Moral Equivalency Anxiety

I have to admit that there is a streak of naivete within me.

Every time that Hamas attacks Israel, true to its charter of destruction of the Jewish state, I think to myself “ah, maybe this time the world will see that there is no moral relativism.”

We all know that Israel isn’t perfect. No secret there, but we all don’t seem to get the core issue…denial of Israel’s right to exist.

I think it’s just so difficult for the Western mind to comprehend that one side doesn’t want the other side to even exist.

So, it’s difficult to believe that there isn’t some “path to peace” since it’s just a huge misunderstanding.

But, like every time before, I am reminded about the reality that moral relativism does exist.

And it makes me anxious about the world in which my children will grow up.

Embarrassed to Live In Maryland

The only way I can explain how the voters voted as they did is they really didn’t know what was at stake.

And now that it has passed, it gives politicians the confidence to do whatever they want. Essentially, it was a vote for Special Interest and Cronyism.

In hindsight, I could have and should have done more.

Watch this video or take a look at the map of the newly redrawn congressional districts. This is such a sham.

If I ever meet a state official who voted to approve this, I will immediately vote against him or her, no questions asked. It violates my entire sense of fairness.

Even the Washington Post said that they “qualify as the most outrageously gerrymandered among the 50 states.”

Obama, Romney, and my 15 minutes of Debate Fame…

So, I’m in Seattle, looking out the window at a beautiful sunset over Puget Sound. I take a picture and think “I should upload that to Facebook.”

At that exact moment, my phone goes crazy with notifications, vibrations, emails, and messages as apparently, some guy named Jeremy Epstein, asked the first question in the Presidential debate.

Now, remember, I wasn’t watching, so I’m trying to figure out what is going on (it took a bit) and parsing it all together in 140 characters or less.

Then, I figure out that the topic of “getting Jeremy a job” is a recurring theme.

At that point, I have no choice but to issue a statement that, in fact, I do have a job.

Anyway, a fun little episode.

And here are some of the fun comments…

 

 

 

Obama, Election, Race, and Time to Duke It Out…

Disclaimer: If you are easily riled up and can’t think rationally instead of letting your emotions guide you, then stop reading now.

I had so much fun starting heated political discussion last time around (mostly between commenters) that I figured, “what the heck? Let’s do it again.”

After all, what is the subtitle of this blog?

My Voting Priorities
For those of you new to the blog since last time around, I vote on 2 primary issues.

1. Economic policy
2. Foreign policy

When it comes to economics, my general philosophy is that business (particularly small biz) is the primary driver of growth, innovation, and jobs. The best thing we can do (and having started 2 small businesses, I have a bit of experience here) is to make it as easy as possible for people to do that.

On Foreign Policy, I believe in American exceptionalism. I’ve traveled to about 60 countries, lived in 3 of them, and speak 3 foreign languages. In my experience, there is no country on the planet that is founded on ideals and beliefs to the extent that the US is. That doesn’t mean we can impose our will, but it does mean we look at things in a unique way and, I believe, it is the best way.

So, generally, I side with the Republicans (I’m registered as an Independent). I’m not in favor of their social stance. I’m pro-choice, fine with Gay Marriage, and I hate their cavalier attitude towards the environment (remember, I have solar panels, a composter, and am vegetarian.)

However, in my estimation, the two priority issues are necessary pre-conditions for the social environment I want to foster.

And, let’s be clear, the Republicans have done a lot to mess things up. They don’t get a pass.

Still, when I weigh the general approach of each party, that’s where I stand.

Assessing the Election
Ok, onto the election.

I live in Maryland, where it is 5-1 Democrats outnumbering GOP. Plus, a lot of Federal workers, so I live in a bubble and feel like I am surrounded by Pro-Obama people.

To get some balance, I call my cousin, Lee, who lives in Ohio. He tells me that the issue there is “jobs” and that’s why he thinks Romney has a chance.

My uncle in Texas had a different take. He breaks it down by the numbers.

