Crazy or Just Plain Stupid?

The happenings in the U.S.A. are so depressing.

Case 1. A commercial pilot, someone sensitive to security issues at our airports, had next to no confidence in the TSA, so he puts some facts on YouTube. Well, you can't expect the TSA to tolerate that! Nope, they stripped him of his "right to carry" his government issued pistol and the documents he needs to do his job piloting planes.

This to a guy who deserves a medal.

Case 2. The federal government still doesn't realize that our borders, especially the one with Mexico, needs to be sealed. Options: a wall, electronic sensors, drones, a cleared zone between a fence and private, or park land, observation posts, motorized patrols These are just the ones that come to mind as I sit typing this item. (Don't overlook satellite monitoring of the border.)

*** I hope I don't have to explain that law enforcement has been virtually wiped out south of the border. I don't blame Mexicans for trying to get into the U.S. If I were Mexican, I would too. But how many immigrants can we absorb? Not only that, but if I were al Qaida and I wanted to get into the U.S. that border currently looks mighty inviting. ***

Case 3. International relations: Whether it's our relations with Russia, or with Islamic nations, or with African nations, or nations in many other parts of the world, Wikileaks is showing us just how silly this President has been time and time again.

Aasia Bibi: A Christian Martyr Under the Heel of Islam

Let me be clear, I'm Jewish. And, while I am most familiar with Jewish martyrs, I do recognize that the term "martyr" applies to a person of any faith who dies for that faith. Aasia Bibi is a Pakistani Catholic ordered to die for blasphemy towards Islam.

It seems that this poor mother worked in fields and brought water to farm workers; workers who were Muslims. They were needling her to drop her Christianity and become a Muslim. Finally, she replied that Christ had died for her sins and those of all humanity. What had Mohamed done?

And, words such as that, dear reader, define blasphemy under the official Pakistani criminal code. The Vatican (not an institution I'm overly fond of) attempted to intercede, but to no avail. I would further remind the reader that Pakistan is presumably an ally of the U.S., one on which we spend considerable amounts of taxpayer money.

I would further note, that this edict is supported not by some wacky, backwater mullah. It is the official edict of a nation with an atomic bomb.

If this lady is to suffer martyrdom, then at the very least we should be hearing the cries of anguish of the many moderate Muslims throughout the world decrying this barbaric interpretation of their noble faith. But, I hear nothing. There is only a vast silence. And, that silence tells us more about "moderate" Islam than the vast collection of books and pamphlets describing the lovely faith known as Islam.

Guiding Israel's Foreign Policy: Not Easy

As long as Israel could count on America's support in the Security Council of the U.N., it had little to fear. It's cause was just and its defenses relatively secure.

With Obama, this has all changed. Confidence in an American foreign policy that shows support for Israel's position strikes me as having been totally eroded by the Obama administration.

I read where Russia now seems to be warming up to Israel. Russia might well be interested in Israel's discovery of gas off its shores. Russia would like a role. Russia, I'm reading, is also interested in a role in Lebanon's potential gas fields off of Lebanon's shores.

In many respects, the Israel-Russia connection would appear to be logical on many fronts. The big problem is trust. Sure, Israel's culture is far more akin to that of Russia's than what can be seen in any of the Islamic lands. However, the democratic and humanitarian ties that used to bind Israel to America have been sorely frayed by Obama's lack of judgement regarding the Islamic nations that surround Israel.

Let's hope Israel can choose its path based on a careful evaluation of all relevant factors and not be forced into decisions by the ineptitude of the current occupant of the White House.

Wikileaks: The Saudi Spin

Today, I read the Saudi spin to Wikileaks in the NY Times' WEEK IN REVIEW. It came in a column penned by Chas Freeman, who had served as assistant secretary of defense from 1983 to 1994 and U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during he Persian Gulf war. The Freeman piece was titled "Why Iran Loves WikiLeaks."

I too fell in love. In my case, it was with the column by Freeman. First, it again shows how Saudi Arabia chooses to present its views; namely, through its special friends in the U.S. Let's not forget that after serving in the U.S. Senate, the late Sen. Wm Fulbright became a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government. Today, people find it easier to circumvent registration requirements despite essentially acting as lobbyists. Whether people are registered or not, speaking for the Saudis is rarely without handsome remuneration. The only downside is that you've got to be the kind of American who can hold his nose as he, or she, observes decapitating people who run afoul of Wahhabi stricture, observes the religiously condoned abuse of women, Saudi treatment of gays, and the hypocrisy endemic in Saudi society.

Saudi hypocrisy is not confined to its domestic culture, but extends to its diplomacy. Amb. Freeman so much as says this when he writes, "The Middle East (read 'Saudi Arabia') is a place where yes means maybe, maybe means no, no is never heard (except in Israel), and a plea for foreign solutions to regional problems is a cop-out, not a serious request for action, It is where hypocrisy first gained a bad name. WikiLeaks has hurt America without changing that."

Freeman is certainly worth whatever it is that the Saudis may be paying him, but when the Saudis refer to the Iranians as a snake and suggest that the snake be "decapitated" (an interesting choice of words in light the Saudi's preferred means of capital punishment) it becomes exceedingly difficult to put this off as a mere cop-out.

Now Under Attack: The Christmas Tree

I've been exposed to Christmas trees my whole life. It's a meaningful symbol to Christians, even though the tree's origins are most likely pagan.

It's never been a problem for Jews. Orthodox Jews simply disregard it. Conservative Jews accept it for what it is; namely, something that brings joy to many of their Christian neighbors. A Menorah isn't quite as colorful, or as glittery, as a decorated tree, but for most Jews it works. They will sometimes joke over Reform Jews who have been known to put up a tree in their homes and refer to such a tree as a "Hanuka bush".

In other words, Jew's attitude towards Christmas and the Christmas tree is largely, "Live and let live. " If it brings Christians joy and doesn't hurt anyone, what's the big deal?

But suddenly, we read about banks and schools being persuaded not to put up trees. Why suddenly do we experience this pressure not to put up a tree? Clearly, it's not a message from Christians. And, it's just as surely not a message from Jews. So what's happening? Are the atheists being offended? Maybe, but I doubt it. I suspect a new religious group is flexing their muscles. And who would that be? Any thoughts?

Wikileaks: A Silver Lining

Spilling America's confidential cables is a crime. The perpetrators should be punished severely and steps need be taken so that there will be no repeat of tons of confidential data being routed to Wikileaks or other parties who do not share America's interests or values.

Having said that, let me now say that these leaked documents have given the world a window to what's real. It has blown away a great deal of nonsense spouted by the likes of President Obama. In particular, it has put the lie to Obama's comments that the lack of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has complicated his efforts to deal with Iran.

Thanks to Wikileaks the American public now knows that Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Jordan pray to Allah that someone will take out the Iranians. They don't care who it might be; the USA, Israel, ..... whoever. But, of course, the USA or Israel, working jointly, or separately, are probably the only ones who could pull it off. The likes and dislikes of the Palestinians are the very last thing they dwell on. That, at any rate is what we find in the honest reporting of American diplomates throughout the middle east.

It's actually not very different than when Israel took out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor. The Arabs all booed Israel in public, but behind closed doors they were all dancing and popping champagne corks.

So why has Obama been playing the role of Hamlet, when a course of action lay so clearly before him? Who knows? I assume it's because being a community organizer was really very poor preparation for running things from the oval office.

Israel's Struggles -- Of Mythic Proportions

Just returned from a trip to Israel last week (Oct. 28 to be precise) and brought back with me a great number of new awarenesses. Perhaps chief among these is an awareness of how truly perverse is the opposition of the world -- funded by Islamic oil -- to the existence of the State of Israel.

The problem Israel faces is that its narrative contradicts the Islamic narrative. And, if those lines of debate were clearly and honestly drawn, Israel would be in good shape. Unfortunately, the current battle lines follow neither historical fact, nor archaeological evidence, nor even the logical self interest of the Christian community.

The historical time line of Israel, or Palestine, if you prefer was sketched out nicely by the curators of the Tower of David Museum (a must see). It goes as follows:

-3,300 to -1,006 C.E. The Canaanite Period (2,294 years, give or take a few)

-1,006 to -586 C.E. The Israelite Period, or First Temple Period (420 years)

Then block out 48 years for the Babylonian Exile

-538 to -332 CE. The Persian Period (206 years)

With -515 CE marking the Return to Zion and the beginning of

The Second Temple Period.

-332 to -63 CE. The Hellenistic Period (269 years)

-63 CE to 324 AD The Roman Period (387 years) The Second Temple period

ends with its destruction in 70 AD. It lasted over 400 years.

324 AD to 638 AD The Byzantine Period (314 years) The period covering

the period when Rome practiced Christianity.

638 AD to 1099 AD The Early Muslim Period (461 years)

1099 AD to 1260 AD The Crusader Period (161 years)

1260 AD to 1517 AD The Mameluke Period (257 years)

1517 AD to 1917 The Ottoman Period (400 years)

1917 to 1948 The British Mandate (31 years)

1948 til now (2010) The State of Israel (62 years and counting)

Everyone knows of the governance of this area under the Israelites, the Greeks, the Romans, the Christian Romans, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Muslims (again), the British and the Israelis. But what of cultural contributions made by these various people unique to this area? For the Muslims there is little beyond the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a monument that commemorates Islamic triumphalism.

