Israel and the Turkish Flotilla

Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza, the legitimacy or effectiveness of which is not a subject of this post. Some activists, diplomats and agitators had put together a few ships to break the blockade and take emergency supplies to Gaza. Israel intercepted these ships in international waters (closer to Egypt than Israel) and took possession of these ships, during which between nine and seventeen activists were killed.

The first point has been raised by many. Israel does not have jurisdiction in international waters, invading these ships was an act of piracy; the activists had every right to defend themselves against illegal boarders just as any ship would defend itself against the Somali pirates. Don't want to be treated like a pirate? Don't behave like one.

The second point has been missed by many and worth mentioning. There are repeated references that the Israeli commandos weren't prepared for any resistance, some of them were even armed with paint-ball guns. This gives me pause. The flotilla were seen by Israel as an existential threat, still the propaganda minister of Israel is going on about how the activists consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary guards, they might have been smuggling rockets and missiles which would then be used against Israel. For all these reasons Israel had to intercept these ships. But wait, trying to intercept a lethal ship and the commandos not prepared for any resistance? Armed with paint guns? Where's the disconnect here?

On the other hand if these ships were stopped within Israeli waters none of these arguments would arise. Israel would have had every authority to intercept the ships, and refuse entry to any activist without a valid Israeli visa. Any resistance to Israeli forces would be a crime and hence none of these criticisms would apply. So what happened?

David Igantius (the unofficial spokesman for the CIA at the Washington Post) puts it thus:

The answer is that over many years, Israel has become accustomed to unchallenged freedom of military action in the Middle East. Operating boldly and often far from home, it has attacked and intimidated its adversaries. This confrontational approach worked brilliantly when Israel's foes were backward guerrillas and incompetent Arab armies, but it has been less successful in the era of the Internet and missile proliferation.

Hubris and blatant disregard of any international norm had become a modus operandi of Israel even when it is completely unnecessary as in this case. Israel is slowly "checking out" of whatever is referred to as the "international community". This should be very worrisome to all those who wish Israel well, the ignorance and arrogance of it's leadership make Israel more and more isolated, an isolation that Israel (no matter what the jingoists say) can ill afford.

Read more!

Personness of Corporations

Proposition: Rights of persons are exogenous to any constitution and hence some rights can be inalienable; rights of corporations are derived from the legal system within which they are incorporated and hence corporations can not have inalienable rights.

The idea of corporations as persons has risen to the fore due to Citizens United vs. Federal Eelction Commision. The central point in the case is whether the government can restrict free speech of corporations (in this particular case unlimited spending in an election). The supreme court decided in favor of Citizens United, that (a) as corporations are a manifestation of persons constituting them, hence their freedom of speech can not be restricted, and (b) "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

My view of rights echo the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...". Hence, in this hierarchy at the top is the creator, next are person or persons who then come together to make a grand compromise in the form of a constitution.

In this view the constitution does not grant people any rights but only take away rights for the sake of a functioning society. Hence freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution, but the constituion concents to the fact that people would not have to give up their freedom of speech (which is inherently their's) in order to live in the territories in which the constituion is effective.

In this hierarchy, corporations come below the constitution or the legal framework. An entity like the NRA which is an adovocacy group could exist without a constitution, however not so for Citi Group. Hence Citit Group can not have inelienable rights, the individuals forming Citi Group will still have their individual freedoms (individually or as organizations which are not incroporated). However, if they are dependent on the legal system ofr the existence of their organization then they are at the mercy of the legal system.

Of course in practice if the system is too restrictive (say like North Korea or Burma) then industries would not find that too appealing a business environment. So there's some trade-off with regards to what rights a corporation can have. But for me the main point is that the government can restrict rights of corporations.

The second point is more nebulous. Of course the courts recognize the need to restrict speech, for example shouting fire in a crowded place. As someone said, the constitution is not a death wish. But who decides? It may be obvious to many that allowing corporations a free hand in an election is a death wish for democracy. The exact text of the first amendment is obviously flawed or incomplete and hence this rigorous application is simply foolish.

Read more!

