Folks, it's really simple. Three simple things can revitalize the US healthcare system. All with no new taxes or government programs.
Problems (feel free to scroll to solution):
1. The American Medical Association operates as a complete monopoly in the US. The AMA does not allow tiered levels of care or "Healthcare provider", unlike almost every competitive marketplace. Doctors from other countries, no matter how advanced the doctor or country, are barred from doing anything beyond nurse duties. To get checked and prescribed a simple drug (i.e. antibiotics or nasal-spray) for a stuffed nose or bad cold requires a fully fledged doctor.
2. Insurance companies suck up much of the "Healthcare dollars" in this country, without actually providing any value to the equation. Even without any major health issues, we are constantly fighting with the insurance company to properly pay for even the most basic and expected procedures. Blue Shield just refused to pay for a standard 5 month ultrasound on my pregnant wife! Of course, that's just their standard tactic which was reversed only after 4 phone calls wasting my time, and consuming paid staffer time at Blue Shield. Of course, both my and the BS staff time were paid for ultimately by a tax on my wages (my company pays most, and I pay part of my premiums).
3. The big pharmaceutical industry spends at least twice as much on advertising and lobbying, as on R&D. (reference: http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/medicare/a2003-06-23-drugindustry-.html). Stats: 13% of revenue goes to R&D, 35% on advertising and lobbying.
Solutions:
1. Break the AMA's monopoly on healthcare in the US. Allow doctors from other countries to compete for our needs. Simply deregulating the AMA's current stranglehold on healthcare here will spur innovation in private practices and lower tier doctors. I'd certainly rather see a trained nurse who can prescribe an antibiotic on the weekend, perhaps paying out of pocket, than wait until Monday when the official "Doctors" are in. I suspect that for many things such as basic care, colds, flues, and wellness exams, we could shave 50% off of the 15 years of training AMA doctors receive with virtually no change in quality.
2. Require employers to fully disclose health care plan costs, and allow responsible adults to choose the best plans for them. If my company is willing to pay $200 / month, I should have the choice of spending $200 on an HMO, or $100 on catestrophic / high deductable insurance and taking the other $100/month in the form of a privately administered tax-free flex-spending account. Let me use that $100 / month to pay directly for the services we need.
The first awesome benefit here is that 9 out of 10 insurance claims would go away, and the insurance companies (at least servicing my account) would need vastly less staff and overhead. Think about the competition that drove down life insurance policies when the internet started. Now, imagine that for healthcare. It's the cost per transaction that is killing us, and with even one child, our insurance company is probably processing at least one transaction per month, even though they would cost only $50 or so at a private practice. This step alone could cut 20% off the cost of US healthcare! (Source: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/18/1253 "[administration cost]... 19.3 to 24.1 percent of total spending on health care".)
The second great benefit is that the prices for basic care would be transparent and competitive. If you knew of two great healthcare centers near your home or work, and one charged $75 while the other charged $50 for the same visit, who would you choose? Some might say that the quality would drop, but I say the opposite is true. My cousin in Portland, OR, runs a private fee-based, no insurance practice and business is booming. She actually has a waiting list of families ready to pay $5000 / year simply to have direct access to a real doctor without having to go through three administrative staff before seeing her. She says she now spends much more time with patients, less time filling out paperwork, and both she and her patients are happier.
3. Pass a single regulation disallowing the pharmaceutical industry from advertising products to people who can't legally choose whether to use them. In other words, prescription-only drug advertisements should not be allowed on mass-media. Freedom of speech you say? There is plenty of precedent for this. We don't allow alcohol or tobacco ads on TV while children are usually awake, and similar for violent TV. While some would cry foul, it's crazy to think that paid mass advertising will (or should!) increase the amount of consumers for, say blood-pressure medication. While they would complain, the pharmaceutical companies would enjoy an immediate and substantial reduction in costs.
Summary: These may seem like crazy ideas, but I propose that with extremely lightweight legislation and zero government cost or taxes, we can dramatically improve healthcare across the US. If you even pick any two of these ideas, I think we can easily reduce health care costs by 20%. With all three, I think that percentage is far higher. With the second idea alone, not only would costs be shaved, but I predict the quality of healthcare would quickly rise with individual choice allowed.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Friday, July 20, 2007
US Heathcare is already socialist, just dishonest, inefficient, and with none of the benefits.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of the movie Sicko by Michael Moore. It portrays a "broken" capitalist US health care system in stark contrast with the "delightful" socialist systems in other countries. For far too long this debate in the US has centered around socialist vs capitalist systems. I will argue that our current system is in fact already behaving in almost every way as a socialist system with one caveat: we get none of the good benefits.
First a little background. My wife and I work for two of the top tech giants in the Silicon Valley. Although the local cost of living is high, we are very comfortable and on a national average would be considered upper class. At our employers we each were given a choice of several health plans. The employee fee for these plans ranged from $25-$50 per month, while the employer costs for these plans are likely around $5,000 per month. The choice between $25 and $50 per month was essentially where the supposed capitalist health care system ended and the socialized medicine began.
Late last year we had our first child at one of the top hospitals in the country: Stanford Medical Center. This is the place youngsters are flown in to from around the West coast of the United States (including Hawaii) for their incredibly high level of care. Due to complications irrelevant to this blog, our total hospital bill for a two week stay was:
First a little background. My wife and I work for two of the top tech giants in the Silicon Valley. Although the local cost of living is high, we are very comfortable and on a national average would be considered upper class. At our employers we each were given a choice of several health plans. The employee fee for these plans ranged from $25-$50 per month, while the employer costs for these plans are likely around $5,000 per month. The choice between $25 and $50 per month was essentially where the supposed capitalist health care system ended and the socialized medicine began.
Late last year we had our first child at one of the top hospitals in the country: Stanford Medical Center. This is the place youngsters are flown in to from around the West coast of the United States (including Hawaii) for their incredibly high level of care. Due to complications irrelevant to this blog, our total hospital bill for a two week stay was:
The Bill: $180,000
Of course, our insurance company easily negotiated that down and only paidInsurance Paid: $90,000.
Name one other capitalist system where you can receive goods or services from a company and some time later negotiate the bill in half for no reason other than internal corruption. How much did we pay? How much did we pay for this service? Remember that $25-$50/month medical plan decision a while back? We paid theWe Paid: $5,000
deductible and that was it.
Up until now you might be thinking: yeah, I get it, that's just how insurance works. Let me ask you this then: Who were our neighbors in this top hospital in the nation? Loads of illegal immigrants and uninsured. Who was "paying" their bill? We were, indirectly thru our insurance plans, via our employeers, and ultimately out of our pockets.
Why is it that in health care, the providers never mention costs until after you receive services? Why is it that you can't negotiate or shop around for care? Why was our bill for a two week stay without any particularly outrageous expenses (no surgery, just observation) carried a "bill" of $180,000, which was so easily negotiated down to $90,000?
The reality is that the US health care system is already socialist. We just have none of the good aspects of such as system. Anyone who is employed or pays for health insurance is already paying for all medical expenses of those who don't. And adding insult to injury, we do so thru a layer of insurance companies who skim anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of all health care dollars spent in the US, and whose main goal is to deny coverage wherever possible.
Another more recent case in point. My wife needed doctor prescribed medicine (nothing life threatening, but still important). At first, our insurance carrier denied covering it. Than they denied covering it and said to go thru their "approved" third-party pharmacy, where they would cover 50% of the cost. As it turns out, their third-party pharmacy was almost twice the cost of the cheapest nationally-known pharmacy (their price $500, natl pharmacy retail price $300). This is corruption and likely kick-backs at it's finest. In the long run we went with the insurance company's approved pharmacy, "paying" (us + insurance co) almost double for the same medicine as we could have in a true free market.
Politically, I'm in favor of limited government and conservative spending policies. However, our system is failing badly to provide sound care in a reasonable way. Many responsible families who are employed end up bankrupt even when they thought they had reasonable insurance, when a serious illness affects them. Those who are irresponsible or simply can't pay for coverage end up getting free care and have no assets for hospitals to go after. The ever shrinking middle class, and even those such as myself categorized by our government as upper class have little choice when it comes to how our health care dollars are spent. Our companies are already spending thousands per month to insurance middlemen, while we get to choose where our $25 per month go.
