So, You Want To Bear Arms?

If you want to bear arms like our Constitution written in the 18th Century says you can, then go out and  buy yourself a musket.  Our forefathers didn't know about atom bombs, or assault-type weapons capable of spitting out dozens of rounds in a fraction of a minute.

We once had a ban on assault-type weapons.  It expired.  Why?

The massacre of little children in a Connecticut school is instructive.  It puts to rest many of the NRA's contentions the foremost being that guns don't kill, people do.  And, maybe the NRA has a point.

Adam Lanza's gun might be acquitted of murder, but not Adam Lanza.  But, if Lanza's gun were not an automatic type weapon, how many people could he have killed?  One?  Maybe two?  But, that's about it.  It was the automatic nature of his weapon, that allowed him to massacre so many little children.

The NRA likes to deflect away from the weapon by citing other factors such as the mental state of the killer, parental guidance, the lack of armed guards at the school, violent TV shows and movies.  It's all nonsense.  As a kid, I played cops and robbers in a neighborhood that had no gangs and whose kids, when they got older, entered no gangs.  Ditto, violent forms of entertainment.  What segment of the population doesn't love a James Bond movie?  Sure, there are people that don't, but they form a rather small minority.  Then we come to parental guidance.  Adams mother took him to the range and taught him to respect guns.  Should she have noticed that her kid had Aspergers?  No doubt, she did.  But, does it matter?  Aspergers people are not, repeat "not", a violent subset of the general population.

I'm not for murder of any sort ( did I really have to make that statement), but murder will regrettably always be with us.  Some will occur through bludgeoning, some with a knife, some with poison, and so on.  And, some, regrettably, with a gun.  And, we've got to try to stop it.  But, we've got to start somewhere, and I think mass killings are as good a place to start as any.  Not only that, but it's relatively easy.  Ban automatic weapons.

Why There Can't Be A Israeli-Palestinian Peace Treaty

Abbas claims he want peace.  Netanyahu claims he wants peace.  But, it won't happen.  The train has already left the station.

Had the Palestinians really wanted peace, they would have grabbed any number of offers made in the past; the latest being what was discussed by Ehud Olmert.  Now they say they want talks but those talks must continue from where they were with Olmert.  What is Abbas smoking?  The Olmert discussions are off the table.  (The world only learned of them through the information leaked through Wikileaks.)

And, it's not that Abbas is a foolish person.  He couldn't make peace if he wanted to.  The Arab street, and by that I mean the Salafist elements among the Muslims would kill him.  Also, the Arab children in their classrooms have for years been taught the Arab narrative wherein Palestinian land was stolen from them by the Europeans and given to Jews.  Nothing Abbas could hope to get from Israel would be enough.

Also as time passes and the Israeli's see what they got for departing from land south of the Litani River in Lebanon, and what they got when they left Gaza, the Israelis see that nothing good will come from a treaty with the Palestinians.  Twice burnt is once too often.  And, what would peace look like anyway?  In Egypt, only American money keeps the former head of the Muslim Brotherhood faithful to earlier treaties with Egypt.  In Jordan the king's thrown sits on a knife's edge.

No, the Israelis are not going to commit suicide.  There will be no right of return to Israel for Palestinians.  (We haven't even mentioned Arab compensation for the equal number of Jews expelled from their homes in Islamic countries in '48.)  There will be no giving any land to the Palestinians than what they already have.  And, if some land were yielded, it would be an amount unacceptable to the Palestinians.  And, for sure, the Jews are not about to divide Jerusalem.  So what are we talking about?

A Switzerland-like Palestine is as remote as the land of Oz.

Republicans: Great Technocrats, Lousy Politicians

Explaining to the electorate why the American fiscal situation is so fraught with peril should have been the Republican's great mission.  And, one of the major reasons they failed is that they got hung up on the "taxing of the millionaires" nonsense.

Taxing the millionaires and billionaires is the typical Democratic ploy and the Republicans fell for it.  What the Republicans should have said was, "fine, let's increase the tax on the top 1% of the public."  And, now, that we've agreed on that, let's sit down and solve our problem, because if you think that our agreement on that matter solves our fiscal mess, you're living in an alternate universe.

Let's get to the nub of the problem; namely, an unsustainable federal debt.  What is an unsustainable federal debt?  It's a debt to GDP ratio that puts you in the danger zone.  It's like driving a car that shows it's low on gas.  You're not exactly sure as to how many more miles you're still going to be able to drive.  But, you do know that if you don't get gas soon, at some point in the not too distant future the car will stop running.

This is not an easy message to deliver.  First, it involves a ratio.  For many Americans that's higher math.  Second, it involves GDP (gross domestic product), an economic term very likely unfamiliar to most of the electorate.

But, if you get past those two hurdles in explaining our fiscal nightmare, you face even more problems.  These can be summarized in three words; revenue, spending, and growth.  You'd think these would be easy words.  Revenue is the money that government takes in and there are two ways it can take in more of it; namely, through higher taxes and, secondly, through reforming the tax code.  Ah, the tax code!  At this point you will have lost most of your audience.

Taxes require tax laws.  These laws are called our tax code; it's the laws telling the government how it can assess taxes.  If you would write into the law that people with only four fingers on one hand can get a deduction of 50% on their assessed taxes, youd be making a percentage of the population very happy indeed.  This example, is, of course, made up.  There is no deduction for having only four fingers on one hand that I know of.  But, there are lots of deductions that are even more frivolous than our hypothetical four- finger deduction, and these actual exemptions allow the upper 1% to avoid a lot more in taxes than the increase in the tax rate being promoted by Obama.

Now let's get into what is, for the Democrats, the third-rail of fiscal policy; namely, spending.  Indeed, it's actually proven to be the third rail of fiscal policy for a great many democracies.  It's what brought Greece to its knees and promises to do much the same for Italy, Spain and France.  Consider this: if spending $5 million a day to extend the life of a terminally ill patient for one day is considered good medical practice, can a nation afford to provide such coverage.

But, let's take this issue one step further.  If the $5 million a day for our hypothetical terminally ill patient is judged excessive for a governmental healthcare coverage policy, it follows that a truly rich (top 1% in wealth) patient might live a few days, or even a few weeks, longer than a poorer patient.  Depending on how you view this situation, this might seem unfair.  But, can a government establish perfect fairness for its population.

And, finally, we come to growth.  It's an amorphous kind of word but it has very direct and specific consequences.  Growth means more jobs.  It means the creation of more tax payers.  It will therefore result in a government gaining greater revenues.  In general, higher taxes retard growth.  So getting back to the top 1%:  how do we factor in the issue of fairness versus greater economic opportunity for all.

There's a lot more to fiscal policy than what's been just covered.  Educating the electorate is not easy.  But, this was the assignment for the Republicans.  And, they failed.  Instead they got hung up on women's rights, on immigration policy, and a number of other extraneous issues.  Let's hope they do better in 2016.

Gen. Petraeus, Susan Rice, and Obama Tweets

There is an ongoing discussion on whether Gen. Petraeus should, or should not, have resigned.  Then there is the back and forth on Susan Rice, who Obama would like to see confirmed as Sec of State, and now we have the "fiscal cliff."  These subjects are really much simpler to diagnose than all the talk we've been hearing.

Gen. Petraeus:  Since he is no longer in military service, the service code of conduct no longer applies. There is really no chargeable offense.  Doing something stupid is not a crime.  Having an affair does make a CIA head susceptible to blackmail.  But, fortunately no such attempt was ever made.

So, should Petraeus have resigned?  That call can only be made by one man, his boss, and his boss was Obama.  Word has it that Petraeus and Obama were never that close.  For Obama to have dumped him comes as no great surprise.  And, that's how that goes.

Susan Rice as a candidate for appointment to the position of Secretary of State:  I have very little idea as to whether Ms. Rice is up to the job or not.  But clearly the Benghazi affair with the death of four fine Americans in Libya does present a problem for this appointment.

The Benghazi affair presents us with several issues, but the one most relevant to the Rice appointment is her misleading statement made immediately after the assassination of our ambassador to Libya.  She announced that his death resulted from a demonstration by Libyans incensed over a film produced in the United States about the life of Muhammad.  This was false.  The CIA knew almost immediately that this was an assassination by al Qaida.

So why did she give out the false story?  As I understand it, based on what is being presented to the American public, the CIA passed the information up the line.  Somewhere (up the line) there is a group whose function it is to take such confidential information and create talking points for dissemination to the public.   It is here that we run into our first problem.  If the administration didn't want to reveal that they knew it was a planned assassination, why not simply say that they were not in possession of all the facts, but that they would provide the facts as soon as they became available?  (That should have given them as much time as they should have reasonably needed.)

