Israel at 61

Israel has reached another birthday and each one is as exciting as the one before. It is amazing to see Israel so vibrant and dynamic as a democracy. Its people energetic and ambitious. Its technology highly developed and exported to the entire world. And yet, it maintains its old world charm: the cobblestones of Jerusalem or Safed. The infinite landscape where biblical figures roamed and the names of places that resonate from that time. Israel has something for everyone and it continues to grow.

One must wonder what draws people to settle in a land nestled in the belly of the pressure cooker that is the Middle East. Each day, Israel could potentially face a threat to its existence and yet, life appears to be everlasting in this country. There is a sense of calm as you roam the streets and the beaches as the tide rolls in.

They come because Israel is a haven as ironic as that sounds. When you watch the news, you think that Israel is such a danger zone. When you come there, you feel that it is the safest place on Earth. At least I do.

This year, the national independence day ceremony focused on the centennial birthday of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 as the first modern hebrew city and since then, has grown to be the "a city that never stops." It is a city that has a great cosmopolitan feel to it with great coffee shops, bars and nightclubs. It is also proof that Israel didn't pop up overnight. There was a base that began just after the inquisition and peaked after 1945. The most amazing thought about Israel is that it was created out of 2000 years of hope of Jews to return to a land where their ancestors ruled.

Every part of Israel is quite different from the other. Haifa is so much different than Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Despite the land being so small, there is so much to explore and you will not know all there is to know about Israel even in the span of 30 years. I encourage everyone to take the opportunity to explore this dynamic country that if it was human, wouldn't be old enough to collect social security!

Here's to you Israel for being so amazing despite all that you face. Happy 61!

Lift the embargo?

I must admit I am torn on the whole concept of the Cuban embargo. I used to work with a Cuban guy who was adament that the embargo stay in place. He kept telling me how murderous Fidel Castro is, how the people live as prisoners in their own homeland and how lifting the embargo will not help. But on the other hand, maybe it will?

For America, the need for the embargo, I believe, ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba was no longer a satellite for Russia as it was during the Cold War. The only reason I could see for the embargo is an ideological one since the only threat Cuba poses to the US now is an influx of cigars.

The most vocal group in the US in favor of the embargo is the small Cuban-American exile community in Miami (Little Havana). They claim that lifting the embargo will only help the Castros and not help the people much. Again, it's interesting how the most vocal proponents of the status quo are people who lived under Castro.

Nevertheless, an argument can be made that if Cuba is opened up to millions of Americans, that things will have to change. After all, it was underground western culture that led to the fall of the iron curtain in Eastern Europe and China has become more capitalist.

I say that if done right and the proper concessions can be made such that Cuba makes a transition to greater economic freedom for its citizens, then by all means talk. The US can be a catalyst for liberalizing and modernizing Cuba. Certainly no other country will do so. Every other country seems content with letting Cuba be (including sadly, Canada) and sending tourists to Cuba. Nobody speaks out about their human rights violations.

Will Obama be the guy who gets the ball rolling on a democratic Cuba? I will believe it when I see it. Cuba wants to talk to him from a position of equals. Capitalism shouldn't be treated as equal with socialism. It is far superior to it. Hopefully Obama believes the same.

What Susan Boyle teaches us

By now if you haven't heard of Susan Boyle, you have been living under a rock. The 47-year old Scot who has unfortunately not been blessed in the looks department, has been handsomely compensated otherwise with a voice that puts a lump in your throat everytime you hear her sing.

When she stepped on to the stage of Britain's Got Talent, everybody in the audience wrote her off. There is a shot in the Youtube video of a young female audience member rolling her eyes probably thinking "she is ugly so she must suck at singing." It appears the judges felt the same.

And then she let her voice out and we all received a wakeup call. Each and every one of us who has been programmed to think that only good looking people are talented. Certainly that is how the entertainment mags make it seem. And face it, we love watching good looking people in our movies and television.

But in doing so, we close ourselves off from the Susan Boyles of the world. We deny ourselves the joy of hearing heavenly voices simply for our superficial tendencies. We're all guilty of it or at least a huge majority of us.

Susan Boyle has put the emphasis back on raw talent. The show has the word talent in it. I don't see the word beauty anywhere.

On Freedom and Taxes

In one of the Tax Day Tea Parties in the United States, a CNN reporter annoyingly asked a participant what taxes had to do with freedom. In a word: everything.

Taxes determine how much of our hard-earned dollars we get to keep. They are a cap on our spending and our progress. Taxes are anti-freedom. They place a limit on how much you can save/spend. And judging by the tax rates, you do not keep a whole lot of what you make regardless of how much you earn. Even a $40,000 salary could mean that after different levels of government have reached their hands into it, you come out with around $22,000. And that is hard to live on.

So what does the government do? Throw you a bunch of little crumbs like a child tax credit or a tax credit on your bus pass. This alters your behavior pattern all because you are programmed to get the small tax refund that should belong to you in the first place. Oh and when they cut your taxes, it amounts to little more than $300 a year. Gee thanks!

And where do your tax dollars go? To keep the poor perpetually poor by throwing them crumbs. It's called redistribution of wealth and we've been told that this helps society. No it doesn't. It chains the taxpayers and the welfare recipients in a viscious circle.

I once was told that socialism creates equality: everyone equally poor. It couldn't be further than the truth. That's what our redistribution system does.

Still not convinced that freedom and taxes go hand in hand? Ask yourself what led to the American and French Revolutions? Taxes! The people revolted because their property was being seized by unfair taxation. Well did the people really have a say when it came to income taxes? Income taxes were meant to be merely for the two World Wars. But they stayed on because the money was too enticing. By then, nobody had the appetite to stand up to it.

Don't get me wrong. Governments need to be a certain size in order to protect people and their properties from others. Governments maintain police and the army. They build roads and enforce ports of entry among many other things. But governments have a moral duty not to overtax and overspend. It is outside of their mandate. And also, governments do not have the moral authority to take from one and give to the other. That does not create prosperity or grow the pie.

I should not say that they take a dollar from one and give to the other. They take a dollar from Joe taxpayer, keep 80 cents to themselves (bureaucratic salaries) and give 20 cents to Jim the welfare recipient. That is redistribution and theft. I have a better idea. Have Joe spend that dollar and many other Joes so Jim can get a job and get 40 cents on that dollar. It's just crazy enough to work.

We need the Lockean approach. If a tax dollar isn't allocated to the preservation of liberty and property, then it ought to be returned to the taxpayers. It should never be spent frivolously. And no government dollar should be spent unless it is universally applied (read no earmarks).

Anything else is a restriction of freedom and ought to be opposed with vigor.

Azmi Bishara - A Palestinian when it suits him

There is a video floating around Youtube of Azmi Bishara, a man wanted in Israel for treason and espionage on behalf of Hizballah, professing that there never was a Palestinian nation.

The video can be viewed here.

In the video, Bishara appears to shock the Israeli co-panelists and the host himself by his words. For those who don't understand hebrew, it goes to the effect of:

"The Palestinian nation is a colonial invention. When were there Palestinians? There never was such a nation.

I think there is an Arab Nation, I never turned to be a Palestinian Nationalist, despite of my decisive struggle against the Occupation.

I think that until the end of the 19TH century, Palestine was the South of Great Syria."


If a Jewish person were to say that, they'd be labelled extremists or dillusional. As for Azmi Bishara, he just tried to sweep this under the rug.

Here is how he opened a column in the LA Times on May 3, 2007

"I AM A PALESTINIAN from Nazareth, a citizen of Israel and was, until last month, a member of the Israeli parliament."

But wait a second.. I thought you said Palestinian was a colonial invention. Are you willing to accept a colonial term Mr. Bishara?

It's funny when words come back to bite.

