The Butterfly Effect and C.S. Lewis

On September 19th, 1931, after an intense conversation with J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis became a Christian. I humbly suggest that the Butterfly effect from that stage of his conversion -- an earlier stage included a necessary pit-stop at Theism for the former atheist -- may be the most consequential wing flap by a layperson in all of Christendom.

For me, Lewis the revelation - in reading Lewis, there are actual moments where I literally pause to appreciate the wave of grace lapping up from the pages - has turned into Lewis the daily inspiration. Largely due to Lewis, I now view what I previously considered seemingly inconsequential daily decisions as either moving me towards or away from God, period. We wish that it were otherwise, that there were ponderous and weighty gray areas. I now see those gray areas largely as effective lies courtesy of The Enemy, to coin a phrase.

Taking a que from Albert Brooks, 'Defending Your Life,' I picture Lewis' 'trial' as having ended up as a unabashed celebration of faith as a seemingly endless stream of people recall the book, passage, verse, sentence or radio broadcast which most helped strengthen their faith. In my case, the cumulative effect of Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters.

Can you imagine what it felt like to be in Lewis' shoes at that trial? St Catherine of Siena likely knew what Lewis would experience when she wrote, "All the way to heaven is heaven, for He [Jesus] said, ‘I am the Way.'"

Read more!

Podhoretz On Jews And Their Liberalism

The Norman Podhoretz opinion article in the Sept 13th WSJ - re why Jews tend to be liberal - would still be worth reading if it did not include the following paragraph:

All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"—then the most prosperous minority group in America—"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest.

But since it did, it deserves our cult-like attention. As a Jewish intellectual and one of the founders of the neo-conservative movement, Podhoretz shows that his independence remains unaffected through the years.

See Mr Podhoretz's book here.

Please see the entire Podhoretz article referenced copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Are Jews Liberals? 'm hoping buyer's remorse on Obama will finally cause a Jewish shift to the right.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

By NORMAN PODHORETZ

One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama's victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain's long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"—then the most prosperous minority group in America—"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest.

Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, "whatever the promptings of their economic interests," Jews have consistently supported "increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor."

As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of "Jewish values." But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law. To cite just a few examples: Jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother; it forbids sex between men; and it prohibits suicide (except when the only alternatives are forced conversion or incest).

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as "the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in," and the services in a Reform temple as "the Democratic Party at prayer."

As a Jew who moved from left to right more than four decades ago, I have been hoping for many years that my fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was the case in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.

The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America "the golden land." They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.

What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals.

That possibility having been resoundingly dashed, I now grasp for some encouragement from the signs that buyer's remorse is beginning to set in among Jews, as it also seems to be doing among independents. Which is why I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His latest book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" is just out from Doubleday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Who Was Mario "Motts" Tonelli?

I didn't know who Mario "Motts" Tonelli was before this past weekend. Then I visited the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame [NIASHF] in Chicago. The cost of admission is very reasonable, but if this world had any logic, they would charge Disney prices and it would still be a bargain. The place offers the potential of lifting the human spirit by shining a light, or a memorabilia display more exactly, on some of our more worthy spirits.

A few facts about Mr Tonelli's life:

• 1917 - Born, moved to Chicago.
• 1932 -1935 - A three sport athlete at the Catholic DePaul Academy.
• 1936 - 1938 - Played football at Notre Dame on scholarship. Motts had a number of recruiting trips, but the decision to attend Notre Dame was not a complicated one. Motts mother informed him, "You're going to Notre Dame. It's a Catholic school, and you won't be far from home."
• 1940 - Played one season of pro football with the Chicago Cardinals.
• 1941 - Enlisted in the Army, assigned to the Philippines.
• 1942 - Captured prisoner and survived the Bataan Death March.
• 1942 - 1945 - Prisoner of war.
• 1945 - Transferred to slave labor camp near Tomayo Japan just before the nuclear bombs were dropped to end the war. Trip lasted a couple of months and he slept on a pile of salt with other prisoners.
• 1945 - Put on 90 pounds and played an abbreviated NFL season, which allowed him to qualify for his pension.
• 1946 - 1988 - Career in politics and public service.
• 2003 - Died at the age of 86.

That really should be enough. But there's a reason that Mr Tonelli is considered the Greatest Tonelli of them all, as chronicled by Bill Tonelli, unrelated. Moments of grace happened to Mr Tonelli in the midst of unbelievable tragedy which serve to lift the human spirit. Even, or perhaps especially, the spirit of information-overloaded, knowledge-thirsty, Palm-Pre packing, casual U2 concert-going tourists.

