This ad by the Cato Institute provides a powerful reason to oppose the Democrats' supposed stimulus package. As the ad says, "More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today."
The package seems to be nothing more than the Democrats' wish list for many years dusted off and renamed "Stimulus Package." It rewards the usual Democratic constituencies and funds the usual Democratic programs under the cover of being a stimulus to the economy.
If these are dangerous and unusual times, wouldn't that indicate a need to conduct business a little differently rather than the same old tired Democratic answer for everything - give away more money to Democratic voters and contributors.
At a minimum, the ball seems to be in the Democrats' court. Can they gather 200 economists to put their reputation on the line to say that the Stimulus Package as now written will work?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tax rates affect behavior.
Rand Simberg makes some excellent points about tax rate changes. Democrats seem to assume that changes in tax rates do not affect behavior; any increase in tax rate automatically translates into increased tax payments to the government and, conversely, any reduction leads to reduced taxes.
Furthermore, the language of Democrats in describing any tax rate reduction captures their attitude. Such reductions constitute an "expenditure" by the government. This indicates an "implicit assumption that all wealth, regardless of who actually earned it, is the property of the state, and any amount that we have after taxes is viewed as a gift from the state."
This approach to economics carries grave dangers for the country. Private enterprise and individual initiative create wealth. Government regulation and taxation affect behavior. Why should a person risk their life savings to create a new business only to have government confiscate 90% of their increased income? High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurial activity.
High marginal tax rates also lead to inefficiencies as people invest to reduce taxes rather than increase productivity. Such tax policy also encourages unethical contributions to politically powerful to gain favored tax treatment. One of the most effective ways of reducing corruption in Washington would be to enact a simple tax code with low tax rates for all.
Furthermore, the language of Democrats in describing any tax rate reduction captures their attitude. Such reductions constitute an "expenditure" by the government. This indicates an "implicit assumption that all wealth, regardless of who actually earned it, is the property of the state, and any amount that we have after taxes is viewed as a gift from the state."
This approach to economics carries grave dangers for the country. Private enterprise and individual initiative create wealth. Government regulation and taxation affect behavior. Why should a person risk their life savings to create a new business only to have government confiscate 90% of their increased income? High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurial activity.
High marginal tax rates also lead to inefficiencies as people invest to reduce taxes rather than increase productivity. Such tax policy also encourages unethical contributions to politically powerful to gain favored tax treatment. One of the most effective ways of reducing corruption in Washington would be to enact a simple tax code with low tax rates for all.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Erdogan runs away rather than respond to Peres' question.
Little Green Footballs provides a video of Shimon Peres' passionate defense of Israel at the Davos World Economic Forum. Anyone who objects to Israel's actions in Gaza must respond to Peres' points. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey could not answer Peres' simple question, "What would Turkey do if someone were bombing Istanbul for years?" He walked off stage rather than respond.
What country would have allowed its citizens to be attacked for as long as Israel did? Would the USA allow terrorists in Mexico fire rockets into American towns? I think not. Nor should we.
The terrorists who launched rockets into Israel violated international law. Too many people examine Israel's response with a microscope in a desperate attempt to allege some violation of international law while ignoring the obvious violations by the Gazan terrorists. These people no longer have any credibility to any thinking person.
Can anyone doubt that Israel would live in peace the moment that the Muslim world accepted the existence of Israel and stopped the terrorist attacks on it?
What country would have allowed its citizens to be attacked for as long as Israel did? Would the USA allow terrorists in Mexico fire rockets into American towns? I think not. Nor should we.
The terrorists who launched rockets into Israel violated international law. Too many people examine Israel's response with a microscope in a desperate attempt to allege some violation of international law while ignoring the obvious violations by the Gazan terrorists. These people no longer have any credibility to any thinking person.
Can anyone doubt that Israel would live in peace the moment that the Muslim world accepted the existence of Israel and stopped the terrorist attacks on it?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Will the downturn lead to dangerous accumulation of power in Washington?
Joel Kotkin describes a dangerous centralizing of power in Washington that may result from the economic downturn.
Too many Americans fail to recognize the importance of divided economic and political power in protecting the rights of all Americans. They assume that the nice words of the Constitution guarantee our rights. In that analysis, the centralization of power in Washington aids in the protection of rights rather than endangering them.
The founders were correct in seeking to divide power among the branches of the national government and between the national and state governments. Perhaps even more important, capitalism's extreme division of economic power among millions of competitive business entities and individuals makes accumulation and maintenance of political power in a few hands extremely difficult.
The transfer of increased authority over American business to Washington either through regulatory authority or the promise of bailout money threatens that essential dispersion of economic power. Furthermore, accumulation of greater control over economic success in Washington increases the importance of gaining and maintaining political power in Washington. This is what has led to political instability in many countries.
Too many Americans fail to recognize the importance of divided economic and political power in protecting the rights of all Americans. They assume that the nice words of the Constitution guarantee our rights. In that analysis, the centralization of power in Washington aids in the protection of rights rather than endangering them.
The founders were correct in seeking to divide power among the branches of the national government and between the national and state governments. Perhaps even more important, capitalism's extreme division of economic power among millions of competitive business entities and individuals makes accumulation and maintenance of political power in a few hands extremely difficult.
The transfer of increased authority over American business to Washington either through regulatory authority or the promise of bailout money threatens that essential dispersion of economic power. Furthermore, accumulation of greater control over economic success in Washington increases the importance of gaining and maintaining political power in Washington. This is what has led to political instability in many countries.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rep. Murtha: Move the Guantanamo prisoners to my district.
