====
Israel is not what the media suggests in terms of its popularity and nation status. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Tobin on Bloomberg. (See 2 below.)
====
Confidence in government is about as low as it can get before a revolution begins. (See 3 below.)
The first nomination vote in Iowa is a few weeks away and all of the candidates who have been around, for a period of time, are far behind in the polls. Disgust with government and politicians in general is partly to blame,
I have always thought that by beginning with a small state we are letting the tail wag the dog but upon reflection these middle Americans are real people, extend themselves and have the opportunity for a close encounter with those running so perhaps they are better informed and, accordingly, their thinking more representative.
We must be a truly frustrated, confused and desperate nation to look past those with proven and established accomplishments to settle on the current front runners.
Trump is certainly not someone I would think of as a model president but given the choice of him, Hilarious and Bernie I am more than willing to guts it. After all, that is what we did with Obama and Trump cannot possibly be any worse and at least he is not a three dollar bill with a stiff personality. I suspect he will surround himself with good advisors, unlike Obama will listen and take advice, has proven his instincts are better than most and , no doubt, will unleash the military from the shackles Obama has placed on them.
Finally, a pair of business eyes taking a look at government and how it consistently fails might prove both refreshing, beneficial and could bring back a modicum of faith..
I suspect Trump will actually be a far better president than most expect but then he still might not be the candidate as well as Hillarious and Bernie might be pushed aside for various reasons. (See 3a below.)
====
More about:: LATEST ISRAELI MEDICAL INNOVATIONS
Tobin on Bloomberg. (See 2 below.)
====
Confidence in government is about as low as it can get before a revolution begins. (See 3 below.)
The first nomination vote in Iowa is a few weeks away and all of the candidates who have been around, for a period of time, are far behind in the polls. Disgust with government and politicians in general is partly to blame,
I have always thought that by beginning with a small state we are letting the tail wag the dog but upon reflection these middle Americans are real people, extend themselves and have the opportunity for a close encounter with those running so perhaps they are better informed and, accordingly, their thinking more representative.
We must be a truly frustrated, confused and desperate nation to look past those with proven and established accomplishments to settle on the current front runners.
Trump is certainly not someone I would think of as a model president but given the choice of him, Hilarious and Bernie I am more than willing to guts it. After all, that is what we did with Obama and Trump cannot possibly be any worse and at least he is not a three dollar bill with a stiff personality. I suspect he will surround himself with good advisors, unlike Obama will listen and take advice, has proven his instincts are better than most and , no doubt, will unleash the military from the shackles Obama has placed on them.
Finally, a pair of business eyes taking a look at government and how it consistently fails might prove both refreshing, beneficial and could bring back a modicum of faith..
I suspect Trump will actually be a far better president than most expect but then he still might not be the candidate as well as Hillarious and Bernie might be pushed aside for various reasons. (See 3a below.)
====
More about:: LATEST ISRAELI MEDICAL INNOVATIONS
Inventing Health: Israeli Innovations in Life Sciences
Amazing life saving and enhancing technology coming out of Israel.
==================================
1) Netanyahu: The world sees Israel as a highly sought-after commodity
The negative picture the media paints of Israel's international standing is the “complete opposite” of reality, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday, explaining that contrary to media portrayal, Israel is in fact “highly sought after.”
At Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu briefed ministers on his meetings with world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week.
The prime minister said, “I met with Argentine President Mauricio Macri, who told me unequivocally: 'We are turning a new leaf with Israel. Our interests and our values make this partnership necessary. Therefore, we are beginning a new era.'”
“I also met with the prime minister of Ethiopia, a very strong African country that seeks to enhance relations with us. Of course, I also met with many friends such as the leader of Azerbaijan and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a close friend of Israel, and many other leaders, including the heads of major global corporations,” Netanyahu continued.