It is suspected that they made up the story about the demonstration simply to keep Obama's reputation as the one who had finished off al Qaida's from being tarnished.  In short, Ms. Rice gave out a story that was known to be false simply to further the political advantage of the Obama administration at the time of an election.

There is another possibility; namely, that the assassination attempt on our ambassador succeeded only because of the ineptitude on the part of either our state department or our security forces.  But that too would have reflected poorly on the Obama administration.

Okay, perhaps the culpability for devious behavior lies elsewhere in the administration.  But, at the very least, this makes Ms. Rice little more than a courier for others.  Is that what Americans want as secretary of state? ..... a courier?

The rapidly approaching fiscal cliff:  If Congress does not respond to the fiscal mess we're in, it will get much uglier.  The Republicans don't want to see taxes go up in a vain attempt to contain runaway entitlements.  Democrats don't want any reduction in entitlements. Unless this issue is resolved the national debt will continue to balloon.  A solution can only come through compromise.

Compromise means Republicans and Democrats negotiating.  Such negotiations will require the full participation of the president.  But how is this to be done if the president won't roll up his sleeves and get busy negotiating with the Republican legislators?  Can tweeting with  the American public serve as a substitute to negotiating?  I don't think so.

For The Palestinians It Will Always Be 1948

I'm as happy as any peace-lover that a truce has been struck between Hamas and Israel.  But, will this lead to a lasting peace?  Hardly, and here's why.

I just heard on the radio that Abbas congratulated Hamas on their victory.  Victory?  I don't believe Hamas did gain a victory, but even if they did, and let's suppose they did?  Is that what you say to further peace?  When the Union troops defeated the Confederate troops in the course of our Civil War, was Lincoln in a celebratory mood such as that express by Abbas?  Did Lincoln cry out , "We won.  Hurray.  Hurray?"

The Civil War ended the idea that the slavery of blacks was acceptable.  But, it didn't end the mindset that  blacks were inferior to whites.  The Civil War was followed by decades of Jim Crow.  Only through the peaceful efforts of black leaders like Martin Luther King and their white supporters were federal laws passed that put the spike into heart of segregation.

No such efforts have been begun in the middle east.  Hamas doesn't even agree that Israel has a right to exist.  They call Israel the aggressor ... and this after launching hundreds of rockets prior to Israel's response.    The children in Palestinian classrooms continue to be taught to hate Jews and Israelis.  Egyptian reporters, who want to see for themselves what Israel and Israelis are like, and who manage to visit Israel, are treated like pariahs and traitors to the Muslim cause when they return to Egypt.

I was listening to a person who had put his defense of Israel on YouTube.  Listed besides his clip was the response of a Palestinian.  To me the defense of Israel was straightforward.  I had heard it often before.  I was in total agreement.  The Palestinian response struck me as bizarre.  Israel was the aggressor.  The Palestinians were the "resisters." They were responding to Israeli aggression and repression.  It all sounded like Alice in Wonderland conversing with the Queen.

But, if we assume that the Palestinians believe in what they are saying and if indeed they are not demented, how do we make sense of their response.  The key is to realize that the Palestinians continue to live in 1948.  As they see it, a bunch of Europeans sat around a table and decided to give Arab territory away to the Jews.  And, indeed, there is a rational for this view.  But, it's a view that is so nearsighted and so out of step with all that went on before in Palestine and all that followed that, while dividing the territory of Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs seems out of step with how we today think things should be done, it is not out of step with history.

First, Palestine was a territory, not a nation.  As a nation, it had been part of the Ottoman Empire.  As a territory, it had been lived in by Druze, Christians, Jews, Circassians and a number of other ethnic groups.  Under Ottoman rule, Palestine became a Muslim country.  (It might be noted that Saladin, the Muslim conquerer of Palestine as well as other territories that fell under his sword, was a Kurd -- a relatively minor player in today's Islamic world.)  And, while even as a Muslim state, Palestine contained Jews and Christians, these other ethnic groups were viewed as second-class citizens with lesser civil rights than the Muslims.  While that might have been acceptable in those days, it's not acceptable today.  Nevertheless, most Muslim countries e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., don't get that, even today.

What really galls the Muslims is that Palestine was Judah before it was Palestine.  Indeed, many  Muslims today deny that Jerusalem was ever a Jewish city or that the Western Wall was ever a part of a Jewish temple.  These denials are especially strange, not simply because they fly in the face of history, but because they serve to alienate the world's Christians for whom these are historical cornerstones and are critical elements of their faith.  In the Judah of the Torah, or in that land in the time of the Christian's New Testament, there were Philistines and Samaritans and perhaps some others, but there were no Muslims.  Mohammed had not yet been born.

There have been territorial changes almost without number.  Parts of Poland were given to Russia.  Parts of Germany were given to Poland.  China still maintains that Taiwan is part of China.  Korea was arbitrarily divided between a North and a South.  Turkey grabbed a corner of Cypress. Puerto Rico and the Philippines were removed from Spain, who had earlier taken them from their native populations.
And, so the list goes on and on.  The Arabs in the Middle East had allied themselves with the Nazis and, for this reason those whose territories were part of the Ottoman Empire found their lands arbitrarily subdivided and rearranged.  That was not only true of Palestine but also of Syria, Iraq and other lands.

The fact that the State of Israel has been established and has survived and grown culturally, militarily, and economically over the last 60 plus years is a reality that can probably be changed only through a successful atomic strike by the Iranians.  The fact that Palestinians,  indeed all Muslim nations, would serve their people far better by working in harmony with Israel and emulating in their own lands what the Israelis have done in theirs, can hardly be contested.  Let the Palestinians celebrate, or mourn, their Nakba.  But, if they become obsessed with it to the exclusion of all else, it will poison the well of prosperity for them and for all the people in the region.

Today, the middle east is more or less five parties dancing on the edge of a knife.  At one end you have Israel.  At the other, you have Hamas, Fatah, Morsi of Egypt, Iran.  You also have the U.S., in there somewhere.  But, where?  The U.S. understands the danger Iran represents, but seem to have no clear idea as to how to deal with Iran as that countries pursues its nuclear ambitions.  America does have some leverage over Egypt through their foreign aid.  And, it is true that they have judged Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  But then they seem to be on the side of the Palestinians, and Abbas,  in their negotiations -- or what passes for negotiations -- with the Israelis.

Good luck in working out this Rubic's cube.

I Was Right -- Damn It

On Sept 27, I predicted in Chuckling Over The Here And Now that Obama would win the election and, perhaps more important,  why he would win.  You now see -- everyone now sees -- I was right both as to the results as well as to the reasons.  Why, oh why,  didn't the Republicans read my blog?

Okay, so now we're here at the end of 2012.  What do we see?  We see Obama laying out the campaign for his party for the 2014 midterm elections.  As to bipartisanship?  You're excused.  Go have yourself a good laugh and then come back in a couple of minutes.

The betting is now on whether an agreement can be reached between Obama and the Republican House.  They either compromise or go over the fiscal cliff and to sequestration.  ("Sequestration"; now there's a word only a politician could love.)  Anyway, you know what it means; namely, cutting all items across the board by an equal percentage, even if some items are more worthy than others.  My vote is that it will be sequestration.

Why?  (1.) Obama will be able to blame the recalcitrant and uncooperative Congress and (2.) it does a lot of what Obama wants done anyway.  It means raising taxes by way of the lapse of the Bush tax cuts and (3.) turning to a sequestered budget will lead to considerable chaos which Obama will enjoy.  He'll blame it on the Republicans.  As to the Republicans:  Their attitude will be -- if that's what the bastard wants, give it to him.

Is this a good way to govern?  No, but it's what you get if campaigning is more important than governing.

Israel's New Friends

That's right, Israel has a collection of new friends and they include Greece, Cyprus, Canada and Russia.  And, who knows, Italy may join the group.  So, what's this all about?  The usual: money, or more specifically, the money to be made from energy.

First, let's review some old news; namely the large natural gas discoveries off the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean.  This brought together Israel, Greece and Cyprus.  Then in June of 2012, Russia's Gazprom and Israel jointly announced plans to cooperate on gas extraction.  That's new.  With Russia having a stake in this pie, it becomes a bit more difficult for Turkey to create problems.  As for Italy, it's racked up some really big bets on Iran.  Rome, may well decide that it would be far more advantageous  to work with someone closer and more dependable.

