Running on empty! (See 1 below.)
America has increasingly become a bail out nation under Obama.
There is a delicate balance between free and controlled markets. The latter inevitably leads to strong political affiliations which prove destructive to competition. We have been heading in this direction for decades and Obama's economic philosophy and policies have simply accelerated the move .
The more our nation sees of Obama, learns about Obama and hears Obama talk the less they will embrace him.
I continue to maintain he will be a one term president.(See 1a and 1b below.)
But the Palestinians are waiting for Obama's re-election according to Tobin. (See 1c below.)
---
Boaz Gaynor is a friend and expert on Counter Terrorism. He is a professor at Israel's largest private University.
Because I have been engaged in a lot of travel, Boaz' op ed piece just caught up with me or me with it.
His op ed appeared in the Jerusalem Post several weeks ago.
I reviewed his: "The Counter Terrorism Puzzle" several years ago.(See 2 below.)
---
A little humor (my kind): A little boy went up to his father and asked: 'Dad, where did my intelligence come from?' The father replied. 'Well, son, you must have got it from your mother, cause I still have mine.'
---
This ain't so funny because this is what we have become. http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb
--
This thought provoking piece from a friend who spoke for me here several years ago. David is one bright man. (See 3 below.)
----
Think what you will about Newt, he is bright and this is worth reading. (See 4 below.)
---
Yesterday's New York Times had an article about an alleged confrontation by a Chinese General and the Chinese premier.
The thrust of the article confirms what I have been writing about for years.: As China expands its commercial trade its military will become more authoritative.
The reported episode involved a very high Chinese general demanding of the nation's civilian authority ( Communist Party) he be promoted to the top military spot.
---
My courageous friend, Toameh, continues to tell it like it is. (See 5 below.)
---
For those who read my missives, I mentioned that our California grandson has begun a start up social network project and he was interviewed recently and the article appeared in "On Line Forbes Magazine" today. Knowing that most of you would never see the article I have posted it below..
For those who do Facebook etc. you should go to his site. You will find it most interesting.(See 6 below.)
---
Time to trot out the blame horse again!
Obviously the economic recovery is not making the kind of progress Obama needs to win the hearts and minds of voters.
That is why he has joined his garbage brigade and begun trashing Romney.
I warned this would be the nastiest campaign ever and I believe it will ultimately back fire and show, once again, that Obama is a fraud and those around him are not equal to serve this nation.
But how many times must those who voted him in and still might vote to re-elect him need to have their eyes opened? ((See 7 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Barack Obama Runs On Empty And Toward Defeat
By DOUGLAS MACKINNONDOUGLAS MACKINNON
The social experiment that was Barack Obama's election and presidency is over. Way over.
As one who was born in the heart of Boston and worked the political world of Washington for 20 years, I know quite a few Democrats. Some are family, and many are close friends. Most voted for Obama in 2008. None at this point is inclined to vote for him in 2012.
Why? Because they view him as an abject failure across the board and have decided to put the welfare of their families and themselves before the empty rhetoric of the Obama campaign before it's too late.
Because of my time in Washington and past positions there, I also know and am friends with quite a few journalists. I speak with many on a regular basis, and it's safe to say that the majority of them lean left politically.
That said, in off-the-record conversations with my left-leaning journalistic friends, not one believes Obama is going to win re-election. Not one. While most believe Mitt Romney to be a weak candidate, they are still convinced that he will comfortably defeat Obama on Nov. 6.
These liberal and jaded journalists privately admit that Obama has been exposed for what he is: an overhyped, self-invented candidate with no real-world experience who has been frozen into inaction by the enormity of the office he holds.
Obama has no domestic policy to speak of. He has no foreign policy to speak of. He has no jobs program to speak of. His signature health care plan is driving doctors out of the field, crippling small businesses and putting thousands of Americans out of work.
The Obama of 2012 has nothing positive to run on. Nothing. And guess what? He, more than anyone else in his White House or campaign, knows it.
He knows his election and presidency were social engineering gone wrong. He knows his biography is unraveling faster than the baseball that Roy Hobbs crushed into the rain in the movie "The Natural." He knows that he has run out of all options but one: Go negative on Mitt Romney 24/7 and hope a heretofore compromised mainstream media will once again unethically act as his surrogate.
Unfortunately for Obama, two massive holes exist in his "demonize Romney with an assist from the media" campaign tactic.
First, most Americans who are paying attention to this contest have come to the conclusion that Romney is a very decent and moral person who does have a fairly impressive business background coupled with some other real-world experience.
Second, as mentioned above, more and more members of the Journalists In The Tank For Obama club seem to be having second thoughts. As one of my friends in that club said, "Hey, we have kids in school, have to pay mortgages and want to keep our jobs just like everyone else."
In 2008, Obama won a fairly impressive victory against an incredibly weak and inept Republican challenger. To pull off that victory, Obama had pull a significant number of Republican and independent voters away from John McCain. To his credit and to his ability to spin himself along with the American voters' sense of fairness and history, Obama did just that.
In 2008, Obama was an unformed piece of pottery clay molded into shape by his own false rhetoric combined with a media narrative that sought to canonize him in anticipation of having his face carved into Mount Rushmore.
Today, in 2012, Barack Obama stands on his own — an unqualified man who did not have the gifts to grow into the presidency.
While noble in many respects, the social experiment that was Barack Obama's election and presidency is coming to its natural and expected conclusion.
• MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the memoir "Rolling Pennies in the Dark."
1a)
Federal Spending: Killing the Economy With Government Stimulus
By Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
August 6, 2012
President Barack Obama’s presidency hangs in the balance after another disappointing employment report. He continues to advocate new government “stimulus” programs to boost his reelection campaign. However, Washington is awash in government “stimulus,” without effect. Only productive private investment will spark economic revival.
When both financial and economic crises hit, President George W. Bush backed a $170 billion “stimulus” bill and then massive industry bail-outs—of banks, Wall Street, automakers, and the housing industry. President Obama accelerated the latter efforts while adding his own $825 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in early 2009. Several smaller “stimulus” efforts costing well over $100 billion followed.
As a result, federal outlays and debts exploded. In 2008 federal red ink was “only” $479 billion. Since then Uncle Sam’s annual deficit has exceeded a trillion dollars. In addition, the Federal Reserve launched a massive “stimulus” campaign—costly bail-outs and mortgage purchases, near zero interest rates, and two rounds of “quantitative easing.” Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted earlier this year that “Beginning in 2008, the balance sheet of the Fed doubled and then rose to three times its earlier level.”
None of these efforts have spurred economic growth. In fact, unemployment soared, hitting ten percent. The jobless rate is still over eight percent despite administration promises that it would fall below six percent by last April.
Some “stimulus” advocates blame state and local spending which, they claimed, fell. However, Edward Lazear, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, pointed out that while real government spending was down a little in 2010 over 2009, GDP growth rates were higher. Outlays were up in 2011 while GDP growth dropped. Lazear added: “The White House forecasts that government spending in 2012 will exceed 2011 levels by 5 percent and will be 27 percent higher than it was in 2008.”
If government could spend America to prosperity, good times would have arrived long ago.
Yet President Obama won’t stop. Last year he proposed another “jobs” initiative, the $447 billion “American Jobs Act” grab-bag, which included subsidies for state and local governments. Literally millions of jobs, most of them in or for government, would be created, he claimed, by Washington borrowing more money America doesn’t have for government projects America can’t afford.
In July the New York Times published an unintentionally hilarious editorial contending that “Mr. Obama’s big mistake was to turn prematurely from the need for stimulus to a focus on cutting the budget.” The Times apparently missed the $1.2 trillion deficit the administration will run this year. Or the president’s future budget submission: the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president’s program would raise accumulated red ink over the next decade from $3 trillion to an astonishing $6.4 trillion. Where is the radical budget-cutting in Washington.
A similar debate is occurring in Europe, with the contest presented as “austerity” versus “growth.” Yet many of the nations which practiced austerity have grown the fastest. Germany remains the continent’s powerhouse even though its post-2008 stimulus was far less relative to its GDP than in the U.S. and other European states. Both Germany and Sweden enjoyed strong growth as they brought their budgets into closer balance.
My Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner also pointed to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All cut government outlays; all are growing. Canada and Switzerland similarly rejected profligacy as policy. He wrote: “All these countries are following the successful examples set by other nations such as Chile, Ireland, and New Zealand in the 1980s and ‘90s, and Slovakia from 2000 to 2003.”
In contrast, Portugal’s Finance Minister, Vitor Gaspar, warned the New York Times: “My country definitely provides a cautionary tale that shows that, in some instances, short-run expansionary policies can be counterproductive.” He added: “There are some limitations to the intuitions from Keynes.” In fact, Portugal may be headed for a second European Union bail-out.
Economic growth requires good spending, not more spending. After all, Washington could pay every American $10,000 to dig a hole in his or her neighbor’s yard and then another $10,000 to fill it in. It would be a ludicrous policy, yet Keynes argued that the unemployed would be better off if paid by the government to “dig holes in the ground.”
Most jobs bills are little different than paying people to dig holes. Politics, not economics, dominates. University of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan admitted “When people say austerity is not the answer, fine, if you have great things to spend on, let us know what they are.” The ARRA ignited a lobbying frenzy, turning the measure into a Christmas tree for legislators to hang long desired projects and favored social spending. By one estimate the bill “created” jobs at an average cost of $278,000. The cost of some individual jobs exceeded a million dollars each.
Tom Evslin, who coordinated Vermont’s federal “stimulus” money, concluded that “much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future.” He pointed to broadband and energy programs, where private investment “dried up as companies waited to see if they could build with taxpayer money. Entrepreneurial effort turned from innovation to grant-grabbing.” Last September the New York Times reported that critics “say the money has gone to areas where it is not needed, to promote broadband where it already exists and for industrial parks designed to attract business and jobs that may never materialize.”
The heart of the case for government spending as stimulus is the fabled Keynesian “multiplier.” John Maynard Keynes claimed that after government spent a dollar others would spend it again and again, “multiplying” the economic effect. Pay me $20,000 to dig and fill two holes, and I will buy things. In turn, my sellers will buy things. And on it will go.
It is a dubious theory. First, it costs government money to tax and spend. Observed Harvard economist Robert Barro, “it is wrong now to think that added government spending is free.”
Second, the theory presumes that government will use the resources productively. Explained Barro: The argument “implicitly assumes that the government is better than the private market at marshaling idle resources to produce useful stuff. Unemployed labor and capital can be utilized at essentially zero social cost, but the private market is somehow unable to figure any of this out.” Economist Dwight Lee made a similar point: “increased real aggregate demand is the result, not the cause, of an increasingly productive and prosperous economy.”