1. No one who voted for McCain is going to vote for Obama this time around. Let’s assume most of them still vote for Romney.
   
2. Of the people who did vote for Obama, there are three camps.
• Those who still believe that he is the man of Hope and Change
• Those who don’t believe in him anymore, but can’t bring themselves to vote for Romney, so will vote for Obama anyway.
• Those who don’t believe in him, can’t vote for Romney, and thus will not vote at all.

The big question is: how large is that third group?

My Unscientific Polling
Having been part of a poll the other day (we have a big issue in Maryland re: a new casino—I’m against it), I see (yet again) how easily the questions can be written so as to skew results.

I’m skeptical of the polls that we all see/hear about.

So, while I am not a formal pollster, I take the liberty of asking my circle of people whom I call on their birthday, etc. to get their take.

It may not be huge, but it’s a larger than average base.

The Surprises
Two things have surprised me among past Obama voters.

1. the number of people who claim (at least now) that they are thinking about not voting. And this is from people I would expect to be likely voters.
2. the number of people who admit to having gotten “caught up” in the Obama excitement

Yep, Here We Go…
Obviously, a sensitive topic, but what has really shocked me is the number of past Obama voters (good, solid liberals) who will say (either prompted or unprompted) that Obama’s race was a factor in their decision to vote FOR him.

As one said to me, “I was enamored with the idea that we would have an African-American president.”

Was it the ONLY reason?

Of course not, but there were more than a few who said that reverse racism was at play last time around and they got attacked here on the blog.

For me, race was never an issue. I just didn’t like Obama’s politics, but I have found this element of the election to be just fascinating.

Why Introduce the Race angle?
While I know there is a decent chance that it will start some passionate debate, I am hoping that it can be civil and allow us to better understand ourselves as a country in 2012.

A risk? Perhaps. We’ll see if civil discourse is indeed possible. I have faith in Americans (and those visiting my blog from other countries as well).

GOP-Dems Frustration

Not that this will do anything except get people riled up, but sometimes you just have to get it out there.

Republicans--you need to become better storytellers. Right now, Capitalism is on the ropes. In fact, it's been on the mat and is staggering around. Faith in the concept is gone and you need to show people that free enterprise is a good thing, but that it needs a level playing field. Very few believe the field is level now. You haven't really done anything (that I can think of) to restore that. You talk a good game, but you need to make it happen. Then, you need to paint the picture of a world where it is level and keep making concrete steps towards that.

Dems--you need to get your head out of the sand that the old world of big manufacturing and labor unions are on the road to our redemption. The longer you hold on to that belief (particularly the public unions and teachers unions even more so), the more difficult it will be to make the radical paradigm shift that is required for all of Americans to even have a chance at maintaining their standard of living.

What does the end of the Space Shuttle program mean?

The Space Shuttle Discovery and its seven-member STS-120 crew head toward Earth-orbit and a scheduled link-up with the International Space Station. Liftoff from Kennedy Space Center's launch pad 39A occurred at 11:38:19 a.m. (EDT). Onboard are astronauts Pam Melroy, commander; George Zamka, pilot; Scott Parazynski, Stephanie Wilson, Doug Wheelock, European Space Agency's (ESA) Paolo Nespoli and Daniel Tani, all mission specialists. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Interesting conversation with my uncle Pablo (yes, that’s his real name) a few weeks ago.

It was right after the Space Shuttle was flown on the back of a 747 to Washington, DC area to be parked at the Udvar-Hazy Air & Space Museum.

He was lamenting the fact that America was once known as the pre-eminent explorer in space and now, if we want to send an astronaut to space, we have to rent space on a Russian vehicle.

He viewed this as a serious setback in America’s stature in the world.

My dad, on the other hand, wasn’t phased by this change of priorities and said, “hey, we can still explore space, but it’s a lot cheaper and safer if we have robots do it.”

Thoughts?

Funny-Europe: Then and Now

Israel and Europe…

Image via Wikipedia

Say what you will about Don Rumsfeld (and I know there’s a lot to say), I think he got it right when he called it “Old Europe.”

For historical reasons (both recent Jewish and recent geo-political reasons), Israel has put a lot stock in the opinions of European countries, particularly UK and France, it would seem.

However, I think it is time for a paradigm shift…

After what we have seen in Europe recently…(riots in UK, shootings in Norway, debt issues everywhere), it’s clear that Europe is preoccupied with major structural issues, its relevance is waning, and, frankly, this is opinion, it has lost its moral compass.

So, where should Israel turn?

Asia.

India and China.

They don’t have the historical anti-Semitism issues. In fact, Jews, are often times revered (ok, it’s for “they control the money and are rich” reasons), but at least it’s not “we have you because you’re the other or you killed our Lord.”

Fortunately, this is happening, in many ways.

Look at El Al’s flight patterns, for one. The work of the Israel-Asia center and I know there’s a lot of cooperation already, but I think it’s time to just stop worrying about the Europeans…the paradigm is shifting and while you just have to “play nice,” I don’t think you need to kowtow too much.

Old news to some, but on my mind today.

Related articles

• Anti-Semitism All Over (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Barry Lando: Mounting Anti-Semitism in Europe (huffingtonpost.com)
• Same Psychosis, Different Object: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• Yes, denying Jews the right to self-determination is inherently anti-Semitic. (cifwatch.com)

Israel and the Annual $3 Billion…

Image via Wikipedia

My pro-Israel bonafides are pretty well established I believe, so there shouldn’t be a doubt as to where this idea is coming from.

It’s not even a suggestion, more just a wonder…

One of the almost sacrosanct cornerstone tenets of the pro-Israel audience (not saying ‘lobby,’ since that is a loaded term) in America is annual support for $3 billion dollars in aid to Israel.

If I’m not mistaken about 60% is in the form of military and 40% is economic. The military is to help maintain Israel’s “qualitative edge” over its hostile neighbors.

Now, let me be clear.

I don’t believe in the “peace process” as it currently stands. I don’t believe that Israelis have a true peace partner who wants to live side by side with them. I believe that both Hamas (obvious) and Fatah (less obvious) have one goal…the destruction of the entire state of Israel.

I think the ‘67 lines are a death trap.

In short, I have no illusions about the true aim of most of the Arab world and certainly not Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and Fatah…and those are the ones that are just at the top of the list.

However, that being said, I’m wondering if it’s time for Israel to forego the annual aid.

Sure, it’s easy for me to say to Israel, “give up $3 billion in aid,” but I think a few things are important to consider potentially.

• When the aid began, Israel was a far poorer country. Now, it’s got a standard of living higher than Spain…or along those lines.
• Let’s admit it, $3bn isn’t what it used to be
• Given the state of the US economy, I think it could be a PR win to say “you know what…keep the money, use it at home.”
• It removes a big source of anti-Israel rhetoric (not that it won’t be replaced by something else, but hey…at least it won’t be “US $ are being used to ‘kill innocent Palestinians.’”)  That’s BS, of course, but may as well let the haters find some other anti-Israel ammunition that may not resonate as much!
• It’s probably a good thing for Israel to “fly the nest.” The country has many challenges, for sure, but anyone who has been there will tell you…it’s 1st world all the way.

Again, I don’t know if this is the right approach or not.

There’s no doubt that Israel is a strategic ally to the US and the only democracy in the Middle East. Heck, it’s the country in the world with the only and largest registry of Arab bone marrow donors and it’s the only country in the Middle East where where Arab women can vote. 

There’s no doubt that it is in the US’ interests to support Israel fully…I just wonder if, given everything else, cash is the best way to do that now?

Tea Party, MicroTrends, and the Knesset-ification of America…

I’ve been thinking about the Tea Party a lot.

Not because of what they stand for, but because of what they represent in terms of changing the face of American politics.

We just kind of accept the fact that there are 2 big parties in America. That’s pretty much the way it has always been.

But, never before, has a technology as disruptive as the Internet arrived on the American political scene.