But, we now have a big new thing.  It's the potential that's been uncovered in shale oil under the land of Israel itself.  It appears that Israel may have the third largest largest shale oil deposit in the world, something like 250 billion barrels.  This according to the World Energy Council, a global forum with affiliates in 93 countries.  And, so, at about the time that Russia entered into a cooperation agreement with Israel on the gas, Canada entered into an agreement with Israel to cooperate in the exploration and development of what apparently could be Israel's vast shale oil reserves.

Canada has already shown itself to be a solid friend of the Jewish people.  Israel's agreement with Russia was accompanied by a remarkably cordial visit from President Vladimir Putin.  In the course of his visit, President Putin put on a kippah and went to the Western Wall to pray.  One report quoted him as saying to one of the Russian Jews present, "I came her to pray that the Temple should be rebuilt, and I wish that your prayers will be fulfilled."  He also said to his Israeli hosts, "Here, we see how the Jewish past is itched into the stones of Jerusalem."  Needless to say, the Arabs went bonkers.

This information was taken from an article by Walter Russell Mead that appeared in the American Interest, July 2, 2012.  In his article Mr. Mead did mention that besides the gas in the Mediterranean Sea, there has also been identified 5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.  American Companies were involved with those finds.

Not mentioned by Mr. Mead, but clearly apparent to me is that Israel's new friends seem a lot warmer towards Israel than Barak Obama.  What special relationship remains between the US and Israel is the one being held together by the Congress.  Obama, would seem, has left the building.

Presidential Debate No. 1 : Obama's Regal Style Exposed

It's the day after the debate and the pundits are analyzing and dissecting the whys and wherefores of Obama's poor showing in his debate with Mitt Romney.  It's that he didn't face his opponent.  It's that he felt he was in the lead and he just wanted to sit on that lead.  Obama is really uncomfortable having another person responding to his statements, he much prefers giving a speech.  He didn't want to appear too aggressive.   Mr. Lehrer, the moderator, allowed Mitt to walk all over him.  Etc. etc. etc.

I think they were a little hard on Lehrer, but they may well have been correct in their other observations.  But, I'd like to add one other observation I didn't hear being offered by any other political analyst; namely, the exposure of Obama's imperial style.  In the course of this his first debate in 2012, Obama said something, to the following effect:  If someone has a good idea that they want to bring to his attention, he's willing to listen.

That, in a nut shell, exposes the greatest flaw in Obama's presidency.  He views himself as the regal commander.  Should someone in his realm bring something up that he wasn't aware of, or something that he hadn't considered, or a new approach to some existing problem, he'd be willing to listen.

What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that that's not how our American system works.  We know the problems; namely, high unemployment, a huge and growing federal deficit, a creaky and ineffectual system of education, a tax code that's inefficient and unfair, and a system for delivering health care that's unsustainable.  And, we know that solving these problems, either by Republicans or Democrats will be daunting.  And, we do want a president who recognizes the problems and is prepared to take up the challenge.  But, he's got to do it within the American system.

We don't have an opaque bureaucracy like China's, we don't have one-man rule like Russia,  and we don't have a king like Morocco.   Also, while I respect the British parliamentary system, it's not our system.   In America, our political parties may have very different ideas of how America should be governed and very different ideas as to how our problems can best be solved, but at the end of the day the two parties have to work together and compromise in order to get the job done.  We don't have a king who knows best but is willing to allow his subjects to offer suggestions as to how to improve his master plan.  That's just not the American way.

And, this explains why our three branches of government, when divided as to parties, actually works best.  In his first two years in office, Obama had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic  House of Representatives.  He used those two years to push through his Obamacare, a deeply flawed piece of legislation.  When Eric Kantor, a Republican offered his thoughts, Obama told him, in essence, elections have consequences and we won.

Technically, Obama was correct.  The Democrats had a clean sweep.  And, quite true, from those facts did follow numerous consequences.  But, it wasn't a good for America.  If they could have jointly hammered out a healthcare program acceptable to both sides, America might have begun to solve one of its most intractable problems.  In short, when both sides have skin in the game, the outcome is invariably better.  It's a lesson both parties must soon get to learn.  It's a lesson Romney learned in Massachusetts when he served as governor.  It's apparently a lesson you don't learn in Chicago.

The Cancer of Entitlements

You people on the right, you complain about big government.  You complain about entitlements.  But, I don't see you turning down Medicare payments.  I don't see you turning down your Social Security payments.  I don't see you turning down your deductions for mortgage payments.  I don't see right-leaning Congress people failing to try to extract from the federal coffers all they can manage to get for their constituents.  In short, you're all hypocrites.

It does look that way, doesn't it?  But, rather than label it hypocrisy,  I'd label it a common disease.  I'd label it a kind of leprosy or a kind of cancer.  Identifying the disease doesn't save you from it.  But, it might get you to begin looking for a cure.

Let's examine a the pathology of entitlements a bit more closely.  The Fed pulls in all this tax money.  Where does it go?  Some to the military, some to social security, some for the delivery of health care, some to fund our various programs,  (food stamps, the UN, etc.) and to pay for the services of our bureaucrats.  But some is ear marked for return to our various states.

So the question to ask is why do we seek to have our states competing with other states for ear marks; e.g., bridges-to-nowhere?  It's because our citizens work as hard as the citizens of any other state.  And, that being the case, why shouldn't our state try as hard as any other state to get some of its money back.  It came from here, so why shouldn't some of it come back here.

The same goes for tax deductions for mortgage payments and a myriad of other deductions.  Sure, people who rent apartments don't get an equivalent deal from the government, but what would I gain by refusing a deduction that everyone who's got a mortgage enjoys.  Sure, I get on average of $2 for every $1 dollar I pay into Medicare and by the same token I get, on average, more out of social security than I paid in.  But, how do I, or anyone else, gain by me turning down my entitlements?  Does my refusal to do so make me a hypocrite?

Okay, if everyone does it, what's the harm?  Why rail against the system?  Because it's just a matter of time before this system kills us.   It's just like deluding ourselves into thinking we can fly.  Jump off a tall building, flap your arms, and you'll be fine .... until you hit the ground.  Pointing this out to our fellow citizens doesn't make us hypocrites.  Accepting entitlements extended to every one else simply shows that we've got the same disease as everyone else.

The cure lies in (1) bringing down what we spend to the point where it matches, or comes in below, what we bring in, (2) doing with fairness what needs to be done as regards all citizens, and (3) making temporary all laws designed to correct cultural differences.

Number one needs no explaining.

Number two means being sure that when we give out exemptions, they not favor one group over another i.e. home owners over renters, stock traders over wage earners, non-productive land owners over true working farmers, etc.

Number three means that when we seek to help a group of people who, in the course of American  history, have been socially disadvantaged, we don't make our efforts an entitlement without end.  If we are going to advantage designated minority groups, let's be sure that we not include in such groups recent immigrants from third world countries, or the children of parents who have successfully risen on the economic ladder and are neither needy nor deserving of special entitlements simply because of membership in such designated groups.  To do otherwise, would most certainly be unfair.

A number of countries in Europe have failed to institute programs consistent with the guidelines outlined above.  That has resulted in high unemployment and riots in the street.  It's not the path we want our country to follow.

Why Romney Will Lose To Obama

Sad to say it.  Indeed, hate to say it, but Romney is going to lose in November and here's why:

1. The women's vote
Romney needs the fervent support of the Christian fundamentalists and these people are solidly for right-to-life.  Women don't really care that no one can reverse the tide on this issue and on women's rights generally.  They believe that "potentially" this right will be restricted.  Romney can't say what I just did; namely, let's leave it in the platform but let's also promptly forget it.  Romney can't even say that when he governed Massachusetts and the issue never arose.  But, of course, that's the truth.

2 America's really tough and vitally important issues

Jobs, jobs, jobs  --- the trick here is to get the economy moving upwards again.  But, here there's a problem for Romney.  Obama says pretty much the same thing.  It's only that his background music is a little different.  Obama says he'll institute job building programs (echoes of FDR).  And, he'll tax the rich to build the middle class.  And, also, no one will see their medicare threatened.  The crowds cheer.

So what is Romney going to say?  That job programs may sound terrific, but that they really don't work.  (They didn't work for FDR either, even though they did result in a lot of good country music and some nice murals).  People aren't going to be much enthused hearing this.

Is Romney going to tell people that "taxing the rich" may appeal to people out of work, but it gets the country nowhere.  It certainly does nothing for the economy, and it doesn't even bring in nearly the amount of money that's needed to revitalize the economy and pay for our extraordinarily large  entitlements.  What he ought to explain is that he is for fairness, and that the quickest way of getting to fairness is to reform our tax code.  But, here again, you have a subject that makes the average American's eyes glaze over.

