Newt Gingrich, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You

Liberals, the Palestinians, and people trafficking in political correctness have been going bonkers over Newt describing the Palestinians as an invented people.  I love it.

There are several ways to look at this remark.  Historically, it is of course valid.  Palestine was an area whose name was given to it by the Romans.  It was a corner of the Ottoman empire.  At the time of the creation of the State of Israel, it was a simply a land mass over which Jordan and Egypt laid claim.  There was no Palestinian entity to challenge the claims of the Jordanians or the Egyptians.  Indeed, Arabs living in Palestine supported the claims of the Jordanians and the Egyptians.   In short, Palestinians, as a political entity, were entirely absent and had to be subsequently invented.

Nevertheless, invented or not, the claims of the Arabs on the west bank of the Jordan River, and the Arabs in Gaza, now referring to themselves as "Palestinians," have been legitimized through various agreements by the UN and through negotiations with Israel.  Boundaries for the Palestinians have not yet been finalized.  Governmental institutions are still in a primitive stage of development.  Nevertheless, the right of these people to govern themselves is unquestioned.  Indeed, they might have had a state half a century ago, if they had not placed the destruction of Israel ahead of their desire for statehood.  And, whether one agrees, or not, with whether the Palestinians were a invented people, no one questions their right to self determination.

What clearly troubles the "Palestinians" is that their narrative has been challenged.  In this narrative, the Jews were interlopers, they were a foreign colony planted on Arab soil by Europeans.  In this narrative,  Israel's claim to legitimacy is entirely lacking in validity.  Indeed, it is their narrative that has kept Arabs from joining with Jews in a true and proper peace.  And, now, out of the blue, you have a contender for the American presidency, saying the Arab position is nonsense.  Newt's statement says, in so many words, that the claims of the Palestinians are no more legitimate than that of the Israelis.  And, I say, thank you Newt for setting matters straight.  Maybe now the Arabs will understand that their efforts to delegitimize Israel simply won't fly and that the time has come for them to make peace with the Jews.

What Doesn't Obama Get About Sectarianism

Sectarianism: one group in conflict with another.  When it's the Jews being abused it's called anti-Semitism.  But, in Northern Ireland, it was the Catholics and the Protestants at each other's throat.  In what was once Yugoslavia, it was the Croats (Roman Catholic), the Serbs (Eastern Orthodox), and the Muslims who contested one another's rights to land.

That Arabs (Muslims, but also Christians) in the middle east would deny a place to the Jews is really nothing new.  And, of course, despite whatever notions Obama may harbor, it has no bearing on the attitudes of Muslims towards Americans, towards Jews, or towards westerners in general.  Indeed, the Muslims don't even seem to be able to tolerate each other.  Just this week, a Sunni suicide bomber in Afghanistan detonated his charge outside a Shiite mosque killing scores of Afghans whose only sin was being Shiite.  In Iraq, Shiites have returned the favor and kill Shiia.

But, of course, with the Jews, there's a difference.  Israel, in the life time of many living today, actually created a state which respects the rights of Christians, Muslims, Druse, Bahai, Mormons, etc.  The puzzling thing is that some people; liberal people, who have a problem with Israel, will take even what most people consider to be positive, such as Israel's open attitude towards gays, and give it a negative connotation.  They've now taken to calling it "pink washing."

As someone once said, "No good deed goes unpunished; certainly, not in Israel.

Democrats Handicapping the Republican Primaries

I happened to watch Morning Joe this morning and was treated to an entertaining discussion as to who would make the best candidate to take on Obama.  Would it be Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?  Let me be clear, I have no dog in this fight.  I'm an ABO (Anyone But Obama) person.  I will gladly vote for either candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

But first, a quick comment on the rest of the republican field.  Michelle Bachman -- a great person but too socially conservative for mainstream America.  Rick Santorum -- ditto.  Ron Paul -- a man with a firm grasp on the libertarian vote.  Unfortunately for him, Americans, by and large, are not libertarians.  And then we come to the avuncular Jon Huntsman.  Nice guy, but Americans are no more likely to vote for him than for the late, and much loved, Mr. Rogers.

The comments of that old political pro, Joe Scarborough said more about Joe, himself, than they did about the candidates.  To paraphrase Joe:  Keep your eye on Ron Paul.  His poll numbers have been steady and he looks likely to move up.  Really!  And, then commenting on Newt vs. Mitt:  Newt's like a car crash waiting to happen.  Mitt (in Joe's opinion) is clearly the best man to take on Obama.

Niall Ferguson happily explained that, in American elections, a steady hand like Mitt's wins.  I happen to love Niall Ferguson.  I love his books.  He's a great historian -- although my endorsement doesn't count for much.  And, who knows, he may be right.  But, culturally, Ferguson is not an American.  He's not steeped in American culture.  He's a Scot.  Also, historians are great at looking in the rear view mirror.  In my opinion, they're less reliable when it comes to looking down the road ahead.  But, who knows?

Joe's other guest was David Gregory, of Meet the Press.  He saw it differently.  In his view, Americans are very unhappy.  Independent voters had pinned their hopes on Obama and now have buyer's regret.  They yearn for someone who will talk straight and who appears to know what he's talking about.  Mitt's fine, but he's too generic, too vanilla, too cautious.

David Gregory may have it right.  We'll see.

As you can see, I do tune in to Morning Joe.  But, it's not to receive Joe's wisdom.  It's his guests that make his show so appealing.  As to Joe himself:  I find him to be a phony.  He's always coming out with how he's a Republican and speaks as a Republican.  Nonsense.  He's no more a Republican than a Neocon is a communist.  Neocons are more honest.  They were once on the far left.  And, they won't deny it.  But, they became disillusioned and moved to the right.  If Joe was indeed a Republican, it's clear he's moved to the left.  And, that's okay.  But, he really ought to stop with that business of how he's a Republican.  Joe's like so many committed Democrats who can understand why Americans are unhappy with Obama.  But, when the time comes to vote, they'll vote for Obama, regardless of who the Republican candidate might be.

What makes Joe seem so wise is that he's paired himself with that twit, Mika.  Sitting next to her would make Humpty Dumpty seem like a sage.

Are You A Faithist?

Okay, so what is a faithist?  Hint:  It's similar to a racist.  And, just as we have, regrettably, racism, we also are plagued by faithism.

Still not clear about faithism and faithists?  Most of us are pretty clear as to what race and racism is.  Nevertheless, most would be hard pressed to actually define "race."  Well isn't it true that the world is divided into the following races: black, white, yellow and red?  Hey, wait, that's not right.  If you have a black father and a white mother, what does that make you.  Well, it depends.  In the U.S. you'd be black, although the expression "mixed race" is beginning to gain acceptance.  In Cuba, you'd be a mulatto, a term in extreme disfavor in the U.S.

At one time Jews were considered to be a separate race; namely, the Semitic race.  Indeed, that's how we arrived at the terms "anti-Semite" and "anti-Semitism."  The word "Semite" came from linguistic jargon and referred to the language spoken by people in the middle east.  It must of necessity have also included Arabs.  But, at the time, when "Semite" was coined, no one had an over-favorable view of the Arab, and the objection was conveniently ignored.  The term served its purpose; namely, as a way of labeling Jews.

But words do have a way of slipping into, and out of disfavor.  People who came from China, Japan, or Korea, were once referred to as "orientals."  Any French major can tell you that "orient" means "east."  For Europeans, people from China, Japan, and Korea from the far east; hence, orientals. We now refer to these people as "Asians."  The Arabs occupy the middle east, and, while I'm not exactly sure who the near easterners are, my guess would be Bulgarians.

But, I've digressed.  Faith is a belief system.  Such systems include Judaism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Bahaiism, Islam and so on and so forth.  And, there's nothing wrong with faith.  Indeed,  atheism, communism and capitalism can all be viewed as kinds of faith, although there is more in the way of "fact" behind communism and capitalism than there is supporting the other faiths.  But using race or faith as a way of denigrating other races or faiths is wrong.  It is an outrage for White Supremists  to spew their poison regarding people of another race or faith.  This makes them both racists and faithists.  Faithism is simply a form of racism that focuses exclusively on faith.  And, it is wrong.

It is wrong for Egyptians who are Muslims to oppress Copts.  It is wrong for Sunni Muslims to oppress Shiite Muslims.  It is wrong for Catholics to defy the edicts of their Church and continue to argue that Jews murdered Christ.  This sort of behavior is not racist.  It is faithist.  And, no group or faith can lay claim to respectability if it does not deal with the faithists in it's ranks.