When it finally comes down to choosing a doctor, hospital, or otherwise, the middle and upper class have essentially no choices beyond what the uninsured have. Switching the US to an honest socialist health care system will immediately shave off at least 1/3 of all health care costs in the US. It will also liberate the 99% of us who earn < $1M per year from the fear of "losing coverage", having a "preexisting condition", or arguing over necessary medicine with middlemen whose goals are to deny care.
Up until now you might be thinking: yeah, I get it, that's just how insurance works. Let me ask you this then: Who were our neighbors in this top hospital in the nation? Loads of illegal immigrants and uninsured. Who was "paying" their bill? We were, indirectly thru our insurance plans, via our employeers, and ultimately out of our pockets.
Why is it that in health care, the providers never mention costs until after you receive services? Why is it that you can't negotiate or shop around for care? Why was our bill for a two week stay without any particularly outrageous expenses (no surgery, just observation) carried a "bill" of $180,000, which was so easily negotiated down to $90,000?
The reality is that the US health care system is already socialist. We just have none of the good aspects of such as system. Anyone who is employed or pays for health insurance is already paying for all medical expenses of those who don't. And adding insult to injury, we do so thru a layer of insurance companies who skim anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of all health care dollars spent in the US, and whose main goal is to deny coverage wherever possible.
Another more recent case in point. My wife needed doctor prescribed medicine (nothing life threatening, but still important). At first, our insurance carrier denied covering it. Than they denied covering it and said to go thru their "approved" third-party pharmacy, where they would cover 50% of the cost. As it turns out, their third-party pharmacy was almost twice the cost of the cheapest nationally-known pharmacy (their price $500, natl pharmacy retail price $300). This is corruption and likely kick-backs at it's finest. In the long run we went with the insurance company's approved pharmacy, "paying" (us + insurance co) almost double for the same medicine as we could have in a true free market.
Politically, I'm in favor of limited government and conservative spending policies. However, our system is failing badly to provide sound care in a reasonable way. Many responsible families who are employed end up bankrupt even when they thought they had reasonable insurance, when a serious illness affects them. Those who are irresponsible or simply can't pay for coverage end up getting free care and have no assets for hospitals to go after. The ever shrinking middle class, and even those such as myself categorized by our government as upper class have little choice when it comes to how our health care dollars are spent. Our companies are already spending thousands per month to insurance middlemen, while we get to choose where our $25 per month go.
When it finally comes down to choosing a doctor, hospital, or otherwise, the middle and upper class have essentially no choices beyond what the uninsured have. Switching the US to an honest socialist health care system will immediately shave off at least 1/3 of all health care costs in the US. It will also liberate the 99% of us who earn < $1M per year from the fear of "losing coverage", having a "preexisting condition", or arguing over necessary medicine with middlemen whose goals are to deny care.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Disenfranchised by Design. How closed primaries lock out independents.
If you are an independent of any kind, your say in all levels of democracy are limited by design. Mailing in my absentee ballot for the June 6th California election, there were no candidates for governor to choose from. In this Democrat-majority state, most feel it is all but certain that the next governor after Arnold will be a Democrat. Thus, the only way to have a say in that statewide election is to register as a Democrat.
The simple fact is that there are several easy to implement alternatives to the two-party and plurality vote systems of democracy. These systems have been mathematically proven by statisticians, economists, and plain old philosophers to be more accurate at reflecting the "will of the people" than a simple plurality vote. Particularly given the two strong parties in the US, we need a system that acknowledges the will of the people rather than awarding the Presidency/governors/etc to the "least of two evils". Here are the top two alternatives I've found:
Instant Runoff Voting
You vote for the candidates you approve of, and rank them in order: 1, 2, 3, ... In this way, your true "will" is reflected. If your first choice candidate doesn't get enough votes, your #2 ranked candidate gets your full vote just as if you put them in the #1 slot. By a very simple process, this occurs for all voters (most easily in an easily traced and audited computer program) to determine the winner.
This is my first choice, but it is a little more difficult to explain than the next best choice: Approval Voting.
Approval Voting
You vote for as many candidates as you want, without a ranking of any kind. The candidate with the most votes wins. In this way, you can vote for as many "alternative", "3rd party", or "independent" candidates as you want. If you by some crazy reasoning simply want anyone except an independent, feel free to vote for both of the "two-party" candidates. If you want "any third party", simply vote for all of them.
While this does not reflect the will of the people as accurately as Instant Runoff Voting, it is extremely simple to explain.
Both Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Approval Voting better reflect the will of the people.
Who's afraid of these alternative systems?
Democrats and Republicans. And the two party system and oligarchy of lobbyists and power brokers in Washington and state capitols.
What can you do?
Fight for your democracy. Support IRV and/or Approval Voting organizations. Read up on what they have to say and make your own mind up. They are very easy to find and many states have established groups progressing towards this clear change.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=1424
http://approvalvoting.org/
The simple fact is that there are several easy to implement alternatives to the two-party and plurality vote systems of democracy. These systems have been mathematically proven by statisticians, economists, and plain old philosophers to be more accurate at reflecting the "will of the people" than a simple plurality vote. Particularly given the two strong parties in the US, we need a system that acknowledges the will of the people rather than awarding the Presidency/governors/etc to the "least of two evils". Here are the top two alternatives I've found:
Instant Runoff Voting
You vote for the candidates you approve of, and rank them in order: 1, 2, 3, ... In this way, your true "will" is reflected. If your first choice candidate doesn't get enough votes, your #2 ranked candidate gets your full vote just as if you put them in the #1 slot. By a very simple process, this occurs for all voters (most easily in an easily traced and audited computer program) to determine the winner.
This is my first choice, but it is a little more difficult to explain than the next best choice: Approval Voting.
Approval Voting
You vote for as many candidates as you want, without a ranking of any kind. The candidate with the most votes wins. In this way, you can vote for as many "alternative", "3rd party", or "independent" candidates as you want. If you by some crazy reasoning simply want anyone except an independent, feel free to vote for both of the "two-party" candidates. If you want "any third party", simply vote for all of them.
While this does not reflect the will of the people as accurately as Instant Runoff Voting, it is extremely simple to explain.
Both Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Approval Voting better reflect the will of the people.
- There can be no "spoiler" candidates.
- There can be no "guilt" for voting your true intention at the polls.
- There would likely be less negative campaigning with either system - as Approval or "First Choice" would matter more than "Hate my opponent"
- Third party candidates could more likely win elections, or at least affect the key issues without campaigning against another candidate.
- Third party candidates could never be blamed for the outcome of an election.
Who's afraid of these alternative systems?
Democrats and Republicans. And the two party system and oligarchy of lobbyists and power brokers in Washington and state capitols.
What can you do?
Fight for your democracy. Support IRV and/or Approval Voting organizations. Read up on what they have to say and make your own mind up. They are very easy to find and many states have established groups progressing towards this clear change.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=1424
http://approvalvoting.org/
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
California's special election propositions
Staring down the November 8th special election in California, I am incredibly saddened by the display of dishonest partisan television ads and their effectiveness. Suddenly, all of the reform proposals, 74, 75, 76, 77 are dropping in the polls.
Most of the ads against props 74-77 are paid for by:
Public worker unions.
California's democrat 3rd party fundraising campaigns.
Most of the content of these ads are simple scare tactics with little substance or facts.
Proposition 74 - Putting CA's children first:
I actually downloaded and read the California budget report prior to the recall election during which Schwarzenegger was elected. Most people don't know, but California has a broken budget system where the legislature must spend approx 50 percent of the budget on schools, weather it is spent effectively or not. Recent studies show that class size reductions (to the current extend in California) have no positive effect on student performance. In high school, I had several teachers who regularly drank alcohol during school hours and left class several times a week to take a drink. Don't get me wrong - I had many excellent teachers - some soo good I wish they could have been given super-merit bonuses to postpone retirement. I recall one inspiring teacher of Philosophy - a Mr. Lavezzo who engaged his students soo well that their background and ideology didn't matter to learn.