Sure, we saw how Obama used it masterfully, but what the Tea Party is starting to do, I think, and what others can do as well, is to use it to connect like-minded people with each other and then cost-effectively concentrate their forces on the locations where they are most likely to win.

Before, you needed a big party machine.

Now, obviously, you don’t.

If you agree with the Tea Party (or, let’s take them out of it and just say the “coffee party,”) and you live in a district where that party has no chance of winning, you might (and would say), well, “I’ll focus my efforts on helping a Coffee Party person win in Colorado/Nebraska/Vermont/wherever” and, in so doing, you start creating voting blocs (as we already have) that, in name, represent a district, but also are allied with a core ideology.

I just finished Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes and the book talks about how we have moved from a “Ford Economy” (one size fits all) to a “Starbucks Economy” (a bajillion ways to customize your experience) and how small groups of committed people can force significant change on the rest of us.

To some extent, we saw this in the debt debate. We definitely see it in our ongoing embargo of Cuba (a few people in S. Florida REALLY care about it..the rest of us..not so much. So the passionates win.)

It seems to me that it is quite possible that we will see more and more “Tea Party” like expressions of political will in the future.

This will create smaller and smaller factions and create the need for coalitions (like the Knesset in Israel). This has obvious pros/cons to it, but I think Mark Penn’s point is…”look, this stuff is happening. Instead of fighting it, be prepared for the change that is coming.”

I fundamentally believe that there is NO part of our lives which will not be dramatically altered by the Internet (obviously, many already have), but I think we are still at the beginning. So, in my mind, it’s not such a far stretch that we’ll see the end of the 2 dominant parties (we’re kind of seeing it already, aren’t we?)

Republican Presidential Debate...

Did anyone else watch the NH debate the other night?

And, if yes, did you find yourself thinking "oh, man, are we doing this ALREADY?"

The Six-Day War and the modern Middle East

Image via Wikipedia

It had been a while since I read a really great history book, but that changed recently.

I picked up Michael Oren’s excellent work Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East

Not only was it fast-paced and exciting, but it was incredibly thorough and, I thought, very well-balanced.

You might not expect this from the guy who is currently the Israeli Ambassador to the US, but he clearly did his homework in interviews with the Arabs as well.

What I loved is that he provided a LOT of context. A LOT.

With the passage of time, it’s easy to forget some of the things that were critical…like the Cold War, for example, but Oren’s narrative shows you the multi-faceted and complex issues that existed then and still exist now.

If you want to understand the modern Middle East, this is worth it.

Related articles

• Israel As the Ultimate Ally (ergonom3.wordpress.com)

Israel: Maybe eternal conflict is a good thing?

Image by FaceMePLS via Flickr

For whatever reason, I’ve been thinking about the “peace process” recently.

Since today is Israeli Independence Day, it seems like a good time to share this.

I’m a long-time skeptic of it (as it currently stands), since I think true peace is predicated upon widespread and genuine Arab acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state.

At the moment, I don’t believe we are at that point so any “peace” is built upon an unstable foundation.

It’s natural to get depressed or demoralized about this as a first reaction, but then I started to wonder “maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all?”

Why?

I suppose the seeds of this were in my post “Send Flowers to Damascus” and my reaction to the fact that with necessity being the mother of invention, all of the amazing technologies, innovation, and wealth (both present and future)  detailed in Start-up Nation are all a direct result of this ongoing, never-ending, seemingly intractable conflict.

And recently, I started to read Tom Peters’ book Re-Imagine!: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age and one particularly thought-provoking line was:

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed—and produced Michelangelo, da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce— the cuckoo clock.”
Source: Orson Welles, as Harry Lime, in The Third Man

Then, I came across Peggy Noonan’s piece in the WSJ about the decline of America and its culture/values.

That led me to think that maybe “peace” (yes, I know we’re at war and trust me, I view the radical Islamist threat as severely as anyone, but let’s be honest about the relative scale) leads to lowest-common denominator behavior, obesity (physical and mental), laziness, and entitlement.

