I have no problem with folks who 'contribute' more, making more money for that contribution. We do not all contribute equally, and we need not all share equally. What I have a problem with is the idea that if corporate America chooses to pay minimal wages and not provide health insurance as a part of someone's job that the person 'deserves' to go without food, shelter, clothing, transportation, or health care.
My feeling is that anyone working a 40 hour week should have a place to live, enough to eat, clothing, transportation, and health care if they get sick. That need not be extravagant - if you want lobster or steak, earn more money, otherwise you might live on macaroni and cheese or hamburger helper. If the worker's employer does not pay enough to cover those things, then we need to tax the corporations and well-off people to make sure that is covered.
I also feel that everyone who wants to work should be provided with a job. If there are not enough private sector jobs available, then the government should step in as an employer of last resort. The right wing says that everyone should work - fine, then make jobs available.
I'm sure there are folks who think I'm some sort of commie socialist weirdo, but that's okay. I think those folks are insensitive selfish jerks.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Rant
I am sickened by stories like the recent one of evictions of Palestinians from homes they have had since the 1940s. I am Jewish and want to see Israel living in peace with its neighbors, yet I see Israeli governments which seemed determined to make that impossible. I see Israeli and Jewish right-wingers who seem determined to dehumanize and demonize Palestinians and who attempt to de-legitimize any Palestinian claims to any part of the "Palestinian Mandate". The Jewish extremists attempt to justify their extremism by pointing to Palestinian extremism, and pretending that represents all Palestinian belief. I also see Palestinian, Muslim, and left-wing people who use every right-wing Jewish statement and action as evidence to support anti-Israel dogma.
For those who ask 'why Jews can't build on Israeli land', I would say that the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign Israeli land. Those lands have not ever been recognized as part of Israel, either by international bodies or even by prior Israeli governments (except for a claim on East Jerusalem made by Israel). For those biblical determinalists, who say that 'G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews', I would say that a verse from the Bible or Torah does not constitute legal title. It did not constitute legal title over 3000 years ago when Abraham, after being told the land was for him and his descendants, paid for the cave at Machpelah, or for Jacob, who was told the land was his, and who paid for the land he settled on.
For those who say 'there is no Palestinian people and they have no right to be there', I'd say many of them are the descendants of people who have lived in that area since biblical times. Some are the descendants of the original Christians, some of whom were Jewish and some not. Others are probably the descendants of non-religious Jews who found it easier to convert to Islam after the Arab conquest. Still others are likely the descendants of the other non-Jewish people who lived in that area. There were a number of other peoples who the Bible / Tanakh says lived among the children of Israel, and some of their descendants are likely among the Palestinians as well. Have there been other migrations as well? Certainly, but that is true throughout the world, and we cannot roll things back to where they were 2000 or 3000 years ago.
For those Palestinians & sympathizers who claim that the Jews have no claim on the holy land, I'd say that Jews have lived in that land continuously for literally thousands of years. Many other Jews lived in Arab lands and were forced to leave after the establishment of Israel and settled in Israel. Those Jews are not ‘European colonists’. Some Ashkenazi Jews intermarried with Europeans, but that does not invalidate their claim to a share of the holy land. DNA testing shows predominantly Semitic ancestry for the vast majority of European Jews.
Most of the Jews who arrived before 1948 settled on land which was purchased from its legal owners. There was no ‘theft’ involved in that, contrary to what some claim. During the war which established Israel as an independent country, some Palestinians were coerced to leave their homes in what is now Israel, while other left voluntarily, expecting to return at the end of hostilities. The Jews who lived behind the green line were also forced to abandon their homes.
I am distressed by those Jews who claim that pre-1948 Jewish title to lands beyond the green line should be recognized, while pre-1948 Palestinian title to lands in Israel should not. The same standard should apply to both. If 'abandoned' Palestinian property in Israel is not subject to recovery by descendants of its owners, then 'abandoned' Jewish property beyond the green line is not subject to recovery either. If Jews are allowed to reclaim land beyond the green line, then Palestinians must be allowed to reclaim property in Israel. One set of rules for all, regardless of religion or ancestry.
Only if the majority of people on both sides can reject the 'it's all mine' mentality can we ever begin to find peace in that land. While I often despair, I still pray for a sense of reason to develop and begin to guide enough people to allow them to achieve some level of peace for both Israel and Palestine.
For those who ask 'why Jews can't build on Israeli land', I would say that the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign Israeli land. Those lands have not ever been recognized as part of Israel, either by international bodies or even by prior Israeli governments (except for a claim on East Jerusalem made by Israel). For those biblical determinalists, who say that 'G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews', I would say that a verse from the Bible or Torah does not constitute legal title. It did not constitute legal title over 3000 years ago when Abraham, after being told the land was for him and his descendants, paid for the cave at Machpelah, or for Jacob, who was told the land was his, and who paid for the land he settled on.
For those who say 'there is no Palestinian people and they have no right to be there', I'd say many of them are the descendants of people who have lived in that area since biblical times. Some are the descendants of the original Christians, some of whom were Jewish and some not. Others are probably the descendants of non-religious Jews who found it easier to convert to Islam after the Arab conquest. Still others are likely the descendants of the other non-Jewish people who lived in that area. There were a number of other peoples who the Bible / Tanakh says lived among the children of Israel, and some of their descendants are likely among the Palestinians as well. Have there been other migrations as well? Certainly, but that is true throughout the world, and we cannot roll things back to where they were 2000 or 3000 years ago.
For those Palestinians & sympathizers who claim that the Jews have no claim on the holy land, I'd say that Jews have lived in that land continuously for literally thousands of years. Many other Jews lived in Arab lands and were forced to leave after the establishment of Israel and settled in Israel. Those Jews are not ‘European colonists’. Some Ashkenazi Jews intermarried with Europeans, but that does not invalidate their claim to a share of the holy land. DNA testing shows predominantly Semitic ancestry for the vast majority of European Jews.
Most of the Jews who arrived before 1948 settled on land which was purchased from its legal owners. There was no ‘theft’ involved in that, contrary to what some claim. During the war which established Israel as an independent country, some Palestinians were coerced to leave their homes in what is now Israel, while other left voluntarily, expecting to return at the end of hostilities. The Jews who lived behind the green line were also forced to abandon their homes.
I am distressed by those Jews who claim that pre-1948 Jewish title to lands beyond the green line should be recognized, while pre-1948 Palestinian title to lands in Israel should not. The same standard should apply to both. If 'abandoned' Palestinian property in Israel is not subject to recovery by descendants of its owners, then 'abandoned' Jewish property beyond the green line is not subject to recovery either. If Jews are allowed to reclaim land beyond the green line, then Palestinians must be allowed to reclaim property in Israel. One set of rules for all, regardless of religion or ancestry.
Only if the majority of people on both sides can reject the 'it's all mine' mentality can we ever begin to find peace in that land. While I often despair, I still pray for a sense of reason to develop and begin to guide enough people to allow them to achieve some level of peace for both Israel and Palestine.
Economic Policy
Let’s get down and dirty and talk about what the economic policy should be for the United States. If you’ve come expecting a simple, pat answer, you won’t find it. Our economic problems are complex and interrelated and cannot be solved by simple answers. If you want a simple answer, go to an ideologue – you’ll get simple answers - they won’t make any sense, and they won’t work in the real world, but you’ll get simple answers.
What about welfare and work? The ideologue will say, “Make people get off welfare and have them work for a living”. Simple answer, but the problem is that is a goal, and neither a means nor a program to help reach that goal. Clearly our goal should be to get people off welfare and have them working for a living, but simply mandating that and ending welfare benefits for people does not help those people successfully work for a living. If that does not work, then what does work? What should work is a combination of education, job creation, and making certain that people earn a living wage when they work. That may be a simple sentence, but it is in fact a complex solution, and each of the above has its issues.
Let’s look at job creation first – this should be almost a slam-dunk. The United States has many roads, bridges, and such that are woefully inadequate. Just as Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s created the interstate highway system, it is time for the government to make a commitment to fix up and improve our current highway system. What would this do? First off, it would take the laid off factory workers, and put them to work. This is important to help the U.S. get out of the current economic slowdown, and offset the losses of blue collar jobs to outsourcing.
This employment creates secondary employment, because the newly employed or re-employed blue collar workers spend the money they make. You can see this in both directions – close down the major employer in a small town, and you will see lots of other smaller businesses either close down or reduce staff. When you put these people to work again, the smaller businesses open up or add staff to provide goods or services to those who are now employed.
A lot of conservatives and neo-conservatives will ask why their taxes should have to go to pay for this employment program. Well, because it needs to be done, and because private enterprise can’t do it. Also, this kind of program would start to reduce transportation costs for all manner of goods. Why does that matter? Global outsourcing worked as well as it did because it was cheap to transport goods internationally. And it was cheap to transport goods internationally because the price of oil was low. With oil prices climbing and showing no signs of getting really cheap again anytime soon, if ever, some manufacturers are looking to move some manufacturing closer again. Improving the transportation system further reduces the costs of manufacturing closer to home. It helps this country, and puts money in the pockets of Americans, and not just Chinese manufacturers or Saudi oil sheiks.
What about welfare and work? The ideologue will say, “Make people get off welfare and have them work for a living”. Simple answer, but the problem is that is a goal, and neither a means nor a program to help reach that goal. Clearly our goal should be to get people off welfare and have them working for a living, but simply mandating that and ending welfare benefits for people does not help those people successfully work for a living. If that does not work, then what does work? What should work is a combination of education, job creation, and making certain that people earn a living wage when they work. That may be a simple sentence, but it is in fact a complex solution, and each of the above has its issues.
Let’s look at job creation first – this should be almost a slam-dunk. The United States has many roads, bridges, and such that are woefully inadequate. Just as Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s created the interstate highway system, it is time for the government to make a commitment to fix up and improve our current highway system. What would this do? First off, it would take the laid off factory workers, and put them to work. This is important to help the U.S. get out of the current economic slowdown, and offset the losses of blue collar jobs to outsourcing.
This employment creates secondary employment, because the newly employed or re-employed blue collar workers spend the money they make. You can see this in both directions – close down the major employer in a small town, and you will see lots of other smaller businesses either close down or reduce staff. When you put these people to work again, the smaller businesses open up or add staff to provide goods or services to those who are now employed.
A lot of conservatives and neo-conservatives will ask why their taxes should have to go to pay for this employment program. Well, because it needs to be done, and because private enterprise can’t do it. Also, this kind of program would start to reduce transportation costs for all manner of goods. Why does that matter? Global outsourcing worked as well as it did because it was cheap to transport goods internationally. And it was cheap to transport goods internationally because the price of oil was low. With oil prices climbing and showing no signs of getting really cheap again anytime soon, if ever, some manufacturers are looking to move some manufacturing closer again. Improving the transportation system further reduces the costs of manufacturing closer to home. It helps this country, and puts money in the pockets of Americans, and not just Chinese manufacturers or Saudi oil sheiks.
Confederate Flag and Historical Revisionism
I have recently read with some sorrow the stories about the current controversy regarding the placement of a large Confederate flag in Hillsborough County. I have to believe that the people pushing this flag are at best insensitive and naive.
The Confederate flag is clearly a symbol for those states which attempted to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. For those who would attempt to contest the cause of the secession, I refer them to South Carolina’s declaration when it became the first state to secede. That document repeatedly cites slavery and the actions of the northern states to limit or end slavery as the reason for its secession. The secession declaration of Texas does likewise, as does the Georgia declaration. The Mississippi declaration starts:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Further, Alexander Hamilton Stevens, Vice President of the Confederate States, gave the "Cornerstone Speech", to that group which met to adopt a new constitution for the Confederacy. In it, he said "(African slavery) was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition."
The 'Sons of the Confederacy' have been attempting to engage in historical revisionism, and they would have us believe that the Civil War was not about slavery. One spokesperson for the group denied that the Confederate flag was a “symbol of hate”. To be correct, the flag is the symbol of a society built on the hateful institution of slavery, of the war fought to maintain that hateful institution, and of the well-documented hateful and brutal treatment of the black American slaves by that society.
Most of us, and particularly African-Americans, rightly see that flag as a symbol of the institution of slavery, just as most of us rightly see the swastika as a symbol of the holocaust and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. To celebrate the Confederate flag as a glorification of southern society without acknowledging the foundation of that society on the suffering and death of millions of slaves of African descent is both dishonest and disingenuous.
The Confederate flag is clearly a symbol for those states which attempted to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. For those who would attempt to contest the cause of the secession, I refer them to South Carolina’s declaration when it became the first state to secede. That document repeatedly cites slavery and the actions of the northern states to limit or end slavery as the reason for its secession. The secession declaration of Texas does likewise, as does the Georgia declaration. The Mississippi declaration starts:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Further, Alexander Hamilton Stevens, Vice President of the Confederate States, gave the "Cornerstone Speech", to that group which met to adopt a new constitution for the Confederacy. In it, he said "(African slavery) was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition."
The 'Sons of the Confederacy' have been attempting to engage in historical revisionism, and they would have us believe that the Civil War was not about slavery. One spokesperson for the group denied that the Confederate flag was a “symbol of hate”. To be correct, the flag is the symbol of a society built on the hateful institution of slavery, of the war fought to maintain that hateful institution, and of the well-documented hateful and brutal treatment of the black American slaves by that society.
Most of us, and particularly African-Americans, rightly see that flag as a symbol of the institution of slavery, just as most of us rightly see the swastika as a symbol of the holocaust and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. To celebrate the Confederate flag as a glorification of southern society without acknowledging the foundation of that society on the suffering and death of millions of slaves of African descent is both dishonest and disingenuous.
Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act
I received an e-mail from a friend, which claimed that the cause of the mortgage and financial market meltdowns was Bill Clinton, using the Community Reinvestment Act to push lenders into making more unsafe mortgages back in 1999. I replied as follows:
Clinton may have done things in 1999 that contributed to the problem, but we had eight years of George W. Bush as president, most of those years with Republicans also in control of Congress. Why was nothing done in the interim to address the issue? Instead, we had a hands-off approach to regulation, which rather than fixing the problem, allowed it to mushroom. People warned for several years that predatory lending practices and expansion of non-traditional mortgages (like variable rate, balloon, and interest-only) were setting us up for problems.
Flat incomes (except for people at the very top), slow job growth, and variable rate mortgages all set the stage. When unemployment increased, and the interest rates increased on those variable rate mortgages, and the mortgage holders were unable to re-finance with affordable fixed rate mortgages, that started the landslide. You cannot blame all that on Bill Clinton pressuring lenders to offer more mortgages to low income borrowers.
If you have a house you got from me eight years ago, and it is now breaking down, don't lay all the blame on what I did before I sold it to you. You've had ample time and opportunity to correct those problems.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall that when there was an increase in foreclosures, that the Democrats in Congress proposed a moratorium on foreclosures along with measures that would have forced lenders to renegotiate mortgages on more favorable terms, keeping interest rates down, etc.. What was happening was that as interest rates got kicked up on variable rate mortgages, many borrowers who had been fine at the lower rates, could no longer make their payments.
