Soccer Dad

Is Israel The Boston Red Sox of The Western World?

Following the logic of Pat Sajak, maybe:

It's important to understand the necessity to baseball's health of having a team we all love to hate. When the Yankees went into prolonged funks from the mid-60's to the mid 70's and again in the pre-Joe Torre era of the late 80's and early 90's, it was not a good thing for the sport. Attendance and interest suffered when mediocrity reigned in The Bronx.

... It might seem strange to hate a team that spent so many decades enduring heartbreak, but those days are obviously over.

Sorry, Red Sox Nation, but success has its downside. Your team is no longer the sentimental favorite. They are the champions once again, and their future looks brighter than that of their arch-rival's. So revel in it, and rub the visiting teams' noses in it (even the home teams' when you can buy out their tickets), but somebody has to be the bad guy. Congratulations...it's you.

The days when Israel was the underdog are long over. The success of Jews as a people and Israel as a nation is noted passing in the media, but for the most part the media is busy writing about the suffering of Palestinian Arabs--brought about by their corrupt elected leadership which fires rockets at Israel and whines at the prospect of the consequences.

But if making the Boston Red Sox into the bad boys of baseball is good for baseball, just what purpose does it serve to paint Israel as the 'bad boy' of the Western World--other than provide fodder for the newspapers to save their sinking circulation?

Crossposted at Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel and Boston Red Sox.

"Bad News" Is Contagious--And You Can Spread It Too!

Following in the footsteps of Bad News from The Netherlands and Bad News from Finland comes Bad News from Britain:

News coverage from Israel is often distorted if measured against the 'Code of Ethics' guidelines of journalism. The origins of “bad news” about a country thus lie with numerous foreign media. This project exposes one of many methods used.

This project is based on "Bad News from the Netherlands".
“Bad News from the Netherlands” has raised major international interest since it appeared on the web in October 2007. Many thanks are due to all those who have contributed news, ideas and financing. Support us to expand this project.

Act against the biased media: start a “bad news” blog about another country. If you want to use this layout, please contact us at the e-mail address below.

Check it out!

[Hat tip: Media Backspin]

Crossposted on Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Manfred Gerstenfeld and Media Bias.

Diogenes of the middle east

In a controversial essay in the LA Jewish Journal Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky asks to Consider a divided Jerusalem.

After acknowledging the controversial nature of his views and getting a few formalities out of the way, he says he seeks honesty. The problem is that even if one accepts all of Rabbi Kanefsky's assertions, Mere Rhetoric writes

You don't walk into a negotiation with the position you expect to end up with and you don't walk in explaining what you owe to the other side. You walk in with a position more extreme than what you're willing to live with, so you have something to give up when the other side comes in with a position more extreme than what they're willing to live with. Coming to the negotiating table "telling an honest story" is the best way to lose negotiations. You don't walk into a car shop saying "I'll tell you that I'm only willing to spend $10,000, but actually I'll go up to $20,000" and you don't say "besides, it would be totally unfair to you if I stuck to my original offer". Nobody negotiates that way. But for some reason Israel is always expected to.

Similarly Elder of Ziyon writes

Simply put, the Arab/Israeli conflict is a land dispute. If one side claims all the land and the other side equivocates about that question, naturally the side that claims it all is in a position of power.

This is not to say that Israel should lie. Its true claims are powerful enough, if they are not often stated as well as they should be. But this means that Israel should not negotiate by showing its hand as to what it is willing to give up - because these are essentially one-way negotiations, the question is how much land Israel will end up losing, and not what she will get in return because that is intangible (and almost certainly fantasy.) An "honest" negotiator will always lose because you will never find both sides putting on the table their final position.

Israel's legal, moral and historic claims to Jerusalem - and the entire West Bank as well - are very strong, but they have been given up by successive Israeli governments, in some part because of this desire for "honesty." Is Israel in better shape now than before Oslo? Is real peace any closer? Has Israel reaped rewards for its honest negotiations, which translates directly into capitulations?

There are two paragraphs that I'll take issue with. The first: A

n honest reading of this story reveals that there were voices in the inner circle of the Israeli government in 1967-1968 who warned that settling civilians in conquered territories was probably illegal under international law. But for very understandable reasons -- among them security needs, Zionist ideologies of both the both secular and religious varieties, memories that were 20 years old, and memories that were 3,000 years old -- these voices were overruled. We can identify with many of the ideas that carried the settlement project forward. But the fact remains that it is simply not honest on our part to pretend that the government of Israel didn't know that there was likely a legal problem, or that the government was confident that international conventions did not apply to this situation. That just wouldn't be an honest telling.

This is Tom Segev's view, but it's hardly an accepted view. But it's also taking 2007 and projecting it onto 1967. In 1967 Israeli leaders no doubt thought that they'd trade some of the land they captured for peace with Egypt and Jordan (and presumably the wider Arab world.) But Israel never assumed that it would be forced to return to its Auschwitz borders. Resolution 242 was worded "from territories" not "from all territories" confirming that assumption. So no, it wouldn't be an honest telling to say that Israeli leaders expected the country to risk international ostracism due to its policies after the 6 Day War. I'm not going to judge Rabbi Kanefsky, but his telling is not accurate.

Two paragraphs later he writes

The Religious Zionist leadership (similar to today's Evangelical supporters of Israel) made a different judgment, namely that settling the Biblical heartland would further hasten the unfolding of the messianic age. Thus, the Arab population already there was not our problem. God would deal with it. This belief too -- reasonable though it may have seemed at the time -- has also turned out to be wrong. To tell the story honestly, this mistake too must be acknowledged.

My casting himself in opposition to those with messianic beliefs, Rabbi Kanefsky is making a case that his view is rational. Though some Religious Zionists and some Evangelical supporters believe that settling Judea and Samaria will hasten the Moshiach (Messiah) that's by no means the only reason.