Islam begins with Muhammad, born in 570 AD. That's 246 years into the Byzantine period, or roughly 570 years after the birth of Christ. Be that as it may, the Muslims proved themselves to be great warriors. They had learned to use the deserts as effectively as the Vikings used the seas. This ability enabled them to spread Islam west and north, gaining control over lands from the Balkans, and down and around the Mediterranean, to Morocco and then up through Spain.

As their governance over conquered lands matured, they made significant cultural contributions in cities stretching from Toledo to Cairo to Baghdad and beyond. But, somehow, The territory, renamed "Philistina" by the Romans, was overlooked when it came to culture. No great Islamic schools or libraries can be found in this place.

By way of contrast, Israelite archaeological markers in terms of coins, tableware, and architecture are to found in relative abundance. What markers or signs are there of Islamic culture? Well there are mosques and, then, there are mosques. Perhaps the grandest is the Al Aqsa Mosque built by Suleiman the Magnificent. But, with all due respect, that's simply a monument to a mythic Islamic tale of Muhammad flying from Mecca to the Temple Mount on a magical horse having the head of a woman. (Dr. Freud, how would you interpret that one?) From there, he arises on his horse and flies off to heaven where he meets Abraham and goodness knows how many other great people. Remarkable.

I don't mean to single out Muhammad's great leap into the heavens for ridicule. The Torah and the New Testament present some equally improbable narratives. But, the Islamic narrative must, of necessity, follow behind that of the Jews and that of the Christians by more generations than can realistically be traced. And, even if we were to accept all myths equally, where is the archaeological evidence for self rule by "Palestinians" in this area?

That the area was not considered a viable location for any sort of civic center by the Ottomans comes as little surprise. The mosquitoes that infested the marshes made sickness among those who lived there almost inevitable. The desolation that had descended on this land is described fairly vividly in the notes of Mark Twain of his travels through the Holy Lands. It was the Jews from Europe, who later turned Israel into something green and productive.

But, where is the support that should be coming from non-Jewish archaeologists. And, how did Israeli leaders ever give the Wafq the right to dig under the Temple Mount mosque. By Islamic standards of behavior, the Islamic structures on the Temple Mound should have been torn down. But that is not the way of Israel. But, by what right are Muslims allowed to dig under their mosque and disturb soil that contains evidence of ancient Jewish culture?

And, today, 10/29/10, in a piece by the Ass. Press and DPA, I read where a UNESCO board adopted five proposals regarding sites considered holy to both Jews and Muslims. In essence what is proposed is that these sites may not be disturbed by Israel for purposes of uncovering their archaeological history. These sites include Abraham's tomb, the Western Wall, and Rachel's Tomb. When one compares how these sites are administered today by Israel with how they were administered by Muslims when under Jordanian rule one is overwhelmed by the outrageous hypocrisy of the UN.

Between a Silly Tea Party Candidate and a Really Clever Liberal Democrat, I Choose the Tea Party Candidate Every Time

I read where Jews tend to be "rational policy-oriented voters." This per Colby College political scientist, L. Sandy Maisel. He goes on to say that "the Tea Party candidates generally do not fit into that category. It's very clear Jews don't go for anti-intellectual politics, which is what we're seeing in a lot of states."

Well, Mr. Maisel, I'm Jewish and I, as one Jew, will be giving my votes to Tea Party types. Here's why.

The contending political parties in the U.S. have lots of issues to sort out. There's women's rights, there's the gun issue, there are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's the balance of trade with China, there's our porous southwestern border. And, that's only a partial list. But, the biggest problem we're facing is one of national monetary liquidity. In brief, America has been spending a lot more than it takes in. We've gotten away with it for so very long because we're a key player in the global economy. But, we've taken this game about as far as it will go. The debt is killing our growth and it's killing off American jobs.

The Tea Party movement came into being largely because both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of keeping our economy on an even keel. The politicians in both parties, who have brought us to this sorry state, include lots and lots of intellectuals. These intellectuals have never say been able to say "no" to spending.

Tea Party types might well be carrying around some misguided notions, but almost all see that our first priority must be cutting spending. Pork for the folks back home and "good causes" can no longer be accepted as reasons for spending more than we make. When accountants, working for the government in highly secure jobs, earn more than accountants in private industry and, when government accountants get better retirement and medical plans than accountants in private industry, something has gone terribly wrong.

I don't begrudge the government worker a good life. But, there has always been, in the past, a trade off. Jobs that were risky always paid more than equivalent jobs that carried virtually no risk. When that balance changes, it means that the government has grown far too large. Tea Party people get it. The intellectuals don't.

My favorite intellectuals are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. I am quite serious when I say that Representative Barney Frank is truly one smart dude. Not only that, he's got a big heart for the least among us. Nevertheless, by forcing banks to give Ninja mortgages (mortgages to people with no income, no jobs, and no assets), he undermined the entire housing market. Keep in mind that he and Sen. Dodd wield enormous power over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention American banking in general. When these two legislators say "jump, " banks jump.

Of course simple economics, would have ended these idiotic mortgages quite early except for our genius American bankers. They kept the mortgage game going far too long by introducing the concept of bundling the mortgages, creating derivatives, and using other techniques to obfuscate the game. The natural laws of economics would have caused these mortgages to go into default quite early thereby inflicting relatively minor damage to our banking system. Instead, major banks stitched together a system that allowed the mortgage bubble to expand into something so humongous that it very nearly brought down the entire global banking system

Were the bankers evil? I don't think so. They did what bankers do; namely, find opportunities to make money. When they saw the government promoting these crazy mortgages, who were they to blow the whistle on people (intellectuals) like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, politicians famous for being truly vicious, political infighters? No, far better to go along and play the game set up by these intellectuals. The bankers did not fail to see the new opportunities now available to them, opportunities to collect lots and lots of fees. Note: Bundling this crap allowed them to sell its derivatives to foreign banks; banks that should have known a lot better than to buy this kind of pig in a poke. In the process, American banks reaped handsome commissions.

And, what of the great thinkers at the Fed? They had themselves a great snooze.

It might be argued that Tea Party people aren't sufficiently educated to understand all this mortgage stuff. They don't have to. That was then. This is now. And, now they are the only ones in sight who understand that you can't spend more than you earn. Hopefully, some day intellectuals, Jewish and otherwise, will come to understand the same thing.

The Sophamoric Ms. Mona Eltahawy

I confess to reading "The Jerusalem Report" -- not to be confused with the "Jerusalem Post," which I also read. Although it's a bit too far left for my enjoyment, this news magazine helps me in my efforts to understand arguments of people with whom I generally disagree.

It is for much the same reason that I, on occasion, read in the Jerusalem Report the column given over to Ms. Eltahawy. It's titled, "Mona's Musings." Because I know virtually no Muslims, it occurred to me that, if I read Mona's Musings, I'll get a better understanding of the views of a moderate Muslim. It's proven most disappointing. Here's why:

1. Mona's Musings, April 27, 2009, "Caught between Liberators and Saviors"

(Okay, it takes me a while to catch up with my reading material. But, let me proceed.) In her musings, Mona tries to explain her concerns as to how she might best cover her hair. Should she wear a hajab (one type of head covering), or a niqab (a covering that leaves only slits for vision), or nothing at all? She worries about her will think. Will their attitude towards her be one of a self-appointed liberator (of Muslim women) or self-appointed savior (of Muslim women).

Her musings remind me of my worries over what the girls would think of me in my college years when I would go to dances. I was concerned with how I might best hold my hands. (I resolved this weighty matter by taking up smoking. Thank goodness I've long since stopped.)

As I matured, I realized that what I did with my hands was of little concern to anyone. I began to realize that the the young ladies were as concerned with the impression they made on others as any concerns I might have had with my hands.

Mona, take it from me, no one cares what you put on your head. True, if you wear a hajab, most people will realize that you're a Muslim given to showing your faith. And, if that's what you want to do, that's fine. If you wear nothing on your hair, it will have those about you paying less attention to your faith and seeing you more as a unique individual.

The niqab is a totally different matter. Covering the face suggests you don't want to be seen. To me that's a no-no. If a cop stops a weaving motorist, he needs to see a face. When you go into a bank, the cameras have got to see who's coming in the doors. Think of men walking about New York in Lone Ranger masks or in ski masks. In short, the niqab is a hazard to public safely. It should be outlawed. (A possible exception might be Halloween costumes.)

2. Mona's Musings, September 13, 2010, "A Mosque, America and Me"

Mona begins these musings by giving an account of a drunken individual, named Patrick Cunningham, who sets a fire in a mosque parking lot and then attempts to shoot worshipers who come out to see what's going on. I gather from this account that the neighbors, both Muslims and non-Musllims were horrified. I understand that the mindless Mr. Cunningham received a suitable punishment within the context of the American judicial system.

She then goes on to say that she became a feminist in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Really, that's like a Catholic saying they became a Protestant upon visiting Rome. Over half of all the mosques in North America have been funded by the Saudi government. And, of course, with Saudi funding comes imams schooled in Salafist madrasses.