Bataan Death March

While on the March, Tonelli was reflecting on his relative mortality when approached by a guard plundering the possessions of the weary, sunburned prisoners. He demanded Tonelli's Notre Dame ring, and Tonelli refused. The guard reached for his sword.

"Give it to him," yelled a nearby prisoner. "It's not worth dying for."

Reluctantly, Tonelli surrendered the ring. A few minutes later, a Japanese officer appeared.

"Did one of my men take something from you?" he asked in perfect English.

"Yes," Tonelli replied. "My school ring."

"Here," said the officer, pressing the ring into Tonelli's callused, grimy hand. "Hide it somewhere. You may not get it back next time."

The act left Tonelli speechless. "I was educated in America," the officer explained. "At the University of Southern California. I know a little about the famous Notre Dame football team. In fact, I watched you beat USC in 1937. I know how much this ring means to you, so I wanted to get it back to you."

The surreal encounter ended, and the gridiron and battlefield rivals headed their separate ways.

"I always thought that someday he'd try to look me up," Tonelli says. "I guess he probably didn't make it through the war."

Well THAT should be enough. But folks, we've established that this is no ordinary Tonelli.

58's His Number

When he arrived at the prison camp near Toyama, Tonelli was a 100-pound skeleton, a mere shell of the bullish fullback that once roamed Notre Dame Stadium, Soldier Field and Comiskey Park.

"I felt that (Toyama) would be my last stop," he says. "I was going to die there or be liberated."

His body ravaged by malaria and an intestinal parasite, Tonelli wobbled to a table where a Japanese officer assigned prison garb and identification numbers.

Tonelli glanced at his new prison number. It couldn't be. Tonelli fought to hold back the jubilant tears.

Scribbled on a piece of paper was the number 58, the same number he wore throughout his football career.

"From that point on," he says, "I knew I was going to make it."

As I sat in my office writing this, I'm listening to the visiting teams MLB.com radio broadcast of my Marlins playing at the St Louis Cardinals. The announcers just noted that the home plate umpire is Tony Randazzo. The Chairman and Founder of the NIASHF is Tony's father, George Randazzo. Signs always abound, great and small, but today I am more attuned to those signs because this weekend I learned about a great Italian American named 'Motts' Tonelli.

Read more!

Barack Obama - A Man For One Season

If Robert Bolt's thoughts on Saint Thomas More led him to write the play, A Man For All Seasons, I wonder if Barack Obama will one day inspire a play named, A Man For One Season. In what I believe to be an example of the arrogance of the President and his Administration -- to a more sympathetic audience perhaps it could just be laziness -- they have defaulted to basically the same response to all unwanted queries, the question is either 'silly' or we are in 'silly season.' They ooze dismissiveness.

See the thing is, when people say 'no comment,' they appear evasive. So the goal is to avoid answering a question without appearing to be avoiding answering the question. The art of politics allows for various escape hatches in those situations. By offering up the same response repeatedly, the administration resembles a cheating spouse who no longer bothers to make an effort to cover up their infidelities. Come to think of it, that may be an anatomically accurate reflection of the relationship between Obama and the MSM.

Yesterday, the President's spokesman indicated that, 'we are in silly season' in response to questions raised about the President addressing school children nationwide. Not again I thought. When the President of the United States, or his minions, say something so repeatedly people usually pay attention. Since the MSM won't do their job, I did a quick google.

Silly's in Season -- Obama's Overused Rhetorical Escape Hatch

• August 09 - Speculation about public option on Health Care legislation
• July 09 - Concerns over Health Care legislation
• July 09 - Delay in the issuance of the mid-session review
• July 09 - Possible rift with with Sec. Clinton
• March 09 - Difficulty with legislation in Congressional election years
• February 09 - Concerns about bipartisanship
• September 08 - Defending remarks he made about Sarah Palin
• April 08 - Defending remarks he made about small-town American voters
• February 08 - Responding to allegations of plagiarism during debate
• January 08 - Drug use as a young adult
• December 07 - Accused of unfair campaign tactics
• December 07 - Elementary school experience in Indonesia
• Fall 2006 - Crowded field of Democrats running for President

Season [n.] defined:

1. One of the four natural divisions of the year, spring, summer, fall, and winter, in the North and South Temperate zones. Each season, beginning astronomically at an equinox or solstice, is characterized by specific meteorological or climatic conditions.
2. A recurrent period characterized by certain occurrences, occupations, festivities, or crops: the holiday season; tomato season.
3. A suitable, natural, or convenient time: a season for merriment.
4. A period of time: gone for a season.