Nor is there compelling evidence of a large positive multiplier. Economists John Cogan and John Taylor reviewed the ARRA and concluded: “despite the large size of the program, the dollar volume of additional government purchases that it has generated has been negligible.” Their earlier research debunked federal attempts to stimulate the economy during the 1970s: government stimulus programs “did not work then and they are not working now.” Also criticizing the ARRA was a recent study from the Phoenix Center, which noted: “We are now several years on, and many economists and policymakers are beginning to doubt the ability of government spending and monetary policy to effectively correct our current employment problems.”
Robert Barro reviewed the experience of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, and came up with a multiplier of 0.8, which means that government outlays actually “lowered components of GDP aside from military purchases.” He and Charles Redlick figured that military spending generated a multiplier greater than one only with very high levels of unemployment, well above current levels.
In extending his analysis to peacetime, Barro reported as multiplier “a number insignificantly different from zero.” Since the 1960s government spending has been tied to the business cycle; he and Redlick believed “that government spending increased in response to growing GDP, rather than the reverse.” He figured that roughly $900 billion in federal “stimulus” spending from ARRA probably resulted in only $600 billion in increased growth, a bad deal by any measure. He and Redlick concluded: “spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending.”
A 2009 IMF study of economic research suggested a multiplier in the range of 0.3 to 1.8, with some variation based on country size. In a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Valerie Ramey of theUniversity of California (San Diego) reviewed the economic literature, which suggested that the multiplier probably was between .8 and 1.5, and almost certainly was between .5 and 2.0.
However, she personally reached far more negative findings: “For the most part, it appears that a rise in government spending does not stimulate private spending; most estimates suggest that it significantly lowers private spending. These results imply that the government spending multiplier is below unity. Adjusting the implied multiplier for increases in tax rates has only a small effect. The results imply a multiplier on total GDP of around 0.5.”
Similar was the result of a 2011 study from the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies. The four authors found: “government spending has zero effect on private-sector job creation. This result is consistent with the apparent impotence of huge federal government spending increases in recent times aimed at reducing unemployment.”
Historical experience argues against government’s ability to “stimulate” the economy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president during the Great Depression. He spent wildly and the economy recovered a bit, only to sink again. In 1939 Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau complained that “After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”
In fact, UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian blamed the New Deal for prolonging the Great Depression by seven years. Cole explained that Roosevelt produced a program “allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.” Argued Cole: “the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.” Ohanian believed that “a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.” But that’s just what the president is trying to do.
Moreover, contrary to myth, World War II did not end the Depression. As economist Robert Higgs has well-documented, war-time prosperity was an illusion, with non-government GDP growth slowing. “During the war years the economy operated essentially as a command economy,” he wrote, with few “normal measures of macroeconomic performance.” After all, the government conscripted 16 million men into uniform and directed much of America’s economic activity into war production. There was little change in total national wealth. Arthur Herman, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out that “Even with rising wages, they had to put up with rationing and very limited choice in consumer goods.”
Ironically, it was the end of this wartime “stimulus spending”—which Herman figured at $3 trillion in today’s dollars—which led to economic growth. At the time people feared that Washington slashing arms production and demobilizing military personnel would lead to another depression. However, he observed, “private investment came roaring back, triggering steady economic growth that pushed the U.S. into a new ear, as the most prosperous society in history.” Added Herman, “the biggest trigger to growth turns out to have been a sharp rise in private capital investment, which the New Deal had slowed.”
Why is that? One reason, contended Cole and Ohanian, is that over time “the large gap between manufacturing wages and productivity that emerged during the New Deal had nearly been eliminated.” Another factor was the cut in marginal income tax rates, which topped out at 94 percent.
Moreover, Higgs cited the end of “regime uncertainty” characterized by the Roosevelt administration’s early attacks on business, which resulted in “a pervasive uncertainty among investors about the security of their property rights in their capital and its prospective returns.” Confidence returned after the war. Explained Higgs: “Sufficiently sanguine for the first time since 1929, and finally freed from government restraints on private investment for civilian purposes, investors set in motion the postwar investment boom that powered the economy’s return to sustained prosperity notwithstanding the drastic reduction of federal government spending from its extraordinarily elevated war-time levels.” Reducing outlays is critical to return to prosperity.
Alas, the only thing that government “stimulus” stimulates is government. Valerie Ramey observed: “Increases in government spending do reduce unemployment. For all but one specification, though, it appears that all of the employment increase is from an increase in government employment, not private employment.”
Indeed, the primary beneficiaries of government “stimulus” programs are in the nation’s capital. The Washington Post headlined one article: “Stimulus is Boon for D.C. Area Contractors. The Wall Street Journal titled a story: “Washington Firms Soak Up Stimulus.”
Finally, any attempt at “stimulus” leaves a long-term cost after any short-term benefits have long dissipated. Observed Barro: “fiscal deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become negative.” Thus, constantly increasing deficits result in “persistently low economic growth and an exploding ratio of public debt to GDP.”
For this reason even the Congressional Budget Office was skeptical of the ARRA. Over time the agency steadily reduced its estimate as to the number of jobs created and warned that the benefits were temporary. The CBO figured that the president’s program would increase GDP through 2012, but there would be no effect in 2013 and 2014 and then the impact would be negative. Last November the agency concluded that ARRA’s impact peaked in 2010, while the accumulated debt would “reduce output slightly in the long run—by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
That is, diverting productive capital to pay off government debt will permanently reduce the GDP. Workers will earn less while paying more to finance a larger debt. Warned CBO: “Budget deficits that grow faster than the economy ultimately become unsustainable. As the government attempts to finance its interest payments by issuing more debt, the rise in deficits accelerates. That, in turn, leads to a vicious circle in which the government issues ever-larger amounts of debt in order to pay ever-higher interest charges. In the end, the costs of serving the debt outstrip the economic resources available for financing those expenditures.”