According to Fox News, Representative John Murtha opines that the prisoners in Guantanamo are "no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." He added that there was "no reason not to put 'em in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."
This simply shows Rep. Murtha's failure to understand the threat posed by terrorism. Admittedly, this country incarcerates large numbers of people for various crimes. However, while these criminals violated American law, they accept the continued existence of the American society. They have no desire to destroy that society or murder large numbers of Americans or commit suicide in the commission of crime.
The prisoners in Guantanamo and their confederates want to destroy American society and murder as many Americans as possible. They are quite willing to sacrifice their own lives and their confederates for that project. Moving Guantanamo prisoners to the USA provides a massive target for terrorists within this country.
Given the open borders and the freedom of movement within the USA, terrorists could easily organize an attack on any facility within this country that would not be possible in Cuba.
This simply shows Rep. Murtha's failure to understand the threat posed by terrorism. Admittedly, this country incarcerates large numbers of people for various crimes. However, while these criminals violated American law, they accept the continued existence of the American society. They have no desire to destroy that society or murder large numbers of Americans or commit suicide in the commission of crime.
The prisoners in Guantanamo and their confederates want to destroy American society and murder as many Americans as possible. They are quite willing to sacrifice their own lives and their confederates for that project. Moving Guantanamo prisoners to the USA provides a massive target for terrorists within this country.
Given the open borders and the freedom of movement within the USA, terrorists could easily organize an attack on any facility within this country that would not be possible in Cuba.
Did the market or force of arms determine medieval organization of labor?
Fernand Braudel provides a very compelling painting by Jean de Wavrin on page 498 of The Wheels of Commerce. It shows 4 peasants hacking to death a knight in full armor seated on his horse. This painting challenges the generally held concept of a peasant class exploited by a small elite who appropriated the fruits of peasant labor, leaving only enough to keep starvation from the door.
Would this not have been the response of most peasants to lords if they had actually operated their manors in the manner generally believed? One lord in a sea of hundreds of half-starved peasants who see their children suffering from hunger would not sleep well or long if he were truly the cause of that suffering.
Any political system requires voluntary participation by all elements within the society. No minority in a society can long impose its will on the great majority. Even the KGB and gulags of the Soviet Union failed to keep Communist Party in power for much more than 70 years.
The manorial system endured for centuries, not through exploitation and force of arms of a military elite, but simply because it represented the best means of organizing society under the circumstances at the time. As those circumstances evolved, relationships among the various members of that society also changed.
For example, most peasants in the early medieval period owed work obligations to the lord of the manor in exchange for land that they farmed for their own account. Over time, peasants increasingly paid in currency rather than labor for their land.
Traditionally, most view the initial relationship as one of exploitation as the lords forced peasants to labor for the sole benefit of the lord of the manor. As peasants grew in power, they escaped enslavement by the lord and simply paid currency for land which they were better able to use for their benefit rather than that of the lord.
In reality, neither method of organizing labor results from the political or military power of the parties, but from the realities of market conditions and transaction costs in valuing labor and produce. In primitive market conditions, transaction costs in determining value of land, produce and labor suggested an exchange of land for labor. As market conditions improved over the centuries, the parties could more easily value land and labor in monetary terms.
Thus, changes in market conditions rather than a change in the balance of power among members of medieval socity determined how the parties organized labor.
Would this not have been the response of most peasants to lords if they had actually operated their manors in the manner generally believed? One lord in a sea of hundreds of half-starved peasants who see their children suffering from hunger would not sleep well or long if he were truly the cause of that suffering.
Any political system requires voluntary participation by all elements within the society. No minority in a society can long impose its will on the great majority. Even the KGB and gulags of the Soviet Union failed to keep Communist Party in power for much more than 70 years.
The manorial system endured for centuries, not through exploitation and force of arms of a military elite, but simply because it represented the best means of organizing society under the circumstances at the time. As those circumstances evolved, relationships among the various members of that society also changed.
For example, most peasants in the early medieval period owed work obligations to the lord of the manor in exchange for land that they farmed for their own account. Over time, peasants increasingly paid in currency rather than labor for their land.
Traditionally, most view the initial relationship as one of exploitation as the lords forced peasants to labor for the sole benefit of the lord of the manor. As peasants grew in power, they escaped enslavement by the lord and simply paid currency for land which they were better able to use for their benefit rather than that of the lord.
In reality, neither method of organizing labor results from the political or military power of the parties, but from the realities of market conditions and transaction costs in valuing labor and produce. In primitive market conditions, transaction costs in determining value of land, produce and labor suggested an exchange of land for labor. As market conditions improved over the centuries, the parties could more easily value land and labor in monetary terms.
Thus, changes in market conditions rather than a change in the balance of power among members of medieval socity determined how the parties organized labor.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Is dissent still patriotic?
For years the left have lectured Americans that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. David Harsanyi at the Denver Post asks whether the left still consider that concept to be operative with a Democrat in the White House.
I suspect that we will quickly find that any form of dissent from the received wisdom of President Obama will be considered the worst form of racism and wholly unpatriotic. Patriots dissent only against Republican policies; opposition to Democratic policies indicates selfishness, hatred against the Other, ignorance and is unAmerican. Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) have made this clear for years. Why would it change under an Obama administration?
