===
.jpg)
eDagny cannot wait to play tennis with Grandpa nor Grandpa with Dagny!!!
==
Recently a local LTE writer defended Obama by accusing Republicans of not offering a health care alternative. This is my, yet to be published, response:
Georgia's own Representative, Dr. Tom Price, has devised health care legislation that incorporates the best of Obamacare while calling upon free market solutions, as opposed to government, solutions.
The plan was presented by John Boehner to Obama and was rejected out of hand. The Republican Party has internally debated the Price plan and has several other varieties but have yet to conclude which they want to sponsor but the ruse that they have no solution is a bald face lie.
Price is a practicing physician and knows more about health care than Obama but because Price is a Conservative Republican and his plan calls upon the free market Obama and his socialist advisors refuse to give it the time of day, notwithstanding his claim that he is willing to listen - another Obama lie!.
Tom spoke under the auspices of The Skidaway Island Republican Club some year or so ago and gave a full explanation of why his plan was preferable and at the same meeting pointed out why Obamacare would fail and for the very reasons it has.
What is not understand is insurance companies have been in cahoots with state legislators and have encouraged protective legislation which precludes competition.
Price's plan calls for a variety of offerings, portability , includes pre-existing care and other competitive features. As for the uninsured, Tom legislation calls for a degree of subsidization.
Another mistaken public notion is health care for the uninsured is unavailable. The problem is uninsured citizens call upon hospital emergency rooms as their first line of care and this comes at a catastrophic expense.
Free market solutions are not perfect but they made America the power house nation it became and generally every time government intrudes it reduces effectiveness, increases cost and brings results down to the lowest denominator while eliminating choice. Bureaucracies dumb down!!!
We have more than 50 soft drink varieties. If government was in charge we would have one offered in a drab colored container.
It is time we quit deluding ourselves and became informed, seek market solutions and this applies to getting government out of education and other vital aspects of our life.
I send many LTE's to the local paper, some in response to those whose views I wish to challenge and some are just my thinking in response to a current happening .
Tom Barton, the Editor of the Editorial page, agreed many years ago to post one of my LTE's a month and he has been faithful.
I generally get a rebuttal so I kidded Tom and said by doing so it increases his paper's readership.
===
Israel and water security. (See 1 below.)
===
So what's new with NYT? (See 2 below.)
===
Finally, Juan Williams attempted an interview with Charles Krauthammer last night. I say attempted because Juan was anxious to get Charles to agree with polls revealing the public's disdain for Congress was higher than their negative feelings about Obama's leadership. Juan would not allow Krauthammer to respond and came across giddy in citing polls suggesting Republicans were to blame for the public's tagging Congress with the 'do nothing' label.
When Krauthammer finally was allowed to respond, he proceeded to give Williams a history lesson and pointed out it was the role of the loyal opposition to reject bad legislation and that doing nothing was preferable to more bad legislation, like Obamacare and wasteful spending for projects which were not 'shovel' ready and which actually restrained employment etc.
I happen to agree with Krauthammer and would take the argument a step further.
It is evident, most liberals do not embrace the 'trickle down theory' of economics. They argue it takes too long, benefits the rich, does nothing for the poor and relies upon the free market to allocate resources unevenly.
They prefer, as does Obama and his fellow travelers, government be the allocator of public and free market resources because it produces 'fairer' results. Of course they never define what they mean by 'fairer,' overlook the consequences of the billions wasted on shovel ready programs, untold millions thrown away on various energy projects like Solyndra and point to the benefits derived from money spent on placing large segments of the auto industry, ownership of the health care and various insurance companies by the government and union bureaucrats as preferable.
'Fairer' is simply a euphemism for wealth transfer. To accomplish this goal of wealth transference Obama has resorted to pitting American against American arguing that Republicans are obstructionist because they oppose government control of huge swaths of our nation's productivity and GDP.
In essence we have 'trickle down' versus 'constipated waste' as the two economic alternatives to choose among. I maintain 'trickle down' economics requires patience but leaves the nation's economy in a more competitive position, freer and less burdened by government red tape and at a far reduced cost than when government intrudes and runs up huge public deficits subsidizing uneconomic entities simply to buy constituent votes.
Liberals distrust the free market because they cannot control outcomes. They prefer the hands on approach using the crude tools of government bureaucracies to guide our economy because power versus freedom is their ultimate goal.
Obamacare is a product of such thinking. The Founders of our Republic would be aghast at what we have allowed happen.
I gladly rest my case!
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Israel's Water Challenge
Summary
Israel's successful efforts to increase water security will lessen one of the country's geographical constraints. But new sources of water are more energy intensive, and this could increase Israel's short-term dependence on energy imports unless domestic energy sources are successfully developed.