Proposition 74 is about rolling back the clock on automatic lifetime tenure after only two years as a teacher. Five years of on the job training, with pay and benefits, isn't exactly a torturous period of non-tenured employment. I'm working in the private sector now and guess what - I've never had and likely never will have tenure! Thus, I am forced to consider that my job likely depends on my performance.
Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection is aptly named.
The anti-75 scare ads are filled with dishonest rhetoric. Prop 75 does one and only one thing: It requires public worker unions of California to get written permission from members to use their union dues for political purposes. Polls show that the majority of workers in these unions support this proposition, but are afraid of retribution if they speak-out. A local teacher wrote the Palo Alto Weekly that their local union bosses left threatening notes in her classroom and mailbox after she publicly supported Prop 75.
What kind of a union threatens a worker simply for expressing a political view?
The answer is clear - the only people who are really opposed to Prop 75 are the union bosses who have spent over one hundred million dollars on ad campaigns against Prop 75. Who should we trust? Polls taken in the unions themselves, or the $100,000,000 ad blitz by the union bosses, without consent of the union populus?
Proposition 76 - Balanced Budget
This is a sneaky proposition, and one that I hope passes as well. It allows, but does not require (if I understand correctly) the governor to reduce line-item spending, if the CA legislators pass a budget that is well over our projected revenue. Using a simple formula based on revenue growth in the previous three years, Prop 76 allows the budget to grow. If the legislators decide to spend without corresponding revenue, the governor (even if not Arnold) has the option to reduce spending to the appropriate level.
Most of the ads against this one are funded by democratic 3rd party fundraising groups, but there is really only one false pretense driving the content of the ads. Virtually every ad against Prop 76 states that the budget for schools will be reduced. This is utter nonsense. In the previous decade, and even in the previous 4 years, the entire state budget including schools has increased significantly. All Prop 76 will do is smooth out the increases so that a sudden inrease in revenus such as the dot-com or biotech booms will not allow the legislators to spend all of the money without using some of it to pay of debts or invest in vital long-term infrastructure such as roads.
The only people who fear Prop 76 are the lifetime incumbant legislators, particularly the democrats, who will no longer have an unliminted budget for their pet pork projects.
Prop 77 - Voter Empowerment Act:
Anyone who lives in California and votes will know that they get approximately zero invites to ever meet their state assembly person or congressional representative. In a state of 40 million people I can understand that they are busy, but why are they never around winning our vote other than during campaign season? I live only a 2 hour drive from Sacramento yet never once in my life (all in CA) has there been a town hall meeting where I had access to my local representitive.
Here's why: California's districts are drawn up artifically by the politicians in Sacramento (on both parties) such that incumbents don't have to do anything to get re-elected.
Of 153 congressional and state election races in November of last year (2004), not a single district changed political party! [sitation from:www.joinarnold.com What kind of democracy is that? These districts are soo out of whack it is unbelievable.
If you think this is a Right vs Left issue, consider this: every major newspaper in the state has endorsed Prop 77. Even the ultra liberal San Francisco Chronicle has endorsed Prop 77! (view at: www.joinarnold.com).
Well, there you have it - every TV argument against Props 74-77 are a scare tactic. We elected Arnold for a reason, and it wasn't to "pump up" the state. It was to reform California and keep our great state strong and healthy. We must act now to pass Propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77.
Please join the millions of Californians who have actually read about the propositions and vote with your head, not because "Judge Whappner" was hired to do an high priced infomercial against Prop 77.
Most of the ads against props 74-77 are paid for by:
Public worker unions.
California's democrat 3rd party fundraising campaigns.
Most of the content of these ads are simple scare tactics with little substance or facts.
Proposition 74 - Putting CA's children first:
I actually downloaded and read the California budget report prior to the recall election during which Schwarzenegger was elected. Most people don't know, but California has a broken budget system where the legislature must spend approx 50 percent of the budget on schools, weather it is spent effectively or not. Recent studies show that class size reductions (to the current extend in California) have no positive effect on student performance. In high school, I had several teachers who regularly drank alcohol during school hours and left class several times a week to take a drink. Don't get me wrong - I had many excellent teachers - some soo good I wish they could have been given super-merit bonuses to postpone retirement. I recall one inspiring teacher of Philosophy - a Mr. Lavezzo who engaged his students soo well that their background and ideology didn't matter to learn.
Proposition 74 is about rolling back the clock on automatic lifetime tenure after only two years as a teacher. Five years of on the job training, with pay and benefits, isn't exactly a torturous period of non-tenured employment. I'm working in the private sector now and guess what - I've never had and likely never will have tenure! Thus, I am forced to consider that my job likely depends on my performance.
Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection is aptly named.
The anti-75 scare ads are filled with dishonest rhetoric. Prop 75 does one and only one thing: It requires public worker unions of California to get written permission from members to use their union dues for political purposes. Polls show that the majority of workers in these unions support this proposition, but are afraid of retribution if they speak-out. A local teacher wrote the Palo Alto Weekly that their local union bosses left threatening notes in her classroom and mailbox after she publicly supported Prop 75.
What kind of a union threatens a worker simply for expressing a political view?
The answer is clear - the only people who are really opposed to Prop 75 are the union bosses who have spent over one hundred million dollars on ad campaigns against Prop 75. Who should we trust? Polls taken in the unions themselves, or the $100,000,000 ad blitz by the union bosses, without consent of the union populus?
Proposition 76 - Balanced Budget
This is a sneaky proposition, and one that I hope passes as well. It allows, but does not require (if I understand correctly) the governor to reduce line-item spending, if the CA legislators pass a budget that is well over our projected revenue. Using a simple formula based on revenue growth in the previous three years, Prop 76 allows the budget to grow. If the legislators decide to spend without corresponding revenue, the governor (even if not Arnold) has the option to reduce spending to the appropriate level.
Most of the ads against this one are funded by democratic 3rd party fundraising groups, but there is really only one false pretense driving the content of the ads. Virtually every ad against Prop 76 states that the budget for schools will be reduced. This is utter nonsense. In the previous decade, and even in the previous 4 years, the entire state budget including schools has increased significantly. All Prop 76 will do is smooth out the increases so that a sudden inrease in revenus such as the dot-com or biotech booms will not allow the legislators to spend all of the money without using some of it to pay of debts or invest in vital long-term infrastructure such as roads.
The only people who fear Prop 76 are the lifetime incumbant legislators, particularly the democrats, who will no longer have an unliminted budget for their pet pork projects.
Prop 77 - Voter Empowerment Act:
Anyone who lives in California and votes will know that they get approximately zero invites to ever meet their state assembly person or congressional representative. In a state of 40 million people I can understand that they are busy, but why are they never around winning our vote other than during campaign season? I live only a 2 hour drive from Sacramento yet never once in my life (all in CA) has there been a town hall meeting where I had access to my local representitive.
Here's why: California's districts are drawn up artifically by the politicians in Sacramento (on both parties) such that incumbents don't have to do anything to get re-elected.
Of 153 congressional and state election races in November of last year (2004), not a single district changed political party! [sitation from:www.joinarnold.com What kind of democracy is that? These districts are soo out of whack it is unbelievable.
If you think this is a Right vs Left issue, consider this: every major newspaper in the state has endorsed Prop 77. Even the ultra liberal San Francisco Chronicle has endorsed Prop 77! (view at: www.joinarnold.com).
Well, there you have it - every TV argument against Props 74-77 are a scare tactic. We elected Arnold for a reason, and it wasn't to "pump up" the state. It was to reform California and keep our great state strong and healthy. We must act now to pass Propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77.
Please join the millions of Californians who have actually read about the propositions and vote with your head, not because "Judge Whappner" was hired to do an high priced infomercial against Prop 77.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Conversation with two Canadians and a socialist
This weekend I had the distinct pleasure of discussing tsunami aid with two Canadians and a socialist. The conversation went something like this:
[all paraphrased]
me: Did you know private individuals have given over $12 Million dollars at Amazon.com?
them: Yeah well, the US started out with less money than the inauguration will cost.
me: WTF does that have to do with it? Monetary aid from the US has increased tenfold, and we immediately sent a carrier battle group and a secondary ship group with urgent supplies, personell, and aircraft to deliver them to the hardest hit areas.
them: The US is stingy, after all - they give far less per GDP than other countries. Japan is giving $500 Million
me: You have to be kidding me, right? Japan has the modern luxury of having it's seas patrolled by the US, while avoiding the cost of a military. Tell me, how much of that $500 Million has already been given? Has Japan actually delivered anything?
