I am not ready to answer in the affirmative, but I do feel that this article poses the question:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkc3uqGuPnGfO90dElARcCQvgTvA?docId=9576d6a6343c46b1abbd0184a9244305
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Republicans
I just don't get it: The Republican party, a la Mitch Mconell, has openly said that their number one goal is not to better this country or protect the interests of its people, but rather, to unseat Mr. Obama as president. How do any Americans agree to take seriously a party that has openly admitted that politics, not policy, is its number one agenda?
A few ways that the party has proved its words through its actions:
1. The Debt Ceiling Crisis - It was the consensus of economists and Wall Street that passing the debt ceiling raise was essential to not causing Great Depression 2, yet the Republicans, instead of doing what the country needed, chose to use this as an opportunity to try to bully Obama: They made their agreement to not actively cause the US economy to tank conditional, in order to get political leverage. Their threats not to raise the Debt Ceiling caused the stock market to go down during the deliberations, causing monetary loss to Americans, and also caused the US to be downgraded by Moody's, which rightly concluded that the US political system was not up to the challenge of solving its debt issues thanks to the Republicans' actions.
2. The recent payroll tax fiasco: Instead of passing something that would continue to allow Middle Class Americans to have an extra 1500 a year, which could then be re-invested in the economy - and 1500 makes a difference to the Middle Class - the Republicans, these anti-tax people, choose to not extend the Middle Class tax-cut unless it is linked with cutting unemployment insurance - therefore harming a large swath of the American population. Of course, economists also agree that unemployment benefits are economically stimulative, because they are spent immediately and thus pour money back into the economy. Of course, these same Republicans want to extend the Bush tax-cuts and refuse to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage-earners, earning of 300,000 a year - so apparently, its ok to raise taxes on those earning less than 300,000 and to cut unemployment benefits that might be the difference between eating and not eating or homelessness and lack thereof for many Americans, but it's not ok to tax the rich - not even to tax them just enough to offset the extra 1500 the middle-class would get from the payroll tax extension - talk about class warfare!
The truth is, its in the Republicans' best interest for Middle Class Americans to have 1,500 less, and for the American economy to tank - that way, they are more likely to vote Republican come 2012. Since the Republicans have admitted their number one goal is to unseat President Obama in 2012, it makes sense that they are pursuing that goal in the most expedient way possible - by actively trying to derail the US economy - and one needs only look at their legislative record if one wants proof.
A few ways that the party has proved its words through its actions:
1. The Debt Ceiling Crisis - It was the consensus of economists and Wall Street that passing the debt ceiling raise was essential to not causing Great Depression 2, yet the Republicans, instead of doing what the country needed, chose to use this as an opportunity to try to bully Obama: They made their agreement to not actively cause the US economy to tank conditional, in order to get political leverage. Their threats not to raise the Debt Ceiling caused the stock market to go down during the deliberations, causing monetary loss to Americans, and also caused the US to be downgraded by Moody's, which rightly concluded that the US political system was not up to the challenge of solving its debt issues thanks to the Republicans' actions.
2. The recent payroll tax fiasco: Instead of passing something that would continue to allow Middle Class Americans to have an extra 1500 a year, which could then be re-invested in the economy - and 1500 makes a difference to the Middle Class - the Republicans, these anti-tax people, choose to not extend the Middle Class tax-cut unless it is linked with cutting unemployment insurance - therefore harming a large swath of the American population. Of course, economists also agree that unemployment benefits are economically stimulative, because they are spent immediately and thus pour money back into the economy. Of course, these same Republicans want to extend the Bush tax-cuts and refuse to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage-earners, earning of 300,000 a year - so apparently, its ok to raise taxes on those earning less than 300,000 and to cut unemployment benefits that might be the difference between eating and not eating or homelessness and lack thereof for many Americans, but it's not ok to tax the rich - not even to tax them just enough to offset the extra 1500 the middle-class would get from the payroll tax extension - talk about class warfare!