Immigration in Europe

[draft:] Let's focus on two issues: a) What are reasonable demands that a host country can make on its prospective immigrants? b) What's the goal of an immigration policy?

• What is the difference between subversion and dissent? It appears to me that dissent is against a particular policy rather than the government itself. Dissent implicitly assumes faith in the constitution and the moral foundation of the existing society.
• If diversity itself if a goal of society, then why should immigrant integrate?

Should minorities have the right to have their own legal system (sharia law)? The end.

Read more!

End of An Error

Was at the Eldridge St Synagogue for a community viewing of the inauguration. The synagogue was quite decorative with faux marble and intricately restored roof. There were some technical difficulties due to the extreme heavy internet load, but it all went over fine. Rick Warren was downright unimpressive, almost as inconsequential as Bush 43. I was arguing with Mark that the oath of office includes defending the Constitution "against all enemies", turns out it's a part of the Vice Presidential oath but not that of the President. Then Roberts starts reading the oath, and Obama seems to fumble!!! I am thinking, this is your day, what the heck are you doing???, Anyway, turns out that Roberts was reading without notes and he messed up, and Obama was going with the memorized lines. Mark wondered if conservatives would now claim this was not a legitimate swearing in. Oh Roberts! Obama after all voted against his nomination.

The speech started off OK, nothing mind blowing.

"This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year."

How about them sub-prime mortgages?

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear,"

Hmm, so McCain = fear?

They have been replaying on TV some of his past speeches especially the one from Grant Park: "It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled." and I have been mentally challenging him to embrace both believers and non-believers, but never thought he had the courage. And then this:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

It felt as if he added it as an afterthought, it sort of hangs here at the end of the sentence. I was shocked, and impressed, and delighted. Although there are perhaps more Buddhists in the US (he might have clumped them with non-believers) than Hindus (not sure). The rest is equally eloquent:

"We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace. "
And here is the rest of it. From that point on I guess the speech just took wings and lifted off.

"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Also interesting was the quote from Washington(?) "that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive."

and the finale:
"America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
Read more!

Dems Already Blowing it

So all this stimulus plan, $30b for highways, and $10b for public transit. Way to go Obama, and what about Amtrak Biden? Carbon emission? Maybe Obama wants to promote tire gauges. Take a look at Spain to see how it's actually done. Read more!

Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

Krugman's book for the most part was an exciting as any of his columns, somewhere in the middle the section on the rise of the movement conservatism was somewhat boring since this has been rehashed several times in the press and elsewhere ad nauseam for the last several years. A few points were eye opening for me.

• The central claim of Krugman is : The middle class in the United States did not evolve automatically as the economy matured, but was created through government policy and intervention, by Roosevelt and the New Deal.
  
• The second claim is : The inequality of wages in the United States is not a result of technological advancements but of government policy.
  

Let's discuss the points below the fold.

• in progress ...


• Similar levels of technology in other western nations from Canada to France did not result in similar degrees of disparity, only Britain with similar policies during Thatcher saw spikes in inequality.


• 
  

Read more!

Bush sees Iraqi sole (size 10)

I can only think of Milton, "the ignominy and shame beneath this downfall"

• This is clearly a far far more effective form of protest than if the guy blew himself up. This actually draws focus on his grievances, I hope other Iraqis take notice.
  


• This is also a form of democratic protest, not unlike the caricatures of world leaders at WTO conferences or nude marches on earth-day. So in some way this is the beginning of democratic protests in Iraq, ..., in a twisted way something that Bush claims to have tried to do.
  


• In other news, some rich Saudi has offered to buy the shoes for 10 million dollars. The journalist faces anywhere from two to fifteen years in prison. Although I think the government might have to relent on public pressure.
  

And here is the rest of it. Read more!

Terrorist Attacks in Bombay

Somehow I always have a mental block every time I type Mumbai, so Bombay from here on (even my automatic spell checker gives an error for Mumbai). Anyway, when I first saw the T.V. report, I thought just another attack. But as the story unfolded, it seemed clear that this was very different.