Analysis
While Israel enjoys relative national security compared to its neighbors, which are struggling with internal fragmentation, this will probably change eventually. Because concerted military efforts have been required in the past to secure water resources, Israel has had a strong incentive to develop technological solutions to improve water security. Additional domestic water resources -- including increasing desalination capacity and continued efforts to recycle water -- allow Israel to mitigate one of its inherent geographic constraints.
Israel has substantially increased its capacity to desalinize water over the last decade. The arid country of roughly 8 million already has a number of desalination plants -- including the Sorek plant, the world's largest desalination plant of its kind, which became fully operational in October. Israel has plans to increase total desalination capacity through 2020 such that it approaches the estimated annual amount of internally generated natural water resources.
Naturally Occurring Water
Israel's total annual internal renewable natural sources of fresh water stand at 0.75 billion cubic meters. It has roughly 265 cubic meters per year of water per person available. This is well below the U.N. definition of water poverty, which is anything below 1,000 cubic meters per person per year.
For groundwater, Israel relies on two main aquifers: the Coastal Aquifer and the Mountain Aquifer (which is further divided into subaquifers). Both also lie under the Palestinian territory -- in Gaza and the West Bank, respectively.
Israel's surface water is concentrated mainly in the north and east of the country. Israel is part of the Jordan River system, which also includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank. The major rivers in the upper part of the basin include the Hasbani, Banias and the Dan rivers. These rivers converge to form the Jordan River near the border of Israel, Lebanon and Syria before flowing into the Sea of Galilee. Downstream, the Jordan River is further fed by the major tributaries of the Yarmouk and Zarqa rivers.
Crucially, more than half of Israel's total natural water originates outside its borders: 310 million cubic meters come from Lebanon, 375 million cubic meters come from Syria and 345 million cubic meters originate in the West Bank. All the countries in this arid region compete for the limited resources of the basin. The Palestinian Authority has between 51 cubic meters per person and 333 cubic meters per person per year depending on location, while Syria and Lebanon receive water from additional river systems and operate at 882 cubic meters per year per person and 1,259 cubic meters per year per person, respectively. Jordan has 161 cubic meters per year per person.
Allocations of water from transboundary river systems are often disputed. The last basin-wide allocation scheme for the Jordan River system came in 1955 with the Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan (also known as the Johnston Plan, named after the American ambassador involved in negotiations ). By allocating water based primarily on agricultural demand, the plan offered a compromise between participating nations. However, because many of the Arab states did not want to recognize Israel, the plan was never ratified. Attitudes toward cooperative distribution strategies continued to sour during the construction of Israel's National Water Carrier, which diverted water from the Sea of Galilee to other points in Israel. However, Jordan and Israel have used the Unified Plan as the basis for subsequent negotiations.
As one of the downstream riparian nations in the basin, protecting Israel's northern borders is essential to maintaining control of surface water resources. Maintaining control of the Golan Heights not only gives Israel a military advantage in dealing with adversaries to the north, it also helps to guarantee access to the Sea of Galilee.
Israel historically has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to guarantee access to water resources. In 1964, Syria, with the support of the Arab League, began devising plans to divert the Banias River, threatening roughly 10 percent of Israel's water supply at the time. From 1965-1967, Israel launched attacks to destroy the diversion projects under construction in an effort to maintain access to the water source.
Water rights and distribution parameters were included in the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. The Oslo II agreement in 1995 between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority also outlined parameters for water cooperation in the West Bank, but in practice, joint management has often failed and the Palestinian population remains heavily dependent on Israel for access to water.
These treaties also did not remove Israel's imperative to ensure continued access to water resources, nor its willingness to threaten military action to ensure it. In 2002, villages in southern Lebanon installed small pumping stations and irrigation pipelines on the Hasbani River. Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister at the time, claimed these actions constituted a "case for war" and threated military action. While no action was taken, the posturing illustrates Israel's wariness of upstream water management schemes.
Expanding Sources of Water: Conservation and Desalination
The foundations of Israel's current water infrastructure system were laid in the 1950s and 1960s, when Israel faced a more volatile security situation. Subsequent decades saw further development of the efficient use of water and the development of alternative sources. As a result, Israel has expanded internal water resources without expanding its physical borders, helping mitigate the risk of international confrontations over water.
To the same end, Israel has also developed a highly organized water management system, effectively integrating the whole country. An early project known as the National Water Carrier, which comprises a series of canals, pipelines and pumping stations, moves water from the Sea of Galilee in the comparatively water-rich north to areas of higher demand and greater need in the central and southern zones.
