The big news today was Michael Jackson's funeral. The most emotional moment was hearing Michael Jackson's daughter, Paris, speak:
"Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine..."
Just an absolutely heart-wrenching moment.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Cold War II?
The radio is abuzz about VP Biden's so-called "green light" to Israel to attack Iran's nuclear arsenal. Maybe I'm over-analyzing VP Biden's comments, but I think the White House is trying to take pressure off Iran's protesters. In other words, this might be a classic diversion tactic.
Iran's current regime is in a tough spot. It lacks the manpower to pre-emptively attack another country, especially when so many of its military members have to handle protesters and internal dissent. Even setting aside international law, an Iranian attack against Israel would be a suicide mission because of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Attacking Saudi Arabia, an American ally, or American troops stationed in neighboring countries would also be a suicide mission for obvious reasons.
Israel, on the other hand, is also in a tough spot. Although it has the advantage in terms of weaponry, it must still weigh the overall benefits versus the costs of attacking Iran. At this time, the costs of an Iranian attack are undefined and possibly unmanageable because of Iran's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Iran's long range ballistic missiles. In addition, Iran doesn't lack the ability to defend itself. Iran has wartime experience because of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and has formidable support in Hezbollah, which has recent experience fighting against Israeli troops.
As for VP Biden, he seems to be playing the role of bad cop to President Obama's good cop. That's not necessarily a bad strategy, because even if VP Biden goes overboard, his words aren't binding--after all, he's not the President. In any case, President Obama is also in a tough spot. He knows his options are limited. Most Americans do not want to sacrifice more American troops in another non-defensive war. As a result, it looks like a stalemate and another Cold War until the fall of the current Iranian regime and a Middle Eastern glasnost.
Update on July 7, 2009: I just saw CNN's ticker--President Obama said there is no "green light" for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites.
All this attention on Iranian nuclear capabilities ignores the possibility that the current Iranian regime might be out in the next three years. Meanwhile, North Korea already has nuclear weapons and has threatened American interests. If I lived in Hawaii, I'd be more than a little concerned to be within shooting distance of North Korea. I am concerned President Obama hasn't provided a plan for containing the North Korean threat. As of today, North Korea, not Iran, represents the greatest threat to the United States.
As for Israel, it should focus on peace with Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are greater threats to Israel than Iran. A prosperous, friendly Lebanon will cause Hezbollah and Hamas to wind down operations the same way the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gave up power to Sinn Féin once Ireland became prosperous. The 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war showed that force won't work in Lebanon. If Israel wants peace, having Lebanon as a peaceful partner is key. An Israeli-Lebanese partnership should be a higher priority for Israel than a possible Iranian threat three years from now.
But then again, what do I know? I've never visited North Korea, Lebanon, or Israel. Still, I hope one day to see all three countries experience lasting peace.
Bonus: Alan Dershowitz on Israel in the WSJ (7/3/09):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649366875483207.html
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel...
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides...
Iran's current regime is in a tough spot. It lacks the manpower to pre-emptively attack another country, especially when so many of its military members have to handle protesters and internal dissent. Even setting aside international law, an Iranian attack against Israel would be a suicide mission because of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Attacking Saudi Arabia, an American ally, or American troops stationed in neighboring countries would also be a suicide mission for obvious reasons.
Israel, on the other hand, is also in a tough spot. Although it has the advantage in terms of weaponry, it must still weigh the overall benefits versus the costs of attacking Iran. At this time, the costs of an Iranian attack are undefined and possibly unmanageable because of Iran's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Iran's long range ballistic missiles. In addition, Iran doesn't lack the ability to defend itself. Iran has wartime experience because of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and has formidable support in Hezbollah, which has recent experience fighting against Israeli troops.
