June 01, 2004
President Bush’s speech at Normandy, 2004
Steven Den Beste has posted his fantasy of President Bush’s speech at Normandy. I might as well post mine.
Sixty years ago our soldiers came to these shores to save this land from brutal dictatorship – savage tyranny on a scale never seen before – many of them never to come home. By the end of the Battle of Normandy, there were over 200,000 allied casualties, plus 20,000 French civilian casualties – mostly collateral damage of allied bombing. Today these numbers would be unacceptable – too high a price to pay for another country’s freedom. Even if allied casualties were minimal, 20,000 French civilian casualties would be too high a price to pay. The French would rather be Nazi slaves than lose 20,000 civilians and be free. No matter that the Nazis killed many times that number in France alone – it’s purely an internal matter, they would say. The US is in violation of international law. The President is a war criminal. The Americans are acting unilaterally, with only the usual Anglo-Saxon hangers-on and a few suspect French exiles that are, no doubt, pawns of the Americans.
The most tragic thing is that this horrific loss of life, not to mention the murders committed by the Nazis, could have been prevented by a modicum of courage at an earlier date.
America didn’t go to war willingly. The American peace camp kept us out of the war while it raged in Europe and Asia, while Germany occupied most of the continent of Europe, and began the “Final Solution” – the systematic extermination of the Jews. It was only when the United States itself was attacked that we went to war. Who knows how many lives we would have saved – our own and others’ – if we had gone to war a few years earlier.
But even this should not have been necessary. The occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany in 1941 [UPDATE: 1939, see comments], usually considered the beginning of World War II, was only the last of a long series of provocations, any one of which could have justly led to war – a shorter and less destructive war than the one which, in the end, we were forced to fight. In 1938 Germany demanded part of Czechoslovakia – the Sudetenland – which the UK and France were bound by treaty to defend. Shamefully, they backed down under the threat of violence, convincing themselves that they were acting nobly in the interest of peace. Hitler didn’t appreciate the subtlety and nuance of this thinking (or maybe he appreciated it only too well) and took it as a sign that he could occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia at will.
Six months before the German occupation of the Sudetenland, Germany occupied Austria. That was another lost opportunity to stop the Nazi terror. But the best opportunity was lost five years earlier. In 1933 Germany violated the terms of Versailles treaty, militarized the Rhineland, and occupied the Saar. It is now thought that any military opposition by France would have led to the overthrow of Hitler. But there was no opposition.
We are now engaged in another war, in another country, for the freedom of its people, the people of its region, and the world. Let us not repeat our mistakes.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30660
Comment:Correction: Czechoslovakia (or the remnants of it, after Sudetenland was passed in 1938) was occupied in March 1939, not in 1941.
Posted by: Pavel Kohout at June 2, 2004 04:44 PM Permalink
And for those who believe that "force" is never the answer...Back when Germany re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, the initial German forces leading the advance were under orders to retreat from ANY resistance. One French farmer with a shotgun standing on the road could have sent the force (3 battalions, about 3000 troops.) scurrying back to their barracks, and weaken Hitler that he would been close to finished.
But of course, the gutless among the West (Not just in France.) decided to appease Hitler because the reoccupation would, after all, right a historical wrong done to Germany...
C.T.
Posted by: C.T. at June 2, 2004 05:40 PM Permalink
Greetings to visitors from USS Clueless! I cordially invite you to visit the rest of my blog!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at June 2, 2004 06:33 PM Permalink
Let's not forget that when British, Canadian and American forces landed at Normandy in 1941, that it was the second time in twenty five years that France needed to be rescued. And also that the oppressive and punitive measures demanded by France in the Versailles treaty contributed in great measure to the economic blight in Germany that played a part in the birth and growth of the National Socialist party. While I'm thinking of it, there was this place called Dien Bien Phu in "French Indochina" where some French soldiers needed rescuing. What was it again that the US got for that effort?
Posted by: Len Faria at June 2, 2004 06:50 PM Permalink
More ridiculous French bashing I see. What is happening to this country? Everyone seems so resentful and full of hatred. Americans could take a lesson from the French it seems:
From Joe Scarbourough on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5121208/BUCHANAN: Good evening. I‘m Pat Buchanan. Joe Scarborough is in France preparing for the 60th anniversary of D-Day this weekend. He joins us live from Paris to talk about how the French are about to welcome President Bush.
Joe, how are you? Are you getting combat pay over there?
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Getting combat pay behind enemy lines.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: You‘re not damaging our relations, are you?