The economy could use a real stimulus, not massive government spending. The primary economic challenge is too much government spending. Rajan argued for treating “the crisis as a wake-up call and move to fix all that has been papered over in the last few decades.” According to a recent IMF review of 66 adjustments programs, structural reforms were most likely to succeed. The best programs included real budget reductions and were not based on raising taxes.
Economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute figured that when debt approaches 90 percent of GDP growth tends to slow. Noted columnist Robert Samuelson: “Since 1800, major countries have experienced 26 episodes when government debt has reached 90 percent of GDP for at least five years, they find in a study done with Vincent Reinhart of Morgan Stanley. Periods of slower economic growth typically lasted two decades.” Counting Treasury-Social Security borrowing, the U.S. already is over 100 percent.
Thus, argued independent investor Jeff Carter: “In the long term cutting government spending is good for economic growth. Competition for growth capital between private industry and government ends. Government gets out of the business of running things and private industry takes over. Private companies are always more efficient and responsive than government.”
There is much that should go into a comprehensive economic reform program. Suggested Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian: “reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries—including autos and steel—are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents.”
The point is not that every regulation is bad, but even those which are not nevertheless often are badly designed, implemented, and/or enforced. Unfortunately, with ObamaCare as his administration’s centerpiece, President Obama has become the Regulatory President. Yet, emphasized Robert Barro, the economy needs “incentives for people and businesses to invest, produce and work.”
President Barack Obama would prefer to talk about anything other than the economy. However, he ran on the economy in 2008. He can’t run away from it in 2012. The best way to stimulate the economy would be to shrink government, reduce outlays and debt, lower marginal tax rates, and streamline regulations. This economic “stimulus” program really would stimulate.
1b)For Romney, Even Means Ahead
After absorbing three months of negative ads from President Obama, the GOP challenger is raising his game in time for the nominating convention.
By KARL ROVE
Wednesday's Gallup poll had President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney essentially tied, with Mr. Obama at 47% and Mr. Romney at 46%. That's good news for the challenger: Mr. Romney has absorbed a punishing three-month Obama television barrage that drained the incumbent's war chest. Historically, undecided voters tend to break late for the challenger.
Mr. Romney and his campaign have also raised their game. After Mr. Obama declared on July 13 that "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," Mr. Romney went on offense, saying the following Tuesday in Pennsylvania that the notion entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses was "insulting." Wednesday in Ohio, Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Obama for not having met with his Jobs Council for six months. Thursday in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney belittled the White House's explanation that the president had failed to do so because he "has a lot on his plate." The following Tuesday in Nevada before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Obama over cuts in defense and veterans care.
Each time, Mr. Romney's message was delivered in the morning and dominated the day's coverage. That change appears now to be standard procedure for Team Romney.Last week Mr. Romney began laying out a crisper, shorter economic agenda. His "Plan for a Stronger Middle Class" is built around five priorities: promoting more domestic energy, cultivating skills for economic success, making trade work for America, cutting the deficit, and championing small business (including tax and regulatory reform and the repeal of ObamaCare). It also compares the candidates' records in office. Jobs, home values, and family income rose—while budget deficits and unemployment declined—in Massachusetts under Mr. Romney, whereas all these measures are in the wrong direction under Mr. Obama.
Though it will require more detail, persistent explanation and defense, this is a better foundation on which to fight the election than last year's unwieldy 59-point plan for economic jobs and growth.
Mr. Romney is also tougher. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid alleged that Mr. Romney went years without paying taxes, Mr. Romney didn't ask for an apology. He responded to this smear by challenging Mr. Reid "to put up or shut up."
Mr. Romney also began running more positive ads. The election will not be won just by highlighting Mr. Obama's failures, a job better left (mostly) to outside groups. Because it can put the candidate on camera, the Romney campaign is better positioned to reassure voters that he has a plan to create jobs, reduce spending, and make America more prosperous. This is vital, since both sides have pushed up their opponent's negative ratings to the high-40s.
Mr. Obama's numbers are driven by the bad economy, so there's little he can do. And those who strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy vastly outnumber those who strongly approve. Mr. Romney's task is less difficult: Voters are asking if he is too rich to care about ordinary people, has a real economic plan that makes sense, and is both strong and presidential enough.
That's why Team Romney appears focused on making certain his first presidential decision—picking a running mate—is done right and rolled out properly.
And then there is Mr. Romney's convention speech, which needs to be powerful. More Americans will watch it than any other election event except the debates. (In 2008, more than 38 million Americans watched the two candidates' acceptance addresses.) This will be Mr. Romney's best moment to provide insights into his character, share the values that guide him, and lay out a growth agenda.
Among other things, Mr. Romney should talk about his father's modest upbringing, his wife's illness, and his wealth. Americans know nothing about the first, little about the second, and (courtesy of Team Obama) much about the third. Mr. Romney can show more of his personal side, which would reveal a man of enormous decency and good character.