Israel is also a pioneer and global leader in water-efficient irrigation technology. Because agriculture remains the largest water consumer in the country, efficient use in this sector is necessary for continued sustainable water management. In addition to the irrigation technology, by effectively treating roughly 400 million cubic meters of wastewater, using it mostly to irrigate crops, Israel further reduces pressure on water resources.
Although Israel has used desalination technology on a smaller scale since the 1960s, the push for a substantial increase in desalination capacity began only after a major drought in 1998-1999. Several droughts over the course of the last 15 years drove home the vulnerability of Israel's water supply. Meanwhile, the overuse of groundwater resources, especially of the Coastal Aquifer, is degrading the quality of the water.
Israel currently consumes just under 2 billion cubic meters of water per year, and while water management has the ability to improve the efficiency of water usage, increasing populations in the region will continue to pressure these limited resources. These factors combined have pushed Israel toward desalination.
When the Sorek plant became fully operational in October, Israel gained 150 million cubic meters per year of desalination capacity. Total seawater desalination capacity is expected to reach 600 million cubic meters per year by 2015 and could reach 750 million cubic meters per year by 2020. The production cost of desalinized water depends on the plant, but averages $0.65 per cubic meter, with the new Sorek plant costing roughly $0.50 per cubic meter. This is compared to $0.15-$0.45 for water from natural sources. Advances in the technology that Israel uses, including technologies that improve the energy efficiency of the plants, have helped drive the costs down compared to previous desalination technology. But desalinated water remains far more energy-intensive than naturally sourced water, and it increases demands for power on the national electricity grid and from independent natural gas generators.
Short-Term Dependence on Imported Energy
Because Israel has traditionally been an energy importer, increasing reliance on an energy-intensive water resource could in turn increase Israel's dependence on energy-exporting nations. Natural gas will likely be the predominant fuel used to produce desalinated water. The Israeli electrical grid is projected to shift further toward natural gas and away from coal in the coming years, while the desalination plants often independently employ natural gas generators.
The total fuel required will vary based both on the type of desalination plant, as well as the type of power generation. Even with newer, more efficient equipment, the operation of more than 500 million cubic meters of desalination capacity could require more than 100 million cubic meters of natural gas or the equivalent energy from some other fuel sources to produce the additional power necessary to run the plants.
Israel had previously been an importer of natural gas, but the total volume of imports has declined in recent years. As of August 2013, imports were only accounting for 13 percent of total consumption. Furthermore, offshore discoveries in the eastern Mediterranean, including the Leviathan fields projected to come online as early as 2016, mean Israel has the potential to become a natural gas exporter. While there are many political and technical constraints surrounding the development and subsequent use of these fields, increased levels of domestic energy production could reduce dependence on foreign partners in terms of energy. This is especially important as Israel pursues a strategy of relying on more energy-intensive water resources.
Outlook
Israel traditionally requires a third-party sponsor to survive. And even with the added desalination capacity, Israel may still need to use water from external sources. But it has successfully adjusted to the environment and better insulated itself from its neighbors, complementing an established military superiority. And this could provide additional maneuverability in future negotiations.
Israel is momentarily in a secure strategic position. Syria will likely remain in a state of civil war for an extended period, and Lebanon remains fragile and fragmented. Israel maintains a working relationship with other neighbors, such as the Hashemite regime in Jordan, as well as Fatah and the Palestinian National Authority and the Egyptian military. This status quo seems unlikely to change in the short term. But although Israel is in a relatively stable position, it knows how mercurial the surrounding region is and will likely still behave proactively around national security issues.
Israel's proactive solution to ensuring water security is to develop additional domestic resources. Though this will require more imported energy in the short term, the continued development of domestic energy resources could act as a counter-balance, even as water resources become more energy-intensive.
2) Why The New York Times Won the 2013 Dishonest Reporting Award
By Pesach Benson - Honest Reporting,
Glorifying Stone Throwers
Not once, but twice, the Times put stone-throwing Palestinians on a glowing pedestal. First was a March New York Times Magazine cover story about weekly protests at Nabi Saleh (accompanied by a photo slide show titled The Resisters).
The author of the piece, Ben Ehrenreich, had previously smeared Israel in a vile Los Angeles Times op-ed comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa (South Africa was judged more benign) and labeled Gaza as a “139-square-mile prison camp.” And in a Harper’s dispatch, Ehrenreich imputed that Israel was waging a “water war with Palestine.”
As for the story itself, the specific criticisms were simply too lengthy to detail here. Arnold Roth had a compelling personal connection to the article. See also Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev and Commentary editor Jonathan Tobin.
