My father just sent me this quote from an Eric Hoffer article in the LA Times in 1968. Hoffer was a longshoreman who gained fame as a social philosopher in the 1960s. Notice the reference to Sweden.
ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION...by Eric Hoffer - LA Times 5/26/68
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel , the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.
Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.
Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.
There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .
But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.
The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam,
Did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.
They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world.
If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.
Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally.
We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.
And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war,
To realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.
Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I Told You So--But Is Edward F. Cox Listening?
The Wall Street Journal reports the results of a poll done with NBC that finds that support for the Democrats and President Obama has dwindled to below 50%, a larger drop than for previous presidents. "In January despite the recession and financial crisis, voters expressed optimism about the future, the new president enjoyed soaring approval ratings, and congressional leaders promised to swiftly pass his ambitious agenda." But independents are displeased with the Democrats' bungled health reform effort.
Also consider this point:
"public displeasure with Democrats wasn't translating directly into warmth for Republicans. Twenty-eight percent of voters expressed positive feelings about the GOP -- a number that has remained constant through the Democrats' decline over the summer and fall. Only 5% said their feelings toward the Republicans were "very positive."
Slightly more voters, 35%, still feel positive about the Democrats, "a 14% slide from last January." These numbers are difficult to interpret. I'm a Republican, but I don't feel "very" positive about them.
The Republicans are divided between a few different groups: big business socialists (Progressives), social conservatives, and advocates of small government. I am of the last and am only moderately conservative on social issues. A candidate like Mike Huckabee has no appeal for me. He is a Democrat who believes in God. I do not think that God ought to be the chief political issue. Religion is too important for Caesar and America has become great by separating church and state. So Huckabee's religious credentials are unimportant. Nor do I have any interest in the socialist, pro-business wing of the party, represented by George W. Bush and the socialist pro-business press. The more people like Steve Forbes cry for capitalism, the more handouts and Federal Reserve credits they demand. In fact, I dislike the pro-business socialists in the Republican Party as much as I dislike the pro-union socialists in the Democratic Party. I do not care if the people who are stealing from you and me imagine themselves to be business men or workers. They are simply thieves in either case.
Wall Street and ACORN are two kinds of bums. The former has kept the State of New York afloat by sucking the rest of the country dry via the Fed's monetary expansion, while the latter have been sucking New York State dry and driving out our state's honest and hard working element.
In 2008 it was evident to me that Obama was a false messiah in part because he is linked to Wall Street's status quo and in part because he is a pro-SEIU socialist. This unholy alliance is nothing new. I recall a meeting I attended in 1988 with Felix Rohatyn of Lazard Freres and Victor Gottbaum of the City Clerks Union in New York City. They had their arms around each other like long lost lovers. The alliance of Wall Street and big labor goes back to the National Civic Federation and municipal reform movements of the early twentieth century. Think of Robert Moses, the destructive bureaucratic avatar of New York Times-style Progressivism. His strongest backers were on the one hand big labor and on the other big real estate and Wall Street (except when he tried to build a bridge from Brooklyn Heights to Wall Street and Wall Street was able to stop him, unlike the lower middle income citizens he uprooted in the South Bronx and elsewhere.)
Obama's recent meeting with Wall Street's leadership is one more example of his facile lying. He said to the public that he wanted to insist on a quid pro quo from Wall Street for the preposterous bailout and TARP money, and in private he engaged in a mutual admiration contest. Big labor and big banking unite, and the rest of the economy suffers. The affluent, who own stocks, real estate and other inflatable assets and who work for corporations and government benefit, and the blue collar majority who pay are marginalized as "tea party extremists."
The GOP can easily blow the 2010 election because they insist on the same old failed policies that ignore the interests of the majority, and depend on duping them. Let us not forget that the bailout was George W. Bush's idea, not Obama's. Obama just amplified it. Let us not forget that the latest round of monetary subsidies to Wall Street and the banking industry began with the 2002 economic cycle, certainly not with Bill Clinton, and that Bush was as bad an inflationist as Richard Nixon. The chief difference between the Democrats and the socialist Republicans is that the Republicans super-size the incompetent and corrupt practices of the Democrats.