Religious Zionists, in particular, see the settling of Judea and Samaria as validating history. Jews have a historical connection and right to Israel. Denying the historical connection of Jews to Hebron and Shechem, for example, also denies the historical ties to Tel Aviv or Yafo (Jaffa). And this belief is important for it runs counter to one of the primary foundations of Palestinian nationalism.

One other thing bothers me about that paragraph. In 2000 Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Hezbollah instead of disarming and making peace was emboldened and strengthened. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza, instead of gaining peace, it gained Qassams and Hamas won power. Does Rabbi Kanefsky really believe that dividing Jerusalem will strengthen Israel or appease its enemies? Did he learn from those mistakes?

But Rabbi Kanefsky also has to be careful what he advocates. As a public figure his views - controversial within his own community - will be used. He received a glowing profile in the LA Times. He has the admiration of many outside his community. His opinion is rare but it will now be magnified out of proportion. And I find little reason to doubt that his op-ed will be used not just by Israel's critics but by its enemies too.

Kanefsky sees things that do not exist.

And so, now that the Los Angeles Times has given Kanefsky's minority opinion legs, we are forced to weigh in on the matter and give this narcissist the last thing he should be afforded: attention.

You see that's one of the core problems of the left; when they publicly advocate for their extreme leftist positions they become invaluable collaborators to Israel's and Judaism's enemies.

That's harsh, but if Rabbi Kanefsky doesn't realize the end result of his article the trait he can claim is naiveté not honesty.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel.

I did taw one ...

Last night in the Democratic presidential debate the Congressman from the ether solemnly declared he did, in fact, see one.

"The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you've sighted a UFO over her home in Washington state,'' the questioner asked, "that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a triangular craft silent and hovering, that you felt a connection to your heart and heard direction in your mind.

"Now,'' Kucininch was asked, "did you see a UFO?'''

"I did,'' Kucinich said.

"And the rest of the account -- I didn't -- I -- it was unidentified flying object, okay. It's like -- it's unidentified. I saw something.

He didn't miss the opportunity to score a political point either. "Now, to answer your question,'' Kucinich said, "'m moving my -- and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico and another one, an extra, to New Hampshire, okay... And also, you have to keep in mind that more -- that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than, I think, approve of George Bush's presidency.''

Nice going but ...

Questioner Tim Russert replied: "14 percent of Americans say they have seen UFOs.''

That's even lower than Congressional approval ratings!

In an unrelated story (via memeorandum) Kucinich questions Bush's mental health)

BitsBlog:

"...this guy’s got his own rubber room booster club… I mean, even most of the Democrats think he’s bonkers… how bad is THAT?"

Flopping Aces:

I mean just when I thought Ron Paul was a true weirdo this man opens his mouth and RP goes quickly to number two.

(Check out the pictures too!)

Also check out the Jawa Report and Don Surber too:

Frog calls Prince Charming ugly

.

Smudging the issue

About two weeks ago, a Baltimore County judge, Susan M. Souder, barred prosecutors from using fingerprints as evidence in a murder trial.

Likening the court ruling to barring testimony about X-rays because doctors sometimes misread them, Baltimore County prosecutors asked a Circuit Court judge yesterday to reconsider her precedent-shattering decision that fingerprint evidence is too unreliable to be offered in a death penalty trial.

Prosecutors said that the judge erred in tossing out the evidence and in her reliance on parts of the federal government's report on the misidentification of an Oregon lawyer through fingerprints that the FBI said linked him to the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Noting that federal investigators attributed the misidentification in that case to mistakes made in the fingerprint examination process, prosecutors wrote, "Countless doctors have misread X-rays, yet these errors would never be seen as a reason to prevent doctors from testifying about broken bones in court."

Unfortunately, the Baltimore Sun, instead of questioning the judge's decision, is apparently doing its best to support it. The other day it reported on others who supported the judge's decision without presenting the opposing side.

Law professor David Faigman was teaching at a national school for judges the week that a ruling to limit testimony about fingerprint evidence was issued in a murder case in Philadelphia.

The instructor asked the dozen students in his class whether they agreed with the judge's decision and whether they would rule similarly in their own courtrooms. Everyone thought the federal judge "got it right on the science," Faigman recalled of the 2002 case.

"And," he said, "all 12 said they would not go back and exclude fingerprint evidence from a case in their courts."

One of those opposing the use of fingerprint evidence said: "For all this time, the argument was made that because all fingerprints are unique, fingerprint examiners are accurate at detecting the source of a fingerprint," said Simon A. Cole, a professor at the University of California, Irvine and the author of Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification.

"That actually doesn't follow at all," he said. "Just because all faces are unique doesn't mean that eyewitnesses are all accurate. But somehow, it's a seductive fallacy that people bought into, including ... defense attorneys."

Except that eyewitness observations of a person's face are made in often dynamic, confusing conditions. Fingerprints by contrast, are analyzed in a controlled environment. Sure people can make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that the evidence ought to be automatically excluded.

(The title of the article portrays the controversy as "science vs. tradition," with science apparently meaning that science supports rejecting fingerprints as evidence. But using fingerprints is based on science too.)

Baltimore County's prosecutor gave a better analogy

But fingerprint evidence also cleared Mayfield, Shellenberger wrote in his filing Monday.

“Countless doctors misread X-rays, yet these errors would never be seen as a reason to prevent doctors from testifying about broken bones in court,” he wrote. “The isolated errors of the Mayfield case should likewise not be the reason for the exclusion of fingerprint evidence. In fact, it was another fingerprint examiner using the exact methods used in this case who exonerated Mayfield and identified the true bomber.”

I wasn't a fan of Shellenberger's in the election (not that I could have voted), but he's right here.

Judge Souder is overreaching and according to the reports prosecutors cannot appeal the decision, but can only ask her to reconsider it. Hopefully Judge Souder will re-think her decision and its implications. If not, we could see a lot more murderers going free.

UPDATE: Some edits have been made for clarity.

fingerprints.

