PALESTINIAN REMORSE
In yet one more ritual in the Palestinian death-cult, thousands of Palestinians marched in support of the Hebrew University massacre. And yet we are told on a daily basis, that of all the stateless peoples on earth, these people deserve statehood the most. There is no greater lie in international discourse. Here's when we'll know that the Palestinians are truly deserving of a state - when thousands of Palestinians take to the streets to oppose these wanton acts of savage murder, to say in a clear voice that Jews are fellow humans. We've heard far too many lies from the self-proclaimed "leaders" of the Palestinians speaking of peace and reconciliation. The silence from a genuine Arab call to peace is deafening.
Tasty commentary on politics, law, religion and more, without the fattening dogma. (The views expressed on this blog are the author's alone, and do not represent those of any past, current or future employer or his past, current, and future soulmate.)
July 31, 2002
MASSACRE ON CAMPUS
For one year I lived at the base of Mt. Scopus, which since 1925 has housed the Hebrew University. Every day, I would walk up from the dormitory apartment I shared with Protestant, Catholic, Mormon and Muslims roomates, past the Old British cemetary and Hadassah hospital before finally reaching the campus proper, which sprawled across the summit. The campus is architecturally brilliant, featuring interlocking terraces, stone steps and spectacular panoramic views of the Old City and the Mount of Olives. In typical Jewish philanthropic fashion, every wall, bench and plaza honored at least one, if not more than one donor. Nestled in with the standard Bronfmans, Rothbergs, Idelsons and Resnicks were other more surprinsing names. Near the center of the campus sprawled the Nancy Reagan Plaza, and bounding it on the left was the Frank Sinatra building, which featured the largest and best of the campus cafeterias. I had many a memorable discussion over schnitzel and fruit drinks in that dining hall.
Earlier today that cafeteria was turned into the scene of a massacre. Once more, the fearless Palestinian free-dom fighters chose not to risk attacking a military target, but instead murdered unarmed civillians. In yet one more act of base evil, students, many of them from foreign countries there to participate in the wondrous openess of academic exchange, were struck down for no other reason but a bottomless hatred.
How much more evil do the Palestinians have to perpetrate before they demonstrate the first glimmer of self-reflection and penitence? How long before we hear a Palestinian condemnation of this war that they started on moral, and not just tactical grounds? Yes, the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian towns is heartbreaking. But all the Palestinian spokespeople can do is cast blame upon Israel for their peoples tribulations. Yet, it is the Palestinian leadership who is truly responsible for the current plight of their people. They chose to respond to the Camp David offer with war - they chose the strategy of provoking Israel in an effort to bring in international intervention. They brought this upon their people - not Israel. If the Palestinian leadership really cared about its people it would do what any honorable losing government does when it has lost its war of agression - concede defeat, renounce violence, and subordinate their political dreams to the urgent real needs of their people.
For one year I lived at the base of Mt. Scopus, which since 1925 has housed the Hebrew University. Every day, I would walk up from the dormitory apartment I shared with Protestant, Catholic, Mormon and Muslims roomates, past the Old British cemetary and Hadassah hospital before finally reaching the campus proper, which sprawled across the summit. The campus is architecturally brilliant, featuring interlocking terraces, stone steps and spectacular panoramic views of the Old City and the Mount of Olives. In typical Jewish philanthropic fashion, every wall, bench and plaza honored at least one, if not more than one donor. Nestled in with the standard Bronfmans, Rothbergs, Idelsons and Resnicks were other more surprinsing names. Near the center of the campus sprawled the Nancy Reagan Plaza, and bounding it on the left was the Frank Sinatra building, which featured the largest and best of the campus cafeterias. I had many a memorable discussion over schnitzel and fruit drinks in that dining hall.
Earlier today that cafeteria was turned into the scene of a massacre. Once more, the fearless Palestinian free-dom fighters chose not to risk attacking a military target, but instead murdered unarmed civillians. In yet one more act of base evil, students, many of them from foreign countries there to participate in the wondrous openess of academic exchange, were struck down for no other reason but a bottomless hatred.
How much more evil do the Palestinians have to perpetrate before they demonstrate the first glimmer of self-reflection and penitence? How long before we hear a Palestinian condemnation of this war that they started on moral, and not just tactical grounds? Yes, the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian towns is heartbreaking. But all the Palestinian spokespeople can do is cast blame upon Israel for their peoples tribulations. Yet, it is the Palestinian leadership who is truly responsible for the current plight of their people. They chose to respond to the Camp David offer with war - they chose the strategy of provoking Israel in an effort to bring in international intervention. They brought this upon their people - not Israel. If the Palestinian leadership really cared about its people it would do what any honorable losing government does when it has lost its war of agression - concede defeat, renounce violence, and subordinate their political dreams to the urgent real needs of their people.
July 30, 2002
STRUGGLING OVER JIHAD
Months after the furor over the "American Jihad" speech at Harvard, an interesting debate has broken out over the malleability of the term. MuslimPundit argues that defining Jihad as "non-violent struggle" can not be supported by Islamic text and history. While the sources that define Jihad as a holy war are binding, the sources that uphold the countervailing view are insufficient to establish a legal precedent. Aziz Poonwalla on the other hand, argues that MuslimPundit's analysis is Sunni-centric, and that within other schools of Islamic thought, especially Shi'a Islam, the textual support for Jihad as holy war is not beyond dispute, and that the non-violent form can be justified from the highest source of authority in Islam - the Qu'ran.
From my own admittedly limited understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, they are both correct. Traditional Sunni jurisprudence has established certain hadith (the oral tradition that supplements the Qu'ran) as "authentic", and it is not the place of modern jurists to base their rulings on their own view as to which hadith are incompatable with a rational reading of the Qu'ran in the modern context. The gates of "itjihad", or rational exigesis are closed. It is disingenuous for those who adhere to such a rigid, fixed form of Islam to thrust forward the version of Jihad that is most convenient for them at the moment. It is dishonest to pretend that the militant form of Jihad is a "minority view" of a few extremists, and not central concept in the Islamic tradition.
Aziz, however, is also correct. In the larger theological universive that is Islam - the gates of itjihad are not closed - the discussion is still ongoing. Shi'a Islam, despite its recent foray into the blood-soaked path of Khomeinism, has its own juridical tradition, one in which the hadith do not play as central a role. Sunni Islam itself began as a reaction to a highly rationalist school of Islam, the Mu'tazilis. The Islamic tradition contains the tools to construct a humanist Islam. Whether humanistic Muslims have the strength to build institutions capable of thwarting Islamist efforts to take over the faith remains to be seen.
Months after the furor over the "American Jihad" speech at Harvard, an interesting debate has broken out over the malleability of the term. MuslimPundit argues that defining Jihad as "non-violent struggle" can not be supported by Islamic text and history. While the sources that define Jihad as a holy war are binding, the sources that uphold the countervailing view are insufficient to establish a legal precedent. Aziz Poonwalla on the other hand, argues that MuslimPundit's analysis is Sunni-centric, and that within other schools of Islamic thought, especially Shi'a Islam, the textual support for Jihad as holy war is not beyond dispute, and that the non-violent form can be justified from the highest source of authority in Islam - the Qu'ran.
From my own admittedly limited understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, they are both correct. Traditional Sunni jurisprudence has established certain hadith (the oral tradition that supplements the Qu'ran) as "authentic", and it is not the place of modern jurists to base their rulings on their own view as to which hadith are incompatable with a rational reading of the Qu'ran in the modern context. The gates of "itjihad", or rational exigesis are closed. It is disingenuous for those who adhere to such a rigid, fixed form of Islam to thrust forward the version of Jihad that is most convenient for them at the moment. It is dishonest to pretend that the militant form of Jihad is a "minority view" of a few extremists, and not central concept in the Islamic tradition.
Aziz, however, is also correct. In the larger theological universive that is Islam - the gates of itjihad are not closed - the discussion is still ongoing. Shi'a Islam, despite its recent foray into the blood-soaked path of Khomeinism, has its own juridical tradition, one in which the hadith do not play as central a role. Sunni Islam itself began as a reaction to a highly rationalist school of Islam, the Mu'tazilis. The Islamic tradition contains the tools to construct a humanist Islam. Whether humanistic Muslims have the strength to build institutions capable of thwarting Islamist efforts to take over the faith remains to be seen.
July 29, 2002
LAND USE & FREE EXERCISE: ROUND II
How Appealing pointed me to the interesting religious liberty case of Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township, in which the Third Circuit is hearing oral arguments today. The issue is the contentious one of the ability of local governments to restrict religous land use through zoning policy, the same one at the center of the controversy leading to the landmark decision of City of Boerne v. Flores. That decision, in which the Court rejected what was in effect an effort by Congress to reverse its unpopular free exercise jurisprudence, left unresolved two questions (1) to what extent can Congressional protection for religious free expression exceed that of the Court's while still acting under its constitutional authority, and (2) do facially neutral zoning laws ever violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Kol Ami is a case that tests both questions. Abington Township recently modified the relevant zoning ordinance, covering the parcel where Kol Ami wishes to convert a former convent into a synagogue to exclude exemptions for religious use, but include exemptions for other non-residential uses. More damning for Abington is the fact that while 26 churches exist in "residential" zones, no non-Christian place of worship has been approved for a residential area. Thus, the Abington zoning boards' decision is called into question both by 1) its discrimination against all religious land use, and 2) its potential discrimination against a minority faith.
It is unclear, however, that this will be sufficient to violate the free exercise under the restrictive precedent of Smith, which held that generally applicable regulations do not have to accomodate religious practices in order to be constitutional. On the other hand, the Township is in clear violation of the latest Congressional effort to bolster religious free exercise - RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). Under the terms of RLUIPA, Abington has a steep burden to show why it could not accomodate Kol Ami's free exercise rights in order to meet the needs addressed by its land use regulations. There is no question that on these facts, it is violation of RLUIPA. Hovering over any application of RLUIPA, however is the question of its constitutionality - whether it can in any meaningful way be distinguished from RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), the statute struck down in Boerne.
I do not have much confidence in RLUIPA's prospects before the Court. Despite its smaller scope, it still faces the core problem of RFRA - it is quite clearly designed to replace, not enforce the Supreme Court's understanding of free exercise rights. That being said, there is still hope that the district court decision will be upheld without having to rely on RLUIPA's constitutionality. The alternative is that local governments will be able to get away with zoning shenanigans such as these, gerrymandering "unwanted" religious groups out of their borders. Facial neutrality is simply insufficient to preserve religious liberty. Whether the Rehnquist Court will realize that in light of the obtuseness of its decisions in Smith& Boerne is yet to be seen.
How Appealing pointed me to the interesting religious liberty case of Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township, in which the Third Circuit is hearing oral arguments today. The issue is the contentious one of the ability of local governments to restrict religous land use through zoning policy, the same one at the center of the controversy leading to the landmark decision of City of Boerne v. Flores. That decision, in which the Court rejected what was in effect an effort by Congress to reverse its unpopular free exercise jurisprudence, left unresolved two questions (1) to what extent can Congressional protection for religious free expression exceed that of the Court's while still acting under its constitutional authority, and (2) do facially neutral zoning laws ever violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Kol Ami is a case that tests both questions. Abington Township recently modified the relevant zoning ordinance, covering the parcel where Kol Ami wishes to convert a former convent into a synagogue to exclude exemptions for religious use, but include exemptions for other non-residential uses. More damning for Abington is the fact that while 26 churches exist in "residential" zones, no non-Christian place of worship has been approved for a residential area. Thus, the Abington zoning boards' decision is called into question both by 1) its discrimination against all religious land use, and 2) its potential discrimination against a minority faith.
It is unclear, however, that this will be sufficient to violate the free exercise under the restrictive precedent of Smith, which held that generally applicable regulations do not have to accomodate religious practices in order to be constitutional. On the other hand, the Township is in clear violation of the latest Congressional effort to bolster religious free exercise - RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). Under the terms of RLUIPA, Abington has a steep burden to show why it could not accomodate Kol Ami's free exercise rights in order to meet the needs addressed by its land use regulations. There is no question that on these facts, it is violation of RLUIPA. Hovering over any application of RLUIPA, however is the question of its constitutionality - whether it can in any meaningful way be distinguished from RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), the statute struck down in Boerne.
