The peace conference between Israel and the Fatah faction of the Palestine Authority
now going on in Washington is on its death bed. The Palestinian President Abbas
represents only a minority of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. He does
not speak for the irredentist factions--Hamas, Hezbollah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other splinter groups. Any "peace" made with him would
be an illusion, and would likely bring on him the same violence which is daily visited on Israel. Netanyahu is also unable to speak for all Israelis. The religious
settlement zealots could bring down his government if he compromises their agendas.
But he has more gravitas to make an agreement than any other Israeli politician, and
could make one stick if the advantages to Israel, in terms of security, were sufficient.
If the Palestinians could be given the hope of a better, more prosperous, healthier life while dwelling on this earthly realm, perhaps the zeal of the terrorists to get to Paradise by killing Israelis, Westerners and Arabs from other religious factions, might cool. Israel is in a position to help make that a reality for the
Palestinians, but only if they abandon their dream of wiping Israel off the map
and give up terrorism as an instrument of policy.
As with many Arab states, the controlling oligarchy has failed to improve the lives
of their subjects. Many motives---desire to maintain control, rejection of modernity, suppression of women, corruption, greed and zealotry can be cited for those failures. Israel is a roaring success, politically, economically and socially.
That alone is enough to feed the Arab hatred of a successful non-Muslim state in their midst. If such attitudes were changed, Israel would play a significant role
in improving the lot of their Palestinian neighbors.
The economy of the Palestinian territories is based on agriculture, of a relatively
primitive form. It competes with the highly advanced Israeli agriculture. However, that is not the reason for their poverty. Lack of access to the Israeli market and ports, because of border closings for security concerns, is the main cause.
If the Arabs would accept the reality of Israel, and coexistence as the future, Israel could become the engine of a powerful revival of the Palestinian people, in
a thriving state, as part of a natural regional economic entity. Israel would have to open its market to Palestinian agricultural products. They would need to provide technical assistance to modernize farming methods, improve roads and water supply to bring the Palestinian farmers up to Israeli standards. To compensate for the impact of food imports Israel would concentrate on the export market, where it already has a major presence.
For some period certain, perhaps twenty years, Israel would pledge to extend to the Palestinian state any improvements it makes to Israel's infrastructure so the viability of that state would be bolstered. In the absence of terror Israel could open its borders and its impressive medical facilities to Palestinians. During those twenty years Israel, together with the international community, could assist in building infrastructure, clinics, hospitals, and schools in the Palestinian state
so that it will be able to offer to its citizens the quality of life found in its neighbor.
The cost to Israel for the assistance it provides will be offset by the savings from reduced security requirements and from the increased trade and tourism which peace will permit. For the Arabs, Paradise would be available in the here and now.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Once upon a time in America
In the year 1690 a sailing vessel bearing immigrants from Spain, attempted
to land its human cargo on the shores of what would one future day be Rhode Island.
The native Indian tribe, the Merrymacks, mobilized their militia. Armed with
writs of attainder, and bows and arrows, they apprehended the "illegals" and incarcerated them in a village of animal skins tents, known to the natives as
Guantanamera. Negotiations began for the deportation of the illegals during
which one of them proposed that, in exchange for cancelling the deportations the
illegals would agree to perform any unpleasant work the Indians themselves disdained. They also agreed to receive whatever amount of
Wampum the Indians would pay, and not divert the required tribute to the tribal chief.
The arrangement worked so well, the Indians grew lazy and selective about what
work they would perform. It became necessary to encourage increasing numbers of illegal immigrants to come to Rhode Island from the depressed and war torn areas of Europe. In time the supply of shells for Wampum ran out. The illegals insisted on
procreating causing a need for more animal skins to supply their shelter needs. This in turn increased the costs for the natives. Suddenly the illegals were a problem
not a resource. A rival chief came forward and proposed a ban on future immigrants, and rounding up and deporting those allready here. There arose a heated conflict
between the deportniks and the amnestniks threatening to split the tribe. The
deportniks were victorious and carried out their intent. The resulting collapse of the tribal infrastructure led to overflowing latrines, overgrown paths and collapsing bridges, uncollected garbage, leaking tents and run-a-way live stock.