(LAUGHTER)
SCARBOROUGH: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
I‘ll tell you what. It‘s been a fascinating few days over here so far, as we prepare for the president coming to town. And, you know, the Paris papers obviously are not extending the president a warm welcome. “Le Monde” has been called before (INAUDIBLE)
And it‘s been predictably hostile. In fact, it‘s run some negative editorials on the president, saying he‘s coming over here to attack John Kerry. And it also says that George Bush is the exact opposite of the values that we like in Americans.
But I‘ll tell you what surprised me, Pat, the past few days. It‘s obvious that Parisians, who are thought to be predictably nasty, do like Americans. I was here in the 1980s in the middle of the Reagan administration, and there was such open hostility towards Ronald Reagan and what was happening back then and towards Americans.
But since I‘ve been over here, whether you go to cafes, whether you go in stores on the street, I can tell you, there‘s been an extraordinary warmth and kindness towards me and other Americans over here. And I‘ve talked to other Americans who come here regularly, and they say that there is—that actually Parisians are kinder to them than they‘ve been in some time. So there‘s a real disconnect in how they feel towards George W. Bush and how they feel towards Americans in general. I‘ve been very surprised. But...
BUCHANAN: They‘re sort of going out of their way, are they, Joe, to say, look, we‘ve got problems with the president and the policy of the Americans, but we‘ve got no problems with the Americans, we like them, and they‘re sort of going out of their way to compensate?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, they certainly are.
And I don‘t know. Perhaps it‘s because the 60th anniversary is coming up. But you read newspapers, you read magazines, you go past magazine stands, they‘re talking about the 60th anniversary. They believe it‘s a very big thing. Also, you look at the news. I can‘t understand exactly what they‘re saying on TV, but the news shows are also talking about the 60th anniversary coming up with great anticipation.
There‘s not this snide detachment that a lot might expect from Parisians here. And, again, as you probably know, I have probably gone after the French more than anybody in the past year, but I can tell you there‘s a kindness.
Posted by: John M at June 2, 2004 07:04 PM Permalink
It's too bad that we didn't vaporize Paris to get rid of the Nazi's. The French should have been liberated from this earth. They do deserve their 72 virgins.
Posted by: Henry David at June 2, 2004 07:04 PM Permalink
Another slight correction. The accepted beginning of World War II was not when Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. The war began began on September 1, 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.
Posted by: Atlanta Lawyer at June 2, 2004 07:13 PM Permalink
John M:
I followed the link you gave us, and found this:
TIMMERMAN: Oh, I think there‘s every effort being made by the Bush White House, by the president personally, to do so. He‘s going to have dinner with President Chirac on June 5.He‘s actually going to let Mr. Chirac speak first at the American cemetery in Normandy when they‘re there on June 6 in the morning. This is unprecedented, by the way. I was there 30 years ago for the D-Day celebrations with my first tour in France.
What do you think of the idea that Bush will have two speeches in his pocket - just waiting to see what kind of speech Chirac will give? (Even the threat of such a thing can be used to good effect.)
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at June 2, 2004 08:11 PM Permalink
What utter garbage. At least Scarborough has the guts to challenge his prejudice and travel to Normandy to see the carefully-tended American cemetaries that receive more honor than the fate Den Beste wants to bestow upon their occupants.
But as d-squared put it, your hatred of France is independent of all facts in the world. Which makes you just a bit like Osama, doesn't it?
Posted by: squibble at June 2, 2004 10:13 PM Permalink
This last post really sounds me of the "ask you why do they hate us". Just stop saying the same all along the web. After all, we have the right to think whatever we like about the French (the same they have about us).
Posted by: Sir Sefirot at June 2, 2004 10:40 PM Permalink
As a first time visitor from the Clueless, I can honestly say that the majority of the comments here are ridiculous. F the French. John M. thinks its okay if they hate our gov't, military, and leaders, as long as they are nice to our TV hosts' faces. Squibble has forgotten how the "carefully tended cemeteries" were desecrated last year, presumably by French citizens, not the gov't. And Shoogle thinks Socialism is a great way to pursue freedom and liberty.
Posted by: Rob at June 2, 2004 11:53 PM Permalink
Go ahead and pick sides if you want, but remember the French are no longer the best at anything, and since they used to be quite good at lots of things, it leads to a lot of finger-pointing, hypocrisy, and complaining (see the last 100 years of history).
--There‘s not this snide detachment that a lot might expect from Parisians here. And, again, as you probably know, I have probably gone after the French more than anybody in the past year, but I can tell you there‘s a kindness.--
Hmm, seems they were paying attention when tourism was down. After all, one does tend to catch more flies w/honey.....
Now if we can get them to change their history books and teach the fact the USSR was trying to be an empire and we aren't......instead of Papa Stalin and buds as nice old bears....John Adams pegged them 200 years ago. And after watching IKE and Ike's exchange w/deGalled......
