I recently received this email from a hospital in Portland:
Thank you for including Kaiser Permanente in your job search and for your interest in (76469, MSW), located in (Portland,OR).The number of resumes submitted for this position has been particularly high, and we regret to inform you that we will not be moving forward with your resume. This in no way reflects on your qualifications, but was due to volume management processes.Though you are not among those continuing to be considered for this particular position, your profile will remain in our database. We encourage you to revisit our Careers Web site at http://jobs.kp.org for additional opportunities.
Kaiser Permanente Recruitment Services
Mike and I had planned to move to Portland this summer. He would start graduate school to get his teaching certification and I would move forward in my career, pursuing either hospice or oncology social work. I would be able to take advantage of Portland's lower housing costs to finally buy a small home. Last fall we were so optimistic about our move that neither of us considered having him apply for schools in Seattle.
Fast forward 5 months. Just like everyone else, I've scoured the job boards looking for openings. In my field (oncology, hospice, geriatrics) there have been 6 openings within 30 miles of Portland. With several of my friends laid off from previously-stable non-profits, I made the decision that I couldn't accept work at a small non-profit. It just isn't stable enough, and with my Crohn's, I can't be without health insurance. After many long conversations and a few good panics (on my part), we made the tough decision that Mike should defer for a year. We're sticking it out in Seattle. I'll finish up my social work licensure and keep trying to find work in Portland--but this time, he's applying to schools in Seattle too in case things don't improve.
We are luckier than most--I have a guaranteed job until January and if we get this new contract (fingers crossed) I'll have work for the next five years if we stay in Seattle. We have health insurance and the money for me to finish my licensure (not an inexpensive endeavor).
Just like everyone else, we're re-evaluating our priorities. We're happy and we'd like to get our own apartment this summer. We're saving in case my job ends in January. The dogs are great. And my job has been very good to me over the years, so if I do have to stay in it, even for several more years, I would be content.
We, like everyone else, are watching and waiting to see what the economy does in the next year. In our relationship, it's Mike's job to be the optimist and my job to be the pragmatist. There are too many articles to cite, but I'm not optimistic at all about a quick recovery. Americans, through inflated home prices, thought we were about 10% richer than we actually were. Wages in the middle class have basically stagnated in the last decade, but we thought we were richer because our homes were worth more and we could get credit easily. Savings patterns and debt accrual reflected that mistaken belief. You can think of it like a fire--Wall Street and the mortgage brokers and the advertisers stoked the flames of the American economy not by providing fuel (actual goods and services) but by providing hot air. The fire burned bright for a while, but in the absence of enough actual fuel, it has started to sputter. Don't get me wrong--the American economy still produces things--just not nearly enough things to justify the "growth" that occurred during the last 10 years.
In addition to the serious credit freeze on Wall Street, the fundamental problem for recovery is that we need to fix our wealth misperception. We need to save more and have less debt. However, the economy is 70% dependant on consumer spending, so the more we save and the more we pay down our debt, the slower the economy is going to burn. Even if the credit crisis was fixed tomorrow, American behavior has changed in such a dramatic way that we can't expect the overeager spending patterns of the last decade to immediately fall back into place.
"The problem is us. The problem is not the banks, greedy though they may be, overpaid though they may be. The problem is us... We've been living very high on the hog. Our living standard has been rising dramatically in the last 25 years. And we have been borrowing much of the money to make that prosperity happen." -- Columbia professor David Beim
Graph Showing US Household Debt as a Percentage of the GDP
The Obama administration (and Geithner, whom I think is in way over his head) is trying desperately to fix the acute problems of the economy. Will the withholdings tax break or the bank bailout or the lowered interest rates keep the flames going? Probably, to some extent. It does matter what they do--they better job they do at bailing us out, the higher our baseline to move forward into recovery. But recovery is probably not going to be a "U" or a "V"--a quick downturn and then a quick upturn. It's probably going to look like an "L." Maybe a cursive "L" with an uptick at the end, but definitely not a quick recovery. There are too many systemic problems in addition to the acute problems.
One thing to keep in mind is that the economy needs to grow at 3% per year just to maintain status quo. A downturn is bad, but stagnation is also bad (see Japan). The baby boomers are getting older and not retiring out of the job market because they can't. That leaves less available jobs. Eventually, though, they will have to retire and we'll have to support them through Medicare and Social Security. Even with stagnant economic growth, with the added cost of caring for our elderly, we will see cuts in social services. (And as a side note, cuts in social services means cuts in social work jobs).
It's a sad realization that a good outcome would be stagnation And a bad outcome? Well, everyone is throwing around the "D" word. One thing to keep in mind is that my entire generation (Gen Y...and probably Gen X as well) came of age in an era of easy money. My generation doesn't know anything other than our artificially inflated standard of living. If this does get bad, my generation will have to learn quickly about thrift and hard work. I wish the folks who were middle aged in 1929 were still alive to ask how they learned to adjust.
Needless to say, I am very grateful for my comfy government contract job.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What is Muammar Qaddafi up to now??
I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw the recent New York Times Op-ed piece called, "The One-State Solution." It's a classic Palestinian argument, a mutant cross between "Can't we all just get along?" and "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
The One-State Solution
I thought I was reading a standard op-ed, but then I noticed the author. It was none other than Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. Libya is busily presenting itself as a reformed and contrite former terrorist state. I know they have formally apologized for the Lockerbie bombings and paid the families of victims, but I had no idea they had any designs on world diplomacy.
This op-ed truly shocked me. I read it carefully and it is anything but standard.
To give some background, here is the standard Palestinian one-state solution argument: Palestinians are oppressed people. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza is a viable Palestinian state--because the Jews won't allow it and because there are already Jewish settlements honeycombed across the West Bank. Jews are allowed right of return, so exiled Palestinians should be allowed right of return as well. When the Jews and Arabs can live together under one government, there will be peace.
