Sorry Dems, she's not going away after all.
http://www.politico.com/new...
An over-optimistic stimulus plan
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 28, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/3...
First of two columns
RONALD REAGAN loved to tell the story of the unfailingly cheerful little boy who wakes up on Christmas morning to find, instead of presents, an immense pile of manure. Undaunted, he grabs a shovel and starts digging. “With all this manure,” he says excitedly, “there must be a pony in here someplace!”
Is there a pony somewhere in the $825 billion “stimulus” plan that Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives hope to bring to a vote today? Last week, the Congressional Budget Office started digging into this immense pile of -- uh, deficit spending, and what it found would discourage even a Reagan-caliber optimist.
According to the CBO, less than half of the $355 billion the bill allocates to infrastructure and other “discretionary” projects would actually be spent by the end of 2010; of that, a mere $26 billion would be spent in the current fiscal year. “The rest would come in future years,” the Washington Post reported, “long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.” (After Congressional Democrats expressed displeasure with the CBO’s findings, the report was mysterious yanked off the internet. A new version appeared yesterday with -- presto! -- numbers more to the Democrats’ liking.)
Wasn’t the whole point of turbocharging this stimulus bill -- recall that President Obama had originally hoped it would be ready for his signature on Inauguration Day -- that there is no time to waste in pumping these funds into the economy? “If we do not act boldly and swiftly,” the president warned in his weekly address on Saturday, “a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”
Yet of the $30 billion the House bill allots for highway projects, less than $4 billion would be spent before 2011, according to the CBO’s original calculcations. Of $18.5 billion earmarked for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would make it through the pipeline within two years. Of $14 billion for school construction, only half would be used by the end of next year. The administration claims that vast fiscal intervention is urgently required to “save or create” as many as 4 million jobs by the end of next year. Even if you buy the Keynesian argument that mammoth deficit spending will jump-start economic growth, it’s tough to see how it does so by the end of next year if most of the outlays only occur thereafter.
In truth there are compelling reasons not to buy the whole spending-equals-stimulus line of reasoning. Echoing Richard Nixon, Time magazine recently proclaimed that “we all really do seem to be Keynesians now” and that “just about every expert agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy” is the way to “rev up” aggregate demand and stimulate economic activity. Time clearly didn’t check with George Mason University economist Russell Roberts, who wrote on Monday: “As far as I know, no prominent market-oriented economist has come out in favor of a trillion-dollar increase in government spending as a way to improve the economy.”
One such prominent market-oriented economist, Nobel laureate Gary Becker, wrote last week that some of the spending projects in the Democratic stimulus plan “may be very worthwhile . . . but however merited, it is difficult to believe that they would provide much of a stimulus to the economy.” Budget analyst Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out that “mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth.” A 1997 study in Public Finance Review, for example, concluded that “higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate.” In the Journal of Macroeconomics, another study found that “a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%.”
Real-world evidence of the inefficacy of pump-priming abounds. For starters, there was last year’s massive increase in federal spending, including $105 billion in tax rebates and more than $300 billion in “emergency” spending, not to mention passage of the $700 billion financial-sector bailout. None of it revived the economy. In the 1990s, Japan tried without success to deficit-spend its way out of recession, enacting 10 “stimulus” bills in eight years and spending trillions of yen on public infrastructure. Yet unemployment grew worse, the economy remained anemic, and Japan was left with the largest national debt in the industrialized world: 170 percent of GDP.
Will we follow Japan’s lead? US government spending is at record-busting levels, budget deficits have never been greater, and the national debt is closing in on a once-unimaginable $11 trillion. We are in over our collective head in debt, and our economy is reeling. Borrowing even more heavily will not make things better.
Next: A new New Deal?
THE COUNTRY OF TEXAS
In case things get a little tough after January...
Please note that Texas is the only State with a legal right to
secede from the Union. (Reference the Texas-American Annexation
Treaty of 1848.)
We Texans love y'all, but we'll probably have to take action since
Barack Obama won the election. We'll miss you too.
Here is what can happen:
1: Barack Hussein Obama becomes President of the United States, and
Texas immediately secedes from the Union.
2: George W. Bush will become the President of the Republic of Texas.
You might not think that he talks too pretty, but we haven't had
another terrorist attack, and the economy was fine until the effects
of the Democrats lowering the qualifications for home loans came to
roost.
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. We will control the space industry.
2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.