The Merrymacks learned the hard way that they were part of an interconnected
world and could not survive and thrive in a Fortress Rhode Island.
to land its human cargo on the shores of what would one future day be Rhode Island.
The native Indian tribe, the Merrymacks, mobilized their militia. Armed with
writs of attainder, and bows and arrows, they apprehended the "illegals" and incarcerated them in a village of animal skins tents, known to the natives as
Guantanamera. Negotiations began for the deportation of the illegals during
which one of them proposed that, in exchange for cancelling the deportations the
illegals would agree to perform any unpleasant work the Indians themselves disdained. They also agreed to receive whatever amount of
Wampum the Indians would pay, and not divert the required tribute to the tribal chief.
The arrangement worked so well, the Indians grew lazy and selective about what
work they would perform. It became necessary to encourage increasing numbers of illegal immigrants to come to Rhode Island from the depressed and war torn areas of Europe. In time the supply of shells for Wampum ran out. The illegals insisted on
procreating causing a need for more animal skins to supply their shelter needs. This in turn increased the costs for the natives. Suddenly the illegals were a problem
not a resource. A rival chief came forward and proposed a ban on future immigrants, and rounding up and deporting those allready here. There arose a heated conflict
between the deportniks and the amnestniks threatening to split the tribe. The
deportniks were victorious and carried out their intent. The resulting collapse of the tribal infrastructure led to overflowing latrines, overgrown paths and collapsing bridges, uncollected garbage, leaking tents and run-a-way live stock.
The Merrymacks learned the hard way that they were part of an interconnected
world and could not survive and thrive in a Fortress Rhode Island.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Don't ask, Don't tell, Do punish!
Hey pastor, does God make mistakes? That is a question which is asked by Gays and
Lesbians--too often silently. A child is born to heterosexual parents, with certain
genitalia identifying the child's body as male or female. But for some children, by the time the child begins to master speech it becomes obvious that the mind and disposition of the child does not match the genitalia. The penis endowed child shows a disposition in action and demeanor to mimic a vagina endowed child. The vagina endowed shows a masculine inclination. In speech, mannerisms, choice of games, toys, and dress the very young child acts as if the genitalia should have been of the opposite sex. The confusion in mind, and the responses of the parents and others create guilt feelings in the child. To the devout it is not possible that God made an error---we are all God's children. So the problem must be the result of sinful choice made by the child (or visited on the parents)--original sin updated. The child must change the evil ways, or hide the shame. And so the punishment begins, and the suffering.
In many animal species hermaphrodism is normal and so are role reversals. Offspring are raised by males and females do the foraging for food. Sexual orientation is
then a variable scale from all male/all female, to blends of both. Is that not
possible in humans, the peak of the pyramid of living creatures?
If we accept that proposition then we can accept that gays and lesbians are different, not by choice, but by nature and deserve to be treated with the respect due all God's creatures. They in turn must respect the sensitivities of others and
not seek exemption from moral and accepted standards of behavior.
Don't ask don't tell is demeaning to God's creation if you believe. It is demeaning to the right of each citizen to equal protection under the law, if you do not believe. Other nations have encountered no problems with gays in their military.
Why is our Puritan ethic so traumatized at the thought?
Lesbians--too often silently. A child is born to heterosexual parents, with certain
genitalia identifying the child's body as male or female. But for some children, by the time the child begins to master speech it becomes obvious that the mind and disposition of the child does not match the genitalia. The penis endowed child shows a disposition in action and demeanor to mimic a vagina endowed child. The vagina endowed shows a masculine inclination. In speech, mannerisms, choice of games, toys, and dress the very young child acts as if the genitalia should have been of the opposite sex. The confusion in mind, and the responses of the parents and others create guilt feelings in the child. To the devout it is not possible that God made an error---we are all God's children. So the problem must be the result of sinful choice made by the child (or visited on the parents)--original sin updated. The child must change the evil ways, or hide the shame. And so the punishment begins, and the suffering.