I hope i can still drive when i'm half that age

From the Examiner:

The agency also was faulted for issuing driver’s licenses to 16 people though Social Security numbers showed them to be dead and for approving licenses and ID cards to 130 people between the ages of 102 and 348.

No word if the 348 year old was still alive.

mva.

Submitted 10/31/2007

Council nominations are in

The Artificial Honkey - Done With Mirrors criticizes about those purposely mis-label others in order to score political points. He reminds us, at the end, the degree to which this practice has been codified.

Comparisons Are Odious - The Glittering Eye criticizes Russian President Putin's comparison of a planned U.S. built missile defense with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

American Schools Avoid Responsibility At Levels Both Large and Small - Bookworm Room reacts (negatively) to a document from her children's school and uses it as a launching point to complain about zero tolerance policies adopted at schools that seem to abdications, not assertions, of authority.

Of Stonewalling and Blackwater - Cheat Seeking Missiles has advice for dealing with an adversarial media: come clean about your dirt. If you don't, a reporter with an ax with grind you quite thoroughly.

A Matter of Death - Rhymes With Right discusses what happens to principle when it hits close to home. In this case it has to do with a church's objection to the death penalty and how its congregants feel about its application when the victims were their own.

Mucking About With Mukasey - Big Lizards doubts that the sacrifice of AG Gonzales has bought conservatives anything in terms of goodwill from the Democrats, especially now that the Democrats have made clear exactly what the cost of confirmation of a successor will be.

Why Hate Crimes Are a Joke Part 5783, and Why the University of Delaware Digs 'em - The Colossus of Rhodey observes that there are now re-education camps in his state - namely the college dormitories of the University of Delaware. He also observes how the social science behind this political correctness pervades other segments of society.

When Kids Grow Up Too Fast: The Maine Story - The Education Wonks notes that when parents don't parent, the schools will be all to eager to usurp their responsibility.

Syria's Assad Caught With His Hands in the Nuclear Cookie Jar - Joshuapundit gives more background about the nuclear alliance between Syria and North Korea. He wonders if anyone in the administration has learned from past experience about coddling Israel's enemies.

The Race to Politicize Tragedy - Right Wing Nut House laments the descent of public discourse and how neither side could wait for the fires to cool before seeking blame.

The Iraq War -- Coming To a Theater Near You - ‘Okie’ on the Lam contemplates the negative portrayal of America and its soldiers in the new batch of movies and longs for a time when the goal was to portray people as people not as props in political drama.

And finally there's Apologists in which I show that the unfounded belief that a Palestinian state would bring stability underlies and undermines efforts to bring peace to the region.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council

Googling terror

Last week several bloggers noted a Guaridan story that terrorists in Gaza were using Google Earth to target locations in Israel.

So when I saw this item, I thought, "Oh good, Google has responded to the concerns."

A tipster to Newsbusters shares the following info: A search of Google maps under "Israel" reveals a map that is completely devoid of any detail. Yet, neighboring Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and even Turkey all have cities and roads noted.

And indeed, if you click on the link, Israel is devoid of any details, unlike the surrounding countries. However, in the upper right hand corner you'll see a box divided into three sections with links to Map, Satellite and Hybrid. If you choose the latter two you can get some details. but if you zoom in too close you get the following message "We are sorry but we don't have at this zoom level for this region."

So it does appear that for some reason, Google Map is blocking some but not all detailed information on Israel.

However, at Seraphic Secret a commenter noted that Google Earth still has the detailed information that could be (and was) used by terrorists.

So I guess I was too quick to give Google credit. (Although perhaps Google has more control over the map than over the satellite imagery.) Apparently Google hasn't addressed the problem of Google Earth.

If anyone has definite information on Google and its mapping technology through either Google Maps or Google Earth, please let me know.

Crossposted on Yourish.

google, terror.

Qassams and rights

Rights groups challenge Gaza energy cuts

Human rights groups challenged Israel's reduction of fuel supplies to Gaza and its intention to cut back on electricity, and Palestinians warned the measures could lead to a humanitarian crisis.

The Israeli Supreme Court on Sunday gave the state five days to respond to the appeal from human rights groups for an injunction to halt the energy cutbacks, said Sari Bashi of Gisha, one of the 10 groups that filed the petition.

I wonder if the same groups have petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of Sderot?

Palestinians said Israel cut fuel supplies by 30 percent on Sunday, though defense officials said the cut was only about 11 percent. Israel hopes the move will pressure Gaza's Hamas rulers to halt near-daily rocket attacks by militants against Israeli towns.

Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Israel's infrastructure minister, said Monday that the cutbacks were a final attempt to avoid a military operation that would cause scores of civilian casualties.

"What's the alternative? The alternative is that tomorrow or the next day we'll be forced to bring three or four divisions and go into Gaza," Ben-Eliezer said in an interview on Israel Radio. "What will the results be then?"

"There's nothing we haven't tried," he said.

So Israel's restricting fuel instead of invading. If Israel invaded do you think these "human rights" groups would approve? Or would they be out protesting the indiscriminate Israeli use of force? (And ignore the Palestinian indiscriminate use of force.)

My Right Word brings historical parallels from World War II and asks:

Don't Israel's citizens have rights, too?

Judeopundit looks at the economic implications of the fuel cutoff. (satire)

Crossposted at Yourish.

israel, gaza.

Juggling carnivals 10/30/2007

Incoming Carnivals

Thanks to Dr. Sanity for featuring a post of mine in the latest Carnival of the Insanities.

Please check out the latest Musical Monday at Elie's Expositions. It's quite challenging (and fun) this week. Test your musical trivia.