Mr. Romney will be on strong ground defending free enterprise as a system that rewards initiative, hard work and sacrifice—and in doing so creates widespread prosperity that he will seek to extend to every corner of the nation.
There's likely to be a modest, short-lived bump in Mr. Romney's polls after his convention speech. Ignore that. In this close election, the real benefit will be in the impression, information and values that remain with swing voters who'll make up their minds late and decide the election.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
1c)
1c)
Palestinians Waiting for Obama to Win
Jonathan S. Tobin - Commentary Magazine, August 6th, 2012
Israel is being criticized today in the world press for playing hardball with five of the 12 non-aligned nations that had hoped to gather in Ramallah to formally back the Palestinian Authority’s latest attempt to get the United Nations to back their bid for statehood. The delegations from Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia and Malaysia who sought to enter the territories while sticking to their non-recognition of the Jewish state were not allowed in, effectively spiking the entire event. The collapse of what the PA had hoped would be a “Ramallah Declaration” was just the latest indication that the Palestinians’ latest UN bid might end as badly as their first try. However, the Palestinians are smart enough to know that placing your chips on the ability of a disorganized and powerless faction like the Non-Aligned Movement isn’t a good bet.
Far more significant than the posturing in Ramallah were the comments by aides of PA President Mahmoud Abbas that their UN campaign would be largely put on hold until after the U.S. presidential election. As the Times of Israel reports, Abbas is planning to soft pedal his UN effort until November because he understands that any talk about the Palestinians could hinder Obama’s re-election hopes. Though the PA has been dismayed by the president’s election year Jewish charm offensive that has seen their concerns pigeonholed in Washington, Abbas is clearly hoping for a better result once Obama is safely returned to office.
Abbas had hoped the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement’s Palestine Committee in Ramallah would give him a boost, but the collapse of the publicity stunt is yet another setback for his diplomatic offensive. Israel will be accused of playing the bully in this incident, and the Palestinians may think it will serve their cause, but the spectacle of nations that don’t recognize Israel’s existence seeking entry via Israeli crossings is not likely to harm the Jewish state.
If anything, the contretemps is a reminder that what the PA is trying to execute is an end run around the peace process. They want independence and Israel’s withdrawal from disputed territory but are not willing to negotiate about it and instead are simply demanding the UN hand it to them on a silver platter. Last summer, the world press was abuzz with predictions of a “diplomatic tsunami” which would swamp Israel as the Palestinians were acclaimed at the UN. But the tsunami was barely a light sprinkle as the world yawned and refused to back their play. Though it is still possible that with the help of the Non-Aligned nations they can upgrade their membership privileges via a UN General Assembly resolution, such a step would entail considerable risks for the PA, including the loss of U.S. funding as well as Israeli financial retaliation.
As for their cherished hopes that a second Obama administration would do their bidding, that is exactly the sort of rumbling that scares Democrats who fear Jewish voters will remember the three years of administration pressure on Israel rather than the last few months of friendship. But even though the Palestinians have good reason to think that a Romney administration would be far less willing to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction as Obama has done, they need to remember why they’ve accomplished nothing in the past four years.
Even though Obama has been the least friendly president to Israel in at least a generation, the Palestinians got nothing out of it. President Obama picked fights with Israel over settlements, the 1967 lines and the status of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians still struck out because they foolishly thought Obama would do all their dirty work for them and still refused to negotiate.
Israelis may worry about what Obama’s re-election will mean for them, as they know it is a certainty that the charm offensive will end the day after the election. But they can take comfort in the fact that it isn’t likely that Mahmoud Abbas will get any braver or smarter in the next four years. Even with a friend in the White House, the Palestinians will gain no territory or a state so long as they are unwilling to negotiate. Nor can they hope to achieve those goals unless they are prepared to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Because that is still a virtual impossibility, their faith in Obama or the ability of any American politician to help them is clearly misplaced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) OP Ed By Boaz Gaynor
The terrorist attack against a busload of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, poses a number of questions, and necessarily shakes up the security establishment. Although the attack in Burgas is still being investigated, the details published to date indicate that it was perpetrated by a terrorist with a Western appearance. International media have cited this fact as a way to cast doubt on the responsibility of Hezbollah and Iran for the attack, and as a way of suggesting that the attack may have been carried out by affiliates of al-Qaida or by local radicals.
In fact, the use of terrorists with a Western mien or citizenship is not foreign to Hezbollah. Among the many examples of this, it is enough to recall Steven Smirk, a German convert to Islam recruited by Hezbollah who was arrested in 1997 in Israel, where he had come with the intention of perpetrating terrorist attacks; or Hussein Mikdad, a Lebanese citizen who came to Israel in 1996 on a British passport, and who ultimately was seriously wounded by a “work accident” explosion in his room at the Lawrence Hotel in Jerusalem.
Another question for which there is as yet no definitive answer is whether or not the attack in Burgas was a suicide attack. Did the terrorist blow himself up in or near the bus? Or did he place a backpack laden with explosives in the baggage compartment of the bus?
On one hand, the suspicious behavior of the terrorist shown in the airport’s security video appears to be that of a suicide attacker. In addition, the body of the man suspected to have been the terrorist – or what remains of it – was apparently found at the scene of the attack. However, suicide attackers don’t usually carry identification; yet the Burgas terrorist was carrying a fake US driver’s license bearing his photograph.
Moreover, he was wearing a wig – something very unusual, which may indicate that he wished to disguise his identity to evade being caught after escaping the scene of the attack.