Time to open the border

At a time when the United States is advocating making it more difficult to cross the Canada/US border, I feel it is high time that we become a eurozone. Some fierce Canadian and/or American nationalists resent this idea, but it is an idea whose time has come.

Canadians and Americans are essentially cousins. Our history has been quite mutual. The time for keeping a border has come and gone. Trade should flow much more easily than it is under NAFTA. People should come and go across the border as they will with strict inspections at continental ports of entry (airports, seaports).

I am not advocating one country although this will be argued to be a slope towards it. Those who value the healthcare and social programs up here will stay here. Those who want more net pay and less services from government will come down to the States. It will be interesting to see who goes where.

Speaking of that, one of the theories I have on why the Left hates this idea is that they fear many will opt to go to the US under a eurozone arrangement and that this will erode government services. They also allege that the US will put restrictive covenants on what the Canadian government could spend on, thereby eroding Canada as a country. I don't that will necessarily happen. I'm simply for an open border where people can move to where they want to be.

They will scare-monger too, saying an open border will mean an inflow of guns from down south. Ridiculous notions. Those who want to get a gun up here have done so already. And it's not like Canadians can't own guns. They can.

A lot of talent on either side is not situated where it needs to be due to the fact that immigration is restrictive and costly. An open border will solve that.

The key question is: what about 9/11? What about Canadian sleeper cells? Well that is a tough one to deal with but it is worth addressing for the greater benefit of an open border.

Of course, it will be a tough sell here. A lot of inefficient companies and social programs exist on not allowing American efficiency to flow through. Things will have to be ironed out. However, globalization has made accessibility much greater anyway. It's time to smell the java and move towards it, not away from it. Ultimately, Canada can be richer and better off. Open borders mean open markets where the efficient will truly shine. It's odd for instance that a Canadian company manufacturing stair railings can't cross the border with tools.

There may need to be a common dollar and a common central bank. But it's time to move towards the open border and not away from it.

Kumar goes to Washington

Actor Kal Penn better known to many as Kumar of the Harold and Kumar franchise and most recently, the House series, is being hired by Barack Obama.

"His role will be to connect Obama with the Asian-American and Pacific Islander communities, as well as arts groups."

The Pacific Islander one is odd to me. Didn't Obama come from Hawaii? What trouble will he have with them?

"The White House did not reveal what Penn would be paid. Aides with similar titles earned between $41,000 and $91,000 last year."

He's an actor. Either he's getting paid more (lots more) or he's doing it for the "honor." I doubt he'll take much of a pay cut.

It's nice to know that the Obama White House is campaigning on the people's dime. Expect a lot more from these guys.

While our soldiers die in Afghanistan

Hamid Karzai, our supposed ally is defining half is population as mere sex objects for their husbands.

In a law that never saw the light of day in parliament, Hamid Karzai authorized husbands in Afghanistan to force sex upon their wives whenever they please. Such a ruling is appalling as
it takes away the free choice that sex ought to be. It is demeaning and forces women to be submissive to their husbands. It reduces them to "baby machines" and "sex objects."

Until this ruling came down, I was convinced that we were doing a truly noble mission in Afghanistan. We were weeding out the bad guys and helping out the good guys. Well turns out the good guys are only a lighter version of the bad guys. They are capable of being as repressive as the Taliban while they rely on NATO's protection.

While a return of the Taliban to power will be a bad thing and al Qaeda still needs to be rooted out, I am not convinced that the people we are helping in Afghanistan are agents of virtue themselves.

This ruling stinks. I am disgusted. Marriage is an equal institution. But clearly not in Afghanistan or a lot of other muslim countries.

Crypto-fascism under Obama

The shiny luster is beginning to fade off Barack Obama. The man who rode a huge wave of momentum and change is showing us how creepy that change can be. What has Barack Obama done with his presidential honeymoon period you ask? Spend billions to nationalize, take 90% of the bonuses that people legitimately earned because others in the company messed up, and now, he has fired a CEO of a private company. What’s next? Executions in the public square?

Ok well that won’t happen. But a media lynching from the President on down is just as bad as a public execution. A person can’t make a living if he/she has been singled out as a pariah and part of “what caused the mess.” Obama is doing exactly that. He’s singling out people be it in AIG, GM, etc. etc. It used to be that liberals were relentless in their war on profit. Turns out they’re even worse when they’re in power and everybody’s losing money.

Obama’s mark on the country is very fresh and yet it is quite a scarier place already. If you are a money-losing bank, insurance company or auto-maker, you’re in the President’s radar screen. He may be your president but he’s also your worst enemy.

When it comes to the companies that require bailouts, I say that necessity is the mother of invention. These companies will invent ways to stay in business because it’s their livelihood. They don’t need Obama to decide what money has to stay in their coffers and who among them should keep working.

These companies have the solutions but they go against everything Obama and his buddies have fought to get and retain for years. The solutions involve tearing down the union structures and eliminating the revolving door mortgage policy. And most of all getting government’s hands off their operations. Part of the solution also involves radically reducing corporate income tax rates.

Since these things go against what Obama stands for, he’s resorted to fascist tactics: singling out honest hard-working people in order to distort from real solutions.

It’s time to call him on it!

America is ruining Soccer

America is ruining soccer by failing to understand the sheer beauty of the game. Soccer is a game of tactics and hard work both individually and as a team. It is a game where a team is only as good as its weakest link but where true superstars can shine.

Stephen H. Webb in his column in the Wall Street Journal demonstrates this failure to appreciate soccer. First, he finds something fundamentally wrong with the fact that people only kick the ball or use their heads in soccer. In fact, hands are quite important in the game. You use your hand to push a defender as you try to charge by him. But in any case, there are more spectacular things you can do with your feet than your hands. Try a 30-yard banana kick that goes over a defensive wall of players and fools the goalkeeper. You can also deke a defender and make them look amazingly foolish. Both are a rush I can't even explain.

Can't do those with your hands!

Second, Webb argues that kids aren't broken down by soccer. That it is egalitarian and that failure is hard to spot. Maybe for a little while. But if you take soccer seriously, you will be easily spotted as the weakest link. The coach will yell at you and bench you. If that is not happening, then kids shouldn't play soccer at a young age when their parents can intervene on their behalf or parents shouldn't be allowed to intervene at all.

I know a father who has a kid in an Ajax Amsterdam development team. He is 11 and they mould him like a little soldier. At any age, this kid can be sent home packing. Perhaps the game isn't broken Professor Webb. America just lacks the boot camps that are European pro clubs.

Third, Webb argues that the better you get in soccer, the less you score. Tell that to Liverpool FC who sparked 14 goals in a recent three-game span! But yes, there are many games that end low scoring because the defence, goalkeepers and midfield of both teams are just that good. But those are often the best games to watch. Such games still provide much action in the form of opportunities and near opportunities. It symbolizes a heavyweight fight that ends in a draw. Each team desperately looking for ways to punch holes in the defensive wall of the other. Soccer is often a war that stretches even to the stands.

Yes, goals are nice. But soccer isn't a sport meant for ESPN Sportscenter. It's not a game where you can just find out the score after the fact. You need to watch a game and you gain appreciation from understanding how a result became 0-0 and not simply that it did.

Webb also mocks the penalty shootout since it's so easy to score. What the shootout tests are the nerves of the teams' shooters. Often the player who misses is the one who gets nervous when he gets up there. Penalty shootouts are dramatic to watch because you never know when a miss will happen but you know that there will be a miss. Some people argue there are better ways to decide a game. But after 2 hours of play, there is not much separating the teams. That is the equivalent of a completed triple overtime in hockey or roughly six overtimes in basketball. Soccer is a thinking man's game played by brutes. The fouls can be nasty sometimes with very nasty injuries. The tactical aspect of the game is too wide to fit in a blog post. It's not just about running around. Often the team that wins is the one that does the least running but simply has the right players at the right positions and masters ball control. Position, like in battle, is huge in soccer.