She then goes on to say that "in Jerusalem, where (she) lived in 1988 and where (her) ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighbors reminded (her) of the ultra-conserative Muslims in Saudi Arabia."

Really? How many Israelis (Orthodox or otherwise) had their hands cut off for theft? How many raped women were stoned to death for having allowed themselves to be subjected to this crime? And, if ultra-Orthodox women didn't drive cars, it was because their families didn't own one. How does this jibe with the situation of women in Saudi Arabia? I could offer a very long list of comparisons between the two cultures. But is this necessary? Didn't she say she had experienced both cultures first-hand?

She then says that "it is only in Cairo, my original hometown, and New York City, where I feel no self-consciousness -- not about who I am, what I believe, or what I look like that I am perfectly at home."

I am so happy for Ms. Eltahawy for being able to feel so comfortable in both NYC and Cairo. I hope she'll excuse me for not being able to say the same thing. Only on a tourist bus would I feel safe in Cairo. As someone renting an apartment in Cairo to pursue my studies -- as someone wearing a kipot and a Mogen Dovid on a chain -- I suspect I'd experience moments of anxiety. What if they thought I was an Israeli? (I gather Ms. Eltahawy's Egyptian origins created no problems for her in Israel.)

Finally, she gets to the subject of the proposed mosque near ground zero, "for bridging understandings to other faiths." In that paragraph, she lists her enemies -- the bigots. Her list includes Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Andrew Breitbart, and the Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders. I really know very little about Mr. Wilders, but, as to the others, I have always found them to be intelligent individuals known to speak truth.

Despite her extensive travels, the one subject on which Ms. Eltahawy seems abysmally ignorant is free speech and its importance to a free society. No doubt she would add to her list of enemies (bigots) such people as the murdered film producer Van Gogh, the writer, Salmon Rushdi, and the Sudanese woman and former, Dutch parliamentarian, Ms. Ali, author of "Infidel."

If the Jerusalem Report wishes to run Ms. Eltahawy's column that's their business. But, I find her to be far from moderate.

It's a weird, weird world: Teachers Under Attack

Is the U.S. educational system in trouble (at the secondary school level)? Yes, and everyone knows it.

Why can't we do a better job? Well, let's see what is required to do a good job of getting educated students. There's the number of dollars allocated per pupil. There's the quality of the teachers. There's the quality of the supervision. There's the quality of the students (rarely mentioned). And, there's the quality of the parents.

Let's examine these various factors:

Money ... Our high schools get more money per student than almost any other system in any country you might care to compare us with.

Teachers ... They fall on a normal distribution curve as do most of us. There are some great teachers, some real losers, and a great many in between.

Supervision ... Same situation as with the teachers. However, supervisors do seem to be getting a bit worse. They are being denied the experience needed to develop a great supervisor. Mayor Bloomberg is pushing bright kids through "Leadership Academies" and then, though they have not had a day in a classroom, he makes them principals.

Parents ... Parents are parents. They're like your neighbors. Some are brilliant. Some are stupid. But, they do have a right to express themselves. That's democracy. However, when there's no parent, or a parent habituated to drugs or alcohol, the rating for "parent" goes below zero.

Student ... Here is where most of the educational burden rests. Students can actually do well even with subpar teachers. Ditto subpar supervisors. But, subpar parents are a pretty good prescription for failure.

But, who gets virtually all the blame? The teachers and their unions. I don't mean to imply that the unions have contributed much to the educations system. But, there are so many other things wrong with the system that concentrating on the unions is a bit besides the point.

The late Sen. Moynihan pointed to the problems with educating our youth years and years ago. But, no one pursued the avenues he pointed out so clearly. We're never going to raise educational indices, if we fail to focus on students born into unfortunate circumstances.

But, of course, that seems to be too politically incorrect. And, so it is that politicians not only on the right, but also -- under the leadership of Obama -- on the left have begun dumping on the teachers. What irony. There is no more steadfast defender of liberal principals than the teacher. I would venture to guess that 95% are Democrats. And, yet, here they are being skewered by their own people. It reminds me a bit of the novel, "Darkness at Noon," where the hero, after being sentence by a communist kangaroo court, goes to his death in reasonably good spirits. He sees that communism is not yet perfect. He knows he's innocent. m But, it doesn't matter. He is confident that the communism he so loves is evolving and that it soon it will be perfect.

Is our economy improving -- yes and no

Okay, here's the figure that came out last week: Unemployment: 9.6%.

That's high, and that's bad. And, it doesn't seem to be getting better any time soon.

However, the private sector has been going up steadily. It's the the public sector that's been shedding jobs. And, that's good. Very good indeed.

That private sector jobs have been growing is very good. That's the sector that pays the bills. Too bad it can't grow a bit more quickly.

But, it's also good that the public sector has been shedding jobs. Politicians seeking to protect their tenure in office have been adding to these jobs for far to long. Putting up more firehouses and adding more firemen, putting in more policemen, adding to the sanitation department means more secure votes for the politician who can put in these extra jobs. It's not just that these public sector workers fully appreciate who made it possible to get them to get their pay increases or who made possible those lush retirement deals. It's that they know that keeping these deals in place means getting these same scoundrels elected and reelected time after time by whatever means possible. It's these public sector workers who go around getting the petitions signed and who then do all possible to drum up the votes for their buddies.

It's much the same for most unions. It's not just that they contribute membership funds to their buddies. It's that they supply lots and lots of campaign workers.

And, so, while I don't like to see anyone sent to the unemployment lines, if someone is going to lose their job I'd rather it be a public sector worker rather then one in the private sector. Public sector workers do all they can to preserve their goodies. It's time that the citizenry pursue their interests with equal vigor.

Dr. Laura SchlessingerTouches the Third Rail

I had heard that Dr. Laura had used the N word and was being excoriated for it. Next, I heard she was leaving CNN as one of its talking heads. There was something strange here. No one is brilliant all the time; but, Dr. Laura, a racist?

I then had the opportunity of seeing and hearing on a CNN clip the radio interview for which Dr. Laura was being denounced. I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.

Dr. Laura did indeed show a lack of sensitivity to the caller, an African American woman married to a white man. In my opinion, the black lady had a valid gripe. She complained that her husband's friends, whenever they stopped by the house, would ask her questions, such as, "What do black people think about such and such?" And, in my opinion, the woman's complaint over such dimwitted questions was a valid one.

But, Dr. Laura never picked up on that. Instead, she went off on a tangent and suggested that perhaps the woman was being too sensitive. She pointed out that black people often called one another, "N ... N ... N." So what was the big deal if white people used the N word.

Was Dr. Laura wrong? Was she stupid? Of course, but not in the manner in which she had used the N word. She was wrong in not understanding the undercurrent of racism that the caller was trying to describe. She was entirely obtuse in grasping the caller's dilemma.

Dr. Laura tried to make a point -- a misguided one -- by referring to how the N word was used by blacks and that, therefore, if a white used it, it was okay. She was wrong. But the manner in which she used the N word should never have been the issue.

Dr. Laura deserved to have been castigated for her insensitivity to the woman who called in for advice. But should she have been driven out of CNN for this? Maybe. I'm not sure. Over time, most every talking head makes of fool of themselves. But, her crime was not in how she used the N word.

The way in which the networks attacked Dr. Laura is, for me, very troubling. They pull her use of the N word out of context and then punish her for it. That doesn't mean she is innocent. But, it's not for how she used the N word of which she is guilty. It's for being insensitive to a person with real problems. That happens to be quite important since that's what she's there for; to help people. If they want to punish her for that, I have no objection. But, to use the N word, in the manner in which she used it, to justify giving her a scarlet letter demeans her critics.

It reminds me of how we warn writers not to use the word "niggardly" because, while it means nothing more than being cheap, it offends people who are illiterate.

Nasr Abu Zayd: Was he a Muslim?

This question was prompted by Nasr Abu Zayd's obituary which appeared in the New York Times, Tues, July 6, 2010. MENA, the offical Egyptian news agency, said he died in a Cairo hospital where he was being treated for an unidentified illness. He was 66.

The obituary said that Dr. Zayd believed that Islam "should be understood in terms of its historical, geographic and cultural background." He added "that 'pure Islam' did not exist." The Koran he said, "was a collection of discourses."

Western academics in reviewing his book, "Voice of an Exile: Reflctions on Islam" (2004) praised it for its scholarship. Reuters quoted Dr. Zayd, as saying in 2008 that "religion has been used, politicized, not only by groups, but also (by) official institutions in every Arab country." "The distinction between 'the domain of religion and secular space,' he said, 'had been eroded.'"

"(Dr. Zayd) argued that the Koran was both a literary and religious text, a view that clashes with the Islamic idea that the holy book is the final revelation of God.'"

As per the NY Times account, an Egyptian Shariah court in 1995, declared Dr. Abu Zayd an apostate from Islam. The court annulled his marriage, effectively forcing him and his wife into exile. Death threats, notably from the Islamic Jihad group led by Ayman al-Zawahri, who has since become deputy leader of Al Qaeda, caused Dr. Zayd and his wife to leave for the Netherlands .

In recent years, Dr. Abu Zayd quietly returned to Egypt, first for lectures and later for health reasons.