The American Budget -- Republicans vs. Democrats

Raise taxes or cut spending, that, it is generally agreed, is the question.  So where do the parties stand?  Here is how I see it:

Republicans -- Republicans are against raising taxes.  Their reasons are as follows:
1. Higher taxes tend to depress the economy.  That ultimately reduces tax revenue and retards job growth.
2. Even if they were to consider higher taxes as a short term fix, they are acutely aware that every time they have gone along with a tax increase, the Democrats, while promising spending cuts, have reneged.  In short, they feel that any concession they might make on taxes will fuel the same old spending that got us in the fix we're now in.

Democrats -- Democrats want to stimulate the economy.  They hope to do this through targeted spending.


The problems facing the parties:

1. The financial pain about to be inflicted on the American public.  Publics nowhere like financial pain.  They don't like it in Italy.  They don't like it in Greece.  They don't like it in Israel.  And, they don't like it in America.  But, ultimately it's coming and it's already started.  The only questions are how much worse is it going to get and how long will it last.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans know this.  And, each is trying to maneuver around it.  The Republicans see the Democrats as being the prime villains.  Both Republicans and Democrats know that the biggest source of today's financial problems have resulted from giving entitlements to the people of America that the people had no way of paying for.

So why did the parties do it?  That's a silly question, because everyone know the answer; to get voter approval and get reelected.  Getting reelected means gaining power and, as most people know, money follows power.  As to the pain that inevitably must follow such irresponsible behavior?  Well if the problem can be kicked down the road and made to fall on another generation, the perpetrators will be off the hook.  It will become someone else's headache.  The trouble for present day politicians is that the road has come to an end.  The few yards left lead to a precipice.

2. The Republicans hope to define themselves as the doctor who will remedy the disease and heal the patient by administering admittedly bitter medicine. By doing this they hope to gain voter approval for their good work.

3. The Democrat's objective is to undermine the Republican's plans and aspirations.  Their strategies include the following:
a. Energize the unions, especially the public sector unions, by pointing out the many ways they will be hurt by the economies the Republicans hope to institute.
b. Undermine the Republican argument for maintaining current tax rates by arguing that the Republicans refuse to consider raising taxes only because they want to protect the "millionaires and billionaires."
c. Argue that by reducing spending the Republicans are denying America the seed money it needs to repair roads and other infrastructure so important to America.
d. Paint the Republicans as being heartless for their cruel cuts to medicine, health insurance, education, and social services.


The issues that get lost as the parties struggle for the hearts and minds of the American public:

Tax reform --  Inequalities will forever find themselves into our tax code, just as we will never be free of foreign enemies, or crime, or corruption.  Iron rusts.  You've simply got to keep scrapping it clean.  Consequently, tax codes, too, must be revisited periodically to keep them fair.  It's not easy.  Both Democrats and Republicans have their sacred cows that demand protection from the tax collector.

Medical reform -- There are two aspects to this issue.  First, since America spends more on healthcare than countries like Canada or England, and since American supposedly offers healthcare of lower quality than these other countries, ways of reducing the cost of American healthcare should be something that's within our ability.  I would further note that some communities in America offer healthcare than other American communities and are able to do this with no impairment in quality of their care.

The other aspect of healthcare has to do with end-of-life issues.  There are illnesses that today are cured by methods and medicines that were unavailable to earlier generations.  And, that's all to the good.  But, what's not possible is being cured of an illness for which a cure might become available some years hence, but for which no cure is presently available.  Money won't change that.

Reform of our educational --  Whether we will ever find our way in our effort to reform our system of
education is a real question.  There are so many voices; educators, administrators, community organizers, mayors, theoreticians at schools of education, and a great number of gadflies many of whom write books, that I wonder whether any real progress is possible.  This also happens to be an area where political correctness has an especially stultifying influence over any hope for progress.  But, we live in hope.



We all know the road is about to fall away.  It's kind of breathtaking to be standing around watching to see how it all ends up.

The Occupy Wall Street Model: Greece or Israel

Protests, as with other social phenomena, can vary in form and outcome. Reading our newspapers we see Greeks rioting. Entitlements given them by previous governments are now suddenly being torn away. The age for collecting retirement insurance is going up. Tuition subsidies are a thing of the past. In short, the Greek standard of living is dropping like a stone.

The Greek situation is relatively easy to explain, but difficult for Greeks to accept. The Greek people through their various unions and political parties had been able to wrest entitlements from politicians that simply could not be sustained by their economy.

The Greece story is easily explained with numbers and a rudimentary understanding of bookkeepin. But, it's not a story the Greeks want to hear. So what do they do? They burn cars, break store windows, and assault their police. They find it intolerable that their national budget is now being supervised by outsiders; most notably, the Germans, a past enemy. But, hey, that's what happens when you spend more than you collect.

Israel's Social Protesters are also unhappy with economic matters, but their target has been narrower. They wanted more affordable housing and lower food prices -- most notably for milk products. And, here the government was able to respond in a fairly reasonable manner. They set up a commission that explained what most already knew; namely, that housing was in short supply and that dairy prices were high, in large part, because of monopolies that had arisen in this particular market. The Israeli government then proceeded to take steps designed to alleviate both these conditions.

Has this ended social protests in Israel? Not quite. The ranks of protesters has fallen drastically. Only a remnant remains. But the storm seems over.

There are today many other protest movements through out the world -- Tahrir Square in Egypt and the Arab Spring, in general, being prime examples. But, in many of the middle east protests, civil rights and freedom from institutionalized corruption have been the primary targets.

It should be noted, that we in America have had protest movements that have been enormously constructive; most notably, the civil rights march in Birmingham. But the impetus for this and other civil rights protests in this period of American history are quite clear. Young African-Americans were no longer going to tolerate Jim Crow; not when they were dying in Vietnam for a misguided military effort. In Rev. Martin Luther King, these protestors had a preacher who could articulate with crystal clarity what their protest was all about.

The Occupy Wall Street kids have no message other than that they are unhappy with the American economy. Well, who is? But, like the Greeks, they find it either too difficult, or too painful to sit down and figure out where this country has gone wrong. Fortunately, as disruptive as they've managed to be, they've largely avoided the damaging behavior of the Greeks.

I imagine that the leaders of our Occupy Wall Street crowd are well versed in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." And, that's good. But, neither the protestors nor their leaders have managed to articulate their goals or objectives other than their wish to tear down American banks, send to prison bankers who took their cues from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor.

The one real success achieved by the Occupy Wall Street has been in raising money, which by todays count as reported in the press has reached over $500,000. Excuse my skepticism when the protesters tell me the money has come from widows and orphans.

Gilad Schallit: The Choice

To ransom the IDF soldier held by Hamas or not -- to exchange him for Arab terrorists or not -- that was the subject of our rabbi's sermon. He concluded that there was no proper answer. I listened and thought to myself: There may be no proper answer, but when your the leader of a nation, you must decide.

I further thought that the choice hinged not so much on whether to exchange Schallit for the terrorists, but whether this was the proper exchange; namely, 1027 terrorists for one soldier. The principal of exchange had already been established through earlier exchanges made by Israel. The only real question, it seemed to me, was whether the number of terrorists exchanged for Schallit was reasonable. (As it turned out, the only reason that the deal was consummated was because Hamas wanted to one-up Fatah's Abbas.)

I shared these thoughts with a young man who once served in the IDF. "What do you think of the exchange," I asked.

"They should never have made the trade," he told me.

"Not made the trade? Schallit might have died in a Hamas dungeon," I said.

"Maybe," responded the young man, "but there were other options."

"Really? Like what?" I asked.

"When a soldier is taken by the Arabs, the IDF should go in after them and do what they have to do. Anything standing between them and the captured soldier must be flattened. Nothing should be left undone until such time as the soldier is retrieved."

"But, wouldn't the chances be quite considerable that the IDF soldier would be killed in the process" I asked.

"Sure," he replied, "but, that's what it means to be a soldier; your life is on the line. Every soldier knows that."

"Well, son," I said, "I'm sure glad, I never had to face those prospects when you were in the uniform."