The Republicans' entrenched support for the status quo is seen in the appointment of Edward F. Cox to the chair of the New York State Republican Party. In 1994 George Pataki was elected in reaction to 12 years of failed tax-and-spend Cuomo policies. He reversed his small government rhetoric within five or six years. He allowed Medicaid to mushroom into a honey pot of corruption. From his bully pulpit he became a cheer leader for Dennis Rivera's Local 1199 union, which has now grown into a one million member strong SEIU union that is like a cancer on New York State's economy, pressing for ever more wasteful and extensive programs.
Three years ago the Republicans lost, and instead of examining the failed strategy of corrupt pandering to special interests, the Republicans have appointed as their state chair a Wall Street wheeler dealer whose only political accomplishments were as an employee of Ralph Nader. The extremists at the New York Times applaud the appointment, but can moderate voters take the Republicans seriously?
Also consider this point:
"public displeasure with Democrats wasn't translating directly into warmth for Republicans. Twenty-eight percent of voters expressed positive feelings about the GOP -- a number that has remained constant through the Democrats' decline over the summer and fall. Only 5% said their feelings toward the Republicans were "very positive."
Slightly more voters, 35%, still feel positive about the Democrats, "a 14% slide from last January." These numbers are difficult to interpret. I'm a Republican, but I don't feel "very" positive about them.
The Republicans are divided between a few different groups: big business socialists (Progressives), social conservatives, and advocates of small government. I am of the last and am only moderately conservative on social issues. A candidate like Mike Huckabee has no appeal for me. He is a Democrat who believes in God. I do not think that God ought to be the chief political issue. Religion is too important for Caesar and America has become great by separating church and state. So Huckabee's religious credentials are unimportant. Nor do I have any interest in the socialist, pro-business wing of the party, represented by George W. Bush and the socialist pro-business press. The more people like Steve Forbes cry for capitalism, the more handouts and Federal Reserve credits they demand. In fact, I dislike the pro-business socialists in the Republican Party as much as I dislike the pro-union socialists in the Democratic Party. I do not care if the people who are stealing from you and me imagine themselves to be business men or workers. They are simply thieves in either case.
Wall Street and ACORN are two kinds of bums. The former has kept the State of New York afloat by sucking the rest of the country dry via the Fed's monetary expansion, while the latter have been sucking New York State dry and driving out our state's honest and hard working element.
In 2008 it was evident to me that Obama was a false messiah in part because he is linked to Wall Street's status quo and in part because he is a pro-SEIU socialist. This unholy alliance is nothing new. I recall a meeting I attended in 1988 with Felix Rohatyn of Lazard Freres and Victor Gottbaum of the City Clerks Union in New York City. They had their arms around each other like long lost lovers. The alliance of Wall Street and big labor goes back to the National Civic Federation and municipal reform movements of the early twentieth century. Think of Robert Moses, the destructive bureaucratic avatar of New York Times-style Progressivism. His strongest backers were on the one hand big labor and on the other big real estate and Wall Street (except when he tried to build a bridge from Brooklyn Heights to Wall Street and Wall Street was able to stop him, unlike the lower middle income citizens he uprooted in the South Bronx and elsewhere.)
Obama's recent meeting with Wall Street's leadership is one more example of his facile lying. He said to the public that he wanted to insist on a quid pro quo from Wall Street for the preposterous bailout and TARP money, and in private he engaged in a mutual admiration contest. Big labor and big banking unite, and the rest of the economy suffers. The affluent, who own stocks, real estate and other inflatable assets and who work for corporations and government benefit, and the blue collar majority who pay are marginalized as "tea party extremists."