So, to repeat my question, was Dr. Abu Zayd a Muslim?

It is interesting that no such question arises regarding Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah, the top Shiite cleric in Lebanon, whose obituary appeared in the NY Times on Monday, July 5, 2010. His writings and preachings inspired the Dawa Party of Iraq and a generation of militants, including the founders of Hezbollah. He was "one of the most learned and influential Shiite 'spriitual references.'" As per the NY Times, "he famously justified suicide bombings and other tactics of asymmetrical warfare by arguing that if Israel and its allies used advanced weaponry, Islam permitted the use of any weapons in retaliation."

No question here, Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was indeed a Moslem. And, if Fadlallah was a Muslim, its hard to see how Dr. Abu Zayd could have been one too.

What is this thing called Islam?

It's been noted by any number of political observers that for the Obama administration not to be candid and forthright as to whom it is that we're fighting makes little sense. People repeatedly point out that those who sent passenger planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims, that the serviceman who murdered his fellow servicemen was a Muslim, that the shoe bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, and the underwear bomber were all Muslims. It should also be kept in mind that the Jihadists have murdered people throughout Europe.

The left seems unable to acknowledge this simple fact. Those who bemoan the administration's failure to properly identify who it is we're fighting argue that you can't really wage a genuine effort against an enemy if you don't identify him. And, there is a great deal of merit to this argument.

However, there is an equal, and perhaps even more important, argument against not naming the enemy and that's the harm it does to the millions of genuinely good Muslims throughout the world. Muslims who suffer the same injury and death from our true enemy, the Salafist Muslims, also known as Jihadi fanatics. (It is these extremists who constitute the Wahhabi sect that holds sway in Saudi Arabia. )

Just as Christianity has had leaders who took their religion in different directions, e.g. Eastern Rite Catholics, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, etc., so too have Muslims gone in a variety of different directions. We have, for example, Sufi Muslims, and Amadiyya Muslims. Then, too, spun off from the Shiites are the Baha'i. Here in America, we have Reform Muslims who have given a more humane interpretation to the Quran and who reject the Hadith and the Sunnah. This has led them to reject Sharia.

So why are we not generally more aware of these groups. Why have they gotten so little recognition? It's because the more extreme Salafist interpretation of Islam has gained ascendancy through violence and intimidation. The Amadiyya have been brutalized in Malaysia and Pakistan. The Sufi recently suffered a horrendous suicide bombing in their mosque in Pakistan. Only here in America and in other democracies have these other, less violent, forms of Islam prospered.

So why don't we make an effort to distinguish between these various from of Islam?

In a word, the answer is "oil;" more specifically, Saudi oil. Saudi billions have been spent fostering the more malignant forms of Islam throughout the world. Here in the U.S., the NAIT (North American Islamic Trust) is reported to control over 50% off all mosques. It is a control that has been gained through Saudi money. In these mosques are installed imams propagating a truly nasty form of Islam, one that would have us all living under the strictures of Sharia.

Our peculiarly narrow attitude towards Islam is not entirely the fault of the Obama administration. It was also the general policy of the earlier Bush administration. But, Obama is the one who's now president. Also, he seems to be working far harder than Bush to confuse America's understanding of things Islamic.

Nancy Morejon, who?

Nancy Morejon is one of Cuba's best known contemporary writers. But, I must confess, I never heard of her until I came upon DeWayne Wickham's item in USA TODAY, June 15, 2010.

Be that as it may, late in 2009, the Princeton professor, Cornel West, and 59 other African-Americans sent an open letter to Cuban President, Raul Castro, accusing his government of mistreating civil rights activists and showing a "callous disregard" for its black population.
Ms. Morejon, also black, mildly rebuked the writers of this letter, saying that they were taking sides on something of which they had no actual knowledge.

The Cuban regime has long made public pronouncements against racial discrimination, but evidence of the disadvantages faced by its own black population is easily found. An example, cited by Mr. Wickham, is that the best jobs in Cuba's growing tourism industry are overwhelmingly held by whites. These jobs include hotel doormen, chambermaids, tour guides, translators and restaurant waiters.

If such jobs don't strike you as something marvelous, something to aspire to, let me explain: people in these service jobs are in a position to receive tips from the foreign traveler. These tips can earn the worker in one day what a doctor or a governmental bureaucrat is paid for an entire month's labor. It's not the salary provided by these jobs that counts, it's the tips.

I should add that the people who run the tourism enterprises must contract with the government. That means that what each employee is paid is determined by the government and it is paid to the government. It's the government that pays the worker. Tips, however, circumvent governmental controls. That's how it works in a communist state.

Anyway, despite the control that Cuba exercises over its workers, blacks are largely left out.

There are two points in Mr. Wickham's piece that I found jarring. One is the anti-American slant Mr. Wickham introduces in some of the things he writes. For example, he writes, "Cuba's struggle for racial equality dates back more than a century. It is rooted in the changes wrought by the U.S. occupation of Cuba (1898-1902) and the brutal annihilation in 1912 of the leaders of a black movement for racial justice. It predates the Castro regime but has survived (Castro's regime's) condemnation."

Sorry, Mr. Wickham but your characterizations of how Cuban history evolved is nonsense.
That the U.S. interfered in Cuban affairs is undisputed. But, back then, Cuban affairs were Spanish affairs. As various groups struggled to gain an upper hand with Spain, the U.S. undeniably inserted itself. That's what countries did then. It's what they continue to do to this very day. It had nothing to do with Cuba's blacks. (Is it really necessary for me to point out that the U.S.'s role in the enslavement of blacks in Spanish Cuba was limited to U.S. citizens providing transport for the black people sold into slavery by competing black clans and Muslim traders. And, in this despicable trade the American merchants had strong competition from citizens of other western nations.)

And, indeed, blacks did revolt in the early 1900's with the aim of setting up a black nation somewhere in Cuba. And, this revolt was indeed ended in a most brutal fashion. But, this was an event in which the U.S. had absolutely no role whatsoever.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that I turned to population statistics for Cuba and found something quite remarkable. Whites were listed as amounting to something like 65% and blacks amounting to something like 11%. But, there was another category; namely, mulattoes. For this category, the number was something like 20%. Really? Mulattoes? I looked that word up and found that technically it referred to persons who had one black parent and one white parent. In common usage, it can also refer to someone with some percentage of "black blood" other than 50%.

Isn't that interesting. As an American, I had to gaffaw. Our President Obama isn't really black. He's a mulatto. (Admit it. This stuff gets to be pretty funny.) In my opinion, any country that breaks down its black population into "black," "mulatto," "octroon," or whatever else is clearly racist. But, I guess the Cuban government doesn't see it that way.

Wake Up Israel! Theatrics Do Count

This Gaza flotilla brought it all home. Once again, Israel does it all right. But, once again, Israel gets dumped on. When will Israel learn to play the game.

The story line from the U.S. news cable shows seems to be as follows:
1. By its behavior, Israel has offended its closest Muslem ally.
2. Israel's behavior in commandeering the flotilla in international waters was illegal.
3. Even if this flotilla didn't get through, something must be done to help the suffering Gazans get food and medicine.

And, this we get from shows not outwardly hostile to Israel.

There is no need for me to answer the above points. But what I do want to do is show that there was no need to ever have been confronted with them in the first place. Allow me to illustrate.

The relationship with Turkey, while not necessarily the most important item above, is the one I'll take up first. Note the following:

Turkey did not just suddenly turn away from Israel. The process began some time ago when Turkey decided it would not participate in military exercises with its fellow NATO countries if Israel were included in the exercises. Indeed, this was but one of a great many signals showing clearly that the Turkish PM and his party had made a decisive turn towards Iran and away from the West.

This turnabout by Turkey must have been abundently clear to Israel. And, so, when Turkey allowed the Gaza flotilla to set sail on its mission to Gaza from a Turkish port, it was a clear and blatant act of hostility and aggression. (Every country decides who uses its ports. Other countries would never have allowed this flotilla to use their ports.) And, so, when the flotilla left Turkey, Israel should have immediately recalled its ambassador from Turkey. It should have done so openly and with considerable fanfare. Instead, it left it to Turkey to diplomatically disrespect Israel.

The take-over in international waters: This is a legal issue, one on which Israel stands on solid ground. No need for me to comment.

Regarding getting aid and supplies to the Gazans: Israel does this on a regular basis. But, this is not something that seems known or appreciated in the West. What Israel should have been doing right along and what they should do now is as follows: They should paint simple, but very large labels, on the trucks that are being sent into Gaza on a regular basis. The labels should describe the contents e.g. food and/or medicine or whatever. It should send photos of these trucks entering Gaza and distribute them to western publications.

But, the plan needs a Part 2, because the pictures just described will no doubt be found wanting of news value by much of the media. Part 2 would have Israel getting Israeli demonstrators screaming at the trucks and carrying signs opposing the transfer of these goods into Gaza. But, of course, Israel, with the help of the IDF would make sure that the goods did, in fact, get into Gaza.

(The demonstrators could be citizens of Sderot demonstrating against shipments going into Gaza while Gazans persist in shooting their rockets into Israel, with Sderot being a prime target. They could carry placards with the names and pictures of those who had been killed or maimed by Gazan rockets.)

