I AM A JEW (Part I)

I have announced my retirement from blogging time and time again. This results from my frustration from the lack of feedback from my assumed readers. This lack of feedback makes me feel that I am talking to myself and that I have, at best, a dwindling audience, if any. When I started my blog many years ago, I had hoped for an ever-increasing one.  

But as I return to writing again and again and I realize that I write because I must. The thoughts swirl! The indignation increases. I have things to say! They need to be said.

And so let me say that I am a Jew! I am proud to be a Jew! We are a tribe that, small as it is, has survived persecution for 5,774 years. That alone is an achievement that few other cultures have achieved. I say cultures, because Judaism is at least as much a culture as it is a religion, and to me it is primarily a culture, for I am not a believer.

But I am proud to be a Jew!

Long ago, not long after the death of Christ, who was a Jewish priest, Jews gave up having priests. Instead, Jews substituted Rabbis for priests. For the uninitiated, that is a significant difference, for Priests preach. Rabbis read and study and teach. The Ten Commandments were handed down by Moses in writing and the holy scroll, the Torah, has been read by Jews for millennia, and thus Jews have often been described as the people of the book.

That is of vital importance for it means that Jews value education above all. It is what, in my opinions, makes them what they are. The people of the book.

Every time I see some prominent person, who I never knew was Jewish, described as Jewish I swell with pride. Sometimes I exclaim, “Is everybody Jewish?” Most recently I felt that way when Lauren Bacall died. I never knew she too was Jewish.

I suffered, like so many others for being a Jew. My father saw the insides of Dachau and Buchenwald and I and my brother fled for our lives, to find a haven here in the US, as eventually did my parents.

But there is another aspect of being a Jew. We have been called: “ The Chosen People”. Chosen for what? I believe to bring to the world righteousness and charity. We may often be oppressed, but are never, never to be the oppressors.

“The LORD works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed”. (Emphasis added) - Psalm 103. See here.

I used to be a Zionist as was my father. After so many Jews died who could have been saved, not because Hitler wouldn’t let them flee, but because the world turned its back on them, (just as most of the world doesn’t want to open its doors to the oppressed today) I, and countless others, concluded that we, the Jews, needed a homeland where we would always be welcome, a country that would never turn its back on the Jewish diaspora. That country was and is Israel.

But I never had any illusions. When Theodore Herzl in 1903 founded Zionism, he advocated for a Jewish homeland, but Palestine, was only one of many locations. He even talked of Africa as a possible place for the new Zion. See here.

But does anybody think that the people of that region, with there own aspirations for statehood, would have welcomed a Jewish state carved out of their entity? Would the US have been willing to cede part of its territory for such a state? Would any of the colonies of the British Empire have been willing to welcome such a state as part of their liberation from their colonists?

Why would anybody have expected the Arab colonies to react any different from any other colony or state. When Israel was founded in 1948, by a vote of the UN in 1947 by a vote of 33 in favor to 13 opposed, with 10 abstentions  “the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution, and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny." Was that a surprise? Should it have been? Is there any other nation, territory or political entity that would have reacted differently?

This is very important, because there has been a tendency to paint the Arabs as evil anti-Semites. Were they? Many were. Famously, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem established himself in Italy and Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping Germans recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. But even this has to be understood by the axiom, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and he hated the colonials, and he hated the Jews, who he saw as people who wanted a piece of the Arab homeland.

But while Jews paid huge sums to buy land in Palestine, and the Arabs gladly sold it to them, that does not mean that they concurred with the idea that these settlers, instead of becoming citizens of the new Arab states to be created with the end of colonialism, would carve out an alien non-Arab entity. In other Arab countries after all, Jews lived in their midst as citizens of those countries and they did not agitate for independence.

Thus their unwillingness to accept the new Jewish state in their midst, should not be seen as something evil or surprising, but the natural reaction of any people and particularly aspirational people just coming out of the oppression of colonialism.

Two wrong don’t make a right. But neither do two rights make a wrong.

The Arabs attacked, as the Jews knew they would. But the Jews were ready. They defeated all the Arab armies combined, and with the playing of the Hatikvah, declared the new nation into being.

The Jewish state was a fait accompli under the biblical name Israel. But it was a very small country.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library:

“…the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert. 

“Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.” 

A map of the Israel mandated by the UN is shown below:

I write this because without a clear understanding of the facts, no valid opinion is possible. And at least for me, a clear an understanding of the history, the rights and the wrongs, and above all the facts must be established and understood.