Tricks for taxpayers; treats for the politicians

(Graphic courtesy of Pillage Idiot)

Years	revenues	change	spending	change
1998	$15,917,000,000.00		$15,444,161,032.00
1999	$17,043,000,000.00	7.07%	$16,632,654,449.00	7.70%
2000	$18,000,000,000.00	5.62%	$17,579,036,962.00	5.69%
2001	$19,995,000,000.00	11.08%	$19,559,963,913.00	11.27%
2002	$21,712,000,000.00	8.59%	$21,712,000,000.00	11.00%
2003	$22,473,000,000.00	3.50%	$22,473,000,000.00	3.50%
2004	$22,710,100,000.00	1.06%	$22,975,000,000.00	2.23%
2005			$23,604,822,077.00	2.74%
2006			$25,790,186,384.00	9.26%
2007			$29,009,003,118.00	12.48%
2008			$30,037,941,120.00	3.55%

The above table contains Maryland State Budget information. The first column are the budget years (that actually run from July of the previous year through June of the actual year - fiscal 2008 started July 1, 2007), the second column are the revenues for the given year (it's not clear if it's the year or the fiscal year), the third column is the percent change from the previous year, the fourth column is the budget (or as it's called on the Maryland website, appropriations, and the fifth column is the budge change from the previous year.

As you can see both revenues and budgets have been growing at healthy rates over the past decade.

Something else that's important to keep in mind is that the Maryland State Budget is some $30 billion. $1.7 billion might be called a "structural deficit," but it's also some 6% of the whole budget. If the governor or legislators say that cuts will result in catastrophic loss of services they're not being honest. 6% is not a huge relative amount.

The other problem that's not clear is what programs have been added or expanded over the past decade. But we haven't just seen a budgetary increase due to spending.

According to the Tax Foundation, Maryland's tax rate is the 15th highest in the nation.

So with all this in mind, let's look at what the cheerleaders for a tax increase in the current special session have in mind.

Mr O'Malley's Test (Washington Post, October 28, 2007)

Mindful of the political obstacles, Mr. O'Malley has adopted a strategy of extreme pragmatism. He has offered a plan -- higher taxes on sales, corporations, cigarettes and vehicle titling, plus a more progressive income tax and a property tax cut -- while signaling that he is willing to entertain almost any modification. The pragmatism is good; but the question is whether the governor is so eager, or desperate, for a deal that he is ready to throw sound policy to the wolves.

One of the things I haven't understood about the discussion of taxes is why we need an increase in the sales tax. As prices increase due to inflation, so should revenues from the sales tax. Additionally, Maryland has a sales tax on clothes that nearby states Pennsylvania and New Jersey don't. So perhaps if it's that important to raise the sales tax, maybe it shouldn't include clothes - especially since that hurts the poor.

An increase in the cigarette tax can hardly be considered a way to increase state revenues as making cigarettes more expensive is cited as a way to decrease smoking.

He has already done so by proposing a higher sales tax but declining to apply it to most consumer services. And, instead of suggesting a broad-based sales tax, the governor has blown with the political winds by pressing ahead on slot machine gambling. Not only are slots tantamount to a tax on the poor, as the governor acknowledges, they also tend to sap spending on other products and services, since household budgets are finite. Moreover, by pushing a referendum to break a long-standing legislative deadlock on slots, Mr. O'Malley is enabling lawmakers to evade their most important responsibility: to cast votes and make decisions on tough issues.

I'm an agnostic on slots. I have mixed feelings about them. But let's not say that they're a tax on the poor. Playing slots is optional; taxes are not. Part of the rational behind the slots is that more and more neighboring states have slots and Marylanders are traveling to those states to play them. And the they "sap spending on other products and services" is a poor argument coming from a paper that advocates public spending on a sports stadium that will benefit the private owner of the team.

In other respects, the O'Malley plan is more enlightened. By increasing corporate income taxes and closing loopholes, he would ensure that firms pay their fair shares. By cutting income taxes on the lowest earners and raising them on the highest ones, he would ditch the state's antiquated flat tax in favor of a much-needed progressive structure. (A competing proposal by Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) serves the interests of his wealthiest constituents but is no improvement; it would spread the burden of a tax increase much more broadly on middle-class earners while easing the impact on the rich.)

Here's another canard that we keep hearing from the tax boosters: Maryland's income tax is antiquated and must be brought into the 21st century. As noted above, Maryland's tax burden is high. Progressivity isn't what's needed; reduction is.

Explaining his decision to press ahead with a special session, Mr. O'Malley said it would be "irresponsible not to try." In one important sense he is right: By waiting to address the deficit until the legislature's regular session next year, the state would dig itself $500 million deeper into the hole. Having inherited the deficit, Mr. O'Malley will now be judged on his performance in fixing it.

O'Malley inherited nothing. He could have chosen to increase spending by less. In Maryland the governor has a lot of power over spending. (Only the governor can initiate new spending; the legislature can eliminate spending only.)
To lament that failing to close the budget gap now will increase the problem by $500 million is disingenuous when the Governor is attempting to raise spending by that amount right now too with a health care bill.

Opportunity in Annapolis (Baltimore Sun, 10/29/2007)

In a democracy, debate and disagreement are healthy. But the conversation should not be derailed by those who falsely claim that Maryland can solve this problem without raising taxes. The spending cuts required by such an approach are far worse than any tax proposal we've heard. The governor's "doomsday budget" scenario may have been crafted for effect, but many of its choices (major reductions to land preservation, higher education and public health, to name a few) would likely come to pass.

Sorry, as I pointed out above, the deficit is about 6% of the total budget. There's no need for drastic cuts. Of course the "doomsday budget" is meant for effect, but it's a dishonest one. We're not talking about cutting 50% or 25% or even 10% of spending. A little belt tightening would do the trick. Saying that doing so is "far worse" than raising taxes is still misleading.

With the approval of the $1.3 billion Thornton plan to boost state aid to public schools five years ago - a much-needed reform, it should be noted, that has enjoyed broad public support - legislators and the last two governors helped dig the budgetary hole. Mr. O'Malley has assumed the difficult task of actually filling that void rather than setting up another stopgap bridge.

