannot run on any Blue fuel. Red fuel only!
Cantor walks over to Rep. John Boehner, who is dressed in a Santa Claus suit with a button "Prizes for over 200K only!". Rep. Paul Ryan comes over, made into a Scrooge lookalike, holding the Republican proposal.
Boehner: I've got it all together. I'll be Santa Claus once more.
Suddenly, Rep. Nancy Pelosi walks over, and starts speaking a Chico Marx accent.
In the meantime, former Senators Byrd and Thurmond are having a discussion in Coach:
Engine starts to sputter, panic begins.
Passenger 3: Help, we're gonna die.Republican Voice: What do we do?
Boehner: Don't worry, I brought our golden parachutes.
Reid: I want one.
Boehner whispers into Reid's ear.
Plane starts spinning out of control. Passengers assume crash positions and pray.
Back to the cockpit.
Obama: This is an executive order. I order 10 Gallons of Blue gas and 5 of Red Gas to be placed on this plane immediately!
Just then Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas appear with Donald Trump.
Scalia: Sorry, Mr. President, you do not have authority to do this. Got five votes right here.
Obama: But this is National Security!
Thomas: The passengers want a government that does not allow the President to control their lives. Accordingly, they have chosen a special representative pilot to take over from here on.
Obama: Who's that?
Frank proceeds to start to blow up the autopilot, suddenly Michele Bachman walks in, sees what is going on, and makes a sour face.
She begins to walk away, but stops and turns around, says after a pause:
Nieslon exits.
Fade: Back to the present
By the way, here is Boehner's AARP article - I wasn't making this up.
To see the original Otto, here's the clip (with Hebrew subtitles, too). Now I can hear the sound effect when Otto is satisfied.
(By popular demand, updated version, known as "The Director's Cut")
Scene 1: A view of a large airplane - United States Airlines.
The plane has over 300 million scared passengers.
There are 536 pilots. About half dressed in blue, half in red.
Pilot In Chief Barack Obama - We're running out of fuel, folks. This plane will crash soon. We have to do something now.Rep. Eric Cantor - We can survive only by changing our gas to Red Gas.
Senator Harry Reid - Red Gas is what we used from 2001-2008 and we almost crashed. No, we need Blue Gas.Republicans in unison - Red Gas!
Democrats in Unison - Blue Gas
Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.Passenger 1: C'mon, pilots, this is no way to fly a plane. Can't you all decide on some compromise?
Passenger 2 (an uncanny resemblance to AlanRockville): But we don't really need a compromise, we can just land and then decide which fuel to put in.
Cantor: Absolutely not! We do not land until we put the Red fuel in! That goes first!
Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.Reid: OK, I'll take 20 percent Blue, the rest Red.
Cantor: No way! This plane cannot run on any Blue fuel. Red fuel only!
Cantor walks over to Rep. John Boehner, who is dressed in a Santa Claus suit with a button "Prizes for over 200K only!". Rep. Paul Ryan comes over, made into a Scrooge lookalike, holding the Republican proposal.
Boehner: I've got it all together. I'll be Santa Claus once more.
Suddenly, Rep. Nancy Pelosi walks over, and starts speaking a Chico Marx accent.
Pelosi: C'mon Boehner, you know your proposal ain't got a Sanity Clause.
In the meantime, former Senators Byrd and Thurmond are having a discussion in Coach:
Thurmond: Sheeet, Byrdie. Obama ain’t gonna be layin’ no rap on yo, mo.
Byrd: Double-negativity Stromie, ain’t talkin’ correct man.
Senator John McCain, walking down the aisle, overhears and approaches
McCain: Excuse me, excuse me, I heard that. Don’t both of you know that Jive is passé? (Hip-hop beat starts playing in background)
McCain (dancing to the beat):
Oh-bama, Boeh-ner trashin’ talk
they don’t ever do the walk
(beat continues and McCain continues his rap as camera fades)
Engine starts to sputter, panic begins.
Passenger 3: Help, we're gonna die.Republican Voice: What do we do?
Boehner: Don't worry, I brought our golden parachutes.
Reid: I want one.
Boehner whispers into Reid's ear.
Reid smiles, whispers back "Sure thing".
Both smile.
Passenger 2: I overheard that. No way, if this plane goes, they go first, just like the Titanic. The less fortunate get the parachutes.
Passenger 2 is ignored.
Former Senator Larry Craig approaches the bathroom, where former Rep. Anthony Weiner is waiting looking at pictures.
Passenger 2 is ignored.