“I was at a cyber forum along with the leaders of global cyber companies and companies that are dealing with the cyber problem. They asked me, as the prime minister of Israel, to describe what we are doing and there is great desire to learn from us and cooperate with us in this field, in all scientific fields, and — of course — in the fight against terrorism.
“This is the complete opposite of what is being described in our media, this is another angle to the negative trends against us within international organizations. Between countries and companies, the largest companies in the world view Israel as a highly sought-after commodity. They want everything we can offer, both in terms of security and in many other areas.”
1a) Association of American Universities re-affirms opposition to Israel boycotts
In a blow to the BDS movement, the Association of American Universities issued a statement reaffirming its opposition to boycotts of Israeli academic institutions.
1a) Association of American Universities re-affirms opposition to Israel boycotts
In a blow to the BDS movement, the Association of American Universities issued a statement reaffirming its opposition to boycotts of Israeli academic institutions.
The statement issued on Thursday began by discussing the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association that recently passed a resolution in support of such a boycott.
The final vote is set to take place in April, where more than 10,000 American Anthropological Association members will cast ballots on whether to boycott formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. The boycott would not apply to individual Israeli academics.
Should the boycott resolution pass, it will mark the largest association to date to call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
“In light of these developments, the Board of Directors of the Association of American Universities reaffirms the Board’s opposition to such boycotts and today reissues the 2013 statement on this subject by the then-Executive Committee of the association,” the statement read.
The AAU is composed of 62 leading research universities in the United States and Canada, including Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Stanford.
The 2013 statement reads, in part, “Any such boycott of academic institutions directly violates academic freedom, which is a fundamental principle of AAU universities and of American higher education in general.”
The AAU also stated that “American colleges and universities, as well as like institutions elsewhere, must stand as the first line of defense against attacks on academic freedom.
“The boycott of Israeli academic institutions therefore clearly violates the academic freedom not only of Israeli scholars but also of American scholars who might be pressured to comply with it. We urge American scholars and scholars around the world who believe in academic freedom to oppose this and other such academic boycotts,” the 2013 statement read.
Prof. Peretz Lavie, president of the Technion- Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and chairman of the Association of University Heads, welcomed the reaffirmation.
“This is an important step in the uncompromising war against boycotts of Israel,” said Lavie.
“We hope that other academic associations and universities will stand against academic boycotts of Israeli institutions and researchers and in favor of free academic and universal research detached from political or ideological petitions,” he said.
The AAU opposition came days after the American Historical Association, the largest organization of historians in the United States, voted down a resolution criticizing Israel at its annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.
=================================================================================
2)
At first glance, the trial balloon launched yesterday in the New York Times by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg seems more like satire than political news. The notion that a third party presidential candidacy of the apostle of the nanny state has a prayer in 2016 is ludicrous. Even if Bloomberg were to pump more than $1 billion of his own money into such an effort and managed to get on the ballot in most or even all 50 states, he wouldn’t have a prayer of being elected president. That would be true even if Bernie Sanders were to win the Democratic presidential nomination and face off in November against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. But the mere fact that Bloomberg’s threat is being taken seriously in some quarters is a commentary on Hillary Clinton’s weakness.
The basic conceit of the Bloomberg scenario has some logic to it. As sketched out in the Times article that broke the story that the former mayor is making preparations for a third party attempt at the White House, Bloomberg believes that if the two parties nominate extremists, there is room in the middle for a centrist to save the country from Trump’s megalomania, Cruz’s conservatism and Sanders’ socialism. Like most billionaires, Bloomberg apparently believes in the flattery of his paid consultants. They tell him that a man who governed New York as a centrist could do the same in Washington. Billions in self-promotion would somehow convince enough voters in an election that would split the country three ways and allow Bloomberg to bring order out of national chaos.
But the only word that adequately describes this kind of thinking is nuts.