Asked what got him curious about Nabi Saleh, Ehrenreich said afterwards:
I wanted to understand what would motivate people to keep fighting, to keep demonstrating every week, knowing exactly what the consequences would be and how much they stood to lose.
Memo to Ehrenreich and the Times: the weekly clashes in places like Nabi Saleh and Bilin are scripted for the media‘s consumption.
In August, the Times published a second look at rock throwing — this one about boys from the village of Beit Omar. How did bureau chief Jodi Rudoren explain the violence?
Here in Beit Ommar, a village of 17,000 between Bethlehem and Hebron that is surrounded by Jewish settlements, rock throwing is a rite of passage and an honored act of defiance.The futility of stones bouncing off armored vehicles matters little: confrontation is what counts.
HonestReporting reminded the Times that Throwing Stones is An Act of Violence. Rudoren followed in the footsteps of Amira Hass, whose stone throwing apologia earned the Haaretz columnist her own Dishonest Reporting award too.
Questioning Israel’s Right to Exist
Nobody questions, say, Japan’s right to exist. Denying Russian people their self-determination is anti-Russian. And invalidating inherent Irish national aspirations won’t score points among Irish people anywhere in world.
Yet the New York Times saw fit to publish a hefty 2,052-word commentary by Professor Joseph Levine in March arguing that it’s not anti-Semitic to question Israel’s right to exist. A Jewish state, asserts Levine, is “undemocratic,” while the trappings of statehood aren’t a big a deal anyway.
Professors Ian Lustick (left) and Joseph Levine (right).
But the same rights the philosophy professor denies Jews are granted to the Palestinians. Self-determination? Jews need not apply.
A second op-ed calling for Israel’s demise was published in September. At face value, Professor Ian Lustick appeared to be calling for a one-state solution.
But a closer reading showed Lustick went beyond that to deny Jewish national aspirations. Is there any room for Jewish national expression in the one-state fantasy Lustick describes from the thin air of his ivory tower?
In such a radically new environment, secular Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank could ally with Tel Aviv’s post-Zionists, non-Jewish Russian-speaking immigrants, foreign workers and global-village Israeli entrepreneurs. Anti-nationalist ultra-Orthodox Jews might find common cause with Muslim traditionalists. Untethered to statist Zionism in a rapidly changing Middle East, Israelis whose families came from Arab countries might find new reasons to think of themselves not as “Eastern,” but as Arab.
Lustick’s response to critics was reminiscent of William Shakespeare soliloquy: A tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Both Lustick and Levine are Jewish, but neither represents any mainstream Jewish views. Fancy academic titles don’t make up for the shortcomings of their arguments. But what does all this say about the Times?
Israel, Iran, and the Gray Lady’s Vendetta
Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing the UN, 2013.
This was absolutely the single biggest bone of contention among HonestReporting readers.
In September, world leaders gathered in New York for the start of the UN General Assembly. Amid signs of a thaw in US-Iran relations, the paper featured a steady parade of news and commentary pooh-poohing Israel’s legitimate fears of Iran’s nuclear program.
Quite a few readers went so far as to imply that the Gray Lady was either acting as a mouthpiece for the Obama administration or engaged in a personal vendetta against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Or both.
As Times of Israel reporter Avi Issacharoff wrote at the time:
And still, some American media outlets have evidently been mesmerized by President Hassan Rouhani’s smile. The New York Times seems to be directing a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said sanctions on Iran must not be removed and warned about the Islamic Republic’s true intentions. Certain Western journalists are possibly driven by the hope — and, perhaps, some degree of naivety — that the crisis will not require the use of force.
But the anti-Netanyahu campaign misses (or ignores) the fact that the wary Israeli government, not surprisingly, enjoys the support of many Arab countries — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — which are not naive about Iran.
And Israel HaYom‘s Dror Eydar added:
The Times has a long history of supporting even the faintest of hopes when it comes to reconciliation with ruthless dictators.
What fueled these perceptions?
1. A staff-ed confusing Israeli wariness with malice.
1. A staff-ed confusing Israeli wariness with malice.
2. A staff-ed accusing Netanyahu of deliberately trying to sabotage the nuclear talks.
3. A staff-ed condescendingly implying that Israel, Turkey and the Saudis are rebelling against the American master.
4. A staff-ed setting up Israel to be the fall-guy for the collapse of US-Iran diplomacy.
5. A staff-ed suggesting that reaching an agreement with Iran is more important than the contents of the deal.
6. A staff-ed describing Israeli objections to the interim deal as one of the “perils ahead.”
7. A staff-ed describing Netanyahu’s objections to an interim deal as “hysterical opposition.”
8. Roger Cohen‘s condescending take on “Bibi’s Tired Iranian Lines.”
9. Roger Cohen‘s dismissive view of Israeli concerns.
10. Tom Friedman claiming that Congressional opposition to the White House on Iran stems “from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do . . .”