Clearly they are making reference to definition #2 above, but someone should ask them when are we not in silly season, given that seasons are supposed to be 'recurrent periods?' If we are seemingly always in the same season, then technically it can't be a season. Maybe we are in a 'silly period,' like the Dark Ages?

Hey, pun intended OK, i.e. just being silly.

Read more!

Blogging Economists: The No Clear Win Zone

Welcome to The Show: The Blogosphere in 2009 - the greatest economics discussion group that could possibly be imagined. As if the wealth of information available wasn't enough, the Eco Gods threw in a financial crisis to spice it up. You've heard of the No Spin Zone, at the high end of blogging economists, there is a No Clear Win Zone. Every strongly held position by the Best and Brightest barely holding up under the latest article, study, post or comment. It is almost as much fun as the Florida Marlins 2009 season, but not quite, since economists don't bring up rookie starters with nearly enough consistency.

Let's see where we stand on the the Cap and Trade issue. Read as Greg Mankiw explains the economics of the climate change legislation:

Suppose the government imposed a tax on carbon-based products and used the proceeds to cut other taxes. People would have an incentive to shift their consumption toward less carbon-intensive products. A carbon tax is the remedy for climate change that wins overwhelming support among economists and policy wonks.

So far so good. The government, with the support of most economists, uses incentives in the tax system to move people away from carbon-based products. So what can go wrong? To get the votes for the legislation, the government literally gives away monies that it could have received in an auction. Why is that bad? Mankiw again:

The problem arises in how the climate policy interacts with the overall tax system. As the president pointed out, a cap-and-trade system is like a carbon tax. The price of carbon allowances will eventually be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for carbon-intensive products. But if most of those allowances are handed out rather than auctioned, the government won’t have the resources to cut other taxes and offset that price increase. The result is an increase in the effective tax rates facing most Americans, leading to lower real take-home wages, reduced work incentives and depressed economic activity.

Well maybe our President doesn't realize that? Ugh, no. Mankiw points out where Obama outlined those very issues in discussing the issue as a candidate.

Candidate Obama: One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap-and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away.

Yet the current legislation in Congress today gives away many of those permits. Those darn politicians. But wait, we're not done thinking about this. Another non-lefty economist, Steven Landsburg, makes the case for giving away those permits:

The primary goal of cap-and-trade is to make firms behave better in the future, and as Professor Mankiw points out, that goal is served equally well whether we give the permits out for free or require firms to buy them. But the latter option not only creates an incentive for good future behavior; it simultaneously punishes bad past behavior. The firm that recently invested in a million-dollar machine that now can't be operated without a half-million dollar permit is effectively paying a half-million dollar fine for behavior that was perfectly legal a year ago.

The larger question, then, is this: When people do things that are socially destructive but nevertheless perfectly legal (like, say, owning slaves in the 19th century or leaving an excessive carbon footprint in the 21st), ought they be punished ex post facto? The answer is far from obvious.

Great, I started reading to get some facts to beat Democrats over the head with on the cap and trade issue, and end up wondering if people who do things that are socially destructive, but legal, ought they be punished. If I answer no [which is where I lean], can I still be against giving away the permits?

Classic the more you know, the more you know you don't know. I'm hooked so I'll keep on reading, but cognizant of the fact that whatever my views are today, likely they are a product of whatever was published yesterday that I happened upon.

Freddi I know you're reading this, please start Cameron Maybin the rest of the season.

Mankiw article referenced are copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9, 2009 - Economic View - A Missed Opportunity on Climate Change
By N. GREGORY MANKIW

DURING the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself on the economics of climate change, speaking far more sensibly about the issue than most of his rivals. Unfortunately, now that he is president, Mr. Obama may sign a climate bill that falls far short of his aspirations. Indeed, the legislation making its way to his desk could well be worse than nothing at all.

Let’s start with the basics. The essential problem of climate change, scientists tell us, is that humans are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere, which tends to raise world temperatures. Emitting carbon is what economists call a “negative externality”— an adverse side effect of certain market activities on bystanders.

The textbook solution for dealing with negative externalities is to use the tax system to align private incentives with social costs and benefits. Suppose the government imposed a tax on carbon-based products and used the proceeds to cut other taxes. People would have an incentive to shift their consumption toward less carbon-intensive products. A carbon tax is the remedy for climate change that wins overwhelming support among economists and policy wonks.

When he was still a candidate, Mr. Obama did not exactly endorse a carbon tax. He wanted to be elected, and embracing any tax that hits millions of middle-class voters is not a recipe for electoral success. But he did come tantalizingly close.

