How do you make sense of a place like Babi Yar?
We stood on the edge of a perfectly normal looking ravine, filled with trees and covered in snow. It is cold. The wind is blowing. It would be cold in this place, even in Summer. But now it is bitter, and we shiver.
To get there, we walked down a long ice-covered driveway. Turned off a busy street in town to get to the driveway. Walked past buildings. In plain site. Questions arise. How do you not notice 33,711 people tromping along this path over the course of two days? Carrying suitcases. Families.
How do you not hear the 33,711 gunshots ring out in this ravine, situated inside the city, not in some far off forest where the winds do not carry the sound. People lived a few hundred meters from this ravine.
They heard the sounds. They saw the people. They knew.
In two days, they died. 33,711 of layed down, stripped naked, one on top of the other, face down. Shot in the back of the head. It is horrible to write these words. But it happened and we need to remember Reveka Bachrach, and the others who died in this place.
So, we stood there in the cold and we read. We read names of Reveka’s neighbors. We read Reveka’s name. And, we shed a tear.
There are many ravines just like this one in my hometown. As children, we played in the ravines, running up and down the slopes, branches snapping against us as we ran. Getting thoroughly, and joyfully, muddy in the process. Ravines were a place to play. And, here I stood on the edge of a different kind of ravine in the heart of big city Kiev. Very different kind of ravine.
When I arrived in Jerusalem, I placed a small prayer for Reveka Bachrach in the Wall. She is not forgotten.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Health Care, Cadillac Plans and Unions
The landscape has changed for health care legislation since Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, but an associate of mine said something interesting to me yesteday that I thought I would pass on.
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Health-Care-Slamma-Jamma
Now that the polls are uncertain as to whether the Dems will hold onto the Senate seat in Massachusetts in the special election tomorrow, Senate Dem leadership is shifting into high gear to try to convince House Dem leadership to pass the Senate bill as is, with no changes. If the House does that, then the bill will not need to go back to the Senate for another vote. Which means, the Congress can pass the Health Care legislation without having to worry about whether the Massachusetts Senate seat is Democratic or Republican.
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
Friday, January 15, 2010
Back from Dubai
Dubai Observations . . .
1. Dubai is in big trouble financially. There is so much over building that it may take 10 years to absorb the excess real estate there. Residential values declined 52% in 2009 alone. In some areas, every other building has a crane on top of it. Reminded me of the cities in China that I visited.
2. The Burj Khalifa is pretty darn cool. Went up to the observatory on the 124th floor, walked outside (yes, outside) and looked up and saw another 40 story building above us.
3. Business is business. There are a lot of universities, hospitals, biotech research centers, etc... being built in the region. This region is trying to develop in a hurry (maybe before the oil runs out).
4. Did you know that only 15% of the population of Dubai is actually from Dubai. The remaining 85% is from someplace else and has limited rights (i.e. can't buy real estate, for instance) or are on time limited sponsorship deals to come there and work for a few years. One Pakistani taxi driver told me he was there on a three year contract, gets paid $500 a month to drive his taxi 12 hours a day, seven days a week. And, he lives in company dormitory with 7 other taxi drivers in the same room. Not such a wonderful life.
Political Observations . . .
1. I like Jon Stewart and find him very amusing and entertaining. However, his recent interview with John Yoo (of Justice Dept torture memo fame) highlighted one significant problem with those that get their "news" analysis from watching Jon Stewart; he is hopelessly tethered to his political beliefs. Even after basically admitting he did not know enough on the subject to hold a serious conversation with John Yoo, he clung to his preconceived notions on the subject. It is very interesting indeed to watch the interview (which you can find in three parts on hulu.com). I highly recommend it for those that are Jon Stewart fans. Pay particular attention to his mea culpa after the third episode, but make sure you watch all three all the way through.
Personally, I found John Yoo to be extremely intelligent, calm, cool and collected (but I'm not buying his book). He basically toasted Jon Stewart. Say what you will about the politics of the topic they discussed, the legal argument in that interview was not challenged by Stewart.