Well Thornton was a way for the legislature to avoid its responsibility. I've looked into education funding in the past. I'm not convinced that spending more will solve anything. But the Thornton commission said it would, so I must be wrong. Thornton enjoys broad public support because there are precious few naysayers about it. The independent press in the state has been all for it. But when Thornton funding levels fail to improve Baltimore City schools, what will be the next remedy? More spending?

Small wonder that a recent poll of Maryland registered voters suggests the governor has taken a hit in his job approval rating. But the same survey also showed that far more Marylanders think the state is going in the right direction than not, and even the tax increases found significant public support -a healthy majority, in some cases.

Actually there is not significant support for the sales tax increase. People oppose it by large margins.

Earlier the editorial was waxing philosophical about democracy and the role it will play in raising our taxes. The problem is that democracy functions best when the citizenry is informed. The two major newspapers in the state are fully behind tax increases so they have abdicated their responsibility in informing the citizenry. When citizens are told that the only way government can function is with a tax increase and aren't informed of other options, they'll usually say, "Hey, I don't like it, but if it's needed ..."

The point is that there are other options but the citizens of Maryland are not being properly informed.

In the next two weeks, lawmakers will need to follow the governor's lead and muster the political courage to put state finances in order. Extending health care to the uninsured, making income taxes fairer, addressing the threat of gridlock and closing certain loopholes in the tax code - all deserve to be part of that fix. Accomplish those and what voters will remember is not an extra dollar for a pack of cigarettes or 16 cents more to fill up a gas tank, but a legacy of real progress for the state.

Here the Sun is showing its true colors. If the problem was the deficit, it wouldn't be advocating more health care spending now. The point is that the Sun isn't promoting responsible governing but expanding government.

In fact both papers tell us that being responsible means spending more. That isn't always the case. Government (at all levels) has grown to a point where the average citizen cannot know about every single program that government supports and, therefore, can't properly judge what the government ought to keep doing and what it should stop doing.

The papers have failed to inform us properly. Their arguments for higher taxes are not at all convincing.

But if they really want more revenue, let me suggest that perhaps sales taxes on newspapers should be raised to 10% and sales taxes ought to be extended to newspaper advertising. If the papers don't mind taxing me more, well I certainly wouldn't mind seeing them pay more too. Perhaps they could even advocate for these taxes being such good citizens.

maryland, maryland politics, taxes.

Iranian Jews Speak Out!

"I can tell you, based both on personal experience and on what I hear from friends, that there are places [in Iran] where Muslims have already divided among themselves the homes and property of their Jewish neighbors. They say that if there will be a war, the first thing they will do is slaughter the Jews."
Iranian Jew interviewed in Yedioth Ahronoth

I am extrememly grateful to "Twilight Experiment" who emailed me about an article in the October 3rd edition of Yedioth Ahronoth by Ariela Ringel Hoffman entitled "Between the Hammer and the Devil". I am also thankful to Yedioth Ahronoth for being so quick to respond and email me a PDF of the article.

Some highlights of the article:

• According to Hoffman, between the years 2000 and 2007--approximately 1,200 Jews arrived from Iran. In 2000: 384, 2001: 207, and year by year the numbers have diminished. However, while 65 Jews arrived from Iran in 2006, thus far this year 77 have arrived.

• This is despite The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, of which Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein is president, which guarantees a grant of $10,000 to each Iranian Jew who comes to Israel. Efforts are being made to put together a package of incentives to entice them further.

• Yossi Shraga, Director of Middle East immigration at the Jewish Agency, there are between 25,000 and 28,000 Jews now living in Iran--though the Iranians themselves put the number much higher: 100,000. Either way, averaging 100 Jews from Iran per year is a minuscule amount.

• Hoffman describes the situation as a conflict between fear of life in Iran and the ability to adapt and lead a normal life there; between the worry of leaving everything behind and the desire to lead a new life in Israel.

• According to Jeff Kaye, an official of the Jewish Agency, there good reason to worry about the fate of the Jews of Iran--the same reasons that pushed Israel to bring Jews out of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to Israel or the US exist also in Iran.

• One Iranian Jew interviewed by Hoffman said that Jews in Iran know they are sitting on a powder keg--at least half of them think that either Israel or the US will attack Iran's nuclear reactors. And when they do, the Jews of Iran will pay the price. Even without encouragement from the government, the Iranians on the street will take it out on the Jews.

• Another Iranian Jew tells Hoffman that it was not the threat of war that brought him to Israel, but the desire to live as a Jew. "There, it is difficult to keep Mitzvot, to keep Kosher, to pray and to learn about Judasim. On Shabbat the children have to go to school--everything there is more difficult.

• He continues, saying that it is the Israeli government that Iran hates--and not the Israelis themselves. He believes that things are better than they were 10 years ago--when there was a water fountain in the marketplace in Tehran with 2 faucets: one for Muslims and one for Jews. If a Jew dared to drink from the faucet for Muslims he would be beaten up. Today it is different.

• Another Iranian Jew shows Hoffman his passport. On the last page--as will all Iranian passports--it reads:

• Another Iranian Jew describes how most of his friends at the university were Muslims--some of whom expressed the wish to visit Israel. He draws a distinction between the Iranian on the street and those in the university, where instructors openly question Iran's need for a nuclear reactor. He believes that Anti-Semitism is something encountered only on the street, where calling someone a Jew is the equivalent to someone in Israel calling someone a Nazi. Yet he admits that Jews cannot hold government posts.

• Hoffman reports that the economic situation of Jews in Iran is good relative to the rest of the population, and has in fact improved during the last few years--even while the poverty level has increased.

• In Iran, the Internet is censured. Soon after a new site pops up, the authorities find out about it and it is blocked. Likewise, families watch CNN--until the government comes around and takes down their TV antenna. In previous years there was a punishment too, but no more. One of her interviewees tells Hoffman that he has a friend, a lawyer, who was involved in the compensation when 60 died from an explosion--but the explosion was never reported on the news.

• Despite the small size of the Jewish community in Iran and the difficulty in finding a shidduch, intermarriage is relatively rare.

• In Iran, serving in the army is mandatory. Many Jews avoid service by paying someone off--something that is not limited to the Jews alone. One who ended up serving in the army recounts how the Iranians who served were religious and treated him like someone impure, and gave him the hardest jobs. Though service is for 24 months, after 20 months he got disgusted and deserted.

Hoffman concludes:

The problem is that the Iranian Jews don't want to leave, I say to him [Yossi Shraga]. That is true, he says--they may not say it, but that does not free us. This is similar to the situation the Jews faced in Europe before the rise of the Nazis. Jews have the tendency, says Shraga, to believe that everything will turn out all right. But back then, there was no Jewish state, no government. Today there is, and we will not be able to forgive ourselves if something happens.

Crossposted on Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Iran and Jews.

Israel's attorney general nixes price-modification scheme

Israel's attorney general told the government on Monday it could not unilaterally modify its Power-for-Qassams agreement with the Gaza Strip as part of its current economic policy. The current arrangement calls on Israel to provide 10,000 kilowatt hours for every Qassam rocket fired.

Israel began implementing economic sanctions on Sunday in what it said was a response to Palestinian price-gouging and exploitation of its Qassam monopoly.

Israel's supreme court told the government to explain its planned actions against Gaza and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the plan to reduce power to Gaza needed further scrutiny because of the possible impact on Palestinian economic development.

"The attorney general has approved the cabinet's decision to activate various economic steps ... (but) further consideration needs to be given to cutting off electricity because of the economic implications for the Palestinian Qassam industry," a Justice Ministry statement said. "After all," he continued, "Israel has the fourth-largest financial planning establishment in the world while the Palestinians have to use crude, homemade price regulation schemes."

The European Union warned Israel against imposing "unilateral price-modification" on the 1.5 million Palestinians in the coastal strip by reducing the territory's fuel supplies.

"We understand the distress that is caused in Israel by the high price of Qassams," Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's commissioner for external relations, said after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.

But she told Reuters the new sanctions "will have very grave consequences for the Qassam industry" and serve to bolster OQEC and other projectile cartels. "There should never be unilateral price modification," she added.

Source: Reuters. Additional reporting by Yitzchak.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

The Importance of Failed Polemic

Gideon Levy had an Op-Ed yesterday in Ha'aretz designed, I suppose, to expose the war-like nature of the Zionist entity. The title is "The importance of a failed summit" and the Annapolis summit's usefulness, according to Levy, consists of demonstrating "who aspires toward peace and, more important, who flees from it as if from fire." He does not so much argue his case as argue by decree. "The terror card cannot be played again," he decrees, "because the terror has abated." How's that?

Qassams landing on Sderot and a childish assassination attempt are not a reason to evade the peace process. This low level of terror will, unfortunately, continue to accompany Israeli-Palestinian relations for years to come. We must learn to live with it, and above all recognize that it will not stop in the absence of an agreement that will put an end to the occupation.

Or in the presence of one either? Isn't that what he meant by "years to come"? We also learn in this editorial that "Israel can no longer continue to mouth slogans about security" and that "another excuse that no longer washes is the 'no partner' one." Read the rest for the non-arguments he offers in support of these points, if you have the stomach for it. He concludes:

All the cards will be shown at Annapolis, and that is no small thing. The world will see and judge, Israelis will see and decide: Do we genuinely want peace?

I guess we now know who "flees from" peace. Does that mean the Palestinian side is the one that "aspires towards Peace"? Don't even "childish" assassination attempts contradict claims to peaceful aspirations? The appearance of this in the "Israeli New York Times" means that somebody was expected to take it seriously. That's pretty frightening.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Apologists

In The Attempt to Kill Olmert, Barry Rubin writes

Several Fatah security force officers assigned to protect Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as he went to meet with Palestinian Authority (PA) head Mahmoud Abbas, it has just been revealed, planned to assassinate him instead. This event should be amazing enough to get people to rethink their premises. After all, it is late 2007, with a supposedly moderate leadership running the PA and Fatah, and this kind of thing is still happening.

It should be emphasized that the would-be assassins were Fatah, not Hamas, and that they were quickly released by PA authorities before outside pressure forced their re-arrest. (Prediction: they will be freed soon with little or no international media coverage.)

But this is merely the same basic pattern as happened with the assassins of Israeli government minister Rehavam Zeevi in 2001 or the gunmen who seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002: international indifference, a show of PA law enforcement, and terrorists go free. Not to mention thousands of other attacks when the PA had a chance to teach its own people about the politically counterproductive—not to mention immoral and divisive--nature of terrorism.

He follows this up with eleven reasons why this never seems to change. The final reason starts:

No speeches, no foreign aid, and no international plans or meetings have altered these basic rules.

The Palestinians pay no political or diplomatic price for their bad faith.

If we go back to the exchange of letters between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat, the latter wrote:

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

The fundamental premises of certifying the PLO was no longer a terrorist organization, were that it had renounced terror and that it could control all of its elements to bring them into line. The latter condition has been violated as much as the former.

But it's not just that these conditions have been violated, it's been who has been responsible for this neglect. Surely successive Israeli governments have failed to address Palestinian violations adequately. (And when Binyamin Netanyahu did he found himself on the wrong side of the Clinton administration.)

But there have been plenty of aiders and abetters. As Rubin points out the Palestinians have flouted every norm of relations with Israel by allowing terrorists to escape (Israel) justice. In March 2006 6 of those prisoners who were being held in Jericho were preparing to break out. The international monitors who were supposed to watch them had left out of fear. These were terrorist who hid in the Church of Nativity and, at least one of whom was involved in the killing of Israeli tourism minister Rehavem Ze'evi. Israel permitted them to be jailed in Jericho under international observation as a condition of their being allowed to leave the Church. Now four years later, that agreement was about to be broken so Israel, under Prime Minister Olmert, took action and raided the jail capturing the 6.