And, here's the humdinger -- is Romney going to explain that our entitlements simply must be pared back?  What!  You mean I'm going to have to pay more for healthcare?  What, when I'm on my death bed at 99, I won't be able to get a liver transplant?  What, when I give birth to a child born without critical organs and about to die, you won't put that child on a mechanical device to squeeze a few more day's out of the infant?  And, here's perhaps the biggest outrage:  You're now telling me that for the conditions just mentioned you won't let me bring a million dollar lawsuit against the doctors and their hospital?  (Enter America's lawyers.)

The reason Romney won't win on jobs, jobs, jobs (JJJ) is because to do so you've got to tackle entitlements, entitlements, entitlements (EEE).  People want JJJ but no one should touch their EEE.
There's nothing really new about this.  When you see Greeks or Spaniards rioting in the street, it's all about EEE.  Do they have jobs?  No.  Unemployment for their youth is about 50%.  They've gone way over the edge on EEE.  In fact, economic realities being what they are, they are going to suffer significant losses of EEE, regardless of what their governments wish to do. or don't wish to do.  Germans, whose governments have pared back on EEE and who consequently have the JJJ aren't of a mind to have their country's hard won wealth go to shore up their profligate cousins.

3. The Issue of Illegal Immigrants

This issue beautifully illustrates why Romney can't win.  The issue of illegal immigrants, especially as it concerns Mexican immigrants, has been with us for a long time.  John McCain and Ted Kennedy worked on a bill to resolve it many years ago.  Had they pursued it a bit longer, the issue might have been taken care of.

The immigrant issue is basically a two part problem; namely, working out an amnesty for illegal immigrants and, secondly, getting control of our border with Mexico.  With his political smarts, Obama skimmed the cream off this issue by giving a limited amnesty for a special slice of the immigrant population.  He knew that Americans, being a generous people, would accept a fair minded amnesty program.  And, indeed, they have.  But, the important problem of securing America's borders has been left pretty much as it was.  Be that as it may, Obama's move garnered him great PR with Latinos. It also cornered Romney.  The border with Mexico is still a big problem, but now, whoever has the guts to deal with it, finds himself, or herself, without an important lever (or "carrot" if you prefer) to work with.

Whenever he can, we see Obama circumventing Congress.  Small wonder then that he then gets so little cooperation from Congress  But that's neither here nor there.  It's Congress that gets blamed for not being cooperative.

4. Foreign affairs

Okay, so what have been Obama's accomplishments?  Early on, upon entering office, he went on a tour throughout the middle east.  What have been the results?  A dead ambassador in Libya, an Egyptian president who heads the Islamic Brotherhood, and who, despite a stint at an American college, still doesn't grasp the concept of freedom of expression.  The Russians view Obama as a boob.  And, I'm not sure what interaction he's had with the Chinese.

It's been noted that he gives great speeches.  Even I was highly impressed by his recent speech at the UN.  But, he seems to have difficulty establishing one-on-one relations with world leaders.  Be that as it may, mostly the voters don't care.  Those Americans, who probably care most, are our troops.  They see first hand the consequences of Obama's foreign policy, or the lack thereof.  And, I would guess they are not great supporters of Obama.

5. Israel

I've separated Israel from "foreign affairs", because while it is one of Obama's biggest foreign policy disasters, it's one for which he's never been called to account, or suffered much in terms of declining voter support.  That his policies regarding Israel are a disaster is clear.  He travels through the middle east and bypasses America's staunchest ally.  He shows himself to have a deaf ear as to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and then puts his thumb on the Palestinian side of the scales.

How does he get away with it?  Two reasons:  Military cooperation between America and Israel, has been excellent.  It's yielded both forces numerous advantages and I believe Americans understand this.

Then there's the mind set of liberal Jews.  Among their ranks are many young Jews who have a weak sense of their people's history and the importance of their support for Israel.  Then too, Jews are divided into factions; namely, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.  Or, more simply, religiously observant Jews and secular Jews

All Jews, especially Reform and Conservative, or secular Jews, are proud, and rightfully so, of their work to help Martin Luther King free African-Americans from Jim Crow.  They not only contributed money to this cause, they also rolled up their sleeves and got into the thick of it.  Some paid with their lives.  To have a minority person in the White House is seen by them as one of their greatest achievements.  Mighty Israel in their mind is surely safe, but the rights of minorities still rallies their support.  They fail to see that even Nelson Mandela's  legacy in South Africa has its flaws.  The League of Non-Aligned Nations, various Durban Conferences and the pronouncements of Rev. Tutu come to mind.

The number of Jewish votes that Romney can peel away from liberal Jewish block is woefully small.  Thank goodness for the support given to Israel by America's Evangelical Christians.  They, by and large, are Romney supporters.

Economic Lessons From Germany

I've been reading this article from the Tuesday NY Times, 9/25/12.  Its headline is "A German Job Problem Is Finding Workers."  Hey, I think, that should only be our problem.

Then, half way through the article, the paper spills the beans.   It explains that a big factor in bring down the jobless rate from 13% in 2005 to a figure of less than 7% today was a steep cut in jobless benefits.  In addition, laws were passed making it "easier for companies to hire temporary workers with fewer protections against dismissal."

In short, "(increased employment) came at the expense of the comfortable but costly social benefits many treasured.  People had to give up the security of a guaranteed long-term income if they became unemployed.  They faced more pressure to take jobs they did not want.  Even better paid workers had to make do with meager pay raises."

I imagine that would sound pretty awful to most people.  But, consider the upside.  Germany is financially solid.  What entitlements it does grant can be relied upon.  And, it is to Germany that countries like Greece and Spain look to for money to shore up their banks.

Greece and Spain are not just names.  They are lands occupied by people who are rioting because they don't have jobs and they are finding their retirement benefits being cut.  Bad deals are always being made.  It they're made between companies, one company will profit and one will suffer.  If a deal is made between workers and companies at the behest of the government, and it's a bad deal for the worker, the companies will profit.  If it's bad deal for the companies and a good deal for the worker, the company will suffer and the worker will profit  ---- but only in the short term.  In the long term, the worker will also suffer.

This is what Germany and its workers understood.  The rejiggered deal between companies and workers allowed companies to be a little more profitable, and left many workers with less than they might have hoped for.  In the long run, however,  everyone won.  Workers can now find work and companies can now compete.

This is a lesson never learned by Greece and other European countries.  The workers choose to give back nothing peacefully, the result is stagnation and joblessness.  Ultimately, this economic lesson must be learned.  There's really no escaping it.  But the sooner the lesson is learned the less painful it is to bear.

Economics As A Faith

What man understands and can prove by replicating a test can be categorized as "fact."  We can thank Newton for helping us establish a great many physical facts.  For Greeks, fire was a gift of God.  We take it more as a matter of combustion.  Anyway, it's a matter of chemistry.  And, for Biblical Jews, disease was God's punishment.  Fortunately, we've moved a bit beyond that.

How an economy works is something that is struggling to come down from some mountain on high.  Were it only that we could bring it down to earth where we could analyze its nuts and bolts as we might an automobile engine.

Adam Smith didn't refer to God.  Instead, he referred to "the invisible hand of the market."  The phrase is generally recognized as a metaphor to describe the manner in which markets work.  He actually used it only three times in his book, The Wealth of Nations, but it has proved itself to be a rich mine for all sorts of commentary.  It kind of reminds me of the discussions once engaged in by theologians, who argued endlessly over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Many have toiled in this field; John Maynard Keynes comes to mind.  We're never quite sure of whether their theories can be relied upon or not -- probably something in between.  Paul Krugman says one thing and a list of economists as long as your arm says something different; that list includes a number of Nobel prize winners.

So who cares?  If we're worried about America's unemployed, we should care.  If we're concerned that America's fate is to follow the path taken by Italy, or Greece, or Spain, we should care.  If we're worried about America becoming the sick man of the 21st century, --- you figure it out.

The horror is that the average American voter has no idea of economics.  He, or she, rarely can tell you who Milton Friedman was, or the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy or how our government works to institute appropriate polices, or why our legislators do what they do.   And, as for our understanding the ramifications of our health care entitlement?  Forget about it.  There seems to be nothing that Americans can really do when they caste their vote other than to put their faith in God.

American Jews and African-Americans

My Jewish, GOP friend is puzzled why American Jews vote in such large numbers for Obama, in light of the fact that this president seems to have virtually no empathy for Israel or Israelis.