It sounds so simple, right? There are a few reasons why a one-state solution will never ever ever happen. Most important is demographics: at present, Jews are a majority in Israel, but when the Palestinian territories are included, Jews make up about 49% of the population. If Palestinians were allowed the right of return, the country would be flooded (Jordan is about 70% Palestinian, and so is a large swath of Southern Lebanon.) The Jewish majority would end. If you think Israelis are nervous about putting their safety in the hands of a marginally stable independent Palestine, they would be apoplectic about putting their safety in the hands of a Palestianian majority. Could a flag with a Star of David still fly in unified Israel? Could Jewish right of return be revoked? Could Israel's government be dominated by a Palestinian majority? Israelis will protect their demographic majority at all costs.
The strange thing to me is that good 'ol Muammar diverged from the traditional pro-Palestinian line in a number of places. A few nuggets:
"The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland."
It doesn't take much news savvy to see that this is not the voice of Hamas (or Iran, for that matter). This diverges strongly from the "drive the Zionist enemy into the sea." It goes beyond recognizing Israel (something Hamas and Iran refuse to do) to empathizing with their plight. I don't think I've ever heard an Arab leader do this.
"A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point."
This paragraph could have been written by any mainstream Israeli.
"It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.” Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace."
I can't even begin to say how unusual this paragraph is in the Arab invective against Israel. The Palestinian stance is that Israelis forcibly expelled them from their homes. Israelis maintain that they, with their tiny army, could not have carried out mass displacement. They maintain that the Arabs left of their own accord (and, some argue, forfeiting their right of return.)
Mr. Qaddafi makes several points that are well in line with the tradiational one-state solution argument. What fascinates me is how much he has placed his argument directly in the center. Is he ingratiating himself to the West by presenting a moderate voice in the peace process? He can't possibly hope to have a major diplomatic role with their history of state-sponsored terrorism....or could he? Could a reformed terrorist state hope to show a little street cred to grease the wheels over there? What in the world is Muammar Qaddafi up to??
The One-State Solution
I thought I was reading a standard op-ed, but then I noticed the author. It was none other than Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya. Libya is busily presenting itself as a reformed and contrite former terrorist state. I know they have formally apologized for the Lockerbie bombings and paid the families of victims, but I had no idea they had any designs on world diplomacy.
This op-ed truly shocked me. I read it carefully and it is anything but standard.
To give some background, here is the standard Palestinian one-state solution argument: Palestinians are oppressed people. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza is a viable Palestinian state--because the Jews won't allow it and because there are already Jewish settlements honeycombed across the West Bank. Jews are allowed right of return, so exiled Palestinians should be allowed right of return as well. When the Jews and Arabs can live together under one government, there will be peace.
It sounds so simple, right? There are a few reasons why a one-state solution will never ever ever happen. Most important is demographics: at present, Jews are a majority in Israel, but when the Palestinian territories are included, Jews make up about 49% of the population. If Palestinians were allowed the right of return, the country would be flooded (Jordan is about 70% Palestinian, and so is a large swath of Southern Lebanon.) The Jewish majority would end. If you think Israelis are nervous about putting their safety in the hands of a marginally stable independent Palestine, they would be apoplectic about putting their safety in the hands of a Palestianian majority. Could a flag with a Star of David still fly in unified Israel? Could Jewish right of return be revoked? Could Israel's government be dominated by a Palestinian majority? Israelis will protect their demographic majority at all costs.
The strange thing to me is that good 'ol Muammar diverged from the traditional pro-Palestinian line in a number of places. A few nuggets:
"The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland."
It doesn't take much news savvy to see that this is not the voice of Hamas (or Iran, for that matter). This diverges strongly from the "drive the Zionist enemy into the sea." It goes beyond recognizing Israel (something Hamas and Iran refuse to do) to empathizing with their plight. I don't think I've ever heard an Arab leader do this.
"A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point."
This paragraph could have been written by any mainstream Israeli.
"It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.” Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace."
I can't even begin to say how unusual this paragraph is in the Arab invective against Israel. The Palestinian stance is that Israelis forcibly expelled them from their homes. Israelis maintain that they, with their tiny army, could not have carried out mass displacement. They maintain that the Arabs left of their own accord (and, some argue, forfeiting their right of return.)
Mr. Qaddafi makes several points that are well in line with the tradiational one-state solution argument. What fascinates me is how much he has placed his argument directly in the center. Is he ingratiating himself to the West by presenting a moderate voice in the peace process? He can't possibly hope to have a major diplomatic role with their history of state-sponsored terrorism....or could he? Could a reformed terrorist state hope to show a little street cred to grease the wheels over there? What in the world is Muammar Qaddafi up to??
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Propaganda on All Sides
Since the Israeli incursion into Gaza began, the propaganda machines have been working overtime on all sides. Speaking as an American Jew, I am inundated every day not only by the news but by emails and Facebook postings. Each carries a drastic headline such as “THE REAL SITUATION IN ISRAEL !! PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE” or “Don’t Just Stand There! … Stand With Israel.”
Some are emails, but most are power point presentations or YouTube links. I follow them only to find out that Israelis are brutal murderers or that Hamas uses human shields and kills civilians. The pro-Israel forwards are more vitriolic and hateful than I remember them being during the Lebanon war. There are also several links to interviews by Brigitte Gabriel, a woman I had never heard of before and a strange figure in this whole drama—apparently a combination between Barbara Walters and Benedict Arnold, or a poor man’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
With all this media bombardment, I’m struck by two things. First, I’m struck by how much propaganda mechanisms have moved away from traditional forms such as editorials and good old fashioned biased reporters (although Israel still boycotts the BBC from time to time). Instead, these emails serve as a way to strengthen and rally the base. When I was in Israel, we had a chance to talk to a garrulous government official who told us that part of Israel’s propaganda war is fought with email forwards (more details on him in a previous post if you’re curious). So those ludicrous anti-Arab forwards my grandmother in Florida sends me? They are just as likely to be written by the Israeli propaganda mechanism as by an impassioned civilian. The official also mentioned that particularly off-color propaganda is “contracted” to sympathetic techies who can create videos or cartoons.