The GOP can easily blow the 2010 election because they insist on the same old failed policies that ignore the interests of the majority, and depend on duping them. Let us not forget that the bailout was George W. Bush's idea, not Obama's. Obama just amplified it. Let us not forget that the latest round of monetary subsidies to Wall Street and the banking industry began with the 2002 economic cycle, certainly not with Bill Clinton, and that Bush was as bad an inflationist as Richard Nixon. The chief difference between the Democrats and the socialist Republicans is that the Republicans super-size the incompetent and corrupt practices of the Democrats.
The Republicans' entrenched support for the status quo is seen in the appointment of Edward F. Cox to the chair of the New York State Republican Party. In 1994 George Pataki was elected in reaction to 12 years of failed tax-and-spend Cuomo policies. He reversed his small government rhetoric within five or six years. He allowed Medicaid to mushroom into a honey pot of corruption. From his bully pulpit he became a cheer leader for Dennis Rivera's Local 1199 union, which has now grown into a one million member strong SEIU union that is like a cancer on New York State's economy, pressing for ever more wasteful and extensive programs.
Three years ago the Republicans lost, and instead of examining the failed strategy of corrupt pandering to special interests, the Republicans have appointed as their state chair a Wall Street wheeler dealer whose only political accomplishments were as an employee of Ralph Nader. The extremists at the New York Times applaud the appointment, but can moderate voters take the Republicans seriously?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Aging Workforce and Retiring Baby Boomer Population
I just received some reader feedback about my AICPA Career Insider article "The Aging Workforce and Retiring Baby Boomer Population". John writes:
>I would like to thank you for your recent article that I read on www.cpa2biz.com concerning hiring older workers...
>So again, thank you for your "public service announcement", and as a result perhaps some of us experienced workers can get back to being productive.
>I would like to thank you for your recent article that I read on www.cpa2biz.com concerning hiring older workers...
>So again, thank you for your "public service announcement", and as a result perhaps some of us experienced workers can get back to being productive.
De-Coopting the Freedom Movement
Liberty Republicans need to think about strategies to counteract the cooptation of the newly revived liberty movement that Rockefeller or Progressive Republicans will attempt. The Tea Party movement's explosion shows that there is potential for success for liberty Republicans. As well, the failure of Rockefeller Republicanism under the Bush administration might well keep big government Republicans from success if we liberty Republicans refuse to cooperate with them.
Because the Tea Party movement is composed of many fine and well meaning but inexperienced activists, it is susceptible to the same tactics that coopted the libertarian movement in 1980. If a Progressive Republican calls himself a "libertarian" or a "capitalist" and offers symbolic gestures, he can sufficiently cloak his commitment to the status quo. It doesn't help that many mistakenly call the pro-freedom movement "conservative", which leads to a tacit assumption that it is the status quo to which we are committed. Nuh uh. We are moderate, but we are radical in the sense of getting to the root. The current system is extremist. The status quo is not normalcy. We represent a return to normalcy and moderation, which means a lot less government and a lot more freedom than currently.
Recently, Forbes Magazine, for instance, has been calling its pro-Wall Street, statist positions like support for the Bush-Obama bailout "libertarian". This reflects the ancient tactic of calling totalitarianism justice. Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to do so 2,500 years ago. Some classicists dispute Popper's reading of Plato, but we can all agree that George Orwell was not the first to think of this idea, and Forbes will not be the last to apply it.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporters Dan Eggen and Perry Bacon, Jr. note that "the energized tea party movement...is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections". The Post article notes of the tea party movement:
"The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters." (bold added).