Occupy Wall Street: Some Sympathy for the Protestors, Please

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) people are part of a larger phenomena; namely, the I'm-mad-as-hell-and-I-won't-take-it-anymore people. There's a long history of such demonstrators. Usually, they know what they're mad about. The Selma March people were protesting against Jim Crow. The Hooverville protestors, largely WW I veterans, were expressing their anger at having fought in a terrible war and then finding themselves made paupers by a failed economy. The Vietnam protesters were largely young people of draft age expressing their anger at a war they were being forced to fight -- a war whose best explanation was a ridiculous domino theory.

Now let's look at the Tea Party. They're people, largely Republicans, who feel that the policies of the Democrats have been ruining the country through bad economics and because of bad social policies. But, more than that -- they feel that the Republican leadership became no better than Democrats. They felt that the Republican leaders had been in cahoots with the Democrats in sending the economy down a path of ruin, and in not fighting harder for such social issues as right-to-life and against gay life style.

The Tea Party continues as a force because they got the argument half right. Past Republican leaders had indeed failed to fight with sufficient vigor against overspending and a tax policy riddled with special favors to big campaign contributors. This argument is winning supporters from both the left and the right.

It's in their social policy issues that give the Tea Party its Archilles heel. These positions are positions held through faith. They can't be proven, and most Americas -- especially independents -- don't support them. Americans, in great numbers feel a woman must be the final arbiter of her own body. By the standards of most Americans, birth begins when the baby is born, not when it's conceived. But what will be the consequences of the Tea Party positions on these issues. Will the Tea Partiers refuse to support a moderate Republican candidate even if it means returning Obama to the White House? That remains to be seen.

The Tea Party has to a large extent played down the social issues and focused on the country's economy and that, as far as I'm concerned, is as it should be.

The OWS people have no discernable policy other than to tax the rich and redistribute the wealth. And, that's not a surprising position to take when a nation's economy goes into a dive. The general attitude is that this-shouldn't-be-happening. And, it shouldn't. But, since it has happened, you've got to seriously analyze how we got here. And, then, and only then, can you plan appropriate corrections. And, that's where the OWS people are failing the county. They are not focusing on how we got here. When, and if, they do, they might find that the Tea Party people and they, the OWS, are actually brothers in arms.

A Tribute To Men With Foresight -- Something Woefully Lacking In The Wall Street Protesters

Let me give you three names: Harry Markopolos, John Paulson, and George Soros. It's not my affection for these men that has me listing them here. (Soros, in particular, is a jerk.) But, in matters of money and finance all have displayed that rarest of qualities; namely, vision.

Harry Markopolos was the fellow who spotted Madoff's Ponsi scheme, reported it to the SEC and encountered a wall of ignorance. Despite Markopolos's best efforts to alert the SEC to this on going crime, it was not until years later, after the scheme had collapsed, that all could see what should have been obvious long before.

John Paulson, the hedge fund manager, spotted what should have been evident to our major banks, not to mention the Federal Reserve; namely, that the mortgage market was resting on quicksand. Unlike, Markopolos, he didn't trumpet his insights. He just sold short -- cleaning up hugely when the inevitable collapse occurred.

George Soros did pretty much what John Paulson did. But, he did it with the Bank of England, instead of a dodgy mortgage market. The Bank of England claimed they wouldn't devalue the pound sterling. Soros knew that conditions were such that, regardless of what the Bank said, devaluation was inevitable. Realizing this, he did what Paulson had done. He sold short.

Understanding our current economic mess doesn't require any special insight. It's been analyzed quite thorougly. Books -- good books -- have been written about it. And, yet our younger citizens go about mindlessly marching on Wall Street screaming about the evil banks. And, if they want to rant about Goldman Sacks and other major banks that's fine. But, how can they overlook the banks that were at the heart of the problem; namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why don't they go after the people charged with overseeing them; namely, the Congressional banking committees headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

So why don't the protesters target these malefactors? Could it be because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are run by the government? Could it be that the protesters find it impossible to imagine that anything managed by the government could go terribly wrong?

Economics: We Are The Wrench In The Flywheel

"We, the people of the United States, in order to . . . . . ." Yeah, you get the idea. This country, it's us. The problem is that while we've the right to form a more perfect union, we don't quite know how to go about doing it.

Freeing ourselves from England allowed us to make great progress. But that was then. This is now. We've gone over some bumps along the way, e.g. the great depression. But, then, Europe didn't do so well either. Along comes Marx and Lenin fighting for the down trodden masses. And, in truth, there were lots of Russian masses trodden down by the Czar and the landed gentry. But what did communism accomplish? It simply took the masses from under the Czar to Stalin, who also trod on the masses (and everyone else) and did so no less cruelly than the Czar. (Okay, initially the Jews weren't quite as down trodden by Stalin. But, it didn't last long. Soon the Jews were just as abused as all the other Russians and then some.)

Capitalism hit its stride with the advent of the industrial revolution. (It needed lots of capital.) But, for American miners, steel workers, sweat shop workers and others, things weren't all that great. But, if you could get someone else to work for you, whether in a mine, or in a factory, or at a sewing machine, and you had some idea of what you were doing, you could now rise in station. And, if you were very lucky, you could become a capitalist.

The workers was helped by three developments; namely, unions, technology (it allowed for greater worker productivity), and a labor shortage brought on by WW II. But, there then occurred something whose debilitating consequences were entirely unforeseen. (Actually, most of what we've experienced has been largely unforeseen.) It started when politicians began teaming up with the unions. This resulted in the tortured passage of free trade acts, a National Labor Relations Board that would deny a company like Boeing the right to open a new factory in a right-to-work state, and demands on industry that they pay medical benefits far exceeding their ability to fund.

So, have we reached a dead end? I think not. Here's what needs to be done.

1. Politicians must trim back the entitlements they have bestowed upon the public. The politicians as servants of the people can't be permitted to vote for unsustainable entitlement programs simply because it enhances their chances of getting re-elected.

2. Public service workers, e.g. cops, firemen, teachers, their administrators and the like, must be denied the ability to squeeze out of the public more than is appropriate. In brief, a new way must be found to negotiate their contracts. The way it's been done heretofore is entirely unacceptable. (Well, there goes that voting block.)

3. Re-do our tax system so that the government is not in a position to pick winners and losers. Let the market do that. And, that goes for both companies and the public.

4. Improve the productivity of the American worker. That's done through education. But, here, the politicians seem no smarter than the average town idiot.

5. Avoid simple-minded fixes. Do what's really needed. Enforce anti-trust laws. We do need our Robinson-Patman law to disallow price fixing and other kinds of behavior that interferes with the workings of a free market. What we don't need are legislators like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who for reasons of their own have leaned on (and quite heavily) banks to force them to make "ninja" loans. (Loans where the borrower has no income, no job, and no assets.) Oh, and lest I forget, get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let their CEOs get honest jobs, jobs where they have to report to stockholders.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Israel is isolating itself. Israel is putting itself in jeopardy. Israel is following exactly the wrong path. So say such assorted "friends" of Israel as Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros and J Street. (But, I repeat myself. Soros is J Street.)

But what do our lying eyes tell us as we look around in the midst of this Spring Time for the Arab nations?

Turkey: They repress 20% of their population; namely, the Kurds. And, in pursuit of their indigenous Kurds, they bomb Iraq territory.

Syria: World leaders watch and voice their intimidating "tsk, tsk, tsks" as Assad slaughters non-violent protesters in numbers that now exceed well over a thousand.

Jordan: "Jordan will not become Palestine," proclaims the Hashmenite King as the Palestinian population grows to over 60%.

Libya: So far no anti-Zionism there. Indeed, a group who helped overthrow Qadaffi invited a Jew, formerly of Libya, to return and help them direct their new democracy.

Egypt: The contest between the Egyptian army and the Muslim Brotherhood has still not been resolved.

Iraq: Totally preoccupied with its own problems, which include the struggle for power between the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, not to mention the interference of the Iranians.

Saudi Arabia: They would love to have the Israelis drop a bomb on Iran, but only whisper this thought to its close friends, never daring to speak their mind in public. Do they still deny their women the right to drive a car? Do they still abuse their hired help from Bangladesh, the Philippines and elsewhere?

Iran: What is there to say about this country run by pin-headed mullahs? Do they wish to annihilate Israel? Is the Pope Catholic?

Is Israel isolated? As the only decent, rational, and democratic country in the region, you can bet your bottom dollar it is.