It's a matter of Jewish cultural norms, I explain.  Every Passover, Jews celebrate their freedom from Egyptian bondage.  We celebrate what God did for us.  And, we feel that this must inform our attitude towards others.  (If I am not for others, who am I?  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  If not now when?)

True, in the dark days of American slavery, there were some slave owners who were Jewish.  It's also true, however,  that there were freed slaves who also owned slaves.  I say that not to exonerate Jewish slave owners, or any other slave owners, but simply to point out that history has some strange wrinkles.

Also, when Martin Luther King led the fight to free blacks from Jim Crow, we Jews can take pride in the number of our fellow Jews who stood at his side.  Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who died along side the black youth, James Chaney, come to mind.  This is not to say that white Catholics and Protestants didn't also stand with the Rev. King, but Jews can take pride in the extent of their support.

In social struggles there will be winners and losers.  I'm thinking of the white teachers and principals, who were driven out of their schools in Brooklyn when many such schools were turned over to community control.  I'm also thinking of the white parents, who's kids worked hard to find a place in prestigious institutions of higher learning, were beaten out by kids with poorer scores because they didn't belong to the "right" race.  I guess that goes under the heading of you-can't-make-an-omelette- without-breaking-an-egg.  But, I think it best not to give this explanation to children of poor immigrants who arrived in America in the early days of the 20th century.

At any rate, liberals, and this includes most Jews, are proud of the progress that has been made in American race relations.  There are still differences between our various ethnic groups.  And, admittedly it seems Chinese-Americans are not playing by the rules.  (Why are their kids always showing everyone else up with their sky-high test scores?)

I hope I've helped my friend begin to understand his fellow Jews, but I have my doubts.  The other day he tells me he saw a You Tube clip of Obama at a conference of southern, black ministers.  The clip shows a minister telling Obama that Holy Scriptures say that man shall not lie down with man, and that a woman shall not lie down with a woman.  The minister then turns to Obama and tell him that, of course, they will vote for him.  He is one of them.

Hey, my friend tells me, I looked in the mirror this morning and I suddenly realized that I wasn't black!

What can I do to explain to my friend that the Jewish view of our candidates is a matter of faith and not reason?

USA: Going Over The Edge With Selma And Louise

According to Robert Rubin, a former Sec. of the Treasury,  we are facing a dire financial situation.  When will we go over the edge?  That's hard to say.  However, it is worth noting that Greece's bonds sold for a very long time at a meager spread from German bonds.  Then suddenly, when it dawned on people that Greece couldn't continue without a lot of help from the EU, the interest rate on those bonds shot up.

James Baker was also on that C-SPAN panel, 9/14/12, with Rubin.  He tied together a number of "dots."  First, America's strength is no greater than  its financial strength.  Also, we can solve the situation now or later; but, the longer we wait, the harder it gets.

Taxing the top 1% or top 5% will do virtually nothing to solve America's fiscal problems.  However, whether it solves the problem or not there must be some demonstration of fairness.  The best way to tackle the fairness question is to reform our tax code.

Then, of course, we must tackle American entitlements.  This won't be easy, but it's got to be done.

I feel that this job can best be done by Romney.  Unfortunately, women are voting Democratic.  And, I can see why, in light of the GOP Right-To-Life plank in its platform. women are put off by the GOP.  Still, by giving the win to Obama, what they're doing is going over the cliff and taking all of us with them.

Obamacare: True or False?

1. The $716 billion to be saved (or deducted, or stolen) from Medicare by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare):
     
       Republicans call the reduction of spending increases to be taken over 10 years a theft.
   
       Democrats call this legitimate cost cutting that will reduce waste in Medicare, but will not harm patients who will continue to be entitled to the care they need. It will only restrict payments to doctors and hospitals.
     
       Republicans:  These cuts will reduce the incentive of healthcare providers to treat Medicare patients.
     
       Democrats: Paul Ryan's plan would make the same medicare cuts to reduce taxes (for the rich).



2. Paul Ryan charges Obama with failing to support his own commission; namely, Simpson-Bowles.
   
      Democrats:  Paul Ryan was on this commission and voted against it.
   
      Republicans: Four Democrats and three other Republicans also voted against the commission.  Those against felt the commission did not go far enough in controlling Medicare spending.
   
       Democrats: The main reason Republicans voted against the commission was their pledge to raise  no new taxes.

 According to Barron's, Editorial Commentary by Thomas G. Donlan, all the above statements from both Republicans and Democrats are true as far as they go.  But all are also false because of what they leave out.  That is to say, they are a perfect reflection of politics and politicians.

Political Give and Take Among Hofstra's Retirees

Puck's PEIRs  {Political Entertainment In Retirement}

DEMOCRATIC Take ------

Nuns on the Bus:  The Republicans are anti-Christ meanies.  We say give workers a living wage, or improve the safety net for the poor.

REPUBLICAN Take --------

Want to fight poverty?  Create jobs by spurring the economy.  

DEMOCRATIC Take -------

Hey, you, male, chauvinist Republicans, get out of my bedroom.  And, leave my body alone.  If I feel I need an abortion, that's my call, not a Jesus call.

REPUBLICAN Take ---------

We don't know those people in Missouri.  And, what's a platform plank anyway?  It's never supported anything anyway.  If you don't believe me, check the DEM platform for '08.

DEMOCRATIC Take -------

Paul Ryan lied about his record in a marathon he ran.  Liar, liar, Ryan's a liar.

REPUBLICAN Take -------

Hmmm.  Consider the context.  In a radio interview, Paul was asked whether he runs in marathons.  It's been quite some time, he replied.  He went on to say his back wasn't good enough to run a marathon.  He just runs maybe 8 miles a day for exercise.  The last time he ran a marathon was in 1990; my time was about 2 hrs. 50 min., he said. 

He was wrong.  It took him roughly 3 hrs 50 minutes.  Yes, he failed to recall his time in a marathon he ran 22 years ago.  Well if that doesn't disqualify him for high office, I guess nothing will.

The U.S.: Will It Rise or Will It Fall?

Will Evangelists and others on the far right in their single-minded determination to save every embryo, regardless of whether it came into being through rape, incest, or stupidity,  end the hope that this great country can regain its footing and proceed on its upward march?  Will the majority of America's women, turned off by a Republican platform that elevates the status of embryos and  fetuses above their rights and their humanity, help sink any hope for a rejuvenated America.  This despite the true meaningless of the nonsensical right-to-life plank in the GOP platform?

Too much has been promised by America's politicians.  It's not simply the entitlements that were granted despite the impossibility of our being able to pay for them.  It's also that methods of providing for healthcare have not been kept up to date.  The same-old-same-old won't do.

Is Simpson-Bowles the answer?  Is Paul Ryan's bill, now in its third iteration, the answer?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that the Republicans have tried to do something.  I also know that whatever eventually gets done with regards to healthcare will leave many Americans unhappy.  That leaves us with the question as to which party will show the necessary leadership to do what's necessary?

Getting the economy to move back to a growth of 4%, or more, would help enormously.  Drilling, and  laying the necessary pipelines would be a major step in that direction.  It would bring lots and lots of jobs and it would put us on the path to energy self sufficiency.  Applying regulations that would be sufficient to keep harm from being done to our markets as well as keeping free markets from doing harm would be a further major step in the right direction.  Excess regulations can do as much harm as inadequate regulation.  Furthermore, policies regarding regulation should be conveyed to the markets so that entrepreneurs could proceed building business with a reasonable degree of confidence that their efforts will not be undermined by capricious governmental interference.

In all these matters, the Republicans seem far better positioned than the Democrats.  But will they be permitted to do the job?  Not if America's women are turned off by the distraction of "right-to-life. "
Will American women come to the realization that this plank in the party platform must be viewed as secondary to revitalizing our economy.

Hey Republicans; We're Not Perfect

Whether it's your daughter's wedding or a political rally, not everyone there will leave you feeling entirely comfortable.  But, hopefully, all will share your core values.  I believe Republican's core values include fiscal responsibility and an awareness of the importance of free markets.  This country took this path before really understanding fully how it was benefitting from relatively free markets.  Indeed, it was not until Milton Friedman came along that we began to understand why free markets were so important.

That's why I'm a Republican.  I feel that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand this far better than Obama and Biden.  It's why I feel the Republicans will be able to re-ignite America's growth rate and force unemployment back down to 3%.