The truth is, its in the Republicans' best interest for Middle Class Americans to have 1,500 less, and for the American economy to tank - that way, they are more likely to vote Republican come 2012. Since the Republicans have admitted their number one goal is to unseat President Obama in 2012, it makes sense that they are pursuing that goal in the most expedient way possible - by actively trying to derail the US economy - and one needs only look at their legislative record if one wants proof.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday Morning Roundup
Listening in Africa:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/in-africa-the-art-of-listening.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
Is the US becoming Latin America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/on-the-middle-class-lessons-from-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
medical marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medical-marijuana-and-the-memory-of-one-high-day.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
scary - how much power corporations have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/for-29-dead-miners-no-justice.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
On Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/in-syria-expelling-the-peacemakers.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
helping the poor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
on the 1 percent and trickle-down theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/the-1-percent-clubs-misguided-protectors.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/in-africa-the-art-of-listening.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
Is the US becoming Latin America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/on-the-middle-class-lessons-from-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
medical marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medical-marijuana-and-the-memory-of-one-high-day.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
scary - how much power corporations have:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/for-29-dead-miners-no-justice.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
On Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/in-syria-expelling-the-peacemakers.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
helping the poor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
on the 1 percent and trickle-down theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/the-1-percent-clubs-misguided-protectors.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
Republican Presidential Candidates
So Newt Gingrich, who loves causing bruhahas, caused a bruhaha -what a shocker. The LA Times quotes Gingrich as follows:" "I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state,” Gingrich said. “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” "
So as much as I dislike Gingrich (a man who cheats on his wife and had to pay fines for ethics violations when he was Speaker of the House is not quite my cup of tea), in this case, he was technically right: There never has been a state called Palestine ruled by Palestinians. There was supposed to be an Arab state under the partition plan that resulted in Israel's creation, but the Arab League rejected the plan, and Arab states declared war on Israel. The result of the war was territorial gains for Israel in what would have been the Arab state, and a massive refugee crisis as Arabs fled to neighboring Arab countries. The technicall definition of a Palestinian refugee is anyone who had to flee as a result of the war who was living in the British-Mandate area known as Palestine (ruled by the British) as of 46, which is hardly a long-lasting residency considering the war was in 48. Palestinian nationalism largely developed as a result of the refugee-dom of residents who until 48 had thought of themselves merely as Arabs living in the British-Mandate area called Palestie. Of course, the right to Palestinian statehood has been recognized in the Oslo Peace Process, which is an international treaty, but Gingrich had his facts right, because he places the official "making up" of Palestinian nationhood, and I guess it was "made up" by international law - but then again so were the nationhoods of many modern nation-states. I suppose now would be a good time to get into the difference between legal nation-states and the metaphysical concept of nationhood, but thats beyond the scope of a 5 am blog post.
The world's outcry aboutGingrich's comments show how we live in a world in which certain facts are swept under the rug because they are "politically incorrect". That is a major problem because it promotes ignorance and prevents honest discourse. Not to mention that when truths are hidden, injustices usually occur.
What really bothers me are Gingrich's other comments, in which he basically says that all Palestinians are terrorists (hello, racism) and lambasts the peace process (let's all get our shotguns and shoot em out back). And this is what bothers me about the right in general: They just don't get it. The origin of Palestinian statehood is irrelevant. There are currently millions of people - I call them Palestinians, you call them whatever you want - who are not about to go away (To right-wingers who want to send them to Arab states - get real.) So the solution is either permanent Israeli Occupation - not a real solution - a bi-national state - which neither side wants - or a two-state solution, which both sides have at least in theory, agreed to accept. By the way, Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and still openly calls for destroying Israel, which is why I do distinguish between the West Bank and Gaza. So it's time to stop focusing on who is "right" or what happened on the past, and instead focus on what must be done if for non other than pragmatic reasons.
By the way, Gingrich's transparent pandering to the "Jewish vote", as if Jews all voted in a block (as a Jew, I can testify to the falseness of this assumption - rarely have I been at a Sabbath meal in which a political argument between Jews did not ensue), is disgusting, both because sucking up to a voting block(which is different than taking different ethnic/religious/socioeconomic groups' needs into account) is always distasteful, and because the concept of Jews being a powerful, united, voting bloc just plays into anti-Semitic sterotypes of Jewish power originating in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
As for my pick? I like John Hunstman - but unfortunately, the media has decided he does not have a chance, and therefore stopped covering him, thus insuring that in reality he will not stand a chance. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!