Former Senator Larry Craig approaches the bathroom, where former Rep. Anthony Weiner is waiting looking at pictures.
Craig (tapping and rubbing Weiner twice softly on the tush): Hey Tony, what’s up?
Weiner looks down below his belt buckle, turns back to Craig.
Weiner (smiling): Wanna see?
Weiner (smiling): Wanna see?
Obama: Any progress? We're running out of time.
Boehner: No unlimited frequent fliers for you.
Obama: I don't want frequent fliers. I just want to save this plane. Look, saving the plane doesn't mean we'll be using Blue Gas or Red gas in the future. We're just keeping THIS plane intact.
In the back of the plane, Congresswoman Michele Bachman is taping a commercial:
Bachman: I will never allow any gas to be placed on this plane. This plane has used way too much gas. The people of this country want to take it back from the pirates who currently fly it.
(Music of the "Batman" TV show theme song is crescendoing in background)
Bachman:Better it should crash. I have my parachute and I'm gonna use it.
Voice Chorus sings end of one-word Campaign Theme Song: Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da, Bach-Man!!!)
Back in the front, John Boehner is speaking to his Press Secretary about his Medicare article that was published by AARP:
Boehner:Those Democrats are trying to scare the old people with TV ads showing people falling off a cliff. It's wrong to use a scare tactic like that.
Boehner: No unlimited frequent fliers for you.
Obama: I don't want frequent fliers. I just want to save this plane. Look, saving the plane doesn't mean we'll be using Blue Gas or Red gas in the future. We're just keeping THIS plane intact.
In the back of the plane, Congresswoman Michele Bachman is taping a commercial:
Bachman: I will never allow any gas to be placed on this plane. This plane has used way too much gas. The people of this country want to take it back from the pirates who currently fly it.
(Music of the "Batman" TV show theme song is crescendoing in background)
Bachman:Better it should crash. I have my parachute and I'm gonna use it.
Voice Chorus sings end of one-word Campaign Theme Song: Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da, Bach-Man!!!)
Back in the front, John Boehner is speaking to his Press Secretary about his Medicare article that was published by AARP:
Boehner:Those Democrats are trying to scare the old people with TV ads showing people falling off a cliff. It's wrong to use a scare tactic like that.
Press Secretary: Absolutely right, John.
Boehner: Let's tell them the truth, that if you go with the Democrats' plans you'll have 15 unelected bureaucrats who want to spend their time figuring out how they can deny Americans any health care.
Press Secretary: Sounds scary. Do you know those 15 people?
Boehner: Are you kidding? Nobody checks on this, don't worry.
Press Secretary: Sounds scary. Do you know those 15 people?
Boehner: Are you kidding? Nobody checks on this, don't worry.
Plane starts spinning out of control. Passengers assume crash positions and pray.
Scene is First Class cabin:
Former President Bill Clinton, in a soon-to-be-awarded-cameo, disheveled with glazed eyes says hoarsely:
I guess I picked the wrong week to quit smoking pot.
Screen is black, sound of someone “inhaling” a long toke.
Back to the cockpit.
Obama: This is an executive order. I order 10 Gallons of Blue gas and 5 of Red Gas to be placed on this plane immediately!
Just then Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas appear with Donald Trump.
Scalia: Sorry, Mr. President, you do not have authority to do this. Got five votes right here.
Obama: But this is National Security!
Thomas: The passengers want a government that does not allow the President to control their lives. Accordingly, they have chosen a special representative pilot to take over from here on.
Obama: Who's that?
Trump: Obama, you’re fired!
The Rescue music starts.
The Rescue music starts.
In walks a smiling Otto The Autopilot. First flight since his appearance in the "Airplane" movies.
Usual movie fade routine to show scene in the past (flashback)…
Congressman Barney Frank: ..Uh oh, the autopilot lost his air, gotta do something…
Frank proceeds to start to blow up the autopilot, suddenly Michele Bachman walks in, sees what is going on, and makes a sour face.
Bachman: This is disgusting, disgusting.
She begins to walk away, but stops and turns around, says after a pause:
Bachman: Hey Barney, can I try?
External shot of airplane. Then back to the cockpit.
Otto is on top of Bachman (she only knows one position on anything..).
Bachman: Going for number 29! Whee!
Leslie Nielsen suddenly walks in the door
Nielsen: I’d just like to say “Good Luck, we’re counting on you”.
Nieslon exits.
Fade: Back to the present
Congressman Barney Frank: Just got Otto inflated. Bachman agreed to help. Ready to go.