As Toynbee said, “civilizations die from suicide…not murder.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s great to have innocent civilians die just so more Israeli companies can get on the Nasdaq.

Far from it.

I am just going through a mental exercise to look at the cost-benefits of both sides and just asking if, maybe, instead of longing for peace so much that you make desperate and poor decisions, instead you just sort of accept the status-quo and say “ok, we’ve got conflict. Maybe it’s eternal. We’ll just continue to make the best of a bad decision.”

Kind of like the argument from the semi-controversial article in Time magazine saying “Why Israel doesn’t care about peace.”

Nietzsche: Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.

Go ahead, fire away!

Pun intended.

Related articles

• A sense of urgency (jer979.com)

Better Place and the Peace Process…

As I watched the video at the Better Place facility in Israel, I found myself thinking:

“if this works, it completely changes the face of the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

First, some assumptions.

1. for the most part, the Arab-Israeli conflict is kept alive by the fact that the West has to care about it in order to keep the flow of oil alive
2. were it not for oil, people really wouldn’t care about the Middle East

So, if Better Place is able to change the world dynamic from one that cares about Arab oil to one that doesn’t really care, the whole future of the region takes a massive turn.

From a strategic defense perspective, this initiative could be the most important thing to occur in the history of the state of Israel.

No, I’m not exaggerating.

For more:

Here’s my 7 minute video of a test drive of the car.

Here’s a bit on how the battery switching process (when needed) works.

Here’s the video explaining the charging process.

Political Chat with our Arab Cab Driver

In the Middle East, everyone is a political commentator.

We took a cab with a 60 year old Arab cab driver in Jerusalem.

Hebrew speakers will get the most out of this this video interview, but others will appreciate it.

While his conclusion (a one state solution), in my opinion, is wholly impractical, it’s all about the dialogue, isn’t it?

Note: his historical reference of how Jews fared in Muslim-controlled lands is also somewhat (a lot) sugar-coated.

Seismic Shifts: Prosecution and Gas

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Two really seismic events happened within days of each other while we were in Israel.

The first was that the former President, Moshe Katzav, was convicted of rape.

The second was that a HUGE natural gas field (known as ‘Leviathan’) was discovered off Israel’s northern coast.

While no one is in favor of rape, of course, I detected a small sense of national pride among Israelis that they were sending a message to the world: No one is above the law and we’re not afraid of prosecuting the elite and the higher ups.

This bodes well for Israeli democracy and national pride.

In how many other countries, they asked, would people do the same?

And the news of the Leviathan find sent another message, albeit a more subtle one.

It said, I think, that the dynamics of international politics will change significantly if, indeed, Israel is able to become a net energy exporter.

Two events which will have long lasting impact on the evolution of the state.

Why are most suicide bombers Muslim?

Image via Wikipedia

While suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, according to the book “Making Sense of Suicide Missions,” when religion is involved, it is ALWAYS Islam.

The question: why?

According to Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, there’s an evolutionary psychological explanation for this.

Well, actually two of them.

The first has to do with sex, or as the authors say “the absence of sex.”

Islam tolerates polygyny which means one married to multiple women.

Consequently, young men of low status feel increased competitive pressure to find a mate and have increased odds of ending as “reproductive losers,” i.e. no offspring.

The authors explain that tolerance for this in societies around the world leads to increase violence of all kinds, but while this is necessary to explain the phenomenon, it’s not sufficient, since there are plenty of cultures that tolerate polygyny, but don’t have suicide bombers (west Africa, for example.)

They then point to the line in the Koran that says a martyr receives 72 virgins in heaven for himself which provides the final motivation.

Faced with the prospects of total reproductive failure on earth and the prospect of a personal harem, young Muslim men of low status (and the data supports this) are most likely to become suicide bombers.

Once Brothers…

As a sports fan, the names Vlade Divac and Drazen Petrovic meant something to me.

Some of the first (if not, the first) foreign-born players to play in the NBA, they were well-known in basketball circles.

I also knew, tangentially, that they both hailed from the former Yugoslavia.