The pro-Israel propaganda machine is definitely lagging behind the Palestinian machine. Nobody doubts that the master of captivating the media is Hamas. If you need a candlelight vigil, or men pretending to be dead bodies, or hysterical women playing the mother of the nearby dead man every time a camera is thrust in their face (I’m making none of this up…there’s great footage showing the fakes that ended up on the mainstream evening news), the Palestinians would be happy to provide such accommodation. I’m not saying Israel hasn’t done its part to provide good footage of catastrophe, but in these wars the pen is much mightier than the sword—and when it comes to the pen, Israel has been bested time after time.
The Israelis definitely feel they are losing the propaganda war. They feel Europe has already been turned against them by their large Muslim immigrant population and American Jews are slowly losing their connection to Israel as the Holocaust generation dies. No other country has been so demonized in the United Nations. And yet, even as most Israelis are scrambling to send all their foreign friends any pro-Israeli scrap they can get their hands on, Israelis maintain that they do not need the world’s good opinion. Israel is a country born out of the ashes of the Holocaust for the salvation of the Jews. If the world is fundamentally anti-Semitic, why bother to court world opinion when survival is on the line?
The second thing that strikes me about the propaganda mechanism is by how utterly predictable it has become, particularly on the pro-Israel side. The pro-Israel machine shockingly accuses Hamas of killing its own civilians and suppressing opposing views, which is a bit like being shocked that a grizzly bear will bite you. These ridiculous videos show Hamas acting terribly, forgetting that nobody ever expected them to be the cultivators of moderate democracy in the first place. It gets back to the age-old problem in Israel’s wars—it is fighting an enemy that is not held to the international standards of nationhood. It is fighting guerilla wars against militias. The world expects it to behave honorably, but an honorable war is not possible. Israel, taking America’s lead, won’t negotiate with terrorist organizations. Any time they try to implement sanctions that are considered appropriate for rogue nations (cutting off supplies, like boycotting Cuba or Iraq or Libya), the world community has a fit because Hamas is not a country but the Gazans are being punished as if they are--Israel has too much control over the Gazan borders. And any time Israel tries to kill Hamas’s “military,” they either surround themselves by civilians (something a standing army would never do) or pretend to be civilians (easy to do if the uniform is jeans and a ski mask).
It might help to think of it in another way. Jane Fonda is the subject of an erroneous urban legend. When Vassar was a women's college, the story goes, Jane Fonda refused to wear the elegant white gloves and pearls that were the attire for the daily Tea in the Rose Parlor. When confronted, Fonda returned to the parlor wearing the gloves and the pearls, and nothing else.
Think of Vassar as the Court of International World Opinion. Let’s just say that Yasser Arafat, the father or Palestinian Resistance, crashed the party wearing only gloves and pearls. Perhaps the other ladies of Vassar would be outraged, but because he is not a student there (militant organizations are not countries), there isn’t much they can do (they can’t really impose economic sanctions or recall their diplomat). Until they grant him the privilege of being a student (recognize Hamas as the democratically-chosen government of Gaza and negotiate with them as such), they can't exercise control over him.
I think I’ll end on that image…
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Obama should focus his energy elsewhere
In thirteen days, we will have a new President. So many people have pinned their hopes on Obama, but unfortunately he cannot walk on water for everybody. The environmentalists are thrilled that alternative energy is a main focus of his new economic plan, but the gay rights activists are already beginning to have their hopes diminished. As with everyone else, anyone who has an interest in Israel is watching to see how he will fix this most recent crisis. Some think Obama will succeed where others have failed by producing a lasting peace plan. I think, for a myriad of reasons, that the Isralei problem is too intractable right now and to expend major diplomatic resources there is foolish. Our resources would better serve our (and the Israeli) cause by focusing on areas of Muslim extremism where we can actually make a difference.
My friend Brigit sent me an op-ed piece by James Carroll of the Boston Globe called "Englightenment in Gaza." He says:
"That the Israeli-Palestinian cauldron has just boiled over gives the new president the tragic but nonetheless real advantage of destruction as a starting point. It's like what confronts him on the economy, with financial trust in ruins. Not that things could not get worse, and not that improvements will be in any way automatic. But that moments like this, with old structures fallen and facile hopes dashed, are ripe for fresh thinking, untried measures, and a breakthrough of intention."
(Apologies to Brigit for repeating much of what we emailed about) With all due respect to Mr. Carroll, he is completely wrong. With the financial crisis, all eyes are pointed to the federal government to craft a solution and things are bad enough to act as a catalyst for change. I don't think the same can be said for Israel. Things might look bad in the international news, but they really aren't bad enough to produce a call for change (yet). Everyone knew this invasion was coming and the only thing that wasn't a foregone conclusion was the ground war. It looks like Olmert is trying to make up for his mistake in Lebanon of not sending in ground troops.
The situation now is not like the second intifada when every Israeli's life was in danger--Gaza is sealed off and Israeli casualties have been minimal. Not only can the everyday Israelis feel sort of detached, but the Palestinians in the West Bank also see Gaza as a radical delinquent younger brother. Hamas has called for suicide bombings, but it hasn't happened (see this article: Solidarity with Hamas) The real "catalyst crisis" would come if the Israeli Arabs truly decide en masse to fight the Israelis from inside with suicide bombings or more bulldozer attacks. If a third intifada would come to Israel, we might then truly see a level of war fatigue that could produce change.
Second, the author says, "Majorities of Israelis and Palestinians understand what the solution requires; the wheel of peace is already invented." I can't think of anything further from the truth.
Just speaking about the Jewish side, nobody in Israel agrees on what a final peace should look like, but everyone agrees that a two-state solution would put Israel's commercial centers in the line of Palestinian fire. Nobody thinks Palestinian leadership is strong enough to build a state that could combat radical elements (and this could be because Israel has adopted a plan of strategically assassinating Palestinian leadership). A two-state solution supposes that Israel pulls out of the occupied territories. But from an Israeli standpoint, look at the massive evidence against this: the Israelis are occupying the West Bank but they do not occupy Gaza. Ariel Sharon pulled everyone out of Gaza, destroyed the settlements, suffered the wrath of right-wing Israelis, and let democratic elections bring a radical enemy group (Hamas) to power.
The pullout brought instability in Gaza, a porous border with Egypt that allows for weapons smuggling, and thousands of rockets falling on cities in southern Israel. No, there aren't a lot of Israeli casualites. Don't let that diminish the fact that we are expecting Israel to behave like a first-world country, and no other first-world country is expected to put up with this level of constant assault on its citizens. I was in Sderot and I was scared shitless the entire time I was there. There is never enough time to get to the bomb shelters, which smell like piss and mildew. I would think that Americans who are frightened to death of things like dust mites and vaccines would take a moment to understand the stress of living (and raising children) in those conditions.
The lesson that Israel has learned from the Gaza pullout is clear: if they move toward the two-state solution and grant Palestinian autonomy, they are putting themselves at risk.
There are also other fundamental misunderstandings that stand in the way of peace. Ordinary Palestinians don't understand that checkpoints, the wall, Israeli blockades, etc, come from Israel's strong desire to protect itself. They blame Israel for their degridation without factoring in what their own radical elements have done to contribute to the situation. Israleis don't understand that poverty and disrespect breeds radicalism. The more they ruin the Palestinian economy (with said checkpoints, wall, blockades, etc) and the more they descriminate against Israeli Arabs, the more enemies they will make.
That's just things within the country. It doesn't count powerful forces in the Arab and Western worlds who will stop the peace process at any cost.
I'm beginning to see that there are a few things vitally necessary for peace:
1) fatigue
2) strong moderate leadership on both sides
3) minimal disruption by outside parties
4) avenues for dealing with the violent radical elements in society
The situation in Israel has met absolutely none of those criteria.
1) There might be some fatigue in mainstream Israel, but that is tempered by the growing strength of a right-wing that thinks peace will never come, so just claim all the land. There is also fatigue in the territories, but it is less war fatigue than diverted attention toward the clash between Hamas and Fatah.
2) Israel might have had moderate leadership in the past, but any party who wants a majority in parliament is now shackled by allegiances with ultra-Orthodox groups who will not allow the peace plan to go forward. In the territories, the choice has always been moderate corruption or radical corruption--and there is no evidence that the clan system in Palestine or the rivalries of Hamas and Fatah would allow a non-corrupt moderate leadership to take shape.
3) Israel, as the heart of three major religions, is not free from disruption by outside parties. There is plenty of blame to go around: Syria and Iran, which funds Hamas and Hesbollah; radical evangelical organizations like CUFI; American Jews who find the need to send money in apologetic solidarity with either the Palestinians or the settlers; Egypt's tightrope of trying to pacify both Hamas and America; etc. Everyone has a stake in Israel's future; in the absence of a durable peace, we all see the opportunity to remake it in our own image.
4) It is fairly clear that Palestinian moderates do not have a voice and are scared of being labeled collaborators. Not only do the territories not have a way of dealing with radical terrorists, they are utterly controlled by such groups. In Israel, the strength of radical elements is growing. As the ultra-Orthodox population increases and the mainstream society moves to the right, the window of time when an Israeli coalition could push through a peace plan is quickly closing.
Peace will not come to Israel any time soon. I know everyone thinks Obama is going to personally fix their problems, balance their checkbooks, and potty-train their dogs. But the reality is that Obama can only truly focus on a few things, and pay lip service to several more. Obama shouldn't put his energy into Israel right now. It's a symptom of a much larger problem. His team, including Hillary Clinton, would do better to focus on Pakistan and north Africa while pressuring Europe to take a better look at their disenfranchized Muslim population. All the while courting Evangelicals but telling CUFI to take it in the shorts. And fixing our financial crisis. And empowering Blacks. And building roads and fixing schools. The poor man has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He might be able to work miracles, but not in Israel. The time is not right.
My friend Brigit sent me an op-ed piece by James Carroll of the Boston Globe called "Englightenment in Gaza." He says:
"That the Israeli-Palestinian cauldron has just boiled over gives the new president the tragic but nonetheless real advantage of destruction as a starting point. It's like what confronts him on the economy, with financial trust in ruins. Not that things could not get worse, and not that improvements will be in any way automatic. But that moments like this, with old structures fallen and facile hopes dashed, are ripe for fresh thinking, untried measures, and a breakthrough of intention."
(Apologies to Brigit for repeating much of what we emailed about) With all due respect to Mr. Carroll, he is completely wrong. With the financial crisis, all eyes are pointed to the federal government to craft a solution and things are bad enough to act as a catalyst for change. I don't think the same can be said for Israel. Things might look bad in the international news, but they really aren't bad enough to produce a call for change (yet). Everyone knew this invasion was coming and the only thing that wasn't a foregone conclusion was the ground war. It looks like Olmert is trying to make up for his mistake in Lebanon of not sending in ground troops.
The situation now is not like the second intifada when every Israeli's life was in danger--Gaza is sealed off and Israeli casualties have been minimal. Not only can the everyday Israelis feel sort of detached, but the Palestinians in the West Bank also see Gaza as a radical delinquent younger brother. Hamas has called for suicide bombings, but it hasn't happened (see this article: Solidarity with Hamas) The real "catalyst crisis" would come if the Israeli Arabs truly decide en masse to fight the Israelis from inside with suicide bombings or more bulldozer attacks. If a third intifada would come to Israel, we might then truly see a level of war fatigue that could produce change.
Second, the author says, "Majorities of Israelis and Palestinians understand what the solution requires; the wheel of peace is already invented." I can't think of anything further from the truth.
Just speaking about the Jewish side, nobody in Israel agrees on what a final peace should look like, but everyone agrees that a two-state solution would put Israel's commercial centers in the line of Palestinian fire. Nobody thinks Palestinian leadership is strong enough to build a state that could combat radical elements (and this could be because Israel has adopted a plan of strategically assassinating Palestinian leadership). A two-state solution supposes that Israel pulls out of the occupied territories. But from an Israeli standpoint, look at the massive evidence against this: the Israelis are occupying the West Bank but they do not occupy Gaza. Ariel Sharon pulled everyone out of Gaza, destroyed the settlements, suffered the wrath of right-wing Israelis, and let democratic elections bring a radical enemy group (Hamas) to power.
The pullout brought instability in Gaza, a porous border with Egypt that allows for weapons smuggling, and thousands of rockets falling on cities in southern Israel. No, there aren't a lot of Israeli casualites. Don't let that diminish the fact that we are expecting Israel to behave like a first-world country, and no other first-world country is expected to put up with this level of constant assault on its citizens. I was in Sderot and I was scared shitless the entire time I was there. There is never enough time to get to the bomb shelters, which smell like piss and mildew. I would think that Americans who are frightened to death of things like dust mites and vaccines would take a moment to understand the stress of living (and raising children) in those conditions.
The lesson that Israel has learned from the Gaza pullout is clear: if they move toward the two-state solution and grant Palestinian autonomy, they are putting themselves at risk.
There are also other fundamental misunderstandings that stand in the way of peace. Ordinary Palestinians don't understand that checkpoints, the wall, Israeli blockades, etc, come from Israel's strong desire to protect itself. They blame Israel for their degridation without factoring in what their own radical elements have done to contribute to the situation. Israleis don't understand that poverty and disrespect breeds radicalism. The more they ruin the Palestinian economy (with said checkpoints, wall, blockades, etc) and the more they descriminate against Israeli Arabs, the more enemies they will make.
That's just things within the country. It doesn't count powerful forces in the Arab and Western worlds who will stop the peace process at any cost.
I'm beginning to see that there are a few things vitally necessary for peace:
1) fatigue
2) strong moderate leadership on both sides
3) minimal disruption by outside parties
4) avenues for dealing with the violent radical elements in society
The situation in Israel has met absolutely none of those criteria.
1) There might be some fatigue in mainstream Israel, but that is tempered by the growing strength of a right-wing that thinks peace will never come, so just claim all the land. There is also fatigue in the territories, but it is less war fatigue than diverted attention toward the clash between Hamas and Fatah.
2) Israel might have had moderate leadership in the past, but any party who wants a majority in parliament is now shackled by allegiances with ultra-Orthodox groups who will not allow the peace plan to go forward. In the territories, the choice has always been moderate corruption or radical corruption--and there is no evidence that the clan system in Palestine or the rivalries of Hamas and Fatah would allow a non-corrupt moderate leadership to take shape.
3) Israel, as the heart of three major religions, is not free from disruption by outside parties. There is plenty of blame to go around: Syria and Iran, which funds Hamas and Hesbollah; radical evangelical organizations like CUFI; American Jews who find the need to send money in apologetic solidarity with either the Palestinians or the settlers; Egypt's tightrope of trying to pacify both Hamas and America; etc. Everyone has a stake in Israel's future; in the absence of a durable peace, we all see the opportunity to remake it in our own image.
4) It is fairly clear that Palestinian moderates do not have a voice and are scared of being labeled collaborators. Not only do the territories not have a way of dealing with radical terrorists, they are utterly controlled by such groups. In Israel, the strength of radical elements is growing. As the ultra-Orthodox population increases and the mainstream society moves to the right, the window of time when an Israeli coalition could push through a peace plan is quickly closing.
Peace will not come to Israel any time soon. I know everyone thinks Obama is going to personally fix their problems, balance their checkbooks, and potty-train their dogs. But the reality is that Obama can only truly focus on a few things, and pay lip service to several more. Obama shouldn't put his energy into Israel right now. It's a symptom of a much larger problem. His team, including Hillary Clinton, would do better to focus on Pakistan and north Africa while pressuring Europe to take a better look at their disenfranchized Muslim population. All the while courting Evangelicals but telling CUFI to take it in the shorts. And fixing our financial crisis. And empowering Blacks. And building roads and fixing schools. The poor man has the weight of the world on his shoulders. He might be able to work miracles, but not in Israel. The time is not right.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Aspen
Over Thanksgiving, Mike (the wonderful fella I've been dating since July) took me back to Denver to meet his extended family. I had already met his parents, Doug and Gail, but I got to meet his sister Allie and about a million aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
We flew in Wednesday night and woke up early Thursday to do a 4K walk to benefit the United Way. After that, we immediately negated any health benefits of the walk by stuffing our faces at Thanksgiving dinner. On Friday, we drove up to Aspen where Mike's second cousin was getting married. Friday night was the cowboy formal (although entertainingly, a motown band played the gig). I got to meet his Great Aunt Betty, the matriarch, who looked marvelous in her hot pink cashmere track suit. She asked me to lift my skirt to show off my legs and proclaimed, "fine, but could be better." I loved her immediately!
The next day we explored Aspen. That evening was the wedding ceremony, which happened to be a black tie affair at the lodge on top of Ajax mountain. We put on our fancy duds, shelacked our hair back, put on mukluks, and rode the un-heated gondola through a blizzard to the top of the mountain. Once there, it was a gorgeous ceremony and a really fun oxygen bar. We took the gondola back down through the same blizzard and we were snowed in the following day. Mike and I (rather tragically) spent the day lounging in a hotsprings nearby.
On Monday, we woke up at 4:30am to beat the traffic. Getting back to Denver about 12:30, we immediately called up some of Mike's friends, Promethius and Lioness, to hit the town. We spent 20 minutes in a fantastic spice shop with endless treasures. We flew back to Seattle and finally got to sleep about 2am. It's been over a week and I'm still recovering!
Here are some pictures from our trip:
Thanksgiving and Aspen
We flew in Wednesday night and woke up early Thursday to do a 4K walk to benefit the United Way. After that, we immediately negated any health benefits of the walk by stuffing our faces at Thanksgiving dinner. On Friday, we drove up to Aspen where Mike's second cousin was getting married. Friday night was the cowboy formal (although entertainingly, a motown band played the gig). I got to meet his Great Aunt Betty, the matriarch, who looked marvelous in her hot pink cashmere track suit. She asked me to lift my skirt to show off my legs and proclaimed, "fine, but could be better." I loved her immediately!
The next day we explored Aspen. That evening was the wedding ceremony, which happened to be a black tie affair at the lodge on top of Ajax mountain. We put on our fancy duds, shelacked our hair back, put on mukluks, and rode the un-heated gondola through a blizzard to the top of the mountain. Once there, it was a gorgeous ceremony and a really fun oxygen bar. We took the gondola back down through the same blizzard and we were snowed in the following day. Mike and I (rather tragically) spent the day lounging in a hotsprings nearby.
On Monday, we woke up at 4:30am to beat the traffic. Getting back to Denver about 12:30, we immediately called up some of Mike's friends, Promethius and Lioness, to hit the town. We spent 20 minutes in a fantastic spice shop with endless treasures. We flew back to Seattle and finally got to sleep about 2am. It's been over a week and I'm still recovering!
Here are some pictures from our trip:
Thanksgiving and Aspen
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Posting again
After a hiatus of seven months, I decided to begin blogging again. A lot has happened, both in my life and in the wold sphere. Narcissistically, isn't cyberspace better off with my musings?
I, like most other Americans with investments in the stock market, have been following the demise of our financial institutions with a combination of detached curiosity of Camus and the fervor of a fan of the "Left Behind" series. It's easy to imagine some combination of a good spanking and the Last Days for Wall Street.
It's clear we're in the middle of the storm now, and nobody (particularly not Hank) has any idea when we're going to hit bottom. [On a side note, for those of you who are paranoid, try typing "Hank Paulson" into google. The suggested search is "Hank Paulson jewish" which comes up with all kinds of interesting things.]
When I was studying in China, I started to notice how impressively hard the Chinese are working to consume resources. Coal trucks were everywhere, and dirty men pulled coal carts through the city. Entrepreneurs were on every streetcorner, selling everything from a telephone call to "Long Life" cigarettes to haircuts. Even with all their effort, they couldn't consume nearly the amount an American could. I think about this because, when we talk about financial demise, we are really talking about consumption. Who gets the rights to the world's resources? It's a vicious circle--those who consume more can grow their economies and afford military supremacy. Those with military supremacy have more freedom to broker favorable deals with developing nations, thus giving us ever-greater powers of consumption. Not convinced that Merrill Lynch has anything to do with sweatshops in Indonesia? Neither was I, at first...
I clean houses on the side. I'm working toward social work license, and the little bit of extra money helps pay for my supervision sessions. I clean for one very nice, extremely wealthy family in North Seattle. The wife was the president of a biotech firm, the husband was a stock broker for 20 years. They are both in their early 50's and have been retired for quite some time.
As I was dusting, the husband stopped in to say hello. I asked him for his thoughts on the melt-down. Unsurprisingly, he said it is the worst he has ever seen it. I asked him, perhaps a bit glibly, if he thinks America is at the zenith of her empire. He thought for a bit, and replied, "No, I believe the zenith was in 2000, right before the dot-com bubble burst." He went on to explain that after the dot-com bubble burst, very little looked promising for investors. And investors need to invest to make money. When Greenspan lowered the interest rate to 1%, one of the only promising investments became real estate... (Italics are his commentary).
This is coupled with the fact that in 2004, in what history will regard as impressive liberal pain-in-the-ass do-gooding, Congress decided it is a priority for more minorities and poor folk to own homes even if they didn't have the money or credit to pay for it. Investors decided they would get a larger return if Fannie and Freddie took more risk. Both groups pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reach beyond their original constraints to offer mortgages to borrowers with poorer credit. As they went, the rest of the banks followed.
Fannie and Freddie Article
He went on to say that for the past eight years, we have artificially inflated our wealth. Our salaries have been mostly stagnant. The growth in our economy has been fueled by Americans feeling that they were wealthier because their homes were worth more. Our consumer spending, which comprises 70% of our economy, has been fueled by a myth. We spent more freely, took out second mortgages, or speculated on second homes. With housing prices climbing, it seemed prudent to catch the wave even if it was unaffordable because the dream would just be that much further out of reach the longer we wait. In the true spirit of a bubble, nobody wanted to admit the possibility that the home values would go down. We over-extended ourselves, and we're now hurting bad to pay for it. This is worse than the dot-com bubble, which mostly hurt the pocketbooks of investors and entrepreneurial young techies who are fundamentally well-educated and employable. In contrast, this is hitting everyone, including people who never had a penny to invest.
To compound matters, Wall Street started insuring these loans against default by the loan holders. Remember during Katrina when flood insurance companies went bankrupt because there were just too many claims? The same thing is happening to Wall Street right now. The companies who insured those risky loans against default are now swamped with claims. Many companies have both bad loans and bad insurance policies on their books. I don't understand most of it, but this guy does (great article):
Portfolio Essay
And if you think we've seen the worst of it, think of this: Main Street feels the affects of Wall Street about 9-10 months later. All the companies that are hurting now and thinking about layoffs are holding their breath through the holidays, but when the holidays don't bring the hoped-for infusion (and it won't), they will start laying people off and/or declaring bankruptcy. In about 9-10 months, unemployment will rise and people will be defaulting on their mortgages, sending yet another shudder through the financial world.
