Can you have a country without a capital? Can you have a country without a head of state? Can you have a country without a system of governance?
Go back. Head of state? Yes, a country does need one. (How he gets to be head of state is another question.)
Does a country need a system of governance? Yes. A country's governance says a lot about what kind of country it is.
But, does it need a capital? From the point of view of the U.S., apparently not. In Israel you have a tested democracy, a technologically advanced state, a militarily strong state, an industrial state, but, as far as the U.S. is concerned, a state without a capital.
The U.S. has its embassy in Tel Aviv. Why? Well, of course we know why. It's certainly not because Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. It is not nor ever has been. So why is that that's where the U.S. has put its embassy? Clearly, it's to deny that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.
Egypt has a capitali Lebanon has a capital. Libya has a capital. Syria has a capital. Iran has a capital. Iraq has a capital. Tunisia has a capital. Algeria has a capital. Morocco has a capital. Jordan has a capital. Saudi Arabia has a capital. Sudan has a capital. But, Israel? No capital.
Who is it that's out of touch, the Israelis, for whom Jerusalem is clearly their capital, or the U.S. which maintains that Israel has no capital? Maybe that's why Obama has never visited Israel. He can't find the capital.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Bill Maher Hangs It On The Mormons
Bill Maher is funny. Give him a subject, or a situation, and he'll give you commentary delivered with a wry smile that will have you somewhere between "amused" and "rolling on the floor." My problem with Maher is that he's always unloading on the right. Since he's from the left, that's an okay thing for him to do. After my initial chuckles, however, I find myself getting bored. And, frankly, that's my fault. When I hear someone say something -- Bill's running commentary, for example -- I find myself thinking thoughts that clash with the speaker's, or , in this case, with the comedian's.
Maher did a shtick on Mormonism that had him end his piece by asking how anyone could vote for someone intimately associated with this religion and its ridiculous theology? To tell the truth, I was caught up with Maher's commentary until . . . . . . Until, I asked myself whether I knew any Mormons.
Personally, I know no Mormons. However, I do know of Mormons who were, or are, political leaders. One was George Romney, Mitt Romney's father. He was involved with the auto industry and also was Governor of Michigan. He did pardon Nixon and there are those who will never forgive him for that. But, all in all, he was a stable and dependable political leader, a man as qualified as any to have been president.
Then there's Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, and a staunch Democrat. He's not someone for whom I have a great deal of affection. But, he's been on the political battlefield and he's served his party loyally.
And, by the way, did you know Nixon was a Quaker?
I came to realize, as I thought about the other Mormons, that a man's religion is, no doubt, a factor in his makeup. But, all religions, if you go to their origins, will posit beliefs that can seem a bit strange - - - all religions. It's how you deal with your religion that counts. The only reason Bill Maher took off on Mormonism was to beat up on Mitt Romney. Had Harry Reid been the candidate, it is unlikely that it would have been a subject that Bill Maher would have raised. Is Bill Maher funny? Sure, but you can't take what he says too seriously. Keep in mind, he's a comedian.
Maher did a shtick on Mormonism that had him end his piece by asking how anyone could vote for someone intimately associated with this religion and its ridiculous theology? To tell the truth, I was caught up with Maher's commentary until . . . . . . Until, I asked myself whether I knew any Mormons.
Personally, I know no Mormons. However, I do know of Mormons who were, or are, political leaders. One was George Romney, Mitt Romney's father. He was involved with the auto industry and also was Governor of Michigan. He did pardon Nixon and there are those who will never forgive him for that. But, all in all, he was a stable and dependable political leader, a man as qualified as any to have been president.
Then there's Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, and a staunch Democrat. He's not someone for whom I have a great deal of affection. But, he's been on the political battlefield and he's served his party loyally.
And, by the way, did you know Nixon was a Quaker?
I came to realize, as I thought about the other Mormons, that a man's religion is, no doubt, a factor in his makeup. But, all religions, if you go to their origins, will posit beliefs that can seem a bit strange - - - all religions. It's how you deal with your religion that counts. The only reason Bill Maher took off on Mormonism was to beat up on Mitt Romney. Had Harry Reid been the candidate, it is unlikely that it would have been a subject that Bill Maher would have raised. Is Bill Maher funny? Sure, but you can't take what he says too seriously. Keep in mind, he's a comedian.
Genetically Modified Foods -- Boo
Fearful consumers are now campaigning to have genetically modified (GM) foods labeled so that those who choose to avoid them will be able to do so more easily. Fine. I'm all for full disclosure.
It's the motivation behind the move to label GM foods that I find troubling. The idea that people would be frighted away from such foods seems silly. But, I just don't know. I do know that in Europe they have rules and regulations against GM foods. I can understand that, but it has nothing to do with safety. Europe's farms are smaller than American farms. You can't operate them as efficiently. Machinery that makes sense in the U.S. becomes cramped on a small European plot. Why open competition to overseas farmers who are already far more efficient producers of foods? Anyway, European farms seem more intended for their scenic value than their ability to produce food in large quantities.