ALso from SDB....
Posted by: Sandy P at June 3, 2004 02:40 AM Permalink
June 02, 2004
The Darkest Days
Amritas links to an astounding story of a group of 38 Jews who hid from the Nazis in caves – in one cave for half a year, until they were discovered, and in the second cave for 344 days.
The millstone really struck me. I am in my 50s but pretty strong, and I couldn't even move it. Yet Nissel Stermer carried it on his back for three or four miles. That millstone was their life. They used it to grind grain to make bread, which was the main part of their diet. Nissel must have gotten a lot of strength from his family. I think it's like the stories about mothers, full of adrenaline, gaining superhuman strength to lift cars or bend metal to save their children. Nissel knew this millstone would save his entire family. That hit me like a brick wall.
Zaida Stermer, his wife, Esther, and their six children dug up their last remaining possessions from behind their house, loaded their wagons with food and fuel, and, just before midnight, quietly fled into the darkness. Traveling with them were nearly two dozen neighbors and relatives, all fellow Jews who, like the Stermers, had so far survived a year under the German occupation of their homeland. Their destination, a large cave about five miles to the north, was their last hope of finding refuge from the Nazis' intensifying roundups and mass executions of Ukrainian Jews.
The dirt track they rode on ended by a shallow sinkhole, where the Stermers and their neighbors unloaded their carts, descended the slope, and squeezed through the cave's narrow entrance. In their first hours underground, the darkness around them must have seemed limitless. Navigating with only candles and lanterns, they would have had little depth perception and been able to see no more than a few feet. They made their way to a natural alcove not far from the entrance and huddled in the darkness. As the Stermers and the other families settled in for that first night beneath the cold, damp earth, there was little in their past to suggest that they were prepared for the ordeal ahead.
No Jew survived the Holocaust without an amazing (and usually tragic) story. I could fill up a whole blog linking to them. But this one has personal angle, which is why I’m linking to it. The caves are near the town of Korolówka, Ukraine. If you follow the link and zoom out one level (to level 5), you can see on the left a town called Kolomyja – the birthplace of my paternal grandfather. On the right is a town called Dunaivci – the birthplace of my maternal grandfather. (The names my grandfathers used are Kolomeya and Dinavitz.) With 38 people in that cave, it is more than likely that one knew a relative of mine – or even, perhaps, was one of them.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30713
Israeli Media Bias
The usual media bias is alive and well in Israel.
I could not help but notice just how downbeat and negative the general tone of Israel's news media generally proved to be, and how intent they seemed on tearing down just about everything of value in this country. With their decidedly left-wing agenda, anti-religious bias and outright demonization of certain sectors of the population, the Israeli media long ago ceased to be a unifying or even enlightening factor in the country's civic discourse.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30714
Tax revenues soar
Great news: Tax revenues soar 12.2% since January.
Income tax revenue rose 8.9% in May to NIS 6.88b. and 11.2% to NIS 34.1b. for the full five month period. Customs and VAT Authority revenue shot up 15.7%, reaching NIS 6.3b., despite a slash in customs duties on electronic appliances and a one percentage point roll back in VAT to 17%, which took effect March 1. Since January the Treasury saw a 12.9% rise in its revenue to 28b.
My big worry is that due to political issues, the government won’t survive to complete its economic program. The problem with economic policy is that good policies usually hurt in the short run and pay off 4-5 years down the road. That means that the current government has to survive that long before it can get popular support for its economics. Netanyahu has done some amazing things for the economy, the best being his pledge that, “Every additional shekel in state revenue will go to reduce taxes, not to increase the budget framework or spending”. A few months ago he did just that. Now he as another chance. Netanyahu: Do your stuff.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30716
David, I love your free market talk and lower tax vision however and a big however with the real corrosive effects of government subsidizing
Posted by: adam at June 4, 2004 04:58 PM Permalink
industry and the looting of the public coffers by special interest groups I have my doubts concerning the other class, the underclass that
does not have either the political or economic capital to fend for themselves sufficiently;in this evolving society we have 2 billion Chinese and Indian folk who are competing with US and the Eurpeans on a level that transfers great wealth
while diminishing the very consumer class that we have had in a post WW2 society. This is a form of economic war waged on the very foundations of our country which historically tried to disrupt the idea of an oligarchy type society. Look to Russia and Putin and the concerns they have with
transforming itself from a corrupt communist society to that of a more select privilaged and corrupt free market class. If this is not coherent enough I apologize for my lack of brevity.Gut Shabbos
Gini coefficients
Here’s a handy-dandy table of Gini coefficients (via The Gweilo Diaries). The Gini coefficient measures income inequality – the lower the number, the more equal. Israel comes in at .36, quite a bit more equal than the US at .41, and the same as the UK, Ireland and Portugal. I would like to see the same figures excluding immigrants. A lot of the income inequality in both Israel and the US (and perhaps the other countries) is a result of immigration, but I don’t think anyone would suggest that the immigrants would be better off if they were excluded.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30731
That's (sometimes) the trouble with formulae. They show everything...and nothing. A more useful formulation would show the dynamic of individual change inhabiting the lower end. That's where the real story is. Peasanthood - permanent or merely temporary?