Israel should also do a better job of showing photos of fancy restaurants in Gaza. They should show fancy cars being driven by the wealthy in Gaza. These would be cars that were disassembled in the Sinai, carried through the tunnels, as parts, from Egypt into Gaza and then reassembled in Gaza. You could also show a rocket that made the same trip from Egypt.

The point I'm trying to make is that Israel has got to show, and not merely tell.

If I can think up the above ways of trying to do some PR for Israel, surely Israel, with all its brain power, can do far better.

The Metaphorical Coin of Gen. James L. Jones

Before mentioning his coin, I suppose I should first briefly explain who this Gen. James L. Jones is. He's our current National Security Advisor. (I checked with those about me, people who I consider fairly well read, and discovered that most of them didn't recognize this man's name or position.) It's the same position occupied by Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration and Brent Scowcroft, who, if memory serves me had the job during the elder Bush's administration.

Everyone knows about Brzezinski and Scowcroft. They've written books that make clear that they have little use for Israel. It now seems that Gen. Jones is following in the same tradition. Perhaps, after he's written some books, he'll become a little better known. Oh, one more thing; Gen. Jones is a highly regarded and highly decorated military man with a distringuished record of service. But, then again, so was George C. Marshall, who also didn't care much for the idea of a Jewish state.

Recent press reports had Gen. Jones expounding that Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict were two sides of the same (metaphorical) coin. His idea, if I understand him, is that these two problems are linked and that if you make progress on one, you automatically make progress on the other.

And, while this may surprise those who follow this blog site, I actually agree with Gen. Jones. These two international problems are indeed two sides of the same coin, and that coin is irrational bigatry and anti-Semitism. This coin has been passed around for hundreds of years. It can be found throughout the Islamic world. It was also once quite common in the West. Jews had hoped that, with the end of Hitler and Nazi Germany, we would have seen it destroyed for all time. That, of course, has proven to be wishful thinking.

So, now that we concur with Gen. Jones's model tying together Iran with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, what does it tell us. First, it tells us that it gets us no closer to a solution than telling those with hatred and bigotry in their hearts that "we should all get along." Hatred and bigotry are irrational. They do not lend themselves to reason.

When the Israelis left Gaza, they did not destroy the greenhouses that had supported them financially. Indeed, there was a hope in Israel that the Gazan leadership would realize that these Israeli greenhouses (now a Palestinian asset) would help them in providing their people with a means of improving their livelyhood. Or, so you would have thought. That would have been the rational thing to do. But, no, they destroyed them.

It seems hard to admit, but the Islamic culture is simply not rational. Abbas is presented to the world as a moderate and yet under his administration, in Palestinian territories, Arab schools teach their children that the Jews are to be hated. It's pretty much the same curriculum that's used in Iran. The only difference is that in one place they teach it in Arabic and in the other in Farsi.

American generals like Gen Jones are often slow to learn. They don't get that losing in Vietnam, a war we entered to safeguard a corrupt French colony, was the same as the British losing in our war of independence. They didn't get that you can't fight a war against Islamic guerilla forces the way you fight against coherent states. (Here we must give credit to Gen. Petraeus, who did learn the lesssons of Vietnam; one of the few American military men to do so.)

But there are lessons that remain to be learned. Using Mafia forces, as we did in WW II, may improve the immediate problem, but it left us with bigger problems later on. In seeking to defeat Russian ambitions in Afghanistan, we turned to the Taliban. And, that did indeed prove helpful. But, now, it's bitten us where it hurts.

Will we never learn?

Here we go again: North Korea spoils the buttermilk

The solution to North Korea would be quite simple, but for one reality. The solution rests with China. North Korea is a wound on the globe. It is a place unbelieveably cruel to its own people. And, it's run by a nut. It's become clear that rule by such people did not end with Caligula.

Oh, and remind me, what is the U.N. for? Sorry, I forget. It's to threaten sanctions against a democracy like Israel.

But, with China standing behind it, the North Korean dear leader will remain in power until he's taken the last rice bowl from the hut of the last North Korean peasant still able to breath. Let's be clear, North Korea remains a truly serious threat for only one reason: China.

Where is this league of righteous nations who the US wants to join in bringing peace and good will to the nations of the world? Let me alert our leaders: This world exists only in the minds of people like Obama who would harrangue a nation like Honduras and show disrespect for it before the likes of Guatemala and Venezuala.

Surely, even the Tea Party can't provide us with worse leadership than this.

Illegals: Two stupidities don't make for a correct response

Maybe it's me, but I have a problem understanding not only Washington, but also the American people.

Let me first address Washington, or specifically, the administration of Obama. Why can't they understand that our border states need help in stopping illegal border crossings. Why is this so complicated for them?

As to my fellow citizens, why can't they realize that shipping back 10 or 12 millions people is unworkable. What do they intend to use? Boxcars? They say it's the illegal's fault. They say their own relatives had to wait on line. Why couldn't the illegals have done the same thing?

And, these Americans are right. But, it doesn't matter. It's true that providing amnesty to Mexicans who have sneaked over our borders is unfair. It is. But, sometimes life just isn't fair. But, if we had a well guarded and fenced off border, we could now put an end to the unfairness. Criminals and the bad individuals could still be tossed back over the border. But frankly I think most Mexicans are darn fine people. Okay, many did sneak across. But, that was then. Let's focus on now.

I might add that the Mexican president's remarks when he was invited to the White House were in my opinion quite inappropriate. Everyone knows that Mexico has far stronger laws against illegal immigrantion than Arizona. But, I can't blame the Mexican president for his remarks decrying Arizona's laws. If our president acts and speaks such incomprehensible nonsense, why should the Mexican president speak any more intelligently when he addresses the American public.

Obama chuckles

Mohammed: Osama, you shouldn't have called, they're tracing all calls.

Osama: Don't worry. We have a new ally. There is no longer anything for us to fear.

Mohammed: What are you saying? Who is this new ally.

Osama: It's the Baby Satan, Joe Scarborough. I caught him on "Morning Joe."

Mohammed: I over slept. What's he now up to?

Osama: He's working to convince his country, the Big Satan, to stop using drones.

Mohammed: I can't believe it! The drones are doing to us what we did to the Russians with Charlie Wilson's stinger missles. Are you sure you fully understood "Morning Joe?"

Osama: Of course I understood him. He even explained his rational, if that's what it's called.

Mohammed: Okay, I'll bite. What was his "rational?"

Osama: It's really much too stupid, but here it goes: He says that, if his Big Satan doesn't stop using drones, our al-Qaida, and our freedom fighters, and our jihadists will all get angry. He says that his country's drones are killingt too many civilians and that this will turn our people against the Big Satan.

Mohammed: What a nincompoop! But maybe he's right. Maybe we should stop killing the medical people belonging to their various NGO's? Maybe we should stop killing the teachers they send to our villages? Maybe we should stop blowing up the engineers they send to build these stupid roads? Hey, Osama, I'm kidding. But what I don't understand is why he thinks his violence is so bad? We love for our misguided civilians to die, but his Big Satan doesn't. When they kill civilians it's just something called "collateral demage."

Osama: That's the trouble with you, Mohammed. You're always fighting and plotting, fighting and plotting. You should learn to sit back and listen more to what the Big Satan says. Make the time, Mohammed. Okay, I'll explain it to you. First they thought our fighters came from the ignorant masses. That was insulting. I'm certainly not from the masses. You're not from the masses. That guy from Yeman, his father was Minister of Agriculture. And, the Kenyan, he too had a father who was a big shot.

Mohammed: Okay, I get it. And, maybe they now get it too. But, what's their latest theories about us.

Osama: They have no theories. And, that's the good news. An ignorant enemy is the best kind.

Mohammed: But with their drones, what makes them so ignorant?

Osama: First, they didn't invent the drones. It was the Zionists, the Little Satan, who did that. Only later did Big Satan wake up and come to the realization that his Boeing could make drones too. No, what makes them stupid is that they can not understand that our will, our strength, our ultimate victory comes from Allah, the merciful. They can't understand that our object is to make the the unbelievers bow and accept Sharia.

And, as final proof of their stupidity is their having a president who won't permit his people to use such words as "Islamic fanatic," or "Jihadist." It's something they call "politically incorrect."

Mohammed: I can't believe it. It makes me really, really mad. I take great pride in being an Islamaic fanatic. I take great pride in being a proud Jihadist. This Big Satan gets me really pissed.

Osama: Me too Mohammed. But it does work in our favor, so always give thanks to Allah.

Thank you Greece for explaining it to us

Here in the U.S. we've been spending money as if there were no tomorrow. Whenever we needed more, Washington would print it. So what happened? Nothing but a minor bit of inflation.

Bailouts are, presumably, a one time-thing, but entitlements go on forever.

Some compare social security with medicare. That's not correct. Social security is essentially an insurance policy. If it give out more money than it takes in, the solutions are obvious. Make the insured wait a little longer before collecting. And/or charge a higher premium.

Medicare is an entirely different matter. Our cost for delivering medical care is far more than it is for Canada, England, etc. We can, and we should, have a medical plan for all Americans. But, it's beyond our ability to pay for such a plan unless we reduce the cost of delivering such care. That seems to be a job beyond the ability of our Congress. It also seems to be beyond our President's ability.