As for VP Biden, he seems to be playing the role of bad cop to President Obama's good cop. That's not necessarily a bad strategy, because even if VP Biden goes overboard, his words aren't binding--after all, he's not the President. In any case, President Obama is also in a tough spot. He knows his options are limited. Most Americans do not want to sacrifice more American troops in another non-defensive war. As a result, it looks like a stalemate and another Cold War until the fall of the current Iranian regime and a Middle Eastern glasnost.
Update on July 7, 2009: I just saw CNN's ticker--President Obama said there is no "green light" for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites.
All this attention on Iranian nuclear capabilities ignores the possibility that the current Iranian regime might be out in the next three years. Meanwhile, North Korea already has nuclear weapons and has threatened American interests. If I lived in Hawaii, I'd be more than a little concerned to be within shooting distance of North Korea. I am concerned President Obama hasn't provided a plan for containing the North Korean threat. As of today, North Korea, not Iran, represents the greatest threat to the United States.
As for Israel, it should focus on peace with Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are greater threats to Israel than Iran. A prosperous, friendly Lebanon will cause Hezbollah and Hamas to wind down operations the same way the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gave up power to Sinn Féin once Ireland became prosperous. The 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war showed that force won't work in Lebanon. If Israel wants peace, having Lebanon as a peaceful partner is key. An Israeli-Lebanese partnership should be a higher priority for Israel than a possible Iranian threat three years from now.
But then again, what do I know? I've never visited North Korea, Lebanon, or Israel. Still, I hope one day to see all three countries experience lasting peace.
Bonus: Alan Dershowitz on Israel in the WSJ (7/3/09):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649366875483207.html
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel...
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides...
Islamic-Compliant ETF
Below is an interesting article about how deeply religious Muslim investors avoided the full brunt of the stock market crash:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147358-religious-muslims-now-have-an-etf-to-call-their-own
Hint: if you can't invest in companies that charge interest on loans, you avoid investing in banks.
Update: my friend, M. Izak, reminds us that Muslims aren't against banks per se. He says the current banking system is anti-Islamic because it charges interest rather than fees. Banks may rely on fees instead of interest payments but have chosen to rely on interest payments.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/147358-religious-muslims-now-have-an-etf-to-call-their-own
Hint: if you can't invest in companies that charge interest on loans, you avoid investing in banks.
Update: my friend, M. Izak, reminds us that Muslims aren't against banks per se. He says the current banking system is anti-Islamic because it charges interest rather than fees. Banks may rely on fees instead of interest payments but have chosen to rely on interest payments.
Hiking in the Dark: Don't Do It
Lesson learned: never, ever go hiking without a whistle; lots of water; food; blanket; and phone # of the ranger. Also, try to go in the daytime and with someone--when it gets dark, hiking gets scary if you're by yourself. I got lost hiking last weekend in Almaden Quicksilver park and walked, in fear, for 3 hours straight before finding my way out.
My sole saving grace is that I had lots of water, which saved my hide. Without the water, I could not have walked that long, even with fear as a motivator.
My friend Marlene B. had these recommendations:
~Always bring your phone--you never know where you'll have a signal.
~ Always have water
~ Bring a snack
~ Wear sunscreen
~ Hat... you can put a solar kind of emergency blanket in your pack.
~ NEVER HIKE ALONE! I don't care if you're a boy!
~ Take a map unless you know the route for sure
Other people suggested toilet paper, a headlamp and a GPS. One really good idea was attaching a bell to your backpack and letting it ring. It's the best way to make noise to make the predators look up and away instead of startling them. (Thanks to Mike I. for the recommendation.)
I was not expecting that level of wilderness on the side trails (which I went on accidentally). I couldn't see a darn thing, and the path got really narrow. I expected better signposts, maybe even lighted signposts. When it got dark, I could barely see/read where I was going. One disconcerting but apparently normal event was that my hands felt inflated--I had a hard time making a fist. (If anyone knows the science behind this phenomenon, please post a comment.) Then, birds started chirping, so I started singing to let the animals know I was coming. At least my night hiking trip is going to be a funny cocktail party story. I guess state parks are one place where the lawyers haven't been able to make the experience foolproof. That's a good thing.
My sole saving grace is that I had lots of water, which saved my hide. Without the water, I could not have walked that long, even with fear as a motivator.
My friend Marlene B. had these recommendations:
~Always bring your phone--you never know where you'll have a signal.
~ Always have water
~ Bring a snack
~ Wear sunscreen
~ Hat... you can put a solar kind of emergency blanket in your pack.
~ NEVER HIKE ALONE! I don't care if you're a boy!
~ Take a map unless you know the route for sure
Other people suggested toilet paper, a headlamp and a GPS. One really good idea was attaching a bell to your backpack and letting it ring. It's the best way to make noise to make the predators look up and away instead of startling them. (Thanks to Mike I. for the recommendation.)
I was not expecting that level of wilderness on the side trails (which I went on accidentally). I couldn't see a darn thing, and the path got really narrow. I expected better signposts, maybe even lighted signposts. When it got dark, I could barely see/read where I was going. One disconcerting but apparently normal event was that my hands felt inflated--I had a hard time making a fist. (If anyone knows the science behind this phenomenon, please post a comment.) Then, birds started chirping, so I started singing to let the animals know I was coming. At least my night hiking trip is going to be a funny cocktail party story. I guess state parks are one place where the lawyers haven't been able to make the experience foolproof. That's a good thing.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Taxpayers on the Hook for Public Pensions
From WSJ (July 6, 2009, Andrew Biggs):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683573382697889.html
[E]conomists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh calculate that, even prior to the market collapse, public pensions were actually short by nearly $2 trillion. That's nearly $87,000 per plan participant. With employee benefits guaranteed by law and sometimes even by state constitutions, it's likely these gargantuan shortfalls will have to be borne by unsuspecting taxpayers.
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683573382697889.html
[E]conomists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh calculate that, even prior to the market collapse, public pensions were actually short by nearly $2 trillion. That's nearly $87,000 per plan participant. With employee benefits guaranteed by law and sometimes even by state constitutions, it's likely these gargantuan shortfalls will have to be borne by unsuspecting taxpayers.
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
Palm Beach Post Gets it Right
Congratulations to the Palm Beach Post for doing the right thing. Its headline on July 5, 2009: "No bailout for Madoff's investors." Full opinion here:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2009/07/05/a22a_thought_0705.html
Back in the day, we would call this journalistic integrity. Hope the Wall Street Journal gets a copy.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2009/07/05/a22a_thought_0705.html
Back in the day, we would call this journalistic integrity. Hope the Wall Street Journal gets a copy.
Movie Recommendation: Au Revoir Les Enfants
I just watched Au Revoir Les Enfants, a 1987 docu-drama about a Catholic boys' school in Nazi-occupied France. Many WWII films are melodramatic or make the war into a typical American tale where the good guys win.
In contrast, Au Revoir Les Enfants avoids all melodrama. Its beauty comes from its stunning realism of the war and its victims. Au revoir gains a lasting imprint in the viewer's psyche because of its understated simplicity. I recommend the film. (4 out of 5 stars)
Bonus: if you haven't seen the Hobart Shakespeareans (2004), you are missing out. It's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. The documentary follows an elementary school teacher and his class of inner-city, immigrant students as they learn Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and other famous authors. Special appearance by Sir Ian McKellen.
In contrast, Au Revoir Les Enfants avoids all melodrama. Its beauty comes from its stunning realism of the war and its victims. Au revoir gains a lasting imprint in the viewer's psyche because of its understated simplicity. I recommend the film. (4 out of 5 stars)
Bonus: if you haven't seen the Hobart Shakespeareans (2004), you are missing out. It's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. The documentary follows an elementary school teacher and his class of inner-city, immigrant students as they learn Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and other famous authors. Special appearance by Sir Ian McKellen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)