So as much as I dislike Gingrich (a man who cheats on his wife and had to pay fines for ethics violations when he was Speaker of the House is not quite my cup of tea), in this case, he was technically right: There never has been a state called Palestine ruled by Palestinians. There was supposed to be an Arab state under the partition plan that resulted in Israel's creation, but the Arab League rejected the plan, and Arab states declared war on Israel. The result of the war was territorial gains for Israel in what would have been the Arab state, and a massive refugee crisis as Arabs fled to neighboring Arab countries. The technicall definition of a Palestinian refugee is anyone who had to flee as a result of the war who was living in the British-Mandate area known as Palestine (ruled by the British) as of 46, which is hardly a long-lasting residency considering the war was in 48. Palestinian nationalism largely developed as a result of the refugee-dom of residents who until 48 had thought of themselves merely as Arabs living in the British-Mandate area called Palestie. Of course, the right to Palestinian statehood has been recognized in the Oslo Peace Process, which is an international treaty, but Gingrich had his facts right, because he places the official "making up" of Palestinian nationhood, and I guess it was "made up" by international law - but then again so were the nationhoods of many modern nation-states. I suppose now would be a good time to get into the difference between legal nation-states and the metaphysical concept of nationhood, but thats beyond the scope of a 5 am blog post.
The world's outcry aboutGingrich's comments show how we live in a world in which certain facts are swept under the rug because they are "politically incorrect". That is a major problem because it promotes ignorance and prevents honest discourse. Not to mention that when truths are hidden, injustices usually occur.
What really bothers me are Gingrich's other comments, in which he basically says that all Palestinians are terrorists (hello, racism) and lambasts the peace process (let's all get our shotguns and shoot em out back). And this is what bothers me about the right in general: They just don't get it. The origin of Palestinian statehood is irrelevant. There are currently millions of people - I call them Palestinians, you call them whatever you want - who are not about to go away (To right-wingers who want to send them to Arab states - get real.) So the solution is either permanent Israeli Occupation - not a real solution - a bi-national state - which neither side wants - or a two-state solution, which both sides have at least in theory, agreed to accept. By the way, Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and still openly calls for destroying Israel, which is why I do distinguish between the West Bank and Gaza. So it's time to stop focusing on who is "right" or what happened on the past, and instead focus on what must be done if for non other than pragmatic reasons.
By the way, Gingrich's transparent pandering to the "Jewish vote", as if Jews all voted in a block (as a Jew, I can testify to the falseness of this assumption - rarely have I been at a Sabbath meal in which a political argument between Jews did not ensue), is disgusting, both because sucking up to a voting block(which is different than taking different ethnic/religious/socioeconomic groups' needs into account) is always distasteful, and because the concept of Jews being a powerful, united, voting bloc just plays into anti-Semitic sterotypes of Jewish power originating in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
As for my pick? I like John Hunstman - but unfortunately, the media has decided he does not have a chance, and therefore stopped covering him, thus insuring that in reality he will not stand a chance. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Here's a Crazy Idea
There is a lovely little economic cycle that goes as follows:
1. Signs of bad economy leads to economic fear. This fear leads to lack of spending, as people save in anticipation of a potential rainy day. 2. This lack of spending causes the economy to grow even worse, as businesses go out of business, causing people to lose jobs. As the economy grows even worse, people spend even less, which then causes more businesses to go out of business, which causes the economy to grow even worse, as even more people lose jobs. 3. The cycle continues.
Here's a crazy idea: Give everyone who pays 1,000 dollars or more in taxes a 200 dollar tax credit, where if they submit receipts proving they spent up to 200 dollars on anything other than groceries or medical expenses (the two things people are most likely to spend on even during economic hardship, and thus that they would be most likely to spend on sans tax credit), in a retail establishment or restaurant anyplace within their zipcode or up to two zipcodes over in any direction, then they get to pay 200 dollars less in taxes. This might not seem like a lot, but 200 dollars from each tax-paying household in the area would probably add up for the businesses in question, helping them to stay afloat. If each household spent 200 dollars more - yes, cummulatively that would probably have a slight positive effect on the economy.
The only thing is, the money might add up for the government as well and cut into its coffers. In that case, why not make the money tax-deductible, as opposed to giving an actual tax-credit? This would be similar to donations, which are currently tax-deductible, up to a certain amount of money. This would be less expensive for the government - it is not giving people back 200 dollars; rather, when it calculates their income, it is calculating it as if they earned 200 dollars less - so if you income is 5,000 dollars, now you will only be taxed on 4,8000 of those dollars (in reality, if you earn 5,000 dollars you probably won't pay any income tax).
Our country faces tough problems and needs creative solutions. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, it is hard for such solutions to become laws.
1. Signs of bad economy leads to economic fear. This fear leads to lack of spending, as people save in anticipation of a potential rainy day. 2. This lack of spending causes the economy to grow even worse, as businesses go out of business, causing people to lose jobs. As the economy grows even worse, people spend even less, which then causes more businesses to go out of business, which causes the economy to grow even worse, as even more people lose jobs. 3. The cycle continues.
Here's a crazy idea: Give everyone who pays 1,000 dollars or more in taxes a 200 dollar tax credit, where if they submit receipts proving they spent up to 200 dollars on anything other than groceries or medical expenses (the two things people are most likely to spend on even during economic hardship, and thus that they would be most likely to spend on sans tax credit), in a retail establishment or restaurant anyplace within their zipcode or up to two zipcodes over in any direction, then they get to pay 200 dollars less in taxes. This might not seem like a lot, but 200 dollars from each tax-paying household in the area would probably add up for the businesses in question, helping them to stay afloat. If each household spent 200 dollars more - yes, cummulatively that would probably have a slight positive effect on the economy.
The only thing is, the money might add up for the government as well and cut into its coffers. In that case, why not make the money tax-deductible, as opposed to giving an actual tax-credit? This would be similar to donations, which are currently tax-deductible, up to a certain amount of money. This would be less expensive for the government - it is not giving people back 200 dollars; rather, when it calculates their income, it is calculating it as if they earned 200 dollars less - so if you income is 5,000 dollars, now you will only be taxed on 4,8000 of those dollars (in reality, if you earn 5,000 dollars you probably won't pay any income tax).
Our country faces tough problems and needs creative solutions. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, it is hard for such solutions to become laws.
Howard Guttman
There has been a recent bruhaha about the statements of Howard Gutman about anti-Semitism. Obama reacted by conemning anti-Semitism in all its forms; some Jews felt the condemnation was not strong enough, and some Republicn presidential nominee hopefuls gote some RJC members all riled up about it at a recent RJC event.
I want to dissect the issue: First of all, giving a public speech on anything as potentially controversial as anti-Semitism, without clearing it with the State Dept., when you're an ambassador, is not ok, and it is not clear whether or not Gutman did so.
Second of all, the big "thing" is that Gutman distinguished between "classic" Western anti-Semitism, and current Muslim anti-Semitism. I do not think such a distinction is unwarranted, provided one is engaging in an intellectual history of the "reasons" for anti-Semitism - as Arendt did in her work "On the Origins of Totalitarianism". There is a big difference however, between a reason and a justification: If an African-American cut in front of me at the airport, causing me to miss my plane that I was catching in order to propose to my lover before he left for Australia, that might be my "reason" for being racist against African-Americans, but it would not be a justification. I beleive on of the tenents of modern liberal theory is that when it comes to discrimination and racism, a reason is never a good justification. Thus, terror attacks by Muslims might be a reason for Islamophobia, but they are not a justification for it. I also think that generally with racism, there is always a meta-reason comprised of the interations of various reasons, some of which play a greater role than others.
So the real questtion is not whether or not Gutman drew a distinction between classic and modern anti-Semitism, but whether he did so in the context of providing reasons for each, or whether he did in fact provide justifications for the latter. Unfortunately, it is hard to get hold of an exact quote. I found this one; ""A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians". The addition of the words "which should be condemned", make it seem as if Gutman is indeed justifying current anti-Semitism, since the distinction between it and previous anti-Semitism is that unlike classic anti-Semitism, it should not be condemend.* This is the version of the quote that was circulating online and causing the scandal.
It seems however, that this was a misquote. In the online version of the remarks, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhEkrhoiH9o
Gutman draws a distinction between the reasons for classic anti-Semitism and reasons for modern anti-Semitism among some Muslim or Arab emigrant communities in Europe, but he certainly does not justify or condone any type of anti-Semitism. Without the larger context of the speech, it is impossible to judge whether in tone it might have indeed been implicitly justifying it. But in any case, the truth does not matter - the misquote is the one stuck in people's minds, and the damage is hard to undo. It is much easier to dispel a positive reputation then a negative one - facts are not needed for the former, yet often prove insufficient for the latter.
A final note: Gutman is Jewish, and his father is a Polish Holocaust survivor. He has used his personal history to ward off accusations of anti-Semitism, but I do beleive one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic, or African-American and racist, and that sometimes remarks must be judged on their merits, regardless of the speaker's biography. On the other hand, sometimes that biography is relevant, and it can be hard to know where to draw the line.
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/quote-on-anti-semitism-misattributed-to-us-ambassador-doesnt-ease-criticism/
I want to dissect the issue: First of all, giving a public speech on anything as potentially controversial as anti-Semitism, without clearing it with the State Dept., when you're an ambassador, is not ok, and it is not clear whether or not Gutman did so.
Second of all, the big "thing" is that Gutman distinguished between "classic" Western anti-Semitism, and current Muslim anti-Semitism. I do not think such a distinction is unwarranted, provided one is engaging in an intellectual history of the "reasons" for anti-Semitism - as Arendt did in her work "On the Origins of Totalitarianism". There is a big difference however, between a reason and a justification: If an African-American cut in front of me at the airport, causing me to miss my plane that I was catching in order to propose to my lover before he left for Australia, that might be my "reason" for being racist against African-Americans, but it would not be a justification. I beleive on of the tenents of modern liberal theory is that when it comes to discrimination and racism, a reason is never a good justification. Thus, terror attacks by Muslims might be a reason for Islamophobia, but they are not a justification for it. I also think that generally with racism, there is always a meta-reason comprised of the interations of various reasons, some of which play a greater role than others.
So the real questtion is not whether or not Gutman drew a distinction between classic and modern anti-Semitism, but whether he did so in the context of providing reasons for each, or whether he did in fact provide justifications for the latter. Unfortunately, it is hard to get hold of an exact quote. I found this one; ""A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians". The addition of the words "which should be condemned", make it seem as if Gutman is indeed justifying current anti-Semitism, since the distinction between it and previous anti-Semitism is that unlike classic anti-Semitism, it should not be condemend.* This is the version of the quote that was circulating online and causing the scandal.
It seems however, that this was a misquote. In the online version of the remarks, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhEkrhoiH9o
Gutman draws a distinction between the reasons for classic anti-Semitism and reasons for modern anti-Semitism among some Muslim or Arab emigrant communities in Europe, but he certainly does not justify or condone any type of anti-Semitism. Without the larger context of the speech, it is impossible to judge whether in tone it might have indeed been implicitly justifying it. But in any case, the truth does not matter - the misquote is the one stuck in people's minds, and the damage is hard to undo. It is much easier to dispel a positive reputation then a negative one - facts are not needed for the former, yet often prove insufficient for the latter.
A final note: Gutman is Jewish, and his father is a Polish Holocaust survivor. He has used his personal history to ward off accusations of anti-Semitism, but I do beleive one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic, or African-American and racist, and that sometimes remarks must be judged on their merits, regardless of the speaker's biography. On the other hand, sometimes that biography is relevant, and it can be hard to know where to draw the line.
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/quote-on-anti-semitism-misattributed-to-us-ambassador-doesnt-ease-criticism/
Hello?
I have not blogged for a while because, to be perfectly honest, politics has been too depressing to write about. I hope to fix that: My new resolution is to blog every other Monday, starting with this Monday - let's see if I can stick to my resolution.
My feelings about politics in America are complicated. My feelings about politics in Israel can be summed up by this op-ed in haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/how-peace-vanished-from-israeli-discourse-1.400274
My fears can be summed up in this paragraph, lifted from the article: "If there is no peace, no dream and not even negotiations, something else will take their place. If the Palestinians' faint hope of freedom is doomed, they will be forced again to take another path. What else can they do? Wait around doing nothing for an entire generation? Sit idly by for two generations? Of course not. This vacuum will be filled by another circle of bloodshed, more horrible than the previous ones. The first uprising was the stone-and-knife intifada, the second was the suicide bombers' intifada. The third is likely to be even more violent."
My feelings about politics in America are complicated. My feelings about politics in Israel can be summed up by this op-ed in haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/how-peace-vanished-from-israeli-discourse-1.400274
My fears can be summed up in this paragraph, lifted from the article: "If there is no peace, no dream and not even negotiations, something else will take their place. If the Palestinians' faint hope of freedom is doomed, they will be forced again to take another path. What else can they do? Wait around doing nothing for an entire generation? Sit idly by for two generations? Of course not. This vacuum will be filled by another circle of bloodshed, more horrible than the previous ones. The first uprising was the stone-and-knife intifada, the second was the suicide bombers' intifada. The third is likely to be even more violent."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)