3. Defense Industry -- we have over 65% of it. The term "Don't mess
with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will
need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee, we
don't know. Why not ask Obama?
5. Natural Gas - again we have all we need and it's too bad about
those Northern States. John Kerry and Al Gore will have to figure out
a way to keep them warm...
6. Computer Industry - we lead the nation in producing computer chips
and communications equipment -small companies like Texas Instruments,
Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel,
AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Misconduct, Dallas Semiconductor,
Norte l, Alcatel, etc. The list goes on and on.
7. Medical Care - We have the research centers for cancer research,
the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well
as, other large health centers. The Houston Medical Center alone
employs over 65,000 people.
8. We have enough colleges to keep us getting smarter: University of
Texas, Texas AM, Texas Tech, Texas Ch ristian, Rice, SMU, University
of Dallas, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT (University of North
Texas ), Texas Women's University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South
anyway.
9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force, and it isn't
restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in Texas, it's a Right to Work
State and, therefore, it's every man and woman for themselves. We just
go out and get the job done. And if we don't like the way one company
operates, we get a job somewhere else.
10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics and insurance
industries, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard,
the Texas Air National Guard and several military bases. We don't
have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles
and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 h ours if we need one.
If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of
Public Safety and ask them to send over the Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and
several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let's not forget
seafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook
them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.
13. Three of the ten largest cities in the United States, and
twenty-three of the 100 largest cities in the United States, are
located in Texas. And Texas also has more land than California, New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Rhode Island and Vermont&n bsp;combined.
14. Trade: Three of the ten largest ports in the United States are
located in Texas.
15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don't need to. You see,
nothing rusts in Texas, so our vehicles stay beautiful and run well
for decades.
This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of
Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and
don't have.
Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama:
Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only
President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV.
The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off
satellite communications.
You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since
Mr. Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as
long as you survive the 2,000 years it will take to get enough heat
from Global Warming.
Signed, The People of Texas
P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note to give you
something to think about!
SLEEP WELL TONIGHT, THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!!
One Nation Under God
''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
-- John Wayne
NOW ! Before you all get your knickers in a knot, this has not been snoped, verified, validated or checked out in any way. I got in in an email this morning, loved it, don't care about the details, and am sharing it with those who think it's funny, wise, a good idea, or just a hoot. I don't need a bunch of whiners telling me the facts are all wrong, old, or never happened.
Enjoy.....
Roe and Doe, 36 years on
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 25, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/3...
A NEW anti-abortion TV ad appeared last week, just in time for the inauguration of a president whose support for abortion rights is unqualified. The ad shows the ultrasound image of a fetus in the womb. As the camera slowly moves in, a message gradually appears onscreen:
This child's future is a broken home.
He will be abandoned by his father.
His single mother will struggle to raise him.
Despite the hardships he will endure. . .
this child will become. . .
the first African-American president.
Then, alongside a picture of President Obama, comes the closing message: “Life: Imagine the Potential.”
Last week also brought the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and with it the annual March for Life on Jan. 22. Tens of thousands of Americans, most of them in their teens and 20s, gathered in Washington to implore the new president to help end “the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 pre-born boys and girls each day,” in the words of an open letter on the March for Life website. For his part, Obama issued a statement restating his support for abortion rights and insisting that Roe v. Wade “protects women's health and reproductive freedom.”
Endlessly, the abortion battle goes on. The absolutists -- the “Keep Abortion Legal” and “Stop Abortion Now” contingents -- are forever polarized, but most Americans want to have it both ways. In poll after poll, substantial majorities say that abortion should be legal only in limited circumstances, if not banned outright. Only about one voter in five wants abortions to be legal at any time for any reason -- i.e., abortion on demand. Yet by equally clear majorities, Americans say that they support Roe and would not want it overturned.
But these are irreconcilable positions.
Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court did not allow states to ban late-term abortions or restrict abortion on demand only to the first three months of pregnancy. To be sure, it appeared do so. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe declared that states could not regulate abortion at all in the first trimester and could do so thereafter only “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” Once a fetus became viable, Blackmun wrote, states could regulate and even prohibit abortion, “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
Those 20 words became the exception that swallowed the rule.