Basically - you get the idea. The rest of the conversation was "inauguration this", "bush on vacation that", rinse, repeat. When confronted with the idea that the US - including public and private money will be the largest monetary giver, and already is the largest military-aid rending giver, they still repeated anti-Bush vitriol.
How have people, no - sheeple (thanks to Michael Savage), become soo blind to the truth. Leftists would rather believe something bad about President Bush than do something good for the relief efforts. Of the three people I had this conversation with, two have brand new cars purchased in the last year. I have an 11 year old car purchased from my family. I had already made my first donation to the relief efforts, and will give more if it looks like it is needed. They had given nothing, but were happy to spew forth silly quotes from the lefties about the US being bad.
Back to the start of the conversation. I didn't mention the US, USA, citizenry, etc. I mentioned how cool it was that one of the online retailers made most of it's front-page a donation button, and had collected soo much money in such a short period of time. That's it - nothing political, just wow - cool, people are giving and companies are trying to do the right thing. For leftist, this is not a good thing. People giving to charity undermines the socialist agenda of a government controlling everything. People giving to charity when needed, and focused on a specific need undermines the idea of giving 100% of the fruit of your labor to someone else to decide what to do with. The socialists have lost - human beings can decide for themselves when to keep and when to give.
[all paraphrased]
me: Did you know private individuals have given over $12 Million dollars at Amazon.com?
them: Yeah well, the US started out with less money than the inauguration will cost.
me: WTF does that have to do with it? Monetary aid from the US has increased tenfold, and we immediately sent a carrier battle group and a secondary ship group with urgent supplies, personell, and aircraft to deliver them to the hardest hit areas.
them: The US is stingy, after all - they give far less per GDP than other countries. Japan is giving $500 Million
me: You have to be kidding me, right? Japan has the modern luxury of having it's seas patrolled by the US, while avoiding the cost of a military. Tell me, how much of that $500 Million has already been given? Has Japan actually delivered anything?
Basically - you get the idea. The rest of the conversation was "inauguration this", "bush on vacation that", rinse, repeat. When confronted with the idea that the US - including public and private money will be the largest monetary giver, and already is the largest military-aid rending giver, they still repeated anti-Bush vitriol.
How have people, no - sheeple (thanks to Michael Savage), become soo blind to the truth. Leftists would rather believe something bad about President Bush than do something good for the relief efforts. Of the three people I had this conversation with, two have brand new cars purchased in the last year. I have an 11 year old car purchased from my family. I had already made my first donation to the relief efforts, and will give more if it looks like it is needed. They had given nothing, but were happy to spew forth silly quotes from the lefties about the US being bad.
Back to the start of the conversation. I didn't mention the US, USA, citizenry, etc. I mentioned how cool it was that one of the online retailers made most of it's front-page a donation button, and had collected soo much money in such a short period of time. That's it - nothing political, just wow - cool, people are giving and companies are trying to do the right thing. For leftist, this is not a good thing. People giving to charity undermines the socialist agenda of a government controlling everything. People giving to charity when needed, and focused on a specific need undermines the idea of giving 100% of the fruit of your labor to someone else to decide what to do with. The socialists have lost - human beings can decide for themselves when to keep and when to give.
US Stingy? I don't think so. UN useless? Yup.
As an American, and as a human being, I am outraged at the audacity of the UN secretary who labelled the US "stingy" in terms of aid to the tsunami relief efforts.
Reading news sites, UN press releases, and blogs such as the excellent: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/, the picture is clear: The US is very generous, effective, and immediate in rendering aid - anywhere in the world. The UN is burocratic, ineffective, and useless when it comes to providing aid - emergency or otherwise.
Simple facts / ideas that summarize my opinion:
1. The UN has failed, now a week after the tsunami, to provide aid in serious quantity beyond the scope of it's already existing 'developmental' projects in the region.
2. The UN has attempted to stop aid from flowing freely from the US, India, Japan, and Australia - with the purpose of making itself look useful as a 'coordinator'.
3. The United States of America has sent a carrier battle group, along with other ship groups to provide upwards of 65,000 gallons of fresh water daily, along with supplies, medics, hospital-ships, engineers, and US enlisted men ready to volunteer for the task of providing aid to the tsunami victims.
4. Private US individuals and corporations are making generous donations. The company I work for has already pleged $1,000,000 of money for relief. I have donated $100 of my own money - a per-capita rate 50 times the US-Government's monetary aid to date. Amazon.com - an online store based in the US has collected $13,574,660.56 in just a few short days - and I would be most of that money is from US contributors. I would bet that in the end, contributions from US citizens and corporations will top 1 Billion USD.
Ok, I think it's clear that the US is providing aid more effectively, rapidly, and clearly than any other body. It's also clear that the UN is attempting a power-grab - flailing about, even at the risk of delaying aid in order to look useful. Read about it, think about it, and if you can spare a few bucks - donate to a charity. It's not hard to find one either.
And about charity & giving:
Nearly every major website I've seen, along with the two different chains of grocery stores I've visited in the last week, each have ways to donate right at the front-page, or checkout-line. That's the American way - and I think it's the way of humanity. Most likely, the same thing is going on throughout the much of rest of the world.
Reading news sites, UN press releases, and blogs such as the excellent: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/, the picture is clear: The US is very generous, effective, and immediate in rendering aid - anywhere in the world. The UN is burocratic, ineffective, and useless when it comes to providing aid - emergency or otherwise.
Simple facts / ideas that summarize my opinion:
1. The UN has failed, now a week after the tsunami, to provide aid in serious quantity beyond the scope of it's already existing 'developmental' projects in the region.
2. The UN has attempted to stop aid from flowing freely from the US, India, Japan, and Australia - with the purpose of making itself look useful as a 'coordinator'.
3. The United States of America has sent a carrier battle group, along with other ship groups to provide upwards of 65,000 gallons of fresh water daily, along with supplies, medics, hospital-ships, engineers, and US enlisted men ready to volunteer for the task of providing aid to the tsunami victims.
4. Private US individuals and corporations are making generous donations. The company I work for has already pleged $1,000,000 of money for relief. I have donated $100 of my own money - a per-capita rate 50 times the US-Government's monetary aid to date. Amazon.com - an online store based in the US has collected $13,574,660.56 in just a few short days - and I would be most of that money is from US contributors. I would bet that in the end, contributions from US citizens and corporations will top 1 Billion USD.
Ok, I think it's clear that the US is providing aid more effectively, rapidly, and clearly than any other body. It's also clear that the UN is attempting a power-grab - flailing about, even at the risk of delaying aid in order to look useful. Read about it, think about it, and if you can spare a few bucks - donate to a charity. It's not hard to find one either.
And about charity & giving:
Nearly every major website I've seen, along with the two different chains of grocery stores I've visited in the last week, each have ways to donate right at the front-page, or checkout-line. That's the American way - and I think it's the way of humanity. Most likely, the same thing is going on throughout the much of rest of the world.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Israel has the Right to Exist
Israel has the Right to Exist, Retaining all its Current Lands*
*note: This was the original title when writtin in 1996. Since then I, along with (I would guess) most of the Jewish People worldwide have shifted opinion to support the limited exchange of land for freedom-from-terror. I don't call this "returning land" as it is so commonly referred to today, for the reasons outlined in the paper to follow.
After 2000 years of exile, the Jews recreated the state of Israel. Yet, their next 48 years would constantly remind them of their harsh years without a homeland. Israel's Arab neighbors repeatedly invaded the country, and fired rockets into rural farm communities. Besides its neighbors, the international community has often criticized Israel and questioned its right to exist. The United Nations and Britain set aside land for the Jews, but the Arabs denied the Jews a peaceful coexistence. Under immense hardship and war the Jews created a society that endorses free thought, equal rights, environmental concern, education, technology, and agriculture. They deserve the land they fought so hard to cultivate, and the homeland that they sought out for two millennia.