The husband, who is an extremely pleasant full-time amateur golfer now, had a lot to say on the subject. He said that in the '70's, Americans comprised 5% of the world's population but consumed 50% of its wealth. Now the consumption patterns have balanced--China, India, Europe, and the developing world are taking bigger pieces of the pie. We just don't have the consumer dominance that we used to.
I asked him, "So as someone who knows a great deal about this, and as someone who can't expect your children to exceed your standard of living, what do you teach your children? How do you teach them to cope with what's to come?" He didn't miss a beat. He said, "Become citizens of the world."
His comment got me thinking. At first I just pleasantly thought of Europe, which in my lifetime has seemed to go from quaint ex-empire to reorganized EU powerhouse. It made me happy to think that a little financial stagnation might make Americans more worldly and less annoyingly Jacksonian in our outlook. Maybe we would take up socialism and walking and our families more than free market economics and our big cars and our toys? But as I was typing this very heartwarming sentiment, hoping that my children would tear down the malls in favor of a promenade, I started thinking about other forces in history.
(Brigit, feel free to chime in here...I'm a little rusty). History is rife with examples of empires falling: Czarist Russia and the Ottomans and the Song dynasty in China. There are several ways an empire can fall: like Russia it can be ripped apart from an internal revolution, like the Ottomans it could become so bloated and decentralized that it can be eventually carved up by other powers, or like China it could be invaded by a foreign unwelcome force. Those examples are the examples of pre-industrial-revolution history. Our modern examples of empire-crumbling are hardly more subtle. World War II was powerful young countries vying for power over the corpses of bloated empires: Japan brutally occupied China (which had been picked over for the previous two centuries), Hitler tried to sweep over Europe like Genghis Khan, and America the Capitalist consolidated power with Old Europe while Russia picked battered satellite states like wildflowers.
Fast-forward 60 years and the world is tipsy-turvy. Russia is in shambles, China is on the rise, Japan has stagnated, Europe has unified under the EU, and the former colonial acquisitions of India and the Middle East are independent forces to be reckoned with. America is, whether we like it or not, teetering like an obese ballerina.
But what will happen? I would like to think that the development of the post-modern flat world will have some effect. If the Enlightenment ushered in the new concept of the Citizen and the Nation, I think that our Internet age will usher in the new concept of post-Citizen and post-Nation, where companies are vying for the cheapest international goods and services to feed to whomever has the most capacity for consumption. The tug-of-war of Nations will be mitigated by the mobility and agility of its companies. On the other hand, limited resources breed alliances that reinforce the need for the Nation as a protector of its citizens' interests: as oil gets scarce, if we don't find a replacement, we will fight over it even more than at present. Thomas Friedman, bless his cranky soul, is absolutely right: a green revolution is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity for the coming generations. He sees it as a way to keep America on top, but I think it's more than that. Need begets war. We have a catfight on the horizon that we might be able to prevent. Up until now, we have been under the false assumption that when the catfight comes, we will be the natural victors. Hubris, much?
As Americans, we need to re-think our relationship with world resources. Because we are no longer ensured supremacy, we need to foster good diplomacy (which saved Britain and France during World War II...who would save us if we were being bombed?). We also need to foster ingenuity to try to find technological solutions to get us out of this mess.
I, like most other Americans with investments in the stock market, have been following the demise of our financial institutions with a combination of detached curiosity of Camus and the fervor of a fan of the "Left Behind" series. It's easy to imagine some combination of a good spanking and the Last Days for Wall Street.
It's clear we're in the middle of the storm now, and nobody (particularly not Hank) has any idea when we're going to hit bottom. [On a side note, for those of you who are paranoid, try typing "Hank Paulson" into google. The suggested search is "Hank Paulson jewish" which comes up with all kinds of interesting things.]
When I was studying in China, I started to notice how impressively hard the Chinese are working to consume resources. Coal trucks were everywhere, and dirty men pulled coal carts through the city. Entrepreneurs were on every streetcorner, selling everything from a telephone call to "Long Life" cigarettes to haircuts. Even with all their effort, they couldn't consume nearly the amount an American could. I think about this because, when we talk about financial demise, we are really talking about consumption. Who gets the rights to the world's resources? It's a vicious circle--those who consume more can grow their economies and afford military supremacy. Those with military supremacy have more freedom to broker favorable deals with developing nations, thus giving us ever-greater powers of consumption. Not convinced that Merrill Lynch has anything to do with sweatshops in Indonesia? Neither was I, at first...
I clean houses on the side. I'm working toward social work license, and the little bit of extra money helps pay for my supervision sessions. I clean for one very nice, extremely wealthy family in North Seattle. The wife was the president of a biotech firm, the husband was a stock broker for 20 years. They are both in their early 50's and have been retired for quite some time.
As I was dusting, the husband stopped in to say hello. I asked him for his thoughts on the melt-down. Unsurprisingly, he said it is the worst he has ever seen it. I asked him, perhaps a bit glibly, if he thinks America is at the zenith of her empire. He thought for a bit, and replied, "No, I believe the zenith was in 2000, right before the dot-com bubble burst." He went on to explain that after the dot-com bubble burst, very little looked promising for investors. And investors need to invest to make money. When Greenspan lowered the interest rate to 1%, one of the only promising investments became real estate... (Italics are his commentary).
This is coupled with the fact that in 2004, in what history will regard as impressive liberal pain-in-the-ass do-gooding, Congress decided it is a priority for more minorities and poor folk to own homes even if they didn't have the money or credit to pay for it. Investors decided they would get a larger return if Fannie and Freddie took more risk. Both groups pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reach beyond their original constraints to offer mortgages to borrowers with poorer credit. As they went, the rest of the banks followed.