Websites such as Erick Erickson's RedState.com and Dick Armey's and Matt Kibbe's Freedomworks.org are aiming to engage in direct political competition via primaries with the Republican machines in various states. The article makes a crucial point:
"...political experts in both parties say it is unclear if the movement can become the kind of unified force that can win, and not just disrupt, elections... The tea party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state-level groups that have differing rules and goals and for the most part have not participated in big-money politics. Many of the groups have been torn apart by personal feuds in recent months; one major umbrella organization, the Tea Party Patriots, has filed a lawsuit against a founding board member who signed on with a rival, the Tea Party Express. "
The Republican Liberty Caucus ought to play an integrative role. We should be thinking about how to (a) win elections; (b) prevent the professional politicians from coopting liberty Republicanism in the interest of special interest pandering; and (c) cause them to defer to libertarians' aims.
The Post article quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as to the importance of "tempering our conservative approach with pragmatism." In other words, the kind of pragmatism that causes 50% of the national income invested in failed government programs that, obsessively, must not be terminated when they fail. Rather, they should be expanded when they fail. That is "moderation" in the eyes of the Washington Post and Senator Cornyn.
Given the large amounts of money that government provides to its favored interests, such as Wall Street, government employees, and the military-industrial complex, there will be a slick, well executed thrust to neutralize and manipulate the liberty movement to make it palatable. We need to devise intelligent tactics to resist it.
Because the Tea Party movement is composed of many fine and well meaning but inexperienced activists, it is susceptible to the same tactics that coopted the libertarian movement in 1980. If a Progressive Republican calls himself a "libertarian" or a "capitalist" and offers symbolic gestures, he can sufficiently cloak his commitment to the status quo. It doesn't help that many mistakenly call the pro-freedom movement "conservative", which leads to a tacit assumption that it is the status quo to which we are committed. Nuh uh. We are moderate, but we are radical in the sense of getting to the root. The current system is extremist. The status quo is not normalcy. We represent a return to normalcy and moderation, which means a lot less government and a lot more freedom than currently.
Recently, Forbes Magazine, for instance, has been calling its pro-Wall Street, statist positions like support for the Bush-Obama bailout "libertarian". This reflects the ancient tactic of calling totalitarianism justice. Karl Popper argues that Plato was the first to do so 2,500 years ago. Some classicists dispute Popper's reading of Plato, but we can all agree that George Orwell was not the first to think of this idea, and Forbes will not be the last to apply it.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, reporters Dan Eggen and Perry Bacon, Jr. note that "the energized tea party movement...is preparing to shake up the 2010 elections". The Post article notes of the tea party movement:
"The strategy poses both an opportunity and a risk for the beleaguered Republican Party, which is seeking to take advantage of conservative discontent while still fielding candidates who appeal to independent voters." (bold added).
Websites such as Erick Erickson's RedState.com and Dick Armey's and Matt Kibbe's Freedomworks.org are aiming to engage in direct political competition via primaries with the Republican machines in various states. The article makes a crucial point:
"...political experts in both parties say it is unclear if the movement can become the kind of unified force that can win, and not just disrupt, elections... The tea party movement is splintered into hundreds of local and state-level groups that have differing rules and goals and for the most part have not participated in big-money politics. Many of the groups have been torn apart by personal feuds in recent months; one major umbrella organization, the Tea Party Patriots, has filed a lawsuit against a founding board member who signed on with a rival, the Tea Party Express. "
The Republican Liberty Caucus ought to play an integrative role. We should be thinking about how to (a) win elections; (b) prevent the professional politicians from coopting liberty Republicanism in the interest of special interest pandering; and (c) cause them to defer to libertarians' aims.
The Post article quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as to the importance of "tempering our conservative approach with pragmatism." In other words, the kind of pragmatism that causes 50% of the national income invested in failed government programs that, obsessively, must not be terminated when they fail. Rather, they should be expanded when they fail. That is "moderation" in the eyes of the Washington Post and Senator Cornyn.
Given the large amounts of money that government provides to its favored interests, such as Wall Street, government employees, and the military-industrial complex, there will be a slick, well executed thrust to neutralize and manipulate the liberty movement to make it palatable. We need to devise intelligent tactics to resist it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