In many animal species hermaphrodism is normal and so are role reversals. Offspring are raised by males and females do the foraging for food. Sexual orientation is
then a variable scale from all male/all female, to blends of both. Is that not
possible in humans, the peak of the pyramid of living creatures?
If we accept that proposition then we can accept that gays and lesbians are different, not by choice, but by nature and deserve to be treated with the respect due all God's creatures. They in turn must respect the sensitivities of others and
not seek exemption from moral and accepted standards of behavior.
Don't ask don't tell is demeaning to God's creation if you believe. It is demeaning to the right of each citizen to equal protection under the law, if you do not believe. Other nations have encountered no problems with gays in their military.
Why is our Puritan ethic so traumatized at the thought?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Economics 101. Which way is up?
The U.S. economy is between a rock and a hard place. U. S corporations have drastically slashed labor costs in domestic facilities and shipped many jobs overseas to lower wage venues. As a result they have accumulated large hoards of cash
which will increase as the economy gradually improves. If concerns about regulatory and fiscal policies keep them from investing in growth and new employees they will be
inhibiting growth in demand. That is self defeating and a recipe for losing market share to foreign competition.
A certain amount of regulation is necessary to eliminate deceptive practices and dangerous products as well as predatory anti-competitive strategies. The results would be a more stable business environment and greater confidence among consumers.
But regulation must be tempered in amount that will not make our industries non competitive with more permissive societies.
As for tax increases, low taxes which lead to deficit government spending impose the cruelest tax of all by devaluing the dollar. That increases the cost of raw materials, makes our imports more expensive and decreases the purchasing power
for average consumers. In theory it should increase our exports, but our largest trading partner and potential customer, China, manipulates its currency to keep out our products so our massive trade imbalance remains. And we are reluctant to pressure them because we need them to finance our debt.
Instead of hunkering down and hoarding cash business should aggressively invest
in new technology in production and new fields in the coming green revolution.
They could then return to our shores manufacturing operations which were sent offshore earlier. In time the relative wage advantages abroad would narrow anyway as
their economies and public expectations mature. Sitting tight and hoarding money puts us further behind foreign competition every day.
Will our economy turn up significantly in the near future? It is any one's guess.
Mine is "not likely" without a major effort to adjust to the new realities of a less powerful and less affluent nation. We concentrated on being bigger and more powerful, but neglected to become better and smarter.
So, if banks can borrow from the Fed at near 0% and buy bonds yielding 5-8% they will stay out of the business of providing capital to new enterprises. And if the old enterprises find it more profitable to invest in paper rather than humans, economic recovery is a distant dream. Why not tackle the new challenges to work
smarter, to green the planet with new techniques. new products and new visions?
which will increase as the economy gradually improves. If concerns about regulatory and fiscal policies keep them from investing in growth and new employees they will be
inhibiting growth in demand. That is self defeating and a recipe for losing market share to foreign competition.
A certain amount of regulation is necessary to eliminate deceptive practices and dangerous products as well as predatory anti-competitive strategies. The results would be a more stable business environment and greater confidence among consumers.
But regulation must be tempered in amount that will not make our industries non competitive with more permissive societies.
As for tax increases, low taxes which lead to deficit government spending impose the cruelest tax of all by devaluing the dollar. That increases the cost of raw materials, makes our imports more expensive and decreases the purchasing power
for average consumers. In theory it should increase our exports, but our largest trading partner and potential customer, China, manipulates its currency to keep out our products so our massive trade imbalance remains. And we are reluctant to pressure them because we need them to finance our debt.
Instead of hunkering down and hoarding cash business should aggressively invest
in new technology in production and new fields in the coming green revolution.