What I didn’t know was the story of how their once strong friendship was another casualty of the civil war in the Balkans.

As luck would have it, I watched the ESPN 30 for 30 film “Once Brothers” and got an entirely new perspective on them, basketball, and the world.

How two people who, ostensibly, were all about basketball and friendship, got caught up in events out of their control.

A humbling reminder for all of us.

The Ground Zero Mosque Debate and Islamophobia…

Image via Wikipedia

A friend has been asking me to blog about this for a while and I’ve resisted.  Probably because I didn’t want to get somebody’s knee-jerk reaction of being called an “Islamophobe” or “bigot”.
His question (or at least how I interpreted it) was “how can anyone oppose the mosque and still believe in freedom of religion?”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think, Simon, it involves suspending belief in your worldview for a moment and being open to the possibility that your analysis is incorrect.
This is difficult for all of us. Any of us.
If you can do that, however, you look at the opposing worldview to yours which is that Islam may be a religion, but that it may also be a religion wrapped inside a totalitarian ideology.
While there is no doubt that there are moderate Muslim factions that don’t seek to replace the Constitution with Sharia, there is equally no doubt that there are factions which would gladly do that.
To say otherwise, is to be ignorant.
For example, to claim that “Islam is the religion of peace” when in August, 2010, 196 Jihad attacks in 23 countries killed 811 people in the name of Islam (source) denies an uncomfortable, but fundamental truth about a significant faction of Muslims.
Are all Muslims evil? Of course not!
Some, like Dr. Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are standing up to this strain within their own religion.
And while some Americans are in a tizzy about the fact that “Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Sweeps Nation Amid “Mosque” Controversy,” the unfortunate reality is that of the 1,606 religiously motivated hate crimes in 2008 (according to the FBI), 65.7% were against Jews, with only 7.7% against Muslims.
No one is going around saying we have a problem with anti-Semitism?
So, then, what is it?
What it is, I think, or at least what I am interpreting (and let’s just leave out the true racists and bigots from this debate, shall we?), so, what I am interpreting is that there are a group of people who view Islam as a totalitarian, expansionist ideology using the cloak of religion to gain protection from the government (and sympathy from open-minded people like you) to advance its agenda.
And, in this case, the hypothesized agenda is to erect a mosque as a symbol of conquest/dominance at the location where the battle took place, which would be a continuation of much of Muslim military history.
And, as I am sure you have read, the original name (Cordoba House) reflected the highpoint of Muslim domination when its influence extended into the middle of Spain.
So, while it may be easy to brand those who oppose the location of the mosque as Islamophobes in an effort to silence them or deride them for their intolerance, IF the opposing view is indeed correct and the objective is the imposition of Sharia all over the world (which may be difficult for you to believe, but is certainly the stated goal of some Muslims), then the negative reaction to the mosque is actually more in line with your tolerant, liberal, open-minded values than you may originally surmise.
Now, let the name-calling and fighting begin….

A Sad Conclusion…

Image via Wikipedia

I recently finished an article in Commentary magazine by Danny Gordis about the existential threat to Israel which Iran poses. (Sadly, the article doesn’t seem to be available online yet).

After reading it, I’ve come to an upsetting conclusion.

First, the assumptions:

1. Iran is actively seeking to build a nuclear weapon
2. Iran’s leadership is comfortable with the idea of using a nuclear weapon against Israel, even if it means a retaliatory strike

Now, the conclusions

1. the “international community” will not be able to create sufficient pressure on Iran to abandon its goals through sanctions or other diplomatic means. Some will want to avoid conflict, some will want to profit from dealing with Iran anyway.
2. the US, at the present time, does not have the courage/willpower to engage Iran militarily to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure
3. Israel has the most to lose of any country in the world if Iran gains the bomb
4. Israel is going to have to strike Iran militarily and suffer the self-righteous condemnation of others for its actions (and there’s no guarantee that the strike will be successful.)

Scary, I know.

Nothing like some light reading for Monday morning.