If the lenders had been forced to keep the foreclosures and rates down, that might have kept the mortgage derivative market from melting down. The administration and congressional Republicans fought the measure, and it was obvious that even with a Democratic majority in Congress, that could not be passed. The Republicans said 'the market knows best and is self regulating, and can deal with the problem'. So instead we had 'voluntary' mortgage renegotiations, which meant nothing materially changed. I'll contend that the Democratic proposal would have kept today’s problem from being as bad as it became.
Clinton may have done things in 1999 that contributed to the problem, but we had eight years of George W. Bush as president, most of those years with Republicans also in control of Congress. Why was nothing done in the interim to address the issue? Instead, we had a hands-off approach to regulation, which rather than fixing the problem, allowed it to mushroom. People warned for several years that predatory lending practices and expansion of non-traditional mortgages (like variable rate, balloon, and interest-only) were setting us up for problems.
Flat incomes (except for people at the very top), slow job growth, and variable rate mortgages all set the stage. When unemployment increased, and the interest rates increased on those variable rate mortgages, and the mortgage holders were unable to re-finance with affordable fixed rate mortgages, that started the landslide. You cannot blame all that on Bill Clinton pressuring lenders to offer more mortgages to low income borrowers.
If you have a house you got from me eight years ago, and it is now breaking down, don't lay all the blame on what I did before I sold it to you. You've had ample time and opportunity to correct those problems.
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall that when there was an increase in foreclosures, that the Democrats in Congress proposed a moratorium on foreclosures along with measures that would have forced lenders to renegotiate mortgages on more favorable terms, keeping interest rates down, etc.. What was happening was that as interest rates got kicked up on variable rate mortgages, many borrowers who had been fine at the lower rates, could no longer make their payments.
If the lenders had been forced to keep the foreclosures and rates down, that might have kept the mortgage derivative market from melting down. The administration and congressional Republicans fought the measure, and it was obvious that even with a Democratic majority in Congress, that could not be passed. The Republicans said 'the market knows best and is self regulating, and can deal with the problem'. So instead we had 'voluntary' mortgage renegotiations, which meant nothing materially changed. I'll contend that the Democratic proposal would have kept today’s problem from being as bad as it became.
Anti-Israel?
I have said that I did not think that Binyamin Netanyahu was serious about pursuing an equitable peace, and there have been some people who were unhappy with that remark. Someone even said that because I criticized Netanyahu, that I was anti-Israel, which is a baseless accusation.
I read a quote from the book ‘Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do’ by Michael J. Sandel. “You can't really take pride in your country and its past if you're unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility for... discharging the moral burdens that come with it.”
What are the ‘moral burdens that come with it’, and how do you discharge them? I am reminded of the quote by Senator Carl Schurtz in 1872 in a speech in the US Senate, “My country right or wrong; when right, to keep her right; when wrong, to put her right.”
Discharging your moral burdens means not just loving your country, right or wrong, but also speaking out and acting, when you believe it may be on the wrong track. I love Israel, but I also have expectations of Israel. I expect Israel and its government to act better than its neighbors. I hold them to a higher standard, and I expect them to treat everyone in accordance with the highest principles of Jewish law.
At the least, I expect them to behave as Hillel said, “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to another.” And if I think they have fallen short, I can and will speak out.
I read a quote from the book ‘Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do’ by Michael J. Sandel. “You can't really take pride in your country and its past if you're unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility for... discharging the moral burdens that come with it.”
What are the ‘moral burdens that come with it’, and how do you discharge them? I am reminded of the quote by Senator Carl Schurtz in 1872 in a speech in the US Senate, “My country right or wrong; when right, to keep her right; when wrong, to put her right.”
Discharging your moral burdens means not just loving your country, right or wrong, but also speaking out and acting, when you believe it may be on the wrong track. I love Israel, but I also have expectations of Israel. I expect Israel and its government to act better than its neighbors. I hold them to a higher standard, and I expect them to treat everyone in accordance with the highest principles of Jewish law.
At the least, I expect them to behave as Hillel said, “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to another.” And if I think they have fallen short, I can and will speak out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)