To my readers I suggest that they read each installment, and then the whole. Whether it changes any opinions or not, I trust that a clear understandings of the dynamics and the facts, the facts and the FACTS, will make whatever opinions my readers, or for that matter me, may have, to be based on the history and a true understanding of the underling conflicts and myths.

Please hold your comments, if any, until the end of this exposition, unless you feel that you have something to add to a particular portion, rather than to the whole.

Our Planet – It Is The Only One We Have (Reprise)

It has been some time since I last posted a commentary to my blog, But an article that appeared in the Jersey Sierran of April-June caught my eye as being directly related to my posts "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have" and the subsequent one “Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)." Accordingly, I reproduce it below:

Protect New Jersey from Plastic Bags
By Noemi de la Puente, founder of NJThinkOutsideTheBag (NoemiDLP@yahoo.com).

The Chapter’s monthly Conservation Committee meeting, Feb 8th, was mostly devoted to a presentation reviewing efforts to limit New Jersey’s pollution by plastic bags. Here’s a synopsis:

Why is the disposable shopping bag such a big deal? The average American brings home 500-700 bags a year (estimates from the EPA, the plastics industry, and from trash-anthropologists in Garbology, by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward Humes). In Mercer County alone, for example, that’s about 220 million shopping bags (low estimate), and in New Jersey it’s 5 billion bags per year. Yes - billion. That’s an enormous amount of trash that can be easily eliminated.

Shoppers in America expect a complimentary bag with each purchase. Of course it’s not free - the cost is factored into the price of your items. Then you pay for it again when it’s discarded at home and your taxes are spent on municipal waste disposal. As a taxpayer you might even pay for it a third time if it ends up as litter that clogs a pump station, or recycling machinery, or has to be fished out of a wastewater treatment plant. There is also the cost to ocean life: whales, dolphins, and sea turtles eat plastic bags because they resemble jellyfish (food); the animals end up starving to death because their digestive organs fill with plastic, blocking the absorption of real food. Large sea animal populations are down 90% since the 1970s.

Many American communities now require a fee for disposable plastic shopping bags. Fees reduce bag usage 80-90% -- consistently and across cultures: in cities, counties, and entire states, in the USA, Ireland, and China. Fifty four percent of the world’s population now lives under some sort of plastic bag ban or fee. If people practice a small sustainable behavior like bringing reusable bags on shopping trips, they will be more likely to adopt other sustainable behaviors (Fostering Sustainable Behavior by Doug McKenzie-Mohr).
Communities that have enacted successful bag fee/ban legislation tend to be too big in area for an aggrieved customer to drive elsewhere to shop: San Francisco county and San Jose in California, Washington D.C., and all of Hawai’i. Mercer County (226 square miles) is probably large enough to support a successful bag/fee law What if the Mercer County Improvement Authority passed an ordinance saying, “no more complimentary bags, and merchants keep the fee as part of a solid waste reduction plan?”

We have to think outside the bag! Recycling will not help - it never has. According to the EPA Municipal Solid Waste Report, 2011, recycling rates for the average HDPE (#2) bag was about 8%. The recycling containers in front of our favorite grocery stores are almost always just an intermediate stop before the bags are landfilled.

Someone has to go first for the State of New Jersey to seriously consider a single use disposable bag fee bill. In 2013, Senate Bill 812 - the first bill of this nature to make it out of committee - was never posted for a vote, so it died with the last session.

Activists instrumental in getting legislation passed in California have given the same advice over and over: “You need a local victory for everyone around to see how well this works.” I think we can make Mercer County the first county in NJ to do this and pave the way for NJ to get rid of its 5 billion bags.

How you can help:

(1) use your reusable bags - tie your keys to them if it’s hard to remember them;
(2) post your bag stories and pictures on NJThinkOutsideTheBag;
(3) Reach out to your local merchants association
(4) Reach out to your township council

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome

Global Warming

"Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)" was posted on May 12, 2014.  While I received no further comments or discussion directly relating thereto, one of my readers, Leonard Levenson, of Manhattan, NY, raised question regarding a related subject, namely, global warming.

He asked:

Although it is politically correct to oppose the increase in greenhouse gasses and indeed it is clear that considerable harm results, there are some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction.  Perhaps you can help.