I have a further question. How will the left respond if Obama continues the War on Terror and Bush's policies in fighting it? Will they simply accept the same actions because they are undertaken by someone they trust and support? Or will they take a principled stand in opposition? I suspect the former. Of course, many on the right may also reverse their positions to oppose actions by Obama that they would have supported under Bush.
I have no objections to dissent regardless of the object of the dissent, so long as the dissent is reasoned and does not interfere with the right of free speech by the other side. Dissenters who seek to silence speakers they disagree with violate one of the basic guarantees of this country.
I suspect that we will quickly find that any form of dissent from the received wisdom of President Obama will be considered the worst form of racism and wholly unpatriotic. Patriots dissent only against Republican policies; opposition to Democratic policies indicates selfishness, hatred against the Other, ignorance and is unAmerican. Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) have made this clear for years. Why would it change under an Obama administration?
I have a further question. How will the left respond if Obama continues the War on Terror and Bush's policies in fighting it? Will they simply accept the same actions because they are undertaken by someone they trust and support? Or will they take a principled stand in opposition? I suspect the former. Of course, many on the right may also reverse their positions to oppose actions by Obama that they would have supported under Bush.
I have no objections to dissent regardless of the object of the dissent, so long as the dissent is reasoned and does not interfere with the right of free speech by the other side. Dissenters who seek to silence speakers they disagree with violate one of the basic guarantees of this country.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The historical origins of Islam
The time has long since passed for Muslims and non-Muslims to face reality about the historical origins of Islam rather than continuing to accept the pious myths created many decades after the events they purport to describe. Both Christianity and Judaism began a similar process over 100 years ago. They applied the historical critical method to understand scripture and looked at history and archaeology in an effort to understand their own historical origins.
Traditional Muslims object to any efforts to look behind their origin myths to seek a better understanding of the origins of the faith in history. Perhaps the application of the historical critical method to the Qur'an and a careful look at archaeology and historical documents may give a better insight into the origins of Islam.
Of course, the primary problem in such a project is the complete lack of historical or archaeological material to support the Islamic traditions. Only Islamic sources written 150-200 years after the supposed death of Muhammad support the traditions. No Western historian would take such material seriously if it related to the origins of either Christianity or Judaism.
Perhaps most shocking is the absence of any archaeological or historical evidence to support the existence of Mecca as the leading trading center of Arabia during the 6th and 7th centuries. One finds mention of Mecca and Muhammad only in the Islamic traditions written in the 8th and 9th centuries.
Traditional Muslims object to any efforts to look behind their origin myths to seek a better understanding of the origins of the faith in history. Perhaps the application of the historical critical method to the Qur'an and a careful look at archaeology and historical documents may give a better insight into the origins of Islam.
Of course, the primary problem in such a project is the complete lack of historical or archaeological material to support the Islamic traditions. Only Islamic sources written 150-200 years after the supposed death of Muhammad support the traditions. No Western historian would take such material seriously if it related to the origins of either Christianity or Judaism.
Perhaps most shocking is the absence of any archaeological or historical evidence to support the existence of Mecca as the leading trading center of Arabia during the 6th and 7th centuries. One finds mention of Mecca and Muhammad only in the Islamic traditions written in the 8th and 9th centuries.
The evolution of economies
At the heart of Marxist theory lies a Darwinian theory of evolution that leads inevitably to communism. Marx saw an early economic system based on slavery giving way to one based on serfdom which laid the basis for capitalism. For Marx the internal contradictions of capitalism leads to the revolution of the proletariat that would institute communism as the final stage of human development, just as man represented the pinnacle of evolution.
Marx correctly recognizes the reality of evolution in economic history but grossly oversimplifies its effect. Evolution occurs, not at the “system” level, but in the manner in which individuals conduct ordinary business transactions on a daily basis. Scholars search in vain to find the date and place in which feudalism evolved into capitalism, since neither feudalism nor capitalism ever existed in the sense that Marxism uses the terms. People produce and trade within the context of the particular circumstances of the society, not within one of the rigid “systems” envisaged by Marx.
As Adam Smith correctly recognized, human nature has a “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” (An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Book I, Chapter 2) The particular products being produced and traded as well as the circumstances of the period greatly impact how people deal with such issues as the allocation of risk and transaction costs inherent in all economic relationships. Changes in the historical circumstances lead people to develop new means of dealing with those circumstances.
For example, the manor system adopted in some regions of medieval Europe responded rationally to the risks and transaction costs of the period. The manor provided the knight with arms, horses and the opportunity to train in their use in order to protect the manor’s inhabitants and provide justice for them. Risks of poor harvests and the expense of supervision led the lord to provide land to the peasants as compensation for their work on land he held for himself.
Increasing security in medieval society allowed for greater trade within regions and between regions; this permitted increased specialization. Medieval trade differed only in volume and products from what came before and what would come centuries later. As the values of products and the distances between trading centers increased greatly over time, trade required increasing amounts of capital and resulted in greater risk taking. This led Marx and his followers to assume that some fundamental change in society occurred that he labeled “capitalism.”
In reality, “capitalism” existed throughout history. Capital supported production of products and their transportation and trade, involving the risk of loss as well as the potential for profit, for centuries before any supposed transition to capitalism envisaged by Marxists. The transition to capitalism noted by Marx constituted only a matter of degree rather than substance.