Roe wasn't the only abortion case the court decided on Jan. 22, 1973. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the justices decided that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”
Taken together, Roe and Doe meant that abortion could not be barred at any stage of a pregnancy. The “attending physician” could always say that in his medical judgment, the woman's “emotional” or “familial” health made it necessary to abort her unborn child. The result has been 36 years of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
Americans can be forgiven for not realizing what Roe really wrought. It has never been easy for its supporters to acknowledge its true impact. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who concurred in the decision, was sure that abortions would be performed only “on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments,” not merely for reasons of convenience. “Plainly,” he wrote, “the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand.”
Burger was wrong, but he wasn't alone. Right from the start, the media have gotten it wrong, too. The morning after the decision, The New York Times reported on Page 1 that the high court had “overruled today all state laws that prohibit or restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion during her first three months of pregnancy.” That mistake has been repeated endlessly in the 36 years since.
Since 1973, more than 40 million US pregnancies have ended in abortion: Ours is the most liberal abortion culture in the advanced world. Reasonable people can differ over whether to preserve Roe or overrule Roe. But surely the way to begin is to understand Roe.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe.)
Related Topics: Legal and Judicial Issues
A disturbing, but not unexpected,issue came up on the blog today and prompted me to do a little looking around to see how long it took before people started accusing others of racism for criticizing anything Obama, including his followers. Here is an excerpt, link to the full article follows. (Emphasis mine)
"If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.
Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.
This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise."
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/artic...
Not everything is about politics you know. For instance, what did you think of the big wig ladies clothes? The guys were white tie so were boring but the ladies?
Farewell to 43
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 21, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/2...
AND SO, after the majestic, hopeful, and deeply stirring ceremony with which American democracy renews itself every four years, the Bush administration is history. President Obama thanked his predecessor "for his service to our nation," but for most Americans the departure of the 43rd president came none too soon. Except for Richard Nixon, no president since World War II has departed with higher disapproval ratings than George W. Bush: 61 percent, according to Gallup's final survey last week. Indeed, for years it has been fashionable on the left to proclaim Bush the worst president ever -- or as a Harper's headline put it last spring: "Worst. President. Ever."
By all accounts, Bush is neither bitter nor self-pitying about being so unloved. That is partly a function of his personality -- in his last press conference, he described self-pity as "pathetic" -- and partly the result of being widely read in presidential history and knowing that it will not be his contemporary critics who render the final verdict on his presidency.
In a stern summing-up this week, the Economist observed that “the Bush family name, once among the most illustrious in American political life,” is now hopelessly “tainted.” Perhaps. Then again, quite a few storied American brands are badly underrated these days. Sooner or later, their market values will climb. Bush’s reputation will too.
Nothing did more damage to Bush's popularity, or more inflamed his opponents, than the war in Iraq. Harry Reid, the Senate's Democratic leader, spoke for countless Americans when he called it "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." Barack Obama would almost certainly not be president today had it not been for his fervent opposition to the war during the Democratic primary campaign.
But wars are ultimately judged less by how they unfold than by how they end, and this war appears to be ending in a clear victory for the United States. The conduct of the war in its first years was badly flawed and cost many lives, but the Iraq Bush leaves to his successor is largely unified, stable, and free -- an infinite improvement over the dangerous hellhole he inherited in 2001.
The new commander-in-chief acknowledged yesterday that we are at "war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." Among his predecessor's signal accomplishments are two great turning points in that war: the fall of Saddam Hussein and the defeat of the Islamist terrorists who chose to make Iraq the central battlefield of their jihad against civilization. Whatever he may have said as a candidate, the new president realizes that his mission in Iraq is not to undo Bush's handiwork, but to preserve it.
The Bush presidency had its failures too, of course. Perhaps the saddest -- and most ironic -- is reflected almost daily in the hyperpartisan shrillness of our national politics.
It is hard to remember now, but Bush originally ran for president on an agenda of restoring courtesy and goodwill to the political sphere. He promised to end the "arms race of anger" in Washington, and pointed to his record of bipartisanship in Texas, where he had won re-election as governor with 70 percent of the vote -- and with the endorsement of the state’s highest-ranking Democrat. "I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years," Bush told the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia. "I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
Needless to say, things didn't work out that way. Some of that was Bush's fault. As the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne wrote the other day, Bush "was better at announcing policies than explaining them" and "never really engaged his opponents." Despite the tenuous nature of his 2000 victory, he often acted as though he had won a mandate for a sweeping agenda most Democrats opposed.