Bloomberg may have been a centrist in the context of New York politics. He was a defender of Wall Street as the economic engine of the city. More importantly, he upheld the tough policing strategies first put into effect by his predecessor Rudy Giuliani. As such, he managed to preserve the revival of the Big Apple began by Giuliani. His three terms were made possible largely on the strength of his ability to bribe left-wing and minority protest groups into submission. But even many liberal New Yorkers chafed at his nanny state impulses. This was a mayor who not only wanted to keep the streets safe but also thought he had the right to tell citizens how much soda they could drink.
2)
Does the Bloomberg Balloon Matter?
At first glance, the trial balloon launched yesterday in the New York Times by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg seems more like satire than political news. The notion that a third party presidential candidacy of the apostle of the nanny state has a prayer in 2016 is ludicrous. Even if Bloomberg were to pump more than $1 billion of his own money into such an effort and managed to get on the ballot in most or even all 50 states, he wouldn’t have a prayer of being elected president. That would be true even if Bernie Sanders were to win the Democratic presidential nomination and face off in November against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. But the mere fact that Bloomberg’s threat is being taken seriously in some quarters is a commentary on Hillary Clinton’s weakness.
The basic conceit of the Bloomberg scenario has some logic to it. As sketched out in the Times article that broke the story that the former mayor is making preparations for a third party attempt at the White House, Bloomberg believes that if the two parties nominate extremists, there is room in the middle for a centrist to save the country from Trump’s megalomania, Cruz’s conservatism and Sanders’ socialism. Like most billionaires, Bloomberg apparently believes in the flattery of his paid consultants. They tell him that a man who governed New York as a centrist could do the same in Washington. Billions in self-promotion would somehow convince enough voters in an election that would split the country three ways and allow Bloomberg to bring order out of national chaos.
Given his positions on social issues and the expansion of government power, Bloomberg might make a good case for the Democratic presidential nomination. But his coziness with Wall Street offends the party’s liberal base as much as his brief period as a registered Republican. His record on crime also makes him anathema to the Black Lives Matter crowd. So, despite his ardent desire to be president, running as a Democrat was out of the question.
But taken out of the context of New York, Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat who ran for mayor as a Republican only because that was an easier path onto the ballot, must be seen as irredeemably liberal. He is no more a centrist than his fellow billionaire Trump is a conservative. Indeed, Bloomberg’s post-mayoral obsessions have been advocacy against gun rights and promoting extremist environmental projects. Though he may see himself as the quintessential “no labels” centrist, if placed on the ballot as a presidential alternative to the two major parties, Bloomberg would come across as a slightly watered-down version of the Democratic brand. That might make him attractive to a certain percentage of the electorate in blue states. But even if stacked up against Sanders that probably wouldn’t be enough to enable him to win many Electoral College votes, if, in fact, he won any at all. The only possible effect he could have on the final outcome would be to fatally split the Democratic vote and elect a Republican, even if his name was Trump or Cruz.
The main trigger for a Bloomberg presidential run would be if Sanders were to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. That’s theoretically possible but still highly unlikely. The Democrats are a statist party that is mainly focused on acquiring and holding power. Possible defeats of Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire will be quickly reversed in the states that follow, and the mass of super delegate votes that count for a lot in the Democratic race will doom Sanders even if his protest candidacy lasts far longer than most pundits thought it would. Nothing short of a federal indictment of Clinton on charges of mishandling classified information can really derail her eventual coronation. And though the evidence would seem to indicate such an indictment was richly deserved, I continue to believe that President Obama and Attorney General Lynch will never let their party’s nominee be indicted no matter what the FBI says after its probe is finished.
So forget about a Trump/Cruz-Sander-Bloomberg scenario. It’s not going to happen. But what is significant about Bloomberg going to the trouble and expense of preparing a third party run is that he appears to think Clinton is unelectable. An essential element of Bloomberg’s trial balloon is that he thinks Hillary is too flawed a politician and too lacking in credibility to win even if she survives Sanders’ unexpectedly tough challenge.