Posted by: Stephen at June 2, 2004 07:08 PM Permalink
Also more telling would be the shape of the Lorenz curve, linked from the Gini page. How much of that total inequality is grinding poverty at the low end (noting that poverty in the U.S. does not particularly grind) and how much if fabulous wealth at the high end.
Posted by: triticale at June 6, 2004 03:24 AM Permalink
June 03, 2004
Ukrainian Yiddish vowel shift
Amritas links to The Darkest Days and asks, “but what's with all the vowels”?
If I knew something about Ukrainian, Polish (the region was once ruled by Poland), and Yiddish, maybe I could work out the mystery of the double names for Kolomyja/Kolomeya (j is just another spelling of the sound [y], so it's no big deal, but was e a Yiddish substitute for the y vowel?) and Dunaivci/Dinavitz (c and tz are probably just different spellings for the sound [ts], but what's with all the vowels other than a?).
At least part of the answer is the Ukrainian Yiddish vowel shift:
The main difference between the Ukraine and the normative Yiddish vowels is as follows:
'a' sometimes becomes 'o': hant -> hont (hand)
'o' becomes 'u': dos -> dus (this)
'u' becomes 'i': du -> di (you)
'e' often becomes 'ey': geven -> geveyn (was)
'ay' often becomes 'a': shraybn -> shrabn (to write)
'o' sometimes becomes 'oy': geborn -> geboyrn (born)
'r' sometimes disappear after a vowel: darf -> daf (need)
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30869
June 04, 2004
Oy and Uhy
Amritas has responded to my previous post. For those of you with Real Players, you can listen to Rabbi Yochanan the Shoemaker's Melody, played by my friend Yehoshua Rochman, while you read this post. It’s a traditional Hasidic nigun (melody) of the kind you might have once heard from Ukrainian Yiddish speakers.
Amritas says:
varfn to voyfn reminds me a bit of bird to boid in Brooklynese, though the start and end points are not quite the same. (Brooklyn oi is said to be more like 'uh-ee'; if so, then the 'oi' I've heard on TV is a spelling pronunciation.)
I've heard both oy and uhy (@y) in Yiddish. But I don’t think that it had an influence on Brooklyn English. According to Noel Pangilinen, that is a result of the Irish influence:
New Yorkers have the Irish to thank for their now famous "toity-toid ohn toid". [33rd (street) and 3rd (avenue) – DB] A Hofstra University professor, Francis Griffith, attributes New Yorkese speakers' habit of interchanging the diphthong "oi" with "er" to Gaelic language.It also agrees with my gut instinct (for what that’s worth) that Yiddish speakers would pronounce “er” something like “uhr” (or “@r”, as Amritas would say) where the “r” is not quite a uvular trill.
Speaking of, er, “er”…
I was raised in Boston, my parents were from in New York, and I spent 4 years in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania, so I've had a fair amount of contact with North-East US dialects. My impression is that the major differences are sociological rather than geographical. My parents and I speak what I might call an middle-class-North-East English, rather than a specifically Bostonian or New York English. When I hear English speakers from Montreal, for example, they sound "normal" to me. But Torontonians sound to me like Mid-Westerners.
However, there is definitely a Brooklyn accent that is different from a New York accent. For example, most New Yorkers pronounce "car" as "caw" (actually more like "c@w") while Brooklyners say "caa". (Bostonians [not me] say "cae", kind of like "cat" without the "t".)
I was disappointed with the description of the Philadelphia accent that I found in The Mid-Atlantic Dialects. The most notable and universal features (at least to me) are: “er” is pronounced R (syllabic “er”, like the “er” in better) in all positions (not just at the end of words) for example, America is pronounced AmRica; and o is pronounced like e + u (this is so pronounced that it almost sounds like two syllables to me).
The Philadelphia accented word that I thought was the funniest is pronounced RrR. Can you guess what word this is?
UPDATE: If any of you can tell me how to keep a blank window from opening up when I click on the Real Media file, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me know. (And don’t tell me to remove the <BASE> markup – I don’t want to.)