President Barack Obama waves farewell to President Bush alongside his wife, Michelle, and Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill.
|
But it's also true that many of Bush's bitterest foes, including some in the media, never gave him a chance. It became commonplace to describe the 2000 election as "stolen" and the Bush presidency as illegitimate. Democratic candidates vied to outdo each other in anti-Bush invective. For many, "Bush hater" became a label to wear with pride.
Now it is Obama's turn to try and bank the fires of partisan rancor. "The stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply," he said in his inaugural address, one day after hosting dinners to honor Republicans John McCain and Colin Powell. The 44th president and the 43rd embraced each other before the swearing-in, and embraced again afterward. Presidential inaugurations nearly always engender uplifting feelings; sustaining those feelings is a different story. Bush hoped -- alas, in vain -- to be "a uniter, not a divider." May Obama be blessed with greater success.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Before anyone get in the accusatory mode, remember that any momentous occasion brings this kind of thing on. Watch and see if it isn't true... :-)
I was browsing through a blog this morning and ran across this entry.
"Headlines on This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary
Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration" "
A man sat at a metro station in Washington, DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes.
During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.
A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.
The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.
This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of an social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?
GIVE THIS ONE A TRY.
This is a test to see how well you can remember faces and when. There are two parts A and B, and each part will have 12 photos of faces. You only have a short time, 4 seconds, to see each face before the program moves to the next face. Part A will begin and when that is finished you can start Part B. When Part B is finished, the test will begin. The test will consist of showing 48 faces and below each face you will have a choice of choosing whether you have seen the face, either in Part A or in Part B, or whether or not you have seen the face at all. After you have made you selection for face number 48 your score will appear and you will be able to see how you scored.
This is a face memory test and quite good.
click on site below,
|
"President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself for four years and employed a housekeeper whose immigration documentation lapsed while in his employ."
More here...............
http://www.foxnews.com/poli...
Boy, girl, weight, length, name. How's mom, and how are you?
I know Jacoby usually stirs up the left on here but I believe he's right on with this. Even though he's in MA it's something that's beginning to creep into all our lives. When is the government going to understand that "we get it?" I don't want someone telling me I don't need fries with my Big Mac.
Want a warning label with those fries?
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 11, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/1...
THE WORTHIES who govern Massachusetts haven't been able to keep the state's population from dwindling, its property taxes from soaring, its budget from imploding, its Big Dig from leaking, or its politicians from getting arrested. But failure hasn't diminished their ambition -- or their presumption: Now they're going to keep the rest of us from overeating.
On Thursday, Governor Deval Patrick's administration launched Mass in Motion, a new war on obesity that it calls "the most comprehensive effort to date to address the serious problem of overweight and obesity in the Commonwealth." Already up and running is a shiny new website, which appears to consist mostly of trite exhortations to eat sensibly and do more exercise. Needless to say, the administration plans to spend money on its crusade, current budget straits notwithstanding. After all, if the state doesn't pump $750,000 into such "wellness initiatives" as "expanding the availability of farmers' markets" and designing "transportation systems that encourage walking," who will?
But the heart of the new campaign, as with most government initiatives, is coercion. Following the lead of California, New York City, and Seattle, Massachusetts officials plan to compel restaurant chains to conspicuously post the calorie content of all their offerings, either on the menu or at the counter. Obesity warriors want restaurants to be forced to publicize the nutritional content of the foods they sell so that consumers can make a reasoned decision about what to eat. "People often really are not aware of what's sitting on their plate," the director of Boston Medical Center's nutrition and weight management program, Dr. Caroline Apovian, told The Boston Globe. "But if the information is sitting right in front of you . . . it's hard to deny."
Actually, not that hard. When it comes to nutrition as to so much else, human beings are quite adept at denying, ignoring, or discounting information they would rather not deal with. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Vermont found that the more often one eats in fast-food restaurants, the less likely he is to pay attention to food labels. "These . . . data suggest," they concluded, that "recent legislation advocating for greater labeling of restaurant food may not be particularly effective."
|
Would you know it was fattening if the government didn't tell you?
|
Is it really the job of the state to coerce restaurants into confronting diners with information most of them aren't interested in? The food-service industry is exceptionally competitive and highly sensitive to customer preferences; if enough diners wanted to look at obtrusive calorie charts when eating out, restaurants would already be providing them. Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine puts his finger on it: "A legal requirement is necessary not because diners want conspicuous nutritional information but because, by and large, they don't want it."
