And now the union card.

"I told you so"s are obnoxious. But I can't resist.

Among the posts in this blog's archives are numerous warnings and predictions about just how bad a president candidate Obama would be. I worried about many things, including what has now become Obamacare, Obama financial reform, Obama foreign policy all of which have made Americans poorer and more vulnerable.

I also warned about Obama's agenda to increase the power of labor unions. Mostly this escaped the radar, even of many of his critics, but it is now apparent that this is a major part of his social reform agenda and an incredibly dangerous one.

Obama, as a senator, was an enthusiastic supporter of a bill, still pending, to scrap the secret ballot requirement for union organization - effectively making it easier for union organizers to intimidate workers into agreeing to the formation of a union. His presidency thus far has shown how far he is willing to go to support existing unions and encourage new ones (see here for the latest on this) - most egregiously his support of the powerful teachers unions that are responsible for the high cost and low quality of America's failing public education system. To support their extravagant benefits and yearly wage-increases, the teachers' unions are holding America's children hostage in failing, dangerous schools.

Union support goes hand in hand with the Obama administration's alliance with workers in the public sector at all levels of government. The extent of unionization in the American economy is relatively low, by comparison to other industrialized economies, and many of our unions are in the public sector. We all know that unemployment remains very high at around 10% - 15 million unemployed people, and many more who have given up looking for jobs. What many may not know is that employment in the public sector has gone up and so have wage levels. While the rest of the economy struggles to maintain employment and earnings levels, government workers expand in numbers and receive higher wages. The only way this can happen is by increasing taxes (now or in the future) to pay for them. Increased union formation would add fuel to this destructive process.

You might be tempted to ask, "What's wrong with union's? Don't they help workers?" There is a robust mythology surrounding the union mystique - folklore, nostalgia, loyalty and so on. But the sad truth is that unions are an economic curse. They are, in effect, legal labor monopolies that force the employers in an industry to deal only with the union - to employ only union members - and thereby to protect union members from competition for jobs. Unions are able to benefit their members by raising their wages and reducing the number of workers employed. They increase the cost of the payroll, reduce profits and investment in the industry, raise product prices and reduce wages elsewhere. Union members gain at the expense of non-union workers, and the rest of society.

This kind of monopoly power in the hands of any corporation would be greeted with righteous condemnation, but, somehow, in the hands of unions it is often regarded as justified. One explanation is that unions support workers who are relatively powerless compared to corporations. This assertion betrays a lack of understanding of how markets and competition work to protect all parties. But, even taken on its face, if this were ever relevant in the past, it is not relevant now. Current unions do not, for the most part, contain "powerless" blue-collar workers. Instead they are made up of professionals - articulate, educated, affluent - like teachers, pilots, health-care workers, skilled craftsmen, civil servants and so on. And the businesses that suffer (directly and indirectly) most from their successes are not the large powerful corporations, but rather the small businesses that are the economic backbone of the American economy, the engines of thrift and innovation.

Union power subverts creative economic activity. It is predicated on special protections from competition and it results in a stultifying and often violent bureaucracy. Historically it has been responsible for the crippling of whole economies, in Britain, in Israel and in many European countries. Add this to the list of horrors that this administration has unleashed upon us. How long will this nightmare endure?

July fourth and the danger within.

This July Fourth I rededicate myself to the idea and the cause of Freedom.

The Founding Father's were not paragons of virtue, they were fallible human beings. But they were remarkable human beings, to a man (and the odd woman, like Abigail Adams), the likes of which we are not likely to see among the ranks of politicians ever again. They knew exactly what they were doing and they even anticipated the greatness to which it might lead and the obstacles along the way. They faced grave risks to their persons should they fail and uncertain rewards should they succeed. They believed in what they were doing and that is why they did it.

Their actions and their achievements are all the more remarkable considering that they were breaking new ground at every turn. The United States of America is the longest surviving republic in history. The ideas upon which it was founded, though widely circulating at the time, were revolutionary. The idea that individuals could and should be masters of themselves, and their property, and beholden to none save those to whom they voluntary chose to be, was explosively subversive to the prevailing political order everywhere. The truths they articulated were by no means "self-evident" to the monarchs of Europe, or to dynastic rulers and dictators anywhere. That they seem self-evident to us, indeed, that we so dangerously take them for granted, is in no small measure due to that Revolutionary generation and its achievements.

Yet, as we often hear, and as Thomas Jefferson said, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and we have not been vigilant enough. I think that Jefferson (and his compatriots) understood clearly that the threat to liberty, to individual freedom, comes not so much from external dangers as great at they may be, and, indeed are today. Rather, the real and essential danger comes from inside our own society. The challenge we face is the inculcation anew in each generation of the importance of individual liberty and private property and of the need to safeguard these principles from corruption. Societies based on some form of representative democracy are always in grave danger of gradually imploding as interest groups and coalitions seek to use the political system to cannibalize the fruits of the remarkable value creation that individual freedom brings with it. And the only real safeguard against this is a set of constitutionalized principles beyond the reach of political process.

Only if we succeed in preserving individual liberty through vigorous dedicated efforts will we be able to counter those more obvious threats to freedom that come from those who violently denounce us and our values and vow to destroy us by any means no matter how vile. America is strong because it is free, it is not free because it is strong. Freedom leads to material and spiritual riches that provide the wherewithal for a principled defense. We need to be ready to defend freedom at home as well as abroad.
America has succeeded remarkably well in this, all things considered, resisting implosion in spite of grave challenges, so far. Once again we find ourselves, our core principles, facing a formidable challenge in the form of an overreaching government. Can we, will we, pull back and go some ways to reverse the damage. I know we can and I believe we will.

Happy Holiday, Yours in Freedom.

Missed opportunity?

OK, so now the question of whether Bradley made a big mistake by putting Clark in has to be considered.