British Mandate of 1922
The modern conflict over Palestine began in 1922 when the British maintained control over the area. Only five years after the British and the Arabs took over Palestine from the Ottomans, the British mandated that Palestine be split into a Jewish and a Muslim state. This British mandate legitimized the Jews' possibility for a future homeland. The Jews did not create the conflict, as it was Britain's decision to give them land.
Support from Britain faltered in 1939 when the British published a white paper that gave more than two thirds of the new Jewish land to the Muslims. Pressured by Arab neighbors and settlers, the British cut the size of Israel to limit possible settlement in the area. The Jews now had a small piece of land that they would cherish, but not without future attacks on its size.
United Nations Resolution of 1947
Finally, in 1947 the British decided to give control of the area to the United Nations because the religious conflict was too difficult to handle. The UN assigned land to both the Jews, and the Arabs in Palestine. Although the land offered to the Jews was a mere one fifth of the size that Britain mandated in 1922, the Jews quickly accepted the UN decision. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence from Britain, but independence wasn’t as rewarding as the Jews thought.
The state of Israel was established as of 14 May 1948. At once, five Arab armies, in support of the Palestinians, attacked the new state but were ultimately defeated. At the end of what is known as the first Arab-Israeli War, Israel's victory gave it more territory while Jordan took the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip. (Palestine)
An Arab Internet publication openly acknowledges that Arab armies united to destroy the new Jewish state. The new Israeli leaders had no intention of war or land gains, yet ultimately the Arabs lost land to the Israelis.
Apparently the surrounding Arab countries learned little from their loss in 1948, so in 1967 they decided to attack Israel again.
Israel found itself faced by hostile Arab armies on all fronts. As Egypt had violated the arrangements agreed upon following the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the south, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the east and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the north.
At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights under Israel's control. As a result, the northern villages were freed from 19 years of recurrent Syrian shelling; the passage of Israeli and Israel-bound shipping through the Straits of Tiran was ensured; and Jerusalem, which had been divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule since 1949, was reunified under Israel's authority. (Six Day War, Israeli Foreign Ministry )
The Arabs forced Israel into a death match it did not chose to fight. Ironically the war resulted in a doubling of Israel's land area and the occupation of the strategic and beautiful Golan Heights in the North. Without any provocation Arab countries violently challenged Israel's existence. Only the perseverance and passion of the Jews could win a battle so outnumbered on all sides. After the Six Day War, in which Syria lost the Golan Heights, Syria officially declared that Israel illegally occupied the Golan region, and demands it back. Syria must explain why unprovoked war is legal, and occupation is not, for its demands to be taken seriously. The government of Israel does not have a historical claim on the Golan, however no other country has a more fair claim.
The Arabs were not concerned with the quality of their land, as were the Jews with their new Israel. A United Nations report on land mines revealed that every neighbor of Israel planted land mines in their soil. The UN’s report concisely states, “Israel is not mine affected.” (Land Mine Reports: Israel, UN) Israel has also banned the export of Anti-Personnel mines and agreed to a multinational agreement banning such mines. Although Egypt has over the last two decades begun removing mines from its land, the number of existing mines in Egypt is staggering. The Egyptian report to the UN estimates there are still 23 million land mines on Egyptian soil. The last two countries bordering Israel, Jordan and Syria, both have problems with land mines. The government of Jordan realized the negative impact of land mine use in June 1995 and reported to the United Nations Secretary General that, “They [land mines] have constituted an enormous economic burden and they have also affected development plans, particularly in the Jordan Valley and on the northern front.” (Land Mine Reports: Jordan , UN)
From the early 1900s all through the two wars, the Jews were busy transforming the desert land of Palestine into the agricultural marvel Israel is today.
Agriculture in Israel is a success story of a long, hard struggle against adverse conditions and of making maximum use of scarce water and arable land. When Jews began resettling their historic homeland in the late 19th century, their first efforts were directed towards turning barren land into fertile fields. (Agriculture, Israeli Foreign Ministry)
The pioneers of Israel were not invading, but preparing the land for future settlement. As early as twenty years before the state of Israel was established, the volunteer "pioneers" were busy building kibbutzim, or socialistic farming communities all over Palestine.
Kibbutz Beit Hashita was founded by members of a pioneering youth movement in 1928, twenty years before the establishment of the State of Israel. The collective spirit of such early pioneers resulted in the rapid development of an intensive agricultural sector in Israel, and so Beit Hashita got its start. (Beit Hashita)
The Israelis' first priority in settling Palestine was neither defensive security nor offensive armament. Their “collective spirit” aided the pioneers in the “rapid development of an intensive agriculture sector.” The volunteer youth sacrificed much of their childhood lives to create a lush environment for the future.
One youth volunteer exemplified the desire to create the Jewish homeland that until 1947, never existed. In 1939 Hannah Szenes arrived in Palestine alone, 18 years of age, and ready to build a community in Israel. She studied agriculture at the Nahalal Girls school for two years, and graduated with the highest honors. The best kibbutzim all over Israel asked the skilled Hannah to join their community but she rejected them all.
Hannah rejected the kibbutz in the lush green valleys of the Galilee. She rejected the kibbutz with Hungarian settlers and the kibbutz founded by artists, writers, and intellectuals. She rejected the kibbutz with the fine tractors and chicken coops. Hannah rejected everything that suggested ease, familiarity, and comfort. "I don't want anything ready-made," she told her diary. Hannah wanted more than just to belong to a kibbutz. She wanted to begin one. (pg. 53, Shur)
Hannah would not take the route of an easy assimilation into Palestine. Instead, she would venture to start a new kibbutz. The volunteers who tilled the soil of Palestine took nothing but hard packed dirt away from Arab opportunity, and with it created self sufficient agricultural communities.
“The Hebrew education system was established approximately fifty years before Israel gained independence.” (Education, Israel Foreign Ministry) Even before the kibbutzim were founded, the Hebrew educational system was well underway. Jewish law states that upon entering a new land, one of the first buildings that the Jews build must be a schoolhouse. Israel spares no expense on education, and places it as an utmost priority.
Their children have studied in the Israeli education system, which now provides compulsory education from age 5 to 16. Jewish tradition has for many centuries placed an extremely strong emphasis on education and study as lifelong obligations, a tradition that continues to this day, and is reflected in the fact that almost every third person in Israel studies in a formal education framework. (Education, Israel Foreign Ministry)
The current education system in Israel is very strong in many areas. Modern technology, including the Internet, is available in many schools from kindergartens to universities. This is a stark contrast to the level of technology embraced by Israel’s Arab neighbors. A search on the Yahoo Internet service for Syrian Internet sites yielded several sites with information about Syria, but these sites were located primarily in Saudi Arabia, and Texas. Not one site listed on the Yahoo index was located in Syria. In contrast, Israel has over fifty K-12 schools with current access to the Internet. Every university in Israel has full Internet access, as well as dozens of high tech organizations and companies.
One of the most significant scientists of all time was a passionate Zionist. Albert Einstein supported Israel as a Jewish homeland, and hoped for a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs.
The Jews of Palestine did not fight for political independence for its own sake, but they fought to achieve free immigration for the Jews of many countries where their very existence was in danger; free immigration also for all those who were longing for a life among their own. (Pg. 201, Einstein)
Einstein explained that the Jews of Israel fought not for political gain, but for the right of the Jews worldwide to enter the Jewish homeland. Einstein was in favor of living in concert with the Arabs. He recognized the inherent differences between the Jews and the Arabs, and sought a method for them to come together. At several political conventions Einstein spoke on behalf of an Israel that warmly includes both Arabs and Jews.