Marx correctly recognizes the reality of evolution in economic history but grossly oversimplifies its effect. Evolution occurs, not at the “system” level, but in the manner in which individuals conduct ordinary business transactions on a daily basis. Scholars search in vain to find the date and place in which feudalism evolved into capitalism, since neither feudalism nor capitalism ever existed in the sense that Marxism uses the terms. People produce and trade within the context of the particular circumstances of the society, not within one of the rigid “systems” envisaged by Marx.
As Adam Smith correctly recognized, human nature has a “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” (An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Book I, Chapter 2) The particular products being produced and traded as well as the circumstances of the period greatly impact how people deal with such issues as the allocation of risk and transaction costs inherent in all economic relationships. Changes in the historical circumstances lead people to develop new means of dealing with those circumstances.
For example, the manor system adopted in some regions of medieval Europe responded rationally to the risks and transaction costs of the period. The manor provided the knight with arms, horses and the opportunity to train in their use in order to protect the manor’s inhabitants and provide justice for them. Risks of poor harvests and the expense of supervision led the lord to provide land to the peasants as compensation for their work on land he held for himself.
Increasing security in medieval society allowed for greater trade within regions and between regions; this permitted increased specialization. Medieval trade differed only in volume and products from what came before and what would come centuries later. As the values of products and the distances between trading centers increased greatly over time, trade required increasing amounts of capital and resulted in greater risk taking. This led Marx and his followers to assume that some fundamental change in society occurred that he labeled “capitalism.”
In reality, “capitalism” existed throughout history. Capital supported production of products and their transportation and trade, involving the risk of loss as well as the potential for profit, for centuries before any supposed transition to capitalism envisaged by Marxists. The transition to capitalism noted by Marx constituted only a matter of degree rather than substance.
Smooth transfer of power in Washington.
Many people continue to comment on the smooth transfer of power from the outgoing Republican administration to the new Democratic administration. Too many Americans take this for granted in this country. In many countries, such transitions lead to coups and riots in the streets.
Americans should be more aware of the great importance of such peaceful transfers of power in our country and how unusual it is in the world. They also must consider why political figures willingly surrender power and quietly return to private life, not simply the president, but all of his appointees. They must also ask what might end such peaceful transitions.
Two changes in American political life could threaten this continued peaceful transfer of power. First, the succeeding administration begins to investigate and prosecute members of the outgoing administration. Second, access to political power provides greater opportunities for income than ordinary business ventures.
To this point outgoing administrations have not been prosecuted for their good faith conduct while in office. If the Obama administration violates this tradition and prosecutes President Bush and various individuals for "torture" or "war crimes" undertaken in the good faith effort to protect this country, it will destroy the comity between the parties.
Republicans undoubtedly would take similar action upon retaking power. Such criminalization of policy differences would make transfers of power an invitation to unending criminal prosecution. This would lead to broad grants of presidential immunity from prosecution that would likely be attacked by the new administrations.
While political connections have always helped many businesses in this country, American free enterprise has provided the overwhelming source of economic opportunity. This maintains an important balance of power in the society as most Americans receive their livelihood from businesses acting independently of government.
As greater portions of the American economy grow more dependent on Washington's largess, maintenance of control of power in Washington becomes ever more important. This would increase the need to retain that power. It would also reduce the ability of independent business to balance the power of government. More Americans would become dependent on government for their income.
Americans should be more aware of the great importance of such peaceful transfers of power in our country and how unusual it is in the world. They also must consider why political figures willingly surrender power and quietly return to private life, not simply the president, but all of his appointees. They must also ask what might end such peaceful transitions.
Two changes in American political life could threaten this continued peaceful transfer of power. First, the succeeding administration begins to investigate and prosecute members of the outgoing administration. Second, access to political power provides greater opportunities for income than ordinary business ventures.
To this point outgoing administrations have not been prosecuted for their good faith conduct while in office. If the Obama administration violates this tradition and prosecutes President Bush and various individuals for "torture" or "war crimes" undertaken in the good faith effort to protect this country, it will destroy the comity between the parties.
Republicans undoubtedly would take similar action upon retaking power. Such criminalization of policy differences would make transfers of power an invitation to unending criminal prosecution. This would lead to broad grants of presidential immunity from prosecution that would likely be attacked by the new administrations.
While political connections have always helped many businesses in this country, American free enterprise has provided the overwhelming source of economic opportunity. This maintains an important balance of power in the society as most Americans receive their livelihood from businesses acting independently of government.
As greater portions of the American economy grow more dependent on Washington's largess, maintenance of control of power in Washington becomes ever more important. This would increase the need to retain that power. It would also reduce the ability of independent business to balance the power of government. More Americans would become dependent on government for their income.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saudi King Abdullah: "Arab initiative won't last forever."
Saudi King Abdullah warned Israel that the Arab peace offer would not remain on the table forever. One wonders how real the "peace offer" is. Hamas continues to work for the ultimate destruction of Israel. Even the "moderates" in Fatah give no indication of a willingness to accept the existence of Israel.
Does the Arab peace offer accept the existence of Israel for the long term or is it simply yet another temporary truce to allow Hamas to rebuild and rearm for yet another war against Israel?
The King makes the emotional claim that "one drop of Palestinian blood" is more valuable than all the money in the world. Why hasn't he allowed Palestinians to immigrate to Saudi Arabia and become citizens of his country? His actions belie his words.
He indicates a willingness to provide $1 billion to rebuild the Gaza Strip. One wonders how much of this money will go to rebuilding and how much to buying more rockets and weapons to use against Israel.
Does the Arab peace offer accept the existence of Israel for the long term or is it simply yet another temporary truce to allow Hamas to rebuild and rearm for yet another war against Israel?
The King makes the emotional claim that "one drop of Palestinian blood" is more valuable than all the money in the world. Why hasn't he allowed Palestinians to immigrate to Saudi Arabia and become citizens of his country? His actions belie his words.
He indicates a willingness to provide $1 billion to rebuild the Gaza Strip. One wonders how much of this money will go to rebuilding and how much to buying more rockets and weapons to use against Israel.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The economy as an ecosystem rather than a machine.
Max Borders gets it right when he says, "The Economy is not a Machine." Too many people treat the economy as a simple machine that can be fixed by government. Often, the "fixes" hurt rather than help.
Borders provides a very interesting quote:
Yet those who see the validity of evolution would impose their rules on the economy just as believers in Intelligent Design see order being imposed on nature by God. The economy is the sum total of all the efforts of people working to advance their own interests, much as the ecosystem is the sum total of the earth with all animals and plants.
The fixers' imposition of rules may impact the economy in ways unforeseen with massive unintended consequences. Many economists now see that Roosevelt's attempts to fix the depression may have added years more to the downturn than if he had taken no action at all. One may see this as Australians' introduction of bunnies into the Australian ecosystem.
The new administration in Washington may see the economy as a machine that merely needs some tweaking by the superior intellects in the Democratic Party. The tweaking may easily impact the economy as the bunnies did Australia.
Borders provides a very interesting quote:
As the late naturalist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, "the theory of natural selection
is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith's basic argument for a rational
economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external
(divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the
whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits."
Yet those who see the validity of evolution would impose their rules on the economy just as believers in Intelligent Design see order being imposed on nature by God. The economy is the sum total of all the efforts of people working to advance their own interests, much as the ecosystem is the sum total of the earth with all animals and plants.
The fixers' imposition of rules may impact the economy in ways unforeseen with massive unintended consequences. Many economists now see that Roosevelt's attempts to fix the depression may have added years more to the downturn than if he had taken no action at all. One may see this as Australians' introduction of bunnies into the Australian ecosystem.
The new administration in Washington may see the economy as a machine that merely needs some tweaking by the superior intellects in the Democratic Party. The tweaking may easily impact the economy as the bunnies did Australia.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Gaza and the question of disproportionate force.
Richard Epstein provides helpful analysis of the doctrine of proportionate force in just war theory from a libertarian perspective. Everyone with any interest in the fighting in Gaza should read it, particularly those who claim that Israel is using disproportionate force.
What country in the world would allow radicals in a neighboring country to launch rockets against its citizens without attempting to destroy them. I don't believe that this country would take no action against Mexican radicals who took such action against American citizens.
Epstein answers very clearly, "The Israelis are not required to slowly bleed in Sderot because Hamas is at present only capable of using primitive rockets against it. It need not wait until the attacks become ever more deadly to raise the ante." The Israelis need not wait for rockets to kill large numbers of its civilians before they act to prevent such from occurring.
What country in the world would allow radicals in a neighboring country to launch rockets against its citizens without attempting to destroy them. I don't believe that this country would take no action against Mexican radicals who took such action against American citizens.
Epstein answers very clearly, "The Israelis are not required to slowly bleed in Sderot because Hamas is at present only capable of using primitive rockets against it. It need not wait until the attacks become ever more deadly to raise the ante." The Israelis need not wait for rockets to kill large numbers of its civilians before they act to prevent such from occurring.
Madoff fiasco shows the weakness of ever more regulations as answer.
The first response to any glitch in society in some quarters seems to be a call for more regulation and bigger government. That certainly occurred with the Enron debacle and the present economic downturn.
Steve Chapman presents a refreshingly different take on the lessons of the Madoff fiasco. He argues that SEC regulators had investigated Madoff's operations 8 times in 16 years without taking action against him. He contends that adding more regulators and regulations would be unlikely to improve that result. After all, "governments, like every other institution, are staffed by fallible individuals who can be fooled as easily as anyone else."
Steve Chapman presents a refreshingly different take on the lessons of the Madoff fiasco. He argues that SEC regulators had investigated Madoff's operations 8 times in 16 years without taking action against him. He contends that adding more regulators and regulations would be unlikely to improve that result. After all, "governments, like every other institution, are staffed by fallible individuals who can be fooled as easily as anyone else."
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Is Hamas intentionally putting Palestinian children at risk to gain a propaganda advantage?
No one can deny that the fighting and killing in Gaza is horrible. The death of innocent children especially tears at one's heart. We desperately want to say that innocent people, especially children, should not suffer in war regardless of their race, ethnicity or religion. However, as hard as it may seem, one cannot ignore the context of events, even those that take the lives of innocent children.
The Israeli incursion into Gaza occurred in a context. The attack on the United Nations school also occurred in a context. Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel for three years. The recent destruction of an Israeli kindergarten could have occurred in any of those prior rocket attacks at a time when the school was full of children. With each rocket launch Hamas intentionally put Israeli children at risk. Israel exercised tremendous restraint in not taking action sooner, but finally responded to the continuing rocket attacks by Hamas.
Hamas fighters fired mortar rounds into Israel and at Israeli troops from the United Nations school. IDF troops had the right to return fire on the mortar regardless of its location. By using human shields or locating forces in a school, mosque or residential area, Hamas violates international law and bears full responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is to allow Hamas to kill Israeli civilians and military with impunity from mosque or schools.
The Israeli incursion into Gaza occurred in a context. The attack on the United Nations school also occurred in a context. Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel for three years. The recent destruction of an Israeli kindergarten could have occurred in any of those prior rocket attacks at a time when the school was full of children. With each rocket launch Hamas intentionally put Israeli children at risk. Israel exercised tremendous restraint in not taking action sooner, but finally responded to the continuing rocket attacks by Hamas.
Hamas fighters fired mortar rounds into Israel and at Israeli troops from the United Nations school. IDF troops had the right to return fire on the mortar regardless of its location. By using human shields or locating forces in a school, mosque or residential area, Hamas violates international law and bears full responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is to allow Hamas to kill Israeli civilians and military with impunity from mosque or schools.
Because of the noise of mortar rounds being fired, no one in the school could have failed to be aware of the mortar or the risk of remaining in the location. Parents would have known the great risk to themselves and their children from retaliatory strikes by remaining in the school. I suspect that the civilians in the school were not allowed to leave. The Hamas fighters wanted them there as shields or as victims from Israeli fire.
The West can scarcely imagine such callous disregard for the lives of children and other civilians. Yet Hamas and other Islamist organizations have no regard whatsoever for the lives of Israeli civilians or even their own children. In doing so, they hope to gain propaganda advantage when Israeli troops inadvertently kill civilians when they fire on Hamas fighters.
The writing is on the wall for all Jews and Christians with any perception.
Gateway Pundit has two postings that clearly indicate the direction Muslims are going in the West. This does not suggest that all Muslims, or even a majority of Muslims, agree with or will participate in violence. Of course, September 11, 2001 required only a small number and relatively small amounts of money.
The first posting shows the increased willingness of top Islamic spokesmen in the USA to call for the destruction of this country and the West. Salah Sultan said, "One of these days, the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon." This suggests violence against Americans within this country and implicitly indicates that Muslims will bring about that violence.
The second posting simply shows the increasing violence perpetrated by Muslims against Europeans for any excuse whatsoever. They not only burnt a few cars, but looted various businesses. The posting also indicates that a synagogue was set afire and anti-Semitic attacks are soaring.
The West can continue to pretend that only a few Muslim radicals distort Islamic teachings to justify their attacks on the West in protest against American actions in the Middle East. The West must begin to face reality. Muhammad was not Jesus. Islam is not a religion of peace, but a faith whose fundamental principles set forth in the Qur'an require universal acceptance of Islam, declare unending war on Jews and Christians and demand that its adherents kill or be killed in the spread of Islam.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not act on the requirements enunciated in the Qur'an. However, that many Muslims engage in terrorism against non-Muslims should surprise no one who studies the Qur'an and the Islamic traditions with any seriousness or honesty. The West must begin to face the reality of Islam and not allow political correctness to prevent an honest assessment of its traditions to understand the threat it poses.
Islamic traditions present Muhammad as the exemplar of correct Islamic conduct. It describes Muhammad as a murderer and a leader of a band of murderers of Jews and Christians who calls on his followers to war against Jews and Christians until they all are dead, convert to Islam or accept subservient status to Muslims.
The writing is on the wall for all to read.
The first posting shows the increased willingness of top Islamic spokesmen in the USA to call for the destruction of this country and the West. Salah Sultan said, "One of these days, the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon." This suggests violence against Americans within this country and implicitly indicates that Muslims will bring about that violence.
The second posting simply shows the increasing violence perpetrated by Muslims against Europeans for any excuse whatsoever. They not only burnt a few cars, but looted various businesses. The posting also indicates that a synagogue was set afire and anti-Semitic attacks are soaring.
The West can continue to pretend that only a few Muslim radicals distort Islamic teachings to justify their attacks on the West in protest against American actions in the Middle East. The West must begin to face reality. Muhammad was not Jesus. Islam is not a religion of peace, but a faith whose fundamental principles set forth in the Qur'an require universal acceptance of Islam, declare unending war on Jews and Christians and demand that its adherents kill or be killed in the spread of Islam.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not act on the requirements enunciated in the Qur'an. However, that many Muslims engage in terrorism against non-Muslims should surprise no one who studies the Qur'an and the Islamic traditions with any seriousness or honesty. The West must begin to face the reality of Islam and not allow political correctness to prevent an honest assessment of its traditions to understand the threat it poses.
Islamic traditions present Muhammad as the exemplar of correct Islamic conduct. It describes Muhammad as a murderer and a leader of a band of murderers of Jews and Christians who calls on his followers to war against Jews and Christians until they all are dead, convert to Islam or accept subservient status to Muslims.
The writing is on the wall for all to read.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
UN School explosion - legal attack on military objective or illegal attack on civilians?
The Jerusalem Post reports:
No doubt many will attack Israel for killing civilians in a UN-run school. Probably, most of the dead are civilians, many undoubtedly are children. Once again the Hamas terrorists used a school as shelter for mortar operations against Israel. It appears that the terrorists planted booby-trapped bombs in the school with the expectation that IDF soldiers would be killed by them when the Hamas fighters withdrew.
Instead, fire from the IDF exploded the booby-trap bombs that killed the Palestinians. Hamas bombs intended for Israelis killed Palestinian civilians rather than IDF weapons fire.
Responsibility for all of the civilian deaths lies with Hamas. Hamas intentionally used civilians as shields to attempt to deter Israeli military response to the mortar attacks. What alternative did the IDF have? They could not allow the Hamas mortar crew to continue to fire at will on Israel and IDF troops.
Furthermore, it was not indiscriminate Israeli fire that killed the Palestinian civilians, but Hamas bombs. Undoubtedly, Hamas enablers will carefully avert their eyes from the facts and attack Israel for killing civilians.
At least 30 people were reportedly killed and 53 wounded in an
explosion in a UN-run school in the town of Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip,
according to Palestinians. The IDF issued a statement saying the school grounds
were used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at the troops. According to the
IDF, among the dead were members of a Hamas launching cell, including operatives
Immad Abu Askar and Hassan Abu Askar.
The infantrymen returned mortar shell fire into the school grounds, the
army said. Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs
in the school triggered the secondary explosions which killed scores of
Palestinians on the site.
No doubt many will attack Israel for killing civilians in a UN-run school. Probably, most of the dead are civilians, many undoubtedly are children. Once again the Hamas terrorists used a school as shelter for mortar operations against Israel. It appears that the terrorists planted booby-trapped bombs in the school with the expectation that IDF soldiers would be killed by them when the Hamas fighters withdrew.
Instead, fire from the IDF exploded the booby-trap bombs that killed the Palestinians. Hamas bombs intended for Israelis killed Palestinian civilians rather than IDF weapons fire.
Responsibility for all of the civilian deaths lies with Hamas. Hamas intentionally used civilians as shields to attempt to deter Israeli military response to the mortar attacks. What alternative did the IDF have? They could not allow the Hamas mortar crew to continue to fire at will on Israel and IDF troops.
Furthermore, it was not indiscriminate Israeli fire that killed the Palestinian civilians, but Hamas bombs. Undoubtedly, Hamas enablers will carefully avert their eyes from the facts and attack Israel for killing civilians.
Is Israel's counterattack in Gaza disproportionate under international law or just war doctrine?
Many people seem to be challenging Israel's counterattack on Hamas in Gaza as being "disproportionate." The fundamental basis of that position focuses on the number of civilian deaths in Gaza as opposed to the few Israeli deaths resulting from Hamas' rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.
This misapprehends the issue. One must recognize the distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Israel has a right to defend its citizens from the rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. However, regardless of whether a war is justified or not, ius in bello requires that it be conducted in a just manner. Proportionality constitutes one of the conditions of ius in bello.
Much of the analysis of the requirement of proportionality assumes that it requires a "tooth for tooth and an eye for an eye." If the aggressor kills 4 civilians, a country has a right to kill as many civilians or a limited multiple thereof, but no more. Proportionality, properly understood, relates not at all to the number of civilians or others killed by Hamas.
Instead, it tests whether the Israeli counterattack on Gaza advances truly military goals or simply attempts to terrorize its opponents though attacks on civilian targets. Certainly, civilian targets abound in Gaza. If Israel bombed indiscriminately as Hamas has in Israel, civilian deaths would already be in the thousands. The relatively small number of civilian deaths to date indicates Israel's effort to limit its attacks to military targets.
Ius in bello also recognizes that a party cannot hide its forces among civilians and in houses of worship, schools or hospitals. Hamas intentionally places its fighters and rockets in close proximity to civilians and civilian facilities. Hamas bears the responsibility for civilian casualties in such instances. No reasonable person can require Israel not to attack mosques loaded with Hamas rockets.
To date, Israeli attacks seem focused on military objectives. That may change. The present ground operations add to the difficulty in analyzing the question. Undoubtedly, civilian deaths will increase. Do they result from intentional targeting by IDF, from use of human shields by Hamas or simply the large number of civilians that have not been able to escape the area?
Just war doctrine presents many complex issues. However, it does not require that a country commit suicide or allow its citizens to be indiscriminately murdered from afar. Simplistically comparing civilian deaths in Gaza to that in Israel fails to understand just war doctrine.
This misapprehends the issue. One must recognize the distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Israel has a right to defend its citizens from the rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza. However, regardless of whether a war is justified or not, ius in bello requires that it be conducted in a just manner. Proportionality constitutes one of the conditions of ius in bello.
Much of the analysis of the requirement of proportionality assumes that it requires a "tooth for tooth and an eye for an eye." If the aggressor kills 4 civilians, a country has a right to kill as many civilians or a limited multiple thereof, but no more. Proportionality, properly understood, relates not at all to the number of civilians or others killed by Hamas.
Instead, it tests whether the Israeli counterattack on Gaza advances truly military goals or simply attempts to terrorize its opponents though attacks on civilian targets. Certainly, civilian targets abound in Gaza. If Israel bombed indiscriminately as Hamas has in Israel, civilian deaths would already be in the thousands. The relatively small number of civilian deaths to date indicates Israel's effort to limit its attacks to military targets.
Ius in bello also recognizes that a party cannot hide its forces among civilians and in houses of worship, schools or hospitals. Hamas intentionally places its fighters and rockets in close proximity to civilians and civilian facilities. Hamas bears the responsibility for civilian casualties in such instances. No reasonable person can require Israel not to attack mosques loaded with Hamas rockets.
To date, Israeli attacks seem focused on military objectives. That may change. The present ground operations add to the difficulty in analyzing the question. Undoubtedly, civilian deaths will increase. Do they result from intentional targeting by IDF, from use of human shields by Hamas or simply the large number of civilians that have not been able to escape the area?
Just war doctrine presents many complex issues. However, it does not require that a country commit suicide or allow its citizens to be indiscriminately murdered from afar. Simplistically comparing civilian deaths in Gaza to that in Israel fails to understand just war doctrine.
Leon Panetta as Director of the Company?
Team Obama seem to be indicating that Leon Panetta will be named head of the CIA. Mr. Panetta is a very fine, likeable person. He undoubtedly would be an excellent choice as Chief of Staff to the next president, a post he held under President Clinton, or other cabinet level positions.
However, appointing Mr. Panetta as head of the CIA would be like naming a non-lawyer as General Counsel of a major corporation. The President ultimately makes policy decisions based on the intelligence provided by the CIA and other intelligence services. Having another political-policy person between the President and the CIA adds no value.
The CIA needs to be run by someone with experience in the business, who knows the behind-the-scenes realities of intelligence gathering and analysis, the weaknesses as well as the strengths of that business. Even as Chief of Staff under President Clinton, Mr. Panetta was a customer rather than a provider of intelligence information.
The many, very public failures of the CIA in the past few years demand a thorough house cleaning. Panetta may have the political skill and strength to take such action, but does he have either the knowledge or the credibility to do so?
However, appointing Mr. Panetta as head of the CIA would be like naming a non-lawyer as General Counsel of a major corporation. The President ultimately makes policy decisions based on the intelligence provided by the CIA and other intelligence services. Having another political-policy person between the President and the CIA adds no value.
The CIA needs to be run by someone with experience in the business, who knows the behind-the-scenes realities of intelligence gathering and analysis, the weaknesses as well as the strengths of that business. Even as Chief of Staff under President Clinton, Mr. Panetta was a customer rather than a provider of intelligence information.
The many, very public failures of the CIA in the past few years demand a thorough house cleaning. Panetta may have the political skill and strength to take such action, but does he have either the knowledge or the credibility to do so?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Where were these protesters when only the Palestinians were bombing Israel?
CNN reports that "Thousands protest Israeli airstrikes." One of the protesters is quoted as saying, "I feel that even though I'm so far away, these people are human beings, and we have to look at what's going on, and we can't just sit by and watch it happen without doing anything."
The Israelis are human beings also, yet the protesters did nothing to protest thousands of rockets fired into Israel over several years. Where was their humanitarian concern when it was only Israelis being hurt and killed?
The protesters' silence to Palestinian terrorism simply destroys any credibility the protesters might otherwise have. That silence shows that the protesters do not oppose war or attacks on civilians, but favor the Palestinians in their attempt to destroy Israel.
The Israelis are human beings also, yet the protesters did nothing to protest thousands of rockets fired into Israel over several years. Where was their humanitarian concern when it was only Israelis being hurt and killed?
The protesters' silence to Palestinian terrorism simply destroys any credibility the protesters might otherwise have. That silence shows that the protesters do not oppose war or attacks on civilians, but favor the Palestinians in their attempt to destroy Israel.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Who can really vote to end the secret ballot?
The Wall Street Journal reports that some Senate Democrats are having second thoughts about voting for "card check" advocated by labor unions. They supported card check when Senate Republicans could easily filibuster passage and when President Bush could be counted on to veto the measure.
Now that a Democrat will soon occupy the White House and Republicans may not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, Senate Democrats realize that they may face the wrath of voters if they eliminate the secret ballot in deciding whether to unionize a company. According to the Journal report, "polls show more than 80% of Americans disagree with eliminating union ballots."
Labor union support for the measure belies a traditional union argument. Unions claim that companies pressure their workers to vote against unionization. If such claims were true, unions would obviously favor secret ballots to protect workers from such pressure. By demanding an end to secret ballots, unions admit that pressure on workers comes from the union more than management.
One can hardly imagine any legitimate argument for eliminating the secret ballot from the process of unionization. Neither union nor management can pressure the individual worker casting a secret ballot.
Now that a Democrat will soon occupy the White House and Republicans may not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, Senate Democrats realize that they may face the wrath of voters if they eliminate the secret ballot in deciding whether to unionize a company. According to the Journal report, "polls show more than 80% of Americans disagree with eliminating union ballots."
Labor union support for the measure belies a traditional union argument. Unions claim that companies pressure their workers to vote against unionization. If such claims were true, unions would obviously favor secret ballots to protect workers from such pressure. By demanding an end to secret ballots, unions admit that pressure on workers comes from the union more than management.
One can hardly imagine any legitimate argument for eliminating the secret ballot from the process of unionization. Neither union nor management can pressure the individual worker casting a secret ballot.
Military doubts as to the next president?
The Army Times reports on a recent poll:
For all the complaining in some quarters that the Army is broken, the military continues to support President Bush, who allegedly broke it, while doubting President-elect Obama, who allegedly would rescue it from what broke it - Iraq.
This one fact should challenge conventional wisdom about morale in the military. If it were broken as so often said, would the military overwhelmingly support President Bush? If Iraq had been the quagmire so often described, would the military have continued to support him and participate in the war in Iraq?
Hopefully, the new president will win the confidence of the military and that of the entire country with good policies that are well executed to the benefit of the country.
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in
chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or
pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
For all the complaining in some quarters that the Army is broken, the military continues to support President Bush, who allegedly broke it, while doubting President-elect Obama, who allegedly would rescue it from what broke it - Iraq.
This one fact should challenge conventional wisdom about morale in the military. If it were broken as so often said, would the military overwhelmingly support President Bush? If Iraq had been the quagmire so often described, would the military have continued to support him and participate in the war in Iraq?
Hopefully, the new president will win the confidence of the military and that of the entire country with good policies that are well executed to the benefit of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)