These contradictions might make sense if the terrorist was himself deceived – that is, if he knew he was carrying a bomb, but did not know he was meant to blow himself up during the attack, such that when he placed the backpack in the bus’s baggage hold and released the safety catch, he was unwittingly sealing his own fate. Or perhaps someone else detonated the explosives remotely, before the terrorist managed to flee the scene.
This version of events seems even more probable in light of the information that, prior to the attack, the terrorist toured the airport grounds in a taxi. Such behavior is not characteristic of a suicide attacker, who arrives on the scene in full command of the knowledge and tools necessary to the attack, culled from prior intelligence, and honed through training. A late-stage reconnaissance tour like the one made by the Burgas terrorist may be understood as an attempt to devise an escape route after the attack, thereby suggesting that the terrorist had no idea he was striding toward his own death.
The explosives themselves also raise questions. As the airport security video clearly illustrates, the terrorist was carrying a particularly large backpack, one striking enough to have aroused suspicion. However, published reports indicate that the giant backpack contained a mere 3 kg. of explosives – a bomb that could easily have been hidden in a small messenger bag. Often, such bombs have been swathed in layers of metal (nails, screws, ball-bearings), which are meant to increase the shrapnel spewed in the attack and cause as much harm as possible. However, even if that had been the case here, the backpack’s proportions would not square with the quantity of explosives. The last questions to be addressed are these: Could this attack have been prevented? And what can we learn from it for preventing future attacks?
To prevent this type of terrorist attack, two things are needed: intelligence, and security. Intelligence provides the information necessary to identify terrorists before they attack, and thereby to forestall an attack, or at least focus security on specific targets, plots, and/or times. The number of potential targets is nearly unlimited. A country must protect its citizens everywhere and at all times, but a terrorist need only identify a single security breach – and exploit it. To this end, terrorists are constantly collecting information, and adjusting their plans accordingly.
Thus, any sliver of relevant intelligence can help focus security efforts. Israeli security forces can be proud of their multiple achievements – some of which have been made public – in thwarting many terrorist attacks planned by Hezbollah and Iran, even in the past year.
For example, they recently averted a terrorist attack in Cyprus, where a Hezbollah operative was arrested just before he was meant to be carrying out an attack similar, if not identical, to that perpetrated in Bulgaria. It appears that Israeli (and Bulgarian) security forces had no foreknowledge of the attack in Burgas. This in and of itself does not mean there was an intelligence failure. The investigation that will certainly continue in the coming weeks will, in part, answer the question of whether signs were missed that would have indicated a planned attack.
Providing security for Israeli tourists in Burgas is extremely complex. Israel’s stated policy is that responsibility for the safety of Israeli (and other) tourists rests on the shoulders of the host country. Justified though it may be, this policy is also very convenient for Israeli security agencies and decision makers. However, how does it square with a statement made this week by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that “the State of Israel is a guarantor for its citizens, whoever they are and wherever they may be”? Does this mean that the State of Israel must be responsible for the security of its citizens when they are tourists abroad?
Clearly, the State of Israel cannot and should not provide security for even some of its nationals when they are overseas. The security needs of Israeli tourists are met by travel advisories and by the general and specific behavior guidelines published by counter-terrorism coordinator office and the Foreign Ministry. However, the attack in Burgas would appear to require us to think again about Israel’s commitment to guarding the security of Israeli tourists.
A very small number of sites are renowned for being popular Israeli tourist destinations. The large concentration of Israelis at these sites, whether as individuals or in groups, naturally attracts Israel’s enemies. The security arrangements at these sites therefore need to be different than they are elsewhere. But here, too, Israel cannot and should not be responsible for the security of Israeli tourists.
Israel is, however, obligated to conduct occasional spot-checks and surveys of the risks and threats to its citizens – even without prior intelligence – and to inform its citizens of any severe gaps in security, even as it demands that these be redressed by local security forces and/or by the tourist agencies and charter companies that organize group tours. Alternatively, and as a means of pressuring these agencies, Israel’s security authorities should warn the public not to use the services of a given agency, for security reasons. This is the principle security lesson derived from the attack in Burgas. It adds no significant costs, and does not replace the obligation of the host state to guard the safety of all of the tourists within its borders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Dictator’s Learning Curve – it’s getting steeper
By David Lowe
Authoritarians are developing new tactics and strategies to preempt and repress their citizens’ democratic aspirations, a new book suggests. But pro-democracy activists are also adapting, notes David Lowe, and they may have history on their side.
–An opposition leader in Malaysia is charged with violating the country’s sodomy laws.
–A Russian NGO that publicizes official corruption is subjected to a tax audit that results in crushing financial penalties.
–A Venezuelan government agency denies a broadcast license to a television network whose news stories criticize the country’s president.
According to journalist William J. Dobson, “today the struggle between democracy and dictatorship is rarely, almost never, a conflict between or among nations; it is a contest between people.” And while the few remaining Castros and Assads cling to police state tactics to control their populations (with mixed results), dictators who want to avoid colored revolutions are increasingly taking a different route, turning to more sophisticated methods of keeping their political opposition in check.
The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy (Doubleday, 2012) highlights five regimes that have strived in recent years to maintain a veneer of legitimacy through the use of pseudo-legal measures to keep increasingly active democracy movements from bringing them down: China, Egypt, Malaysia, Russia, and Venezuela. While paying close attention to these regimes and their new forms of repression, he gives equal time to their foes, advocates of freedom engaged in a struggle not only to fend off the authorities but also to mobilize fellow citizens by penetrating the twin obstacles of apathy and fear of the unknown these regimes rely heavily upon for their survival.
That the latter’s efforts have resulted in a number of notable successes over the past decade is unquestionable. Yet, as Dobson points out, while the colored revolutions of the early to mid-2000’s represented a high water mark for small-d democrats, they were followed by a five-year drop in political freedom, the longest continuous decline in political rights and civil liberties recorded by Freedom House since it began its reporting on these trends in the early 1970s. This he attributes to the adaptability of modern authoritarians who understand that using the law to restrict the activities of non-governmental organizations, allowing some small media outlets to operate, holding regular elections that have the appearance (though not the reality) of fairness, and speaking the language of democracy can produce favorable results.
One ruler who has made effective use of all of these methods is the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In 1992, Chavez organized an unsuccessful coup attempt by an underground cell of fellow military officers. Following two years in prison, he emerged with a populist message directed against an unpopular and corrupt regime that, in 1999, led him to the presidency. Gaining the confidence of the country’s substantial segment of the population living in poverty, Chavez built a solid base of support that provided the political foundation for a rapid and highly methodical consolidation of power that has enabled him to control every branch of government, the armed forces, the central bank, the state-owned oil company, and much of the media that he exploits to promote his message denouncing enemies–both foreign and domestic–as traitors and lackeys of the United States.
Perhaps above all, Chavez gained control of the once-independent National Electoral Council. As Dobson points out, Chavez relies heavily upon elections to maintain his hold on power, using them to justify his elimination of all checks and balances and enabling him “to create a permanent campaign environment.” Chavez was able to turn a recall referendum forced by his opponents in 2004 to his advantage by requesting the electoral council to turn over the list of the three million petitioners to his campaign manager, which he in turn made public on the internet. The result was devastating to many who signed the recall petition, ranging from the denial of medical care to the firing from jobs at state-run agencies.
Today the Venezuelan people suffer on many fronts: their country’s murder rate is one of the highest in the world, its perpetrators rarely prosecuted; its oil rich economy is in shambles with an inflation rate soaring, food shortages growing, and foreign investment disappearing; and much of its popular media that could be relied upon to report these developments (unlike the state-controlled media), have been shut down. The regime’s opposition, which came together earlier this year to nominate a viable candidate for the Presidential election this fall, is gaining confidence in its ability to capitalize on Chavez’ slipping support. Certainly the news of his illness has created uncertainty about his own future. Nonetheless, his staying power remains impressive, as he continues to play the anti-American card and to use his oil revenue to buy support.
One regime whose lengthy tenure was brought to an abrupt end during the period of Dobson’s research was the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak, who at the time of his downfall had served as president longer than his three predecessors combined. Dobson elicits the candid observation of his ruling party’s media spokesman that well before the end, Mubarak was well aware of the need to adapt his rule to the fact that the digital information age was producing a more informed citizenry. His authoritarian rule had been maintained largely through the manipulation of widespread fear of the likely Islamist alternative.
A small opening was provided in 2005, when Mubarak decided to hold an election with limited opposition. This had the effect of whetting the appetite of a segment of the population for true democracy, later enhanced by the suspicion that he was grooming his son for a dynastic succession. By brazenly stealing the following election five years later, the regime lost any semblance of legitimacy, as the Tahrir protests only months later would make clear.
Should the Egyptian example, in which a regime thought by many “experts” to be invincible shortly before its downfall, offer hope to opponents of tyrants in other parts of the world? Much will depend upon the ability of those opponents to hone their own skills at mass mobilization and outreach to fellow citizens justifiably wary of what will follow in the wake of an upheaval.
Dobson provides a number of examples of effective campaigns to challenge authoritarian regimes, often at the risk of personal and family security:
–in Russia, an environmentalist wages a one-woman campaign to preserve a pristine forest against regime-backed developers who want to bulldoze parts of it to build a highway;
–in China, the number of “mass incidents,” a category encompassing strikes, demonstrations, marches, and sit-ins rises over 200 fold between 1993 and 2010, and in the following year protestors chase police and local officials from a town in the southern part of the country;
–in Venezuela, a student movement leading the opposition to Chavez has higher approval ratings than any other grouping in the country, including the Catholic Church.
Growing along with these protests is the international solidarity and networking led by veterans of the colored revolutions of the past decade. But as the Serb strategist Serge Popovic acknowledges when discussing the 2011 uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, whatever benefits may be derived from listening to the experiences of others, in the end no revolution can succeed that is not entirely homegrown.
While those seeking free societies are able to learn from the experiences of others, so too are the regimes they seek to challenge. There is no better example than the People’s Republic of China, which has learned the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1989 Tiananmen uprising. Dobson describes the latter as “a near-death experience that would remake the social contract between China’s rulers and its people.” Whether the regime’s formula of economic liberalization, selective reforms, and carefully planned succession combined with ruthless repression of political dissent and ethnic minorities will succeed indefinitely remains to be seen. Much may depend upon continued economic growth, which has shown recent signs of slowing down.
In the end, dictators everywhere can fashion the cleverest strategies for survival, but as long as they continue to fear their own people, their learning curve will remain steep and their grip on power precarious.
5)
|
| Hamas has created the proper environment for the emergence of new terror groups in the Gaza Strip, Mohammed Dahlan, a former Palestinian security commander, said Thursday. Dahlan, who founded and headed the Palestinian Authority's Preventive Security Force in the Gaza Strip between 1994 and 2000, also accused Hamas of harboring the terror groups and using their members to kill Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip. Dahlan's allegations came in the wake of Sunday night's terror attack in Sinai in which 16 Egyptian border guards were killed by unidentified gunmen. PA and Fatah officials have seized the opportunity to hold their rivals in Hamas responsible for the attack, which is believed to have been carried out by Muslim fundamentalists from Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Hamas has strongly denied any connection to the attack, insisting that the terrorists did not come from the Gaza Strip. Dahlan, who was expelled from Fatah last year following a dispute with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his sons, also criticized Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy for hosting Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in the presidential palace in Cairo last week. Dahlan said that Haniyeh was being ungrateful to the Egyptians who honored him by treating him as a head of state. "Instead of expressing their gratitude, Hamas and Haniyeh are working to damage Egyptian interests in Sinai," Dahlan said in an interview with an Egyptian TV station. Dahlan said that the underground tunnels along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt were a source of income for Hamas leaders who have no interest in closing them down. The Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip do not benefit from the tunnels, Dahlan added. He called on the Egyptians to hold Hamas and its leaders, and not the entire Palestinian people, fully responsible for harboring terror groups in the Gaza Strip and threatening Egypt's national security. Dahlan said that the Gaza Strip was not under siege and its residents are not lacking anything. "Hamas is laying siege to the Gaza Strip," he charged. Dahlan said that a pro-Hamas Sudanese minister who visited the Gaza Strip recently told him that he wished that Sudan had as much basic goods as the Gaza Strip. In a related development, Hamas claimed Thursday that the Egyptian authorities have determined that the terrorists who killed the 16 border guards did not come from the Gaza Strip. Salah Bardaweel, a senior Hamas official, said that the Egyptian security forces' investigations have shown that the terrorists were not Palestinians, did not come from the Gaza Strip and were not affiliated with Hamas. Bardaweel claimed that supporters of ousted president Hosni Mubarak have been trying to implicate Hamas and the Gaza Strip to embarrass Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Hamas official said that his government would be prepared to shut all the underground tunnels if the Egyptians agree to permanently open the Rafah border crossing. Taher a-Nunu, spokesman for the Hamas government, also appealed Thursday to the Egyptians to keep the Rafah terminal open. He also suggested that the border crossing be turned into a trade terminal so that it could replace the underground tunnels. A-Nunu said that the Sinai terror attack was designed to sabotage relations between Egypt and the Palestinians -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
I write about entrepreneurs, start-ups, and the tech scene in L.A.
The Anti-Bucket List Scenario
The term “bucket list” originates with the idiom “to kick the bucket” — which we know means to die. During the Middle Ages, “kicking the bucket” typically referred to someone actually kicking over a bucket as they were hanged. Or an apparatus on which animals were slaughtered. Grim.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published a piece called “Boring Bucket Lists Are Nothing To Die For.”
The writer calls into question how our bucket lists have become pretty weak. How we should be striving for more in our aspirations for all the things we want to do before we are gone.
He writes: “A bucket list is not some cute, ironic prop for a dubious midlife crisis. A bucket list has the scent of the graveyard about it.”
He goes on to suggest that a goal of going to a simple concert is not enough: “A proper Bucket List should be more like seeing Radiohead at midnight on New Year’s Eve at the North Pole beneath the aurora borealis on a quadruple bill with Björk, Willie Nelson, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.”
While that particular concert sounds incredible, an L.A.-based startup is countering the notion that lists need be so over-the-top. Unbucket is an early-stage company built on the idea of listing out the shared experiences we intend to have with others already present in our lives.
Can lists really bring us closer?
Unbucket co-founder Elliot Darvick thinks they can. The idea for the company came from a Mother’s Day gift.
“Mother’s Day was approaching and I was thinking: What could I give my mom that would really be meaningful to her? And I thought: I’m going to give her a list. She lives in Detroit, I’m in Los Angeles — here’s a list of items we can do when we are in each other’s presence or something like planning to volunteer on the same day. It was my way of making our relationship a little more active. We talked all the time, but a lot of talking is just catch-up. I wanted to figure out how to make a relationship more current.”
He makes it clear that this is not a task management tool, as the market for task management is already crowded. Rather, the site was built to get people who know each other to become closer. The lists are meant to be spaces where each party can comment, people can plan together, and also share photos after they’ve completed items.
An example use case they’ve already seen in early users is a couple leavingWashington D.C. to move to Palo Alto, listing all the things they still want to do in D.C. (and on the East Coast) before they depart. Another use case gets more specific for foodies: “Caribbean, Latin, & South American Restaurants in Omaha.”
One list from a new user had two of the most disparate items on it — “Make my mother make her applesauce” and “A very long Porsche drive.” (Both items were already completed.)
At the core of Unbucket is, again, the idea of getting off the Internet and spending more time with real people. This theme has been resounding among several new startups (i.e. At The Pool, LifeCrowd) — many that are led by technologists who very much value the Web’s power, but also place a greater value on being away from a screen.
Unbucket has even started a blog series called “Closer,” — which is directly aimed at finding out whether technology is bringing us closer as a society or driving us apart.
Darvick said, “We want to make you closer to people you already know.”
“As for our name, we don’t like the term ‘bucket list.’ We don’t live under the specter of death. It’s about the little things we do with the company we have today. And it can be as small as applesauce.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment