Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me! (Discussion)

Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me (Discussion)

On May 14 I posted my commentary “Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me!” I suggest you re-read it so as to be able to fully follow the discussion that follows: See here.

Roger Berkley of Woodcliff Lake, NJ responded thereto with this observation:

The American Jewish community has been brainwashed by the AIPAC propaganda machine.  AIPAC always supports the incumbent government of Israel, that's its job. Israel right or wrong. As American Jews, it is our responsibility to step back and take an analytical view of Israel.  I find that J Street and Peace Now are more properly targeted than Likud and its new ultra right wing coalition partners who virtually all oppose any peace treaty with the Palestinians.

In a very different vein, Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia wrote:

I suppose you won't be surprised to learn that I rather liked David Molk's letter, and I wasn't surprised to read your response. It serves as a microcosm of the much longer text you wrote earlier.

And then added the following extensive discourse:

Worth noting, anyone who would who would honor a despicable terrorist in this way has disqualified himself from any further rational consideration.

 Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

 The writer asks: "Has he [Carter] ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza have gone?"

 You wrote:

 "Just about a month ago, on April 13, the Jerusalem Post had this headline: "International donors fail to deliver promised aid to Gaza." And besides, the Israeli blockade makes it all but impossible for building materials to be delivered."

Your reply ignores several cogent points, including:

 Israel has intercepted bags of cash provided by Iran entering the Gaza Strip to pay Hamas employees, without which support for Hamas would likely collapse.

 Europe and the EU have supplied the PA with billions of dollars over recent decades. It is entirely the fault of Hamas that whatever is left of this money after the huge amounts siphoned off by corrupt Fatah officials has not been transferred to the Gaza Strip.

 Israel has, in fact, permitted the import of some building materials, but must attempt to prevent them  from being diverted (as they had been in the past) to building tunnels that Hamas used to attack Israel.

 You wrote:

"Why should an oppressed people give recognition to their oppressors? The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist and what has it gotten in return?"

 The answer: "Because after multiple wars intended to obliterate Israel, the Palestinians have lost. Now it is time to reconcile and build for the future." Their "oppression" could have been ended long ago if not for the cynical manipulation of Palestinians by their own leaders and for their own enrichment. The PLO's "acceptance" of Israel is/was meaningless so long as the PA, which is the titular Palestinian government refuses to acknowledge Israel's status as a Jewish state or, more properly, a state for the Jewish people. To avoid doing so reflects their continuing desire to transform the Jewish state into an Arab Palestinian state, which exposes "acceptance" as a mere tactic for foreign consumption.

 More to the point, so long as suicide bombers infiltrate from the West Bank (thwarted only by the security wall) and rockets fly from Gaza, "acceptance" remains a hollow joke.

 What did "acceptance" get the PLO? Nothing, because there was no real acceptance and  because the only thing they can hope to get is peace, which is the most precious element for people who love life.

 As for Israel's democracy and a vote for Palestinians, Caroline Glick believes that, after Israel annexes the West Bank, all Arabs who wish to become full Israeli citizens should be offered a path to citizenship. She offers compelling evidence that the risk is worth taking for both sides. Unfortunately, this solution has not attracted much interest anywhere so far as I can tell. The alternative is a demilitarized Palestinian "state" with limited scope of action.

 Now, you will ask "Why does Israel (the oppressor) have the right to dictate terms to the Palestinians (as the oppressed)?" The answer is obvious: because Israel is determined to safeguard its people and its national existence based on residence in its own territory and, as noted previously, its "rights" have been paid for in blood through several wars-if not millennia.

 Mere residence in a territory does not automatically create a "right" to political sovereignty. (Ask the Kurds who have lived in place for a thousand years without independent sovereignty.) And, as noted in prior comments, because the population of Jordan is at least 60% Palestinian, it is the de facto Palestinian state, whether anyone wants to recognize it as such, or not.

 As for whether or not Israel is a democracy, let the kettle not call the pot black. Every democracy in the world, including the U.S., is a work in progress. Israel has made admirable progress in a few short decades, even if there is more to be done.

I responded with passion, if not with anger. I will share that response with you, in my next post. 

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Education

My last post "Supreme Court on the Health Care Reform Law & the Ryan (Republican) Budget" was posted and distributed on April 6^th. In that post I explained that my discussion entitled “It’s All About Race” would have to be postponed and now I feel I must do so again, but his time indefinitely. However, I will address this complex and difficult subject in due course.

Now to revert to my post as set forth above, Ernest Hauser of the Bronx, NY called my attention to an error. I stated that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 74 to 26 with 55 Republicans voting for it. Hauser pointed out that this was impossible since there are only 47 Republicans in the Senate. I should have said “with 28 Republicans voting for it.” Sorry for the error.

I also made a misstatement when I said it has not been reviewed by the CBO. This assertion was made after a long and fruitless search for a CBO analysis caused me to conclude that it did not exist. However, in a NewYorker article by James Surowiecki there is a reference to a CBO analysis. Therefore I stand corrected. Mea culpa!

On the other hand Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia and the author of four books complimented me with this:

Well done, as usual. I haven't had time to follow up all of your links included here, but thanks for doing such meticulous work in documenting the ongoing, attempted Republican takeover of our governmental institutions. It's a sad read.