I do not have much confidence in RLUIPA's prospects before the Court. Despite its smaller scope, it still faces the core problem of RFRA - it is quite clearly designed to replace, not enforce the Supreme Court's understanding of free exercise rights. That being said, there is still hope that the district court decision will be upheld without having to rely on RLUIPA's constitutionality. The alternative is that local governments will be able to get away with zoning shenanigans such as these, gerrymandering "unwanted" religious groups out of their borders. Facial neutrality is simply insufficient to preserve religious liberty. Whether the Rehnquist Court will realize that in light of the obtuseness of its decisions in Smith& Boerne is yet to be seen.
THE HEBRON HEADACHE
While its unclear to what extent the mourners of Elazar Leibovitz were incited (I've tried to piece together what really happened from the conflicting reports in the Times, Ha'aretz, JPost and settler-phillic Arutz-Sheva), there is no excuse for their actions. Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit must back up his pledge to deal with the rioters "with a heavy hand." Vigilante action is unacceptable. There is only one Israeli Defense Force - that has been settled since the dawn of the state.
Punishing those who screamed "Death to Arabs", while firing at random and overturning market stalls, is insufficient. Serious thought, however, has to be given to extracting the settlers from Hebron. Anyone who had read Genesis is fully aware that this is not a statement for a religious Jew to make lightly. Hebron is not Gaza - there is very much a deep historic and religious connection between the city and the Jewish people. It is the parcel of land purchased by Abraham in the Bible - it was the capital before Jerusalem, it is the resting place of the Patriarchs. But this is still insufficient justification to demand subjugation of 100,000 Arabs for the benefit of 400 Jews. It is even less, when those 400 Jews to dominate the affairs of the 100,000 Arab residents of the city.
Even worse is when those 400 Jews are the adherents of a militant messianism that Judaism had been spared of for almost 2,000 years. Israel needs to face this headache sooner or later. It might as well do so from a position of relative strength.
While its unclear to what extent the mourners of Elazar Leibovitz were incited (I've tried to piece together what really happened from the conflicting reports in the Times, Ha'aretz, JPost and settler-phillic Arutz-Sheva), there is no excuse for their actions. Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit must back up his pledge to deal with the rioters "with a heavy hand." Vigilante action is unacceptable. There is only one Israeli Defense Force - that has been settled since the dawn of the state.
Punishing those who screamed "Death to Arabs", while firing at random and overturning market stalls, is insufficient. Serious thought, however, has to be given to extracting the settlers from Hebron. Anyone who had read Genesis is fully aware that this is not a statement for a religious Jew to make lightly. Hebron is not Gaza - there is very much a deep historic and religious connection between the city and the Jewish people. It is the parcel of land purchased by Abraham in the Bible - it was the capital before Jerusalem, it is the resting place of the Patriarchs. But this is still insufficient justification to demand subjugation of 100,000 Arabs for the benefit of 400 Jews. It is even less, when those 400 Jews to dominate the affairs of the 100,000 Arab residents of the city.
Even worse is when those 400 Jews are the adherents of a militant messianism that Judaism had been spared of for almost 2,000 years. Israel needs to face this headache sooner or later. It might as well do so from a position of relative strength.
July 26, 2002
OTP SPORTS
ESPN has put up the results of its Sports Nation survey, which finally provides the answers to such gnawing questions as what is the most popular sport in Washington state (baseball) and what state is the most NASCAR-obsessed (West Virginia). It will surprise nobody that the two top choices for "worst fans" were 1) Philly and 2) New York. That's only true if you define "worst" as willing to boo a bad halftime performance, or hurl insults at people with the temerity to wear the opposing teams' jersey in their home stadium. In my mind, the true definition of "worst" sports fan is a fair-weathered front-runner who care more about beating the traffic home than who wins or loses. Don't expect to find too many of these in Philly. In fact, Philly fans are the most loyal in the nation, with 2/3 of fans picking the home team as their favorite in each of the four major sports. (That includes the Phabulous Phils, winners of 1 title in the past 119 seasons). The runner up - Boston, where getting your heart broken by the Red Sox is the number one civic pasttime.
Thanks to the Phillies and the Sixers, there was no shortage of irate fans to fill the airtime of sportsradio WIP. The Phils are continuing to botch the Scott Rolen situation - apparently turning down an offer of a blue-chip batting prospect and a solid middle reliever over penny-pinching (they want to unload the rest of Rolen's contract for this year AND get back value in return - not going to happen). As for good news in Philly land, there's Pat Burrell's break-out season and Brett Myers call-up (I promised myself I wouldn't get too excited about one start - but we just might have a future ace). The Sixers have addressed the teams gaping need for front-court athleticism and long-range shooting by acquiring Greg Buckner & Monty Williams - two more defensive specialists that can be ignored on offense while the other team surrounds Allen Iverson like paparrazzi. Look for a lot of exciting 82-74 losses by the 76ers next year.
Of course, within weeks, both the Sixers and Phillies will be erased from the radar screen as the Eagles begin their most anticipated season in decades. Despite all of the carping about letting Jeremiah Trotter go and not spending all of their cap money, the Birds, barring major injuries, will be even better than last year. Their draft has made the secondary as deep as it is good, their free agent signings (Levens, Kirkland, Bishop and Barber) give them experience and depth at those positions, Freddie Mitchell is poised for a breakout season, and...well, Donovan McNabb has been eating his Chunky soup. Consequences, schmonsequences, I'm leaning towards getting that Digital TV NFL package this fall.
ESPN has put up the results of its Sports Nation survey, which finally provides the answers to such gnawing questions as what is the most popular sport in Washington state (baseball) and what state is the most NASCAR-obsessed (West Virginia). It will surprise nobody that the two top choices for "worst fans" were 1) Philly and 2) New York. That's only true if you define "worst" as willing to boo a bad halftime performance, or hurl insults at people with the temerity to wear the opposing teams' jersey in their home stadium. In my mind, the true definition of "worst" sports fan is a fair-weathered front-runner who care more about beating the traffic home than who wins or loses. Don't expect to find too many of these in Philly. In fact, Philly fans are the most loyal in the nation, with 2/3 of fans picking the home team as their favorite in each of the four major sports. (That includes the Phabulous Phils, winners of 1 title in the past 119 seasons). The runner up - Boston, where getting your heart broken by the Red Sox is the number one civic pasttime.
Thanks to the Phillies and the Sixers, there was no shortage of irate fans to fill the airtime of sportsradio WIP. The Phils are continuing to botch the Scott Rolen situation - apparently turning down an offer of a blue-chip batting prospect and a solid middle reliever over penny-pinching (they want to unload the rest of Rolen's contract for this year AND get back value in return - not going to happen). As for good news in Philly land, there's Pat Burrell's break-out season and Brett Myers call-up (I promised myself I wouldn't get too excited about one start - but we just might have a future ace). The Sixers have addressed the teams gaping need for front-court athleticism and long-range shooting by acquiring Greg Buckner & Monty Williams - two more defensive specialists that can be ignored on offense while the other team surrounds Allen Iverson like paparrazzi. Look for a lot of exciting 82-74 losses by the 76ers next year.
Of course, within weeks, both the Sixers and Phillies will be erased from the radar screen as the Eagles begin their most anticipated season in decades. Despite all of the carping about letting Jeremiah Trotter go and not spending all of their cap money, the Birds, barring major injuries, will be even better than last year. Their draft has made the secondary as deep as it is good, their free agent signings (Levens, Kirkland, Bishop and Barber) give them experience and depth at those positions, Freddie Mitchell is poised for a breakout season, and...well, Donovan McNabb has been eating his Chunky soup. Consequences, schmonsequences, I'm leaning towards getting that Digital TV NFL package this fall.
July 25, 2002
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF RED v. BLUE
Great article in TNR on why the long-term trends are tending towards Democratic dominance. The two parties are very much aligned in the same way they were at the turn of the 20th century, except they've swapped places. This time the Dems are the forward-looking, progressive party that dominates the Northeast, Great Lakes and California and the Republicans are the nostalgia-driven populists that dominate the South and the West. With the twin tasks of a war on terror and curtailing the excesses of the Second Gilded Age, the Dems could really use a Teddy Roosevelt about now.
Great article in TNR on why the long-term trends are tending towards Democratic dominance. The two parties are very much aligned in the same way they were at the turn of the 20th century, except they've swapped places. This time the Dems are the forward-looking, progressive party that dominates the Northeast, Great Lakes and California and the Republicans are the nostalgia-driven populists that dominate the South and the West. With the twin tasks of a war on terror and curtailing the excesses of the Second Gilded Age, the Dems could really use a Teddy Roosevelt about now.
LIBERAL DHIMMIS
Instapundit brought my attention to this post by Nick Denton - in which he advocates an explicit tradeoff for acceptance of Muslims into Western societies - in effect, leave your Islam at the door.
There are a number of major problems with Denton's argument. First, it is not the Islamic element of fundamentalist Islam that is incompatible with liberal values, it is the fundamentalist element. And the greatest threat to liberal values comes from the fundamentalism of the dominant religion in the country. The Ultra-Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn are no less hostile to feminism than those of Jerusalem. Its just that the latter feel empowered to push for separate seating by gender on public busses. Similarly, it is fundamentalist Christians that have fought the fiercest rearguard actions against the tide of equality for women and gays that has risen in the past three decades. Still, it goes against the very principles of America to condition citizenship on an uncritical embrace of liberal values. We rightly allow Southern Baptists and Hasids to retain their views on homsexuality and gender roles so long as they do not impose them on the rest of society. The condition we imose upon them is not an acceptance of liberal values, but of secular legal authority.
Even more critically, however, Denton is blind to the wide spectrum of religious observance that resides between the tokenism he supports and fundamentalism he rightly deplores. Deep religious commitment may place a believer in tension with liberal values, but it is not incompatible with them. There is no reason why a Muslim can not be both a scrupulous observer of the commandments of daily prayer, dietary restrictions, and donations to the poor and also adhere to the liberal principle of respecting the rights of those who observe different commandments or none at all.
Yes, we should be vigilant about the efforts of Islamism to expand in Western societies. It is absolute insanity to permit the continued influx of Saudi oil-money to spread the gospel of Wahabism. However, it goes against every principle of liberalism to treat Muslims differently solely because of their faith. We should treat them as we do any other citizen - as individuals who possess the full rights and responsibilities of the law.
Instapundit brought my attention to this post by Nick Denton - in which he advocates an explicit tradeoff for acceptance of Muslims into Western societies - in effect, leave your Islam at the door.
Let's turn the system around. In the West, it is the Muslims who are the dhimmis, the tolerated minority; they should be free to practice, so long as their Islam is a diluted Episcopalian version, expressed in a sabbath on Fridays, holidays at unusual times of the year, traditional names for children, and an annual parade through Brooklyn.
In other words, Western governments should make clear that the toleration of Muslim minorities is conditional. The West is a package deal: the prosperity that has attracted Muslim immigrants is a function of the Western tradition. Fundamentalist Islam is not, as the morally ambivalent would have it, as valid as any other system. Here's the Western dhimma: accept the supremacy of Western humanist values -- equal rights for women and sexual minorities, freedom of speech, and family law -- or leave.
There are a number of major problems with Denton's argument. First, it is not the Islamic element of fundamentalist Islam that is incompatible with liberal values, it is the fundamentalist element. And the greatest threat to liberal values comes from the fundamentalism of the dominant religion in the country. The Ultra-Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn are no less hostile to feminism than those of Jerusalem. Its just that the latter feel empowered to push for separate seating by gender on public busses. Similarly, it is fundamentalist Christians that have fought the fiercest rearguard actions against the tide of equality for women and gays that has risen in the past three decades. Still, it goes against the very principles of America to condition citizenship on an uncritical embrace of liberal values. We rightly allow Southern Baptists and Hasids to retain their views on homsexuality and gender roles so long as they do not impose them on the rest of society. The condition we imose upon them is not an acceptance of liberal values, but of secular legal authority.
Even more critically, however, Denton is blind to the wide spectrum of religious observance that resides between the tokenism he supports and fundamentalism he rightly deplores. Deep religious commitment may place a believer in tension with liberal values, but it is not incompatible with them. There is no reason why a Muslim can not be both a scrupulous observer of the commandments of daily prayer, dietary restrictions, and donations to the poor and also adhere to the liberal principle of respecting the rights of those who observe different commandments or none at all.
Yes, we should be vigilant about the efforts of Islamism to expand in Western societies. It is absolute insanity to permit the continued influx of Saudi oil-money to spread the gospel of Wahabism. However, it goes against every principle of liberalism to treat Muslims differently solely because of their faith. We should treat them as we do any other citizen - as individuals who possess the full rights and responsibilities of the law.