2. Obama's Bank Tax. Is going to be paid by you and me. So, basically, the Government takes our tax money and bails out these financial institutions. Then the President says we need to get "our" money back and he imposes a tax on the financial institutions . . . which the banks will turn around and pass on to us so they can pay us back our money . . . does this make sense to anyone?
3. Bonus Schmonus. While I certainly understand the frustration of people who feel that it is "unfair" for financial institutions to give out bonuses to their high performers during a recession, and immediately after the Government bailed these firms out (which made it possible for them to earn those bonuses), to me this is just more political posturing and posing.
We can't have it both ways. Either these are private companies, or they are not. If they are private, then they get to decide how much to pay their people. If they are public, then let's get this over with and nationalize them.
4. According to the Office of Personnel Management;
- 19% of Federal workers earn over $100,000 a year (before overtime and bonus).
- Average pay of Federal workers is over $71,000, compared to $40,000 in private industry.
- Over 10,000 people at the Department of Defense make over $150,000 a year.
- In the last 18 months, the number of Department of Transportation employees making over $170,000 a year has ballooned from 1 to 1,690.
These are interesting figures.
All for now.
1. Dubai is in big trouble financially. There is so much over building that it may take 10 years to absorb the excess real estate there. Residential values declined 52% in 2009 alone. In some areas, every other building has a crane on top of it. Reminded me of the cities in China that I visited.
2. The Burj Khalifa is pretty darn cool. Went up to the observatory on the 124th floor, walked outside (yes, outside) and looked up and saw another 40 story building above us.
3. Business is business. There are a lot of universities, hospitals, biotech research centers, etc... being built in the region. This region is trying to develop in a hurry (maybe before the oil runs out).
4. Did you know that only 15% of the population of Dubai is actually from Dubai. The remaining 85% is from someplace else and has limited rights (i.e. can't buy real estate, for instance) or are on time limited sponsorship deals to come there and work for a few years. One Pakistani taxi driver told me he was there on a three year contract, gets paid $500 a month to drive his taxi 12 hours a day, seven days a week. And, he lives in company dormitory with 7 other taxi drivers in the same room. Not such a wonderful life.
Political Observations . . .
1. I like Jon Stewart and find him very amusing and entertaining. However, his recent interview with John Yoo (of Justice Dept torture memo fame) highlighted one significant problem with those that get their "news" analysis from watching Jon Stewart; he is hopelessly tethered to his political beliefs. Even after basically admitting he did not know enough on the subject to hold a serious conversation with John Yoo, he clung to his preconceived notions on the subject. It is very interesting indeed to watch the interview (which you can find in three parts on hulu.com). I highly recommend it for those that are Jon Stewart fans. Pay particular attention to his mea culpa after the third episode, but make sure you watch all three all the way through.
Personally, I found John Yoo to be extremely intelligent, calm, cool and collected (but I'm not buying his book). He basically toasted Jon Stewart. Say what you will about the politics of the topic they discussed, the legal argument in that interview was not challenged by Stewart.
2. Obama's Bank Tax. Is going to be paid by you and me. So, basically, the Government takes our tax money and bails out these financial institutions. Then the President says we need to get "our" money back and he imposes a tax on the financial institutions . . . which the banks will turn around and pass on to us so they can pay us back our money . . . does this make sense to anyone?
3. Bonus Schmonus. While I certainly understand the frustration of people who feel that it is "unfair" for financial institutions to give out bonuses to their high performers during a recession, and immediately after the Government bailed these firms out (which made it possible for them to earn those bonuses), to me this is just more political posturing and posing.
We can't have it both ways. Either these are private companies, or they are not. If they are private, then they get to decide how much to pay their people. If they are public, then let's get this over with and nationalize them.
4. According to the Office of Personnel Management;
- 19% of Federal workers earn over $100,000 a year (before overtime and bonus).
- Average pay of Federal workers is over $71,000, compared to $40,000 in private industry.
- Over 10,000 people at the Department of Defense make over $150,000 a year.