Continue reading "Oy and Uhy"RrR is Error.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30960
No alternative to oil – but don’t panic!
Steven Den Beste says there is no alternative to Arab oil. For those of you who read his post with increasing dread and desperation I have a few words of comfort.
1. They are more dependent on oil than we are. If their oil were to disappear the market would find alternatives (such as coal, as Steven points out) for us, but not for them.
2. Oil helps us more than it helps them. They sell oil to provide for their basic needs. We buy oil to provide for our (more complex) needs and advance our society and technology.
3. Competition is keeping the price of oil down: There are major non-Arab sources of oil such as Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, the UK, Norway, Nigeria and Indonesia. (On the demand side there are about 2 billion rapidly industrializing Indians and Chinese who will increase demand for oil in the short run. But don’t panic – the other factors are true also for them.)
4. Conservation is keeping the price of oil down: Businesses always seek to reduce their costs – energy is one of them.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/30991
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity
Amritas linked to an article on Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. I opened the link with some trepidation, since Amritas’s post warned:
Zoroastrianism was once a major religion which influenced Judaism and Christianity.
Not that it bothers me that Zoroastrianism might have influenced Judaism. But there seems to be a Christian concept of what Judaism is, which is not exactly right, which informs perceptions of Judaism even among philo-Semites. (When I'm in the US I often feel like people see me as mythical being come to life.) And Zoroastrianism is so essentially different from Judaism: It is a dualist religion, proposing that there are two essential forces in the world. A Zoroastrian is one who pledges fidelity to the force of good, rather than the force of evil. (I will leave it to a Zoroastrian to debate whether these forces are internal or external.) Judaism, on the other hand, is uncompromisingly monotheistic: God is all-powerful, and ultimately responsible for everything. (We do have free will, though, despite the fact that there is a will greater than ours. But I don’t want to get into that right now.)
It turned out that I had no reason to fear. The article that Amritas linked to is excellent. Nevertheless, I want to clarify a couple of points that a reader new to the subject might miss.
First, in Judaism there is no concept of Heaven or Hell in any form that remotely resembles the Christian notion of them - Satan appears only in the book of Job, and even there he is referred to as Hasatan - the satan. More important, Satan has no place in the Jewish religion outside of the context of Job. The idea of eternal reward in Judaism is deliberately left vague. Even the idea of Messiah in Judaism is deliberately vague. We are not supposed to know the answers to these questions at this time. (The same thing is true about God Himself - He is unknowable to human beings.)
Second, the major influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism (according to the article) is during what the article calls the "inter-testamental" period. For the most part, these ideas (such as Gnosticism) were rejected by Judaism, but some of them were evidently adopted by Christianity – such as Heaven, Hell, and the apocalypse.
As a child I was often asked what Jews thought about Jesus, Heaven, Hell, etc. I sometimes found myself saying things that I knew weren’t right, but didn’t know why. It was because the questions themselves don’t make sense in the Jewish context (what color is sound?). In English, the word “religion” is almost synonymous with “faith” – they are often used interchangeably. But Judaism is not really a faith-based religion (though there are a few articles of faith, like belief in one God). It is more like a lifestyle. The question Judaism asks is not so much, “What should a person believe” but “How should life be lived”.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31021
Gershom Scholem theorized that there was a strong Gnostic influence on the Jewish mystical tradition, especially Laurianic Kabbalah. He ventured the possible existance of a sect of Jewish Gnostics contemporary to the Christian Gnostic tradition. Obviously, Kabbalah is not dualistic, but there are definately Gnostic overtones to a lot of its metaphysics, particularly the idea of a demiurgical aspect to Creation.
Posted by: benjamin at June 7, 2004 10:08 PM Permalink
June 06, 2004
Ronald Wilson Reagan – February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004
Ronald Reagan is dead. He had a profound influence on my generation – children of the ‘70’s, the era of stagflagion and malaise. I was a few months shy of voting age when he was first elected President in 1980. I clearly remember the loathing directed toward him by my fellow students and professors – comments that were made off-hand, with the clear assumption that all thinking people would agree with them. But Reagan proved the critics wrong. For a man derided as in imbecile, he did some pretty smart things. He brought down the Soviet Union, he restored the US economy, and he made it respectable to fight creeping government encroachment on the liberty of the American people.
When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.
I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.
– Ronald Reagan, November 5, 1994
UPDATE: Toren Smith (via James Hudnall via Amritas) posts a great picture and a lot of great quotes.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31184
Trackback from The Safety Valve, A great and decent man:
Ronald Reagan is gone. I will forever regret that (as I was not yet a citizen) I missed what is...
David, is the myth of Reagan so all important when looking through the glass of history? The collapse of communism just shows that the effort of collective restraint paid more of a dividend than all the committments this country made through its military might.It was the economic not the military circumstance that ultimately fell
Posted by: Adam at June 6, 2004 07:47 PM Permalink
the paper tiger in the same vein that all totalitarian regimes follow.For Reagan to go to
that German soldier cemetary was unexscusable not
to mention what befell the very Jews of
Europe by these very men(cowards).
June 07, 2004
Reagan in the Gulag
Natan Sharansky writes a moving account of the effect of Reagan’s words on the Soviet Gulag.
In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth – a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.
At the time, I never imagined that three years later, I would be in the White House telling this story to the president. When he summoned some of his staff to hear what I had said, I understood that there had been much criticism of Reagan's decision to cast the struggle between the superpowers as a battle between good and evil. Well, Reagan was right and his critics were wrong.
This is a story that I hear over and over from people who were behind the Iron Curtain at the time. It is amazing that the state-controlled newspapers didn’t anticipate this reaction, and didn’t suppress the story. But of course, I’ve encountered this phenomenon many times – people who associate only with like-minded people are blind to the effect of their words on those who disagree with them.
Natan Sharansky has a special place in Israeli politics. He is, of course, highly respected as a hero – though his entry into politics resulted in a feeling of betrayal from those who disagree with him, mostly on the left. But he is not exactly a right-winger either. He has a genuinely nuanced view of things (not the false nuance of those attempting to deceive). He was against the Oslo accords from the beginning, not because he is against peace, but because he is against tyranny – he objected to the establishment of a Palestinian dictatorship. Somehow the peace-love-and-brotherhood left supported (and still supports) Arafat’s terrorist dictatorship. (It should be pointed out that Arafat terrorizes his subjects MUCH MORE than he terrorizes Israelis.) I agree with Sharansky – there will be no peace in the Middle East until it democratizes. If the Arabs were democratic, the ethnic conflicts in the region would be like those in Belgium or Canada. They wouldn’t go away, but they wouldn’t impact day-to-day life either.
I highly recommend Sharansky’s book, Fear No Evil, about his experience in the Soviet Gulag – how he stood up to the system, and manipulated it in order to survive. It is an excellent book. I, though, have a special fondness for it. I read it shortly after I came to Israel. In the epilogue, he himself describes coming to Israel. Throughout his years in prison, he kept himself alive through his vision of coming to Israel, and his vision of his wife. What was it like to finally arrive, and discover that Israel was a real country, and his wife a real person – each with their problems, far from perfect? Instead of fighting a battle on a cosmic scale – the battle between good and evil – he had to fight the trivial daily battles of ordinary life. He talks about it in the epilogue, and at a difficult time in my life, it gave me strength.
UPDATE: When Sharansky spoke of criticism of Reagan's decision, I think that he meant within the administration. Here’s Peter Robinson’s behind-the-scene account of the Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech.
The speech was circulated to the State Department and the NSC three weeks before it was to be delivered. For three weeks, State and the NSC fought the speech. They argued that it was crude. They claimed that it was unduly provocative. They asserted that the passage about the Wall amounted to a cruel gimmick, one that would unfairly raise Berliners' hopes. There were telephone calls, memoranda, and meetings. State and the NSC submitted their own alternative drafts--as best I recall, there were seven--one of them composed by Kornblum. In each, the call for Gorbachev to tear down the Wall was missing.
The week before the president's departure, the battle reached a pitch. Every time State or the NSC registered a new objection to the speech, Griscom summoned me to his office, where he had me tell him, one more time, why I was convinced State and the NSC were wrong and the speech, as I had written it, was right. (On one of these occasions, Colin Powell, then national security adviser, was waiting in Griscom's office for me. I held my ground as best I could.) Griscom was evidently waiting for an objection that he believed Ronald Reagan himself would find compelling. He never heard it. When the president departed for the Venice summit, he took with him the speech I had written.
UPDATE: John Hawkins dedicates a page to Ronald Reagan pictures and memories.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31257
June 08, 2004
We begin bombing in 5 minutes
From Wikipedia:
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."During a microphone check on August 11 1984, unaware that he was being broadcast.
Posted by David Boxenhorn at 12:02 AM Permalink | Comments (0)
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31327
Strive to be a man
Amritas posts about being an individual. He says:
Participating in government activities will not empower you. It may make you feel as if you are, but true empowerment can only come from within.
I think that this is actually a three-way choice. Here are two seemingly contradictory quotes of Rabbi Hillel, from Pirqey Avot:
...אל תפרוש מן הציבור
ובמקום שאין אנשים, השתדל להיות איש
Al tifrosh min hasibur...
Uv’maqom she’eyn anashim, hishtadel lihyot ish
Do not separate yourself from the community...
And in a place where there are no men, strive to be a man
I grew up surrounded by pseudo-individuals, sheep who pretended to be men by being anti-establishment. Of course, being “anti” is itself sheep-ish. Those who define themselves by what they are not are also letting someone else define them! Personally, I prefer an honest sheep to a fake man any time.
But Rabbi Hillel is saying more than this. He is saying that there is value in being part of a community – that you shouldn’t be “an individual” for its own sake, for the egotistical desire to “be a man”. This is a pseudo-individualism that is worth less than nothing. On the other hand, when there is a good reason to be an individual, when no one else is standing up for what’s right – it should be you.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31392
June 09, 2004
More great news
Israeli Minister of Finance Netanyahu says:
If we want to achieve 4-5% growth in the near future, we absolutely cannot increase the rate of expenditure. We will not use additional tax receipts for increasing expenditure, rather we will use them for continued tax reduction. If available, we will direct further receipts toward reducing the deficit. In a process of accelerated growth, we will generate further growth through the reduction of taxes for the people of Israel. The engines for tremendous growth in the economy are tax reductions. This is the strongest way to generate growth. We reduced individuals' taxes, and we reduced value-added tax. However, the VAT rate remains too high and should be reduced. If the rate of growth will surprise us and beat expectations, we will reduce the income tax and corporate taxes.
Go for it!
UPDATE: Note the translator's error: If the rate of growth will surprise us and beat expectations... should be: If the rate of growth surprises us and beats expectations... The former is the way you say it in Hebrew. After living in Israel for a while it begins to sound normal, even to an English speaker.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31503
Facts about Israel
From News of the day:
Facts about the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population.In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).
Israel is ranked #2 in the world for VC funds right behind the US.
Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.
With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).
The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola-Israel. Motorola built its largest development center worldwide in Israel.
Windows NT software was developed by Microsoft-Israel.
The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.
AOL's instant message program was designed by an Israeli software company.
Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31539
It is really quite simple. Having few natural resources, Israel is forced to export what it can produce. Not being a very large market, Israel cannot rely on it's size to produce prosperity.
Secondly, Israel's defense forces are forced to confront the most technologically advanced weapons in the world and still win wars. This creates a need for a culture that strives to maximize technical advancements and maximize R&D return on invested capital. Israeli breakthroughs in cellular communication in the 1980's became the backbone of the consumer cellular phone infrastructure of today.
Thirdly the American Jewish community has given Israel four treatures of inestimable value: the freedom of the Soviet Jews (almost one third of whom had advanced degrees of some kind) and three of the most outstanding centers of academic research in the world- the Technion, Hebrew University and the Wietzmann Institute of Science.
Put all of things together and you have a winnning formula. It also helps that people like Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Andy Grove and other Jewish American business leaders were willing to give Israel a chance to supply the talent their companies needed to grow.
Posted by: Gil Borman at August 3, 2004 04:21 PM Permalink
June 10, 2004
Something strange about Israel
There’s something strange about Israel. Okay, there are a lot of strange things about Israel, but I want to talk about one thing that I sometimes see mentioned, but I’ve never seen analyzed.
By most accounts Israel is the third-largest high-tech center in the world. What’s so strange about that? After all, someplace has to be the third largest high-tech center! Well, I grew up in the second-largest high-tech center in the world – Boston, Massachusetts, and I worked there in high-tech for two and a half years before moving to Israel. Something like 90% of the people there working in high-tech are from outside of the Boston area (many from outside the US) who came to Boston specifically to work in high-tech. The rest (like me) were children of people who came to Boston for the same reason.
I’m sure that the same is true for Silicon Valley, and for the lesser high-tech centers in the US. But, though many people come to Israel from abroad, none of them come specifically to work in high-tech. (The majority are fleeing oppression in countries like Russia, Ethiopia, France…) The distance from Jerusalem to Haifa, which contains most of Israel’s population, is approximately the same as the distance from San Jose to San Francisco, its population is slightly less – about 5 million – about the same as Massachusetts.
How can it be that the people who happened to be here created the world’s third-largest high-tech center – larger than any tech center in Europe, for example, which can draw on a continent-size population of over 300 million people? Joseph Morgenstern suggests a few possible answers:
The answer is rooted in part in the tradition of intellectual curiosity and analysis, which is an aspect of Jewish culture. It is a tradition that emphasizes education and that has produced, out of all numerical proportion, outstanding scientists and inventors. This age-old reverence for education has found expression in the development of a good Israeli public school system and excellent universities and institutes of science and technology.
If that doesn’t satisfy you then there’s this:
Even more likely, the technological accomplishments may be a result of the innate stubbornness, resilience, and creative drive of a polyglot people. Because of the multi-national mix of the population, many of the researchers have brought with them a variety of experiences and points of view acquired in different parts of the world. All are joined together by the determination to create a country which will become strong in spite of a lack of natural resources and of hostility on the part of most of its neighbors. This need for national security has led to the development of new defense technologies.
Or how about this:
Ambition for a better quality of life and higher standards of living has led to the creation of an export-driven economy. And most Israelis are aware that the ability to sell and succeed in the international marketplace is dependent on their products being more innovative and better priced than those of the country's competitors.
I don’t believe any of it. Or rather, I’m willing to believe all of it, but I don’t think it explains the facts. Even taken together, it’s hard to explain why Israel has more high-tech activity than countries like England, France and Germany – countries that each have more than ten times Israel’s population, and higher per-capita GNP. Look at these statistics from my last post:
In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the USIsrael is ranked #2 in the world for VC funds right behind the US.
I think that Israeli culture is somehow particularly well suited to high-tech. How so? I hope to talk about in my next post.
Trackback URL: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/31587
"I think that Israeli culture is somehow particularly well suited to high-tech. How so?"
Posted by: twisterella at June 11, 2004 04:44 PM Permalink
David, that is my favorite subject!!
Genetic evolution is slow, slow. Sykes et al (Adam's Curse) argue that it will take 50,000 generations (125,000 years) for the Y chromosome to blank out.
But memetic evolution can happen at speed. In the blogverse it can happen within days or hours. It is not difficult to believe that Israel, which fosters memes that encourage innovation and education, has a natural edge.
However, it is my opinion that the tribe of Judea has also genetic advantages, generated by the fiercest of selection gradients-- centuries of persecution and opression.
Organic Organization – Synthetic Organization
The most efficient way to organize things is hierarchy. This applies to everything from your desk drawers to Linnaean taxonomy to the army to Ford Motors. You divide things, concepts, people, tasks into ever smaller units, at each step organizing as efficiently as possible, choosing your steps so as to maximize human ability (too big a step, and it will be hard for a person to organize it, too small a step and you’ll be wasting human potential).
I suspect that a lot of my readers will be cringing inside by the time they finish reading that paragraph. They imagine themselves living or working in such a framework, being a cog in a human machine. Somehow, they feel such an existence would rob them of their humanity. (Many such people are also ardent supporters of socialism – an ideology explicitly modeled on just this notion of efficiency. Go figure.)
Artists, on the other hand, are frequently almost anarchists, refusing to be tied down to any human organization, refusing to cooperate in any grand task that will inhibit their freedom – all in the name of creativity. There is no creativity without freedom.
Indeed, efficiency and creativity are opposing forces – the former eliminates freedom, while the latter requires it. But what do you do if you are in a creative business? You have to produce. You have to be efficient. You have to compete. The laws of the marketplace won’t stop for you. One answer is to compromise. In the business world there is a particular compromise that is known as focusing on your area of expertise. It means don’t try to be creative in areas that are not your expertise, just try to do a good job implementing what is known. Save your creative resources for the one area that is most important to your business.
This strategy is important for all businesses. But what do you if your area of expertise is in a constant state of flux? This is what I call high-tech – when the technology upon which your industry is based is changing rapidly. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was high-tech – this was the era of the founding of the motor companies – Ford Motors, General Motors, etc. Now the technology is well known and the focus of the industry has shifted from creativity to efficiency.
Today’s high-tech is software (not all software, though), bio-tech, and communications. (I’ve probably missed some…) In these industries you see a flattening of hierarchies. But if hierarchies are flattened (i.e. there is less hierarchy – hierarchy is less used) then how are these businesses organized? The answer: rules.
I can feel my readers cringing again. Rules! You’ve replaced the tyranny of hierarchy with the tyranny of rules! Well, not necessarily. If there is a rule that you have to stop your car at a red light, does that increase freedom or decrease it? Of course, it decreases your freedom to drive through red lights, but aggregate effect of everybody following this rule is that it increases your freedom to drive.
One of the amazing things about rule-based organization is that you see it everywhere. Look out the window at the nearest tree. Is it organized or disorganized? In fact, it is highly organized; its branches are arranged symmetrically so it won’t fall over, it gathers energy from the sun, and nutrients from the earth, it grows and reproduces. But a tree has no central nervous system. There is no boss giving orders that propagate down the hierarchy, telling it what to do. Instead, each cell is programmed with a set of rules that tell it what to do. And if you step close and look at it carefully, it loses its symmetry and its apparent organization. From up close i