Juan, you state: “Actually, it isn’t clear what exactly Netanyahu’s demand entails or why he is making it. As I have pointed out, it is either like the US demanding to be recognized as a “white” state, or it is like the US demanding to be recognized as a “Christian” state. If it is the former, it is shameful and should be rejected. If it is the latter, it raises questions about the civil rights of non-believers (atheists and agnostics), which include at least 32% of Jews in Israel along with the 20% of the population that is Christian or Muslim. That is, the demand that Israel be recognized as a “Judaic” state would disenfranchise over half the population.”
It is my opinion you are flat out wrong. It is not like the “US demanding to be recognized as a “white” state, or it is like the US demanding to be recognized as a “Christian” state.” For example, families and people who have lived in Sweden for centuries’ are Swedish and Sweden is not a religion. There are all kinds of people who live there with different theological views and they are still Swedish. I believe this is true in just about every country in the world. There is the name of the country and then people within that country who choose whatever religion or non-religion they prefer.
However, there seems to be one country which contains both a heritage (Swedish, American, etc.) which combines its heritage and a religious component. That would be the Jewish people. Your born Jewish (like I’m born American) and there also appears to be a religious component. One can be born Jewish and I suppose not practice Judaism as a religion but they are still Jewish.
I find it interesting that a Jewish person born in America is an American but is still Jewish. Why is that? Whereas my wife’s parents came from Sweden (they trace their heritage back many generations) in the 30’s, my wife was born here but she does not consider herself Swedish.
From my understanding Israel has no state religion, and all religions enjoy freedom of worship, yet it is attacked for its Jewish character, whereas the Arab states that all have Islam as their official religion are regarded as legitimate.
The Jewish people are a nation with a shared origin, religion, culture, language, and history. And why shouldn't the Jewish people have a state? No one suggests that Arabs are not entitled to a nation (and they have not one, but twenty-one) of their own or Mexicans or Swedes or Germans. To suggest that Zionism, the nationalist movement of the Jewish people, is the only form of nationalism that is illegitimate is pure bigotry
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
By Editorial Board, Published: March 2
Well here we have the Editorial Board from the Washington Post coming down hard on Obama’s foreign policy. What grabbed my attention is the source because the editors are really coming down on themselves. How ironic as they seem to have abandoned their own fantasy world, where they thought they were correct to have supported Obama all along, and where those on the right are just aggressive warmongers (stupid, as well) and peace and love can win out over viciousness.
The first sentence lays down the premise:
“FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world.”
The WaPo then heaps scorn on our naïve Secretary of State and his musings about how power games, invasions and shifting alliances are things of the past:
“That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.”
It’s time, the Post continues, for the Obama administration to wake up from its somnolent blindness. Reality is calling:
“Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.”
Of course, members of both parties are more than happy with an American retrenchment, but, as the old saying goes, the buck stops with the president:
“Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he’s also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn’t make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.”
And finally:
… as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.”
“As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.”
It’s a tough indictment of the incompetent Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy team. Given the source, it will surely have an impact.
One other issue not related to Obama’s foreign policy but could have an effect is how the Ukraine’s economy is economically insignificant. Let’s put it into some perspective: the Ukraine’s gross domestic product is one-fifth the size of Turkey and its per capita income is a touch higher than Egypt’s. Its entire stock-market capitalization is roughly the size of Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB) or Disney (NYSE:DIS)—take your pick. There is a human tragedy unfolding there, and given Mr. Putin’s history, we should be braced for significant loss of life.
Juan: what are you talking about? "they bought Congress and got taxes on securities down to 10% then put their money in securities." Could you please be more explicit. Taxes on securities (I assume you mean equities) at 10%--where are you getting those figures?
Juan,
You are correct that America has become an extremely unequal society and I don’t think you have a clue why.
I suggest you read “The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies” Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee from MIT
and stop whining about the top 1% who make most of the money. This book explains what to me had been inexplicable about the different behavior of the U.S. and global economies since the Clinton era. Now it suddenly makes sense why the top 1% are the only ones to be prospering, and how the top 0.01% are doing so much better even than they. Everything from the accelerating decline of the middle class to our floundering educational systems vis-à-vis other advanced countries and even as compared to U.S. standards decades ago becomes comprehensible. Everyone who needs to understand should read this book. Only then might the fortunes of the bottom 99% improve.
In reading this book it will help you contemplate the effects that are coming with the continuing exponential advances in the digital age. This is an excellent summary of the technology headed our way. The authors are insightful in highlighting the changes that this technology will mean. It will mean unemployment for many who will be replaced by a machine. We should be thinking about how to handle this now.
There are two ways of looking at this. Unemployment disaster is headed our way or we should be able to become even more productive with the new digital tools we will have at our disposal. I think the latter is what we should focus on. But we need to realize that we need to prepare people with new STEM and Job Creating skills and not continue with the overwhelming Liberal Arts education that most are receiving now and silly degrees like Asian, African studies, etc.