It's sad that Prof. Webb calls it a foreign invasion as if Americans cannot appreciate a sport enjoyed around the world. I believe they can and if they took soccer more seriously, they might come to like it after all.

Why I don't gamble

The odds of winning big in gambling are slim enough as they are. Now it turns out that even when you win, the house can decide that you actually didn't.

Here is a story that actually happened. A man from Wasaga Beach, ON went to play the slots at Georgian Downs and settled on a machine called "Buccaneer." After numerous failed attempts, he managed to hit the jackpot and the machine went crazy with bells and whistles. According to the machine, he won $42.9 million. But when he went to collect, the staffers told him the machine had malfunctioned (without providing evidence as such) and they would not be paying him. They then stated that the maximum the machine could pay was $9,000.

Their compensation to the man? A free dinner for four at one of the casino's buffet restaurants. Lame at best.

Maybe the corporation did make a machine error. It is up to them to fix it before somebody plays and gets the impression that they have won big. Bottom line is that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. (OLG) needs to pay up and pay up big. The man is right to sue and he should at least been offered what the machine would have paid otherwise for a jackpot win.

The house rakes in so much money from gamblers. They can afford to pay up when they make a mistake like this and they should. Who knows how much revenue has been lost due to the negative PR this has caused? If the OLG was smart, they would pay up and show the gambling public that what the machine reads is what they will get in the end. After all, isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Instead, now everytime someone will play a slot machine and see the machine go berzerk, they will wonder if they had really won.

Thank goodness for Research in Motion

In the midst of a mountain of doom and gloom, Research in Motion is showing us how it's done. They are taking advantage of the economic slowdown to hire thousands of tech-savvy people laid off from their competitors.

This is precisely the strategy I would follow if I knew I could withstand a drop in demand. RIM's blackberry has slowly become a staple of business so they could easily ride this out. They can afford to invest and it appears they have deep pockets. They even managed to wrest control of U2 from Apple and are going to sponsor their upcoming tour.

Expect more companies to follow suit. You will see a slow trickle of investment, be it manpower or machine. Investment is cheap right now. And then once we have ridden out this downturn, the more heavily invested companies will reap the benefits handsomely.

Paging Michael Moore

Germany just had its own Columbine.

Yep. The enlightened social-demoratic country of Germany with restrictive gun laws. This was not meant to happen right? Only in the US right? Wrong!

Gun shooting sprees happen in Toronto too. Google C.W. Jefferies and you'll get quite a few results. Google Jane Creba. Despite the socialist Toronto mayor's assertions that all the crimes were committed by guns smuggled from the US, it is not truth. Gun crimes happen everywhere. It can't be legislated out.

Yet more proof that the only thing gun control does is employ extra bureaucrats. A killer can emerge at any time from anywhere.

Restricting guns is not a bad idea but it is not a solution on its own. I don't know how this could have been prevented. But it is misleading to tell people that all that needs to be done is to take guns from innocent people altogether and then there won't be gun crimes.

Breaking - Peter Shurman not to run for Ontario PC Leader

CFRB's Silvana Aceto reports that Peter Shurman won't seek the Ontario PC nod.

The news of my MPP not seeking the top job saddens me. I think he would have been an underdog but he would have added colour to the race. He would have been the Chris Stockwell of 2009.

Open Letter to John McCain

Dear Senator McCain,

I know this is a bit late but better late than never. First, I want to congratulate you on your hard-fought run for the Presidency. One can look back and say that you did it with a lot of grace and dignity. You ignited the base by choosing a wonderful conservative in Sarah Palin. All in all, you gave it your best and you are to be commended for it.

I am a conservative living in Canada who has always been interested in American politics. If I was an American, I would vote Republican all the time. I was active in defence of your campaign on the internet, which brings me to this letter.

I am writing to you because of the way you changed my life in an indirect way. I met the love of my life and the woman I'm going to marry on a facebook group devoted to your run for the presidency. Our paths crossed because she was active posting on your behalf and she caught my eye. She is a passionate conservative from Indiana and she was defending you with sharp replies to baseless liberal-biased smears. Sparks flew shortly after we met and we are inseparable. Your campaign made it happen.

So if you can take anything from this campaign, know that you brought two passionate lovers together. If you want an invitation to the wedding, I am sure Krystle and I have zero objections to that. It would be really amazing actually. Make sure to book sometime to be in Indianapolis in the fall of 2010.

Thank you again sir.

Reflections on John Tory

I never had much faith that John Tory could passionately ignite center-right voters. My impressions when I met him the night he won the leadership was that he was a nice man but not conservative enough to jazz up the base and not charismatic enough to get anyone else. He did well in a small crowd of mostly Red Tories by the Esplanade that night, but that's a biased crowd. How would he fare in a general election?

Well in 2007, we found out, to disastrous consequences. I celebrated a minor win in Peter Shurman's election as my MPP. But the party suffered a severe blow.

Why did John Tory essentially fail? The attitude of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party under Ernie Eves was that blue Tories were in the bag. That all they had to do was go after centrist voters and win government. After all, where will the blue Tories go? Well we know where they went. They stayed home while McGuinty coasted to victory.

John Tory simply picked up where Eves left off. To great disaster. In the 2007 provincial election, he offered up a liberal platform with a big government promise to fund religious schools. It was radioactive and sometimes I fear that the party will be reminded of it in the next general election. So not only did he offer a wishy washy platform, he attached a wedge issue on top of it. No energizing the base and on top of that, alienating many potential voters who were eager to give McGuinty the boot (Tory started the election ahead in the polls). It was so bad that he lost his own Toronto riding in the election and was forced into political exile.

Then he spent 17 months trying to push one member aside so he could run. He picked one of the bluest ridings in the province. A riding that went to the PC with a 10,000+ vote margin of victory in an election that they lost everywhere else: the rural riding of Halliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.

So what happened to that 10,000 vote plurality? About 9,900 of them decided not to show up. Some of the left parties' votes went the Liberals' way. Result? 900 vote Liberal victory and the leader of our party denied a seat again.

Well do you blame those 9,900? They are blue conservatives who wanted a local blue conservative to vote for. Not a red Tory from Toronto who was only running in their riding because it was just available for him to run in. No attachment to the riding. No home in the riding. And they won't vote Liberal or NDP. So why wouldn't they stay home?

You can argue that one factor is that this was a special election. Had this been a general election, they probably would have voted, but then they wouldn't have Mr. Tory has an option. But this special election had a smug feeling to it. It was all about the Red Tories saying: "we have come to cash the blank check that is our blue base." When they came, they found that the account was in NSF.

Let me tell you something about blue Tories. They think they can get along just fine without government and they'll stay home if you don't offer them a real choice. Just because you have the word Conservative in your party's name and you're the leader doesn't mean they'll get excited about you running. The blue Tories will stay home if you offer them Liberal-lite.

It's time to get back to the path Mike Harris set us on. It won back-to-back majorities. The Eves/Tory era, well, it's nothing to brag about to say the least.

Good lending eventually rescues bad lending

I write a lot about the US because their success greatly reflects on Canada's success. Let's face it. They are a significant economic engine.

I came across an interesting article that claims that countries that followed the policies of deficit spending and low-interest lending were the quickest to recover from the great depression. There is some merit in this argument. When you lend to productive ventures that yield profit, you can certainly get yourself out of a sticky rut. The entire North American economy has thrived from debt. Without debt, there would be no capital to finance productive ventures. No money would be created and for an economy to expand, money must be created.

What launches a Great Depression is a mixture of two things. A downswing in an economy combined with massive consumer default. That's what happened in 1929. That's what's happening now. It's when that which I classify as discretionary lending collapses that the trouble starts. This lending includes mortgages, credit cards and consumer lines of credits. Unproductive debt in the sense that it doesn't get invested into productive ventures like a factory or a machine. It's debt for the sake of someone collecting interest while a consumer pays the debt back.