Ed Rendell was quoted in the Times article as saying he would consider backing Bloomberg should Sanders win the Democratic nomination. But I think Rendell is right when he says that Bloomberg won’t run if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Coming from a former chair of the Democratic National Committee as well as a former governor and mayor, his speculation about a split in the party if Sanders wins shows how determined the party would be to prevent that from happening.
But what must really scare the Clinton camp about the Bloomberg bubble is the sense among leading Democrats that her weakness is so pronounced that such speculation is thinkable.
Most Democrats have been walking around with their fingers in their ears pretending not to notice the growing number of reports that point to the serious legal trouble that her email scandal is posing for Clinton. Liberals and Democrats simply are not paying attention to the issue, and that is why Clinton thinks she has nothing to worry about no matter what is published about the case. But the cumulative impact of her lies and obfuscations about the emails is still having an effect on her image. Democrats are being driven to support a septuagenarian socialist more by her palpable lack of authenticity than her ties to Wall Street. If Bloomberg senses even a tiny opening, it is because he can sense Clinton’s weakness. So can everyone else. Clinton’s faltering candidacy is making some Democrats start to think she can be beaten and perhaps even by GOP opponents that they are still mocking as too extreme to have a chance. Michael Bloomberg isn’t going to be elected president. But his trial balloon is a damning commentary on Clinton’s inability to convince her party that she is a certain winner.
=======================================================3)
Poll: Almost Two-Thirds Not Confident Government Can Handle Important Issues
A new AP/ORC poll reveals that almost two-thirds (61%) of adults have little confidence the government can handle the important issues facing America. In addition, 69% say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
When respondents were asked what are the most important "problems" the government should be working on, the top responses were domestic issues, the economy and foreign policy issues.
ABC News writes, "Perhaps most vexing for the dozen or so candidates vying to succeed President Barack Obama, the poll indicates widespread skepticism about the government's ability to solve problems, with no significant difference in the outlook between Republicans and Democrats."
But how to explain the support for presidential candidates running on a platform of expanded government interference or with a record of crony capitalism?
"They can't even seem to get together and pass anything that's of any importance," said Doris Wagner, an 81-year-old Republican from Alabama who said she's "not at all confident" about seeing solutions in 2016. "It's so self-serving what they do," said Wagner, who called herself a small-government conservative.
A 71-year-old Democrat bemoaned a system of "lobbyists paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Congress to do what they want" for favored industry. "They aren't doing anything for you and me," she said.
The AP-NORC Poll of 1,042 adults was conducted Dec. 10-13, 2015, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
3a) This story is of the Wollman Skating Rink in New York’s Central Park.
====================================================================
3a) This story is of the Wollman Skating Rink in New York’s Central Park.
The Wollman Rink was a heavily used public skating rink which had fallen into disrepair in 1980.
New York City tried for six years to fix it, spent $13 million, and the rink still was not ready to open.
In June of 1986 Trump, who could see the rink from his apartment, finally got tired of the embarrassment and offered to fix the rink at his own expense.
At first the city turned him down because its bureaucracy did not want to be embarrassed by someone fixing something they couldn't fix. Trump kept pushing and finally out of embarrassment the city gave in.
The key part of the story is Trump's reaction to being put in charge. He promptly recognized that he didn't know anything about fixing a skating rink. He asked himself who built a lot of skating rinks. “Canadians!” he concluded. He found the best Canadian ice skating rink construction company.
When the Canadians flew in to assess the situation, they were amazed at how bad the city had been at solving the problem. They assured Trump that this was an easy job.
Trump fixed the six year embarrassment two months ahead of schedule and nearly $800,000 under-budget. (The city did end up paying for the work, and Trump donated the profits to charity.)
After reading this chapter in "The Art Of The Deal" you begin to think that maybe Donald Trump really could build a wall along our southern border for a lot less than our current government estimates.
No comments:
Post a Comment