I also feel that Romney and Ryan understand the threat to America's culture from Islamic fundamentalism far better than Obama and Biden.  For the Democrats, all religions are more or less the same.  And, there's a sliver of truth to this.  All religions have secular followers and truly orthodox followers.  But, there remains a particular distinction to be made with regards to Islam that liberals just don't get.  Most other religions have learned to live together.  Here in the U.S., Christians and Jews and various other religions live together more or less amicably.  None of our religions, as far as I know, has the ambition to place their religion above all others in this country.  Only fundamentalist Muslims harbor such an ambition whether here in the States or in whatever country in Europe to which they may have immigrated.

In our Republican tent, we happened to be joined by Republicans with values which present me with a problem.  First, there's the attitude of many Republicans with regard to gun laws, or the absence thereof.  I say "first," because to me it's so obvious.We once had a law regarding the prohibition of assault weapons.  It expired.  Why don't we simply vote it back in again?   Also, if we have vehicle registration, why not gun registration?

My other problem with many Republicans is that they are comfortable with encouraging the redefinition  of when birth occurs and the status of fetuses.  I understand why they wish to do so.  They feel it's God's will.  But, other's understand God's will differently.  So, why not just leave it.  To force a girl to give birth when she is clearly not interested in doing so seems to me to be extraordinarily cruel.  And, it troubles me that people would invoke God's name in  perpetrating such cruelty.

But, for me, the No. 1 problem is the state of our economy.  Here we clearly need a new direction and I believe Romney and Ryan can and will deliver

Why The '12 US Presidential Campaign Is About Nothing

Joe Scarborough of the 'Morning Joe' program on CNBC bemoans the fact that this year's presidential campaign appears to be 'about nothing.'  He cites Obama making a reference to "Romneyhood" (robbing the poor to give to the rich) and Romney charging Obama with "Obamaloney" (contraction of 'Obama' and 'baloney').  Point taken.  But, why?  There is a reason.  Joe knows it, as do the candidates themselves. So why won't Joe tell us?

Here, in 'Chuckling Over The Here And Now' I'll tell you.  Our No. 1 problem is our anemic, 2%  economic growth.  What we need is 4% growth.  The solution, however, will involve some pain for the citizenry.  This was made crystal-clear by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bi-partisan commission,which, to his credit, was appointed by Obama,  Unfortunately, Obama never lifted a finger in support of the commission's recommendations.

To their credit, the Republicans put a bill -- Paul Ryan's bill -- on table in the House of Representatives intended to implement the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.  To their great shame, the Democrats in Harry Reid's Senate have done nothing.  They drag a red herring through the discussion by claiming that, despite their majority in the Senate, they are fearful of a Republican filibuster.  Maybe there would be a Republican filibuster, but at least let the public see such a filibuster, if it should occur.  You'd think that that's what the Democrats would want to see happen.

What both parties fear is telling the public that the solution to America's economic problem and our 8% unemployment won't come without some economic pain and suffering.  The only thing that supports taking the actions outlined in Simpson-Bowles proposals and in Paul Ryan's bill is that they will put us back on the correct economic path and will, in the not too distant future, return this country to full employment.  The stakes are huge and will ultimately determine America's position in the world.

But, having seen the kind of campaign that they have launched against Paul Ryan, the Democrats don't want to see themselves subjected to the same kind of attacks by the Republicans.  The result of all this is that neither party is telling the public what it needs to know; namely, that we need to take some fairly strong economic measures (whittle down entitlements, require citizens to work a little longer before collecting social security, reduce the size of government, etc. etc. etc. (ref: Simpson-Bowles).

The biggest phony in this discussion is Joe Scarborough, a prime example  of a rhino Republican if ever there was one (RINO: a Republican in name only).  His advice to Romney; talk about the 3 M's -- money, Mormonism, and Massachusetts.  Really, Joe?  What the most addle minded Republican knows is that if Romney followed your really stupid advice he would be taking the discussion away from America's number one problem; namely, our limping economy.

As to the 3M's, they are subjects on which Romney can't win.    What's he going to say; that FDR and JFK and, goodness knows, how many other great American leaders were really, really wealthy?  This would be nothing but a diversion from our desperately needed discussion as to how best to deal with our economic problems.

Then he wants Romney to discuss his Mormonism.  Really?  JFK dealt with his Catholicism in a really great way with his speech on this subject to the American people.   There is absolutely no need for Romney to re-plow this field.

And, then there's Massachusetts, another losing topic.  Did Romney do a great job as governor of Massachusetts.  According to most citizens of Massachusetts, the answer would be, yes, yes, yes.  But, his healthcare law in Massachusetts was a unique state solution to a problem of the citizens of that state.  Would it be a solution for the country?  At this point, most Americans are saying, "NO."  So let it go, Joe.  Romney's not running to be governor of some state.  This is a presidential race.

And, to think, there are still viewers who really believe that Joe Scarborough is a Republican.

A Jewish Goliath?

Yep.  That's what the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, said in an interview on Channel 10.  His exact words:  (The Jewish state is today viewed) "as the Goliath and it is the Palestinians who are seen as the David."  He went on to warn that Israelis and their supporters should be concerned about the erosion of popular support for the Jewish state.  This information was reported by the Jerusalem Post.

This description as to how Israel is seen may be correct.  Nevertheless, it is an entirely false picture.  Sure, Israel could easily overrun both Gaza and the West Bank.  But that hardly makes it a Goliath.  This is not a man-to-man contest; it is a tag team match.

Behind the weakly Palestinians, stand all the Islamic states.  Egypt with its the manpower, Saudi Arabia with its oil money, Iran and it's Hezbollah people in Lebanon with their rockets and missiles.  This is no illusion.  When he was still around, Saddam Hussein had no qualms about firing a missile off into Israel from Iraq.  You may recall that America warned Israel against retaliating lest it interfere with its own plans for Iraq.  The hatred for Israel burns equally strongly in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia --Islamic countries that have little idea as to where Israel is actually located other than that it is somewhere west of Mecca.

Who else hates Israel?  Consider Cuba, Venezuela and South American countries that a generation ago welcomed Hitler's henchmen.  Erosion of popular support?  How does one define "popular?"  The make up of the UN makes it clear that no support is to be found here for Israel among the UN's many reptilian members.  As to Israel's "friends", one need only recall the time when France denied Israel desperately needed war planes; fighters that  that had already been bought and paid for by the Israelis.  De Gaulle it seems had decided that the Arab nations were more important to France than Israel.

So who is left?  No country could have a better friend than the American people.  But with Obama and his sidekicks Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta hollering about a Peace Plan that died on the Abbas door step quite some time ago,  Israel finds itself without much support.  Is it this the Israel  the British Ambassador wishes to warn of eroding support?  Support from whom; the British, the Germans, the French, the Dutch -- all countries with growing Irslamic populations.

Perhaps the country that Israel should turn to is Russia.  They may not be all that likable, but when you see how they stick up for bloody Assad, you begin thinking that, in a street brawl, this is the kind of country you want covering your back.  Certainly not someone like a Jimmy Carter who happened to step into a photo op with Begin and Sadat.  As to Obama?  I'd rather put my money on Romney.

The UN: Rest in Peace

Well, seriously, how do you know it’s dead?  


It smells.

Actually, there have been many indications of its demise for a long time.  The massive attacks in its chambers against Israel was an early warning sign.  And, the very quiet that attended massacres in the Congo, the Sudan, and elsewhere were additional very clear signals.  And now we watch as Syria is torn limb from limb.  

So why did the UN die?  Because members long ago abandoned the principals on which the organization was founded.  It’s two chambers were created so that in the Security Council, the major powers emerging immediately after WW II would keep their power intact.  In the General Assembly, all nations were given representation.  Regardless of how small they might be.  Each nation would have a voice.

So let’s now look at the Security Council.  The Nationalist Chinese were forced out by the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).  Considering the shift in power that occured in China, this, to some extent, made sense.  But let’s now look at the behavious of China.  You see them lay claim to all of the China Sea despite equally valid claims by the Vietnamese and the Phillipines.  Taiwan was then designated as a land subservient to the PRC despite its having emerged as a country with a democratic form of government, with a strong industrial base and an equally strong antipathy to the totalitarian ways of the PRC.  Nevertheless, it is allowed no vote in the UN.  And, let us not forget China's heel that remains on the neck of the Tibetans.

In the case of  Russia, we have a country that has scooped out for itself from Georgia provinces which it now declares belong to Russia.