Bachman: God bless Otto, such great ideas. Paul, tell them what we decided.
Congressman Ryan, on the mike, to all Passengers and Crew: (Gotta fix my hair first...OK) All right everyone, Otto has a solution to get us some gas before we land. Everyone eat those beans really fast now - we're counting on you. Mr. Brooks, you too.
Eating and flatulating can be heard throughout the plane. Gas is emitted.
Obama: A true bipfartisan solution - and a small, shared sacrifice by every citizen.
Passenger 1: We're gonna make it. God bless America.
Patriotic music plays, and the plane lands successfully.
(The end)
Cast:
Barack Obama - Bill Cosby
Michele Bachman - Julia Louis-Dreyfus
John Boehner - Alec Baldwin
Eric Cantor - Charlie Sheen
Paul Ryan - Steven Colbert
Nancy Pelosi - Talia Shire
Larry Craig - John Waters
Anthony Weiner - Jon Stewart
Barney Frank - Jay Leno
Harry Reid - Woody Allen
Harry Byrd - Hal Holbrook
Strom Thurmond - Richard Dreyfuss
John McCain - Steve Martin
Trump and Clinton play themselves
(Still working on the others, but we could always use "Saturday Night Live" people)
Author's note: We are in a serious situation. We must all do our part to make sure the plane of our government continues to fly. A crash would mean a loss of net income for many of us. Isn't that even worse than getting your taxes raised?
Bachman: God bless Otto, such great ideas. Paul, tell them what we decided.
Congressman Ryan, on the mike, to all Passengers and Crew: (Gotta fix my hair first...OK) All right everyone, Otto has a solution to get us some gas before we land. Everyone eat those beans really fast now - we're counting on you. Mr. Brooks, you too.
Eating and flatulating can be heard throughout the plane. Gas is emitted.
Obama: A true bipfartisan solution - and a small, shared sacrifice by every citizen.
Passenger 1: We're gonna make it. God bless America.
Patriotic music plays, and the plane lands successfully.
(The end)
Cast:
Barack Obama - Bill Cosby
Michele Bachman - Julia Louis-Dreyfus
John Boehner - Alec Baldwin
Eric Cantor - Charlie Sheen
Paul Ryan - Steven Colbert
Nancy Pelosi - Talia Shire
Larry Craig - John Waters
Anthony Weiner - Jon Stewart
Barney Frank - Jay Leno
Harry Reid - Woody Allen
Harry Byrd - Hal Holbrook
Strom Thurmond - Richard Dreyfuss
John McCain - Steve Martin
Trump and Clinton play themselves
(Still working on the others, but we could always use "Saturday Night Live" people)
Author's note: We are in a serious situation. We must all do our part to make sure the plane of our government continues to fly. A crash would mean a loss of net income for many of us. Isn't that even worse than getting your taxes raised?
Raising the debt ceiling does not increase the debt one penny, it just gives the government permission to borrow to pay its existing expenses. It does not make you pay a penny more of taxes, it does not cause you to lose one penny of benefits.
On a personal note, I was told by an employer that hiring is delayed because of the budget impasse. How many are in my shoes? Think about the Golden Rule, think about what you would do and then urge Congress to do the same.
By the way, here is Boehner's AARP article - I wasn't making this up.
To see the original Otto, here's the clip (with Hebrew subtitles, too). Now I can hear the sound effect when Otto is satisfied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxcoe1Y2Ua8&feature=related
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
A Pending Debt Default and the Attack on My Country
September 11, 2001 was an eye-opener for many of us, including myself. I remember looking at the computer screen at the live feed from NY in total astonishment and disbelief. After both towers were hit, I wondered what would happen next - was this an invasion? Was my fiance OK (she was in NY on business - I took the last shuttle back from NY to DC the prior night). Later I watched the white smoke rise from the Pentagon - I worked only 5 miles from it. It was all surreal and frightening.
In subsequent months I began to hear that the U.S. was "warned" of the attack, but no one believed it would really happen.
Today, July 20th 2011, on my wife's and my 9th wedding anniversary, I am fearing another attack.
I did not personally suffer from the 9/11 attack, but the one that may be coming will, I believe, bring hard times to many people of this country.
This "attack" is the massive slowdown in our economy, caused by the deliberate decision in the United States Congress to default on the debt - by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
The projected effects are even more frightening than 9/11. First, it will effect more people. Millions. Higher interest rates will mean a slowdown and people will be laid off. Also, there will be less consumer borrowing - even on essentials such as housing. And, even more frightening, I believe people will die - because of a combination of increased stress and less money due to unemployment.