Nanny-statists find it easy to disregard consumers' wishes. After all, they reason, it's for their own good -- obesity is a deadly scourge that government must not ignore. Massachusetts Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach warned darkly last week that "unless we make progress" -- that is, unless the government imposes new restrictions on liberty -- "overweight and obesity will overtake smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in Massachusetts."
That always seems to be the nannies' bottom line, whether the risk is said to be from tobacco, global warming, or cars without airbags: We must take away some freedom or more people will die.
But what will the government do when mandatory calorie information in chain restaurants doesn't make a dent in obesity rates? Extend the mandate to all restaurants regardless of size? To supermarket display shelves and freezer sections? Will warning labels be required on packages of Oreo cookies and Oscar Mayer hot dogs? Will new regulations prohibit fast-food restaurants and confectioners from running ads on TV or in magazines? And if our collective waistline still doesn't shrink, will the most fattening foods be permitted only to consumers with a government-approved body-mass index? Or simply banned altogether?
For at least 30 years, the food industry has been labeling packaged foods with nutritional information; with the rise of the Internet, Americans have access to more such information today than ever before. Yet Americans are also fatter than ever before.
Perhaps that is because hectoring people about calories doesn't usually make them thinner. It doesn't work when family members do it. It won't work any better when regulators do it. Not even in Massachusetts.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## --
Since this is such a hot topic today, here's some more reading material.
Yes, it's anti-Semitism
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 7, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/1...
CRITICIZING ISRAEL doesn't make you anti-Semitic: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times. Yet somehow that message doesn't seem to have reached the hundreds of anti-Israel demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who turned out last week to protest Israel's military operation in Gaza. As their signs and chants made clear, it isn't only the Jewish state's policies they oppose. Their animus goes further.
Demonstrators chanted "Nuke, nuke Israel!" and carried placards accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and bearing such messages as: "Did Israel take notes during the Holocaust? Happy Hanukkah." To the dozen or so supporters of Israel gathered across the street, one demonstrator shouted: "Murderers! Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven."
The Arab-Israeli conflict induces strong passions, and the line that separates legitimate disapproval of Israel from anti-Semitism may not always be obvious. But it's safe to assume the line has been crossed when you hear someone urging Jews "back to the ovens."
A message of genocidal anti-Semitism
|
The Danish website Snaphanen posted a photo the other day of a pamphlet being distributed in Copenhagen's City Hall Square. On one side it proclaimed: "Never Peace With Israel!" and "Kill Israel's People!" On the other side: "Kill Jewish people evry where in ther world!" The leaflet's spelling left something to be desired, but its message of genocidal anti-Semitism couldn't have been clearer.
Likewise the message in Amsterdam on Saturday, where the crowd at an anti-Israel rally repeatedly chanted, "Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas." And the message in Belgium, where pro-Hamas demonstrators torched Israeli flags, burned a public menorah, and painted swastikas on Jewish-owned shops.
Only marginally less vile is the message that has been trumpeted at demonstrations from Boston to Los Angeles to Vancouver: "Palestine will be free/ From the river to the sea" -- a restatement in rhyme of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped from the map."
Let's say it for the thousand-and-first time: Every negative comment about Israel is not an expression of bigotry. Israel is no more immune to criticism than any other country. But it takes willful blindness not to see that anti-Zionism today -- opposition to the existence of Israel, rejection of the idea that the Jewish people are entitled to a state -- is merely the old wine of anti-Semitism in its newest bottle.
The hatred of Jews has always been protean, readily revising itself to reflect the idiom of its age. At times, it targeted Jews for their religion, demonizing them as Christ-killers or enemies of the true faith. At other times, Jews have been damned as disloyal fifth columns to be suppressed or expelled, or as a racial malignancy to be physically exterminated.
In our day, Jew-hatred expresses itself overwhelmingly in national terms: It is the Jewish state that the haters are obsessed with. "What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people," the British commentator Melanie Phillips has written. "First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear."
The claim that anti-Zionism isn't bigotry would be preposterous in any other context. Imagine someone vehemently asserting that Ireland has no right to exist, that Irish nationalism is racism, and that those who murder Irishmen are actually victims deserving the world's sympathy. Who would take his fulminations for anything but anti-Irish bigotry? Or believe him if he said that he harbors no prejudice against the Irish?