• The speculation was about the identity of the terrorists. There is no dearth of people with grievances against Delhi, but when I heard about the attack on the Jewish centre, I was convinced that this had to be an outside group. While there is much friction between Hindus and Muslims in India, anti-Semitism is unheard of.
• I don't see any advantage of the Pakistani government in this either. This only brings India, the U.S. and Israel closer which does Pakistan no good. But the reality is that Pakistan, like Palestine is almost an ungoverned land, LeT might have operated with or without the knowledge of ISI.
• What maddens me most is the failure of the Indian intelligence services to preempt this. I mean such attacks will happen from time to time, but this is like the fourth or fifth time this year. Someone high up has resigned, for a change, but does that improve things?
• If it wasn't Bombay, the emergency services would probably have been much much worse.
• What's the impact on the economy? Already investments were drying up, now business travel will inevitably take a hit.

Read more!

Manhattan for Obama

From this very cool Times map, it looks like Manhattan (somehow the borough is being shown as a county, Dom's correction, Manhattan is New York County, King's county is Brooklyn) gave Obama the strongest support at 85% in the entire country. Surprisingly, Staten Island went to McCain by a small margin.(Nothing extra below fold) Read more!

Hillary in State Dept.

The Huffington post confirms that Obama has indeed offered Hillary the State Department. Politico has a deeper analysis. My plan is to cover Doris Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" for our January meet-up, it's the book that Obama claims to have shaped his philosophy of governing and leadership, and in that light he is embracing his former rival. (More below the fold)



But what does this say about the message of "change" if he is filling the white house with "team Clinton", does it worry the Obama fans? After a little thinking I think that Obama is handling it very well, absorbing a host of talented people who were loosely associated with the Clinton administration gives him Washington expertise which will be much needed. Also as the article mentions, this prevents any significant clash with Hillary. What Obama is keeping out though are the Mark Penns and Harold Ickes who are too closely associated the Clintons and were too a large extent responsible for the infighting in her campaign. Does not mesh well with no-drama Obama team.

Should Hillary accept? I would think that her main interest lies in domestic policy, especially health-care. One day she could aspire to be the Senate leader, if she drops out of the senate it may not be too soon that she can return. Furthermore, it'll be difficult for her to run against Obama in 2012 should the opportunity arise. Also, she'll be putting her career at the mercy of Obama. Will she be a great secretary of State? Probably better than Powell or Rice, no worse than Christopher or Albright, but probably not as good as Baker.

Kerry is the other candidate, he brought Obama in national spotlight, so he might be "owed" something, but personally I would really like to see Kerry in Homeland Security, that's his expertise and I think that's where he can be best utilized.
Read more!

Obama's Message of Hope

The whole idea of Obama's message of "Hope" had seemed silly to many. But in retrospect, I think this has some genuine prospects. The biggest capital of a politician is the ability to persuade, and people become more pliable when given hope for the future. Given current conditions, a broad consensus needs to be built across the country, for example behind a proper stimulus package. Hillary Clinton fairly or unfairly would not have been able to generate such broad agreements. No matter how much "Hope" sounds like voodoo, it allows a very high favorability rating from the start, and "hope"fully that will allow him to get things done. (Nothing extra below fold) Read more!

Obama's Election

Interesting article at the Times about the Levittown, PA which went heavily for Hillary coming around to vote for Obama. It occurred to me that the very process of people confronting themselves to consider Obama's candidacy must be in itself a positive step for race relations in America. It became a choice between discomfort developed from childhood, and the nation facing real problems and people overcame.

On the other hand the failure of (or rather passage of) Proposition 8 in California seems to some as a point of departure for liberals and minorities. Not sure how convincing that argument is. Read more!

Hillary's Campaign

Final thoughts on the Hillary campaign, I think that Hillary did not do a good job in building it. She became the inevitable candidate very early on, and the old hands signed up more in order to promote themselves than to promote her. This led to considerable infighting, positioning and leaks. They fought on doggedly because they simply could not believe they could lose, and that the old hands were making a last stand for their careers.

All said such a team would have served the country very ill. Hillary might have won, with a smaller majority then Obama, but so far the Obama campaign has shown far greater efficiency than one could have reasonably expected from Clinton. Read more!