- In the last 18 months, the number of Department of Transportation employees making over $170,000 a year has ballooned from 1 to 1,690.
These are interesting figures.
All for now.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Amateur Hour at the White House
1. Three days after the "Tidey Whitey Bomber" (D.Pryor) failed to detonate, the President declared that our intelligence agencies had let us down and that he was going to investigate this "breach". Clenched jaw, frown on his face, he seemed genuinely angry. To me, this display seemed "made-for-TV". It is hard to tell with Obama, because he shows so little emotion publicly. But, this is besides the point.
The point I am making here is that throwing the "intelligence" community under the bus for this situation was probably not the master stroke his advisors thought it would be. If it is true that we had an intelligence breakdown of sorts (seems pretty obvious that there was some kind of breakdown), why would the President of the United States say so on national TV? Why would he call out those parties so publicly? To score political points is the answer. He needs better poll numbers and this was an easy target (public wanted a scapegoat and he gave us one). The problem with this strategy is that he needs us (the public) to have confidence in our intelligence capabilities. He needs us to think that the billions of dollars we are spending each year on the Federal Government are being spent well and that we are being protected by the "best of the best". And, that it is safe to fly.
Was it worth the poll numbers to undercut public confidence in American intelligence agency effectiveness?
2. The other thing the President said at that press conference was that he was going to "get those guys" who were behind the numbskull who tried to blow his own balls off on that Northwest flight. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist. He sounded positively Bush-like. And, not very Obama-like. Again, a calculated statement, designed for maximum political effect. His handlers have recognized that we (the public) don't think he's tough enough and that we like toughness in our leaders. So, he has to do something to make himself seem tougher. And, making statements about getting the bad guys worked for Bush, so why not try it?
I suppose this is also a tacit concession that the whole "build it and they will come" idea of building bridges to talk . . . just won't work with some people (lots of people). Sadly, our country had paid a heavy price so the President could learn this lesson.
3. When in doubt . . . investigate. It always seems very proactive to declare that the President is investigating the problem and undertaking a major reassessment of capabilities, blah, blah, blah . . . So, now appear stories about President Obama spending the weekend (oh, the horror!) reading a "flood of new information" (WSJ, pA2) explaining how the security system failed. Hundreds of pages, blah, blah, blah. To top it off, the article goes on to reveal that the President is going to have a big meeting with lots of important people to discuss this matter, next Tuesday and that the President is going to lead the investigation. But, not to expect anything major for a number of weeks. Because these things take time, people. Enjoy your flight . . .
Does it seem rational for the President to lead an investigation into how the Dork Bomber (R.Woldenberg) got on that plane with explosives? Is he the best person to do that? What does it say about the leaders of our intelligence apparatus if he is leading this investigation? That he doesn't trust them, or that they are not competent enough to lead this? Do we want our President being the Investigator-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief?
Again, this seems manufactured for an audience. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. President Obama needs better poll numbers. Next thing we'll see are stories about the President approving specific Predator strikes on the bad guys.
All for now . . .
The point I am making here is that throwing the "intelligence" community under the bus for this situation was probably not the master stroke his advisors thought it would be. If it is true that we had an intelligence breakdown of sorts (seems pretty obvious that there was some kind of breakdown), why would the President of the United States say so on national TV? Why would he call out those parties so publicly? To score political points is the answer. He needs better poll numbers and this was an easy target (public wanted a scapegoat and he gave us one). The problem with this strategy is that he needs us (the public) to have confidence in our intelligence capabilities. He needs us to think that the billions of dollars we are spending each year on the Federal Government are being spent well and that we are being protected by the "best of the best". And, that it is safe to fly.
Was it worth the poll numbers to undercut public confidence in American intelligence agency effectiveness?
2. The other thing the President said at that press conference was that he was going to "get those guys" who were behind the numbskull who tried to blow his own balls off on that Northwest flight. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist. He sounded positively Bush-like. And, not very Obama-like. Again, a calculated statement, designed for maximum political effect. His handlers have recognized that we (the public) don't think he's tough enough and that we like toughness in our leaders. So, he has to do something to make himself seem tougher. And, making statements about getting the bad guys worked for Bush, so why not try it?
I suppose this is also a tacit concession that the whole "build it and they will come" idea of building bridges to talk . . . just won't work with some people (lots of people). Sadly, our country had paid a heavy price so the President could learn this lesson.
3. When in doubt . . . investigate. It always seems very proactive to declare that the President is investigating the problem and undertaking a major reassessment of capabilities, blah, blah, blah . . . So, now appear stories about President Obama spending the weekend (oh, the horror!) reading a "flood of new information" (WSJ, pA2) explaining how the security system failed. Hundreds of pages, blah, blah, blah. To top it off, the article goes on to reveal that the President is going to have a big meeting with lots of important people to discuss this matter, next Tuesday and that the President is going to lead the investigation. But, not to expect anything major for a number of weeks. Because these things take time, people. Enjoy your flight . . .
Does it seem rational for the President to lead an investigation into how the Dork Bomber (R.Woldenberg) got on that plane with explosives? Is he the best person to do that? What does it say about the leaders of our intelligence apparatus if he is leading this investigation? That he doesn't trust them, or that they are not competent enough to lead this? Do we want our President being the Investigator-in-Chief, or the Commander-in-Chief?
Again, this seems manufactured for an audience. Keep your eyes on the prize, people. President Obama needs better poll numbers. Next thing we'll see are stories about the President approving specific Predator strikes on the bad guys.
All for now . . .
Monday, December 28, 2009
"Leg Bomber" Thwarted . . . by Luck and Courage
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
That's the name of the alleged Delta Airlines Leg Bomber. He didn't quite get the job done for Al Kayda (sp) this time around. Here's to hoping that those that follow him are equally incompetent.
But, what is more incompetent is how this sorry excuse for a terrorist was permitted to get on a plane bound for the U.S. anyway. Let us review the facts that we know. There are other, more damning facts we don't yet know, I am sure, but here's what we know right now.
1. His father called the U.S. Embassy one month ago and informed Embassy staff that he thought his son's radical Islamic views were a danger to the U.S. and urged the U.S. to watch out for him. That's a pretty strong warning. The guy's Dad calls. Maybe that kind of warning should get more attention, perhaps?
2. His name (not exactly a household name, mind you), was subsequently added to the Terror Watchlist, maintained by U.S. Intelligence agencies.
3. He bought his plane ticket with cash (Hello? CASH!!!)
4. He did not check any bags from Lagos, Nigeria to Detroit, Michigan. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a bag. Have you ever been on a flight from a place like Lagos to any city in the U.S? Let's just say, there's a lot of luggage, per passenger. Yet this guy pays cash and then shows up at the airport with no luggage. Gets on the plane, no problem.
No bags and paid in cash. Those two facts ALONE should have kept this guy from getting on a U.S. bound plane. Yet, he was also on a Terror Watchlist. What exactly does one do with a Terror Watchlist if one doesn't watch out for the people on said Watchlist?
Please explain to me what Janet Nepolitano meant when she said "the system worked". What system was she referring to? The inflight video system? I am hardpressed to see how one can come to the conclusion that the security apparatus of the U.S., or the coordinated global airline security procedures, distinguished themselves in this case. Question: is Janet Nepalitano the right person for Homeland Security if she thinks this is an example of a success?
The only reason we are not looking at footage of scraps of aluminum and suitcases strewn about the suburbs of Detroit is luck. Pure luck, a little incompetence a couple of courageous passengers.
Not very inspiring, is it?
Woldy
That's the name of the alleged Delta Airlines Leg Bomber. He didn't quite get the job done for Al Kayda (sp) this time around. Here's to hoping that those that follow him are equally incompetent.
But, what is more incompetent is how this sorry excuse for a terrorist was permitted to get on a plane bound for the U.S. anyway. Let us review the facts that we know. There are other, more damning facts we don't yet know, I am sure, but here's what we know right now.