They could then return to our shores manufacturing operations which were sent offshore earlier. In time the relative wage advantages abroad would narrow anyway as
their economies and public expectations mature. Sitting tight and hoarding money puts us further behind foreign competition every day.
Will our economy turn up significantly in the near future? It is any one's guess.
Mine is "not likely" without a major effort to adjust to the new realities of a less powerful and less affluent nation. We concentrated on being bigger and more powerful, but neglected to become better and smarter.
So, if banks can borrow from the Fed at near 0% and buy bonds yielding 5-8% they will stay out of the business of providing capital to new enterprises. And if the old enterprises find it more profitable to invest in paper rather than humans, economic recovery is a distant dream. Why not tackle the new challenges to work
smarter, to green the planet with new techniques. new products and new visions?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
IRAN; Intransigent Republicans Acting Normally
The congressional conflict over the mandated end of the Bush tax cuts has brought out
the usual "just say no" response from the Republicans. We are in the midst of the
worst recession in the memory of most Americans. Governments at all levels, city,
county, state and federal are facing huge shortfalls in revenues. These could lead
to drastic cuts in vital public services--police, firemen, teachers, sanitation,
maintenance of public facilities, etc. The revenue deficits reflect the collapse of
real estate values, the slowdown of economic activity and the rise in unemployment.
The Bush tax cuts were supposed to lead to increased private investment in economic
activity, creating new jobs and generating government revenues. After ten years
the predicted results have not happened. The tax savings to the wealthy were hoarded. Those for the middle class were too little to have a substantial economic impact. Job growth was anemic during the decade. But they did create the illusion
of wealth by the unreal increase in real estate prices (not values). Federal
Government intervention is now the only life support system with any promise of keeping our many jurisdictions functioning. But that will require revenues if we
are to avoid more dangerous deficit spending. So the tax cuts should be allowed to expire, but not for the endangered middle class. They represent the best hope
for an eventual turn around in the economy. The wealthy, who acquired the greatest
share of the national treasure during the Bush era, should now pick up the greatest share of the tax burden, which in the U. S. is lower than most of the developed nations of the world.
The Republican are refusing this sensible compromise. They are insisting on an all or none extension of the tax cuts. If they get their wish, will they still complain
about the huge deficits? Or will they further devastate the middle class by draconian cuts in programs and services which keep the middle class temporarily afloat?
the usual "just say no" response from the Republicans. We are in the midst of the
worst recession in the memory of most Americans. Governments at all levels, city,
county, state and federal are facing huge shortfalls in revenues. These could lead
to drastic cuts in vital public services--police, firemen, teachers, sanitation,
maintenance of public facilities, etc. The revenue deficits reflect the collapse of
real estate values, the slowdown of economic activity and the rise in unemployment.
The Bush tax cuts were supposed to lead to increased private investment in economic
activity, creating new jobs and generating government revenues. After ten years
the predicted results have not happened. The tax savings to the wealthy were hoarded. Those for the middle class were too little to have a substantial economic impact. Job growth was anemic during the decade. But they did create the illusion
of wealth by the unreal increase in real estate prices (not values). Federal
Government intervention is now the only life support system with any promise of keeping our many jurisdictions functioning. But that will require revenues if we
are to avoid more dangerous deficit spending. So the tax cuts should be allowed to expire, but not for the endangered middle class. They represent the best hope
for an eventual turn around in the economy. The wealthy, who acquired the greatest
share of the national treasure during the Bush era, should now pick up the greatest share of the tax burden, which in the U. S. is lower than most of the developed nations of the world.
The Republican are refusing this sensible compromise. They are insisting on an all or none extension of the tax cuts. If they get their wish, will they still complain
about the huge deficits? Or will they further devastate the middle class by draconian cuts in programs and services which keep the middle class temporarily afloat?
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Coming: deja vue all over again
All the polling data indicate that in the upcoming mid-term elections the Republicans will win back many seats in the House, with an outside chance to take control. John Boehner, R.Ohio, minority leader is the likely Speaker if that should occur.
This morning on Face the Nation, Rep. Boehner stated with no uncertainty, that it is
the Republican Party intention to reinstate the tax and fiscal policies of the
Bush administration---low taxes, less regulation of business and drastic spending cuts. He included repeal of "Obama Care" the new Health Insurance Reform program and the Banking Reform act as first actions.
I am reminded of the old aphorism "insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result". We are in this deep recession as a direct result
of those policies prevailing and compounded by our participation in two off-budget wars, which still continue. None of our wars were financed by cutting taxes, particularly those which impact primarily on the most affluent. To act as if those wars don't exist is recklessly criminal behavior. Are those the hands
into which we should commit our nation's financial survival? Is a reprise of the
failed policies which devastated middle class Americans a responsible approach to
restoring their financial health, their jobs? Trickle down economics trickled down
misery on the middle class while further enriching the allready wealthy and making them insensitive to the plight of the less fortunate. How much is enough?
This morning on Face the Nation, Rep. Boehner stated with no uncertainty, that it is
the Republican Party intention to reinstate the tax and fiscal policies of the
Bush administration---low taxes, less regulation of business and drastic spending cuts. He included repeal of "Obama Care" the new Health Insurance Reform program and the Banking Reform act as first actions.
I am reminded of the old aphorism "insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result". We are in this deep recession as a direct result
of those policies prevailing and compounded by our participation in two off-budget wars, which still continue. None of our wars were financed by cutting taxes, particularly those which impact primarily on the most affluent. To act as if those wars don't exist is recklessly criminal behavior. Are those the hands
into which we should commit our nation's financial survival? Is a reprise of the
failed policies which devastated middle class Americans a responsible approach to
restoring their financial health, their jobs? Trickle down economics trickled down
misery on the middle class while further enriching the allready wealthy and making them insensitive to the plight of the less fortunate. How much is enough?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A little optimism, maestro.
From all sides, media, commentators, pols, come doom and gloom about the economy and America's future. This writer has been no exception. It doesn't require any perspicacity to see the signs and omens and make such predictions. But could they
be the cause as well as the register of some of that gloom?
Gloomy projections about the future change people's behavior. They become cautious,
reduce expenditures and increase savings. Their perspective becomes short term---
hunker down. Such sentiments are immediately translated into reduced demand, turning the gloom about the economy into a self fulfilling prophecy.
The remedy for recession is to stimulate demand. Private enterprises are constrained by stockholder interests from doing so. The government is left as the only source of such stimulus, but the very cautions that reduced demand act to inhibit such stimulus because of aversion to increasing deficit spending. As a result the recession is prolonged and more damaging.
Capitalism of which this nation is a disciple, is characterized by cyclical expansions and contractions. We can allow these to play themselves out in their
usual time span, or apply counter measures which have been shown by experience, to shorten that span and contain the damage to the security of the majority of our citizens. The task for our politicians is to lead public opinion to accept those measures in spite of their fears or ideology. When will they grow up to that task?
be the cause as well as the register of some of that gloom?
Gloomy projections about the future change people's behavior. They become cautious,
reduce expenditures and increase savings. Their perspective becomes short term---
hunker down. Such sentiments are immediately translated into reduced demand, turning the gloom about the economy into a self fulfilling prophecy.
The remedy for recession is to stimulate demand. Private enterprises are constrained by stockholder interests from doing so. The government is left as the only source of such stimulus, but the very cautions that reduced demand act to inhibit such stimulus because of aversion to increasing deficit spending. As a result the recession is prolonged and more damaging.
Capitalism of which this nation is a disciple, is characterized by cyclical expansions and contractions. We can allow these to play themselves out in their
usual time span, or apply counter measures which have been shown by experience, to shorten that span and contain the damage to the security of the majority of our citizens. The task for our politicians is to lead public opinion to accept those measures in spite of their fears or ideology. When will they grow up to that task?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