Fannie and Freddie Article
He went on to say that for the past eight years, we have artificially inflated our wealth. Our salaries have been mostly stagnant. The growth in our economy has been fueled by Americans feeling that they were wealthier because their homes were worth more. Our consumer spending, which comprises 70% of our economy, has been fueled by a myth. We spent more freely, took out second mortgages, or speculated on second homes. With housing prices climbing, it seemed prudent to catch the wave even if it was unaffordable because the dream would just be that much further out of reach the longer we wait. In the true spirit of a bubble, nobody wanted to admit the possibility that the home values would go down. We over-extended ourselves, and we're now hurting bad to pay for it. This is worse than the dot-com bubble, which mostly hurt the pocketbooks of investors and entrepreneurial young techies who are fundamentally well-educated and employable. In contrast, this is hitting everyone, including people who never had a penny to invest.
To compound matters, Wall Street started insuring these loans against default by the loan holders. Remember during Katrina when flood insurance companies went bankrupt because there were just too many claims? The same thing is happening to Wall Street right now. The companies who insured those risky loans against default are now swamped with claims. Many companies have both bad loans and bad insurance policies on their books. I don't understand most of it, but this guy does (great article):
Portfolio Essay
And if you think we've seen the worst of it, think of this: Main Street feels the affects of Wall Street about 9-10 months later. All the companies that are hurting now and thinking about layoffs are holding their breath through the holidays, but when the holidays don't bring the hoped-for infusion (and it won't), they will start laying people off and/or declaring bankruptcy. In about 9-10 months, unemployment will rise and people will be defaulting on their mortgages, sending yet another shudder through the financial world.
The husband, who is an extremely pleasant full-time amateur golfer now, had a lot to say on the subject. He said that in the '70's, Americans comprised 5% of the world's population but consumed 50% of its wealth. Now the consumption patterns have balanced--China, India, Europe, and the developing world are taking bigger pieces of the pie. We just don't have the consumer dominance that we used to.
I asked him, "So as someone who knows a great deal about this, and as someone who can't expect your children to exceed your standard of living, what do you teach your children? How do you teach them to cope with what's to come?" He didn't miss a beat. He said, "Become citizens of the world."
His comment got me thinking. At first I just pleasantly thought of Europe, which in my lifetime has seemed to go from quaint ex-empire to reorganized EU powerhouse. It made me happy to think that a little financial stagnation might make Americans more worldly and less annoyingly Jacksonian in our outlook. Maybe we would take up socialism and walking and our families more than free market economics and our big cars and our toys? But as I was typing this very heartwarming sentiment, hoping that my children would tear down the malls in favor of a promenade, I started thinking about other forces in history.
(Brigit, feel free to chime in here...I'm a little rusty). History is rife with examples of empires falling: Czarist Russia and the Ottomans and the Song dynasty in China. There are several ways an empire can fall: like Russia it can be ripped apart from an internal revolution, like the Ottomans it could become so bloated and decentralized that it can be eventually carved up by other powers, or like China it could be invaded by a foreign unwelcome force. Those examples are the examples of pre-industrial-revolution history. Our modern examples of empire-crumbling are hardly more subtle. World War II was powerful young countries vying for power over the corpses of bloated empires: Japan brutally occupied China (which had been picked over for the previous two centuries), Hitler tried to sweep over Europe like Genghis Khan, and America the Capitalist consolidated power with Old Europe while Russia picked battered satellite states like wildflowers.
Fast-forward 60 years and the world is tipsy-turvy. Russia is in shambles, China is on the rise, Japan has stagnated, Europe has unified under the EU, and the former colonial acquisitions of India and the Middle East are independent forces to be reckoned with. America is, whether we like it or not, teetering like an obese ballerina.
But what will happen? I would like to think that the development of the post-modern flat world will have some effect. If the Enlightenment ushered in the new concept of the Citizen and the Nation, I think that our Internet age will usher in the new concept of post-Citizen and post-Nation, where companies are vying for the cheapest international goods and services to feed to whomever has the most capacity for consumption. The tug-of-war of Nations will be mitigated by the mobility and agility of its companies. On the other hand, limited resources breed alliances that reinforce the need for the Nation as a protector of its citizens' interests: as oil gets scarce, if we don't find a replacement, we will fight over it even more than at present. Thomas Friedman, bless his cranky soul, is absolutely right: a green revolution is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity for the coming generations. He sees it as a way to keep America on top, but I think it's more than that. Need begets war. We have a catfight on the horizon that we might be able to prevent. Up until now, we have been under the false assumption that when the catfight comes, we will be the natural victors. Hubris, much?
As Americans, we need to re-think our relationship with world resources. Because we are no longer ensured supremacy, we need to foster good diplomacy (which saved Britain and France during World War II...who would save us if we were being bombed?). We also need to foster ingenuity to try to find technological solutions to get us out of this mess.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
I'm back!
I arrived back in the States about 2 weeks ago. I've been readjusting to American customs and people. Imagine! People actually stand in line here! Plus, Mom's been force-feeding me comfort food so I no longer fit any of my clothes!
It is definitely good to be back. The picture above is of me, Ilya my Russian painter friend, and the portraits he did of me and Adam. He's an amazingly talented artist.
I had an incredible opportunity since being back--I had a chance to lecture at a university about Israel! My friend Brigit is a professor of Russian history at Washington State University. She is teaching a class on world history and she asked me to come do a presentation on Israel. The class was 50 minutes long, but at the end of 50 minutes I had only gone through about 1/3 of the power point presentation. People were asking excellent questions and it really turned into a dialogue instead of a lecture. Over half the class stayed another hour to finish the discussion. We talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict, Zionism, the Holocaust, demographic problems, orthodox vs. secular Jews, conflicts in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria...I had a great time! At the end of two hours, I had almost lost my voice. Then Brigit and her wonderful mother Bobbie took me out to a seafood place, where I had some of the best cod with sour cream ever! Oh how I've missed American food!!!
I have one more set of pictures to share. These are pictures of Purim, the Jewish version of Halloween. I went up to Tel Aviv with my friends Sarah and Andrew. There were more cute kids than I knew what to do with!
Purim in Tel Aviv
I'm glad to be back. To everyone who has read my blog, thank you!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)