July 24, 2002
NEOCON DOMESTIC POLICY: RUNNING ON EMPTY
In recent years, neocons have been groping around for a coherent domestic agenda to match their well-articulated vision in foreign policy. While promoting "traditional values", they rightly split with the Religious Right's vision of domestic policy as kulterkampt. During the 2000 election, a fresh outlook started to emerge around the neocons embrace of John McCain, and the beginnings of the articulation of a "National Greatness" Conservatism. Domestic policy, like foreign policy would emerge from a confident embrace of American values. In foreign policy, the neocons had embraced a skepticism of market diplomacy, rightly recognizing that America's long-term interests are not the same as the short-term bottom line of certain American businesses. The next step would be to apply that reasoning on domestic issues - crafting policy around the long-term national interests, rather than short-term special interests. The major stumbling block to this path, however, remains the neocon obsession with supply-side economics. When it comes to economic policy, for the neocons it is always 1980. Here's Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard responding to the push to scrap Bush's foolish tax-cut.
For Barnes, Bush needs to take a domestic stand - and he should take it on this issue. After all, Reagan didn't back down on his tax cut. Barnes, however, blithely ignores the reason why Bush has been squishy on domestic policy - his agenda, crafted to please core GOP constituencies, has never been popular. If it hadn't been for a staggering display of political cowardice by the Dems, his unpopular gift to the rich wouldn't even be in place to be repealed. If Fred Barnes and friends weren't so wedded to market fundamentalism, they'd offer Bush much better advice. Instead of standing up for the GOP's favorite special interests, stand up the Dems'. Stand up for radical education reform - the kind the teacher's union cringes at. Offer a deal with the environmentalists - ANWR for California-style carbon emission standards, and make them explain why caribou habitat is more important than energy indpendence. Bush could take a whole number of domestic stands that could both put the Dems on the defensive and actually advance the national interest. But Fred Barnes would rather Bush go down in flames behind the idea that in this time of national challenge, we must all sacrifice - except the rich. Right now, the neocons domestic policy agenda seems about as bankrupt as WorldCom.
In recent years, neocons have been groping around for a coherent domestic agenda to match their well-articulated vision in foreign policy. While promoting "traditional values", they rightly split with the Religious Right's vision of domestic policy as kulterkampt. During the 2000 election, a fresh outlook started to emerge around the neocons embrace of John McCain, and the beginnings of the articulation of a "National Greatness" Conservatism. Domestic policy, like foreign policy would emerge from a confident embrace of American values. In foreign policy, the neocons had embraced a skepticism of market diplomacy, rightly recognizing that America's long-term interests are not the same as the short-term bottom line of certain American businesses. The next step would be to apply that reasoning on domestic issues - crafting policy around the long-term national interests, rather than short-term special interests. The major stumbling block to this path, however, remains the neocon obsession with supply-side economics. When it comes to economic policy, for the neocons it is always 1980. Here's Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard responding to the push to scrap Bush's foolish tax-cut.
Could there be a worse idea? A more economically harmful idea? A more politically destructive step the president could take? I don't think so. Bush is already squishy on domestic policy, failing to fight for his agenda on Capitol Hill--including confirmation of conservative judges, approval of oil drilling in the Alaska Northwest Wildlife Reservation (ANWR), anti-cloning legislation, and what's left of his faith-based initiative. Capitulating on taxes would remove any pretense that Bush is a serious player in domestic policy.
For Barnes, Bush needs to take a domestic stand - and he should take it on this issue. After all, Reagan didn't back down on his tax cut. Barnes, however, blithely ignores the reason why Bush has been squishy on domestic policy - his agenda, crafted to please core GOP constituencies, has never been popular. If it hadn't been for a staggering display of political cowardice by the Dems, his unpopular gift to the rich wouldn't even be in place to be repealed. If Fred Barnes and friends weren't so wedded to market fundamentalism, they'd offer Bush much better advice. Instead of standing up for the GOP's favorite special interests, stand up the Dems'. Stand up for radical education reform - the kind the teacher's union cringes at. Offer a deal with the environmentalists - ANWR for California-style carbon emission standards, and make them explain why caribou habitat is more important than energy indpendence. Bush could take a whole number of domestic stands that could both put the Dems on the defensive and actually advance the national interest. But Fred Barnes would rather Bush go down in flames behind the idea that in this time of national challenge, we must all sacrifice - except the rich. Right now, the neocons domestic policy agenda seems about as bankrupt as WorldCom.
SHARPTON ON THE ROPES
HBO has discovered a 1983 video in which Al Sharpton is discussing a drug deal with an undercover FBI agent. Anyone who cares at all about the condition of African-Americans should pray that Big Al goes down. His plan to run for President, will play right into the hands of those who want to keep on ignoring the pressing issues of aid to urban schools, a dysfunctional drug policy, and the perverse effect of racial gerrymanding that should be at the top of the African-American agenda. These critical issues need forward-thinking coaltion builders, not outdated provacateurs.
HBO has discovered a 1983 video in which Al Sharpton is discussing a drug deal with an undercover FBI agent. Anyone who cares at all about the condition of African-Americans should pray that Big Al goes down. His plan to run for President, will play right into the hands of those who want to keep on ignoring the pressing issues of aid to urban schools, a dysfunctional drug policy, and the perverse effect of racial gerrymanding that should be at the top of the African-American agenda. These critical issues need forward-thinking coaltion builders, not outdated provacateurs.
July 23, 2002
MOTORING TOWARDS DIVIDED GOVERNMENT
As of right now, 2002 is ripe for a major Dem victory. The fundamental reason is that the Republicans are locked into a loser of a domestic agenda. The disconnect between the GOP's unpopular agenda and its majority status has been obscured by W.'s brilliant faux-triangulation during the 2000 election and 9/11. The latest wave of business scandals on the other hand has shone a bright spot-light on the bankruptcy of the GOPs embrace of market fundamentalism. It's not that economic conservatives are wrong to warn against over-regulation, excessive taxation, and irresponsible social spending. It's that they've been so successful at shaping our economic policy that we aren't anywhere near the danger point on any these issues. Take tax policy for example - the GOP has swam so far into supply-side fantasies that fiscal conservatism has become a Democratic position. 2002 will very likely be the year that it sinks in that the Dems are the party of economic pragmatism.
There is also increasing evidence that the GOP's standard safety-valve - unleashing the culture warriors - has reached a point of diminishing returns. It not as if there is a latent well of support for culture war - its just not the one the GOP has fought in recent years. The fundamentalist take on 9/11, with gays & feminists painted as villains, went over like a lead balloon. The GOP's best option is to return to the Cold War handbook of painting the Dems as soft on defense. This is a very winnable battle for the Dems, who might even convince voters that the GOP is trying for homeland security on the cheap. If the Dems can keep the GOP from wrapping itself in the flag, W.'s popularity will be irrelevant. The critical swing voters will make up their mind on pocketbook issues. And they will not be endorsing market fundamentalism.
As of right now, 2002 is ripe for a major Dem victory. The fundamental reason is that the Republicans are locked into a loser of a domestic agenda. The disconnect between the GOP's unpopular agenda and its majority status has been obscured by W.'s brilliant faux-triangulation during the 2000 election and 9/11. The latest wave of business scandals on the other hand has shone a bright spot-light on the bankruptcy of the GOPs embrace of market fundamentalism. It's not that economic conservatives are wrong to warn against over-regulation, excessive taxation, and irresponsible social spending. It's that they've been so successful at shaping our economic policy that we aren't anywhere near the danger point on any these issues. Take tax policy for example - the GOP has swam so far into supply-side fantasies that fiscal conservatism has become a Democratic position. 2002 will very likely be the year that it sinks in that the Dems are the party of economic pragmatism.
There is also increasing evidence that the GOP's standard safety-valve - unleashing the culture warriors - has reached a point of diminishing returns. It not as if there is a latent well of support for culture war - its just not the one the GOP has fought in recent years. The fundamentalist take on 9/11, with gays & feminists painted as villains, went over like a lead balloon. The GOP's best option is to return to the Cold War handbook of painting the Dems as soft on defense. This is a very winnable battle for the Dems, who might even convince voters that the GOP is trying for homeland security on the cheap. If the Dems can keep the GOP from wrapping itself in the flag, W.'s popularity will be irrelevant. The critical swing voters will make up their mind on pocketbook issues. And they will not be endorsing market fundamentalism.
THE GAZA STRIKE
Israel's much anticipated strike at Hamas' Gaza base happened last night, but in an unexpected form - through the air, as opposed to an incursion into Palestinian-controlled territory. The attack sucessfully took out its intended target - Salah Shehada, but the blast also killed 13 bystanders, including 9 children. It is always tragic when children are killed, even in war. Still, there can be no equating of this attack with the ones Shehada planned - which had as their aim to massacre as many civilians as possible. The stark reality facing Israel is that there is no way for it to eliminate Palestinian military targets without civilian casualties. Palestinian terrorists deliberately use civilians as human shields - viewing the death of their fellow Palestinians as simply adding to a laudable martyr tally.
Admittedly, an air strike in such a circumstance, no matter how surgical, is a rather blunt instrument. In the wake of the Jenin "massacre", it is understandle why Israel is shying away from the alternative of block-to-block urban combat. Such an approach places Israel's soldiers at great risk, and the reduction in civilian casulties is not appreciated by the international community. The reward for Israel's caution last time was an international lynch-mob ready to hang the state on a specious massacre charge (complete with falsified evidence being prepared for the UN team).
The "safe" attack on Israel is the lie that such an attack merely provokes Hamas. First, it should be perfectly clear that Hamas would be no less angry had the Israelis accomplished what they set out to do - kill only Shehada. Whatever revenge Hamas is claiming to seek stems from his death, not the unfortunate deaths of those near him. Second, Hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel. An organization with such maximalist goals can not be "provoked" into killing Israelis - that is its raison d'etre. For there to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians Hamas must be eliminated.
Still, there is not much to rejoice at in the Gaza strike. The Israeli government continues to think tactically, rather than strategically. In the long run, Hamas can not only be defeated by military strikes - it must be rendered completely irrelevant, by a government in Gaza that provides the critical social services that Hamas now uses to spread its gospel of hate and war.
Israel's much anticipated strike at Hamas' Gaza base happened last night, but in an unexpected form - through the air, as opposed to an incursion into Palestinian-controlled territory. The attack sucessfully took out its intended target - Salah Shehada, but the blast also killed 13 bystanders, including 9 children. It is always tragic when children are killed, even in war. Still, there can be no equating of this attack with the ones Shehada planned - which had as their aim to massacre as many civilians as possible. The stark reality facing Israel is that there is no way for it to eliminate Palestinian military targets without civilian casualties. Palestinian terrorists deliberately use civilians as human shields - viewing the death of their fellow Palestinians as simply adding to a laudable martyr tally.
Admittedly, an air strike in such a circumstance, no matter how surgical, is a rather blunt instrument. In the wake of the Jenin "massacre", it is understandle why Israel is shying away from the alternative of block-to-block urban combat. Such an approach places Israel's soldiers at great risk, and the reduction in civilian casulties is not appreciated by the international community. The reward for Israel's caution last time was an international lynch-mob ready to hang the state on a specious massacre charge (complete with falsified evidence being prepared for the UN team).
The "safe" attack on Israel is the lie that such an attack merely provokes Hamas. First, it should be perfectly clear that Hamas would be no less angry had the Israelis accomplished what they set out to do - kill only Shehada. Whatever revenge Hamas is claiming to seek stems from his death, not the unfortunate deaths of those near him. Second, Hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel. An organization with such maximalist goals can not be "provoked" into killing Israelis - that is its raison d'etre. For there to be any hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians Hamas must be eliminated.
Still, there is not much to rejoice at in the Gaza strike. The Israeli government continues to think tactically, rather than strategically. In the long run, Hamas can not only be defeated by military strikes - it must be rendered completely irrelevant, by a government in Gaza that provides the critical social services that Hamas now uses to spread its gospel of hate and war.
July 19, 2002
THE PEJORATIVE "NAZI"
There is no greater sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy in discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict than to label Israeli actions "Nazi." It is intellectually bankrupt in that there is no comparison between the Israeli treatement of Arabs, and the Nazi treatment of Jews.