1. His father called the U.S. Embassy one month ago and informed Embassy staff that he thought his son's radical Islamic views were a danger to the U.S. and urged the U.S. to watch out for him. That's a pretty strong warning. The guy's Dad calls. Maybe that kind of warning should get more attention, perhaps?
2. His name (not exactly a household name, mind you), was subsequently added to the Terror Watchlist, maintained by U.S. Intelligence agencies.
3. He bought his plane ticket with cash (Hello? CASH!!!)
4. He did not check any bags from Lagos, Nigeria to Detroit, Michigan. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a bag. Have you ever been on a flight from a place like Lagos to any city in the U.S? Let's just say, there's a lot of luggage, per passenger. Yet this guy pays cash and then shows up at the airport with no luggage. Gets on the plane, no problem.
No bags and paid in cash. Those two facts ALONE should have kept this guy from getting on a U.S. bound plane. Yet, he was also on a Terror Watchlist. What exactly does one do with a Terror Watchlist if one doesn't watch out for the people on said Watchlist?
Please explain to me what Janet Nepolitano meant when she said "the system worked". What system was she referring to? The inflight video system? I am hardpressed to see how one can come to the conclusion that the security apparatus of the U.S., or the coordinated global airline security procedures, distinguished themselves in this case. Question: is Janet Nepalitano the right person for Homeland Security if she thinks this is an example of a success?
The only reason we are not looking at footage of scraps of aluminum and suitcases strewn about the suburbs of Detroit is luck. Pure luck, a little incompetence a couple of courageous passengers.
Not very inspiring, is it?
Woldy
Monday, December 14, 2009
"Fat Cat Bankers"
1. Did our President actually say "I didn't get elected to help fat cat bankers. . . " on Sixty Minutes last night?
Does anyone else think this language, in referring to professionals in the finance industry, seems a bit . . . well, un-Presidential?
And a little too . . . manufactured for his audience. Afterall, he really likes to employ former fat cat bankers as advisors, tsars (he likes to hire tsars) and employees in the federal government. So, he doesn't not like fat cat bankers. He hires them all the time. And, he listens to them. This Administration has kind of gone over-board trying to help fat cat bankers and the firms they work for.
So, what's this all about, this language about not wanting to help fat cat bankers? Could it be a brazen attempt to rally his left-leaning political base because he has done so many things recently to royally piss them off? Me thinks so.
2. Lending. As long as we are on the subject, it seems a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to be publicly lambasting the . . . uh . . . fat cat bankers for not lending out the money the Federal Reserve has so cheaply made available to them. Since it has been Government policy (from various agencies involved in the soup that is financial regulation in this country) to encourage these very same financial institutions to build up their capital base. Does the President know what this means? It means that we have been telling the banks not to loan money but instead to build up capital.
So, now we are calling them out for . . . not loaning the money . . . we told them not to loan.
And, blaming them for the slow pace of job growth in the process.
Ain't politics great?
Woldy
Does anyone else think this language, in referring to professionals in the finance industry, seems a bit . . . well, un-Presidential?
And a little too . . . manufactured for his audience. Afterall, he really likes to employ former fat cat bankers as advisors, tsars (he likes to hire tsars) and employees in the federal government. So, he doesn't not like fat cat bankers. He hires them all the time. And, he listens to them. This Administration has kind of gone over-board trying to help fat cat bankers and the firms they work for.
So, what's this all about, this language about not wanting to help fat cat bankers? Could it be a brazen attempt to rally his left-leaning political base because he has done so many things recently to royally piss them off? Me thinks so.
2. Lending. As long as we are on the subject, it seems a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to be publicly lambasting the . . . uh . . . fat cat bankers for not lending out the money the Federal Reserve has so cheaply made available to them. Since it has been Government policy (from various agencies involved in the soup that is financial regulation in this country) to encourage these very same financial institutions to build up their capital base. Does the President know what this means? It means that we have been telling the banks not to loan money but instead to build up capital.
So, now we are calling them out for . . . not loaning the money . . . we told them not to loan.
And, blaming them for the slow pace of job growth in the process.
Ain't politics great?
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)