How did the Washington Post react in an editorial?

So it's not surprising that Mr. Olmert would have ordered yesterday's sensational raid on a Palestinian prison in the West Bank, in which Israeli forces captured six militants accused of murdering a right-wing Israeli minister in 2001. True, Palestinian leaders invited the intervention by suggesting that the ringleader of the group would soon be freed, and U.S. and British monitors withdrew from the prison minutes before the raid, reportedly because of their own objections to security arrangements. But this was an act tailored for Israeli voters, some of whom will be as pleased by the predictable expressions of Palestinian and international outrage as they are by the roundup of bad guys.

Cynicism, pure and simple. The Palestinians had once again shown that they were unreliable protectors of Israeli interests (as a peaceful neighbor ought to be) and the Washington Post post charges the Israeli Prime Minister of playing politics when he rectifies the situation.

The Washington Post, I'm sure, was reflecting a view common in political, diplomatic and academic circles. Israeli claims are mere posturing. It's the needs of the Palestinians that must be met for there to be peace in the Middle East.

Of course by prescribing a Palestinian state without ensuring what kind of state it would be puts the cart before the horse.

By creating a destabilizing nation in the Middle East the world will not bring peace. Until the Palestinians accept responsibilities of self-government and of peaceful relations with Israel, their state will solve nothing.

Nor should it come as a surprise to anyone that that would be the case. Back in 1983, Daniel Pipes wrote "How Important is the PLO?" in which he wrote about the corruption and tyranny with which the PLO ruled its "state within a state" in Southern Lebanon. But the past performance of the PLO was ignored as the future returns of a Palestinian state were heralded as essential to peace.

The peace processors who have ignored the past and excused (and continue to excuse) Palestinian bad behavior are not helping the cause of peace.

Crossposted on Yourish.

israel

Foreign policy grown up

Earlier, perhaps, I was being a bit glib when I wrote that

And I'd even argue that they [the Republican candidates for President - sd] have more substance than any Democratic candidate, save Hillary. The rest of the Democratic field seems to think that hating W is more than enough.

But I'm not alone. In Foreign Policy Grown Up Sebastian Mallaby writes

The truth is that Clinton did not give Bush any sort of "blank check" -- if Bush wants to bomb Iran or hit Iranian units inside Iraq, he can do so without a Senate resolution. But Obama and Edwards are so intent on Bush-bashing that they refuse to cut him any slack, even when he advances a policy that they might ordinarily favor. After the administration announced a new package of Iran sanctions on Thursday, Edwards declared that the president and his team had once again "rattled their sabers in their march toward military action." Bush hatred has driven him to the point where he regards sanctions as a harbinger of war rather than an alternative.

But the next paragraph is even more devastating.

Clinton's rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don't trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein's regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer "in his box," to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Mallaby concludes

Likewise on sanctions, Clinton is the only one to insist that sanctions are less a prelude to war than a means of forestalling it. They are more likely to work, moreover, if the military option is looming in the background, which is why bellicose comments from Bush or his vice president don't prove that war is the preordained strategy. The idea that the threat of war can prevent actual war is the most basic lesson of nuclear doctrine, but it appears to escape the Bush haters. In a recent interview with NPR to military force but also acknowledges that Americans face real threats, that feckless foreign powers can sometimes make the ideal of multilateralism unattainable and that war can sometimes be the least bad option.

Obama, who promised to rise above partisanship, seems too fearful of his party's Bush-hating base to offer that vision. It's impressive and surprising that Clinton, who railed against a vast right-wing conspiracy not so long ago, has risen above Bush hatred in forming her worldview. She has come a long way in just one decade.

(Take that David Ignatius, you silly fear monger.)

I made similar arguments on Friday regarding the sanctions against Iran. However, I left out the Washington Post's editorial on those sanctions.

Faced with this defiance, the international coalition is getting weaker rather than stronger. U.S. diplomats so far have been unable to win support for a third round of U.N. sanctions, which should have come six months ago. Russia and China have been stepping up their trade with Iran. A French initiative for the European Union to apply new sanctions has been blocked by Germany. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is supposed to implement U.N. decisions, has launched a separate strategy aimed at allowing Iranian enrichment and preventing further sanctions.

The U.S. steps announced yesterday, which were directed at three state-owned banks, the Revolutionary Guard and its al-Quds Force, and a branch of the defense ministry concerned with weapons programs, do not directly designate any of those entities as a terrorist organization, as some in the administration and many in Congress had advocated. But they are designed to curtail Iranian access to the international banking system and deter non-American companies from doing business with Iran. If the sanctions are as successful as the financial crackdown on North Korea, they could have the same result: forcing Iran to end its defiance of the Security Council and begin serious negotiations to stop its bomb program. Though administration officials describe the measures as the toughest taken against Tehran in 30 years, they are restrained when set against the Revolutionary Guard's escalating campaign to kill Americans in Iraq by supplying sophisticated bombs, rockets and training to allied Shiite militias.

I'm *no* fan of Hillary. But if there will be a Democratic president running this country from 2009-2013, I'd rather it be Hillary than any of the alternatives. Mallaby is correct, in the Democratic field, Hillary is the foreign policy grown up.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bookworm Room for realizing I left out the word *no* in the last paragraph.

hillary clinton, democrats, foreign policy.

Headlines of the week

Abbas, Olmert pledge 'meaningful' understandings

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas agreed on Friday to try to find a meaningful agreement to take to a planned Middle East meeting, an Israeli official said.

"They agreed to try to reach, as soon as possible, a meaningful statement," Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said after two and a half hours of lunchtime talks between the two at Olmert's official Jerusalem residence.