By the same token, those who demonize and delegitimize Israel, who say the world would be better off without it, who hold it to standards of perfection no other country is held to, who extol or commiserate with its mortal enemies, who liken it to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, who make it the scapegoat not only for crimes it hasn't committed, but for those of which it is a victim -- yes, such people are anti-Semitic, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Criticize Israel? Certainly. But those who so loudly denounce Israel in its war against Hamas are siding with some of the most virulent Jew-haters on earth. They may tell themselves that that doesn't make them anti-Semites. But it does. "When people criticize Zionists," Martin Luther King said in 1968, "they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe)
Question for all the knowledgeable folks. Given a choice between 24 HR Fitness or Curves, which would you say is the best bet? I realize 24 HR is more varied and probably intense but without a trainer who knows what the best exercise?
Any thoughts on the subject. I know this isn't as intriguing as say, a shooting, but still a part of life.
For Congress, a new year means a new pay hike
by Jeff Jacoby
January 4, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/1...
UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT its highest level in 15 years. Housing prices won't stop falling. The stock market has suffered its most punishing collapse since 1931, and shareholders have lost $7 trillion in wealth. Millions of workers have lost their jobs; millions more are worried about losing theirs. IRAs and 401k accounts have been decimated, and companies are halting their contributions to retirement plans. Retail sales are dragging, the credit markets have seized up, and worse is expected in 2009. The government has gone to unprecedented lengths to improve the economy, yet the economy keeps getting worse. The federal budget deficit is headed for a trillion dollars, and the national debt is well over $10 trillion -- and climbing. The number of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track is at or near its all-time high; consumer confidence is at its all-time low.
So what do you do now?
Well, if you're a member of Congress, you give yourself a raise.
Beginning this week, US representatives and senators will be paid $174,000 a year. That represents an increase of $4,700 and the 10th time since 1998 that congressional pay has been given a boost.
As has become routine, this salary hike is taking place automatically -- there were no hearings, no vote, no debate. No members of Congress stepped before the microphones to explain why their performance over the past year entitles them to a fatter paycheck. Or to make the case for helping themselves to more money at a time when so many Americans are out of work and financial distress is spreading. Or to shed light on the curious fact that people who are chronically late when it comes to passing appropriations bills or confirming judges never seem to miss a beat when it comes to pocketing more money for themselves.
Ask these distinguished solons if automobile executives should travel in private jets or if ExxonMobil's profits are too high, and they don't hesitate to give you an opinion. Ask them whether politicians making handsome six-figure salaries that are already more than triple the median US household income should be paid even more handsomely, and the only sound you hear is the crickets chirping in the distance.
"Finding anyone brave enough to defend the pay hike in Washington these days is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack," writes McClatchey's Rob Hotakainen. "When asked to comment, normally accessible members quickly go missing, are on vacation, are extremely busy with family members, or can't be reached on their cellphones because they're in remote locations."
Hard as it may be to believe, there was a time when members of Congress didn't make it an annual priority to pad their pay envelopes. In 1932, during the Great Depression, the House and Senate even cut their pay by 10 percent, then cut it by another 5.5 percent in 1933. Today's lawmakers, save for a handful of honorable exceptions, are about as likely to follow that precedent as they are to sprinkle anthrax on their Cheerios.
But even if they don't meet the ethical standards of the 1930s, couldn't they at least obey the Constitution they took an oath to uphold? The 27th Amendment bans members of Congress from giving themselves a raise without first facing the voters: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." The House and Senate can boost salaries in the next Congress, but they are constitutionally barred from boosting their own.
Alas, the 27th Amendment is a dead letter. Congress claims that putting its salary on autopilot -- it goes up every year without a vote -- gets around the constitutional restriction, and the Supreme Court has refused to rule on the issue.
And so we have the spectacle of congressional multimillionaires like John Kerry, Lamar Alexander, and Nancy Pelosi awarding themselves bonuses at the expense of their constituents -- some of whom aren't even getting a paycheck these days, much less a raise. You'd think members of Congress would be ashamed to take more of the public's money at a time when public approval of Congress is lower than ever.
Then again, if they were capable of shame, they wouldn't be in Congress.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Part of the family went out exploring the desert yesterday and Mark, Jennifer and I met them in Baker to continue the exploration of the cinder cones and lava flows out between Baker and Kelso Valley. While in Kelso we visited the restored railroad museum and another cinder cone. The views are breathtaking and the mountains spectacular.
While the bloggers were sittiing here in the rain and gloom arguing with each other, we were out in the fresh air and ...will you look at that sky !
|
RSS 2.0