This attack can be easily stopped, we all know how to do it.
While I agree that we must tackle the deficit and debt, now is not the time. Not when we have 9.2 percent unemployment. The appropriate times are either the election or during the budget debate itself. We have a divided Congress. Democrats have to wake up as to who won in 2010 and Republicans have to remember that they only won one election that gave them control of only one of the three avenues of Government (the courts make a fourth). Posturing can really be done at any time except when our lives depend on decisions that have to do with survival.
I will not go into detail here about the proposed budget cuts and tax increases. For the record I will probably go along with a compromise that Congress and the President agree on.
But I want to make one thing absolutely clear - my warning to Congress:
Any member of Congress who allows the U.S. debt to default will commit the moral equivalent of deliberately allowing the United States of America to suffer a deadly military attack.
A member of Congress who forces a debt default will have committed an act of betrayal to my country equivalent to treason. I will personally move to make a citizens arrest. I will move to have this person impeached and removed from Congress.
I will not allow our people to suffer because of this attack.
To Congress: Please put reason and compassion in your decision-making.
Thanks for reading.
Update 7/25/11: I visited Congress last week and left letters that state what I said above. Please, if you agree, do the same.
Also, I'm trying to find a movie-maker who can, on short notice, produce an Internet film that would simulate the effects of the disaster that would occur if the US defaults or if interest rates rise. If you know anyone please respond to this post. (BTW: I had a post last year that has the same concept: http://alanrockville.blogspot.com/2010/04/defeating-tea-movement.html )
Analogy: Our debt default would be akin to "national" foreclosure.
"Think of America as being passengers on an airplane that is running out of gas with 535 pilots on board. Experts say the plane will crash unless a decision is made by the pilots either to land the plane now or put gas in. The problem is that half the pilots want Gas brand “R”, half want gas brand “D”.
"Nobody budges. Nobody wants to land the plane now, all pilots want to decide on the brand of gas BEFORE landing.
"OK, pilots, what do you do?
"And don’t tell me that the plane isn’t going to crash: If you would like to stay on the plane and be THE FIRST to suffer the consequences of the crash, be my guest. But I’m a passenger and I don’t want to crash!
Just land the plane!!! Now!!!!"
Update 7/26/11 - First: I went to Congress and dropped off about 20 copies of my letter which has the stuff that's above.
Second: Just thought of this: In their 2001-2008 budgets, the Republicans wanted to be Santa Claus. Now they want to be Scrooge. And their current budget plan has no sanity clause (Thanks, Chico)
In subsequent months I began to hear that the U.S. was "warned" of the attack, but no one believed it would really happen.
Today, July 20th 2011, on my wife's and my 9th wedding anniversary, I am fearing another attack.
I did not personally suffer from the 9/11 attack, but the one that may be coming will, I believe, bring hard times to many people of this country.
This "attack" is the massive slowdown in our economy, caused by the deliberate decision in the United States Congress to default on the debt - by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
The projected effects are even more frightening than 9/11. First, it will effect more people. Millions. Higher interest rates will mean a slowdown and people will be laid off. Also, there will be less consumer borrowing - even on essentials such as housing. And, even more frightening, I believe people will die - because of a combination of increased stress and less money due to unemployment.
This attack can be easily stopped, we all know how to do it.
While I agree that we must tackle the deficit and debt, now is not the time. Not when we have 9.2 percent unemployment. The appropriate times are either the election or during the budget debate itself. We have a divided Congress. Democrats have to wake up as to who won in 2010 and Republicans have to remember that they only won one election that gave them control of only one of the three avenues of Government (the courts make a fourth). Posturing can really be done at any time except when our lives depend on decisions that have to do with survival.
I will not go into detail here about the proposed budget cuts and tax increases. For the record I will probably go along with a compromise that Congress and the President agree on.
But I want to make one thing absolutely clear - my warning to Congress:
Any member of Congress who allows the U.S. debt to default will commit the moral equivalent of deliberately allowing the United States of America to suffer a deadly military attack.
A member of Congress who forces a debt default will have committed an act of betrayal to my country equivalent to treason. I will personally move to make a citizens arrest. I will move to have this person impeached and removed from Congress.
I will not allow our people to suffer because of this attack.
To Congress: Please put reason and compassion in your decision-making.
Thanks for reading.
Update 7/25/11: I visited Congress last week and left letters that state what I said above. Please, if you agree, do the same.
Also, I'm trying to find a movie-maker who can, on short notice, produce an Internet film that would simulate the effects of the disaster that would occur if the US defaults or if interest rates rise. If you know anyone please respond to this post. (BTW: I had a post last year that has the same concept: http://alanrockville.blogspot.com/2010/04/defeating-tea-movement.html )
Analogy: Our debt default would be akin to "national" foreclosure.
"Think of America as being passengers on an airplane that is running out of gas with 535 pilots on board. Experts say the plane will crash unless a decision is made by the pilots either to land the plane now or put gas in. The problem is that half the pilots want Gas brand “R”, half want gas brand “D”.
"Nobody budges. Nobody wants to land the plane now, all pilots want to decide on the brand of gas BEFORE landing.
"OK, pilots, what do you do?
"And don’t tell me that the plane isn’t going to crash: If you would like to stay on the plane and be THE FIRST to suffer the consequences of the crash, be my guest. But I’m a passenger and I don’t want to crash!
Just land the plane!!! Now!!!!"
Update 7/26/11 - First: I went to Congress and dropped off about 20 copies of my letter which has the stuff that's above.
Second: Just thought of this: In their 2001-2008 budgets, the Republicans wanted to be Santa Claus. Now they want to be Scrooge. And their current budget plan has no sanity clause (Thanks, Chico)
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Polls in Palestine (and Israel)
We all see a lot of polls of Americans. But we do not see too many polls of countries abroad, especially those in the Middle East. What we get a lot of is breaking news (such as the Flotilla incident) and punditry. But what do "the people" think?
While I was reading an article in the Web version of the NY Times, a link to a poll of Palestinians was shown, and I went to check it out. What I found was very educational.
This is the link to the poll:
http://www.pcpsr.org/
I look at the data from this and I realize that most Israelis and most Palestinians want the same things, and that the main thing getting in the way is (lack of) trust. The lack of trust is due, in my opinion, to fear, and the fear is perpetuated by a combination of bad (extremist) leadership and sensationalist media.
I hope that everyone who looks at this poll makes an effort to tell others about it. Maybe some misperceptions can be removed. Ones about Israelis AND ones about Palestinians.
Thanks for reading.
While I was reading an article in the Web version of the NY Times, a link to a poll of Palestinians was shown, and I went to check it out. What I found was very educational.
This is the link to the poll:
http://www.pcpsr.org/
I look at the data from this and I realize that most Israelis and most Palestinians want the same things, and that the main thing getting in the way is (lack of) trust. The lack of trust is due, in my opinion, to fear, and the fear is perpetuated by a combination of bad (extremist) leadership and sensationalist media.
I hope that everyone who looks at this poll makes an effort to tell others about it. Maybe some misperceptions can be removed. Ones about Israelis AND ones about Palestinians.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Like Father Like Son?
An Unpublished Letter to The Editor
From: Alan Rotnemer
To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at Home
To The Editor:
Mark Leibovich’s expose of the inheritance of traditions and values in the Paul family was both enlightening and intriguing. As I read it, I recalled a House vote for Resolution 951 in March 2008.
This resolution condemned Hamas’s terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The vote on this resolution was 404 yea, 1 nay, 23 no vote/present.
At the time, I curiously looked up the details of the vote. Of the 24 non-affirmative votes, six were from representatives of our oil-rich state, Texas (the most by far of any state).
And the lone dissenting vote? None other than a Republican Presidential candidate from our Lone Star state, Mr. Ron Paul.
So now I ask – like father like son? Makes me wonder what kind of voice Nominee (for US Senator From Kentucky) Rand Paul will be on future Mideast policy.
The vote is documented here
Thanks for reading
From: Alan Rotnemer
To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at Home
To The Editor:
Mark Leibovich’s expose of the inheritance of traditions and values in the Paul family was both enlightening and intriguing. As I read it, I recalled a House vote for Resolution 951 in March 2008.
This resolution condemned Hamas’s terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The vote on this resolution was 404 yea, 1 nay, 23 no vote/present.
At the time, I curiously looked up the details of the vote. Of the 24 non-affirmative votes, six were from representatives of our oil-rich state, Texas (the most by far of any state).
And the lone dissenting vote? None other than a Republican Presidential candidate from our Lone Star state, Mr. Ron Paul.
So now I ask – like father like son? Makes me wonder what kind of voice Nominee (for US Senator From Kentucky) Rand Paul will be on future Mideast policy.
The vote is documented here
Thanks for reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)