Abbas's "meaningful understandings"
1) Next time we catch someone trying to assassinate you Mr. Prime Minister, he will serve at least 4 months in prison. Not a day less.
2) We recognize the historical connection of the Jews to the land of Israel.
3) We respect the archaeological integrity of the Temple Mount.
4) Heck, we even recognize Israel's right to exist.

In other news.
Rice taps Clinton, Carter for Middle East advice (h/t Pillage Idiot)

Carter?

Clinton

At a time when the CIA is supposed to provide assurances that it will deal with all matters of terror, the question remains: Even In the case of the murder of two US citizens, has the way that the US intelligence community has dealt with the murder cases of David Boim and Nachshon Wachsman represent any indication as to how the US will continue to relate to Israel's security concerns ?

Bush 43

So if my source could find out that a member of Aziz's cell (not Aziz himself - I asked that question) is going to be part of this training course, why can't the CIA? Or if the CIA has figured it out, why don't they care? We're not talking about someone who committed an act of terrorism in the pre-Oslo period. We're talking about someone who was part of a group that murdered ten people, including a 16-year old American, in April 2006.

Finally - h/t Daled Amos who writes:

It's like a political "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"--with the worst possible lifelines.

- Powerline writes

Was Rice always this bad, or has she changed course in order to regain the esteem of the foreign policy establishment before she heads back to private life?

I guess the answer's here:

"She realizes that her legacy right now is really very poor," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and a strong critic of the Bush administration. "If she can pull this off, she will be seen as a real historical figure."

Brzezinski's criticism must have really stung.

Crossposted on Yourish.

condoleeza rice, middle east.

If ... you must 10/29/2007

It's been too long ...
If you haven't read Bookworm Room's Legislating to the Fringe; you must.
I guess you could say that this explains "legislative creep." How every problem becomes the business of the legislature and how laws grow kudzu-like taking over our political landscape.
If you haven't read The shy millionaires at Dr. Helen; you must.
There are people who accumulate wealth but we never know about it. As opposed to those who in the guise of governing, take wealth, and never cease to brag about how responsible they are. See above.
If you haven't read Crossing the Rubicon3's Vive la difference; you must.
I have daughters, but I suspect that she's right; the relationship I have with them, will never be the same as the one they have with their mother.
If you haven't read Brain Terminal's My last free speech battle; you must.
You thought it was on campus? Nope. It's at a dry cleaner.
If you haven't read "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame at Just One Minute; you must.
If you haven't read Maryland Conservatarian's The truth about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger ; you must.
If you haven't read The Plame Game at Connecting the Dots; you must.
If you haven't read This Airport code Sucks at Pillage Idiot; you must.
If you haven't read How to be a hostage at Backspin; you must.
If you haven't read When Bonnie Frost writes her book at Tinkerty Tonk; you must.
After reading those last two, don't say that you don't practical advice here.
If you haven't read National Mole Day at Almanac of Miscellaneous Merriment; you must.
I know this is a week late. It doesn't mean that it's not interesting.
If you haven't read Confederate Yankees Re-tell News; you must.
You mean that news organizations have agendas and can be lazy? You don't say.
If you haven't read Enough Already at In Context; you must.
Surely she's correct when she writes:

Maybe Charles Johnson is right that there is reason to be cautious about joining forces with the Flemish Vlaams Belang party. Maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's being overly cautious. Maybe he's only recommending due diligence. I've read way more about this question than I wanted to and I'm still not sure. What I am sure of, though, is that no one has done more to advance Islamo-fascist awareness in the blogosphere than Charles Johnson. No one has done more to provide a spotlight for others to advance it. No one is more determined to use the power of the blog to continue to advance it.

If you haven't read Hating Hillary not enough at Outside the Beltway; you must.
I don't disagree with the title, but I believe that the Republican candidates have some substance. And I'd even argue that they have more substance than any Democratic candidate, save Hillary. The rest of the Democratic field seems to think that hating W is more than enough.
If you haven't read 2008: A Taxonomy at Baseball Crank; you must.
See the candidates. See the molds they're put into.
If you haven't read Monoblogue's Who will I support; you must.
Democrat. Republican. Liberal. Conservative. I don't care who you are, you must read this. Monoblogue here grades out the candidates. True the criteria reflect his views - which are conservative and similar to mine. However since he gives you the reason for each grade on each issue. So he penalizes a candidate you like for his/her position on gun control or immigration. You just say, "but I agree with that position." This is really an excellent resource that cuts through the static and allows anyone, even one who disagrees with Monoblogue, to make an informed decision about whom to support in 2008.

Comics trivia quiz

At least some of my readers will appreciate this Superhero quiz.

Though I don't think he's featured in the quiz here's a website devoted to Spiderman.

superheroes.

Of curious george and big max

Great item on CBS News about the guy who imitates Curious George.

Any kids who've read "Curious George" have had to be curious themselves: What would it be like to be carried away by balloons?

CBS News correspondent Steve Hartman has a story about a guy we'll call "Curious John."

Curious John begins his adventures early in the morning with about 20 volunteers, 80 balloons and $1,400 worth of helium.

"It’s quite a production," John said.

His real name is John Ninomiya, and he's the only person in the country who does this.

"I had to find various balloons to do the testing," Ninomiya said. He uses balloons made for "flying out in front of a car dealership," or other outdoor use.

But they're not for aviation?

"No, they're not," he admitted with a laugh.

How does he get down? Guess or read on.

Balloons also play a role in the children's classic "Big Max and the Missing Moose by Kin Platt (illustrated by Robert Lopshire, he of "Put me in the Zoo" fame.)

I was reading the "Missing Moose" with my six year old and remembered why I loved it so much. While it possesses an internal logic, the dialogue is laced with non-sequitirs and the whole story is just plain absurd. The artwork is also perfect.

I'm not going to spoil the book by explaining what balloons have to with the mystery, but I'm sure you'll figure it out!

curious george, big max, balloons.

Elephant jokes ...

At Meryl's. She's looking for donors.

Haveil havalim #138