I mean why start with an experimental lineup, why start with such a gamble in arguably the most important match of the tournament up till that point; especially when the U.S. had such a great draw and could plausibly have made it all the way to the semi-finals? Just a year ago they made it to the finals of the Confederation Cup after beating Spain and this was a much easier draw.

Feilhaber galvanized the team when he came in. But by then they were already 1-0 down and could never recover. Might have been a great opportunity lost - an opportunity to capitalize on the growing interest in the sport in this country.

It may cost him his job. If so, a pity, he has taken the team a long way in the short time he has been there.

The President wants to be more European than the Europeans!

Unbelievable! That great sage of economic wisdom, Barak Obama, has taken it upon himself to write a letter to the EU, advising them not to abandon their fiscally irresponsible policies for fear of prolonging the recession. He didn't actually use those words of course. Its back to "stimulus" talk. 

Finally, backs to the wall, the most fiscally irresponsible countries of Europe are edging towards cutting government spending and deficits, raising retirement ages, reducing union power, and other sorely needed and overdue steps. If they follow through these will bear dividends. Private investment will rise, unemployment will fall and economic growth will return. How ironic that it is the president of the United States, historically the more fiscally responsible party, that is now urging Europe not to abandon the very behavior that got it into trouble and that is getting us into the same trouble. Obama, and his acolytes want us to be more like Europe, they don't want Europe to be more like we used to be. Maybe they want us all to sink together.

This is the worst American president in my memory. An anti-American, American President. Go figure!

A useful crisis?

Rahm Emanuel famously advised that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. 

So now it appears Barak Obama is trying to use the BP spill as leverage for his anti-oil energy agenda. This one the central message of his recent infantile TV broadcast.

Lest there be any misconceptions on the issue it should be realized that:

1. This has nothing to do with replacing oil as our main fuel source and everything to do with a way to give politically advantageous subsidies to big companies to "research" alternative fuels. The taxpayer funded "research" has been going on for 40 years. As long as oil is cheap, its a joke, an expensive one.

2. Ten to one Obama knows that this is all rhetoric. The rhetoric notwithstanding, the longstanding alliance between Big Oil and Big Government is not about to be jeopardized. Fortunately, for him and for the nation, there is no way Congress will pass his energy bill.

What is really interesting about all this is the flack he is getting from the liberals who have always thought he could walk on water, so why not miraculously stop the oil. Their disillusionment is comical and well-deserved.

The crisis may not be waisted after all.

It did not work, lets do more of it.

I am not one of those economists who likes to predict things. That is why they don't pay me the big bucks. There are some things, however, that are easy to predict and about which I can now say "I told you so."


Concerning the Obama stimulus package, for example, I said more than once that it would not work, and that unemployment would not fall. Amazingly, people are surprised to find very few jobs being created and the unemployment rate stubbornly remaining very high. There are 15 million people unemployed. The Obami predicted that the stimulus would create upwards of 4 million jobs. It has created about zero. Actually, the whole package probably destroyed jobs. Absent the bail-outs, stimulus packages, public sector union wage increases and assorted regulatory initiatives, like the health-care socialization bill, we might not still be in a recession. Instead the public sector is growing at the expense of the private sector and the total number of jobs in the economy is stuck.

The economy is not doing badly all things considered. This is in spite of and not because of anything the Obami have done.

The response is predictably frustrating. In the face of failure Obami spokesmen maintain that "more needs to be done." That is, we need more stimulus, more deficits, more, more, more.

Now it’s the American people who will decide.

Judt on Juden in the New York Times

This guest op-ed was published yesterday in the NYT by Tony Judt, a long-time provocative critic of Israel. He has the usual LIberal presuppositions. He writes well and he is influential. This article will cause a bit of a stir.

It is, however, not without elements of truth of interest to both critics and defenders of Israel. In fact, it probably contains more that is true that not. This is very clever, maybe unintentionally so. I suspect he believes what he says. But the part that is not true is toxic.

So, it is much easier for me to alert you to those parts and concede the rest and recommend it to your attention.So I have underlined parts of his article and inserted my comments on those underlined sections underneath them in italics - I have also inserted my initials. I hope your browser preserves the format. Make sure you read all the italicized material.

PL.

June 9, 2010

Israel Without Clichés

By Tony Judt
THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists abo ut Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

PL. This obviously is a matter of opinion and of strategy. It concerns the magnitude of the existential threat to Israel. Is it just rhetoric, or does it have real teeth? And will a PR campaign and expose' against it be effective or counterproductive. I think it is very serious, especially in Europe and that Americans need to know that Israel urgently needs their support against this conscious delegitimization. But we should be glad to hear the Judt accepts Israel's existence as a fait accompli - though notice he does so with patent lack of enthusiasm. Its not something he likes, but he has to live with it.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

PL. This is a nice little trick. He confuses political democracy - some kind of right to vote - with liberal democracy - the existence of civil rights, like freedom of speech, movement, trade, and, of course, religion. Polls suggest that people in Gaza are increasingly inclined to blame Hamas - a repressive, brutal dictatorship - for the blockade together with Israel. If it were really a democracy, like Israel, there would, as the cliche he debunks suggests, be no war between Gaza and Israel. That is the relevance that eludes him. Also the double standards to which Israel is held because it is a democracy. I don't see Judt rushing to condemn the brutalities of the Arab dictatorships committed daily all around the Middle East.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements. Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

PL. It is probably true that the behavior of Israel's enemies has strengthened the hand of the military and those inclined to military solutions. But this paragraph is just plain wrong. There is no similar example in history of a besieged people that has been more willing to give non-violence a chance. And even now crave a credible offer to do so. The comparison with the ANC and the IRA is disingenuous. The ANC never desired to destroy South Africa and preached a western style inclusive ideology. The IRA did not want to destroy England and there was no talking to them until they abandoned their campaign of terror. Why does Judt assume that Israel will have to talk to Hamas? Why not campaign against Hamas to either abandon its Islamist position (hard to see how they can do this) or be crushed. Does he think that the U.S. should talk to Al Queda? What is the difference?

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was not wholly wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian resistance movements from 1948 through the early 1980s did them little good. And Hamas, firmly in that tradition though far more genuinely popular than its predecessors, will have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

PL. Is this really realistic? I would be happy to be proven wrong.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative blunders.

PL. This seems to me to be nonsense, but it is based on a particular reading of history.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

PL. Good, this is very important. So what is left then?

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

PL. This seems to contradict the preceding paragraph. What is Israel supposed to do if its enemies do NOT foreswear violence or recognize its legitimacy? How can he say she has the initiative? That makes no sense.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good job — that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the Israel lobby is unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the subtext of excessive Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a point: the gun lobby, the oil lobby and the banking lobby have all done far more damage to the health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two. In Arthur Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-onfidence.”

PL. OK, free speech. What about criticizing the excessive leverage of the Arab lobby and the Saudi influence? In the end the Israel lobby may be powerful because its message is powerful, not the other way round.

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism.

PL. How does he know this? It seems to me a lot of it cannot be explained in any other way.

The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

PL. There are aspects of Zionism that have failed - the socialist aspects. And their are aspects that are repugnant - the religious aspects. And Zionism can be a combustible word. I like Capitalist Zionism or free market Zionism. That is what will make, is making, Israel a remarkable "normal" state.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be is missed.

PL. There is another risk. That the world will forget. There is also something that Judt ignores - European guilt! European liberals are overwhelming anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. The memory of the Holocaust surely has something to do with this - look at these Jews, they cry about the Holocaust but oppress the Palestinians, they act like the Nazis that oppressed them, they are not worthy of our sympathy. The cynical invocation of Nazi symbols and terminology is very real and hard to explain without reference to the Holocaust. The Jews are not the victims you may think they are and we Europeans are not the monsters we were made out to be. Does Judt not see this?

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

PL. "Israel is now America's greatest strategic liability" - there it is again. It is amazing how some phrases just catch on. So evocative. As I have said repeatedly this is as dangerous as it is patently false. It has been disproved using historical evidence by Alan Dershowitz and it is quite implausible, unless one is very ignorant of the history and the reality of the Middle East. (It is not Israeli's fault that America is losing Turkey, it is Turkey's fault. This started long before the current tiff with Israel.) But it is now the leitmotif of the Obama administration that is probably responsible for its increasing use. It is the weapon of choice in the campaign to drive a wedge between Israel and America and it needs to be forcefully resisted and debunked.

PL. By the way what does this have to do with Israel's legitimate interception of the flotilla? What sould Israel have done? If no one had been killed or hurt, would it have been ok?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Ill Fares the Land.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 10, 2010

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Israel has a written constitution.

If you think you are a liberal choose Israel

An emotionally charged debate (or more accurately an exchange of bristling internet commentaries) is under way over "Liberal" support for Israel.

Peter Beinart is the author of an article in the New York Review of Books that attacks the Israeli government and the American Jews who support its policies. Beinart is a Jewish former editor of a steadfastly pro-Israel magazine, the New Republic. So his public denouncement has received a great deal of attention, though according to some critics out of all proportion to the originality of his charges. Noah Pollak  and Ted Bromund are two authors who have provided trenchant criticisms of Beinart's article - also see the summary by Paul Mirengoff.

These are worth reading if you have the time and inclination. I won't attempt to summarize them. I want only to add here a few observations that I believe capture the essence of the matter - not new, I and others have been harping on this for some time, but it is becoming more obvious at an accelerating rate.

At the heart of it is a semantic issue. The word "liberal" has been appropriated by people who are not liberals.

As a philosophy or ideology Liberalism originally referred to

• individual freedom from coercion - the idea that all individuals have the same procedural rights under the law
• the desirability of a system governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of men - all men (people) are subject to the same law form the pauper to the president; and the law should not discriminate according to whether someone is poor or (equally) because someone is rich - individuals are equal in the eyes of the law.
• the idea that adult individuals are responsible for their actions and will reap the rewards of profitable actions and pay the price of unprofitable ones
• the idea that all individuals can own property and their property rights should receive equal protection under the law

In short, it referred to a system in which all men (people) are considered equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and property; such rights enabling them to engage in the pursuit of happiness the best way they know how. From these basic rights flow other derivative rights, like freedom of speech on one's property and within one's publications and private gatherings; freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. But, for freedom to apply equally it can be extended only up to the point that it begins to deprive others of the same or other freedoms. Thus, freedom of religion does not permit one to impose one's beliefs on others. Violence is justified only in defense of freedom (though this potentially opens a wide space of interpretation concerning action to preempt the threats to freedom, requiring great attention to the burden of proof).

This Classical Liberal system can be defended on the basis of a moral appeal to individual human rights and/or by observing that, as a practical matter, its implementation, in sufficient degree, has been responsible for the only period in human history of general prosperity. Never before in human history have so many lived so long and so well. And material well-being has been more than matched by breathtaking advances in technology and spectacular explosions of artistic and literary expression. It is no accident. Modernity and its aftermath is directly attributable to that system of "natural liberty" that has spurred and rewarded individual achievement to the betterment of all. That half of the world still remains mired in premodern poverty is attributable to the one thing its inhabitants have in common - the absence of individual liberty.

A Classical Liberal system is one in which individuals, because of differences in luck or labor, will experience different outcomes. The advent of general prosperity implies and requires individual differences. There will be gaps in income. This is not a cause for alarm. Inequality, in and of itself, is a non-issue. To be equally poor is worse that to be unequally prosperous. By focusing on inequality of outcome, these so-called "liberals" legitimize the base emotions of envy and resentment and elevate them to the level of respectable social policy. To be sure, a Classical Liberal system does not denigrate a concern for the less-fortunate. As an historical matter, charitable giving and the incidence of other charitable actions rises with general prosperity - more than in proportion to earnings and wealth. Voluntarily giving to the poor is to be admired. But harnessing the state to plunder the earnings of the "rich" to (ostensibly) redistribute it to the "poor" is nothing else but organized robbery.

Modern "liberals" are not liberals. A better term for them would be Narcissistic Egalitarians. They do not consistently defend individual rights, they do not respect individual property, they do not consider individual adults responsible for their actions. Their prime goal is the removal of social inequality and difference. They refuse to believe in any essential differences between people - in ability and in moral capacity. They avert their gaze from evil and turn to "social conditions." They are social engineers, desirous of smoothing out the the unsightly gaps in social position and they extend this to the world at large and the differences between countries.

When the Israelis were victims they were the darlings of the modern liberals - especially since the early Zionists embraced various brands of socialism. But when the Israelis refused to remain victims, when they embraced modernity, affluence and the ability to defend themselves, they became the arch villains of the world. And the Palestinians, the hapless victims of their leaders' venality and greed, are conspicuous by contrast in their poverty. Ergo, the Israelis are to blame.

American Jews are predominantly modern "liberals" for reasons that defy simple explanation, but that have been the subject of much recent discussion. Whatever the reasons they now find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to either abandon their "liberalism" or their support of Israel (the arch anti-"liberal" state). Their choice would be greatly simplified if they understood what liberalism really meant.

PS. Clarifying note: In Europe the term "liberal" is closer to its original meaning and the Social Democrats are closer to what we in America call "Liberals."

What's a little ranting between friends?

Many of my "Liberal" friends think that budget deficits and the size of government are irrelevant. They just don't believe, deep down, that these things really matter. In the end the American economy will work fine no matter what the increased size of government, and will grow its way out of the deficits.

Their smug ignorance exasperates me. They should know better. Intelligent people should think hard about things like this. They don't. They are impatient with the detail and the subtlety of issues. The eyes glaze quickly.

Instead they are swept by the emotion of the righteousness of "doing good." This makes them feel "good" in spite of their riches - about which there is a nagging guilt, since there are, after all, so many people who have so little. With Obama as their acting angel to right the world they can sleep better.

And, of course, they are bolstered in their ignorance by those who should know better - qualified experts, like Paul Krugman and others, who write in the New York Times and appear monotonously on National Public Radio, the BBC and the TV talk shows, to extol the virtues of the new Messiah and poo poo the naysayers who, after all, have their own nefarious agendas.

They would not run their businesses or their families the way the Obami are running the government - it would make them very uncomfortable and very nervous. Multiply this a few million times and that is what they should feel about the rapidly shrinking size of the private sector. The little people they care so much about will be the ones to suffer most in the end and the "Liberals" will have some responsibility for that. But that's ok because they won't realize it.

Its not the climate that is a problem, its the economy stupid. Wake up! 

Time to wake up - right now - before its too late

The U.S. has vital national security interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ... when conflict breaks out . . . that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

statement by Barak Obama.

This statement, the subject of today's WSJ editorial, is very disturbing. It strongly supports the suspicion that the Obami are orchestrating a credible push to have Israel withdraw to it 1967 borders. 

The statement is both cynical and naive. It is naive because it suggests that the conflict can be simply "resolved" if only Israel will play ball. It thus suggests, not so subtly, that Israel is the "cause" of the conflict. And secondly, and more disturbingly, it repeats the lie that this Israel-caused conflict is putting American lives and resources in danger. This persistent repetition, even in face of considerable compelling argument and evidence to the contrary, suggests that it is a point of view that is impervious to contrary argument. 

It is cynical, therefore, because it is used in the service of a foreign policy trajectory that is indifferent to its truth-content. In other words, they don't really care if it is true or not, it is useful in the attempt to remove Israel as an obstacle in the way of a grand reconciliation between Islam and the West. This is, I believe, Barak Obama's real agenda. I believe he is passionate about it and will pursue it in cynical disregard of the Israeli lives that he sacrifices in the process. It is a crazy agenda, being pursued by a swollen ego, that threatens substantial collateral damage. A reconciliation with Islam is not dependent on anything that Israel does or can do. It is really a ridiculous hope. But the attempt to vilify and isolate Israel in its pursuit is not. Let us hope that this part is a miserable failure.

Much depends on the steadfastness of the average American in his/her belief in the value of Israel as a strong ally. And much depends on the likelihood of many influential American Jews awakening to the truly diabolical nature of their messiah. The proportion of Americans critical of Obama's Israel policy is higher than the proportion of American Jews who are similarly critical of it. Can you imagine anything more sadly ironic - to have a large section of American Jews complicit in this cynical anti-Israel agenda? What the hell are they thinking?

Dershowitz's eight points

In considering the relationship between the United states and Israel, these eight points must be kept in mind. 

1. Foremost, the US and Israel are on the same side in the continuing struggle against Islamic extremists who endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians.
2. Israel is one of America’s most important strategic allies, providing us with essential intelligence, research and developments and other important assets.
3. There is nothing that Israel or the United States can do that will turn these extremist enemies into friends. It is what we are, rather than what we do, that enrages those who wish to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate and subject us all to Islamic Sharia law.
4. Any weakening of the alliance between the United States and Israel will make it far less likely that Israelis--who get to vote on these matters--will take significant risks for peace.
5. The Obama Administration’s public attacks on Israel will harden Palestinian demand and make it less likely that they will accept a compromise peace.
6. If Israel’s enemies were to lay down their arms and stop terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel, there would be peace.
7. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. 
8. When the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.

Some things are worth repeating – as often as it takes

Here are some important facts that seem to need emphasis - again. 

The housing meltdown and financial crisis that accompanied it was NOT the result of insufficient regulation of financial markets or of unrestrained greed. 
The financial sector is and was highly regulated. In fact it was overregulation of the housing industry that caused the crisis - the arrogant, irresponsible promotion of a social agenda to increase the proportion of home ownership in the U.S. no matter what the cost, no matter what the risk. Congressman Barney Frank is the most culpable - yet he is a hero to his many supporters. The amount of damage for which he personally, by "rolling the dice" (his words) is responsible is beyond estimation. He should be vilified not celebrated. There are others Chris Dodd (who is trying to extend the damage with his latest financial regulation proposals)., Nancy Pelosi, and others.

The housing crisis (slump) will NOT be solved by trying to stimulate or boost or support the housing industry.

Housing development was artificially raised to an unsustainable level by the nudging, bullying, and mandating of Fannie, Freddie and Barney who, in effect, muscled out any private sector competition and established a comprehensive new, dumbed-down, set of mortgage approval standards that put people in houses they could not afford. The only "cure" for the housing industry is a reallocation of these misallocated resources into economic ventures that can be sustained, without the need for persistent government (taxpayer) support. The current initiative by Team-Obama is just the latest exercise in futility, one more assault on private enterprise and individual responsibility. This means allowing the housing market to spontaneously reach bottom. [See today's WSJ editorial here.] 

Here is an interesting dictionary entry.

Politics - Derived from Polytics. Poly - many; tics - pl. of tic - a tenacious blood-sucking parasite. 

The price of health-care, like any price, is the result of the supply and demand for health-care. 

This means the price (aka cost) of health-care will not come down unless we somehow reduce the demand or increase the supply. You can stand on your head and whistle dixie until you pass out, there is no way to deny or change this basic fact. Question: what in the current health-care reform package will increase the supply of health-care? Will it be enough to bring down the price? What will decrease the demand? (this one is easy - on paper, nothing, its all about satisfying an increasing demand; in reality, the response to increased demand will be various forms of rationing - longer waiting for the doctor [when was the last time you kept the doctor waiting? When was the last time the doctor did not keep you waiting? That's ok your time is worth less than his/hers, right?], longer wait times to get an appointment, quotas for certain kinds of procedures, ... . ).

Governmnts cannot "create" jobs independently of the private sector.

Government is a service organization, it does not produce anything (or produces very little) that can be sold in the marketplace. It gets revenue from some form of taxation (current taxation or future taxation or inflation - which is a hidden tax on money and debt). Taxes are paid out of incomes. If those incomes are earned in government this is just value-neutral recycling.  Its the incomes from the private sector that count. Only the private sector creates value. To be sure, governments can sometimes enter the private sector and behave like a producer. If they do this and charge the market price and cover their costs (payments to private sector resource owners -  workers, landlords, capital providers) they might as well be private sector producers. (Show me an example of this.) If they don't cover their costs (the usual case) they should not be in business.

Governments work by diverting resources from the private sector - essentially by coercion. This "crowds out" private sector jobs. In the short run it may appear as if jobs are being created by government spending, but this impression will be betrayed as resource prices adjust. In the current recession we don't even have the impression of new job creation. Unemployment is not the result of too few job opportunities in general; it is the result of too few job opportunities in unsustainable ventures, like housing, auto production, and other overproduced sectors, that spill out into the economy at large but may not be suitable for employment in many others sectors. There is an inevitable painful transition for restructuring/retraining that takes time and patience. Any attempt to short-circuit it will prolong it!

There are also social psychological effects that obscure the fundamentals. Business confidence is certainly a driver of private sector investment. But artificially boosting business confidence does not buy much in the way of real recovery. And current economic policy is, in any case, unpredictable, ad-hoc, often capricious and detracts from rather than adds to the degree of business confidence.

All this is well-known by many who have studied and learnt the lessons of U.S. economic history. It is the reality that disproved the claims of the Keynesian economic policies of the quarter-century following W W II. But, somehow, the Keynesian mumbo-jumbo has bounced back. Maybe because the earning generation of today was not alive or had not reached adulthood the last time around. History is repeating itself in a painful way.

The U.S. public-school system is a failure. 

There are good public schools, mostly in the affluent suburbs, where they face real competition. But, the system as a whole, and education for lower income kids in particular, is horrendous. U.S. pre-college education is probably the least successful in the developed world - as measured by math, reading, writing, and comprehension competencies. The system cannot be reformed. It is the problem, it cannot be the solution.

The only hope for lower income families in search of adequate basic education is parental-choice - competition in the delivery of education. There is absolutely no reason why education should be produced by government. It has no special expertise in this. Education can be subsidized by government without being produced by it - or exclusively produced by it. Team-Obama claims to care about low income families, but its education policies are dominated by the powerful teachers' unions who are determined to maintain a government monopoly on the production of education.

There are a lot more things to be said, but that is probably enough for the moment.

There is still hope!

One of the most fortunate occurrences of my life was to find myself at the University of Chicago at the same time as Gary Becker and to end up with him as the chairman of my Ph.D. thesis committee. Unbeknownst to me at the time Becker was  still to win a Nobel prize and become arguably the most creative economist in America. His influence has been spectacular.

Today an interview with him appears in the WSJ. He is 79 and still optimistic. 

I confess that current events have depressed and frustrated me greatly. I flinch at the assaults to our economy and our understanding of how the economy works. The energy, persistence and sheer talent with which Obama (and the Obami) have pursued, and continue to pursue, their arrogant agenda absolutely terrifies me. Its one thing to be so wrong, its another to be so arrogant and effective about it. Will the American people come to the right understanding and will they act on it in the November election? Becker thinks they will and he is optimistic. I sure hope he is right.

Read the interview.

PL.

MARCH 27, 2010

'Basically an Optimist'—Still

The Nobel economist says the health-care bill will cause serious damage, but that the American people can be trusted to vote for limited government in November.

By PETER ROBINSON

Stanford, Calif.

"No, no. Not at all."

So says Gary Becker when asked if the financial collapse, the worst recession in a quarter of a century, and the rise of an administration intent on expanding the federal government have prompted him to reconsider his commitment to free markets.

Mr. Becker is a founder, along with his friend and teacher the late Milton Friedman, of the Chicago school of economics. More than four decades after winning the John Bates Clark Medal and almost two after winning the Nobel Prize, the 79-year-old occupies an unusual position for a man who has spent his entire professional life in the intensely competitive field of economics: He has nothing left to prove. Which makes it all the more impressive that he works as hard as an associate professor trying to earn tenure. He publishes regularly, carries a full-time teaching load at the University of Chicago (he's in his 32nd year), and engages in a running argument with his friend Judge Richard Posner on the "Becker-Posner Blog," one of the best-read Web sites on economics and the law.

When his teaching schedule permits, Mr. Becker visits the Hoover Institution, the think tank at Stanford where he has been a fellow since 1988. The day he and I meet in his Hoover office, Mr. Becker has already attended a meeting with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and spent several hours touring Apple headquarters down the road in Cupertino with his wife, Guity Nashat, a historian of the Middle East, and their grandson. "I guess you'd call our grandson a computer whiz," he explains proudly. "He's just 14, but he has already sold a couple of apps."

I begin with the obvious question. "The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them."

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

"Here in the United States," Mr. Becker says, "we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."

Despite the damage this new legislation appears certain to cause, Mr. Becker believes we're probably stuck with it. "Repealing this bill will be very, very difficult," he says. "Once you've got a piece of legislation in place, interest groups grow up around it. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Originally, the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and Medicaid. Then the AMA came to see them as a source of demand for physicians' services. Today the AMA supports Medicare and Medicaid as staunchly as anyone. Something like that will happen with this new legislation."

Bad legislation, maintained by self-seeking interest groups. Back in 1982, I remind Mr. Becker, the economist Mancur Olson published a book, "The Rise and Decline of Nations," predicting just that trend. Over time, Olson argued, interest groups would form to press for policies that would almost invariably prove protectionist, redistributive or antitechnological. Policies, in a word, that would inhibit economic growth. Yet since the benefits of such policies would accrue directly to interest groups while the costs would be spread across the entire population, very little opposition to such self-seeking would ever develop. Interest groups—and bad policies—would proliferate, and the nation would stagnate.

Olson may have sketched his portrait during the 1980s, but doesn't it display a remarkable likeness to the United States today? Mr. Becker thinks for a moment, swiveling toward the window. Then he swivels back. "Not necessarily," he replies.

"The idea that interest groups can derive specific, concentrated benefits from the political system—yes, that's a very important insight," he says. "But you can have competing interest groups. Look at the automobile industry. The domestic manufacturers in Detroit want protectionist policies. But the auto importers want free trade. So they fight it out. Now sometimes in these fights the dark forces prevail, and sometimes the forces of light prevail. But if you have competing interest groups you don't end up with a systematic bias toward bad policy."

Mr. Becker places his hands behind his head. Once again, he reflects, then smiles wryly. "Of course that doesn't mean there isn't any systematic bias toward bad policy," he says. "There's one bias that we're up against all the time: Markets are hard to appreciate."

Capitalism has produced the highest standard of living in history, and yet markets are hard to appreciate? Mr. Becker explains: "People tend to impute good motives to government. And if you assume that government officials are well meaning, then you also tend to assume that government officials always act on behalf of the greater good. People understand that entrepreneurs and investors by contrast just try to make money, not act on behalf of the greater good. And they have trouble seeing how this pursuit of profits can lift the general standard of living. The idea is too counterintuitive. So we're always up against a kind of in-built suspicion of markets. There's always a temptation to believe that markets succeed by looting the unfortunate."

As he speaks, Mr. Becker appears utterly at ease. He wears loose-fitting clothes and slouches comfortably in his chair. His hair, wispy and white, sets off his most striking feature—penetrating eyes so dark they seem nearly black. Yet those dark eyes display not foreboding, but contentment. He does not have the air of a man contemplating national decline.

I read aloud from an article by historian Victor Davis Hanson that had appeared in the morning newspaper. "[W]e are in revolutionary times," Mr. Hanson argues, "in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy to student loans." Next I read from a column by economist Thomas Sowell. "With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical system," Mr. Sowell asserts, "a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America."

"They're very eloquent," Mr. Becker replies, his equanimity undisturbed. "And maybe they're right. But I'm not that pessimistic." The temptation to view markets with suspicion, he explains, is just that: a temptation. Although voters might succumb to the temptation temporarily, over time they know better.

"One of the points Secretary Paulson made earlier today was how outraged—how unexpectedly outraged—the American people became when the government bailed out the banks. This belief in individual responsibility—the belief that people ought to be free to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences of those decisions—this remains very powerful. The American people don't want an expansion of government. They want more of what Reagan provided. They want limited government and economic growth. I expect them to say so in the elections this November."

Even if ordinary Americans still want limited government, I ask, what about those who dominate the press and universities? What about the molders of received opinion who claim that the financial crisis marked the demise of capitalism, rendering the Chicago school irrelevant?

"During the financial crisis," he replies, "the government and markets—or rather, some aspects of markets—both failed."

The Federal Reserve, Mr. Becker explains, kept interest rates too low for too long. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made the mistake of participating in the market for subprime instruments. And as the crisis developed, regulators failed to respond. "The Fed and the Treasury didn't see the crisis coming until very late. The SEC didn't see it at all," he says.

"The markets made mistakes, too. And some of us who study the markets made mistakes. Some of my colleagues at Chicago probably overestimated the ability of the Fed to smooth disruptions. I didn't write much about the Fed, but if I had I would probably have overestimated the Fed myself. As the banks developed new instruments, economists paid too little attention to the systemic risks—the risks the instruments posed for the whole financial system—as opposed to the risks they posed for individual institutions.

"I learned from Milton Friedman that from time to time there are going to be financial problems, so I wasn't surprised that we had a financial crisis. But I was surprised that the financial crisis spilled over into the real economy. I hadn't expected the crisis to become that bad. That was my mistake."

Once again, Mr. Becker reflects. "So, yes, we economists made mistakes. But has the experience of the past few years invalidated the finding that markets remain the most efficient means for producing economic growth? Not in any way.

"Look at growth in developed countries since the Second World War," he continues. "Even after you take into account the various recessions, including this one, you still end up with a good record. So even if a recession as bad as this one were the price of free markets—and I don't believe that's the correct way of looking at it, because government actions contributed so greatly to the current problem—but even if a bad recession were the price, you'd still decide it was worth paying.

"Or look at developing countries," he says. "China, India, Brazil. A billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990 because their countries moved toward more market-based economies—a billion people. Nobody's arguing for taking that back."

My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman's death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. "The challenge for my generation," Friedman had told me, "was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty." Then Friedman had looked at me. "The challenge for your generation is to keep it."

What was the prospect, I asked Mr. Becker, that this generation would indeed keep its liberty? "It could go either way," he replies. "Milton was right about that."

Mr. Becker recites some figures. For years, federal spending remained level at about 20% of GDP. Now federal spending has risen to 25% of GDP. On current projections, federal spending would soon rise to 28%. "That concerns me," Mr. Becker says. "It concerns me a great deal.

"But when Milton was starting out," he continues, "people really believed a state-run economy was the most efficient way of promoting growth. Today nobody believes that, except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they're oriented toward the markets. That's a very, very important intellectual victory. Will this victory have an effect on policy? Yes. It already has. And in years to come, I believe it will have an even greater impact."

The sky outside his window has begun to darken. Mr. Becker stands, places some papers into his briefcase, then puts on a tweed jacket and cap. "When I think of my children and grandchildren," he says, "yes, they'll have to fight. Liberty can't be had on the cheap. But it's not a hopeless fight. It's not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist."

Mr. Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010

Watch Kadima Party Chair Tzipi Livni's Speech

Watch Professor Alan Dershowitz's Speech

Whose side is Obama on?

Call me paranoid, but I suspect a public-relations plot against Israel by the Obama administration.

I see a deliberate attempt to put distance between the U.S. and Israel, as a prelude to increased pressure on Israel to accept the U.S. approach to peace negotiations - the Mitchell approach.

The basis for my suspicion is a discernable ratcheting up of rhetoric - conveniently supported by the target provided by the announcement of the intention to build housing units in East Jerusalem (which was itself probably the result of a counter-Obama Israeli agenda).

The White House is leaking insinuations and rumors from the highest level in the administration and even the military (see for example here and here). According to Mark Perry, an intelligence analyst with known sympathies for Arab extremists, General Petraeus and other senior commanders were shocked to learn the extent to which Israel's intransigence in the Middle East was fueling resentment in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere across the Moslem world, and increasing the danger faced by American soldiers in the field. I heard an interview on NPR (I think it was with Mark Perry) in which he clearly implied that if only Israel would quickly "resolve" its disagreements with the Palestinians, America's job in the world, and in the Moslem world in particular, would be significantly eased. This stuff is now all over the media.

This is not a new accusation, but it is an alarmingly serious one. Americans overwhelmingly believe that Israel and American share common values and interests - and are not just strategic allies. In its understanding of the importance of Israel as a bastion of classical liberal principles, America is almost alone in the world. If this should change, if Americans could be made to believe the horribly specious argument that support for Israel is unnecessarily costing us money and lives, the cost to Israel and to the world can hardly be understated.

It boggles my mind to imagine that the Jews of America, Alan Dershowitz included (see here), voted for this President.

AIPAC is about to begin its high-profile annual convention in Washington DC. The delegates will hear from both Hillary Clinton and Binyamin Netanyahu. Let us hope they hear the right things and have the strength and influence to turn this tide before it becomes a tsunami.

Soft on Settlements?

All this fuss about apartments in East Jerusalem?

I have come to believe that indignation about the so-called "settlements" is purely pretextual. Both the Palestinians and the Obami are using this incident as a pretext for doing what they wanted to do anyway - isolate Israel in public opinion. And the Europeans are lapping it up. The Palestinians and the Europeans vilified Israel before the settlements were an issue and will not be placated whatever Israel does.

The settlement issue is fraught with myth and missinformation. It is presented as if Israel is a colonizer on Palestinian land. As Ruth Wisse points out in today's WSJ, Israeli citizens have historically got the worst of the land stuggle. Looking at a map it is hard to believe that this is about land - about living space. Twenty one countries, with 800 times more land, much of it unsettled, are obsessing about Israel building appartments in Jerusalem. As Bret Stephens of the WSJ has put it, this is not a territorial struggle, it is an existential one. It is Israel's existence that is the issue.

The conventional wisdom is that Bibi was surprised by the announcement by his government. It may well be that he is trying to send a message to American Jews to wake up and realize that those who warned that Obama is basically an Arab sympathizer were more right than imagined - Ram Emanuel being an ex-Israeli notwithstanding.

As I say, the settlement issue is a complicated one - not so simple as the world press makes it out. Some of them are private purchases; all of them are in disputed territory, not self-evidently Palestinian. As a rule I do not like government appropriation and development of land wherever it occurs. But this is not the issue here.

It is important to point out that the presence of these Israelis in the territories is often a boost to the Palestinian economy. They bring jobs at fair wages and work conditions, and stimulate trade. And now the EU has decided to boycott the products of this industry. Typical.

In fact trade between the Palestinians and Israel is quietly growing. This is absolutely the best hope for peace in the region as both sides develop a vested interest in each other. But expect the EU, the Palestinians leaders and other thugs to disrupt this trade. It is very threatening to them and their raison d' etre. So it is going to be crushed!

I hope the 78% of American Jews who voted for Obama are rethinking their choice. If not Israel is really in trouble. We know America is, for a host of other Obama-related reasons.

Introducing Pilar Rahola

My cousin Matthew Lewin sent me this blog.


Its been around for awhile but I had not seen it. Nor had I heard of Pilar Rahola. I have now looked at her blog site, read some of her stuff (thanks to the tireless efforts of my wonderful Spanish teacher) and count myself as an admirer.

This short address, translated from Spanish, reveals the flavor of her other work.

Really worth reading.

PL.


From http://portalofideas.blogspot.com/2009/01/pilar-rahola.html

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist. She is a passionate defender of the United States and Israel and an indefatigable fighter against anti-Semitism. All these despite being ideologically from the left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. She is the recipient of major awards by Jewish organizations.

I came across this speech and felt that it was worthwhile placing it in my blog. I translated it and assume full responsibility for any errors. If you want to visit her blog, you can do so by clicking here: Pilar Rahola. Some of her articles are translated into English.

Why don’t we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona? Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship? Why aren’t there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection? Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam? Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan? Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel? Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism? Why don’t they defend Israel’s right to exist? Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism? An finally, the million dollar question:Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn’t care.

And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: “We want freedom for the people!” Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don’t inform, they propagandize. When reporting about Israel the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren’t any accusations left to level against her. At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: “Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel.”

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70’s and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel. And so on and so on.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no coincidence; it’s a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us will cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. An yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not as anti Israeli as my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles. Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn’t want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.

Greece and California

When the proposed currency unification of the members of the European Union was adopted I predicted it would fail. I was pleased to have been proven wrong - or so I thought. Now, I see I may have been right. As so often happens, the undrelying economic realities take longer than expected to assert themselves.

The underlying realities are these. A common currency implies a common monetary policy. By agreeing to adopt the same currency, the members of the currency union agree in effect to relinquish independence in monetary policy decisions. So France cannot adopt a more inflationary posture than Germany without straining the agreement. Whoever controls the supply of the currency will ultimately determine the degree of inflation. The ability of the independent states to create money to cover government deficits is removed.

In this way Greece is like California. California has no independent currency or central bank. When it runs a defiicit it can only cover it by spending less or taxing more. A third option is to go to the Federal Government to "bail it out." The Federal Government has its own exploding deficit. The difference is that the Federal Government can borrow money from the Federal Reserve System by issuing debt - as long as the Fed is willing to buy the debt or get the public to do so. The Fed can arrange the borrowing from the public (or foreign governments) if the Treasury is willing to sufficiently raise interest rates to make its debt attractive in these uncertain times, or (since high interest rates are unpopular) it can simply buy the debt by creating new deposits for the Treasury. This is commonly called "printing money." In this way, by adding to the Treasury's need to borrow, California can contribute to the policy dilemma of the United States.

California, with its huge deficits, is not the only perpetrator of profligacy. New York, New Jersey, and many other states, to various degrees, are guilty. By coming to the rescue of profligate states the Federal government forces those states who act relatively frugally and responsibly to shoulder the irresponsible consequences of the spendthrifts. Even more important, by so doing the Federal Government encourages irresponsible behavior and discourages fiscal responsibility.

I ardently hope that the decision is made not to come to the rescue of California, New York or any other needy state - even if this means the defaulting of state government debt and the crisis that will entail. Pay now or pay more later.

By the same token, the senior members of the EU should not bail out Greece - whatever the consequences. Greece today, Spain tomorrow and there is no visible end. Greece will not live up to any austerity conditions placed upon it and failure to stick to the tough love approach may well mean the end of the common currency that has worked quite well to date.

Obama wants America to be more like Europe - in health care, the environment, public transportation - and no doubt in hypocrisy too. The Europeans are contempruous of his admiration. They will not allow him to take away their reasons for hating America. Regarding California, as with most everything else, we should not be aspiring to be like them.

Kill Bill and Save Jobs

The "jobs bill" that was recently passed in the Sennate, with the help of a few Rebpublicans, will probably not do much of anything. But it does contain some good elements. Among other things, it aims to stimulate employment by removing payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (aka Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid taxes) are the worst taxes we have. They hurt low income earners most. Removing them could be a great boost to jobs. It reduces the cost of employment.

Of course, since the removal is only temporary, it is doubtful that it will have any permanent effect. Its impending reversal will inhibit even a short-run response. But its a great idea. Problem - how would we pay social security if we abolished the tax. Only one way. We'd have to reduce government expenditure elsewhere sufficiently to do so. A simple 10% cut accross the board would do it. Don't hold your breath.

You have to admire Obama's perseverance and tennacity. He refuses to allow his health bill to die. One may wonder: is there is any way to finally Kill Bill? The latest round, while tossing a lot of back-dealing baggage, maintains the universal insurance mandate and introduces a new doozy. Price controls on insurance premiums! Insurance premium prices will now be suject to government fiat - like a price board during war-time.

Economics 101 - lesson 2 or 3 - price controls cause shortages or surpluses and a lot of pain and often corruption and other things. They are the crudest, most primative types of interventionist economic policy. I know that some law-students do take elementary economics courses. Evidently this one didn't. So why should we suffer?