     

1. The earth is clearly warming causing sea levels to rise and possibly diverting the Gulf Stream all of which could have devastating consequences to Mankind.  However, doesn't this very warming also increase the growing season for crops in places such as Canada, Russia, Alaska, Patagonia and Greenland?  Does this not benefit large segments of mankind?

      

2.  Doesn't the melting of ice in the Arctic open up the long dreamed of Northwest passage of shipping from the US and Canada to Russia and Japan? 

      

3.  The Greenhouse effect results in inordinate amounts of rainfall, at least in the NE US.  Isn't this beneficial to agriculture, hydroelectric power and the environment?

I responded after doing research on the subject and I set forth below my response based on that research.

In setting forth my response, I must caution my readers that if they read only my text they will have missed a great many facts relating thereto, since I did not want to quote from my sources at length. Therefor, I urge my readers to take the time to access the links and to read, at least large portions, of the source material. My full response follows.

Politically correct or PC has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming, any more than the question of whether the earth is round (and yes there is a Flat Earth Society) or whether the earth is the center of the universe.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the fact that certain ignorant people, or shortsighted billionaires, and politicians who cater to them, prefer to pretend is doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it a political or controversial issue.

Nor is PC a way of censoring ideas that are not liberal, as our right wing blogosphere would have people believe, though there have been instances where misguided college students have used it that way.

Without doubt there may be some areas that benefit from Global Warming, such as the Northwest Passage, but they are few. You mention an increase in the growing season in a number of countries, assuming that cold climates would benefit from warmer weather. Alas that is very simplistic. See for example the following which has the sub-headline: 

"Insect infestations, forest fires, floods and drought reflect the devastating impact global warming is already having on the vast Canadian landscape, according to experts from all 10 provinces and two territories."

BY THE GAZETTE (MONTREAL) NOVEMBER 30, 2005

Please note that this was almost a decade ago. A more recent assessment for Canada can be found here. 

As for Russia, see here but you are right it would have some beneficial effects, See here.

As for more rainfall, Hurricane Katrina is an example: See here and don’t forget Hurricane Sandy which devastated the Northeast and we still have nowhere near recovered. But we know that the next one will be worse and we are being forced to spend billions on raising coastline infrastructure and getting ready for next time, which is inevitable.

But it isn’t just more rainfall. It is also less. See this New York Times article where the lede is:

"LOS ANGELES — The fire season here in the hot, dry West now lasts roughly 75 days longer than it did a decade ago, and nearly three dozen fires have been burning up and down California in the last two days, weeks before a normal season begins."

You think of it as more rainfall. But that isn’t it. It is the rise of the sea level that will wipe away huge swath of land. How will it effect the Mid-Atlantic region? See an EPA report here.

See how it is effecting our nations’ capital. Here is today’s (May 16, 2014) weather forecast.

As for Florida (Marco Rubio’s state) See here and allow me to quote from the assessment: 

"The map clearly shows that a sea level rise of only a few meters would inundate thousands of acres of highly developed land and beach communities along Florida's Atlantic Coast, the Florida Keys, and the Florida Gulf Coast. Significant flooding and environmental change would also be experienced in the Everglades. Zoom in on Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor or another area to see the impact of sea level rise in more detail. Florida is a low-elevation state and would feel the impact of sea level rise associated with global climate change much more strongly than other areas.”

In the Pacific whole islands will become uninhabitable: See this headline in Business Insider (not a “liberal source or a PC source) "Sea Level Rise Will Make Several Islands Uninhabitable Within A Decade."

See here and here.

And finally, here is a summary for the United States, which to be sure takes us quite far out. 

But maybe the worst part would be the endless migration of people from negatively effected area to less effected areas - a migration that would make the present immigration problems look puny. The result would likely be war and the killing of immigrants to protect the interest of the haves from the impinging hordes trying to find shelter where they are not wanted.

I pity my grandchild and even more the generation after that. My advise to my grandchild would be “Don’t have children. They will be born into Hell on Earth.”

If it isn’t already too late - it is certainly very close to that.

As usual, comments or questions are welcome!

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have

I have stated before, and herby restate, that because of a lack of expressed interest in my postings on my blog I have ceased writing for that venue, until and unless I receive a reasonable number of responses indicating an interest in my continuing. 

However, since I continue to write for other venues from time to time, I will continue to post those on my blog.

On April 21, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Record (The Fort Lee Suburbanite no longer appears to be interested in publishing Letters to the Editor). It was published in the April 23, 2014 edition.

The letter appeared under the Headline “Stop Using Plastic Bags” and reads as follows:

I find it appalling to find that most people take their purchases in plastic bags, rather then using reusable canvas bags. It appears they mean well, because every merchant offers reusable canvas bags and many buy them. But it appears that most people seem content with having bought such bags, even though they then fail to use them.

Why using reusable canvas bags is so is hard is difficult to contemplate. Most people use their cars when doing their shopping and it is the easiest thing in the world to keep some canvas bags in the car and take them with them when they shop. That is what I do.

Do they not realize what enormous damage they are doing to our environment? What happens to these hundreds, indeed thousands, and most likely millions of these bags? According to National Geographic there are “somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags … consumed worldwide each year”. We see them hanging from trees where they pollute our visual environment. But worse they end up in our landfills, where unlike other garbage they do not decompose and remain there unto eternity. And still worse they end up in our streams and in our oceans where dolphins, and other creatures of the sea get tangled in them, or imbibe them and die a horrible death.

National Geographic also informs us that “Plastic bag litter has become such an environmental nuisance and eyesore that Ireland, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and Bangladesh have heavily taxed the totes or banned their use outright. Several other regions, including England and some U.S. cities, are considering similar actions.”

It is time for our state and/or our nation to do the same.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will only be published at my discretion.

Government at its Worst and at its Best

I have said heretofore that I am no longer willing to take the time to write for my blog because my audience is at best unresponsive and at worst non-existent.

However, I have also decided that what I have written for other venues should also see the light of day on my blog. So here goes!

Christiegate

Living in the town that is the subject of this scandal it has been covered rather well by our local newspaper. One of the articles prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor, as follows:

The continuing “Bridgegate Scandal” (Suburbanite January 17, 2014) can only remind us of the original scandal after which all other scandals have been named. While the two are different in many ways, they have some important features in common.  

In both cases the scandal broke right after the incumbent won re-election by an overwhelming majority. In both cases the incumbent claimed ignorance, and was quick to fire underlings.  

Nixon declared, “I am not a crook!” Christie declared: “I am not a bully”.  

In both cases the facts kept developing. In the case of Christie they too are just developing, with the mayor off Jersey City coming forth with how his refusal to endorse Christie led to “purposeful stalling of a pension reform bill that would have benefited his city", and the mayor of Hoboken charging that Christie withheld federal storm relief funds from her city to punish her.  

Whether Christie knew the details of what his aids were doing is irrelevant. As anyone who has worked in either the private or the public sector knows, underlings know and act upon what they perceive the boss wants. Clearly this is what they understood the boss wanted.  

Punishing a political adversary is part of the political game, but punishing the citizens of a town for the perceived sins of its elected official is beyond the pale. It is time for Governor Christie to take responsibility and resign. Failing that, serious consideration to impeachment is in order.

This appeared directly under a cartoon on the subject, inexorably linking the two, which I reproduce here:

This represents government at its worst!

On the other hand the importance of government at its best is not to be overlooked, as the New York Times article entitled “Innovation,Optimism And Jobs” seemed to do, prompting me to write a Letter to the Editor, which was not published. The letter follows:

To the Editor:

 Joe Nocera’s column “Innovation, Optimism And Jobs" is misleading, not by commission, but by omission, or at least in emphasis. 

 In discussing technological change and whether it will help or hinder job creation, he barely touches upon the vital role that government plays. While, in talking about past technological innovation, he does mention, “governmental change:” and that “Factories used children as workers, until governments passed child labor laws” and that “free education became the law of the land” but he fails to point out what a vital role government played. 

 The fact is that innovation did wipe out an enormous number of jobs. Government kept such dwindling jobs from devastating huge swath of the population by forcing job sharing. People used to work eighty hours a week and more, but as fewer workers were needed government forced the fewer jobs to be widely shared, not only by eliminating child labor, but by passing laws limiting the number of hours to be worked to 40 hours and mandating extra compensation for hours above that, while at the same time making sure that lower paid workers would not have their income cut as their hours dwindled, by setting a floor to how much compensation could be reduced, i.e. the minimum wage. 

 If we are to meet the challenge from the new efficiencies, we must once again reduce the number of hours worked, follow through on free education by making college free, and in general improve our educational system by investing in our human capital. 

 Earlier innovation would not have benefited the broader population without government intervention, and neither will the present one.

Comments, Corrections and/or Questions are welcome.