It's this unproductive debt that aggravated the current situation. That and the decline in home values that the mortgages were meant to pay for.

Deficit spending by a government can be thought of as a loan as well. When it is put in the hands of those who can generate productivity, then it is worthwhile. The article states that deficit spending in the 30s and 40s put the unemployed to work.

However, the Democrats are taking advantage of the situation to engage in reckless spending. They are putting money into pet projects rather than providing real stimulous. An example of a real stimulous would include a zero interest loan for a number of years to any business seeking expansion in the US that would eventually employ people.

I am even ok with infrastructure projects that will employ people until things get better. Those people will have work and the accompanying experience and when the economy will rebound, there will be greater access to goods and services.

In the meantime, the government can reign in on waste. Tax and spend only what it needs to guarantee the basic provisions it is meant to give under the constitution and give some assistance in the broad economy without prejudice to one industry over another.

It is now up to productive debt to rescue its unproductive cousin. And in the future, let's hope that unproductive debt will be harder to acquire.

Something my alma-mater ought to be ashamed of

I used to attend the University of Toronto and I had a good time there. I always had the impression that I was going to a very prestigious school with a glorious history. The university goes back prior to the Upper Canada rebellion of 1837 and was established as a confederation of religion-based (St. Mike's, Trinity) and non-religion-based schools (University College, Victoria College). When you walk in the majority of the buildings at U of T, you feel you are touching history.

In recent times, U of T has established a new dark chapter in its history. A stain that I believe threatens its good reputation. U of T has the dubious distinction of having hosted the first-ever Israeli Apartheid Week 5 years ago. A week-long distortive Israel hate-fest of the worst kind. Here is what I wrote about the first one which I had the (dis)pleasure of attending .

Among the things I heard then was a speaker named Mustaffa priding himself in having killed Jews in Jenin. The crowd was eating his every word up except for the few brave souls including myself, who were there on some sort of observatory role. It was very disheartening to be around such hate.

The IAW has now spread to a world-wide cancer on universities everywhere. The event is so bad that it suppresses opposing opinion to the point of bullying. My good friend Isaac was intimidated by a bouncer just for yelling at a speaker to answer a question. The question was about the hate language in Hamas' Charter. Predictably, the speaker gave a long-winded answer on how Israel is racist. The IAW also promotes violence and hate rather than offering constructive solutions on how to break the Israeli-Arab deadlock, including how Arabs could change their ways to non-violence in order to force Israel's hand to concede more. Gandhi anyone?

I'm anxiously waiting for the moment when intelligent people world-wide will conclude that only one side is interested in peace and it's time to stop stuffing it down Israel's throat. Events like these prove it. But I'm not that optimistic that the world will wake up from an event like this. I just think this event will arouse more hatred towards Israel and Jews alike.

Case in point. The supposedly moderate Fatah of Abu Mazen (the man we're supposed to get a peace deal with ) is competing with Hamas now for Gaza viewing audience with a TV station that calls for ethnic cleansing. Here's a good link about it.

But anyways, back to the topic at hand. I keep telling a fellow U of T alumnus that as long as the football team keeps handing down losing seasons that I will not donate a dime to the school. I am now throwing in another, more important condition to my money. As long as this event stays on campus, they will not see any money from me.

They allowed IAW to happen. They can now send a message by shutting it down in the place where it all started.

The Republican Road Map

Credit to freedomnation for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. In it, he suggested four items that would immediately tackle the economy.

• Taxes: Lower the top tax rate to 25% instead of raising it to 39.6%. Collapse the lower tax brackets to 10% (up to $100,000 for couples). Lower corporate tax rates to 25%. These will make Americans more competitive on a tax basis with their competitors.

• Sound Money: End the easy money policy of the federal reserve. Return to a sound money policy that will keep interest rates down and increase confidence in investors and entrepreneurs to take the risks required for future growth.

• Financial Sector: Avoid nationalization of the banks. Once nationalization takes place, it's hard to remove it.

• A grip on entitlements: Faced with the prospect of $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities along with a bankrupt social security, entitlements need to be addressed. Investigate why costs are exploding and take action.

These are modest proposals without much detail except for the tax reform proposal. But they are complete steps in the right direction. Pity that it took a defeat at the polls for Republicans to shift towards these sorts of policies.

The tax reform, if implemented, would represent an immediate shot in the arm for the economy. More people will flock to the US and businesses will stay. But to work, it must accompany a radical cost reduction in the federal government. These are long overdue.

Why I admire Rush Limbaugh

On Saturday afternoon at CPAC, Rush Limbaugh showed yet again why he is the leading conservative voice in America. Without question, Rush Limbaugh is the most capable of
communicating basic conservative principles. He does it with eloquence and brilliance, shooting down every liberal biased attack on what being a conservative is all about.

In his speech, Rush Limbaugh re-iterated that conservatives love people. He said that conservatives, unlike liberals, don't assume up-front that there are groups of people who could never make it in society and thus require government aid. Conservatives believe that anyone can make it if they are ambitious enough. I fundamentally agree with this. When people accept government aid, they resign themselves to being eternally poor. They never do anything with their lives. Liberals who claim to be on the side of the poor only serve to leave those people in perpetual poverty while making the rich poorer as well.

Limbaugh also went hard after President Obama in a way that few people dare to these days. He reminded the CPAC crowd that liberals have always wanted Bush to fail and now they are asking conservatives to support Obama. This hypocrisy should be countered, Limbaugh said. There is nothing for conservatives to agree with liberals about. Conservatives want the country and the economy to succeed. Liberals want the country to be weaker by virtue of their anti-capitalism and pro-government ways. Thus, Limbaugh rightly repeated that he wants Obama to fail because success for Obama is failure for the country.

This kind of courage and conviction is certainly welcome. Few people speak with the courage that Limbaugh does. He doesn't care about media scrutiny. He is his own person and nobody will get him to back down.

What an asset he is for the movement.

If this is what he means by change...

Then give me status quo!

A $1 trillion tax increase and a $1.75 trillion deficit. European social-democratic spending initiatives including the first steps towards a single-payer system.

Obama calls his budget "an investment in foundations." It is a Robin Hood budget. He is taxing the wealthiest Americans and corporations (at a time when they need as much liquidity as they can get) and paying for the healthcare of the poorest Americans. And even then, the budget calls for a massive deficit. Surely that is a sign that now is the time for fiscal restraint.

If you absolutely need to spend, then make allocations in infrastructure and give businesses targetted tax credits so they could spend. You know.. things that will actually help?

But my biggest objections are rooted in the tax increases. Even if you don't make $250,000 a year, you need to fundamentally object to the idea of raising taxes on one group over another and then redistributing it somehow. That is nothing short of theft. Taxes have a punitive function built in them. By raising taxes on individual and corporate income the message sent from government is: "we will determine how much income is too much to have and penalize it."

Brilliant in a bad economy. Absolutely brilliant.

Biden attacks Jindal and surprise...he lies.

Came across this interesting story from a Shreveport, LA news channel.

Seems Joe Biden attacked Bobby Jindal for running a state that has lost 400 jobs a day asking "what would he do?"

Surprise. Surprise. When the facts were checked, it turned out Louisiana has actually ADDED jobs.

"In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release that added employment over the month," says Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. According to her, not only is Louisiana not losing jobs. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.

While the Lousiana unemployment rate has gone up to 5.9% from 5.3%, this is being blamed on a bigger workforce in the state, not economic fundamentals. Even still, that is less than the national average of 7.2%.

Bottom line. When liberals run scared as they should from the threat that Jindal poses to them in about 4 years' time, the name of the game is to lie. It takes time to check a lie and by then, some damage has been done. Not everyone reads or watches the rebuttal to a lie.