Things change and generally for the better. Early people left fields lie fallow for a period of years so that the land could regenerate itself. That made sense back then. In fact, it was turned into a religious obligation. However, it became pointless, except to the faithful, when people learned the basics of fertilization. In many places, land was regenerated by applying the dung of bats gathered from caves near the west coast of South America and shipped to farms around the world. Fertilizing soil became easier (and cheaper) once Dr. Haber learned how to chemically fix nitrogen. These giant steps in agriculture were made with nary an objection.
Homogenization of milk and other foods, the use of emulsifiers, and radiation and pasteurization to forestall spoilage and improve food quality have all been implemented without much fuss. But times do seem to change. When fluoridation of water was introduced as a way of improving the dental health of children, many people decried it as un-American and communist inspired. Today, with many people getting their drinking water in plastic bottles (water generally unflouridated), dentists are beginning to notice a decline in the dental health of children.
During a stay in St Augustine, FL, I came across a hotel that was one of the first such edifices constructed of poured concrete. It was quite a fancy hotel for its time. You couldn't just stop by and check in; you had to be invited. It was also one of the first hotels in America to be electrified. That meant that you could turn on a light by simply flipping a wall switch. However, many of the guests were so fearful of the switch (electrification was a new development back then) that when they wanted to turn on a light they had a servant flip the switch.
Now, it's GM foods and the fear of Frankenstein broccoli. Let's begin to act mature and get on with the work of feeding the hungary. Frankly, I'm a fan of food free from blight. I also like fatter salmon.
It's the motivation behind the move to label GM foods that I find troubling. The idea that people would be frighted away from such foods seems silly. But, I just don't know. I do know that in Europe they have rules and regulations against GM foods. I can understand that, but it has nothing to do with safety. Europe's farms are smaller than American farms. You can't operate them as efficiently. Machinery that makes sense in the U.S. becomes cramped on a small European plot. Why open competition to overseas farmers who are already far more efficient producers of foods? Anyway, European farms seem more intended for their scenic value than their ability to produce food in large quantities.
Things change and generally for the better. Early people left fields lie fallow for a period of years so that the land could regenerate itself. That made sense back then. In fact, it was turned into a religious obligation. However, it became pointless, except to the faithful, when people learned the basics of fertilization. In many places, land was regenerated by applying the dung of bats gathered from caves near the west coast of South America and shipped to farms around the world. Fertilizing soil became easier (and cheaper) once Dr. Haber learned how to chemically fix nitrogen. These giant steps in agriculture were made with nary an objection.
Homogenization of milk and other foods, the use of emulsifiers, and radiation and pasteurization to forestall spoilage and improve food quality have all been implemented without much fuss. But times do seem to change. When fluoridation of water was introduced as a way of improving the dental health of children, many people decried it as un-American and communist inspired. Today, with many people getting their drinking water in plastic bottles (water generally unflouridated), dentists are beginning to notice a decline in the dental health of children.
During a stay in St Augustine, FL, I came across a hotel that was one of the first such edifices constructed of poured concrete. It was quite a fancy hotel for its time. You couldn't just stop by and check in; you had to be invited. It was also one of the first hotels in America to be electrified. That meant that you could turn on a light by simply flipping a wall switch. However, many of the guests were so fearful of the switch (electrification was a new development back then) that when they wanted to turn on a light they had a servant flip the switch.
Now, it's GM foods and the fear of Frankenstein broccoli. Let's begin to act mature and get on with the work of feeding the hungary. Frankly, I'm a fan of food free from blight. I also like fatter salmon.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
A Pakistani Doctor Brings America Shame
Taking out Osama Bin Laden took a skilled team of special op soldiers. They had to plan and they had to prepare. One element in their preparations was to make sure that the identity of their target was indeed Bin Laden. And for that our people brought in a Pakistani doctor to dummy up some fake inoculations in order to confirm that the man in the targeted compound was indeed Bin Laden. So far so good.
Unfortunately, America forgets to pick up the pieces. They took no steps to secure the safety of the doctor and his family. Was that because of ignorance, or callousness, or just plain stupidity.
You've got to ask yourself: is Pakistan a friend or an antagonist? That you don't trust them is obvious from the fact that you shared no details with them as to this operation. Also, you've got first hand experience regarding their unreliability in supporting your military and diplomatic efforts.
Okay, so they're not a friend. Will they be bothered that you've now pulled off this operation right under their nose, an operation you know full well they would very likely have objected to? Of course you do. Of course you know that there are going to be repercussions. And, what is more likely but that they will severely punish anyone they can get their hands on. That they would grab the Pakistani doctor who helped the Americans is a no-brainer. They gave him 33 years in prison. They could just as easily have shot him, and, indeed, he may well not survive. And, you're now going to tell me our diplomats and military analysts couldn't have figured this out?
Shame on America.
Unfortunately, America forgets to pick up the pieces. They took no steps to secure the safety of the doctor and his family. Was that because of ignorance, or callousness, or just plain stupidity.