Bottom line: We find ourselves paying out a lot more than we are taking in. But, now, for perhaps the very first time we can see where this will take us ..........................to Greece.

Victims or Victimizers: The Greek public and the Palestinians

Sounds like a stretch, doesn't it? Trying to connect the behavior of the Greeks with that of the Palestinians? But think about it.



In the case of Greece, the current situation is very clear. The public feels screwed. They've adapted themselves to a certain way of life and now the carpet is being pulled from under them. They're mad as hell, and "they won't take it any more."



There is only one problem; their dreams have been unsustainable right along. They can't have (for more than the time they've enjoyed it) things that can only be had by endless infusions of cash from countries that are more efficient and work harder; countries whose bankers have been buying their Greek bonds.



Okay, so that's clear, but why is this so difficult for the Greeks to understand? Here are my guesses: Greeks like most folks, including my fellow citizens, haven't taken Economics 101. Instead, they've relied on their wise men; their politicians (allow me to pause while I laugh).

Furthermore, these economic forces don't work themselves out in minutes, days, or weeks. It can take years. (That's why we have "bubbles." If events worked themselves out in a shorter time frame, the bubble would never have time to get really, really big.)



Also, the Greeks might have been able to carry on with their unsustainable wishes a bit longer, if their politicians had given them a more equitable tax system; one where you actually collect the taxes owed by Greece's big earners.



The Palestinians too suffer from a similar short sightedness. And, again they can thank their leaders. I use the term "leader" because I find the term "politician" too enobling. The division of Palestine by the UN was unfair to the Jews. However, the Jews were prepared to accept it. That would have given the "Palestinians" a lot more than they can look forward to today.


At that time, Jewish leaders were mostly socialist (leaning towards communism). No surprise there, since so many had come from lands where hated anti-Semitic czarists were deposed by communists. Then too, they loved communist ideology; namely, we are an international fraternity of workers, and from each, according to his means, to each, according to his needs. What's remarkable is that the early Zionists did not pursue this ideology to the murderous extremes witnessed in the Soviet Union.



But, let's go back to the Palestinians. (Actually, before Israel, everyone sharing that land was a Palestinian.) After the UN division, the Jews named their portion "Israel" and left "Palestine" as a decription of territory rather than as one of nationality. (The Arabs in Palestine gave their allegiance to the Jordanians [those in the West Bank] and to the Egyptians [those in Gaza]. )



What united these entities; namely, Jordan, Egypt and those people living in what remained of Palestine, was their Arab, Islamic culture. It was a culture adamently opposed to any nation arising on what they considered sacred Arab/Islamic land. In this hatred of what they considered a foreign entity, they pledged themselves to continuous warfare against "the Zionist entity." So, in the first instance, you can't blame the Arabs in Palestine, who only later were brought together as a united Palestinian people by Arafat, the Egyptian.



The problem with the Palestinians was that, in the first instance, they couldn't have prevented the Jordanians and the Egyptians from launching a war against the Jewish state. Of course, as fellow Muslims, they had little, or no, interest in doing so. But that is besides the point. Their politics was guided by parties beyond Palestinian land.



But, when Jordan and Egypt lost their war of agression against Israel, Israel had every right, as a nation against whom war had been launched by others, to take whatever lands they had gained through self defense. But Israel saw a problem with this situation. Had they taken all the lands to which they were entitled, they would have had to manage a large population of people with a very different culture. It would also have meant diluting the Jewish population. No, far better to let them govern themselves.

Israel has always wanted to have peace with the Arabs around them. But, peace requires that all parties must want peace. This was not so with Israel's Arab neighbors. The villian here was the Islamic culture. The peace that was forged with Egypt after Egypt's attempt to destroy Israel has proven to be a cold peace despite the fact that it was very generous to Egypt. And the peace with Jordan has run hot and cold depending on Jordan's political needs at any particular point in time.

So, the Arabs hit upon a new strategy. Let's wittle away at Israel. Let's make them more vulnerable. Then, when they've been weakened sufficiently, we go in for the kill. Their strategy has been to delegitimize Israel by painting it as a killer of Palestinians and as a usurper of Palestinian land. Their claims to Jerusalem, a city as central to observant Jews as Mecca is to Muslims, is one that makes sense only if you want to remove all meaning to Jews of the Jewish State for Jews.

Nevertheless, the Palestinians are but dupes in the hands of the Saudis, the original source of radical Islam. The Jordanian king, at this point, just wants to be sure that he, and his family, hold on to their throne. The Iraqi's, apre Saddam Husein, are struggling to create a new system of governance. The Afghan masses are still trying to learn to read. And, the Pakistanis are being diverted from creating mischief for the Indians by American insistance that they help in running down al Qaida and its agents. That leaves the 800-lb guerilla; namely, Iran.

Iran wants to be a player and has enlisted such henchmen as the Syrians, Hizbollah, and Hamas.
Now that I think of it, maybe the Greeks aren't in such bad shape after all.

Jews: A Confused and Confusing People

Look, I'm Jewish. But, do I understand Jews. Not for a moment.

Actually, I do understand some Jews. I understand the Orthodox. They are unashamably for Israel, except for the Naturi Karta. But then explaining the Naturi Karta is like trying to explain your crazy uncle.

Then there are the Reform Jews. They want to be part of the warp and woof of the American public (whatever that is). They hate the concept of "exceptionalism." Israel is not exceptional. America is not exceptional. Their leader, a Rabbi Yoffe, enters into a cooperative agreement with the ISNA, apparently oblivious to the fact that if you trace the roots of the ISNA and their legal arm, CAIR, the trail leads to none other than Saudi Arabia.

I have nothing against the Saudis. They too are exceptional with their capital punishment by decapitation, their caning of people caught drinking, their stoning of women who are found to be adulterous, and their abuse of people found to be gay. Yes, dear reader, truly exceptional.
(In their defense, I must confess that when they decapitate, they use a very, very sharp sword.)

Okay, enough of the Reform. Let's get to the Conservative Jews, the group to which I belong.

I see my old friend, Sol, and say, "So, what do you now think about your friend Obama?"
And, his reply, which I've quoted in an earlier blog, was, "for me his health care plan is the most important thing."

I explain that I too am for health care but that the plan passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress won't fly. Its costs are far too enormous.

But, Sol then continues, "Look, I'm first and foremost an American."

Now this stuns me. He knows that I too am an American. But, it's more than that. I am keenly aware that this shouted cry of "I'm an American" raises the issue of dual loyalty. And, of this, I'm deeply resentful. If the Irish can cheer their Catholic brothers in Northern Ireland and the Muslims can cheer the Palestinians, why can't I appreciate the far better arguments of the Jews in Israel? And, if that means opposing Obama and his crew (J Street, George Soros, and the minor leftist party in Israel, who are out to diminish Israel), then it should not require me to defend my patriotism.

I shake my head in confusion. Jews vote, by and large, Democratic. It's something they picked up from their parents who were doing that most sensible thing -- back in the 30's. It's now 2010 and it's the Republicans who they should be supporting. Unfortunately, they're still locked in the mindset of the 30's. What I find incomprehensible is how so many non-Jews can think we're smart!

Apologies to Blankfein of Goldman Sachs

In a posting just prior to the last posting, I recalled from memory an exchange I had seen on TV during Senate hearings between Mr. Blankfein and Sen. Levin. Regrettably, I mispelled Mr. Bankfein's name as "Blankenfien." But since I did identify Mr. Blankfein as being the CEO of Goldman Sachs, I trust everyone understood I had mispelled the name.

There was no mistake made in Sen Levin's name. He was described as he is; namely, a sorry excuse for a U.S. Senator.

Obama: Indian Giver

When I was a kid, we'd freely use the term, "Indian giver." To us kids it meant someone who promised something, or actually gave something and then took it back. Looking back, I must confess I have absolutely no idea as to how this term arose or how it got currency. All I know is that all the kids used it.

It is clear, however, that in his dealings with Israel, Obama is an Indian giver. Leaders of the U.S. and Israel had exchanged understandings. Now, Obama refuses to accept America's earlier understandings, but expects Israel to hold to promises it gave under those earlier understandings. I say to Obama, "Indian giver. Indian giver. Indian giver."

The Congressional Lilliputhians vs Goldman Sachs

I'm not saying Goldman Sachs did, or did not, do anything that violated the law. But, earlier this week I saw an exchange between Sen Levin and Goldman's Blankenfein that had me rolling on the floor trying to keep my from sides splitting from laughter.

Levin: So, you took taxpayer money?

Blankenfein: We didn't ask for it. The government insisted that we take the TARP. And, we've paid it back with good interest.

Levin: Did you pay AIG back?

Blankenfein: No. They had insured us for our loss. They simply fulfilled their obligation by paying what they owed us.

Levin: Ha Ha! So you did take tax payer money.

Blankenfein: We took what was owed us. It was the government that decided to support AIG.

Levin: Yes, but it was taxpayer money. If we hadn't supported AIG, you wouldn't have gotten any money.

Blankenfein: Respectfully, but that's not correct. We had taken out insurance coverage in the event that AIG failed.

Levin: Yes, but you did take the AIG money, didn't you?