The countries in the General Assembly number just under 200.  When Israel was recognized by the UN’s General Assembly, there were only 56.  And, in what may now seem ironic, Russia voted with America in support of Israel.  Islamic nations, on the other hand, were always united in their opposition to Israel being recognized.  Today, with the many new states that have been admitted to the UN General Assembly, the influence of the Islamic states has become far stronger.  But, who are these new nations?  Countries like the Sudan, Zimbabue and Mali; hardly model states.

The Syrian situation now makes clear for everyone to see how hopeless the UN has become.  Russia is sticking with Assad to the end.  He takes pride in showing the nations of the world that if you are an ally of Russia, Russia will stick with you to the end.  Allies of America get no similar assurances.  As for the UN, it means nothing.  It's dead.

Move Over Prof Chomsky .. Move Over Maestro Barenboim .. Make Room for Thomas Friedman

"Did you see Friedman's column in the NY Times this morning (8/1/12)?" asked my wife.

"No," I answered, "I try to avoid him."

"I haven't read him yet either," she said.  "But, Sharon did and she said his item made her livid."

Sharon gets livid easily.  But, perhaps, I decided, I should take a look at this column.

Friedman was true to form.  He starts off saying he didn't like what Romney had to say in the course of his overseas trip.  Surprise.  Surprise.  He was critical of Romney's remarks in London.  He nearly had a stroke over Romney's remarks in Jerusalem.  And, he was indignant that Romney's spokesperson told  the thugs of the liberal press where they could go as they showed unbelievable  disrespected at the Polish war memorial at Pilsudski Squares where Romney had just finished speaking.  But we get it.  Friedman is a person of the left.      Oops.  It was Maureen Dowd that said those things, not Friedman.  But what's the difference?  She's on the right side of the Op-Ed and he was on the left side.

Friedman's beef centers on Israel.  (Yes, I have it right now.)  But, it's not only Romney that gives him agita.  Friedman has an extreme allergy to "the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu."  (I'm not sure exactly what he intended to say with that phrase.  I just copied it from his column.)  Friedman also has problems with the following: Republican contributor, Sheldon Adelson,  AIPAC, Israeli settlements (which presumably   includes parts of Jerusalem).

But, then he goes on to lose his senses entirely.  He writes,"they (the right wing)  don't care what absorbing all of its (West Bank) Palestinians will mean for Israel's future as a Jewish democracy."  What is this guy smoking?

He goes on to fault Romney for not going to Ramallah and for suggesting that Palestinians don't have a culture that promotes entrepreneurial  activity.  It's here that I was really amazed at the lack of understanding of this middle eastern "expert,"  Thomas Friedman.  Surely, he must know that neither Romney or anyone else questions the abilities and enterprise of individual Palestinians.  The culture that Romney was referring to was their societal and political culture.  It's well known that the Palestinian society is less open than Israeli society (more hostile to gays and to women's rights).  All societies have varying degrees of corruption.  It's something every society must constantly fight against.  It's just that the Palestinians don't put up much of a fight.  Had Fatah been less corrupt, it is unlikely that Hamas would have been able to supplant them in Gaza.  With the UN supporting Palestinians for generation after generation is it any surprise that they have become such a dependent people?

He goes over the bend once more lauding Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker.  He must be on his second joint.

And, then, there's his use of the term "occupation".  It's certainly not what Israel wants.  Nor, did they want to build fences.  But when people come into your home to cut your throat as well as that of your children  ... when they come to blow up your buses and explode themselves in bars and restaurants (pretty much what they continue to do in Iraq), that's what you do.  Sleep comfortably Mr. Friedman.

.

Obama Campaign: Romney's a Wimp, Ya, Ya, Ya, Ya

The Obama campaign has indeed been reduced to a very low denominator.  And, the leftist press joins in the Democratic Party's attempt to paint the Republican candidate as some sort of oaf, when it is their behavior that is truly offish.

Romney's remarks to Brian Williams during their interview in London prior to the start of the Olympics were entirely reasonable and appropriate.  Brian asked Romney for his assessment of the how things looked to him as regards to the preparedness of the British Olympics organizers.  Romney responded by saying that according to others in Great Britain there might be some shortage of police and other possible weaknesses.

There was nothing wrong with his remarks other than that they might possibly informed American viewers of what Londoners were already well aware of.  There is of course the possibility that perhaps Romney would have been better served by having said nothing other than offering some empty phrases.  But, that's the Obama style, not Romney's.  Hurray for Romney.

In Israel, Romney proclaimed Jerusalem to be Israel's capital.  That of brought the liberals, the anti-Semites and the Chinese, who beleaguer Tibet, together in their condemnation of Romney.  Was that a bad thing?  Muslims will say, yes.  I say, hurray for Romney.

And, finally, in Poland, Romney was absolutely tone-perfect.  Lech Valensa favored him with words of encouragement.  The press couldn't stand it.  Despite the fact that the Polish ceremony was situated in a cemetery, the press behaved like boors. Indeed, they acted more like Obama sponsored thugs than responsible members of the fourth estate.  Once again, hurray for Romney.

The Arguments Against Reelecting Obama

Everyone has their own list of things they feel merit their voting for, or against, some individual.  Here is what has decided me to vote against Obama:

One, the economy and jobs.  Bush may not have been all that helpful in sustaining the American economy.  Clinton may have been far better.  But, Obama is a disaster. He has given absolutely no support to the Simpson-Bowles commission.  (A commission that Obama, to his credit, appointed.)  It is currently the best blueprint America has for working its way out of our current malaise and keeping us from going over a financial cliff sometime in the not very distant future.

Paul Ryan, a Republican over in the House, had his financial bill passed.  It may be a good plan, or a lousy plan, but it's on he table.  Harry Reid, over in the Senate, has allowed no plan to be put forward by his fellow Democrats.  He claims that, if he were to do so, the Republicans would only filibuster it.  Maybe that's true.  But, it's no reason not to set forth a plan.  And, it is noteworthy that Obama has put no pressure on Reid to have his members put out a plan.

And, we know the reason for this situation; namely, that any plan would involve a degree of short term economic pain.  You can't set a broken arm without some pain, and you certainly can't turn our economy around without doing some work on our entitlements.

So, why haven't I mentioned jobs?  Because jobs are a function of the economy.  They're not something that operates independently from the economy.  Develop a good economy and you'll get jobs.  Let the economy go to hell and jobs will surely follow.

Two, Obama's energy policy.  Obama's desire to kill off the growth of hydrocarbon use is doing enormous harm to (a) our economy and (b) to our standing among nations.  Let's take (a) first.  Show me a sound workable solar set up and I'll be the first to applaud.  Ditto wind, tides, nuclear, whatever.  But, in the foreseeable future America, and most other nations, will have to rely heavily on hydrocarbons; more specifically,  on oil.

Obama has not given permits for drilling on land or waters under federal control.  He says that we today have pumped out more oil during his administration than ever before.  And, that's true.  But, it has had nothing to do with his administration.  It's because private companies have drilled aggressively wherever federal approval was not required.

Even more egregiously, he has not to allowed the laying of the XL pipeline from Canada to Texas.  This has badly crimped our ability to free ourselves from dependance on oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria.  Also, it has chilled our relations with Canada which must now plan for a far more expensive pipeline to its west coast so it can ship the oil to China.  Does any of this make any sense?

The Obama administration argues that a pipeline down to Texas might develop a leak.  Sure, anything is possible.  But, we have hundreds of miles of pipeline crossing our country.  We know exactly how unlikely such an event would be.  It's like saying we won't let planes fly over the state of Illinois because maybe some plane will come crashing down into Illinois.

Third, Mexico, America, and Mexicans.  There are really only two issues here; namely, America's sovereignty and illegals whether they be Mexicans or other Latin Americans.  Firstly, a sovereign nation must control it's borders.  This country has enemies who clearly intend to do us harm.  We know this.  We know that agents are sent to do us damage.  Defending our borders seems obvious.  But, not to Obama.  He makes jokes.  He says the Republicans want to dig a moat and then, with a chuckle, adds "and fill it with alligators."  Is that how Israel is securing its border with the Sinai?  Of course not.

What Obama is really doing is once again playing politics.  He's telling the illegal Mexicans, we Democrats have your back.  You don't want to vote for those nasty ol' Republicans.

But wouldn't it be better for both the illegals and for Americans to have a reasonable solution worked out to solve a very real problem.  A few Republicans might object (a few in any group will object to anything), but I am confident that if Republicans and Democrats sat down together as John McCain and Ted Kennedy tried to do some years back, they could come up with a solution.  Sure, the Mexicans shouldn't have come here as illegals, but most have demonstrated their love of this country and their willingness to work hard for their families.  We're truly lucky to have most of them here.  And, don't we share some blame for not having had a secure border?  Let's do what we should have done long ago.  One problem with this idea; there's no gain for the Democrats to be seen working with the Republicans, even if it is in the best interest of everyone except the politicians.