One of these ideals is peace, based on understanding and self-restraint, and not on violence. If we are imbued with this ideal, our joy becomes somewhat mingled with sadness, because our relations with the Arabs are far from this ideal at the present time. It may well be that we would have reached this ideal, had we been permitted to work out, undisturbed by others [Britain], our relations with our neighbors, for we want peace and we realize that our future development depends on peace. (pg. 201, Einstein)
He was truly a visionary and recognized the need for peace as an underlying foundation for a political existence. Einstein knew that the Arabs and the Jews would one day, if peace was ever achieved, come together to the point where they could live as close neighbors. The Israeli government upholds these ideals, by offering full citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs, and seeking trade agreements with Arab countries. As a country and a people, Israel seeks a state of concert with its closest neighbors, the Muslims. Until the recent peace efforts the Arabs never, sought peace with Israel. The plan of many Arab countries and organizations was to “push Israel into the sea.” Obviously, the Jews were a more tolerant people willing to compromise and share their new land. Justice can’t allow a people willing to share what land they have to lose that very land to another people unwilling to share, with no more just a claim on that land. Israel is the first country to occupy Palestine that allows freedom of religion and expression. It is only fair that the Israelis should keep governing control over this land.
Surrounded by enemies and terrorists the Jews struggled to build a strong and healthy state. Israel is now the home to over 5 million Jews and nearly 1 million Muslims who share an advanced agricultural and educational heritage. In 1991 and 1992, “Israel attained the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate” (Economy, Israel Foreign Ministry) of any Western country. The Jews have so vastly improved the land formerly known as Palestine that it can no longer be portrayed as a politically transferable, arid desert. The people of Israel have earned a homeland by their incredible struggle to survive under the worst conditions.
Works Cited
Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. Ed.Cal Seelig
New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. 1982
Shur, Maxine. Hannah Szenes~ a song of light~.
New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986
The Six Day War. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Agriculture of Israel. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Israeli Education System. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division.
Internet Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Economy of Israel. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Story of Beit Hashita. Online. Beit Hashita Web Site. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996.
Available http://www.gilboa.co.il
Palestine Home Page. Online. ArabNet Web Site. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996.
Available http://www.arab.net
Land Mine Reports. Online. United Nations Document Retrieval System. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available http://www.un.org
British Mandate of 1922. Map. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information
Division. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
United Nations Resolution of 1947. Map. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information
Division. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
*note: This was the original title when writtin in 1996. Since then I, along with (I would guess) most of the Jewish People worldwide have shifted opinion to support the limited exchange of land for freedom-from-terror. I don't call this "returning land" as it is so commonly referred to today, for the reasons outlined in the paper to follow.
After 2000 years of exile, the Jews recreated the state of Israel. Yet, their next 48 years would constantly remind them of their harsh years without a homeland. Israel's Arab neighbors repeatedly invaded the country, and fired rockets into rural farm communities. Besides its neighbors, the international community has often criticized Israel and questioned its right to exist. The United Nations and Britain set aside land for the Jews, but the Arabs denied the Jews a peaceful coexistence. Under immense hardship and war the Jews created a society that endorses free thought, equal rights, environmental concern, education, technology, and agriculture. They deserve the land they fought so hard to cultivate, and the homeland that they sought out for two millennia.
British Mandate of 1922
The modern conflict over Palestine began in 1922 when the British maintained control over the area. Only five years after the British and the Arabs took over Palestine from the Ottomans, the British mandated that Palestine be split into a Jewish and a Muslim state. This British mandate legitimized the Jews' possibility for a future homeland. The Jews did not create the conflict, as it was Britain's decision to give them land.
Support from Britain faltered in 1939 when the British published a white paper that gave more than two thirds of the new Jewish land to the Muslims. Pressured by Arab neighbors and settlers, the British cut the size of Israel to limit possible settlement in the area. The Jews now had a small piece of land that they would cherish, but not without future attacks on its size.
United Nations Resolution of 1947
Finally, in 1947 the British decided to give control of the area to the United Nations because the religious conflict was too difficult to handle. The UN assigned land to both the Jews, and the Arabs in Palestine. Although the land offered to the Jews was a mere one fifth of the size that Britain mandated in 1922, the Jews quickly accepted the UN decision. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence from Britain, but independence wasn’t as rewarding as the Jews thought.
The state of Israel was established as of 14 May 1948. At once, five Arab armies, in support of the Palestinians, attacked the new state but were ultimately defeated. At the end of what is known as the first Arab-Israeli War, Israel's victory gave it more territory while Jordan took the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip. (Palestine)
An Arab Internet publication openly acknowledges that Arab armies united to destroy the new Jewish state. The new Israeli leaders had no intention of war or land gains, yet ultimately the Arabs lost land to the Israelis.
Apparently the surrounding Arab countries learned little from their loss in 1948, so in 1967 they decided to attack Israel again.
Israel found itself faced by hostile Arab armies on all fronts. As Egypt had violated the arrangements agreed upon following the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the south, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the east and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the north.
At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights under Israel's control. As a result, the northern villages were freed from 19 years of recurrent Syrian shelling; the passage of Israeli and Israel-bound shipping through the Straits of Tiran was ensured; and Jerusalem, which had been divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule since 1949, was reunified under Israel's authority. (Six Day War, Israeli Foreign Ministry )
The Arabs forced Israel into a death match it did not chose to fight. Ironically the war resulted in a doubling of Israel's land area and the occupation of the strategic and beautiful Golan Heights in the North. Without any provocation Arab countries violently challenged Israel's existence. Only the perseverance and passion of the Jews could win a battle so outnumbered on all sides. After the Six Day War, in which Syria lost the Golan Heights, Syria officially declared that Israel illegally occupied the Golan region, and demands it back. Syria must explain why unprovoked war is legal, and occupation is not, for its demands to be taken seriously. The government of Israel does not have a historical claim on the Golan, however no other country has a more fair claim.
The Arabs were not concerned with the quality of their land, as were the Jews with their new Israel. A United Nations report on land mines revealed that every neighbor of Israel planted land mines in their soil. The UN’s report concisely states, “Israel is not mine affected.” (Land Mine Reports: Israel, UN) Israel has also banned the export of Anti-Personnel mines and agreed to a multinational agreement banning such mines. Although Egypt has over the last two decades begun removing mines from its land, the number of existing mines in Egypt is staggering. The Egyptian report to the UN estimates there are still 23 million land mines on Egyptian soil. The last two countries bordering Israel, Jordan and Syria, both have problems with land mines. The government of Jordan realized the negative impact of land mine use in June 1995 and reported to the United Nations Secretary General that, “They [land mines] have constituted an enormous economic burden and they have also affected development plans, particularly in the Jordan Valley and on the northern front.” (Land Mine Reports: Jordan , UN)
From the early 1900s all through the two wars, the Jews were busy transforming the desert land of Palestine into the agricultural marvel Israel is today.
Agriculture in Israel is a success story of a long, hard struggle against adverse conditions and of making maximum use of scarce water and arable land. When Jews began resettling their historic homeland in the late 19th century, their first efforts were directed towards turning barren land into fertile fields. (Agriculture, Israeli Foreign Ministry)
The pioneers of Israel were not invading, but preparing the land for future settlement. As early as twenty years before the state of Israel was established, the volunteer "pioneers" were busy building kibbutzim, or socialistic farming communities all over Palestine.
Kibbutz Beit Hashita was founded by members of a pioneering youth movement in 1928, twenty years before the establishment of the State of Israel. The collective spirit of such early pioneers resulted in the rapid development of an intensive agricultural sector in Israel, and so Beit Hashita got its start. (Beit Hashita)
The Israelis' first priority in settling Palestine was neither defensive security nor offensive armament. Their “collective spirit” aided the pioneers in the “rapid development of an intensive agriculture sector.” The volunteer youth sacrificed much of their childhood lives to create a lush environment for the future.
One youth volunteer exemplified the desire to create the Jewish homeland that until 1947, never existed. In 1939 Hannah Szenes arrived in Palestine alone, 18 years of age, and ready to build a community in Israel. She studied agriculture at the Nahalal Girls school for two years, and graduated with the highest honors. The best kibbutzim all over Israel asked the skilled Hannah to join their community but she rejected them all.
