2018-08-15
A New Way to Look at Jewish Settlements
The following is the script of a speech I gave as a Toastmasters project. It is not normal to read from a script, but I was playing the role of a U.S. State Department responding at a press conference to news of another Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
Recently, we’ve been asked repeatedly about Jewish settlements, existing and planned, in the West Bank. Today, I’d like to break new ground, so to speak.
Opposition to the settlements is based on a common assumption that peace will come through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. It is usually unstated but understood that the Palestinian state will be ethnically—and perhaps religiously—cleansed. That is, no Jews will live there.
Recently, we’ve been asked repeatedly about Jewish settlements, existing and planned, in the West Bank. Today, I’d like to break new ground, so to speak.
Opposition to the settlements is based on a common assumption that peace will come through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. It is usually unstated but understood that the Palestinian state will be ethnically—and perhaps religiously—cleansed. That is, no Jews will live there.
Therefore,
the settlements are seen largely as attempt by Israel to extend its ultimate
borders by establishing facts on the ground with settlements.
We would like to suggest that the settlements are a way of insisting that Jews in some
significant way will live in Judea and Samaria, which some call the occupied
territories, whether the area is controlled by Israel or a Palestinian state.
We
think this may be a good thing, the more so because it relies on principles found
in both Jewish and Islamic law.
Let’s
start with Islamic Law, which has the concept of dhimmi, an Arabic word loosely translated as “protected minority.”
The dhimmi typically is a Jew or
Christian who has chosen to live in an Islamic state, something that has been
quite common through history, more for Jews than Christians. The dhimmi signs a contract, agreeing to abide
by certain laws, in return for protection by the state and the right to
practice his or her religion.
Jewish law has a parallel concept, the geir toshav, a Hebrew phrase generally
translated as “resident alien” who, after pledging to observe the “Seven
Commandments of Noah,” is permitted to live among Jews. While there is a
resurgence of interest in the concept, Israel doesn’t employ the concept
directly. However, it did extend citizenship to Muslims and Christians who
chose to remain in Israel after it became a state.
It
is also worth mentioning that the modern penchant for ethnic and religious
warfare is not the rule, especially between Muslims and Jews.
What
we are really doing is asking you to imagine a two-state solution that looks
like this.
- Israel has a minority population of Christians and Muslims. (It does already.) It guarantees access to holy places to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. (It does already.)
- Palestine has a minority population of Jews and Christians. It guarantees access to holy places to Jews and Christians.
- Israel and Palestine are sister states with reciprocal laws and practices, protecting minorities.
2016-12-15
Voter Mistake: Overestimating the Power of the Presidency
Influence, yes: Voters, aided and abetted by the media, almost invariably refer to the president as "the most powerful man (or woman, someday) in the world."
It is true that the presidency has tended to become more powerful over time, but it is by constitutional design and accumulated procedures a position of influence more than power.
Except for the role of "commander in chief of the Army and Navy," the power to "grant reprieves and pardons," and "the power to fill up all vacancies during the recess of the Senate" (and these expire at the end of the Senate's next session), the U.S. Constitution gives the president no unrestricted powers.
The description of the president as the "most powerful man in the world" is probably related to his role as commander in chief, specifically with his not inconsiderable power to command the firing of nuclear weapons. No small thing, admittedly, but it is a power that would be cold comfort if used. Very cold.
A key characteristic about the presidency is that the U.S. president is both "head of state" and "head of government." In a constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, the head of state is the king/queen and the head of government is the prime minister. In such countries, the prime minister is far more powerful than the U.S. president, at least if her party has a parliamentary majority. In modern parliamentary systems, where there is no king or queen, a "president" fills the head of state role in a ceremonial fashion, perhaps asking the head of one of the parties to fill the prime minister role and form a government. If the prime minister can form a government without resorting to a coalition, she has much more direct power than the president.
As Republicans have proved in the past six or eight years, the real power in the government, however unwieldy, is found in the Congress, which itself is checked both by its own bicameral structure and the power of the president to veto bills. In that sense, the president has some limited negative power over Congress.
The tendency of people to think and vote as if the President of the United States is the most powerful leader in the world, guarantees disappointment. The President cannot possibly live up to the messianic expectations of the electorate
—unless of course the President is the Messiah.
The electorate should vote for the president, of course, but it should pay more attention to Congress, which means paying attention to the mid-term elections as well as the presidential-year elections. One of the parties, the Republicans, seems to understand this. The Democrats do not.
The president, in his role as head of state, is a readier symbol for the people to hold onto than the arguably more powerful speaker of the house and thus commands more attention and influence. But power? Nah, unless he drops that bomb. Wile E.
It is true that the presidency has tended to become more powerful over time, but it is by constitutional design and accumulated procedures a position of influence more than power.
Except for the role of "commander in chief of the Army and Navy," the power to "grant reprieves and pardons," and "the power to fill up all vacancies during the recess of the Senate" (and these expire at the end of the Senate's next session), the U.S. Constitution gives the president no unrestricted powers.
The description of the president as the "most powerful man in the world" is probably related to his role as commander in chief, specifically with his not inconsiderable power to command the firing of nuclear weapons. No small thing, admittedly, but it is a power that would be cold comfort if used. Very cold.
A key characteristic about the presidency is that the U.S. president is both "head of state" and "head of government." In a constitutional monarchy such as the United Kingdom, the head of state is the king/queen and the head of government is the prime minister. In such countries, the prime minister is far more powerful than the U.S. president, at least if her party has a parliamentary majority. In modern parliamentary systems, where there is no king or queen, a "president" fills the head of state role in a ceremonial fashion, perhaps asking the head of one of the parties to fill the prime minister role and form a government. If the prime minister can form a government without resorting to a coalition, she has much more direct power than the president.
As Republicans have proved in the past six or eight years, the real power in the government, however unwieldy, is found in the Congress, which itself is checked both by its own bicameral structure and the power of the president to veto bills. In that sense, the president has some limited negative power over Congress.
The tendency of people to think and vote as if the President of the United States is the most powerful leader in the world, guarantees disappointment. The President cannot possibly live up to the messianic expectations of the electorate
—unless of course the President is the Messiah.
The electorate should vote for the president, of course, but it should pay more attention to Congress, which means paying attention to the mid-term elections as well as the presidential-year elections. One of the parties, the Republicans, seems to understand this. The Democrats do not.
The president, in his role as head of state, is a readier symbol for the people to hold onto than the arguably more powerful speaker of the house and thus commands more attention and influence. But power? Nah, unless he drops that bomb. Wile E.
2012-07-13
Government: Lincoln's Vision
... Government of the people, by the people, and for the people ... : Perhaps my favorite civic phrase is known (by some, at least) to have come from the last paragraph of the Gettysburg Address.
"... we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
The phrase crystallizes the American vision of government so well that I wondered why it was not used before. It turns out that phrases close to it were used before. Lincoln himself might have been influenced by the wording he found in a book given to him. On July 4, 1854, an abolitionist minister named Theodore Parker gave a sermon in which he said, "Democracy is direct self-government over all the people, for all the people, by all the people."
Or maybe he was influenced by Stephen A. Douglas who said in one of those famous debates with Lincoln: "In my opinion, this government is formed on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such a manner as they should determine."
In any case, the concept of government of the people, by the people, and for the people was at the core of the American revolution and what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the constitution. Consider that they had been living in a colonial circumstances where none of the following was true.
- Government of the people: While England itself had a constitutional monarchy, with a functioning representative body called the Parliament, its colonies had no representation. They were at the mercy of whatever Parliament--or the King--wanted to do. Taxation, under these circumstances, felt especially onerous.
- Government by the people: While government workers in England were fellow citizens and neighbors, governors and other representatives of the Crown, were appointed by and came from England.
- Government for the people: While Parliament tended to make legislation with the citizens of England in mind, this applied equally well to any legislation that impacted the colonies. Such legislation was made for the benefit of England.
Thus, the colonists were distanced on every level from government, which they saw as of the Crown/Parliament, by the Crown/Parliament, and for the Crown/Parliament. This is abundantly clear in the nature of complaints listed in the Declaration of Independence and, from the more positive point of view, in the structure provided by the Constitution and the freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights.
The colonists saw government as completely connected to the people--of them, by them, and for them.
- Government of the people: The people (or at least white men) within the united states would vote to determine their temporary representatives and administrators
- Government by the people: Government officials--administrators, employees, representatives, judges--employees would come from the pool of local citizens. They would be neighbors, insiders not outsiders.
- Government for the people: The purpose of government would be to serve the people, not the English crown or any other outside group.
President Lincoln well understood this, even extending the concept of "People" beyond the idea that "people" meant "white men."
2012-07-11
We're Back: Topics to Come
Beep, beep: The coyotes have been busy for the past couple of years, trying to run their businesses. However, we'd like to get back to our blog and there is much to cover. Topics like these:
... And more. See you around. Wile E. Wonka
- Government: Lincoln's Vision
- Government of the People: We Have Met the Enemy
- Government by the People: Our Neighbors
- Government for the People: Who's Your Customer?
- Taxes: The Necessary Good
- Spending: The Other Necessary
- Debt: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
- The Earth: Sustainability Isn't Good Enough
- A Principle: We Are in This Together
- A Principle: Look for the Optimum
- A Principle: Ideology Is for Sissies
- The New Democracy: One Dollar, One Vote
- Social Security: The Big Easy
- Medicare: The Hard Truth
- Health Care: Pay to Stay Well
- Infrastructure: Our Strength and Vulnerability
- Higher Education: Stratospheric Debt
... And more. See you around. Wile E. Wonka
Labels: debt, government, medicare, social security, spending, sustainability, taxes
2009-12-03
Why the Government's "Strings Attached" Bailout Is Working
Because they hate it: Of course, the federal government's insistence on executive-compensation restraints is hard on bailed out corporations. Of course, the government has no business imposing such restrictions--except that the government saved their sorry behinds by shoveling money at them. Of course, it's stupid to hamstring these financial and auto behemoths' ability to attract the very executive talent that could restore them to health. Stupid, stupid, stupid--except that these stupid restrictions are driving these corporations to pay the money back, sooner rather than later. The coyotes guess the government knew what it was doing after all. Smart, smart, smart. Wile E.
2009-08-26
Let's Get Away from Employer Provided Health Insurance.
... and do the following: Having said what we said in our previous post, let's acknowledge something odd. If you think we should get rid of our reliance on employer-provided health insurance, you have too paths:
- Keep the government out and let it happen (because it will). This emphasizes individual responsibility abd is a libertarian, almost Ayn Rand approach.
- Get the government in, big time.
The most radical approach--a single payer option--would relieve business of the need to provide health insurance benefits. While the costs of such a program should give everyone pause, it would be a boon to a U.S. business.
A more conservative approach could also be used to move the country away from employer provided insurance (where it is going away anyway). Some ideas that have been proposed and on which there is fairly widespread agreement.
- Allow individuals to shop for insurance coverage all across the country. This increases insurance competition and would reduce insurance rates some.
- Allow individals to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, which would put them on the same playing field as workers who get tax-free health insurance from their employers. (The negative version of this is treat employee benefits as income and tax them.) This is only fair--and should encourage people to buy their own health insurance.
- Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, with some controls designed to prevent people from dropping insurance to save money and coming back in to gain coverage for serious medical conditions. This would essentially create a national "group," which reduces the value of employer-provided coverage and increases the value of indivudal coverage.
- Institute an "individual mandate," similar to the individual mandate for auto insurance in many states. Individuals would have to carry insurance or pay an income tax penalty. (Do not, on the other hand, institute and employer mandate.)
- Emphasize catastrophic/Health Savings Account insurance at reasonable rates. These plans are cheaper because they are true insurance plans, protecting against catastrophe, instead of pretending to cover all health issues. Their high deductibles force individuals to either get gap insurance (an option), to shop around, or just to be more responsible for their own basic maintenance.
Wile E.
If Congress Fails to Pass a Health Plan ...
... you will lose your insurance anyway: At least the employer-provided kind. The extreme right--maybe just the right--is trying to scare people by saying they will lose their health insurance if "Obamacare" (whatever that is) passes. What they are not telling you is that you will lose your health insurance--at least the employer provided kind--if Congress fails to act.
It's already happening. Employer provided health insurance is just too expensive. Small businesses haven't been able to afford it for a long time. They pay high rates--double, we discovered when we were in business--what you can buy as an individual. And the rates have been going up dramatically every year. If you think large corporations are going to be able to continue providing coverage, think again. Chrysler and General Motors went into bankruptcy, largely because of huge legacy costs generated by their commitments to worker/retiree pensions and health care.
Even when companies continue to offer health insurance, workers and would-be workers are at risk, especially older workers too young for medicare. If you're 50 to 65, watch out. You'll be first in line to be laid off and last in line to be hired--precisely because you are too expensive to be covered.
While this is painful, it may not be entirely bad in the long run. Our reliance on "benefits" has had some unfortunate consequences.
Employer provided health insurance has other consequences.
It's already happening. Employer provided health insurance is just too expensive. Small businesses haven't been able to afford it for a long time. They pay high rates--double, we discovered when we were in business--what you can buy as an individual. And the rates have been going up dramatically every year. If you think large corporations are going to be able to continue providing coverage, think again. Chrysler and General Motors went into bankruptcy, largely because of huge legacy costs generated by their commitments to worker/retiree pensions and health care.
Even when companies continue to offer health insurance, workers and would-be workers are at risk, especially older workers too young for medicare. If you're 50 to 65, watch out. You'll be first in line to be laid off and last in line to be hired--precisely because you are too expensive to be covered.
While this is painful, it may not be entirely bad in the long run. Our reliance on "benefits" has had some unfortunate consequences.
- Workers are insulated from medical costs: With health insurance provided for them, workers have no incentive to pay attention to medical costs and every reason to demand the latest and the best medicine has to offer.
- Medical providers are insulated from price pressure: With workers not paying attention, medical providers are free to ratchet up charges, pad invoices, order unnecessary tests, by expensive equipment duplicated in nearby facilities, and so on.
- Insurance companies are insulated from price pressure (sort of): To some extent, insurance companies benefit from the same absence of price pressure as providers. However, insurers are really middle men who pass on the costs in the form of insurance to companies and individuals.
Employer provided health insurance has other consequences.
- People think employers must provide health insurance. Why? Do employers provide auto insurance? Or home insurance? Or long-term care insurance? Why is it their business? Why is a good thing? Does it make a business a better business? Does it help a company serve its mission? Does it make a company more competitive, especially in the global market where health insurance is either not provided at all or provided by the government?
- People think they must work for a company that provides health insurance. In setting this as a priority, they often wind up working for a company they don't like in other respects doing work they hate, and generally limiting their options.
In another post, we'll talk about what we might do instead. Wile E.
2009-03-12
Focus on the Good News.
Update: The news media, on the whole, rides the wave of momentum. In an economic slowdown, their reporting is unremittingly negative. To compensate, we'll identify some of the good news.
- Durable goods orders increase: The Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods--manufactured products expected to last at least three years--increased 3.4% last month. This was the first advance in six months. Most of the increase came from orders for military aircraft and parts, machinery, computers, and fabricated metal products. (3/27/2009)
- New home sales rise: The Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes rose 4.7% in February from a month earlier. In combination with the equally unexpected increase in existing home sales, this means inventories are being drawn down and suggests that home sales are reaching a bottom. Watch for these developments: 1) prospective buyers, thinking the bottom has been reached, will come back into the market in droves; 2) prospective sellers, thinking the bottom has been reached, will remove their homes from the market waiting for prices to increase. With few new homes being built, we could move quickly into a high-demand low-supply situation, in other words a seller's market, precipitating rapidly rising home prices. This would intensify if homebuilders can't get loans from banks and begin adding to the supply of new homes. (3/26/2009)
- Existing home sales rise: The National Association of Realtors reported that existing home sales were 5.1% higher in February than in January, thanks in great part to distressed sales (foreclosures and short sales). Still, the increase was a surprise and good news. It means that existing house inventories are being drawn down, which is necessary for the market to bottom. In the meantime, savvy buyers are getting sweet deals. (3/23/2009)
- Suddenly, banks are in the black: Citigroup CEO sparked a stock market rally when he announced that the company had made a profit in the first two months of the year, its first in 15 months if it holds up. A day later, JP Morgan Chase reiterated that it had made a profit in the first two months of the year. Wells Fargo has said its results for the two months were strong. (Colorado Springs Gazette, 3/12/2009.)
- Jobs are being created: While the recession has claimed 4.4 million jobs, it has created 2 million others, according to government data. While this is a net loss, it's important to remember that jobs are created, even in an economic downturn. At his point, most of the new jobs are in education, health care, and government. However, there are new openings in private industry, especially for highly skilled workers. Engineers and the like. (AP via Colorado Springs Gazette, 3/10/2009)