Republicans: Their Hearts and Minds

I'd like to write a blog saying who I prefer as the Republican nominee in the 2012 election. But, at this point, that's just not impossible. My heart lies with Rick Perry, but my mind says to go with Romney.

Let me go back in time to the debate between JFK and Nixon. I was driving somewhere on business when I heard the debate on my car radio. Nixon seemed to be the clear winner. I was wrong. Most voters watched the debate on TV. The visuals clearly favored JFK. Even I could see this as I watched reruns of the debate.

Yesterday, as I watched the debate on CNN, I felt that Perry looked better than Romney. He was more macho. That is not to say that Romney didn't look good. He was as handsome as ever, and well prepared for the game. But, trying to imagine how middle America might view the debate, I was guessing that the crowd could favor Perry. (I haven't yet seen any poll results regarding the debate.)

I don't have much use for Ron Paul. That's fine; he doesn't stand a chance of being nominated. As for the others, I like them all. Herman Cain seems quite competent, but I don't think he projects presidentially and stands little chance of getting the nomination. Michele Bachmann would be better than Obama, but just as Obama is too far left for me, Michele is a bit too far right. Santori seems more experienced than Bachmann. But, he's also a bit too far right on social issues. Also, he doesn't generate Bachmann's electricity and hasn't made all that much of a showing it in the polls. Newt Gingrich: I totally love him. I love his ideas. I love his experience. I love how he delivers his message. Regrettably, he has been badly scarred by past political battles. Also, his personal affairs seem to many of my friends as being far too messy. That leaves us with Perry and Romney.

Perry's comments on social security make him appear like Don Quixote battling windmills. But, I do admire the manner in which he has worked with Latinos in Texas. That's a model that would suit America quite well. I also like his love for Israel. My main problem with Perry is that he frightens my many friends here in New York. They see him as an Evangelical. And, while I have great affection for Evangelicals, I believe, if your going to do battle with Obama, you need those liberals who now find themselves in the "independent" column. The independents that I know will vote for Romney, but not for Perry. I think that's unfortunate, but it's reality.

Anyway, I for one, will vote for any Republican chosen by our Convention.

South Africa: Exposed

Strange how events, seemingly unrelated, can suddenly turn a spotlight on a situation that has gone under the public radar for far too long. It is well known that the UN is not a venue where Israel is viewed with favor. (Great understatement.)

With about 50 Islamic nations in the UN, one quickly sees Israel's handicap. Add to that the nations that would like to put their thumb in Uncle Sam's eye; namely, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the like. For them, Israel provides a convenient surrogate. In other words the odds for Israel getting a fair hearing become even more remote. But there is one more block of nations that seems interested in sticking it to Israel; namely, the nations of the African Union (AU).

A fair number of AU nations are Islamic. So it isn't too hard to figure out where they stand vis a vis Israel. But perhaps the most important AU country, south of Africa's northern tier, is the Republic of South Africa. This nation gained its independence after a grinding battle against Apartheid. And, along with its leader, Nelson Mandela, it became recognized as a nation that had defeated racial discrimination. For this reason, it has, for the longest time, been accepted as a voice for fairness and justice.

It has, however, been cut slack on matters that would have given another country very low grades. The brutal necklacing of her political opponents by Winnie Mandela's gang of youthful hoodlums was judged an aberration. (To his credit, Nelson Mandela divorced her.)

But then the person to whom Mandela passed on the leadership of this country began giving out quack advice on how to cure HIV over the objections of medical authorities. There were other signs too that South Africa still had a ways to go before it could be viewed as a reasonably mature nation. But, little attention was payed by anyone, other than Jews, to the vilification that this young country directed towards the State of Israel.

Now, with the defeat of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, we begin to see how South Africa allowed itself to be prostituted to the will of this sadistic tyrant. Indeed, South Africa stalled as long as was reasonably possible in acknowledging the transfer of power from Qaddafi over to the Libyans who overthrew him. The reason for South Africa's reluctance to recognize the authority of the rebels has become crystal clear. In his drive to make himself the "King of Africa," Qaddafi had spread great sums of oil money around to various African nations. High on his list of nations so favored was South Africa. But now his overthrow has torn the veil off of Qaddafi's payoffs to South African leaders. We can begin to understand the unreasonable enmity of South Africa towards Israel. Hopefully, a new day will begin to dawn on South African-Israeli relations.

Fighting Words

For Rick Perry, Ben Bernanki continuing to print dollars is "treasonous." And, if he continues doing it, should he come to Texas, he will be treated very "ugly." Wow. Treason -- isn't that a capital offense? And, treating someone "very ugly" -- doesn't that mean putting him against the wall and shooting him?

It depends on who you ask. Ask Democrats, and, of course, they will tell you that's exactly what those words mean. Ask Republicans and they'll explain, should you need an explanation, that by "treasonous," Perry meant something really, really bad; that neither Perry, nor anyone else, was suggesting that Bernanki be shot. And, when Perry said Bernanki would be treated "very ugly" it mean that Bernanki would be given something less than the red carpet treatment should he decide to visit Texas.

What this all comes down to is political correctness and the words more sensitive politicians have learned to avoid. You can call someone cheap, but you must never call them niggardly. This despite the fact that "niggardly" is totally unconnected to anything having to do with African-Americans.

Here's another case: Roger Cohen, who takes great pride in his Jewish identity, writes in the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, 8/21/11, that "(Jews) must be vociferous in their insistence that continued colonization of Palestinians in the West Bank will increase Israel's isolation and ultimately its vulnerability."

Really? Well, who cares if Mr. Cohen is Jewish, Muslim, or an atheist. The fact is that Israel neither has been, nor is currently, "colonizing" the West Bank. Israel would love for the West Bank to became a kind of Switzerland, or Singapore, or Lichtenstein. But, to date, the Arabs on the West Bank have shown none of the initiative or national fiscal honesty in their affairs to come anywhere close to any of those models. Israel would love to eliminate it's check points in the West Bank and it would love to find that the wall it has built at great cost to be truly redundant. But, of course, that's not where Israel finds itself.

As to settlements; these Israeli communities are on land that is disputed and that was never Palestinian to begin with. (It had previously been Jordanian and had been lost to Jordan in a war begun by the Jordanians.) While the question as to where the final border between the West Bank and Israel should be located (something to be decided through negotiation), the settlements in no way constitute colonization of Palestinians. But, hey, if Roger Cohen likes the word "colonization" who's going to stop him from using it?

Rick Perry: Elisha or the Boogeyman

"Perry Is Texas-Size Problem For Jewish GOPers" reads the article by Ron Kampeas in The Jewish Week of 8/19/11. It seems, according to Mr. Kampeas, that Jews are offended by Rick Perry's frequent references to his Christian faith. They are discomforted by his claiming he was "called" to the presidency and are appalled by his hosting a prayer rally this month that appealed to Jesus to save America.

The article also notes that Perry was attracted to Israel from the launch of his (political) career. The article goes on to report that one of Perry's first acts after being elected agriculture commissioner in 1991 was to create the Texas-Israel exchange. His record of support for Israel is lengthy and unwavering.

So what is the problem? Are Jews truly so dense that they can't distinguish between a Father Coughlin and a Pope John the Second? True, Jews tend to lean left. But, what's the choice (if you have any feelings for Israel)? Barack Obama whose religious mentor for 20 years was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright or a governor who loves to pray publicly along with a bunch of other Christians to Jesus Christ?

Do Jews really mind followers of another religion practicing their faith publicly . At least they don't block New York's streets in practicing their faith the way hundreds of Muslims have been doing. Sports teams don't dis their fans, so why should Jews? Maybe Perry likes Jews precisely because he is a devout Christian.

A Jew disengaged from his faith will never understand what I just wrote. He, or she, is generally surprised that anyone still believes in God. But, for Jews who prize their faith, a man like Rick Perry is not one to be dismissed because of his faith.

Americans, Poorly Educated in Matters Financial, Are Now Asked to Vote For More Government Spending Or For Less

What's a guy to do. One minute he's expected to understand the meaning of "GDP" and the next minute, the theories of John Maynard Keynes. Conservatives tell him that like any family that's spent more with their credit card than what they can pay off, the U.S. must reduce its spending. Liberals tell him that without the government spending more, there will be no money for guys like him to get a paycheck and that this will plunge America into a deeper depression.

I just finished reading in Time magazine, Aug. 8th, 2011, an article by Rana Foroohar, titled "Balanced-Budget Blues." She takes the line that now is the time for the U.S. to spend more; prime that pump, create jobs. And, for the poorly educated that sounds pretty good.

But, if we go beyond articles telling us who won last night's game, or what legislator posted a picture of himself in the nude on the Internet, we might notice an article telling us about the debt crisis in Greece. We see where its citizens are burning tires in the street, looting department stores, and upending vehicles. Why this crisis? Hasn't Ms. Foroohar just taught us that all the Greeks need to do is spend more Euros? And, if they don't have more Euros, can't they just print some? Isn't that what the U.S. has been doing?

Ms. Foroohar is, of course correct in one respect; namely, that managing the finances of a nation like the U.S. is more complex than managing one's family finances. America can borrow a hell of a lot more than any family. But, what's the breaking point? Why should anyone ever worry about jobs? Why not just have the government give them out to anyone who wants one?

The answer is that the government isn't God. It can't make something out of nothing forever. They can do it for a time, but not forever. Think of the government as a black box. It takes in money through taxes and fees (a form of taxation). It can also get money by offering anyone, who will take it, an IOU, also known as bonds. It then takes this money and gives it out as social security payments, health care payments, and payments to our troops, for military equipment, not to mention pocket airports to be placed in the home districts of worthy legislators.

It's not really all that complicated. So why can't countries like America, or Greece, or Italy or any number of other countries manage their economies any better than what they've been doing? In a word; "politics." Alpha type men and women love to rule. That's as true today as it was in Caesar's day. How wonderful it is to tell other countries what to do. How wonderful to be able to reward family and friends with cushy government jobs and lucrative government contracts. So great to get the most wonderful health care package in the country for yourself and your family.

But to get all those goodies, you've got to find a constituency. And, to get that constituency to support you, you've got to satisfy their demands. To buy the general public, Obama rammed through a health care program that is way beyond America's means. He told us "it's our right." Funny, it never used to be a "right", but, okay, let's say it is a right. Who pays for this right. Countries more frugal with health care for their people are not inclined to take our IOUs simply so that we can provide a higher standard of health care for all Americans than what is enjoyed by their own people. And, if we can't borrow it, do we impose ever higher taxes on American business and on our citizens. (Something little understood is that taxes imposed on business is ultimately paid for by the public.)

We do, of course, need taxes. (One of Greece's problems is that no one there seems to pay them.) But, what we take out of peoples pockets is no longer available to them to spend on goods and services. Okay, so we'll only tax wealthy people. But, for those who think they've discovered the philosopher's stone, a few facts are in order. Records show that a sliver of the tax paying public (1%) pays 38% of America's taxes. Let's look at the top 10% of America's taxpayers. They pay 67% of the taxes. Check my math, but that looks to me like two thirds of all the taxes we collect from all the people filing tax returns. (The top 25% of tax filers produce 86% of income tax revenues and the top 50% pay virtually the entire bill. In other words, 50% of American tax filers pay virtually nothing.)

These statistics come from Thomas G. Donlan who offered them in an editorial in the Barron's of 8/1/2011.

So what was all the hulabaloo over the "debt limit" and does it have anything to do with a "balanced budget." Let's start with the balanced budget. It's a budget where the money spent equals the amount of money raised from business and the public. Debt does not figure into the balancing of the budget, except for the interest to be paid on whatever debt is being carried. This interest must, of course, counted as part of the money that will be spent.

A debt limit is the highest amount of money that may be raised through debt (bonds). If a government spends more than it takes in, it will have to make up the difference by borrowing the difference (giving out more IOUs, otherwise known as bonds). If Congress were to impose a debt limit, it would be the same as telling the administration, "no more issuing of bonds." And, that would mean cutting spending. Horrors, horrors, horrors. Actually, it would be pretty awful. The U.S. would not, repeat, would not default on its obligations. That would be suicide. But, lots of programs would have to be reduced with little to no planning.

So how deeply should this country put itself in a financial hole? The relationship generally quoted is debt as a percentage of GDP. (GDP constitutes all the good and services produced by Americans. It is not something produced by the government. In general, if you want more jobs, you've got to raise GDP. Raising the GDP means promoting American business. That is never achieved by raising taxes.)

What I can't figure out is why our Congress didn't latch on to the Simpson-Bowles plan. It was there for Obama to embrace. It was there for the Congress to embrace. But, no; politics prevailed. In closing let me tip my hat to the Tea Party. They seemed to be the only ones to understand the enormity of the financial problem America now faces and the heavy lifting we must now do to get our house back in order.

Peres Joins The Ranks Of Jewish Lilliputians

In the June 24th, 2011, issue of The Jewish Week, on the front page, the paper reports that Shimon Peres said in an interview with Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper with a Lilliputian mindset) that Netanyahu (our Gulliver) was "galloping at a full speed toward a situation where Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state. " He was further quoted as saying, "Whoever accepts the basic principle of the 1967 lines will receive international support from the world ... whoever rejects it will lose the world."

Another Lilliputian, Anne Rolphe, writes in The Jerusalem Report, July 4th 2011 issue that "We will not be able to steal the villages, to oppress the owners of the olive groves, to shrug off moral criticism until we have driven the last Palestinian across some distant border. We will be vulnerable internationally. We will be vulnerable in the neighborhood. We will be hated, and rightfully so. Some of us, me included, will begin to doubt our contribution to the human story, and our pride in our contributions to the world will be tainted."

She ends up by writing, " The people of the book, the people who suffered under the hands of authorities with cruel and beastly agendas will, if Bibi has his way, bring down the state because they can't imagine sharing the land that must be shared.

"Rudeness is all right but suicide with a nationalistic tantrum is still suicide."

I think it's important to read what such Lilliputians have to say and examine their words.

Consider first the misleading comments of Ms. Rolphe alleging that the Israelis have stolen villages, oppressed the owners of olive groves, and are currently in the process of driving Palestinians across some distant border. These charges deserve to be critically reviewed. They are certainly the allegations of Palestinians who have prayed for Israel to be wiped out so that a new Islamic nation can be built on its ashes. But, as the throw-away lines of a Jewish Lilliputian, they deserve little more than our contempt.

She then goes on to cringe at Israel's vulnerability. Doesn't this woman realize that Israel has always been vulnerable? At Israel's inception, Ben Gurian was counseled not to declare statehood. To do this, many felt, would bring down upon the Jewish people the might of the surrounding Arab armies. And, of course, that's exactly what happened. But, we survived and overcame our enemies.

Israel has always been vulnerable. That's why Israel developed military skills and new and unique weapon systems. It's nice to beat swords into plowshares; very gratifying. But, in the world in which the Jews find themselves, it's hardly realistic.

Oh, and yes, she says we will bring down hatred upon ourselves. No kidding? Isn't that what Islam teaches? And, when did the Roman Catholic Church finally decide that Jews should no longer be accused of killing Christ? My goodness, how long ago was that? I'm sorry Anne, but if you're looking for love, there's only one simple solution; don't let people know you're Jewish.

We than come to the Lilliputian trump card; namely, the eyes of the world and the loss of world support. Excuse me, but are these the same eyes that have for so long looked upon Islamic "honor" killings and suicide bombers and yet remained silent. Are these the same eyes that stood by while African Hutus raped and set fire to African Watusis and yet remained silent. Are these the same eyes that stand by and watch a North Korean nation starve its own citizens. The list of what the world sees, or should be seeing, is far too long for me to enumerate here.

But, who exactly is this world? Are they the members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences? Are they nations with membership in the African Union which stands mute as Mugabe destroys his people? Does it include a country like Norway that denies the right to slaughter beef in a kosher fashion, while its citizens revel in the joys of harpooning whales, shooting deer, and clubbing seals?

The real problem, and the Lilliputian Jews should be honest enough to accept its reality, is American foreign policy under Barack Obama. America wanted to make Iraq a better place. Well, that didn't work out all that well. It wanted to help build a new Afghanistan. That went even worse. It wanted to work with Syria in order to achieve . . . something or other. We now see how that worked out. Why would any Jew want to see America referee Israel's dispute with the Palestinians? Why would Jews think that suddenly American foreign policy has at long last finally gotten it right?

Where Did We Lose Our Knowledgeable Jews?

I belong to a Conservative Temple. Its members are highly supportive of Israel. They love going to New York City to participate in the Israeli Day Parade.