Hannah rejected the kibbutz in the lush green valleys of the Galilee. She rejected the kibbutz with Hungarian settlers and the kibbutz founded by artists, writers, and intellectuals. She rejected the kibbutz with the fine tractors and chicken coops. Hannah rejected everything that suggested ease, familiarity, and comfort. "I don't want anything ready-made," she told her diary. Hannah wanted more than just to belong to a kibbutz. She wanted to begin one. (pg. 53, Shur)
Hannah would not take the route of an easy assimilation into Palestine. Instead, she would venture to start a new kibbutz. The volunteers who tilled the soil of Palestine took nothing but hard packed dirt away from Arab opportunity, and with it created self sufficient agricultural communities.
“The Hebrew education system was established approximately fifty years before Israel gained independence.” (Education, Israel Foreign Ministry) Even before the kibbutzim were founded, the Hebrew educational system was well underway. Jewish law states that upon entering a new land, one of the first buildings that the Jews build must be a schoolhouse. Israel spares no expense on education, and places it as an utmost priority.
Their children have studied in the Israeli education system, which now provides compulsory education from age 5 to 16. Jewish tradition has for many centuries placed an extremely strong emphasis on education and study as lifelong obligations, a tradition that continues to this day, and is reflected in the fact that almost every third person in Israel studies in a formal education framework. (Education, Israel Foreign Ministry)
The current education system in Israel is very strong in many areas. Modern technology, including the Internet, is available in many schools from kindergartens to universities. This is a stark contrast to the level of technology embraced by Israel’s Arab neighbors. A search on the Yahoo Internet service for Syrian Internet sites yielded several sites with information about Syria, but these sites were located primarily in Saudi Arabia, and Texas. Not one site listed on the Yahoo index was located in Syria. In contrast, Israel has over fifty K-12 schools with current access to the Internet. Every university in Israel has full Internet access, as well as dozens of high tech organizations and companies.
One of the most significant scientists of all time was a passionate Zionist. Albert Einstein supported Israel as a Jewish homeland, and hoped for a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs.
The Jews of Palestine did not fight for political independence for its own sake, but they fought to achieve free immigration for the Jews of many countries where their very existence was in danger; free immigration also for all those who were longing for a life among their own. (Pg. 201, Einstein)
Einstein explained that the Jews of Israel fought not for political gain, but for the right of the Jews worldwide to enter the Jewish homeland. Einstein was in favor of living in concert with the Arabs. He recognized the inherent differences between the Jews and the Arabs, and sought a method for them to come together. At several political conventions Einstein spoke on behalf of an Israel that warmly includes both Arabs and Jews.
One of these ideals is peace, based on understanding and self-restraint, and not on violence. If we are imbued with this ideal, our joy becomes somewhat mingled with sadness, because our relations with the Arabs are far from this ideal at the present time. It may well be that we would have reached this ideal, had we been permitted to work out, undisturbed by others [Britain], our relations with our neighbors, for we want peace and we realize that our future development depends on peace. (pg. 201, Einstein)
He was truly a visionary and recognized the need for peace as an underlying foundation for a political existence. Einstein knew that the Arabs and the Jews would one day, if peace was ever achieved, come together to the point where they could live as close neighbors. The Israeli government upholds these ideals, by offering full citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs, and seeking trade agreements with Arab countries. As a country and a people, Israel seeks a state of concert with its closest neighbors, the Muslims. Until the recent peace efforts the Arabs never, sought peace with Israel. The plan of many Arab countries and organizations was to “push Israel into the sea.” Obviously, the Jews were a more tolerant people willing to compromise and share their new land. Justice can’t allow a people willing to share what land they have to lose that very land to another people unwilling to share, with no more just a claim on that land. Israel is the first country to occupy Palestine that allows freedom of religion and expression. It is only fair that the Israelis should keep governing control over this land.
Surrounded by enemies and terrorists the Jews struggled to build a strong and healthy state. Israel is now the home to over 5 million Jews and nearly 1 million Muslims who share an advanced agricultural and educational heritage. In 1991 and 1992, “Israel attained the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate” (Economy, Israel Foreign Ministry) of any Western country. The Jews have so vastly improved the land formerly known as Palestine that it can no longer be portrayed as a politically transferable, arid desert. The people of Israel have earned a homeland by their incredible struggle to survive under the worst conditions.
Works Cited
Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. Ed.Cal Seelig
New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. 1982
Shur, Maxine. Hannah Szenes~ a song of light~.
New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986
The Six Day War. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Agriculture of Israel. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Israeli Education System. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division.
Internet Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Economy of Israel. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information Division. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
The Story of Beit Hashita. Online. Beit Hashita Web Site. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996.
Available http://www.gilboa.co.il
Palestine Home Page. Online. ArabNet Web Site. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996.
Available http://www.arab.net
Land Mine Reports. Online. United Nations Document Retrieval System. Internet.
Nov. 20, 1996. Available http://www.un.org
British Mandate of 1922. Map. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information
Division. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
United Nations Resolution of 1947. Map. Online. Israel Foreign Ministry, Information
Division. Internet. Nov. 20, 1996. Available gopher://israel-info.gov.il.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Idea Capitalism
Idea Capitalism says that the best ideas bubble to the surface of a free community. The more free the community, and the larger and more fluid the idea-spreading mechanism, the better the ideas will be.
It is no small wonder that the free West is the home of soo much innovation in nearly every Human endeavor. Our culture, while not perfect, is one of the best at providing for the free exchange of ideas. We invented the Airplane - why? Because the Wright Brothers were free to ask questions, learn from others, share ideas, and tinker freely and without fear. We went to the moon first. The Internet was invented here. More medical, bio-tech, electronic, aerospace, and software happens in the US than any other country on Earth. This is not due to some special natural resource. It is due to the framers of the Constitution of the US believing that a government should enable people to better themselves and their community, rather than the other way around.
Since I was born, any person in the US could freely start their own business of any legal kind. If they were successful and didn't break the law (and all of our peace-time laws are open for all to read), they got to keep their profits less taxes. The government could not take away their winnings. If a person has a good idea, and uses it to profit, good for them.
This may sound simple to those living in a free society, but imagine for a moment living in any of the Middle East dictatorships. First, most of the Musilim Middle East doesn't allow a Woman to work outside of the home - there goes immediately 50% of the brain-trust of your people. Wonder why the Arab world is suffering from poor economics & last-millenia technology? Try the fact that you prevent half of your people from contributing to society beyond the walls of the home! Next, let's say you are a successful man in Iran, running a really great chain of Falafel stands. You're doing great, when suddenly the corrupt, closed, non-written-law-observing police crack down on you for fines that you violated a newly interpreted section of the Koran on Halal food preparation. Bam - most of your business is gone, and all of your profits from years of labor is taken by the corruption that is your dictatorship. Let me ask - in which country are you going to see more innovation? US 2, Ira(q|n) -1.
Idea Capitalism is the force that good ideas win. The global stage is forming in which the US is far more powerful in her ideas than in her military might. The UN for example, the body supposedly for worldwide peace and stability has turned out to be nothing more than a sounding board for militant dictators and human-rights abusers to sound self important in front of a non-elected body (the UN). It's no small wonder that the UN does not apportion votes on any basis to the populations of the countries it serves. The Ideas that the US has already embraced however are spreading like fire thru the Middle East and Asia. Even with the best efforts of China to censor public comment (blogs, Western media, etc) the hard-line communist government of China is slowly relenting to the forces of Capitalism.
Idea Capitalism has yet to be perfectly defined. It is not simply a plurality vote on an issue, nor a weighted vote or any kind of vote at all. The current mechanism by which ideas win or lose is by their implementation in the world. In limited use, Idea Capitalism is working wonders in Open Source Communities around the world. It is also working on various moderated forums such as blogs, slashdot, etc... where although one side of an argument may post/vote more often, an other side has such a clear winning Idea that it is inescapable which Idea "won" in the discussion.
Idea Capitalism is already the mechanism by which the West makes decisions. It is not perfect, and the medium is not entirely fluid. We have a two-party system of representation - an Idea many are seeing as flawed, and if enough interested people take notice, we will change our system with a better Idea.
It is no small wonder that the free West is the home of soo much innovation in nearly every Human endeavor. Our culture, while not perfect, is one of the best at providing for the free exchange of ideas. We invented the Airplane - why? Because the Wright Brothers were free to ask questions, learn from others, share ideas, and tinker freely and without fear. We went to the moon first. The Internet was invented here. More medical, bio-tech, electronic, aerospace, and software happens in the US than any other country on Earth. This is not due to some special natural resource. It is due to the framers of the Constitution of the US believing that a government should enable people to better themselves and their community, rather than the other way around.