11. Tom Friedman trivializing Israeli concerns by contrasting “Bibi crazy” with “Obama cool.”
12. Tom Friedman‘s condescending take on concerned American allies.
13. Jodi Rudoren‘s analysis that went overboard on Netanyahu’s political isolation. (This article caught a second wind of buzz because the paper corrected a description of Sara Netanyahu. Rudoren also sent the prime minister’s wife a personal apology.)
Looking back on it all, readers wondered: Did the the Times take the opportunity to hit back at Bibi after his UN speech called out the NY Times? If so, was doing so on such an existential issue an appropriate way to settle scores? How else would the Times explain the insultingly dismissive tone of all those commentaries? And why didn’t the Times bring more balance to its op-ed section?
Conspiracy Theorist Joins Editorial Board
Alaa Al Aswany
Alaa Al Aswany
In October, the Times announced the expansion of its editorial board. Newest members of interest to Mideast watchers include Israeli columnist Shmuel Rosner, former PA cabinet minister Ali Jarbawi, and the Iranian-born Professor Vali Nasr.
But also joining the board was an Egyptian writer who has spread anti-Israel conspiracy theories, Alaa Al Aswany.
HonestReporting looked into Aswany’s history. In a nutshell, the Times is associating itself with a talented, award-winning writer who also:
Refused to allow his book to be translated into Hebrew or sold in Israel.
Claimed baselessly that Israel meddled in Egypt’s revolution.
Denied a long history of Arab anti-Semitism.
What about Aswany’s right to express himself? asked one reader who wrote of Taking a Bullet for Alaa Al Aswany’s Freedom of Speech. As with Joseph Levine and Ian Lustick, Aswany’s entitled to his views. But that doesn’t mean the Times has to give a proven conspiracy theorist a plum seat on the editorial board.
Correcting the Record
Journalists are fallible, lines of communication get crossed, and too many editors will inevitably spoil something. And who hasn’t been plagued by computer glitches or an embarrassing typo? Mistakes happen. That’s why newspapers correct the record.
Journalists are fallible, lines of communication get crossed, and too many editors will inevitably spoil something. And who hasn’t been plagued by computer glitches or an embarrassing typo? Mistakes happen. That’s why newspapers correct the record.
But there’s an unfortunate reality to the corrections. The majority of people reading an erroneous “fact” will never know that hours (or days) later, a correction was made (except in very unusual circumstances).
And so it was in August, when Tom Friedman erroneously stated that Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin, Yigal Amir, was a settler. (Amir lived in Herzliya.) The miscue was unfortunate (the Times had previously corrected the very same error), but also forgivable, because A) in the context of Friedman’s column, it was a relatively minor point, and B) the original correction was made eight years ago.
But it’s also fair to ask (as HonestReporting did in 2012), If the NY Times Posts a Correction, Does it Make a Sound?
(Friedman’s column also mistakenly stated that the 60′s rock star, Eric Burdon, had boycotted Israel. That assertion was based on a report in The Independent, but Friedman missed the UK paper’s followup. The Independent’s contradictory articles apparently arose from either a miscommunication or disagreement between Burdon and his manager. Perhaps Burdon foreshadowed the mess when he sang Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood.)
The Gray Lady did the right thing, fixing the factual faults (Corrections – August 8). Ironically, among the other articles corrected that day was an unrelated piece by bureau chief Jodi Rudoren. Her dispatch on Israeli settlements misstated the State Department’s position.
The paper’s global reach compounds the headaches of correcting the record. Lots of papers republished the Friedman and Rudoren pieces but not necessarily the clarifications. So if the Sidney Morning Herald or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette never issued the proper corrections, where does the buck stop?
Fumbled Photo Flub
Images are supposed to do more than simply illustrate a story. Effective photographs and graphic illustrations help readers zero in on the essence of the article.
Thus, when Eden Atias, an 18-year-old soldier traveling to his base was stabbed to death by a Palestinian aboard a bus, one would have expected to see funeral images or a photo of Atias himself. As a gesture of respect, press photographers in Israel have an understanding not to take pictures of dead bodies at terror scenes (that’s a separate debate); however Attias’s bloodstained bus seat wasn’t considered out of line.
So how was the Times’s coverage illustrated? With a sympathetic photo of — who else? — the terrorist’s mother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment