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
Monday, December 12, 2011
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."
Monday, September 12, 2011
Palestine
The Palestinians are taking their case for statehood to the UN. Most of Europe will support it, and it looks set to pass. Israel has been protesting, and managed to secure a UN veto.
Instead of stubbornly trying to prevent the inevitable however, Israel would be better off playing hardball: We are willing to support your bid, and even to sign a lasting agreement with your new state tomorrow, provided you meet our conditions: 1. control of the Old City of Jerusalem with a defensible perimeter around it to prevent a potential siege situation a la 1948 2. No Right of Return, however, Israel will give aid money to a repatriation fund run by your government, and will give numerous aid to your government. This sum should a) be distributed over a number of years to provide long-term aid b) be reasonable so as not to strain the Israeli government or its economy 3. working out the details of border control between the two countries.
This would make Israel look reasonable and peace-seeking both to Palestinians and to the larger world. It would also be a way of taking an inevitable fact and using it to get some benefits for Israel. As it is however, Israel can not support the Palestinian bid: It has already invested too much in convincing the US to oppose the bid. Doing an about face now will seem fickle and ungrateful, and therefore risk alienating Israel's best ally. Of course, Israel shouldn't have been using its political capital with the US in order to prevent statehood to begin with, but that's beside the point.
I would also urge Palestinians to aggressively pursue negotiations with Israel: The simple declaration of statehood sans negotiations will not change the daily lives of most Palestinians or help the financially ailing Palestinian Authority. Neither will it result in a step-down of Israeli troops - if anything it will result in a step-up, as security fears mount. True, statehood means the Palestinians could urge the UN to pass sanctions or take Israeli government officials to the ICC, but the UN is a slow bureaucracy ineffective at passing resolutions, and at enforcing those it does pass. Additionally, the US veto would be in place when it comes to sanctions, and prosecutions at the ICC don't stop a government from pursuing a certain policy: It took years of genocide in Sudan before the ICC began prosecuting Bashir. Even now, a final verdict has not been reached, and his government continues to pursue murderous policies - which means that the ICC's effect on the daily lives of the people whose rights Bashir violates has been negligible.
For these reasons, it is in the Palestinian people's best interest for their government to negotiate with the one party that can improve their daily lives, very quickly: Israel.
It takes two to tango. Time for both parties to come to the table.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Gun Control
Having read about a shoot-out in Nevada, involving an Ak-47 and a man whose family was concerned about his mental health, I am reminded of the tragic shooting in Arizona, involving an automatic weapon and a man about whom mental health concerns were raised.
As my heart goes out to the victims and their families, I hope that our society will start taking both gun control and mental health issues seriously. I firmly believe in the right of Americans to bear arms, but we must control a) which type of arms - civilians should not have military-grade weapons b) when such arms can be used and carried c) who can have such arms. There need to be stricter regulations about who can get permits, and stricter enforcement of those regulations. Mental health exams and background checks must be required. Additionally, gun-owners should be subjected to checks on their gun - every two year or so, a federal or state inspector should view where and how the gun is stored, since storing guns safely is an issue. This would also be an opportunity to chat with the gun-owner and make sure there are no red flags - if there are red flags, then there should be an investigation, during which the owner's gun may be taken away for safekeeping, to be returned to them if the investigation yields no results, or if they undergo treatment and are pronounced as properly rehabilitated by a mental health professional. The owner would be given notice - but short notice - about the inspection, and could delay it if able to prove they are on vacation, etc. Or perhaps owning a gun could require a yearly mental health checkup. It is true, such inspections and checkups are an invasion of privacy - but while Americans have the right to bear arms, individuals who choose to own guns must bear (no pun intended) the consequences: They are acquiring weapons that make them a potential public threat, and therefore must be willing to be monitored to make sure they do not in fact pose such a threat. Similarly, if the American taxpayer is not willing to foot the bill for making sure that the right to bear arms is carried out safely, he or she must not use that right.
As I write about yearly mental health checks for gun-owners, I have to say, I wish they were mandated and covered by health insurance for most of society. Our federal and local governments have invested less and less in mental healthcare, and we as a society are paying the price. Too many people are walking around with untreated mental illnesses. The combination of rampant untreated mental illness and available weapons is extremely combustible, not to mention fatal.
However, leaving aside the public safety threat, we as a society suffer in many ways from lack of mental healthcare - not only because many individuals are suffering, but also because each untreated patient brings along with them a cadre of friends and relatives whose lives are also affected - not to mention the wasted potential of both creative and economic productivity that is not being actualized due to mental health issues. It is only when we stop stigmatizing mental illness, and start taking it seriously, that we as a society will be able to feel safe, and to truly realize our potential as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)