On talking to Syria

There's a good book that I read not too long ago called The Truth about Syria written by Barry Rubin. In there I read some good insights into the mentality of the Syrian regime, beginning with the late father Hafez and now his son, Bashar.

The long and short that he wrote was that Syria's regime thrives and survives from the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. Since the Assads belong to the Alawite community in Syria which makes up only 19% (and are accused by many of not being real muslims), it must find a way to justify its existence to its people. So it uses the conflict to do so. After all, what better way to establish muslim cred amongst your people than to attack the zionist enemy who is "brutalizing your poor muslim Palestinian brothers." As for Lebanon, the Assads claim that is part of greater Syria and they use their proxies there to attack Israel.

It goes without saying that if Syria can be brought around and a real peace can be established with them, then Hamas and Hizbollah would be severely weakened. These groups largely exist because of Damascus' backing, which includes shelter for Hamas senior leadership in Damascus itself.

John Kerry has recently been sent to talk to Bashar Assad with the hopes of doing just that. I have no problem with that. But I say it won't produce anything. Assad probably views western backing as a curse rather than a blessing, given the dynamics of internal politics in Syria. Nor can you expect real peace between Israel and Syria.

Assad will smile in Kerry's face. Say a few hopeful things to the camera and once Kerry leaves, he'll go back to doing his own thing. He'll even say to his people "America won't tell me what to do." A typical day in Damascus.

But Obama won't care. He just wants to say he talked to the guy.

The ever-frustrating Shimon Peres

Shimon Peres will have a mixed legacy when all is said and done. He has done a lot of right and a lot of wrong. He built Israel's army capability from scratch and did a lot of measures both internally and externally, to ensure that Israel would be a strong country. He was on the right wing of the Israeli Left, supporting settlements and is largely responsible for the ones that exist today.

On the wrong side of the equation, he designed Oslo and he supported Gaza disengagement. And now, he is the champion of withdrawal in exchange for peace.

But hold the phone for a second, Shimon Peres is now saying that he was wrong on disengagement!

The sad thing is that as Vice Premier and leader of the second party in Sharon's government (2005), he could have ensured that it wouldn't happen.

Sorry Mr. President. You can't take that one back. An admission of wrong won't suffice. I'm sure you feel bad about Oslo as well but that won't bring back all who died because of it.

I respect a lot of what Shimon Peres has done over a long career. But he has done plenty to piss off the exact amount of people. Largely the cause of why he never won an election outright.

This latest admission won't win him many additional friends.

The War on Beef

Warning to those who love their hamburgers, cutlets and steaks. Enviro-fascists are coming for your food.

They claim that hamburgers are the hummers of food and, that, if you will switch steak with salad, it will be the equivalent of not driving your car a couple of days a week.

It's much ado about droppings. The claim is that cow dung produces 78% of methane produced by the livestock industry, which scientists claim is a harmful greenhouse gas. They claim that a switch to chicken will reduce gases by 70%.

All this amounts to a war on your beef. It could start with EPA warnings on your McDonald's hamburger and restrictions on where you can eat beef. If this sounds crazy, you are underestimating the global warming craze. Science has become a word that has replaced G-d. If science dictates so, then it must be absolute truth.

It's gonna get ugly! But if you value your freedom, you'll stop it dead in its tracks.

Bi-Partisanship is BS

I never quite understood why, in the United States, the party in power always talks about bi-partisanship. After all, the reason we have elections is to determine which side will get to dictate the agenda. There is a winner and a loser. And if the winner fails, they can be thrown out in two or four years, depending on the type of office.



I always felt that parties in power spoke of bi-partisanship as a way of buttering up voters who elected the losers. That and to have the ability to say that any failed policy was the product of both parties even though it was conceived by one. I think that if the stimulous bill will fail, the Democrats will say that they had Republican support (even though it was 3 Republican turncoat senators at best).



Bi-partisanship rarely lasts anyway. Pelosi spoke of it when she got in power and quickly neglected that. Think about it. Parties spend millions of dollars in order to end up SHARING the agenda? Heck no. They run to DICTATE the agenda. Bi-partisanship is a way of adding legitimacy to their ideas. It's a way of getting elected by appealing to centrist voters.

But do not think for a second that there is some righteous motive behind it to make for better legislation. Both parties think that their way is the only way.

The math is difficult for Kadima

Tzipi Livni should resign herself to the obvious: the math is too tricky to build a coalition.

First, a look at the numbers

Right Bloc

Likud 27
Yisrael Beitenu 15
Orthodox parties 23

Total: 65

Left Bloc

Kadima 28
Labor 13
Arabs 11
Meretz 3

Total: 55

Right away, one should dismiss the 11 seats comprising of three Arab parties (I put Hadash in this column even though they're a hybrid party) who will never sit in any coalition. So Livni can only count on a maximum of 44 seats on the left including her party.

Labor said they want to go to the opposition so take away those 13 potential seats. That leaves Livni with 31 MKs who will recommend her to sit in government. Should she sway Lieberman, that will give her 46 but don't bet on that.

But if Livni can somehow sway Labor to go with her, that will give her 44 MKs before Liberman. She would then need Lieberman to be on the cusp of power (at 59 seats). She would then have to sway one of the orthodox parties or the Arabs to support her from the outside. The Arabs would never support her even from the outside if Lieberman's involved. She'd have to make heavy concessions to one of the orthodox parties.

Likud can count on the orthodox to go with them. That gives them 50. They could then bargain with Lieberman and maybe even Labor. Either way, Netanyahu has the best chance clearly. He can even score a few defections from Kadima. There's some bad blood from their last leadership race.

Reflections on Valentine's Day

I'm taking a small light-hearted break from politics to talk about a day that some will dread but many cherish. I'm talking about Valentine's Day.

I used to hate this day because usually I was spending it alone. Being single on V-day isn't really fun when everyone's rubbing their love in your face. You see people on the subway with flowers or boxes of chocolates or other cute things for their loved ones. It's a very nice practice but when you have nobody to practice it with, it actually kinda sucks. It reminds you that you're lonely.

Single people need not resent lovers on this day though. Loneliness in some respects is a choice. You can choose to pursue a relationship and be with someone. Granted, they have to agree. But if you put in an effort, you're bound to find at least someone who will go on dates with you and you could do something nice for them on V-day.

It's worth noting that my enthusiasm with this day has varies depending on my relationship status. That is understandable and certainly the reason why many single people hate it.

Celebrating love is a good thing because there's plenty of hate in the world. I know that sounds corny and hippie-like but there's merit to it. Each day we hear about hate, resentment and negativity. It's great that there's one day that can mute it all out.

The concept of a day of love is not monopolized by the western world. Jews have a day of love (in the summer) and so do many other faiths.

I admit that there is commercialism involved much like any other holiday. But who said that you have to get a generic gift in a store? You can create something too and it would be just as appreciated I'm sure (provided you do it for the reason of wanting to make something creative). You can take your lover on a romantic outing. The possibilities are endless.

The key to this day is to do somethinng that doesn't feel forced. If you do something that is forced, you are slave to the commercialism that says "you have to get something." You need to let it just flow out of you.

That is what I'll be doing on Saturday.

First thoughts on the election

First off, nobody really won. Everyone kinda lost.

Kadima: Maintained its strength but ultimately lost by being unable to form a center-left coalition

Likud: Lost as they had a double-digit lead in seats over Kadima and the ability to form any government they wanted. Now it will be tricky. Yes the right has a narrow majority in Knesset, but does Netanyahu really want to lead a band of loose right-wing parties? I would love it if it could work but he tried before and it wasn't pretty.

Yisrael Beitenu: Had 18-19 seats in polling but ended up with a narrow 4-seat pickup from the last election.

Shas: Was the fourth largest party in the Knesset. Now it's been relegated to fifth. Took a gamble on being too demanding of Tzipi Livni that she called an election.

Labor: Reduced to a fourth-place rump. A shadow of its former glory days.


Now the hard work begins to build a coalition. I hope Bibi will lead it and somehow Kadima will go for that. It will be difficult, but for the interests of Israel, both of these parties need to work together, perhaps with Yisrael Beitenu as the 3rd partner. And hopefully rule for 4 years.

Spender Nation vs. Saver Nation

The figures are pretty scary. American debt is out of control and set to continue growing with the current "stimulous" bill. As you can see by the first graph, America's gross debt is running out of control. That includes current obligations and future obligations such as social security.

Public debt implies the current obligations only. But this line is slated to rise significantly given the current stimulous bill.

The second graph shows debt as a fraction of GDP. As you can see, this too is at its highest level since the 1950s.

The average American owes $37,703 when factoring the national debt. That number is slated grow over time.

By contrast, the average Canadian owed $21,505 in 2005 when factoring the national debt. While that number is slated to grow due to the government's current turn to deficits, it will not get anywhere close to the American number.

Americans love to berate Canadians for being socialist due to our healthcare system. In reality, government spending habits this side of the border have been more fiscally conservative for at least 14 years. It was the Liberal government of Jean Chretien that reversed Canada's course from deficit spending to turning consecutive surpluses and using surplus money to pay down debt. Stephen Harper's Conservatives continued that course until recently when they resigned themselves to running a deficit.

By contrast, the US has run perpetual deficits as if they could forever borrow without penalty. The lone exception in the past 8 years was in 2001 when there was a small surplus.

As Canada was becoming more fiscally conservative, America became looser with its money. Sure, the war in Iraq can be blamed for some of that. But as can be seen, even when the deficits were getting smaller, the national debt was still getting piled on. The drops in the budget deficit imply that the US government had some control over its budget even at the peak of a war in Iraq.

I have a theory about why Canada penny pinches and why America spends. Canada's budget is roughly 50% healthcare with costs that can rise. Mindful of this, the government strives to save for future increases in the health budget.

Also, the bulk of political power lies in the urban centres of the country. These places are already developed and do not require much government spending. Rural areas don't elect many MPs and are subsequently neglected. Also, MPs are not free to vote as they choose so earmarks never come into play. The federal budget is set from above and the party votes for it with one voice.

By contrast, the makeup of the American system is such that every representative and senator is independent of their party and their only motivation is to stay in power. The only way to do so is to produce results for your district (i.e. earmarks). Thus, you see a lot of pork in any bill that passes congress. Pork adds unto the government debt. There is no sense of national responsibility. Each congressman or woman is merely concerned with keeping their seat.

When Canada's public debt rises, Canadians know who to blame. When America's debt rises, it's not so clear. Is it the President? Is it the Congress? Is it a combination of both? The lack of a central source of blame means that the debt can continue to rise unchecked.

I also noticed that there is a cultural element to all of this. Right or wrong, Canadians appear to save while Americans appear to spend. Credit card debt seems to be more of a problem in the States than in Canada. I don't know why this is the case but it does appear to be this way.

It is also worth noting that Canadian banks are much more conservative in their lending practices. Good luck finding an interest-only mortgage here. You're lucky if you can find a 5% down mortgage but more likely you will settle for a 10% down mortgage. And you will have to prove significant assets in the process.

The $823 billion "stimulous" bill is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It's more debt and debt is what caused the bad economy in the first place. America could take a lesson from Canada which has been less susceptible to the economic downturn. Simply put, saving during good times will serve you well during bad times. When you pay down debt when things are good, you leave room to borrow when things go bad. But if you borrow during good times and bad, you are asking for trouble.

Kingmaker?

When Israel's Campaign 2009 began, it was fully expected that the top three parties would be Likud, Kadima and Labor. These are considered the three mainstream parties in Israel after Kadima formed as a group of ex-Likud and Labor MKs under the leadership of Ariel Sharon. But one man, Avigdor Liberman, decided that things would be a little different at the top.

According to latest polls, Liberman's Yisrael Beitenu could finish anywhere between 18-19 seats with Labor bumped into 4th place with 14-17 seats. Likud and Kadima are in a tight battle to finish first (25-27 seats) and have the first dibs at forming a government.

What caused Liberman's party to do so well? First, an all-star list of candidates including ex-Likud MK Uzi Landau who is a darling of the right and ex-Likud minister David Levy's daughter.

Most effective however, has been Liberman's ability to tap into the electorate's anger. At the beginning of the campaign, Liberman talked about the issue of Arab Israelis and crime. As the operation against Hamas escalated, Liberman fully concentrated his efforts on Israeli Arabs. His slogan being: "Without loyalty there is no citizenship." Liberman claims that there are non-jewish Russians in Israel who cannot get citizenship and yet are loyal to the state. On the other hand, there are Israeli Arabs who are citizens but cheer on the Palestinians and the Hizbollah. If Liberman had his way, the non-Jews would be allowed to have speedy conversion and Arabs who are disloyal deported from the state.

Liberman has a point. MKs like Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara who can sit in Israel's parliament, collect salary and eventually receive a pension should not be allowed to go visit Israel's enemies unless they are sent by the state. He has a point in saying that the Arab Israeli population represents a potential threat to the state in the form of a ticking timebomb. Anger and resentment among that population towards the state is never far from the surface. Much of it is justified. But let's not debate this further.

The effective populist nationalist campaign of Liberman is poised to make him a kingmaker between Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu. Recall that it takes 61 seats to form a coalition government. If the final tally reads for example: Likud 27, Kadima 25, Yisrael Beitenu 19, Liberman might opt to ignore Likud's small victory and lend his 19 seats to Kadima, making them just 17 short of the magic number required. Add Ehud Barak's Labor with a potential 14 seats (after promising him the defence portfolio), and that will be a fairly stable government in terms of numbers once a few smaller parties are added to the mix.

All this points to the fact that Liberman could be the kingmaker beginning on election night. What will be offered to him is unclear. Netanyahu has promised to give him a key portfolio. Indeed, Likud seems like a more natural party for YB to elevate given Liberman's past ties to Netanyahu and the right-wing nature of the party. However, there is talk of a grand national unity coalition of Likud (27) Kadima (25) and Labor (14). Such a coalition would govern without the need for other parties and Liberman would be resigned to being leader of the opposition. Not a bad thing though. Netanyahu spent the last 3 years as the leader of the opposition and is now poised to win on Tuesday.

It could wind up being very difficult for any party to sit with Liberman in coalition. He's already been branded in the world as Israel's Zhirinovsky or Israel's Haider. In short, a racist and a fascist. This is hard for me to say. There is some merit in what Liberman says. It is an injustice that Ahmed Tibi could go talk to Hizbollah as a friend and then sit in Israel's parliament while Hizbollah hurls Katyushas. No state would tolerate such a thing.

One thing is for sure. He commands a lot of support and his party looks like it has some momentum behind its back. It has gone from 12 seats (he nearly edged Likud in support last time) to the high teens. At this rate, we could be talking about PM Liberman in 3-4 years.

But for now, will he decide who the next PM of Israel is?

In praise of the National Religious Party

If anyone asks me who I would vote for if I was in Israel on the 10th of February, they would be surprised to hear my response. Yes I want Benjamin Netanyahu to form the government and I believe he will. But ultimately, there are values that I would like to see spread in Israel that could not necessarily be advanced by a large Likud Party.

The party I would vote for is now called the Jewish Home the new National Religious Party. In the photo, you can see the slip of paper that represents their party when you go and vote. It will have the letter Bet, the second letter of the alphabet.

Those who know me would say that I am not a religious person. However, I take pride in being Jewish and would like to see greater education when it comes to the religion. It is part of our heritage even if some people practice less than others. I am not a good practitioner of Judaism but I take great pride in the history, traditions and Judaism's link to the State of Israel. I have admiration for orthodox people and would love to strengthen those religious Jews who have no qualms with me.