Finally, Obama's all flash and no substance.  No doubt our medical delivery systems needs considerable improvement.  But, Obamacare is far from the answer.  Our educational system needs considerable improvement.  Again, far more is needed than Arne Duncan's prescription which seems to consist of giving exemptions from the No-Child-Let-Behind law to states on a selective basis.

Finally, there is Obama's divisiveness.  For him, it's the poor versus the rich.  It's main street, versus Wall Street.  And, if Wall Street becomes old news, it's the mean old banks or hedge funds.  His administation wants what is good -- it's the contentious Congress that's bad.  It's the bad old lobbyist bribing Congressmen (as though he wasn't taking money from people counting on him to further their private agendas.)  His hands are clean.  He leads from behind.

America needs something better.

The Palestinian Future -- One State or Two

It's amazing how a nonsensical idea can gain traction if someone thinks it can be used to their benefit.  That's never been more true than the one-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Consider, first, the two-state solution and why it is unlikely to become a reality.  Laying the cards on the table, we see that the major centers of the Palestinian people are in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan.  Gaza residents chose Hamas over Fatah, not so much because they were Islamists, although many were, but because Fatah was seen as being corrupt.  The Islamists now in power have one goal; namely, to eliminate Israel, and for this purpose the Iranians are funding Gaza's purchase of weapons.  One way, or another, Israel must, sooner or later, end the rockets and the sniper fire on Israeli citizens coming out of Gaza.

Then there's Jordan with its very large population of Palestinians, i.e. most Jordanians are Palestinians.  But, the Palestinians find it convenient to keep this reality from becoming too overt.  People might begin suggesting either that Jordan and the West Bank merge and become one, or ask themselves why they should focus on the West Bank when the Palestinians already possess Jordan?  This wouldn't play well for Abbas and the other current leaders in the West Bank.

The current struggle to create a Palestinian nation is the entire reason de etra for successive Palestinian leaders.  It's their basis for seeking outside funding.  It's why Palestinian leaders including Abbas have turned down the many offers made by various Israeli leaders for peace.  Indeed, it's something that has escaped our supposedly brilliant ex-past prime ministers; most notably, Ehud Olmert.  (Talk about someone wanting to give away the store!)

Does this mean the only option left is to a one-state solution?  If West Bank Palestinians want to live in limbo, or some self created purgatory, that's their business.  Any number of intermediate arrangements are possible.  Consider Puerto Rico.  The U.S. has offered them (1) their independence, or (2) statehood as a part of the U.S. or, (3) the commonwealth status they currently hold.  Their preference: commonwealth.  The exact same offer need not be made to the West Bank Palestinians. But,  it does show that a number of options exist beyond the choice of one state or two.

Two other points deserve mention; namely, if there is no unity between Gaza and the West Bank, what, exactly, are we talking about?  And, finally, if the Palestinians remain frustrated in their ambitions won't they turn to violence?  But isn't that what Gaza has already done? Their frustration, however, is over the fact that  they hadn't yet managed to destroy Israel.  As to the West bank, they too already tried violence.  It was called Intifada 1 and Intifada 2.  And, while it did harm Israelis, it did far greater harm to the Palestinians.

Despite their frustration over the continuing existence of a State of Israel, what the Palestinians do is up to the Palestinians.  If they want violence, they can have it.  However, the alternatives available to them seem a lot more attractive.  In any event, a single Israeli-Palestinian state is simply not an options.

Capital Punishment

I just heard a radio show on NPR discussing capital punishment.  It seems that this issue is coming up once more before the voters of California.  And, while California is a rather liberal state, its voters don't seem ready to give up capital punishment.  And, I, for one, don't understand why any state or nation should.

The three most common arguments for doing away with capital punishment are, first, that it is cruel and inhuman, second, that it costs far more to administer than a sentence of life imprisonment, and, finally, that on more than one occasion we've gotten it wrong and have executed an innocent person.

Before getting into these various arguments about capital punishment, let me first clear up a matter of semantics.  In my opinion,  capital punishment might better be referred to as "capital termination," or "capital forfeiture."  "Punishment" suggests that we wish to reform behavior.  Once you terminate someone, there's not going to be any reform.   I would argue that certain behavior is so heinous that the perpetrator has forfeited his right to live.  This, of course, raises the question as to whether anyone who's committed a crime so heinous as to warrant the taking of that person's life can be judged as being sane.  That is, of course, an issue for the courts.

The taking of a perpetrators life does not have to be either cruel or inhuman.  I don't see a firing squad as being either cruel or inhuman, nor for that matter does hanging necessarily qualify as being cruel and inhuman.  But, it does seem to me that lethal injection is probably the least violent means of terminating a life.

As to cost:  Sure, capital punishment is expensive.  But, so it the alternative.  Sentence a cruel and inhuman butcher to life and, in all probability, that sentence too will be appealed as being excessive.  That's the system.

The most terrible possibility to contemplate is taking the life of an innocent person.  Here we must rely on the judge to make a determination on the facts of the case.  If the criminal has been sufficiently clever as to cover up damning elements of his crime, then, despite the preponderance of the evidence that remains, his sentence must be reduced to a life sentence.

Road to Job Growth in America

Obama has a job creation policy.  Yeah, okay, so what is it?  More government workers?

What Obama doesn't understand (and what Romney hasn't made sufficiently clear) is that jobs, or more specifically, a job policy isn't a road to be travelled -- if I may use a metaphor.  It's the destination.

And, how do you get to this destination?  Through a sound fiscal policy outlined in a responsible budget.  Create a plan to move the American economy in a sound direction and it will lead you directly to job growth; a job growth that will exceed the growth of the American work force.

Paul Ryan has laid out a budget.  It may be good, or it may not be good.  But, he's laid it out.  Where is the Democratic budget?  Until such time as the House and Senate come up with a sound budget that both sides can agree on, all this talk about a jobs policy is just so much palaver.

Dear Voter, Have Another Piece Of Cream Pie

Cream pie for dessert (if you don't have a weight problem) is yummy.  But, if you're a 5-year old and won't first eat your broccoli, or whatever vegetable and meat or fish your mom has served, there's a problem.  Moms with little kids who know there's cream pie in the frig often find themselves with a screaming child on their hands.

Politicians face the same problem with voters -- only politicians don't care.  Mom's view their obligation to the child as never ending.  Politicians have neither the time or talent to explain to the voter why health care can only be served up after the costs of delivering such care is brought down to reasonable levels, or finding the revenues to pay for it.  Their obligation seems only to extend to getting themselves through the next election.

It's not only healthcare.  Consider immigration:  Most reasonable voters; both Democrats and Republicans can see that some sort of amnesty must be extended to most illegal immigrants from Mexico.  Most of these immigrants are great people.  Obama's list of illegals who shouldn't have to face deportation seems quite reasonable.  But, that list of people to whom amnesty ought to be granted is the easy part.  It's the cream pie.  The other part, the broccoli, is securing the border.  For a sovereign nation not to secure it's borders seems in comprehensible.  But, apparently not to Obama.  He trivializes the issue.  He's said words to the effect that the Republicans would have him build a moat along the border and then -- with a pause and a chuckle -- "They'd like us to put alligators in it."  It makes one scratch one's head.  Is Obama the man in the White House, the man who is our president, or is he someone running for councilman in Chicago.

Then there's America's energy needs.  It would be nice if America's needs could be met with windmills, or by converting the sun's light into energy, or by harnessing the tides.  But, it's just not possible.  Nuclear energy would be another fine path, but the Greens and the Anti-War crowd throw cold water on that idea by first, warning us of what happened to Japan -- disregarding the fact that Japan sits on major geological fault lines found only in certain easily identifiable parts of our country -- and by distorting our environmental laws in ways that prohibit us from safely disposing our nuclear waste.

We've reduced our dependency on foreign oil, but we're far from completing the task.  Until we do, I can't think of anything more irresponsible than denying the States the right to allow a pipeline to be built across their lands from Canada to Texas.

Mr. Obama, Americans need their broccoli.  It's more important than your reelection.

And, oh yes, jobs.  Here there's no cream pie up front.  You can't legislate jobs -- at least not jobs that are meaningful to our nation.  The only thing that can do that is a revitalized economy.  Help get the economy going again and you'll get jobs.  Jobs aren't in the frig.  They emerge as though by magic after  you've eaten your broccoli.