How then was the following conversation possible? In this conversation, I mentioned to a lady from my temple that I was disturbed that a leader of the umbrella organization for Conservative Synagogues had been quoted as saying he applauded Rick Jacob's appointment to head the Reform movement.

"Why?" she asked.

"Well, for starters," I explained, "he serves on J Street's board of directors."

"So why is that bad? I know a college kid in California who worked for J Street," she said. "She never had anything bad to say about them."

But, it gets worse; much worse. I met two old guys from my synagogue at a cantorial concert. (I guess I shouldn't refer to them as "old" in light of my own advanced years.) These fellows are also highly supportive of Israel. During the intermission, I described my recent conversation with the lady, as just mentioned above.

I was met with silence. Then, one of them asked, "Who's J Street?"

I was floored. But, then, the more I thought of it, it occurred to me that maybe this wasn't so bad after all.

Rabbi Gordis Speaks With J Street

J Street founder, Jeremy Ben Ami, and other J Street members met in Jerusalem with Rabbi Dan Gordis, Senior Vice President of Shalom Center. J Street may have sought this meeting because no one else, not associated with leftist or Palestinian causes, would do so. In fact, Gordis had been counseled by others not to meet with the J Street people.

Gordis ignored the advice -- something J Street may have soon have had cause to regret. Gordis told the J Street people that while he disagreed with much of what they have been doing, he believed it was important to meet even with those with whom he differed. Israel needed a "big tent" of supporters. He now hoped to find out whether J Street could be seen as being in, or out, of the tent.

Gordis explained that if there were one state, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, it would mean the eradication of Israel. For him, that was unacceptable. However, keeping Palestinians under an Israeli thumb, or simply expelling them, was, on moral grounds, equally unacceptable. As he saw it, living side by side in peace was the only way forwards. He trusted that he and J Street could agree on this objective.

However, in following what J Street had been quoted as saying, it seemed to Gordis that J Street believed that this goal could be reached only by Israel making broad territorial concessions. J Street seemed to believe that anyone disagreeing with this was "not serious." It seemed that J Street believed that Israel had to "give up the store." Those not willing to do this, according to J Street, were "bluffing" or were "liars," or were "misguided."

Such an attitude, in the opinion of Rabbi Gordis, showed arrogance. Did J Street believe that they had greater moral clarity than Israelis? Published reports showed J Street taking great exception to those who argued that divisions separating Hamas from Fatah made a peace agreement at this time impossible. In J Street's opinion, only those opposed to a peace agreement would make this argument. It was obvious, according to J Street, that a reconciliation at this time between Fatah and Hamas reduced the obstacles to peace.

"Obvious?" asked Rabbi Gordis. J Street didn't seem to have figured it out. Gordis pointed out that the only thing truly obvious was that those who opposed to Israel's existence were Israel's enemies. For Abbas to have reconciled with Hamas was indeed an obstacle to peace.

BDS (boycott, disinvest, sanction) groups were cited by Gordis as people truly opposed to Israel's existence. How then, he asked, could J Street invite them to its conferences?

Dr. Gordis also reminded J Street that they had called on Israel to end the IDF's Cast Lead operation on the very first day of its launching when clearly it was far to soon for it to have achieved any of its objectives. Wasn't it obvious to J Street that Sderot was still not safe from the rocket and mortar attacks it had sustained in the days, weeks and months prior to Cast Lead. And, when exactly was it, asked Gordis, that J Street spoke out against Hamas's shelling of Israeli towns and cities?

Gordis noted that he had seen J Street spend freely to influence public opinion in the States. Suppose such sums had been directed towards influencing he attitudes of Israelis? Gordis doubts it would have had much of an impact. And, why would that have been? Did Israelis enjoy seeing their children go off to counter persistent Arab attacks? Did they take pleasure in attending the funerals of Israeli soldiers?

Why does J Street see it as a good thing for the U.S. to be twisting Israel's arm when Israel stands so alone in a toxic international arena?

Rabbi Gordis challenged J Street: "Show us you're pro-Israel. Let us see you apply pressure against others."

In the question-and-answer period, Ben Ami of J Street said he was "astonished" that no one had mentioned "occupation of another people." The answer to Ben Ami's comment came some days later in the issue of "Globes" where Verel Kellner, who had been traveling with the J Street group, observed that, in a meeting between J Street and Salem Fayyed, not once had Fayyad mentioned "occupation." An "occupation conversation" seems to hold little interest for any of the parties central to this conversation observed Kellner. Why then would this be an issue framed by J Street?

Gaza Withdrawal Then Versus The Achievment of Peace Now

In the previous blog, I describe Dr. Schueftan's findings regarding present day attitudes of the Israeli-Arab minority towards Israel and how they create a formidable barrier to any peace agreement with the greater Palestinian community. As mentioned there, this conclusion was reached by the man who convinced Sharon to remove Israelis from Gaze

It might have been noted that two blogs earlier, in commenting on Sharon's Kadima Party, I suggested that the removal of Israelis from Gaza was a terrible mistake. Dr. Schueftan, however, argues against that point.

As Schueftan saw it then, and as he continues to see it now, getting out of Gaza was good for Israel. In his view, the cost of staying in Gaza did not warrant our presence there. We got rid of it and good riddance.

But that thinking does not extrapolate to the west bank. The defense of Israel simply does not permit us to return to '67 boundaries. As Dr. Schueftan sees it, there is no inconsistency. The problems with today's Gaza borders are minimal and manageable. West bank borders are an entirely different matter and require different thinking.

A Palestinian-Israeli Peace Agreement? Ask Dr. Schueftan.

Okay, so who is this Dr. Schueftan?

While perhaps his is not a household name, it probably should be. He's the head of the National Securities Center at Haifa University. In earlier times he advised Itzhak Rabin as well as Ariel Sharon regarding matters of national policy. Indeed, his arguments helped Sharon decide to remove Jewish settlements from Gaza. It's a move Dr. Schueftan still cheerfully argues was exactly the correct move.

Just recently, Dr. Dan Schueftan has come out with a new book, "Palestinians in Israel - The Arab Minority's Struggle Against the Jewish State." It's based on his extensive interviews with Jews and Arabs. And, it presents a disturbing picture of Israeli Arab attitudes.

Schueftan has found that Arabs don't recognize the existence of a Jewish people. They do, of course, acknowledge that there are people who practice a Jewish religion, but the Arabs don't see them as a "people." From the Arab's point of view, Israel is little more than a manifestation of European colonialism. It's founding was illegal. It continues to lack legitimacy. And, the values it is based on are not authentic to the region.

Arab elites in Israel would like to see the destruction of everything the Jews have built. They then would like to build an Arab society on the ruins of the Jewish state. For the Israeli Arab, these are more than wishful thoughts. This is their identity.

In his study of Israeli and Arab society, Dr. Schueftan has observed the following:

1. The social divide is not between the Jew and the Arab, but rather between the haredi Jew and the non-secular Arab on one side and the secular Jew and the Christian Arab on the other.

2. Poverty, such as it is, is not really what divides the Arab and the Jew. He finds that Arabs are not as poor as generally believed. However, the haredi Jews and the Muslim Arab are indeed generally poorer than their more secular counterparts. But this difference in levels of income is not due to discrimination but rather to the social and political choices they have made.

In the families of secular Jews and Christian Arabs, women enjoy greater rights. In such families both the man and the woman work. They also tend to have fewer children.

3. But while secular Jews and Christian Arabs share many social values, Arabs, whether Christian, secular, or Muslim, view Israel as illegitimate.

Schueftan's book provides an analysis that is divided into three parts; 1. the Arab-Jewish relationship, 2. political insights into the Arab and Jewish positions, and 3. a social and economic analysis of the parties.

In the end, Dr. Schueftan concludes that there is no solution. Israel must carry on and be satisfied with what amounts to damage control. Self destruction is not an option.

Credit for the material in this review must go to the article in the Jerusalem Post written by Ben Hartman.

Medicare: An American Addiction

Controlled substances can be God-sent, but only when properly managed. If prudently applied they can help alleviate the threat of physical agony. When poorly managed, they will destroy the individual.

It's quite the same with medicare, a system designed to dispel the threat of pauperization when one becomes sick. However, we have come to see that Medicare's design is deeply flawed and, if left uncorrected, will bring down the American economy and everything that hinges on it, such as jobs and national security.

Like anything else that's addictive, Medicare is difficult to fix. The public is of no mind to go cold turkey. They need their fix. Instead, the country must be weened from its addiction slowly and with great care. America needs a kind of methadone.

The answer to our problem must of necessity come through the political process. Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare fix was meant to be a first step in negotiating a suitable solution to our dire health care problem. But, rather than negotiate a "fix" acceptable to all, the Democrats have chosen to use the Ryan proposal as a cudgel with which to assault Republicans. And, in this, they have been highly successful.

Recent results from an upstate New York election serves to illustrate an important point; namely, that dealing with an addiction such as Medicare becomes excruciatingly difficult when you have standing next to you an enabler such as the Democratic Party.

The Kadima Party and J Street Allied in Undermining Israel

Kadima in Israel is doing the same thing J Street does in the States and it's not pretty.

As you might recall, Kadima was created by Ariel Sharon when he found that the Likud party was balking at his plan to remove Israelis from Gaza; removing them from their homes there and from the greenhouses they had built in their successful effort to create a vibrant flower industry.

Humility and introspection were never Sharon's long suit. He knew . . . he knew . . . . he just knew . . . that by removing the the Jews from Gaza he would solve his problems with the Gazan Palestinians.

Right. The Gazans cannibalized the Israeli greenhouses which the foolish Israelis thought the Palestinians might use to help them continue with this already started business and thereby allow them to bring in badly needed income.

Next, the Gazans voted in as their new administrators Islamic terrorists; namely, Hamas. That was followed by Hamas firing hundreds and hundreds of missiles at Israeli towns along the border, not to mention attacks against Israelis near the border.

Israelis should regret that, by being in an extended coma, Sharon is unable to see the results of his bold risk to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

The political party Sharon created, Kadima, seems to be suffering from the same coma. Clearly, they have learned nothing from Sharon's debacle and continue to hector Netanyahu for not doing more to achieve peace.

J Street was established by George Soros and his friends to serve as a counter weight to AIPAC, much as Kadima party was established to serve as a counterweight to the Likud party. Of course, having been created by Jews to the left, J Street soon overshot the policies of Kadima and is now to be found aligning itself with groups waging a war of BDS against the Jewish state. The laugh line is this: They do it to strengthen Israel. It's like something from the Dark Ages when patients were bled in order to improve their health.

Donald Trump: We Thank You

Trump is to be thanked for taking a hit for the Republicans on the Birther Issue. The Birther Issue was, of course, from the very beginning, a red herring laid out by the Obama machine to trip up the Republicans. The Republicans, by and large, avoided this Democratic snare. Still, some on the right wanted to know why there was no birth certificate for Pres Obama.

The certificate was, of course, there all along. But Obama had it withheld as bait for the Republicans. Then when his Republican opponents began suggesting that Obama might not be a citizen, he would release the birth certificate and, thereby, not only establish the fact of his citizenship, but more importantly label Republicans as small-minded fools unable to hide their racist tendencies.

The Republicans didn't fall for the ruse. But less sophisticated citizens, unable to imagine such political gotcha games, did indeed demand proof of Obama's citizenship. Before this matter went its length, Trump entered the fray and took up the cause of ordinary people who wanted to know why Obama's birth certificate had not been made public.

That's when Obama sprung his trap and released his birth certificate. The media, largely leftist, responded the way Obama knew they would. They labeled Trump a buffoon ending his viability as a Republican nominee.

But, what did Obama really achieve? Trump never had the political credentials to be a Republican candidate for the presidency. I certainly didn't want to see him being nominated, nor did 90% of the Republican Party. By taking Trump out of the race, Obama did the Republicans a considerable favor.

But, it also showed the electorate the kind of games this country's president plays at a time when what Americans really yearn for is a leader who will confront the real problems facing our nation. They want a president who can exhibit some real leadership. Regrettably that's not the president we have.

Trump showed us the games that the Obama administration considers as being appropriate political ploys. And, for that bit of transparency we really ought to thank Trump. It seems that the only one who doesn't realize the game over is Chris Matthews.

Obama Takes A Page From Mayor Giuliani

You usually don't put the names of these two fellows, Obama and Giuliani, in the same sentence. But, they do share at least one trait. They understand the importance of keeping the spot light on themselves. Sharing is good in kindergarten, but it won't do in politics.

Remember our NY mayor firing Bill Bratton, his police commissioner? It was ostensibly over Bratton having taken some trips which were paid for by various companies. And, then, too, he took an advance on a book he was to write. But, these infractions, if they were infractions, were truly trivial. No, the reason he was fired was because he was taking too much credit for the reduction in crime in the Big Apple. Bratton should have realized that when you work for Giuliani whatever good you do must be credited to the Mayor.

And, for those same reasons, Gen. Petraeus was moved from his command and nominated to head the CIA. Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA was nominated to the position of Secretary of Defense, Gates' old job. All this just prior to the operation against Osama bin Laden. An operation that Obama knew was in the last stages of its implementation.

These men, and most notably, Petraeus, were highly instrumental in locating and dispatching Osama bin Laden. Sure, they were working under the authority of Obama, just as Bratton was working under the authority of Giuliani, but it was they, and the men and women under their command, who had done all the work preparing for this important and highly successful operation. It is these men and women who should be taking the bow.

As I see it, Petraeus should have been made Secretary of Defense. That's not to suggest that Panetta didn't do a good job as Director of the CIA. But, clearly, Petraeus has a far more extensive background in matters of defense. Then again, I suppose Hillary Clinton still doesn't quite trust Petraeus.

I don't really listen all that much to Limbaugh, but I read where he had said something to the effect that wasn't it great that we had a president like Obama, who was able to discover where Obama was hiding. Wasn't it great that we had a president who knew that we would be best served by assembling a special team of U.S. Seals to go in there and get Osama out; preferably dead. Osama knew that hitting the place with a missile might not establish the proof we wanted of Osama's death.

What's really weird is that some commentators actually didn't realize that Limbaugh's remarks were all tongue-in-cheek.

Universal Humanism: Enemy of the Good

Funny how things converge. It's now Passover and we once again read of the Four Sons. The "bad" son is the one that can't see himself a part of the Jewish people. Does that make him bad? Was Esau bad for having given up his birthright as Isaac's first-born son?

I suppose that depends on your point of view. In a harsh world, joining with your fellow tribes-people is good. To face the world alone is difficult and generally quite dangerous. Each clan has its own culture, its own mores, its own system of values. If you abandon your clan's values, whose values do you adopt?

Is your culture one where women accused of infidelity are executed by stoning? Are you from a culture that forbids the slaughter of animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter despite the fact that this same culture is pro-whaling, and pro the hunting of elk; not to mention the destruction of seals for their pelts? Can these cultures be praised, or, at the very least, be found to have value? Can you value a culture that still practices human sacrifice? If you believe in the equivalency of all cultures then the answer must be yes. But, it's no, if you're a Jew.

These questions came to mind as I read a back issue of the Jerusalem Report dated Aug 2, 2011 and came across a piece by Menachem Klein titled, "Universalism and Israel's Universities."

Jews have three hundred and seventeen commandments. The most famous are the ten given at Mt. Sinai. Although some might apply to all people, many were intended strictly for Jews. Although Jews see the observance of the seventh day as being one meant for them, it's been adapted, with modification, by Christians, who have taken the first day as the Lord's day. For Jews it's still the seventh.

These views have not the slightest meaning for people identifying themselves as "universal humanists." For them, to look at matters through Jewish eyes is chauvinistic and reprehensible. Arabs defining themselves as Palestinians should be treated by the Israelis in exactly the same way as how Israelis treat their fellow Israelis.

But, how is this to be done? You and I might not agree with them, but Muslims feel that Jews have no right to the State of Israel. (They feel it is a usurped Palestinian territory.) Despite the fact that Israel is the culmination of Herzl's dream for a state for the Jews, Muslims will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. (Their attitude on this matter is set forth in the Hamas constitution.) Despite Israel having pulled every Jew out of Gaza, Hamas continue to bombard Israel with mortars and to fire at Israeli civilians with rocket propelled weapons. How should Israel alter it's policies towards Hamas?

Mr. Abbas plays a more subtle game. But, in the end, he wants a Judenrein West Bank. He decries the wall the Israelis have erected despite the fact that this wall has served reasonably well in keeping Islamic terrorists from blowing up civilians riding Israeli buses. Yes, the IDF does man check points that no doubt retard travel between communities in the West Bank. But why does Israel allocate its forces in this way? Clearly, it's to protect Israel and Israeli citizens.