First, one needs to be clear about what the pejorative "Nazi" entails. The War against the Jews had three phases. For the most part those that throw out the term "Nazi" are referring to the first phase of racial discrimination. And while the Nuremberg laws were unprecedented in their drastic reversal of a minority groups integration into society (which for German Jews was almost complete in the 1920s), and extraordinary in their technical meticulousness - it is not a stretch to say such acts are comparable with other forms of legally codified racial discrimination, such as the Jim Crow Regime or Apartheid. Nazism however, trancended the evil represented by those systems. In the second phase of their war against the Jews, the Nazis forcibly removed Jews from their homes and cordoned them off into ghettos and concentration camps. This extreme level of brutality, is comparable to only the worst instances of ethnic cleansing throughout history, and puts even the worst of forced population transfers to shame. But what sets the Nazis apart, what transforms them into the avatars of evil in human history is the third phase - the Final Solution. I implore anyone who casually throws the term "Nazi" out to watch the excellent HBO movie "Conspiracy", which is based on the real transcript of the infamous Wanasee Conference. The plan to annihilate the Jews of Europe was effectively formulated over a two-hour lunch meeting. The various options for genocide were discussed in the same manner as a corporation weighing over where to locate a new plant. The evil, the cold, calculating, scientific evil behind such an event can not easily be transferred onto other human crimes. In the end, the term "Nazi" is inextricably linked to systematic genocide. This is a charge that should not lightly be cast even upon the most despicable of regimes.
The use of the term "Nazi" to describe Israeli actions is morally bankrupt in that its sole purpose is to 1) wipe the world's collective guilt over the Holocaust clean, and 2) place Jews once more outside the bounds of humanity. Nazis, by breaking every rule that humanity has ever set out, can no longer take refuge in the humanity of others. Similarly, when anti-Semites charge Israelis with being "Nazis", what they in effect are saying is that there is no moral cost to the killing of Jews. This principle, unlike anything Israel stands for, is quite commensurate with Nazi ideology.
From an objective perspective, Israel's treatment of its non-Jewish majority is laudable. Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset and have full voting right. The government provides social services to all of its citizens. All of this in the context of non-stop war perpetuated by Israel's Arab neighbors. Still, from a Jewish perspective, good is not good enough. The services provided to the non-Jewish sector are seperate and most decidely not equal. This, however, does not justify progressive Jews aping of the langauge of anti-Semites. It is one thing to be disassified with any injustice brought about by a Jewish state. It is totally another to equate the uglier aspects of Jewish nationalism, militarism and triumphalism with ultimate evil. There could never be and there will never be an Israeli Wanasee Conference. As symbolized by the diminishing of our wine glasses in memory of the Ten Plagues during the Seder, for Jews, the lives of even our enemies is precious. One only need look at the consistent growing Palestinian population to recognize that the charge of genocide against Israel is the foulest and most sinister of lies. The Jewish people, as always, seek to be left in peace. And as always, they remain targets for the world's most evil of regimes.
There is no greater sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy in discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict than to label Israeli actions "Nazi." It is intellectually bankrupt in that there is no comparison between the Israeli treatement of Arabs, and the Nazi treatment of Jews.
First, one needs to be clear about what the pejorative "Nazi" entails. The War against the Jews had three phases. For the most part those that throw out the term "Nazi" are referring to the first phase of racial discrimination. And while the Nuremberg laws were unprecedented in their drastic reversal of a minority groups integration into society (which for German Jews was almost complete in the 1920s), and extraordinary in their technical meticulousness - it is not a stretch to say such acts are comparable with other forms of legally codified racial discrimination, such as the Jim Crow Regime or Apartheid. Nazism however, trancended the evil represented by those systems. In the second phase of their war against the Jews, the Nazis forcibly removed Jews from their homes and cordoned them off into ghettos and concentration camps. This extreme level of brutality, is comparable to only the worst instances of ethnic cleansing throughout history, and puts even the worst of forced population transfers to shame. But what sets the Nazis apart, what transforms them into the avatars of evil in human history is the third phase - the Final Solution. I implore anyone who casually throws the term "Nazi" out to watch the excellent HBO movie "Conspiracy", which is based on the real transcript of the infamous Wanasee Conference. The plan to annihilate the Jews of Europe was effectively formulated over a two-hour lunch meeting. The various options for genocide were discussed in the same manner as a corporation weighing over where to locate a new plant. The evil, the cold, calculating, scientific evil behind such an event can not easily be transferred onto other human crimes. In the end, the term "Nazi" is inextricably linked to systematic genocide. This is a charge that should not lightly be cast even upon the most despicable of regimes.
The use of the term "Nazi" to describe Israeli actions is morally bankrupt in that its sole purpose is to 1) wipe the world's collective guilt over the Holocaust clean, and 2) place Jews once more outside the bounds of humanity. Nazis, by breaking every rule that humanity has ever set out, can no longer take refuge in the humanity of others. Similarly, when anti-Semites charge Israelis with being "Nazis", what they in effect are saying is that there is no moral cost to the killing of Jews. This principle, unlike anything Israel stands for, is quite commensurate with Nazi ideology.
From an objective perspective, Israel's treatment of its non-Jewish majority is laudable. Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset and have full voting right. The government provides social services to all of its citizens. All of this in the context of non-stop war perpetuated by Israel's Arab neighbors. Still, from a Jewish perspective, good is not good enough. The services provided to the non-Jewish sector are seperate and most decidely not equal. This, however, does not justify progressive Jews aping of the langauge of anti-Semites. It is one thing to be disassified with any injustice brought about by a Jewish state. It is totally another to equate the uglier aspects of Jewish nationalism, militarism and triumphalism with ultimate evil. There could never be and there will never be an Israeli Wanasee Conference. As symbolized by the diminishing of our wine glasses in memory of the Ten Plagues during the Seder, for Jews, the lives of even our enemies is precious. One only need look at the consistent growing Palestinian population to recognize that the charge of genocide against Israel is the foulest and most sinister of lies. The Jewish people, as always, seek to be left in peace. And as always, they remain targets for the world's most evil of regimes.
IRANIAN FREEDOM IS COMING - ARAB FREEDOM STILL A DREAM
Despite the continued repression of the mullahs, liberty continues to stir in Iran. Blogger Glenn Frazier has created this excellent site that updates the current struggle of the Iranian people to free themselves from theocracy. Unfortunately, none of this democratic ferment has seemed to rub off on Iran's Sunni, Arab neighbors. Which is why I'm hoping somewhere deep in the bowels of the White House, someone is preparing a long-term democratization program for a post-Saddam Iraq.
Despite the continued repression of the mullahs, liberty continues to stir in Iran. Blogger Glenn Frazier has created this excellent site that updates the current struggle of the Iranian people to free themselves from theocracy. Unfortunately, none of this democratic ferment has seemed to rub off on Iran's Sunni, Arab neighbors. Which is why I'm hoping somewhere deep in the bowels of the White House, someone is preparing a long-term democratization program for a post-Saddam Iraq.
July 18, 2002
WHAT NOT TO MEMORIALIZE AT GROUND ZERO
The Times' architectural critic Herbert Muschamp criticized the plans for failing to provide "any sign of recognition that ground zero has become a tragic symbol of the troubled relationship between the United States and the rest of the world."
It's hard to imagine a statement that could misunderstand the legacy of 9/11 more. To the extent that the United States has a "troubled relationship" with the rest of the world - it that part of the world that lives in tyranny and darkness. 9/11 does not impose upon us a duty of self-flaggelation and repetence - it impose on us a duty of solidarity and resolve. We must export our culture of freedom, tolerance and love of life to the rest of the world, or it will export its culutre of death and intolerance to our shores.
Whatever is rebuild upon the WTC site needs to celebrate the memories of those whose lives were brutally cut short by the terror attacks. But we need to honor the lives, not the deaths of those we lost that day. The Times and others are carping about the Port Authorities efforts to restore the site as a major commerical center in Lower Manhattan. In there defeatist elitism, they prefer the site be kept as a well-tended, mournful graveyard. This thinking forgets where we are - New York is not Jerusalem. Commerce is not sacreligous here - it the city's religion. There is no better way to signify this city's resiliance and this nation's defiance than to rebuild the site as a vibrant commerical center. Let our enemies celebrate death. We shall celebrate life.
The Times' architectural critic Herbert Muschamp criticized the plans for failing to provide "any sign of recognition that ground zero has become a tragic symbol of the troubled relationship between the United States and the rest of the world."
It's hard to imagine a statement that could misunderstand the legacy of 9/11 more. To the extent that the United States has a "troubled relationship" with the rest of the world - it that part of the world that lives in tyranny and darkness. 9/11 does not impose upon us a duty of self-flaggelation and repetence - it impose on us a duty of solidarity and resolve. We must export our culture of freedom, tolerance and love of life to the rest of the world, or it will export its culutre of death and intolerance to our shores.
Whatever is rebuild upon the WTC site needs to celebrate the memories of those whose lives were brutally cut short by the terror attacks. But we need to honor the lives, not the deaths of those we lost that day. The Times and others are carping about the Port Authorities efforts to restore the site as a major commerical center in Lower Manhattan. In there defeatist elitism, they prefer the site be kept as a well-tended, mournful graveyard. This thinking forgets where we are - New York is not Jerusalem. Commerce is not sacreligous here - it the city's religion. There is no better way to signify this city's resiliance and this nation's defiance than to rebuild the site as a vibrant commerical center. Let our enemies celebrate death. We shall celebrate life.
July 17, 2002
PALESTINIAN MURDER IN THE SLUMS OF TEL AVIV
For better or worse, Tel Aviv symbolizes the "normal" Israel. Jerusalem feels timeless, intoxicating - you can feel the sprititual density of the place. Tel Aviv, on the other hand feels like Miami - but substituting Sabra stunners for lovely Latinas. Of course, like any other "normal" city - Tel Aviv has its seemy side. It is not only Israel's leading center of finance, art and culture - it is also Israel's leading center of prostitution, drug use and exploitation of illegal immigrants. In the years since the Palestinians exchanged
working in Israel for working to destroy Israel, Tel Aviv has become flooded with foreign workers from all over the world - Thailand, Nigeria, Romania. The center of these immigrant communities is in the poor southern part of Tel Aviv. For too long, Israeli policy has neglected the needs of these new communities, and a confused immigration law has left many in limbo. The hard truth is that even at its worst, the slums of Tel Aviv are better than the hopelessness that these people left behind in their home countries.
It was this neighborhood that was rocked by Palestinian suicide bombers today. So much for the unity of the "oppressed", and people of color. No, for much of the Palestinian movement, the world is now divided in two - those who shun (or better kill) Jews, and anyone who treats Jews as human beings - making them fair targets. The massacre of Israeli Arabs who dared to break bread with Jews in Haifa demonstrated as much, and this massacre confirms it.
Tommorrow's spin by the liberal punditocracy will be predictable - this attack proves the futility of Israel's military tactics - no amount of force can eliminate Palestinian terror - Israel should withdraw from Palestinian towns, yada yada yada. What the liberal punditocracy fails to see (and what triumphalist hawks feed into with premature crowing) is that there is nothing Israel can do to eliminate Palestinian terror. The harsh reality is that if Israel was not currently in the territories, today's attack would have been only one of many in a constant barrage of Palestinian terror. One bombing a month is tragic - but its much better than two a week. The fence that is going up at a snail's pace, will help.
Is there anything else Israel can do in the meantime to stem these attacks? The best way may be to begin a process of retaliating to terror attacks by annexing settlements - beginning with those closest to the border and most likely to be incorporated into Israel anyway. It's pretty clear that while the Palestinians care little about life, they care much about land. It seems quite fair then that every ounce of blood they spill should cost them - in a steadily shrinking state that mirrors their steadily shrinking moral stature.
For better or worse, Tel Aviv symbolizes the "normal" Israel. Jerusalem feels timeless, intoxicating - you can feel the sprititual density of the place. Tel Aviv, on the other hand feels like Miami - but substituting Sabra stunners for lovely Latinas. Of course, like any other "normal" city - Tel Aviv has its seemy side. It is not only Israel's leading center of finance, art and culture - it is also Israel's leading center of prostitution, drug use and exploitation of illegal immigrants. In the years since the Palestinians exchanged
working in Israel for working to destroy Israel, Tel Aviv has become flooded with foreign workers from all over the world - Thailand, Nigeria, Romania. The center of these immigrant communities is in the poor southern part of Tel Aviv. For too long, Israeli policy has neglected the needs of these new communities, and a confused immigration law has left many in limbo. The hard truth is that even at its worst, the slums of Tel Aviv are better than the hopelessness that these people left behind in their home countries.
It was this neighborhood that was rocked by Palestinian suicide bombers today. So much for the unity of the "oppressed", and people of color. No, for much of the Palestinian movement, the world is now divided in two - those who shun (or better kill) Jews, and anyone who treats Jews as human beings - making them fair targets. The massacre of Israeli Arabs who dared to break bread with Jews in Haifa demonstrated as much, and this massacre confirms it.
Tommorrow's spin by the liberal punditocracy will be predictable - this attack proves the futility of Israel's military tactics - no amount of force can eliminate Palestinian terror - Israel should withdraw from Palestinian towns, yada yada yada. What the liberal punditocracy fails to see (and what triumphalist hawks feed into with premature crowing) is that there is nothing Israel can do to eliminate Palestinian terror. The harsh reality is that if Israel was not currently in the territories, today's attack would have been only one of many in a constant barrage of Palestinian terror. One bombing a month is tragic - but its much better than two a week. The fence that is going up at a snail's pace, will help.
Is there anything else Israel can do in the meantime to stem these attacks? The best way may be to begin a process of retaliating to terror attacks by annexing settlements - beginning with those closest to the border and most likely to be incorporated into Israel anyway. It's pretty clear that while the Palestinians care little about life, they care much about land. It seems quite fair then that every ounce of blood they spill should cost them - in a steadily shrinking state that mirrors their steadily shrinking moral stature.
July 16, 2002
WTC REPLACEMENT PLANS: TAKE BACK THE SKYLINE!
After months of anticipation, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation released its six proposed schemes for rebuilding the World Trade Center site. At first glance, the plans stretch from somewhat unimaginative to extremely unimaginative. The problem is that while the LMDC plans adequately address the memorial and commercial needs of the site, they do nothing to repair the hole in the national and metropolitan psyche that was ripped by the collapse of the twin towers. The current proposals all "fill" the location, but none of them proposes anything that soars, that dominates Lower Manhattan like the Twin Towers did. As a New Yorker, as an American - I want my skyline back. Not an exact copy of the WTC, but something that at least reflects the confidence and the boundless aspiration of the Twins. The WTC site project needs to be reflective in memory of the tragedy that occurred there, and it needs to be practical, to keep the economy of lower Manhattan vibrant. But it also needs to be defiant - to demonstrate to the enemies of this country that our national will remains firm and we will face the challenge of their culture of death with a quintessentially American celebration of life.
On Second Thought
After looking at the plans at the more detailed sight of the LMDC, I'm willing to get behind the Memorial Promenade as a good start.
After months of anticipation, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation released its six proposed schemes for rebuilding the World Trade Center site. At first glance, the plans stretch from somewhat unimaginative to extremely unimaginative. The problem is that while the LMDC plans adequately address the memorial and commercial needs of the site, they do nothing to repair the hole in the national and metropolitan psyche that was ripped by the collapse of the twin towers. The current proposals all "fill" the location, but none of them proposes anything that soars, that dominates Lower Manhattan like the Twin Towers did. As a New Yorker, as an American - I want my skyline back. Not an exact copy of the WTC, but something that at least reflects the confidence and the boundless aspiration of the Twins. The WTC site project needs to be reflective in memory of the tragedy that occurred there, and it needs to be practical, to keep the economy of lower Manhattan vibrant. But it also needs to be defiant - to demonstrate to the enemies of this country that our national will remains firm and we will face the challenge of their culture of death with a quintessentially American celebration of life.
On Second Thought
After looking at the plans at the more detailed sight of the LMDC, I'm willing to get behind the Memorial Promenade as a good start.
EMMANUEL: IS IT IN OR IS IT OUT?
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" are at it again. While it may be an impressive act of skill to torch a civilian bus with a military convoy - think about the morality of this action for a second. Faced with a myriad of Israeli military targets (which the West Bank does not lack for these days), Palestinian terrorists went out of their way to inflict as much damage as possible on a harder-to-reach civilian target. Needless to say, there have been few, if any resistance movements more morally bankrupt resistance movement than that of the Palestinians.
The relevant question that this attack brings up for Israel is not another round of "there is no military solution" jabbering, but a painful decision about which settlements are worth integrating into the rest of the country, and which settlements cost far more to defend that they are worth. There are some easy decisions here - Gush Etzion is a no brainer for annexation, Netzarim will sooner or later, be evacuated. Emmanuel, however, is currently in an unclear middle ground. Is it to become the eastern-most point in a thickened Israeli center, or is it be considered part of Greater Nablus, and abandoned. Either way, Israel needs to decide this now - while they are keeping the territories in check and building the security fence. If they choose wisely, Israel will be able to have a much cleaner withdrawal and a much greater chance for a peaceful partition with a responsible Arab peace partner.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" are at it again. While it may be an impressive act of skill to torch a civilian bus with a military convoy - think about the morality of this action for a second. Faced with a myriad of Israeli military targets (which the West Bank does not lack for these days), Palestinian terrorists went out of their way to inflict as much damage as possible on a harder-to-reach civilian target. Needless to say, there have been few, if any resistance movements more morally bankrupt resistance movement than that of the Palestinians.
The relevant question that this attack brings up for Israel is not another round of "there is no military solution" jabbering, but a painful decision about which settlements are worth integrating into the rest of the country, and which settlements cost far more to defend that they are worth. There are some easy decisions here - Gush Etzion is a no brainer for annexation, Netzarim will sooner or later, be evacuated. Emmanuel, however, is currently in an unclear middle ground. Is it to become the eastern-most point in a thickened Israeli center, or is it be considered part of Greater Nablus, and abandoned. Either way, Israel needs to decide this now - while they are keeping the territories in check and building the security fence. If they choose wisely, Israel will be able to have a much cleaner withdrawal and a much greater chance for a peaceful partition with a responsible Arab peace partner.
July 15, 2002
LIEBERMAN BASHERS - EMBRACING THEIR INNER NADERITE
Jeff Hauser, acting upon the self-destructive instincts that plague the Dems, continues his ad hominem attacks on Joe Lieberman (D-CT). The latest round of Lieber-bashing is based on Lieberman's foolish support for loosening accounting regulation. In retrospect, this decision, coming out of the "New Democrat" handbook of taking pro-business positions was a major mistake and demonstrates that in the current climate there is no where left for Dems to triangulate on regulatory issues. Hauser, however, has a visceral dislike of Lieberman that simply can not be explained by his policy positions. It is Lieberman's public religiosity and his willingness to seek common ground with cultural conservatives on issues such as media violence and church-state relations. The record, however, shows that Lieberman (unlike other nominal Dems such as Breaux & Miller) has been rock solid on core Democratic issues.
(Note: Interest-group ratings range from 0 (never vote the groups' position) to 100 (always vote the groups' position)).
Economic Issues: For all of Hauser's accusations that Lieberman is a pro-business sell-out, his ratings from the business lobbying groups is quite low. He scores range from 8 to 11 for the Business-Industry PAC. He scores higher for the Chamber of Commerce (43-60), but is still quite moderate. Organized labor, on the other hand was much happier with Lieberman's voting record, giving him scores ranging from 80 to 93. On the critical issue of taxation, Lieberman refuses to pander to the fundamentalist tax-cutters, who gives him scores below 10.
Social Issues: NETWORK, the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby gave Lieberman scores ranging from 78 to 82. In the past term, Lieberman's voting record has received a 100 from the Children's Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters. The NRA gives Lieberman an F for his solid support of gun control.
Cultural Issues: It is in this area, that Lieberman is considered to be the most conservative. However, on the two critical issues of abortion and gay rights, he stakes out distinctly liberal stances. He receives a 100 from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and 100 from the Human Rights Campaign. The Christian Coalition gives him scores from 9 to 15, and the Family Research Council presents him with a big 0. So where does Lieberman's cultural conservative reputation come from? From his breaks with the ACLU , who give him scores from 25-57 over the past number of years.
Joe Lieberman, far from being drummed out of the Democratic party, should be embraced as one its most visionary leaders. Lieberman combines a non-dogmatic liberalism on economic and social issues, with a sensible centrism on cultural issues (for real family values, as opposed to anti-gay and anti-feminist positions that masquerade as "family values"), and a much-needed idealistic hawkish position on foreign affairs. Liberals that demonize Lieberman, might as well go all the way to Naderism - ensuring the continued irrelevance of liberalism in American politics.
Jeff Hauser, acting upon the self-destructive instincts that plague the Dems, continues his ad hominem attacks on Joe Lieberman (D-CT). The latest round of Lieber-bashing is based on Lieberman's foolish support for loosening accounting regulation. In retrospect, this decision, coming out of the "New Democrat" handbook of taking pro-business positions was a major mistake and demonstrates that in the current climate there is no where left for Dems to triangulate on regulatory issues. Hauser, however, has a visceral dislike of Lieberman that simply can not be explained by his policy positions. It is Lieberman's public religiosity and his willingness to seek common ground with cultural conservatives on issues such as media violence and church-state relations. The record, however, shows that Lieberman (unlike other nominal Dems such as Breaux & Miller) has been rock solid on core Democratic issues.
(Note: Interest-group ratings range from 0 (never vote the groups' position) to 100 (always vote the groups' position)).
Economic Issues: For all of Hauser's accusations that Lieberman is a pro-business sell-out, his ratings from the business lobbying groups is quite low. He scores range from 8 to 11 for the Business-Industry PAC. He scores higher for the Chamber of Commerce (43-60), but is still quite moderate. Organized labor, on the other hand was much happier with Lieberman's voting record, giving him scores ranging from 80 to 93. On the critical issue of taxation, Lieberman refuses to pander to the fundamentalist tax-cutters, who gives him scores below 10.
Social Issues: NETWORK, the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby gave Lieberman scores ranging from 78 to 82. In the past term, Lieberman's voting record has received a 100 from the Children's Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters. The NRA gives Lieberman an F for his solid support of gun control.
Cultural Issues: It is in this area, that Lieberman is considered to be the most conservative. However, on the two critical issues of abortion and gay rights, he stakes out distinctly liberal stances. He receives a 100 from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and 100 from the Human Rights Campaign. The Christian Coalition gives him scores from 9 to 15, and the Family Research Council presents him with a big 0. So where does Lieberman's cultural conservative reputation come from? From his breaks with the ACLU , who give him scores from 25-57 over the past number of years.
Joe Lieberman, far from being drummed out of the Democratic party, should be embraced as one its most visionary leaders. Lieberman combines a non-dogmatic liberalism on economic and social issues, with a sensible centrism on cultural issues (for real family values, as opposed to anti-gay and anti-feminist positions that masquerade as "family values"), and a much-needed idealistic hawkish position on foreign affairs. Liberals that demonize Lieberman, might as well go all the way to Naderism - ensuring the continued irrelevance of liberalism in American politics.
July 12, 2002
THE NATIONAL REVIEW IS MAKING SENSE - FOR NOT BASHING ISLAM
John Derbyshire submits an excellent piece on how Islam itself is not the problem, but how how the Islamic texts are being used by the Wahhabis and others who seek Jihad against the West and Jews.
If you actually study the development of Islamic law, you can find a myriad of promising routes that the Islamists have walled off in their efforts to shape Islam into tool for exploiting social instability and Western dominance. These paths are there for humanistic, pluralistic Muslims to embrace - when the fever of Islamism breaks. It is critical that non-Muslims not play into their assigned roles in the Islamist passion play - and instead embrace those Muslims who do not read war and hatred as the main lesson of their sacred texts.
John Derbyshire submits an excellent piece on how Islam itself is not the problem, but how how the Islamic texts are being used by the Wahhabis and others who seek Jihad against the West and Jews.
All I am saying is that I don't see that the backwardness, cruelty, ignorance and intolerance of the Arab world, or Pakistan, or Iran, follow necessarily from Islam.
I don't feel sure, in fact, that the teachings of a religion have any necessary consequence for the destinies of believer communities. Steve Sailer has remarked that if a Martian's entire knowledge of the world came from reading the Bible, he would be bound to deduce, after hearing the thundering, angry voice of the Old Testament Jehovah, and reading of the conquests of Joshua, Gideon and David, followed by the gentle words of Christ and St. Paul, that those warlike, fighting Jews must have been kicking around the meek, cheek-turning Christians for the last 2,000 years. This is not... exactly what has been happening.
Texts are never as important as the attitudes people bring to them. It is a commonplace of political science — I think Aristotle noticed it — that a state may have a very democratic constitution, and yet be a tyranny, or vice versa.
If you actually study the development of Islamic law, you can find a myriad of promising routes that the Islamists have walled off in their efforts to shape Islam into tool for exploiting social instability and Western dominance. These paths are there for humanistic, pluralistic Muslims to embrace - when the fever of Islamism breaks. It is critical that non-Muslims not play into their assigned roles in the Islamist passion play - and instead embrace those Muslims who do not read war and hatred as the main lesson of their sacred texts.
ARE YOU READY FOR AMERICA'S FIRST FACIST BIMONTHLY?
Pat Buchanan and friends are starting up their own magazine, the American Conservative, in an effort to rescue American conservatism from its takeover by the neo-cons. Nathan Newman suggests that the magazine will serve as a forum to highlight a growing split on the Right over the Bush Administration's expansive approach to the war on terror. If so, expect the Buchaninites to receive a sound drubbing from an interventionist coalition of neocons, the Christian Right (who have alienated Pat & Co. by rallying behind philosemitic as opposed to anti-semitic positions), and most of the Big Business wing of the GOP. No, if Pat is look-ing for fellow travelers, he should probably look to the Far Left. They very much agree with him that the Jews and their state are the source of the world's problems, and a Zionist con-spiracy drives American efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East. After all, David Duke is quite a popular columnist in Saudi Arabia.
Pat Buchanan and friends are starting up their own magazine, the American Conservative, in an effort to rescue American conservatism from its takeover by the neo-cons. Nathan Newman suggests that the magazine will serve as a forum to highlight a growing split on the Right over the Bush Administration's expansive approach to the war on terror. If so, expect the Buchaninites to receive a sound drubbing from an interventionist coalition of neocons, the Christian Right (who have alienated Pat & Co. by rallying behind philosemitic as opposed to anti-semitic positions), and most of the Big Business wing of the GOP. No, if Pat is look-ing for fellow travelers, he should probably look to the Far Left. They very much agree with him that the Jews and their state are the source of the world's problems, and a Zionist con-spiracy drives American efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East. After all, David Duke is quite a popular columnist in Saudi Arabia.
July 11, 2002
WHAT THE LEFT SHOULD BE RALLYING FOR
Dan Savage has an excellent column about why progressives should abandon their insipid pro-tyrant pacifism in favor of supporting policies that will actually improve the lives of the people they claim to be defending.
The way the Bush Administration has handled the reconstruction of Afghanistan so far does not inspire confidence. Unless we couple our military actions with some far-sighted policy, our victories may turn out to be pyrhic and short-lived. I'm ready to rally for a democratic Iraq - who's with me?
Dan Savage has an excellent column about why progressives should abandon their insipid pro-tyrant pacifism in favor of supporting policies that will actually improve the lives of the people they claim to be defending.
So the left needs to put down the PAP symbols and put away the "No War" posters. We're at war, ya dopes. Simply stopping the war now--rather than holding the United States to the standards we set after the last world war--would harm the very people the left professes to care about. Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan now; Iraq's going to need one soon. U.S. smart bombs and troops, the left should argue, have to be followed by smart money and medicine and a constitution and an American commitment to long-haul nation building. We have to do for Afghanistan and Iraq what we did for Germany and Japan; anything less is immoral and indefensible. That's the argument the left should be advancing.
The way the Bush Administration has handled the reconstruction of Afghanistan so far does not inspire confidence. Unless we couple our military actions with some far-sighted policy, our victories may turn out to be pyrhic and short-lived. I'm ready to rally for a democratic Iraq - who's with me?
July 10, 2002
SORRY, SARI
The liberal punditocracy, desperate for Israeli action they can equate with suicide bombings have jumped all over the recent closure of the Jerusalem offices of Sari Nusseibeh, the PA's appointed head of Jerusalem Affairs. Josh Marshall, while overplaying the issue at least describes it as a foolish move. Eric Alterman of course reads the action as part of a Sharon/Bush plan for perpetual war. Its not as if they arrested Nusseibeh, they merely closed an office that the PA shouldn't have tried to open in the first place. Its one thing to say that Israel should look the other way about what the PA is doing in Jerusalem when it is cooperative on other fronts, but completely another to argue for this when PA is still at de facto war with Israel.
Yes, the prospects for peace would increase dramatically if Sari Nusseibeh's positions magically became the Palestinain political consensus. Yes, the Likud has an inflexible, unrealistic position on Jerusalem - a city that is already in effect divided. But lets get real - this is much ado about nothing. There is no viable peace partner or process at the moment. The removal of isolated settlements is far more important than any posturing that Sharon, Olmert and Landau do on Jerusalem. Sorry, Sari - I wish you well in convincing your people to abandon their political madness. If you do, I'd gladly welcome you into new digs on Sal-a-din Street. In meantime however, I'd advise you to check out real estate in Abu Dis.
The liberal punditocracy, desperate for Israeli action they can equate with suicide bombings have jumped all over the recent closure of the Jerusalem offices of Sari Nusseibeh, the PA's appointed head of Jerusalem Affairs. Josh Marshall, while overplaying the issue at least describes it as a foolish move. Eric Alterman of course reads the action as part of a Sharon/Bush plan for perpetual war. Its not as if they arrested Nusseibeh, they merely closed an office that the PA shouldn't have tried to open in the first place. Its one thing to say that Israel should look the other way about what the PA is doing in Jerusalem when it is cooperative on other fronts, but completely another to argue for this when PA is still at de facto war with Israel.
Yes, the prospects for peace would increase dramatically if Sari Nusseibeh's positions magically became the Palestinain political consensus. Yes, the Likud has an inflexible, unrealistic position on Jerusalem - a city that is already in effect divided. But lets get real - this is much ado about nothing. There is no viable peace partner or process at the moment. The removal of isolated settlements is far more important than any posturing that Sharon, Olmert and Landau do on Jerusalem. Sorry, Sari - I wish you well in convincing your people to abandon their political madness. If you do, I'd gladly welcome you into new digs on Sal-a-din Street. In meantime however, I'd advise you to check out real estate in Abu Dis.
ISRAELI DEMOCRACY STILL WORKS
The Jerusalem Post reports that the firestorm of criticism over the bill designed to circumvent the Katzir decision has led Prime Minister Sharon to table the bill, and look to modify the language to make it more acceptable to Israeli Arabs.
The Jerusalem Post reports that the firestorm of criticism over the bill designed to circumvent the Katzir decision has led Prime Minister Sharon to table the bill, and look to modify the language to make it more acceptable to Israeli Arabs.
DEPRESSING SPORTS UPDATE
Major League Baseball is once more demonstrating a death wish. After alienating fans with the 1994 strike, baseball was able to woo back the disaffected with the McGwire/Sosa home run race, the emergence of new, exciting stars like A-Rod and Ichiro, and last year's spectacular World Series. Now, it is once more heading towards a labor conflict, featuring the absurdity of millionares ballplayers on strike. In the shadow of this looming threat comes the All-Star Game farce. There's a simple solution, here, folks - alter the substitution rules. Pitchers were pulled to give others a chance to play, not because they were tired. If extra innings happens, let somebody who only threw an inning or two come back in the game. Heck, no body watches the All-Star Game to watch managers match wits with strategy - let the players play.
In worse news, it looks like Allen Iverson is about to be arrested for armed assault. You would think that after the incident in Virginia a number of summers ago, he would have realized the danger of having an illegal gun. If the allegations are true, I am truly saddened. Iverson looked like he had turned a corner and left his troubled past behind him. He looked like he was going to make it. The human dimension of this tragedy could wind up dwarfing the major blow that such an arrest will deal to the reeling 76ers.
Aren't sports supposed to a break from depressing news. Oy.
Major League Baseball is once more demonstrating a death wish. After alienating fans with the 1994 strike, baseball was able to woo back the disaffected with the McGwire/Sosa home run race, the emergence of new, exciting stars like A-Rod and Ichiro, and last year's spectacular World Series. Now, it is once more heading towards a labor conflict, featuring the absurdity of millionares ballplayers on strike. In the shadow of this looming threat comes the All-Star Game farce. There's a simple solution, here, folks - alter the substitution rules. Pitchers were pulled to give others a chance to play, not because they were tired. If extra innings happens, let somebody who only threw an inning or two come back in the game. Heck, no body watches the All-Star Game to watch managers match wits with strategy - let the players play.
In worse news, it looks like Allen Iverson is about to be arrested for armed assault. You would think that after the incident in Virginia a number of summers ago, he would have realized the danger of having an illegal gun. If the allegations are true, I am truly saddened. Iverson looked like he had turned a corner and left his troubled past behind him. He looked like he was going to make it. The human dimension of this tragedy could wind up dwarfing the major blow that such an arrest will deal to the reeling 76ers.
Aren't sports supposed to a break from depressing news. Oy.
BUSH TO CORPORATE AMERICA: PLAY NICE
Will all those who were satisfied by Bush's proposals to crack down on corporate fraud, please stand up? OK, let's have the market fundamentalists and Republican party flacks sit down. Next, let's have everyone who could care less about this issue because they like Bush's performance on the War on Terror take a seat as well (yes, Andrew Sullivan, I meant you). To everyone else who's still standing - quite frankly, I'm embarrased for you.
Will all those who were satisfied by Bush's proposals to crack down on corporate fraud, please stand up? OK, let's have the market fundamentalists and Republican party flacks sit down. Next, let's have everyone who could care less about this issue because they like Bush's performance on the War on Terror take a seat as well (yes, Andrew Sullivan, I meant you). To everyone else who's still standing - quite frankly, I'm embarrased for you.
July 09, 2002
MORE ON KATZIR
Today's Ha'aretz has some useful coverage on the issue. I endorse the articles, with reservations, especially Ha'aretz typically uncritical appraisal of the Barak Court's Dworkinan understanding of democracy.
1) On the potential constitutional conflict.
2) The Attorney General's opposition to the bill
3) How the controversial bill is an effort to reestablish the status quo ante that existed prior to the Court's 2000 opinion.
4) The betrayal felt by Arab members of the Labor party of their leadership's failure to vote against the cabinet resolution supporting the bill (they were conveniently absent at the time of the cabinet vote).
Today's Ha'aretz has some useful coverage on the issue. I endorse the articles, with reservations, especially Ha'aretz typically uncritical appraisal of the Barak Court's Dworkinan understanding of democracy.
1) On the potential constitutional conflict.
2) The Attorney General's opposition to the bill
3) How the controversial bill is an effort to reestablish the status quo ante that existed prior to the Court's 2000 opinion.
4) The betrayal felt by Arab members of the Labor party of their leadership's failure to vote against the cabinet resolution supporting the bill (they were conveniently absent at the time of the cabinet vote).
July 08, 2002
LIES, DAMNED LIES (BUT NO STATISTICS) IN THE VOUCHERS DEBATE
Anti-Voucher Lies
1) All Failing Public Schools Need is More Money
It's amazing that public school advocates keep falling back on this obvious untrue position. Any one who has ever spent any time analyzing the problems of American public school education realizes that the problems are far more systemic than simply insufficient funds. First, there is the insidious impact of the Teacher’s Union - which provides job security for ineffective teachers and creates a massive disjunct between teacher salary and performance. Second, there is the major problem of bureaucratic waste in large school districts - with money that should be spent on faculty and supplies wasted on excessive layers of administration. Finally, there is the problem of de-centralized standards, which makes it extremely hard to measure schools performance, let alone hold administers and teachers accountable for such performance.
2) Vouchers Take Money Away From Public Schools
This claim is based on the fallacious notion that the amount of money government can spend on education in this country is currently limited by economic resources. In this view, the amount of educational spending is fixed and vouchers and public schools compete in a zero sum game. In reality, the limiting factor is not economic, but political. In the long term, this may be addressed by better mobilizing the supporters of public education, but in the interim, public education funding is going to be capped by strong support among voters for the idea that increasing educational funds is simply throwing money away. Vouchers, in a paradoxical way, therefore may be a way to increase the amount of funds to public schools. Rather than taking a hard-line position, supporters of public education should be willing to accept pilot voucher programs in return for increased federal funds to existing public schools.
Pro-Voucher Lies
1) Vouchers Will Save the Children of Dysfunctional Public School Systems
Proponents of vouchers consistently overstate the potential benefits. Voucher programs merely play at the edges of the problem, allowing a small percentage of parents to benefit from increased educational choice. Vouchers will never address the needs of the vast majority of children who will remain in what are currently dysfunctional public school systems.
2) Vouchers Will Help Public School Reform More Than Increased Funding
This is another wild overstatement by the pro-voucher crowd. To begin with, market incentives are not going to work with regard to public education. The linkage of job security to patronage may make large numbers of students exiting the school system advantageous, rather than threatening. Second, try telling suburban districts that outspend their urban neighbors two to one in per-pupil spending that money doesn’t matter. Of course it does - the greater spending buys these districts higher teacher salaries (attracting better teachers), better facilities and better supplies. All of these things matter. In fact, the disparities are worse than the figures indicate. Urban schools on the average spend a higher percentage of their budget on maintaining older, out-dated facilities. In addition, urban school districts, due to the social ills of many cities, are faced with a much higher percentage of special needs children. What needs to be equalized, therefore, isn’t merely spending-per-pupil, but the amount of actual classroom expenditures-per-non-special needs pupil. This would inevitably lead to urban schools having larger budgets.
Some Voucher Truths
The Voucher debate as it currently stands is strident and unproductive. Voucher proponents offer them up as panaceas. Voucher opponents try to desperately to prevent any children from escap-ing the wreckage of failing public school systems. The misguided "leave no child behind" philosophy of public educators is taken to its logical conclusion - "permit no child ahead." Its time for a common sense compromise. Let’s admit that public education needs a lot more than vouchers for successful reform. And let’s also admit that such reform is years away, and in the interim, vouchers provide a way to give at least some children the decent education this country owes every child.
Anti-Voucher Lies
1) All Failing Public Schools Need is More Money
It's amazing that public school advocates keep falling back on this obvious untrue position. Any one who has ever spent any time analyzing the problems of American public school education realizes that the problems are far more systemic than simply insufficient funds. First, there is the insidious impact of the Teacher’s Union - which provides job security for ineffective teachers and creates a massive disjunct between teacher salary and performance. Second, there is the major problem of bureaucratic waste in large school districts - with money that should be spent on faculty and supplies wasted on excessive layers of administration. Finally, there is the problem of de-centralized standards, which makes it extremely hard to measure schools performance, let alone hold administers and teachers accountable for such performance.
2) Vouchers Take Money Away From Public Schools
This claim is based on the fallacious notion that the amount of money government can spend on education in this country is currently limited by economic resources. In this view, the amount of educational spending is fixed and vouchers and public schools compete in a zero sum game. In reality, the limiting factor is not economic, but political. In the long term, this may be addressed by better mobilizing the supporters of public education, but in the interim, public education funding is going to be capped by strong support among voters for the idea that increasing educational funds is simply throwing money away. Vouchers, in a paradoxical way, therefore may be a way to increase the amount of funds to public schools. Rather than taking a hard-line position, supporters of public education should be willing to accept pilot voucher programs in return for increased federal funds to existing public schools.
Pro-Voucher Lies
1) Vouchers Will Save the Children of Dysfunctional Public School Systems
Proponents of vouchers consistently overstate the potential benefits. Voucher programs merely play at the edges of the problem, allowing a small percentage of parents to benefit from increased educational choice. Vouchers will never address the needs of the vast majority of children who will remain in what are currently dysfunctional public school systems.
2) Vouchers Will Help Public School Reform More Than Increased Funding
This is another wild overstatement by the pro-voucher crowd. To begin with, market incentives are not going to work with regard to public education. The linkage of job security to patronage may make large numbers of students exiting the school system advantageous, rather than threatening. Second, try telling suburban districts that outspend their urban neighbors two to one in per-pupil spending that money doesn’t matter. Of course it does - the greater spending buys these districts higher teacher salaries (attracting better teachers), better facilities and better supplies. All of these things matter. In fact, the disparities are worse than the figures indicate. Urban schools on the average spend a higher percentage of their budget on maintaining older, out-dated facilities. In addition, urban school districts, due to the social ills of many cities, are faced with a much higher percentage of special needs children. What needs to be equalized, therefore, isn’t merely spending-per-pupil, but the amount of actual classroom expenditures-per-non-special needs pupil. This would inevitably lead to urban schools having larger budgets.
Some Voucher Truths
The Voucher debate as it currently stands is strident and unproductive. Voucher proponents offer them up as panaceas. Voucher opponents try to desperately to prevent any children from escap-ing the wreckage of failing public school systems. The misguided "leave no child behind" philosophy of public educators is taken to its logical conclusion - "permit no child ahead." Its time for a common sense compromise. Let’s admit that public education needs a lot more than vouchers for successful reform. And let’s also admit that such reform is years away, and in the interim, vouchers provide a way to give at least some children the decent education this country owes every child.
KATZIR IN THE KNESSET: WHY A SHAKY DECISION SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE
In a landmark decision in March 2000, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the long-standing policy of transferring state land to the Jewish Agency, whose mission from pre-state times has been to develop Jewish communities in the land of Israel was illegal discrimination. The case came about when an Israeli Arab citizen was blocked from moving into Katzir, a town built by the Jewish Agency in 1982 in an effort to establish a more favorable demographic balance in the area, which abutted the '67 border. The decision has to be considered the one of the most audacious examples of the Barak Court's activism. Implying the principle of equality into Israel's land allocation laws, the Barak Court ruled that the Israeli government could not directly or indirectly (through the Jewish Agency) discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the issue of housing. The decision was a courageous judicial declaration of minority rights in a democracy. Unfortunately, this declaration was based upon little more than the ideals of the justices. The status of non-Jewish minority has never been clearly defined under Israeli law. Israel has no equivalent to the Equal Protection Clause (nor a binding constitution, despite the claims of the Barak Court to the contrary) While non-Jews in Israel have some of the most essential democratic rights (voting, freedom of expression,etc.) most public institutions and services are separate and decidedly not equal. This, more than anything connected with the occupation of Palestinians, is the biggest stain upon Israeli democracy.
From the moment the Katzir decision came down, it was inevitable that it would be challenged in the Knesset. As Israel has no constitution, in theory any Court decision can be overturned by Knesset legislation. Thus, the National Religious Party has proposed a bill that will explicitly allow state land to be alotted solely to Jews. Proponents of the bill feel that such authority is essential to preserve Israel as a Jewish state - by establishing Jewish communities in areas of pre-67 Israel that are demographically suspect (the Gailee) or especially vulnerable (border areas).
The proposed bill is a disaster on many levels. First, it is repugnant to the principles of democracy and not essential to Israel's existence as a Jewish State (unlike for example, the Law of Return). It is one thing to limit the rights of specific Israeli Arabs that identify with Israel's enemies and seek to destroy the state - it is another to treat all non-Jews in Israel as a fifth column that needs to be suppressed. Second, it is likely to create a constitutional crisis that is for the moment avertable. The response of the Barak Court to this legislation will be to rule it unconstitutional, holding that it violates the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. That would be unproblematic if it weren't for the fact that said Basic Law wasn't even passed by a majority of the Knesset, let alone adopted through a heightened constitutional process. The precariousness of the Barak Court's assertion of judicial review has led it to tread lightly until now, striking down only low-profile legislation. A decision to strike down Knesset legislation designed to overturn Katzir will bring the issue of the Court's authority front and center. Third, if the bill is designed to minimize the threat Israeli Arabs pose to Israel's security, it is woefully misdirected policy. Segregating and degrading Israeli Arabs will only heighten their alienation from Israel and enhance their identification with the Palestinians. On the other hand, if Israeli Arabs were given equal access as individuals to the economic and educational opportunities of Israel society, they are more likely to have a stake in the survival of the state. At the present time, opposition to the bill is centered on its potential damage to Israel's image. Far more attention needs to be paid to the bill's potential damage to Israel's reality
In a landmark decision in March 2000, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the long-standing policy of transferring state land to the Jewish Agency, whose mission from pre-state times has been to develop Jewish communities in the land of Israel was illegal discrimination. The case came about when an Israeli Arab citizen was blocked from moving into Katzir, a town built by the Jewish Agency in 1982 in an effort to establish a more favorable demographic balance in the area, which abutted the '67 border. The decision has to be considered the one of the most audacious examples of the Barak Court's activism. Implying the principle of equality into Israel's land allocation laws, the Barak Court ruled that the Israeli government could not directly or indirectly (through the Jewish Agency) discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the issue of housing. The decision was a courageous judicial declaration of minority rights in a democracy. Unfortunately, this declaration was based upon little more than the ideals of the justices. The status of non-Jewish minority has never been clearly defined under Israeli law. Israel has no equivalent to the Equal Protection Clause (nor a binding constitution, despite the claims of the Barak Court to the contrary) While non-Jews in Israel have some of the most essential democratic rights (voting, freedom of expression,etc.) most public institutions and services are separate and decidedly not equal. This, more than anything connected with the occupation of Palestinians, is the biggest stain upon Israeli democracy.
From the moment the Katzir decision came down, it was inevitable that it would be challenged in the Knesset. As Israel has no constitution, in theory any Court decision can be overturned by Knesset legislation. Thus, the National Religious Party has proposed a bill that will explicitly allow state land to be alotted solely to Jews. Proponents of the bill feel that such authority is essential to preserve Israel as a Jewish state - by establishing Jewish communities in areas of pre-67 Israel that are demographically suspect (the Gailee) or especially vulnerable (border areas).
The proposed bill is a disaster on many levels. First, it is repugnant to the principles of democracy and not essential to Israel's existence as a Jewish State (unlike for example, the Law of Return). It is one thing to limit the rights of specific Israeli Arabs that identify with Israel's enemies and seek to destroy the state - it is another to treat all non-Jews in Israel as a fifth column that needs to be suppressed. Second, it is likely to create a constitutional crisis that is for the moment avertable. The response of the Barak Court to this legislation will be to rule it unconstitutional, holding that it violates the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. That would be unproblematic if it weren't for the fact that said Basic Law wasn't even passed by a majority of the Knesset, let alone adopted through a heightened constitutional process. The precariousness of the Barak Court's assertion of judicial review has led it to tread lightly until now, striking down only low-profile legislation. A decision to strike down Knesset legislation designed to overturn Katzir will bring the issue of the Court's authority front and center. Third, if the bill is designed to minimize the threat Israeli Arabs pose to Israel's security, it is woefully misdirected policy. Segregating and degrading Israeli Arabs will only heighten their alienation from Israel and enhance their identification with the Palestinians. On the other hand, if Israeli Arabs were given equal access as individuals to the economic and educational opportunities of Israel society, they are more likely to have a stake in the survival of the state. At the present time, opposition to the bill is centered on its potential damage to Israel's image. Far more attention needs to be paid to the bill's potential damage to Israel's reality
TERROR IN LAX
The FBI's response to Thursday's terror attack on the El Al ticket counter in LAX has led to some of the least credible statements uttered by public officials in the past year. An Egyptian national, armed with two guns and a knife, storms into the ticket counter of the Israeli national airline aiming to kill as many people as possible - and the FBI has the chutzpah to tell us that 1) there was no indication that it was an act of terror; and 2) the attacker's motive was unclear. There are only two possible reasons why the FBI would try to foist such nonsense on the public - either they 1) spectactularly incompetent or 2) purposely sending out confusing signals to downplay the incident. It's quite obvious that the answer is the second. First and foremost, the FBI was seeking to prevent a mass panic that might have resulted had headlines blared "Terror on the 4th." Secondly, however, the Bush Administration is playing semantics with the definition of "terror attack" to avoid the blunt reality that however small, the U.S. has suffered its first post 9/11 attack. The problem with this approach is that it will eventually chip away at the credibility of the FBI in particular and the Bush Administration in general. At this very moment there are other Hadayets, plotting to commit attacks of a far greater scale on targets in this country. The most important question for the Bush Administration to answer is, therefore - are we any closer to finding these people than we were nine months ago? And if not - why not? Semantics can only go so far to eliminate terror on American soil.
The FBI's response to Thursday's terror attack on the El Al ticket counter in LAX has led to some of the least credible statements uttered by public officials in the past year. An Egyptian national, armed with two guns and a knife, storms into the ticket counter of the Israeli national airline aiming to kill as many people as possible - and the FBI has the chutzpah to tell us that 1) there was no indication that it was an act of terror; and 2) the attacker's motive was unclear. There are only two possible reasons why the FBI would try to foist such nonsense on the public - either they 1) spectactularly incompetent or 2) purposely sending out confusing signals to downplay the incident. It's quite obvious that the answer is the second. First and foremost, the FBI was seeking to prevent a mass panic that might have resulted had headlines blared "Terror on the 4th." Secondly, however, the Bush Administration is playing semantics with the definition of "terror attack" to avoid the blunt reality that however small, the U.S. has suffered its first post 9/11 attack. The problem with this approach is that it will eventually chip away at the credibility of the FBI in particular and the Bush Administration in general. At this very moment there are other Hadayets, plotting to commit attacks of a far greater scale on targets in this country. The most important question for the Bush Administration to answer is, therefore - are we any closer to finding these people than we were nine months ago? And if not - why not? Semantics can only go so far to eliminate terror on American soil.
July 03, 2002
THOUGHTS ON INDEPENDENCE DAY
Admist all the anxiety about the next terror strike, it is important that tommorrow we remember to celebrate. We Americans are not the most self-reflective of people. The times are few and far between that we actually consider how uniquely fortunate we are to live in this country - the most powerful, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. That is not to deny the very real problems of this nation - patriotism should never be reduced to quietism - dissent and debate is very much American. Still, this nation has proven time and time again that when fully engaged, it is up to the greatest of challenges, internal and external. Those that hate America charge that it is a country of no values, hopelessly materialistic. They could not be more wrong. America, more than any other nation on earth, is a nation built on ideas. In a sense, where critics of America make their mistake is their confusion of idealism with dogmatism. Americans, more so than anyone else on earth, are resolutely pragmatic - sooner or later ideas that are not supported by reality are abandoned. Thus, our radicals and reactionaries remain consistently frustrated by the stubborn moderation at the heart of the American public. On the other hand, however, Americans are firmly committed to the ideals that underpin their nation - liberal democracy and individual rights. Any person who accepts these values can become a true American, while ideas that conflict with these values can never be truly American. The universality of American ideals is being challenged today from many sources - from the Islamists who believe in the superiority of their faith, to the relativists who believe that all values are hopelessly context-dependent, to our own culture warriors who selfishly cling to the notion that freedom, tolerance and liberty are somehow inextricably intertwined with "Western" culture. This Independence Day we should all take the time to recommit ourselves to these principles universality. To commit ourselves to bringing light to the vast numbers of the world that live in poverty and tyranny, and to strive ceaselessly to bring America closer to the ideals at its core.
Admist all the anxiety about the next terror strike, it is important that tommorrow we remember to celebrate. We Americans are not the most self-reflective of people. The times are few and far between that we actually consider how uniquely fortunate we are to live in this country - the most powerful, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. That is not to deny the very real problems of this nation - patriotism should never be reduced to quietism - dissent and debate is very much American. Still, this nation has proven time and time again that when fully engaged, it is up to the greatest of challenges, internal and external. Those that hate America charge that it is a country of no values, hopelessly materialistic. They could not be more wrong. America, more than any other nation on earth, is a nation built on ideas. In a sense, where critics of America make their mistake is their confusion of idealism with dogmatism. Americans, more so than anyone else on earth, are resolutely pragmatic - sooner or later ideas that are not supported by reality are abandoned. Thus, our radicals and reactionaries remain consistently frustrated by the stubborn moderation at the heart of the American public. On the other hand, however, Americans are firmly committed to the ideals that underpin their nation - liberal democracy and individual rights. Any person who accepts these values can become a true American, while ideas that conflict with these values can never be truly American. The universality of American ideals is being challenged today from many sources - from the Islamists who believe in the superiority of their faith, to the relativists who believe that all values are hopelessly context-dependent, to our own culture warriors who selfishly cling to the notion that freedom, tolerance and liberty are somehow inextricably intertwined with "Western" culture. This Independence Day we should all take the time to recommit ourselves to these principles universality. To commit ourselves to bringing light to the vast numbers of the world that live in poverty and tyranny, and to strive ceaselessly to bring America closer to the ideals at its core.
July 02, 2002
MODERATE MUSLIMS TWO-FRONT WAR
Yesterday's New York Times published an extremely important op-ed by UCLA law professor Kahled Abou El Fadl entitled Moderate Muslims Under Siege. In it, El Fadl describes the lonely position of moderate Muslim intellectuals in the West - on one hand battling with fundamentalists for the soul of their religion, and on the other front having to face an anti-Islamic backlash engendered by the rhetoric and acts of the fundamentalists. The article brought the following two issues to mind:
First, its become commonplace among hawks to snicker at phrases such as "Islam means peace" in response to Islamist demonstration of a very war-like Islam. But this does not mean that Islam cannot be a peaceful faith, or that all Muslims who profess to follow a peaceful Islam are frauds. It very much matters who wins the internal struggle within Islam for the soul of the religion. We need to see Islamic humanists as critical allies in this war, not foes or fools.
Second, one the major obstacles facing moderate Muslims in America El Fadl suggests is "the fanaticism of some supporters of Israel, who seem to deal with every manifestation of Islamic activism as a direct threat to Israel's existence." This however, is very much a skewed perspective of the issue. First, many of the Islamic organizations that scholars such as Daniel Pipes seek to discredit have a dubious claim to the mantel of moderation. The high profile of organizations such as CAIR is directly linked to generous funding from the very Wahabism that threatens El Fadl's Islam. Second, there is a disturbing trend among moderate Muslim intellectuals to use Israel as an issue to solidify their bona fides within the larger Islamic community. In other words, Salam al-Marayati may be in favor of a reading of the Muslim tradition that embraces modernity (his wife is a leader among Islamic feminists), but he's still going to explain away Palestinian terror, and reflexively accept any and all claims of Israeli wrongdoing. When "mainstream" American Muslims groups condemn Hamas' agenda no ifs ands or buts, and refrain from dehumanizing rhetoric when discussing Israel, only then will Jews be able to accept them as legitimate partners in dialogue.
Ultimately, I have faith in the moderate Muslims ability to craft a humanistic Islam out of the best elements of their faith. However, they must be honest with two facts: that they are currently losing the war to the fundamentalists; and that they will need special vigilance to resist the rising wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world that is attempting to pass as opposition to Israeli policy.
Yesterday's New York Times published an extremely important op-ed by UCLA law professor Kahled Abou El Fadl entitled Moderate Muslims Under Siege. In it, El Fadl describes the lonely position of moderate Muslim intellectuals in the West - on one hand battling with fundamentalists for the soul of their religion, and on the other front having to face an anti-Islamic backlash engendered by the rhetoric and acts of the fundamentalists. The article brought the following two issues to mind:
First, its become commonplace among hawks to snicker at phrases such as "Islam means peace" in response to Islamist demonstration of a very war-like Islam. But this does not mean that Islam cannot be a peaceful faith, or that all Muslims who profess to follow a peaceful Islam are frauds. It very much matters who wins the internal struggle within Islam for the soul of the religion. We need to see Islamic humanists as critical allies in this war, not foes or fools.
Second, one the major obstacles facing moderate Muslims in America El Fadl suggests is "the fanaticism of some supporters of Israel, who seem to deal with every manifestation of Islamic activism as a direct threat to Israel's existence." This however, is very much a skewed perspective of the issue. First, many of the Islamic organizations that scholars such as Daniel Pipes seek to discredit have a dubious claim to the mantel of moderation. The high profile of organizations such as CAIR is directly linked to generous funding from the very Wahabism that threatens El Fadl's Islam. Second, there is a disturbing trend among moderate Muslim intellectuals to use Israel as an issue to solidify their bona fides within the larger Islamic community. In other words, Salam al-Marayati may be in favor of a reading of the Muslim tradition that embraces modernity (his wife is a leader among Islamic feminists), but he's still going to explain away Palestinian terror, and reflexively accept any and all claims of Israeli wrongdoing. When "mainstream" American Muslims groups condemn Hamas' agenda no ifs ands or buts, and refrain from dehumanizing rhetoric when discussing Israel, only then will Jews be able to accept them as legitimate partners in dialogue.
Ultimately, I have faith in the moderate Muslims ability to craft a humanistic Islam out of the best elements of their faith. However, they must be honest with two facts: that they are currently losing the war to the fundamentalists; and that they will need special vigilance to resist the rising wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world that is attempting to pass as opposition to Israeli policy.
THE ROOT OF THE CORPORATE FRAUD EPIDEMIC
Gregg Easterbrook of TNR has an excellent piece on why the accounting fraud epidemic is inextricably linked with the recent astronomical increase in CEO salaries.
The fundamental morality underpinning capitalism is that wealth distribution was required to provide proper incentives to the more productive members of society. Thus, the problem is not that CEOs get paid outrageous sums for providing their companies with dramatic improvements in productivity. Its that they get paid these outrageous sums even if they don't. To use a sports metaphor, whose contract is more outrageous Shaq's ($21.4 million a year to be the most dominant player in the game) or Juwan Howard's ($18.8 million a year to be an average starter at his position). The accounting schemes resulted from CEO's who couldn't produce by the rules, cheating to create the illusion of production. This would be bad enough if it allowed them merely to swindle an unjustified salary. What's far worse is that they were able to steal money from average investors by cashing out on stock prices that were inflated as a direct result of their policies.
This outrage has to end. First - we need to throw as many executives who engaged in an inflate and cash out strategy in jail as possible. Second - while improved regulation would help, we need to change the rules of the game so that there is no longer such a powerful incentive for CEOs to create a disjunct between the real and apparent values of their firms. In otherwords, if CEOs are to be given stock options as incentives - the system needs to make sure that they only benefit from long-term, actual growth. (Jeff Hauser has endorsed a previous Tsongasian reform of capital gains that penalizes speculators, but reduces the amount long-term investors are taxed. The main argument against such reforms is that it impinges on the liquidity of the market. I'll defer to the more economically trained than myself to rebut such an argument).
Economic conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan are desperately trying to downplay the significance of these scandals. They fear an overreaction that will to overregulation. That argument, however is nothing more than a disingenuous cop out. If economic conservatives are really interested in a system that rewards the talented as opposed to merely the powerful, they need to step up to the plate with proposals of their own to fix the obvious flaws in the current system.
Gregg Easterbrook of TNR has an excellent piece on why the accounting fraud epidemic is inextricably linked with the recent astronomical increase in CEO salaries.
But the two controversies really aren't separate--they are one and the same. The motive for almost all the corporate deceit now being exposed was not "the pressure of quarterly profit statements," as spin has it. Yes, shareholders exert demands for positive earnings statements. But they would be irrational if they wanted to be deceived, which is what the unpersuasive "quarterly profits pressure" pretext boils down to. The motive for almost all the corporate cheating was not to issue pleasant earning statements but to run up the pay of CEOs.
Top managers of firms such as Enron, Global Crossing, and, it now appears, Xerox systematically lied about the condition of their enterprises to rationalize granting themselves huge sums diverted from equity. If this isn't common theft--lying in order to abscond with someone else's money--what is? While, we assume at this point, most CEOs haven't lied, many have exploited the lying-triggered "exuberance" to pay themselves exorbitant amounts. All the corporate lying has been devastating to shareholders, to the United States economy, and to the world standing of market economics. But, boy, has it been great for CEOs! Systematic corporate lying has created an environment in which top managers feel justified in paying themselves $100 million or more per year. And, amazingly enough, this cash-grab now continues even as business fortunes turn down.
The fundamental morality underpinning capitalism is that wealth distribution was required to provide proper incentives to the more productive members of society. Thus, the problem is not that CEOs get paid outrageous sums for providing their companies with dramatic improvements in productivity. Its that they get paid these outrageous sums even if they don't. To use a sports metaphor, whose contract is more outrageous Shaq's ($21.4 million a year to be the most dominant player in the game) or Juwan Howard's ($18.8 million a year to be an average starter at his position). The accounting schemes resulted from CEO's who couldn't produce by the rules, cheating to create the illusion of production. This would be bad enough if it allowed them merely to swindle an unjustified salary. What's far worse is that they were able to steal money from average investors by cashing out on stock prices that were inflated as a direct result of their policies.
This outrage has to end. First - we need to throw as many executives who engaged in an inflate and cash out strategy in jail as possible. Second - while improved regulation would help, we need to change the rules of the game so that there is no longer such a powerful incentive for CEOs to create a disjunct between the real and apparent values of their firms. In otherwords, if CEOs are to be given stock options as incentives - the system needs to make sure that they only benefit from long-term, actual growth. (Jeff Hauser has endorsed a previous Tsongasian reform of capital gains that penalizes speculators, but reduces the amount long-term investors are taxed. The main argument against such reforms is that it impinges on the liquidity of the market. I'll defer to the more economically trained than myself to rebut such an argument).
Economic conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan are desperately trying to downplay the significance of these scandals. They fear an overreaction that will to overregulation. That argument, however is nothing more than a disingenuous cop out. If economic conservatives are really interested in a system that rewards the talented as opposed to merely the powerful, they need to step up to the plate with proposals of their own to fix the obvious flaws in the current system.
July 01, 2002
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO ME ON VOUCHERS...
Professor Eugene Volokh has a good, short explaination as to why governmental programs that fund both religious and secular alternatives do not violate the establishment clause. I'll concede that his effort to redefine "separation" in terms of equal treatment is an unconvincing bit of semantic gamesmanship.
Professor Eugene Volokh has a good, short explaination as to why governmental programs that fund both religious and secular alternatives do not violate the establishment clause. I'll concede that his effort to redefine "separation" in terms of equal treatment is an unconvincing bit of semantic gamesmanship.