Case in point, the right of the Jews to settle in Israel is biblically linked as the first Jews built a kingdom there during that time.

The National Religious Party (or whatever they go by these days) understands that and works to advance that. Their interest is national unity between secular and orthodox alike. Although they would like all food in Israel to be kosher and have no businesses operate on Shabbat, they are not for the creation of a theocratic state. This puts them in sharp contrast with the ultra-orthodox parties (Shas and United Torah Judaism). This was most notably presented in their ability to find co-operation with the ultra-secular Shinui Party. On the Palestinian issue, they are willing to give up land to the Palestinians but not land of heritage value to the Jews. They supported the 2003 Roadmap to Peace but placed conditions on the Palestinians to demonstrate a departure from terrorism.

Their principles are called "Ahavat Yisrael" (love of Israel). They believe that religious observance can only be spread by acting as role models for others through their daily lives. One of the greatest things about the party is that in the entire history of their existence, not a single member they elected was indicted on corruption. That is great leadership by example!

The party is the only orthodox party that runs women in realistic spots on their list. In the past, they did elected female MKs by mustering enough support. Shas and UTJ don't have a single woman on their lists.

The party runs yeshivos (religious schools) and a youth movement (Bnei Akiva). They were the proponents of religious high schools in Israel. Schools that teach Torah in addition to all the essential subjects. They stress that all yeshiva students go to the army and they never curse the country.

I also have a family connection to this party. My grandfather that I never knew (he died before I was born) was an active supporter and my uncle supports them unless Likud is in a fight for top spot. My grandfather z"l was observant and I take pride in supporting the party in his memory.

These are people I would like to elevate as their devotion to the state is unparalleled. It is rooted in their faith and they generate a greater awareness of Jewish heritage and traditions without being "in your face" about it. I welcome that. It certainly can't hurt anyone.

If you won the lottery, would you quit your job?

What I am about to discuss is a problem we would all want to have: what to do with your job if you just won the lottery.

Every shmuck you see on TV who has won claims they will continue to work even though their bank account just received a multi-million dollar injection.

Makes you ask why. After all, we work because it's our prime source of income. Without it, there will be no money for daily expenses. A person who just won $10 million can put it in a 3% interest-bearing account and earn $300,000 a year. Not bad at all.

So why work? Where would the motivation be to work? Well maybe you love your job. It gives you satisfaction. Maybe you're a highly valued employee and an asset to your company. Maybe you feel guilty about leaving. Rest assured though, companies are quite equipped to replace you. Just ask anyone who's been laid off lately.

Maybe having a ton of cash fall on your lap makes you nervous and you think it will change you for the worse so you want to keep things as "regular" as possible? Nothing solid financial planning can't solve.

Here's what I would do: if I really loved my job and in particular the field I was at, I would just open up a new business or buy one already in existence (after careful consideration of course). That way, I would remain busy, ensure that I didn't burn the cash on non-growth items (like a boat or a car). If I worked in a particular niche was too expensive to duplicate, I would just open up a new franchise like a bookstore or a Tim Horton's just to be active and have some money come in. A significant chunk I would place in an interest-bearing account, never to be withdrawn (say 60-80% of the money) and just live off the annual interest. I would use an immediate $1 million to take my lover (she knows who she is) on a trip. Get a few non-growth items, etc etc.

But as far as my job goes, I would just leave it for the next guy who might need it more than me.

I am opening the comments section for your opinions.

In defense of Israel's electoral system

With 7 days to go to the Israeli election, I am compelled to comment about it as it is ripe on my mind. I will begin by defending the system itself.

There are many critics who say that the pure PR system in Israel contributes to an unstable coalition everytime. In fact, there have been predictable timelines of roughly 3 1/2 years from 1999 to the present (legislative elections. The 2001 election was direct prime ministerial). If it was so unstable, there would be more frequent elections. By comparison, America has a fixed election every 2 years and there you have majority parties.

Israeli elections tend to produce convincing majorities for blocs, either the left or the right, with each bloc comprising of 3-4 parties. They tend to agree on foreign policy but differ generally on economic issues. Thus, Israel's foreign policy has tended to be uniform with the coalition tending to side with the opinion of the Prime Minister on matters of foreign policy. Not always but generally this is the case.

Where the parties have differed is over fiscal policy. For example, the Sephardi party Shas tends to agree with Netanyahu's Likud on foreign policy but is its polar opposite when it comes to the social safety net. Shas favors more while Likud favors less.

What forces the parties to eventually compromise over a budget is the threat of an election. Governments tend to prefer staying in power rather than facing the electorate. But what if Shas for example stands firm and refuses to budge? That is why coalitions tend to be built with as many parties as possible with a stable coalition tending to be in the ballpark of 70-80 members of Knesset (out of 120).

Some might argue that this severely limits the governing party's ability to enact fiscal policy. This is true to an extent but such parties have to be smart enough to conclude that if they fail to break 25% of the vote, they will not be able to have a monopoly over fiscal policy and would have to concede to hearing other voices over the budget.

In theory, a party can win over 50% of the vote and rule unchallenged. But the people prefer to elect coalitions. The highest vote share a party in Israel ever got was 40%. The Likud Party in 1988.

The system was created to encourage as many voices from within society to run for election. Often the electoral process creates awareness of various issues like pensions, banks, immigration hardships, etc etc. This is a welcome thing.

It's true that since 1996, the top parties' share of the overall seats has been quite reduced at the expense of smaller parties, contributing to a "pizza parliament." Just compare these numbers:

Top two parties seats in parliament

1992 - 76
1996 - 66
1999 - 45
2003 - 57*
2006 - 48

* the 1996 and 1999 elections had an additional direct vote for Prime Minister in addition to voting for the party of your choice. This more than likely contributed to the top two parties having a smaller share of the overall seats. In 2003, the system was restored causing a brief uptick (to 57) but even this was sad. Until 1996, the top two parties could muster together a majority. The 1980s were characterized by national unity governments between Labor and Likud (who together had around 90-95 seats combined).

Another contributor is the decline of the Labor party. Once a juggernaut that contended for the role of governing party, it is now fighting for 3rd place with Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beitenu. If Kadima ever collapses, Likud will remain as the sole party capable of building coalition governments.

According to latest polls, Kadima and Likud the two leading parties will not muster a majority if they combine forces. The most optimistic projection is 29+24 = 53 seats. This means it will be a frazzled parliament again with four significantly large parties and then four small parties. The right bloc is slated to win 65 seats so Netanyahu can have a right-wing government if he so chooses.

Ultimately, the people have the power to elect more stable options for coalition-building but they do not. They opt for the smaller parties. Often in each election cycle, a new party jumps out of nowhere. In 2006, it was the Pensioners Party who went from zero to 7 seats. Such phenomena just add to the instability.However, it doesn't mean the system is broken. The system gives the people a choice and this is what they choose. However, I would argue that this is no liability at all.

Israel's electoral system has many benefits: the ability to vote either for a ruling party or a party that will aid the ruling party in order to shape the policy you want. Often with a big tent party like the Republicans, you get watered-down policy designed at attracting new voters. With this system, Likud can be center-right and its coalition partners can be further to the right.

The problem of frazzled coalitions can be solved if the top parties will strengthen. This can happen in one or two election cycles. It all depends on how the public mood goes.

Awesome letter

This was in the National Post today. Really worth the read.

I am the soldier who slept in your home
From an Israeli soldier, an open letter to a resident of Gaza
Yishai Goldflam, National Post Published: Monday, February 02, 2009
Spencer Platt, Getty Images

Hello. While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home, which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that Israeli soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad, and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English-language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and laid them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me -- us -- and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places. I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that rockets were launched from your neighbourhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"? Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas." My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make
excuses about "occupation," you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple that even a seven-year-old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, removing military bases and its citizens from its Gush Katif settlements. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water and goods (and this I know very well, as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years, we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza Strip, into your neighbourhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. It's a reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy, and that because of them your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way.

You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self-pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred of your Israeli neighbours, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed. If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza Strip. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering and well-managed country. Why not the same for you?

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian fighting in the reserves, not a full-time soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and, instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands. I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history.
Regards, Yishai.

My Super Bowl Props

Posting this to see how I will do. On Monday I will score it.



Over/Under




Big Ben 250.5 Total yards
Under


Warner 250.5 Total yards
Under


Big Ben 2.5 Touchdowns
Over


Warner 2.5 Touchdowns
Under


Big Ben 1.5 Sacks
Over


Warner 2.5 Sacks
Over


Big Ben 0.5 Interceptions
Over


Warner 0.5 Interceptions
Over


Cardinals 300.5 Total Yards
Over


Steelers 300.5 Total Yards
Under


Cardinals 2.5 Field Goals
Under


Steelers 2.5 Field Goals
Over


Cardinals 2.5 Touchdowns
Over


Steelers 2.5 Touchdowns
Under


Cardinals 2.5 Turnovers (fumb lost +int)
UNDER


Steelers 1.5 Turnovers (fumb lost +int)
Over


Cardinals 0.5 Coaches Challenges
Over


Steelers 0.5 Coaches Challenges
Over


Cardinals 5.5 Punts
Under


Steelers 5.5 Punts
Over


Cardinals 3.5 Penalties
Over


Steelers 4.5 Penalties
Over


Fitzgerald 100.5 receiving yards
Over


Ward 75.5 receiving yards
Over


Boldin 50.5 receiving yards
Over


Holmes 50.5 receiving yards
Over


James 50.5 rushing yards
Over


Parker 50.5 rushing yards
Over


Hightower 35.5 rushing yards
Over


Moore 35.5 rushing yards
Over


Rackers 45.5 Longest Field Goal
Under


Reed 45.5 Longest Field Goal
Under


Pittsburg Wins game by 6.5 points
UNDER


Final Total Score 46.5 Total
Over




Which Team will win coin toss?
ARI


Which Team will have more total possession time?
ARI


Which Team will score first?
PIT


Which Team will score last?
PIT


Which Team will have the lead at half time?
ARI


Which Team will have the longest Touchdown?
ARI


Which Team will get the most penalties?
PIT


Which Team will have most total return yards (excluding kickoffs)
PIT


Which Team's Player will win MVP?
ARI


Which Team will win game?
ARI

Sometimes losing is a good thing

Like many conservatives, I was upset with the loss of John McCain in the November 4th election. My disappointment however, had more to do with my concerns regarding Barack Obama moreso than John McCain.

Sure, there were things I liked about John McCain. He pledged to clean up government and was committed to keeping America on offense in the war on terror. He didn't have an ideological blindness to getting out of Iraq the way Obama does.

However, McCain was wishy washy on fiscal Conservatism. He even admitted that he knew little about economic policy. I felt to an extent that President Bush sacrificed fiscal Conservatism too and it was frustrating. I didn't think much would change on economics from Bush if McCain got in.

The silver lining to losing the November 4th election for Republicans is the opportunity to return to what worked in the 80s' and 90s'. Ronald Reagan and the congressional Republicans of the mid-to-late 90s' succeeded because they walked and talked fiscal conservatism. They never wavered. They were not conservative just on foreign policy. They were conservative on everything. And it worked. The country was better off for it.

Unfortunately, as Republicans began to take victories for granted, they let government get bloated. They sacrificed their values rather than seizing the opportunity to continue trimming down government and educating the public about the values that shape the party. It was hard to identify with this party.

I have seen some encouraging signs this week. House Republicans' decision not to put their name on the "stimulous bill" was shades of the good past. Another was the election of Michael Steele, a good conservative and someone who will lock horns with Obama.

Losing forces you to re-invent yourself. To return to what worked before. I was getting frustrated the past four years from what I saw from Republicans. Now I'm excited for the renewal process.

Protectionism: A slippery slope in a downward economy

Anyone who takes a lesson in basic economics understands why imports exist. They exist because buying locally is too expensive or lacks the quality compared to the goods available
abroad.

Simply put, if buying locally was an efficient and cost-saving way compare to importing, companies would not import at all.

NAFTA was created in particular to allow the free flow of goods within North America. In general, the way it has worked has been that Canada shipped natural resources or initial production (steel plates for example) to the US and in return, imported finished goods. Think softwood lumber.

Now Barack Obama wants to force US companies to buy locally, effectively breaching NAFTA. This move will fail on quite a few fronts:

1. It will artificially prop up inefficient US goods without forcing them to improve their cost savings. The existence of free trade forces local producers to become more efficient so as to provide importers the incentive to buy locally instead.

2. It will trigger a protectionism on the other side. Canada will probably opt to mandate that some goods be bought locally as well that may otherwise have been imported from the United States.

The answer to America's economic ills is to force inefficient companies to become leaner in their bottom line in order to compete with imports. Those companies that cannot should go belly-up.

Protectionism is artificial and phony. It causes prices to be higher for basic goods and that is not a way to encourage increased consumer spending. My suspicion is that Obama is trying to protect unionized industry by forcing others to buy from them rather than addressing their problems head-on.

Laissez-faire will work in this downward economy. If only governments would adhere to that, everything will be fine.

The Jeopardy answer is Blagojevich

The question: What is a name that will forever be synonymous with the words: crook, cheat, scumbag, disgrace, corrupt and a fraud.

He was so bad that not a single senator in the Illinois Senate was able to bring themselves to vote nay on removal from office.

It prompts me to ask if any amount of money is worth getting caught, led away in handcuffs and being summarily removed from the top office in your state. Not only that, but getting barred from ever holding office again (a political death penalty if you will). Greasy Rod cannot even become the dog catcher of Skokie, Illinois.

And for good reason. Senate seats are not for sale. They are not to be given away for the highest bribe. Senators should be free of any external influence and being indebtted to a governor does not make them so.

Greasy Rod made a mockery out of the power granted to a governor to pick a senator in the event of resignation by another senator. He brought out the ugliest side of politics. The kind of side that honest hard-working people shun and detest about government.

The most pathetic spectable was the governor's attempts to stay in office by doing a bit of a PR circuit. He should have resigned right away for the good of his state and faced the music. He would have come out a lot more dignified. The unrepentent nature of the ex-governor has ensured that any sentence handed down will be a lot more severe than had he just acknowledged his wrong-doing.

All I can say is good riddance to bad garbage.

Starbucks falling on hard times

In falling economic times, some of the inevitable casualties are the luxuries in life. As discretionary spending grinds to a halt, consumers cut back on the extras in life. Not
even coffee is safe. Especially when you brand yourself as upscale and trendy.

The Starbucks story is a microcosm of what is happening in the overall economy. It
appears that Starbucks' extreme growth saturation strategy has finally caught up to
it. When times require restraint, luxuries take a hit.

Starbucks plans to lay off 6,700 workers and close 300 more stores.

In the short-term the move will cost the company a whopping $230 million. However, once completed, it will save the company $100 million annually. The company better hope it's a good move given those figures.

I frequent Starbucks quite a lot and can attest that at least the stores I go to are doing
relatively fine. But Starbucks is and always has been, an acquired taste. And when the
economy starts slowing down, acquired tastes get bitten.

The benefactors at Starbucks' expense are the Tim Horton's and McDonald's of the world.
When disposable income starts to tighten up, suddenly McDonald's coffee doesn't seem half
bad. You can have 3 McDonald's coffees for the price of one Starbucks coffee.

Or, if you need flavored coffee badly, even a coffee machine over time will be cheaper than Starbucks.

Bottom line. Giffen goods are in now. Starbucks and other luxuries are in danger.