And, still universal humanists decry Israel's policies of self protection. In a perfect world Israel shouldn't behave in this manner. And, that's 100% correct. But, it's not a perfect world; far from it. You can't behave in a manner that would suggest that you've arrived in some sort of Utopia. If you do, you'll end up as earlier Utopians have. You'll be eliminated.

I don't mean to bring up the Holocaust, but it is a fact that more Jews failed to escape from Germany because they believed with great fervor that the German culture, a culture for which they themselves had fought in

WW I, would never allow Hitler to destroy them as a people. They misjudged.

I would also remind my dear readers of how many people found communism and Russia a highly attractive alternative to capitalistic America. I can indeed understand why notable personages such as Paul Robeson lauded the Soviet model.

America then was unquestionably a racist nation. But, what many failed to realize was that (1) America had ideals. These ideals may often have failed to have been met, but we never stopped working at it. Robeson lived in the period of Jim Crow. But that was then. Jim Crow is no more. (2) The Russian model was a flawed model. It could not work. Simple economics brought it to its knees. Unfortunately, for the people of the Soviet Union, the demise of communism was delayed for a considerable amount of time by its police state cruelty.

Viewing the two systems from our vantage point today, it is confounding that any American citizen would actually steal military secrets from this country for delivery to the Soviets. All one can conclude is that these turncoats were, by and large, idealists. In Russia, they thought they had discovered Utopia, or, at least, a Utopia-in-the-making. Today, these people would be called universal humanists.

Donald Trump: The Picador

Watching the contestants for the forthcoming 2012 presidential elections girding themselves for the task is such fun. It's like a bull fight. In this simile, the bull is Obama. We don't know yet who the matador will be. For that we've got to wait for the Republican convention. But at this moment, the leading picador is the Donald.

Questions regarding the bull's pedigree . . . . bingo . . . lance number one. Sure, most of us do believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but why the clouded documentation? The lance can be cruel.

We do know the Donald has the funds to send investigators to Hawaii to check out the records regarding the bull's pedigree. And, sure enough, a document is found. But, why is it such a non-conventional document? Why doesn't it show the name of the hospital? Why is it not signed? There are, no doubt, good reasons that can explain all of this, but why are they not readily available?

The question of the birth certificate reminds us of how little we really know of this man who we elected as our president. If his grades weren't so great, why did he get a scholarship to Harvard? If he's not a bigot (and I don't believe he is) why did he sit in Jeremiah Wright's church and listen meekly to his racist rants year after year? Obama writes books about his youth and yet we learn so very little.

The next lance thrust by the Donald is the questioning of Obama's competence. We don't really need the Donald for this. But, the Donald does have a way of finding the mark. What he does is indeed useful. Keep in mind that the bull carries the power of hypnosis. In the 2008 election, his platform consisted of little more than "hope" and "change." What were we thinking when we cast our ballots? Did we find the tongue-tied George W so unattractive that we voted against him despite the fact that he appeared nowhere on the ballot?

The Donald with his lances helps us to snap out of our stupor. By God, we are in deep trouble. Our very currency is truly being threatened by spending that has gone completely out of control. And, yet, Obama continues to promise Americans goodies that the good citizens of this country simply don't have the money to pay for. Fire away Donald.

We need far more of a president than the ability to deliver a Clintonesque speeche. We need a man of substance, who understands the problems we face and is equipped to meet them head on. To me, the Donald is not quite yet this man. The job requires a skilled matador. Someone like Romney.

It's still early. The matador for this contest has not yet been chosen. But, whoever he, or she, turns out to be, we wish them well.

Bill O'Reilly Comes Close to Making a Valid Point But Then Misses A Golden Opportunity

Some days ago, Bill O'Reilly had on his show a woman who had come from an Islamic background. She explained, in heavily accented English, how the tenets of the Islamic faith were abusive to women and their human rights.

The next day, Bill O'Reilly put on a Muslim chap, who disputed the earlier woman's contentions. When O'Reilly pointed to passages in the Quran that seemed to buttress what the woman had said, the Muslim said that such passages were open to many interpretations and that the interpretations that Bill was suggesting were not correct.

When Bill read passages from the Hadith that further supported what the woman had said, the guest said that while some Hadith were valid, others were not. Somewhere near the end of his remarks, the Muslim fellow said that he knew these things because he was an Ahmadiyya Muslim.

I suspect that O'Reilly along with most of his viewers missed the significance of this Muslim identifying with the Ahmadiyya. My own view of this Muslim man immediately softened. I recognized him now as one of the really good guys. But, here is the thing; Muslims in Pakistan forbid the Ahmadiyya from identifying themselves as Muslims. Indeed they have a deep hatred of the Ahmadiyya and have set upon them and murdered them. Indonesian Muslims also despise them. They have suffered abuse in virtually all Islamic lands.

Are the Ahamadiyya Muslims? India accepts them as such. However, the Muslims in India do not. Here in the U.S. we do.

The point is that, while I might agree with this Muslim and his interpretations of the Quran and with those Hadith he holds to be valid, his views are shared by precious few Muslims in Islamic nations. In short, he really doesn't represent the Islamic view on a great many matters, not the least of them being the Islamic view of women as expressed in Islamic nations.

The Totalitarian Mind

I must preface my remarks with a confession. I thought my ideas on totalitarianism were novel. And, perhaps, as applied to the Middle East they are. But, the concept if totalitarianism is not. A bit of research shows that an Italian historian, Giovanni Amendola, in 1923 or thereabouts, was one of the first to articulate the concept of totalitarianism. Not long afterwards, the Italian, Giovanni Gentile reworked the concept to put a positive spin on it so as to favor Italian fascism. Mussolini, himself, referred to fascism, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism (call it what you will) as an ideology of the state that politicizes everything spiritual and human.

I also learned of efforts to distinguish between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs attempted to outline such such distinctions. But they have been subjected to critical review and have been found to be far from universally accepted. From my point of view, the critique of totalitarianism by Karl Popper is far more relevant. A key element in his critique is that those who would impose a totalitarian order on society turn to "nature," or "The Law of History." Or, I would argue, they turn to God to legitimize their authority.

Others who have written on this subject include Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Their analysis has been challenged by Karl Dietrich Bracher as being too narrow. The historian, Walter Laqueur strongly favors Bracher's analysis.

Much that has been written on this subject, but the writings have has centered largely on that period of history when communism and fascism were the the dark forces being faced by the West. What seems less appreciated is the extent to which these writings can be applied to more current history.

I'd like to turn to the era of General Augusto Pinochet. Liberals, and forces on the left, bemoan what was America's tacit support of Pinochet. Was Pinochet an authoritarian leader? Unquestionably. But, the forces he fought were leftists whose methods were hardly less authoritarian. These two contending forces differed primarily on their views of the laws of history and how they perceived these laws. The leftists focused on social justice and the inequities in Chilean society. They sought to correct these inequities through central direction of the economy by the government.

Pinochet looked to free-market economics. He supported the efforts of his economists; men, who had come under the influence of Milton Friedman's teachings. Pinochet, as it turned out, had the superior idea. Poverty in Chile has gone from 40% to 14%. There is still poverty in Chile, but improvement has been dramatic. The one last peg for leftists to hang their hats on is the disparity between the very rich and the rest of Chilean society.

I would finally note, on the matter of Pinochet, that the man turned over power to democratic forces in a peaceful manner. Perhaps he had had no choice. Perhaps he did. But his having done this in a peaceful manner is greatly under appreciated. Also, greatly under appreciated is his having instituted sound economic principals for his nation to follow.

Today, the west faces another totalitarian force; namely, Islamic fundamentalism. This force has succeeded in befuddling the western mind. I think it's because of its religious underpinnings. In short, the Islamist justifies everything he chooses to institute based on the word of God as given to man by Mohammed.

In the West, religious conflict is something that was experienced hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean that such conflict hasn't lingered in one form or another to this day. But what emerged in the interim is the growth of secularism. In the U.S. we have a Constitution that sets forth a separation of Church and State. Religions still try to have laws passed based on their views of God's will, e.g. "right to life." But, ultimately, whether the views of parties to a particular religious point of view prevail is determined by the larger population. In the west, that population is largely secular despite various religious affiliations.

A religion that seeks to make its will manifest through force (based on God's will) is something

relatively new to our society. But, clearly, it's something we must come to grips with and to do so pretty soon.