What prompted me to address the subject of education was an insightful article that was posted on the blog of one of my subscribers, Roger Berkley of Woodcliff Lake, NJ, President and CEO of Weave Corporation and past President of the National Textile association. His article is a must read and can be found here.

It was that article that prompted me to respond to it as follows:

You are right that Santorum as an individual is no longer relevant, but as a philosophy, and as one who undoubtedly speaks for millions, he is very relevant.

                       

It is interesting to note that Santorum knocks education for others, while he himself has a BA an MBA and a JD. How hypocritical for a man who has spent so much time, money and effort gaining an education. Talk about elitism. It’s good for him, but not for those adoring followers of his, who in his view, don't need, and shouldn't want the benefits that an education has bestowed on him. Why can't they see what contempt that shows?

                       

Whether it is Santorum or Romney or Ryan - none of them are interested in making education available to the broad population. They want it to be for an elite group like themselves, who will rule over us and tell us that it isn't about achieving equality, that it is about opportunity. But here they are up to their usual tricks. They resort to the old reliable straw man. As though anyone of any consequence wants to impose equality. Opportunity is precisely what it is all about. And that is precisely what they want to deny the bulk of our citizenry.

Many years ago I read Hitler's Mein Kamf. What struck me, and what I will always remember is that Hitler considered the USA a formidable and dangerous foe because he said the educational system of the US comprises all, regardless of class, while Europe was stuck in a class warp. 

                       

To quote from Wikipedia: 

                                   

"By 1900 educators argued that the post-literacy schooling of the masses at the secondary and higher levels, would improve citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial and professional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization. The commitment to expanded education past age 14 set the U.S. apart from Europe for much of the 20th century. From 1910 to 1940, high schools grew in number and size, reaching out to a broader clientele. In 1910, for example, 9% of Americans had a high school diploma; in 1935, the rate was 40%. By 1940, the number had increased to 50%. This phenomenon was uniquely American; no other nation attempted such widespread coverage. The fastest growth came in states with greater wealth, more homogeneity of wealth, and less manufacturing activity than others. The high schools provided necessary skill sets for youth planning to teach school, and essential skills for those planning careers in white collar work and some high-paying blue collar jobs. Economist Claudia Goldin argues this rapid growth was facilitated by public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum. The wealthiest European nations such as Germany and Britain had far more exclusivity to their education system and few youth attended past age 14. Apart from technical training schools, European secondary schooling was dominated by children of the wealthy and the social elites. The United States chose a type of post-elementary schooling consistent with its particular features — stressing flexible, general and widely applicable skills that were not tied to particular occupations and geographic places had great value in giving students options in their lives. Skills had to survive transport across firms, industries, occupations, and geography in the dynamic American economy."

                       

I am a refugee from Hitler's Holocaust in Vienna, Austria. Even in Vienna my father was a struggling haberdasher. When we came to the US, he took a job as a bottle washer. Eventually, with the help of relatives he advanced to being a technician in quality control, but he never made much money. My brother never overcame these handicaps, became a high-school dropout and eventually a post office mail handler. I was more ambitious. I wanted to go to college. I could not have done so, (and eventually go to law school) if there had not been a free college available close to home. CCNY of CUNY allowed me to live at home, commute by subway for a nickel, and attend college tuition free. This allowed me to save the money I earned working summers, which I could set aside for graduate school. That is over with. There are no free colleges.

                       

How far we have regressed! And they want us to regress still further!

                       

If we are to remain a great nation it will not be by the strength of our military, though we need that too, but by the strength of our educational system. It is time for every state and every city and county, to have a free college system and that will only happen if it is financed at the federal level. Just as between 1910 and 1040 we moved to make high school within the reach of everyone, so we now need to make college within the reach of all. Only in this way will we make this a land of opportunity again, close the income gap, and assure the greatness of our nation in the 21st century. Those who say we cannot afford this are giving up on the future of America, and dooming, not only an underclass to remain an underclass, but are pushing millions who had achieved middle class status in another age, out of the middle class.

                       

Not only will the middle and lower classes benefit from such an approach, but in the long run, so will those at the top. 

                       

It is true that what we want is a larger pie for all, but that will not be achieved, by lower and lower taxes, particularly on the rich, but by evaluating the needs of our nation and then raising the right amount of money to meet those needs.

                       

We must realize that we cannot go on deciding how little we will tax, and then focus on what we can afford. We need to decide on what this nation's needs are, what it will cost to meet those needs, and then focus on what level of taxation is required, to meet those needs. In 1986, during Reagan's second term, our marginal tax rate was 50%. By the time he left office the rate was 28%. At the end of the prosperous Clinton era it was 39.6%. The Ryan plan would reduce that to 20% and raise additional revenues by unspecified (the rabbit in the hat - now you see it now you don't) elimination of tax expenditures. This is a formula that makes nothing possible. It is a formula for an ever-greater divide between the super rich and the rest, and the decline of our nation.

On another note I must call the readers attention to the stepped up War on Women, at least in Wisconsin. See here.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction

 In a series of commentaries I have set forth the misconceptions, the distortions and the outright lies to which the American Public has been subjected.

  It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.

The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.

It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.

In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.

In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.

In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.

Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.

Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.

Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.

One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.

The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.

But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.

I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.

Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.

If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?

Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.

But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!

Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.

Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.