Juan, you state: “Actually, it isn’t clear what exactly Netanyahu’s demand entails or why he is making it. As I have pointed out, it is either like the US demanding to be recognized as a “white” state, or it is like the US demanding to be recognized as a “Christian” state. If it is the former, it is shameful and should be rejected. If it is the latter, it raises questions about the civil rights of non-believers (atheists and agnostics), which include at least 32% of Jews in Israel along with the 20% of the population that is Christian or Muslim. That is, the demand that Israel be recognized as a “Judaic” state would disenfranchise over half the population.”
It is my opinion you are flat out wrong. It is not like the “US demanding to be recognized as a “white” state, or it is like the US demanding to be recognized as a “Christian” state.” For example, families and people who have lived in Sweden for centuries’ are Swedish and Sweden is not a religion. There are all kinds of people who live there with different theological views and they are still Swedish. I believe this is true in just about every country in the world. There is the name of the country and then people within that country who choose whatever religion or non-religion they prefer.
However, there seems to be one country which contains both a heritage (Swedish, American, etc.) which combines its heritage and a religious component. That would be the Jewish people. Your born Jewish (like I’m born American) and there also appears to be a religious component. One can be born Jewish and I suppose not practice Judaism as a religion but they are still Jewish.
I find it interesting that a Jewish person born in America is an American but is still Jewish. Why is that? Whereas my wife’s parents came from Sweden (they trace their heritage back many generations) in the 30’s, my wife was born here but she does not consider herself Swedish.
From my understanding Israel has no state religion, and all religions enjoy freedom of worship, yet it is attacked for its Jewish character, whereas the Arab states that all have Islam as their official religion are regarded as legitimate.
The Jewish people are a nation with a shared origin, religion, culture, language, and history. And why shouldn't the Jewish people have a state? No one suggests that Arabs are not entitled to a nation (and they have not one, but twenty-one) of their own or Mexicans or Swedes or Germans. To suggest that Zionism, the nationalist movement of the Jewish people, is the only form of nationalism that is illegitimate is pure bigotry
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
By Editorial Board, Published: March 2
Well here we have the Editorial Board from the Washington Post coming down hard on Obama’s foreign policy. What grabbed my attention is the source because the editors are really coming down on themselves. How ironic as they seem to have abandoned their own fantasy world, where they thought they were correct to have supported Obama all along, and where those on the right are just aggressive warmongers (stupid, as well) and peace and love can win out over viciousness.
The first sentence lays down the premise:
“FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world.”
The WaPo then heaps scorn on our naïve Secretary of State and his musings about how power games, invasions and shifting alliances are things of the past:
“That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.”
It’s time, the Post continues, for the Obama administration to wake up from its somnolent blindness. Reality is calling:
“Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.”
Of course, members of both parties are more than happy with an American retrenchment, but, as the old saying goes, the buck stops with the president:
“Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he’s also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn’t make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.”
And finally:
… as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.”
“As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.”
It’s a tough indictment of the incompetent Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy team. Given the source, it will surely have an impact.
One other issue not related to Obama’s foreign policy but could have an effect is how the Ukraine’s economy is economically insignificant. Let’s put it into some perspective: the Ukraine’s gross domestic product is one-fifth the size of Turkey and its per capita income is a touch higher than Egypt’s. Its entire stock-market capitalization is roughly the size of Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB) or Disney (NYSE:DIS)—take your pick. There is a human tragedy unfolding there, and given Mr. Putin’s history, we should be braced for significant loss of life.
Juan: what are you talking about? "they bought Congress and got taxes on securities down to 10% then put their money in securities." Could you please be more explicit. Taxes on securities (I assume you mean equities) at 10%--where are you getting those figures?
Juan,
You are correct that America has become an extremely unequal society and I don’t think you have a clue why.
I suggest you read “The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies” Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee from MIT
and stop whining about the top 1% who make most of the money. This book explains what to me had been inexplicable about the different behavior of the U.S. and global economies since the Clinton era. Now it suddenly makes sense why the top 1% are the only ones to be prospering, and how the top 0.01% are doing so much better even than they. Everything from the accelerating decline of the middle class to our floundering educational systems vis-à-vis other advanced countries and even as compared to U.S. standards decades ago becomes comprehensible. Everyone who needs to understand should read this book. Only then might the fortunes of the bottom 99% improve.
In reading this book it will help you contemplate the effects that are coming with the continuing exponential advances in the digital age. This is an excellent summary of the technology headed our way. The authors are insightful in highlighting the changes that this technology will mean. It will mean unemployment for many who will be replaced by a machine. We should be thinking about how to handle this now.
There are two ways of looking at this. Unemployment disaster is headed our way or we should be able to become even more productive with the new digital tools we will have at our disposal. I think the latter is what we should focus on. But we need to realize that we need to prepare people with new STEM and Job Creating skills and not continue with the overwhelming Liberal Arts education that most are receiving now and silly degrees like Asian, African studies, etc.