You've got to ask yourself: is Pakistan a friend or an antagonist? That you don't trust them is obvious from the fact that you shared no details with them as to this operation. Also, you've got first hand experience regarding their unreliability in supporting your military and diplomatic efforts.
Okay, so they're not a friend. Will they be bothered that you've now pulled off this operation right under their nose, an operation you know full well they would very likely have objected to? Of course you do. Of course you know that there are going to be repercussions. And, what is more likely but that they will severely punish anyone they can get their hands on. That they would grab the Pakistani doctor who helped the Americans is a no-brainer. They gave him 33 years in prison. They could just as easily have shot him, and, indeed, he may well not survive. And, you're now going to tell me our diplomats and military analysts couldn't have figured this out?
Shame on America.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
It'll Be A Grand Election
Let me be up front, and say straight out that I'm voting for Mitt Romney. Will Mitt win? Who knows? I can only hope.
But the arguments I hear the candidates making strike me as amusing. Obama's handlers were about to bring out the Bain cannon against Mitt only to have Corey Booker pull the rug out from under them. You can't help but love Mayor Booker.
The whole Bain thing is nonsense. Does it qualify the head of such a venture capital operation to be president? Of, and by itself, no. Still it's lots more impressive than being a community organizer.
Also, it suggests that you have a grasp of how business works, something where Obama seems to draw a blank.
Then there's the thing about Mitt having been governor of Massachusetts and how his record there seems to run counter to many of the issues he's now running on. So? States have different problems, different challenges, different constituents than the federal government has. Mitt grasped that and served with distinction as the governor. Compare that to Obama's brief tenure as a Senator, where most of his votes were marked with the simple declaration, "present."
The Republicans seem to have lots more guts when it comes to economic plans for the future. Obama's commission (Simpson Bowles) showed the path America had to follow in fiscal matters. Did Obama support their conclusions and use them to begin fashioning legislation? No. Paul Ryan put forth legislation in the House and got it passed. So what have the Democrats done? You hear these rumors that Obama and Boehner had a deal which the Tea Party shot down. Really? I'm sorry, but I'm old fashioned; show me some documents.
Whatever fiscal plan ultimately emerges, it will produce some pain. The Republicans are up front on this (as were Simpson and Bowles). But, not Obama. He would have you believe that if you just tax millionaires and billionaires more heavily, we'll be out of the woods. Oh, if it were only that easy. Sure, taxes should be fair and there are a lot of loop holes that should be closed. And, that, by the way, will extract money more surely from millionaires and billionaires than simply raising taxes.
And, finally, there is the question of stimulus vs. austerity. Without tying it to a time frame, it becomes a pointless discussion. Stepping on the brakes sharply with severe austerity can cause needless damage to the economy. But, mindless stimulation, with no plan to rein in entitlements will surely cause the economy to fall off a cliff. The only difference between Greece and us is that we're bigger.
With all his advisors, Obama must know this, but he lacks the guts to explain it to the public.
But the arguments I hear the candidates making strike me as amusing. Obama's handlers were about to bring out the Bain cannon against Mitt only to have Corey Booker pull the rug out from under them. You can't help but love Mayor Booker.
The whole Bain thing is nonsense. Does it qualify the head of such a venture capital operation to be president? Of, and by itself, no. Still it's lots more impressive than being a community organizer.
Also, it suggests that you have a grasp of how business works, something where Obama seems to draw a blank.
Then there's the thing about Mitt having been governor of Massachusetts and how his record there seems to run counter to many of the issues he's now running on. So? States have different problems, different challenges, different constituents than the federal government has. Mitt grasped that and served with distinction as the governor. Compare that to Obama's brief tenure as a Senator, where most of his votes were marked with the simple declaration, "present."
The Republicans seem to have lots more guts when it comes to economic plans for the future. Obama's commission (Simpson Bowles) showed the path America had to follow in fiscal matters. Did Obama support their conclusions and use them to begin fashioning legislation? No. Paul Ryan put forth legislation in the House and got it passed. So what have the Democrats done? You hear these rumors that Obama and Boehner had a deal which the Tea Party shot down. Really? I'm sorry, but I'm old fashioned; show me some documents.
Whatever fiscal plan ultimately emerges, it will produce some pain. The Republicans are up front on this (as were Simpson and Bowles). But, not Obama. He would have you believe that if you just tax millionaires and billionaires more heavily, we'll be out of the woods. Oh, if it were only that easy. Sure, taxes should be fair and there are a lot of loop holes that should be closed. And, that, by the way, will extract money more surely from millionaires and billionaires than simply raising taxes.
And, finally, there is the question of stimulus vs. austerity. Without tying it to a time frame, it becomes a pointless discussion. Stepping on the brakes sharply with severe austerity can cause needless damage to the economy. But, mindless stimulation, with no plan to rein in entitlements will surely cause the economy to fall off a cliff. The only difference between Greece and us is that we're bigger.
With all his advisors, Obama must know this, but he lacks the guts to explain it to the public.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)