Blankenfein: We took the money from AIG that they owed us. Had they not done so, they would have been in default. It was the government that decided that they didn't want AIG to default. It wasn't our call.

Levin: But, you did take taxpayer money. You can't deny it. Admit it.

I don't remember how Blankenfein responded. I don't think he rolled his eyes. That would have been disrespectful. But, we, watching this exchange on TV, had no such constraint. My eyes teared from laughter. Is this really the best kind of Senate our political system can produce?

Hard for People To Change or Even Understand

A friend I recently encounterd agreed that things didn't look good for Israel with this current administration. (It was "this administration" not "the Obama administration" although he knew it was all one and the same.) "But, I'm still for health care reform," he quickly added.

I explained that I understood, but that that wasn't what we were talking about. If he wanted to discuss healthcare, that was another discussion. In fact, I too was in favor or healthcare reform, but the bill that was passed was anything but a reform bill. It was nothing but the mindless expansion of an entitlement that would only hasten financial grief for America.

"You'd rather see people starve or die, I suppose," he shot back.

I explained that I was pleased that services would be expanded, but that we couldn't keep doing it the same old way. Medical costs were much higher in the States than in Canada or Europe. In fact, they varied widely within the U.S. Why wasn't there any effort made to understand why this was so and to try to apply the lessons that might be learned? Perhaps then we could begin to get a handle on costs that were shooting into stratosphere.

But, you can see how he couldn't help but divert the conversation away from Israel. I tried to pull it back, but it was of little use. "Yeah, sure," he continued, "what Republican has concerned himself with healthcare?"

And, of course, he had a point. But the real question was how good could a healthcare bill be, if it made more perilous America's already perilous debt situation?

My friend and I, though from different ends of the political spectrum had the same problem. The country was bumping about and passing bills, but in the process creating ever bigger problems. And some of these problems were difficult for the average citizen to understand. For example, what led to our latest financial calamity? Was it something Congress did? Was it the banks and their bankers? Was it the mortgage brokers? Was it the public that had signed up for mortgages far bigger than they could ever hope to repay? Was it the Federal Reserve?

Most of the public has very little idea of what the Federal Reserve is, or how it operates. They hear cries for more regulation, not realizing that the banks have been one of our most heavily regulated institutions. Also, they have little idea of what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are, or what they do? And this situation continues despite the stacks and stacks of books that have been written on our recent economic meltdown.

Is it any wonder that even well educated people, people relatively prosperous, and people up in years, are fearful of where this country is going? Is it any wonder that they distrust both Republicans and Democrats? (What was Bush W doing during his two terms? What were the Democrats doing when they had achieved majorities in Congress?) People desperately wanted hope. And so that's what they did; they voted for hope. They voted for the first African American in American history.

Now after a year in office, we see that while he speaks as smoothly as ever, Obama is nothing but the same old, same old. In fact, he seems a bit oilier. He spins far faster than his marble mouthed predecessor. With back room deals straight out of old ward politics, he uses his majorities in Congress to pass the very worst sort of legistlation under the most high sounding of names.

Were can the people turn when the candidate offering hope betrays them on issue after issue? The Tea Party is their answer. It's got the Republicans praying that this group will help to rehabilitate them. It's got the Democrates wheeling out their arsenal of dirty tricks and media campaigns. You've got Bill Clinton trying to tie them to the Oklahoma bomber McVeigh. You've got liberal reporters trying to tie them to racism. And, that's only for starters. Wait until we get closer to election day. It'll make old fashioned ward politics seem squeeky clean by comparison.

I dreamt of Israel

My dream, actually nightmare, was that Israel haters such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcrof and Samuel Berger, all former national security advisors met in the White House with Gen. James L. Jones, the current national security advisor and laid out Israel's fate. The current president, Barak Obama had approved of this White House meeting because of Israel's instransigeance in giving the Palestinians what his administration had decided Israel must surrender; namely, East Jerusalem, surrender of the Holy sites in the Old City to international agreement, and a return to the '67 borders (before it captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank) give or take a few territorial swaps.

This group of Arab sympathizers meeting in the White House did throw a bone to Israel. The Palestinians would have to accept that there would be no right-of-return. Still, the Palestinians would have to be given some sort of compensation. There was no mention of the equal number of Jews tossed out of Islamic nations and who lost far more than the Arab farmers who ran from Israel fearing that the Israelis would do to them what they so dearly wanted to do to the Jews.

But, wait a moment. This was no dream! The aforementioned individuals actually did meet at the White House. In fact, Obama had, at times, joined in the meeting. There, in my lap, was the newspaper reporting this meeting. It was the New York Times, International Section, on Thursday April 8th, 2010.

Among the people who brought me this nightmare were the many Jews who had caste their vote for Obama in 2008. I understand Brent Scowcroft just as I understand Henry Ford and the various other industrialists at the start of WW II. I understand Zbigniew Brzezinski as I understand the Polish partisans who hunted Nazis and Jews with equal vigor in their Polish forests and in the hay lofts of their Polish farms. But why, oh why, didn't we see through this 20-year long congregant of Rev Jeremiah Wright? Because he has Passover Seders in the White House?

Ann Coulter

I love Ann Coulter (metaphorically; I actually have never met her). I love her columns. She writes with panache and gets it right 99% of the time.

It becomes clear, from time to time, that she is a practicing Catholic who values Right-to-Life. She's also taken a swipe on occasion at Jews. But, as to wacking away at Jews, it's something done with even greater vigor by the likes of Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter. And, they don't express themselves with half the humor to be found in an Ann Coulter piece.

The Alternate Universes of American Healthcare

Obama and his Democrates have managed to get through Congress a healthcare bill that extends healthcare to more Americans then ever. And that's a good thing. Both Democrats and Republicans can say that extending healthcare to more Americans is a good thing.

Unfortunately, without proper fiscal management the Democratic victory will prove Pyric.
The healthcare bill imposes a huge financial burden on America. Its costs are simply unsustainable.

What Americans needed was reform. There's no reform here. There's no tort reform. There's no reform in the way healthcare is dispensed. There's no thought been given to the consequences of dropping on the states unfunded mandates that states are in no position to bear. They can barely shoulder present day debt.

The healthcare bill is little more than Congressional demagogery. How else can you describe a bill that promises the public so much and yet has so little chance of surviving the financial waters in which this country finds itself?

It's also a bill that, if looked at carefully, can be described as a joke; as a piece of political humor. Who did the Democrates paint as the great villian? Those dastardly insurance companies. And, whose stocks are shooting skywards because the bill is so great for them? The insurance companies. Of course, when it comes to winners, the pharmaceutical companies are right up there with the insurers. Following closely behind are the lawyers and the unions.

So how could the Congressional Budget Office give this bill it's stamp of approval? It seems they are bound to calculate the cost of the bill exactly as the Congress gives it to them. They've got to accept all the assumptions that the bill has written into it. For example, if the bill includes a provision that doctor's fees will be cut in half, they have no choice but to price out the bill by relying on this "fact." Forget, for a moment, that no one in government who doesn't recognize this "fact" for what it is, pure fantasy.

Benefits are of little value if they can't be sustained. Ask the UAW. One distinct possibility is that this healthcare bill will drive us down the same path taken by Greece. That country is now waiting to learn who will bail them out; the Germans or the EU. No one is leaping forward to volunteer to help them. Greece forgets that the money they're looking for ultimately must come from nations who have been a great deal more careful with their resources. Of course, we have no need for the EU or Germany. Our Congress seems to be relying on China. Now, there's a really scary thought.

Welcome Back Carter

A great deal has been written on the disasterous turn in American-Israeli relations. (See Ed Koch's blog). There have also been a number of blogs (see the Jerusalem Post) trying to explain why Obama decided to cater to the interests of Syria, Turkey, and, ultimately, Iran, at the expense of Israel. Years from now, we may have better ideas, but as of now it's all speculation.

But what we do know about Obama's turning in this direction is both dark and scary. Most scary is the allegation expressed by Gen. David Petreous that Israel's not giving in to Arab wishes is endangering the lives of our service men. This is blatantly false on two counts.

First, and this was explained (to the extent that these things can be explained) by PM Netanyahu in his address to AIPAC. He said that the Israelis had been sharing their experience in fighting in Arab villages with the US military. Regrettably this is an area where Israel has a great deal of experience. The sharing of Israel's experience, and, equally importantly, it's military intelligence has saved American lives, not endangered them.

We have not forgotten that Americans on the left cheered as Michael Moore referred to Gen. Petreous as "Gen Betray-us," and as, then Senator, Hillary Clinton questioned the general's honesty when questioning him from the floor of the Senate. We believe the general is a good man, and we cheered when, through his approach to the fighting in Iraq (the surge), he forced the House Democratic leader, Harry Reed, to eat his words, when he proclaimed, "We have lost."

So, how could the General now turn around and falsely suggest that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was endangering American lives? To get where Petreous has gotten you've got to be a survivor. No one knows better how to maneuver through political waters like a high level military man. So when Obama gave him his script, he followed it. I doubt Petraeous has anything for or against the Israelis. Whether, at the end of the day, they fall or remain standing is of little concern to him. But, what Obama asks of him will naturally get a careful reading. First, of course, is the fact that Obama is his boss. But, equally important, Obama can make his job easier or more difficult. He doesn't need "more difficult."