Since I was born, any person in the US could freely start their own business of any legal kind. If they were successful and didn't break the law (and all of our peace-time laws are open for all to read), they got to keep their profits less taxes. The government could not take away their winnings. If a person has a good idea, and uses it to profit, good for them.
This may sound simple to those living in a free society, but imagine for a moment living in any of the Middle East dictatorships. First, most of the Musilim Middle East doesn't allow a Woman to work outside of the home - there goes immediately 50% of the brain-trust of your people. Wonder why the Arab world is suffering from poor economics & last-millenia technology? Try the fact that you prevent half of your people from contributing to society beyond the walls of the home! Next, let's say you are a successful man in Iran, running a really great chain of Falafel stands. You're doing great, when suddenly the corrupt, closed, non-written-law-observing police crack down on you for fines that you violated a newly interpreted section of the Koran on Halal food preparation. Bam - most of your business is gone, and all of your profits from years of labor is taken by the corruption that is your dictatorship. Let me ask - in which country are you going to see more innovation? US 2, Ira(q|n) -1.
Idea Capitalism is the force that good ideas win. The global stage is forming in which the US is far more powerful in her ideas than in her military might. The UN for example, the body supposedly for worldwide peace and stability has turned out to be nothing more than a sounding board for militant dictators and human-rights abusers to sound self important in front of a non-elected body (the UN). It's no small wonder that the UN does not apportion votes on any basis to the populations of the countries it serves. The Ideas that the US has already embraced however are spreading like fire thru the Middle East and Asia. Even with the best efforts of China to censor public comment (blogs, Western media, etc) the hard-line communist government of China is slowly relenting to the forces of Capitalism.
Idea Capitalism has yet to be perfectly defined. It is not simply a plurality vote on an issue, nor a weighted vote or any kind of vote at all. The current mechanism by which ideas win or lose is by their implementation in the world. In limited use, Idea Capitalism is working wonders in Open Source Communities around the world. It is also working on various moderated forums such as blogs, slashdot, etc... where although one side of an argument may post/vote more often, an other side has such a clear winning Idea that it is inescapable which Idea "won" in the discussion.
Idea Capitalism is already the mechanism by which the West makes decisions. It is not perfect, and the medium is not entirely fluid. We have a two-party system of representation - an Idea many are seeing as flawed, and if enough interested people take notice, we will change our system with a better Idea.
On Blogs, Democracy, and The Capitalism of Ideas
A strange thing happened during this election cycle. Major stories were first reported, refuted, held-up, and invalidated by blogs.
Is this surprising? In an age when photos are beamed electronically and news anchorpeople are nothing more than talking heads reading the AP-newswire, why shouldn't we share information - person to person?
Let's imagine the year 2025 for a moment. (these predictions are always wrong, hear me out)
Assumptions:
* At least 75% of people in the developed world always carry wirelessly interconnected devices on their person with more power, interconnected ability, and human-interface capability than a computer of today.
* We've found a way (already have this today, perhaps perfected) that people can communicate in any language of their choice - i.e. language is no longer a barrier in the free exchange of ideas.
* These devices people carry will be able to broadcast the media format of the time, likely far advanced from today's 2D video.
* Several breakthru ideas in human-computer-human communication will take place in the next 20 years.
Prediction:
Technology will enable people living in 2025 (give or take a decade) to communicate instantly, effortlessly, and with computer-aided *interaction on a global scale. The fundamental ideas behind today's blogs and community moderated sites (eg. slashdot.org ) will live-on and likely expand. Imaging a world in which a real-time conversation takes place between a billion people an a commercial entity? Imagine Apple computer having a single converstaion with a million customers? Even with today's technology it is concievable, and with tomorrows I say it is a near certainty.
On the Capitalism of Ideas. The Internet as it is today consists of data islands (Websites) with large numbers of contributors. Sites have grown to have moderation (slashdot, craigslist) and many now have meta-moderation (slashdot) where users can contribute a moderation on other users moderation. In this way, particularly when there are millions of contributors, it becomes possible to have both differences in ideas with moderation of quality and rationality.
Here are two different political scenarios in which this kind of community discussion might likely have changed the outcome of world events in the past decade.
1. The Submarine Kursk tragedy. I would bet on it, that if there were any honest, idea-capitalism based discussion amongst Russian civilians during this incident, the US rescue effort would have been allowed to proceed. There is no guarantee that they would have been successful, but they would have tried. Today's line is that hindsight is 20/20. Tomorrow's line for someone aligned with a failed idea might well be that "I wish my idea lost".
2. US-Iraq war. Without taking a stand at the moment, could you imagine a forum of 1/10th of the US population actually discussing the war, the options, the goals, and coming to an agreement? It's tough, really tough given that long and ugly election season we just went thru.
But imagine it for a few seconds, either scenario, people on their lunch breaks, commute home, interacting on a massive distributed scale. Politicians would be forced to listen to the ebb and flow of this kind of communication medium more than any poll of the past.
Revolution is coming, but unlike anything Mankind has ever seen since the invention of Fire and Language. People are for the first time communicating with people they do not know and may never meet for the sake of promoting their ideas and opinions. It will be impossible to seperate the population into a dual system of left and right, red and blue, as ideas will win and lose.
Is this surprising? In an age when photos are beamed electronically and news anchorpeople are nothing more than talking heads reading the AP-newswire, why shouldn't we share information - person to person?
Let's imagine the year 2025 for a moment. (these predictions are always wrong, hear me out)
Assumptions:
* At least 75% of people in the developed world always carry wirelessly interconnected devices on their person with more power, interconnected ability, and human-interface capability than a computer of today.
* We've found a way (already have this today, perhaps perfected) that people can communicate in any language of their choice - i.e. language is no longer a barrier in the free exchange of ideas.
* These devices people carry will be able to broadcast the media format of the time, likely far advanced from today's 2D video.
* Several breakthru ideas in human-computer-human communication will take place in the next 20 years.
Prediction:
Technology will enable people living in 2025 (give or take a decade) to communicate instantly, effortlessly, and with computer-aided *interaction on a global scale. The fundamental ideas behind today's blogs and community moderated sites (eg. slashdot.org ) will live-on and likely expand. Imaging a world in which a real-time conversation takes place between a billion people an a commercial entity? Imagine Apple computer having a single converstaion with a million customers? Even with today's technology it is concievable, and with tomorrows I say it is a near certainty.
On the Capitalism of Ideas. The Internet as it is today consists of data islands (Websites) with large numbers of contributors. Sites have grown to have moderation (slashdot, craigslist) and many now have meta-moderation (slashdot) where users can contribute a moderation on other users moderation. In this way, particularly when there are millions of contributors, it becomes possible to have both differences in ideas with moderation of quality and rationality.
Here are two different political scenarios in which this kind of community discussion might likely have changed the outcome of world events in the past decade.
1. The Submarine Kursk tragedy. I would bet on it, that if there were any honest, idea-capitalism based discussion amongst Russian civilians during this incident, the US rescue effort would have been allowed to proceed. There is no guarantee that they would have been successful, but they would have tried. Today's line is that hindsight is 20/20. Tomorrow's line for someone aligned with a failed idea might well be that "I wish my idea lost".
2. US-Iraq war. Without taking a stand at the moment, could you imagine a forum of 1/10th of the US population actually discussing the war, the options, the goals, and coming to an agreement? It's tough, really tough given that long and ugly election season we just went thru.
But imagine it for a few seconds, either scenario, people on their lunch breaks, commute home, interacting on a massive distributed scale. Politicians would be forced to listen to the ebb and flow of this kind of communication medium more than any poll of the past.
Revolution is coming, but unlike anything Mankind has ever seen since the invention of Fire and Language. People are for the first time communicating with people they do not know and may never meet for the sake of promoting their ideas and opinions. It will be impossible to seperate the population into a dual system of left and right, red and blue, as ideas will win and lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)