US-Israel Relations Definitely Not a Chuckling Matter

I usually try to keep my items "light." But, with what's being done to Israel by the US, this is no longer possible. The facts are simple. Israel has always maintained that Jerusalem was a part of Israel. The PA disputes this, but Israel's case is remarkably strong.

That having been said, it was entirely logical that the Jerusalem mayor would seek to develop city land. Indeed, its plans to do so had been made clear over a period of several Israeli administrations.

The hubbub over development in Jerusalem was instigated by Obama when he began making statements having a bearing on Israel's final borders. The issue of final borders was one that was taken out of sequence in the steps Israel and the PA were planning to follow. The PA had little chance of changing the sequence, but here comes Obama and he decides to hand the Abbas a "gift." But the gift was more than changing the order in which differences were to be negotiated, it was in his making comments having a bearing on the final solution that were very harmful to Israel's position.

The Netanyahu administration may have chosen a rather blunt cudgel to express its displeasure with the liberties that the Obama administration was taking with Israel's sovereignty, but, truth be told, Mitchel was showing less respect to Israel than he had when working with the people of Northern Ireland.

This administration is following Bush's policies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iraq may yet come out an improved country. With Afghanistan, it's still too early to make predictions. But, Israel is neither an Iraq or an Afghanistan. And, yet the Obama administration is showing this paradigm of democratic nationhood less respect than the cutthroats that surround it.

Obama is bowing to Abbas not because his administration doesn't recognize the PA as the corrupt collection of grifters that it is, but because they think that to make gifts of Israel's sovereignty will win the US points with the Saudis. They seem oblivious to the fact that the Saudis will do no such thing. Nothing will placate the Saudis other than the elimination of Israel, or putting Israel in such position that its population will find it impossible to endure.

In this drama, the Saudis are Haman and Obama is King Achishvarous. Regrettably I see no Queen Ester on the horizon or anyone resembling Uncle Mordicai.

Jews, who, despite their love for Israel, chose Obama over McCain, are beginning to see the tragic error they made. I, too, believe in a woman's right to choose and in the need for gun registration and the outlawing of machine guns for civilians. But must Israel be the sacrificial lamb for these liberal causes. And, yet, that is precisely what it has come down to.

International Women's Day

On my way to my "Chuckling ......." blogsite, I came across an item on the Yahoo news site that commented on the relationship between Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Obama's wife.
The two ladies had joined at the White House to speak in behalf of Int'l Women's Day.

The item mentioned that in the opinion of these ladies, it was important that women be allowed to exercise rights equal to those granted men. As I recall from the article, one of the ladies pointed out that we can't make much progress if 50% of the world's population is kept on the sidelines. These are sentiments with which I very much agree.

The article further pointed out that in many countries Int'l Women's Day gets far more attention than it does here in the U.S. However, it also pointed out that in some parts of the world the celebration of the day is very much discouraged. They cited Iran as a place where people planning to celebrate the occasion were actually beaten by the police.

But, here is what immediately occurs to me: We can describe freely the ugliness that can be observed in Iran because Iran is everyone's enemy. But why not give a fuller picture? In what Islamic countries do we find their populations celebrating International Woman's Day? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while you try to come up with the answer.

When to Listen and When Not

An item in The Jewish Week (newspaper) on February 12th, reminded me that you can't always listen to the "experts." It was an article on the fashion designer, Donna Karan.

As a student at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), Ms. Karan was told she'd never make it as a designer. She had failed her course on draping.

But Ms Draper didn't accept the judgement lying down. She switched to Parsons School for design. True, they did make her take a summer school course. Also, they taught her how to drape. She graduated.

Ms. Karan had been, it must be admitted, stung by being failed at FIT. It made her that much more determined to succeed in the shmatta business. She did have a booster; namely, her stepfather, who was a custom tailor on Long Island. But, whatever, she made it.

Her ambitions did not move her along a path that was arrow straight. She had briefly thought that perhaps she might be a singer like her idol, Barbra Streisand. But, she realized that this was something truly beyond her abilities, not to mention her vocal chords. It was like a really good high school basketball player realizing that at 5'8" he was never going to make it in the NBA.
But, none of this hindered her desire to be a fashion designer.

There's a lesson here kiddies. You want something go after it. But, do realize that if you want to be a great actor or actress, it helps to have a realative in the business. Or, that to be a professional basketball player, it helps to be tall.

Misappropriation of Culture -- Part II

I ended my last blog on this subject without coming to any sort of resolution. I have now resolved the matter to my satisfaction. Resolution: You shouldn't be appropriating a culture you're oppressing.

Consider minstrels and Amos and Andy. Both of these kinds of entertainment can be innocent and amusing. However, they come from an era when African Americans were truly oppressed.
They came from an era when blacks were denied a stage before white audiences; they were denied work in TV. In other words, it brought laughter to white audiences based on the culture of blacks, but failed to focus on the true conditions faced by blacks. It's that which made them inappropriate.

It's as if Muslims were to put on a TV show in Egypt called "The Goldbergs. " (Thank goodness they haven't had to imagination to pull that one off.)

That, however, as far as I can see, is not the same as using costumes derived from early peoples.

Misappropriation of Culture

There was an item in the NY Times about a Russian ice skating team that had costumes made for them that reflected aboriginal culture. Australian aborignal spokespersons complained.

I say "reflected" because, the costumes were never intended to reflect authenticity. The lady's outfit was of a white, dangly material, and the gentleman's loincloth and fur boots (with skates attached) were designed for proficiency on the ice; something never required of an Australian aboriginal. Be that as it may, Australian aboriginals still objected. Of course, an Inuit costume might have been more appropriate. (Notice that I didn't use the word, "Eskimo.") I believe Inuit people also fit under the definition of aboriginal. And, of course, they know a great deal more about ice. But, then their native costumes don't flash as much flesh.

The reality is, I believe, that few people other than Australian non-aboriginals have much exposure to aboriginal culture. Were it not for that, loin cloths might be in greater demand. But, then what do I know? "European bathing" has long struck me as aboriginal. And, even men's bathing suits are sometimes reduced to little more than G-strings.

But, of course, Africans were upset when some American entered their jungles and recorded "When the Lion Sleeps." It's all very complex and requires more thought than I can devote to it at this sitting.

A Word More On "Greed"

As I began to say before my finger slipped:

I was speaking to a reader of this blog, who asserted that I had said that "wanting more was a sign of greed." What I had actually wanted to say was that there was some ambiguity regarding the word, "greed." I should have made it clear that "wanting more" was, for me, not a sign of greed. I would describe it as a sign of "ambition."

The phrase "greed is good" takes a poke at the ambiguity surrounding the word "greed."

"Well, don't greedy people cheat?" I was then asked.

They may well cheat, but that is the sign of a cheater. It is not necessarily the mark of an overly ambitious person. (I'm not sure I know what it means to be "overly" ambitious, other than perhaps that the person being described as overly ambitious is more ambitious than I.)

I previously offered the suggestion that "greed" had to do with ethics (cheating a worker, or selling contaminated food); behaviour so egregious that in many cases laws have been enacted prohibiting such behaviour.

There was once a movie about ruthless stock brokers who amongst themselves used the phrase "let's go and paint lipstick on the pig." The meaning of that phrase was to call potenial customers and point them to a stock that had serious financial flaws but fail to describe those flaws, Instead, they would tell the person they were calling what a great investment this particular security was. In the meantime, they would be selling the security short. This is something that might be described as greed. I would describe is as the gross dishonesty of con artists.

Dishonesty is bad for capitalism. If one deals with "equals" there is nothing terribly wrong with "gilding the lily," or perhaps "drawing lipstick on a pig," But that's because you're dealing with an equal. Even though you describe the product in the finest possible light, your listener has the capability of seeing through any false claims.

That, of course, raises the question of when is one "gilding the lily," and when is one offering a blatant falsehood. Professionals guard against blatant falsehoods by (1) having all terms of the transaction, especially important claims, written into a contract, and (2) restricting themselves to doing business only with people whose reputation for honesty they've had a chance to ascertain.

For nonprofessionals, the best advice is to avoid doing business with anyone calling you "cold."
If you don't know the people well, don't do business with them. If you fall for a con artists line, it doesn't mean you're greedy. It means, you have failed to properly assess the risks of dealing with someone you don't know.

In the course of our conversation, we came upon another word, "covet." Clearly, you shouldn't covet; it's one of the Ten Commandments. But, what does it mean to covet? And, what does it mean to covet your neighbor's wife? You may think your neighbor's wife is a really hot number. Is that coveting? And, if so, why?

It would seem to me that you could covet hot babes all day long provided you took no inappropriate actions and said nothing that would strike anyone as inappropriate. I guess here we get into a cultural thing. Among the very religious (Jews and Muslims) women should dress according to certain codes of modesty. Among the Orthodox Jews it means being covered beyond your elbows and wearing a dress, or skirt. that goes down beyond your knees. The Muslims cover their women from head to toe. I guess they see coveting a bit differently than I.

To conclude: Be ambitious -- even very, very ambitious, but don't be greedy.