What Mr. Obama proposed was a cap-and-trade system for carbon, with all the allowances sold at auction. In short, the system would put a ceiling on the amount of carbon released, and companies would bid on the right to emit carbon into the atmosphere.

Such a system is tantamount to a carbon tax. The auction price of an emission right is effectively a tax on carbon. The revenue raised by the auction gives the government the resources to cut other taxes that distort behavior, like income or payroll taxes.

So far, so good. The problem occurred as this sensible idea made the trip from the campaign trail through the legislative process. Rather than auctioning the carbon allowances, the bill that recently passed the House would give most of them away to powerful special interests.

The numbers involved are not trivial. From Congressional Budget Office estimates, one can calculate that if all the allowances were auctioned, the government could raise $989 billion in proceeds over 10 years. But in the bill as written, the auction proceeds are only $276 billion.

Mr. Obama understood these risks. When asked about a carbon tax in an interview in July 2007, he said: “I believe that, depending on how it is designed, a carbon tax accomplishes much of the same thing that a cap-and-trade program accomplishes. The danger in a cap-and-trade system is that the permits to emit greenhouse gases are given away for free as opposed to priced at auction. One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap-and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away.”

Congress is now in the process of sending President Obama a bill that makes exactly this mistake.

How much does it matter? For the purpose of efficiently allocating the carbon rights, it doesn’t. Even if these rights are handed out on political rather than economic grounds, the “trade” part of “cap and trade” will take care of the rest. Those companies with the most need to emit carbon will buy carbon allowances on newly formed exchanges. Those without such pressing needs will sell whatever allowances they are given and enjoy the profits that resulted from Congress’s largess.

The problem arises in how the climate policy interacts with the overall tax system. As the president pointed out, a cap-and-trade system is like a carbon tax. The price of carbon allowances will eventually be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for carbon-intensive products. But if most of those allowances are handed out rather than auctioned, the government won’t have the resources to cut other taxes and offset that price increase. The result is an increase in the effective tax rates facing most Americans, leading to lower real take-home wages, reduced work incentives and depressed economic activity.

The hard question is whether, on net, such a policy is good or bad. Here you can find policy wonks on both sides. To those who view climate change as an impending catastrophe and the distorting effects of the tax system as a mere annoyance, an imperfect bill is better than none at all. To those not fully convinced of the enormity of global warming but deeply worried about the adverse effects of high current and prospective tax rates, the bill is a step in the wrong direction.

What everyone should agree on is that the legislation making its way through Congress is a missed opportunity. President Obama knows what a good climate bill would look like. But despite his immense popularity and personal charisma, he appears unable to persuade Congress to go along.

As for me, I hope the president refuses to sign a bill that fails to auction most of the allowances. Some might say a veto would make the best the enemy of the good. But sometimes good is not good enough.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President George W. Bush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Blue Sweater by Jacqueline Novogratz

Blue Sweater by Jacqueline Novogratz - Book review which I posted on Amazon.

I enjoyed this book and would recommend it due to the very interesting experiences Ms Novogratz had in Africa. Her interaction with people involved on all sides of the Rwandan genocide was moving. The main point I got from the book was that the traditional approaches to charity fail precisely because the recipients know that very little is expected of them and the aid is not distributed to people or businesses which are expected to be self-sustaining. However, this would have been a more interesting book if Ms Novogratz were no longer in the philanthropy industry. She's clearly torn between her personal experiences which taught her that a more `capitalistic' approach is needed, versus not alienating people in her industry, which I suspect are hostile to the free-market message. It's as though she's signaling to the philanthropic crowd throughout the book; 'Hey, while the main idea of my book is that your anti-capitalist, albeit well-intentioned, mindset towards the poor have not only failed to do good, but have actually done great harm, I don't want you guys to feel bad about it.'

In a way, the style in which Ms Novogratz wrote the book oddly mirrors her experiences in Africa. Early on, we read almost exasperated as she recounts how she is insulted and marginalized by persons and organizations supposed to be working with her. You are hoping that she stands up for herself and states her case more forcefully. Especially when earlier she had fondly recalled the Catholic women in her family who `worked hard and lived out loud.' But their loud voices, like their Catholicism I suspect, was something apparently left back home. Confrontations never really occur.

Similarly, while her first-hand experiences argue for a more capitalistic approach, she spends too much effort trying to mitigate the message. Early on she cautions us about the `cruelty of an unbridled capitalistic system' and `those who insist on a singular ideology,' but yet the experiences she relates expose mainly the cruelty of aid without structure or expectations. In that way, I thought she wrote an intellectually honest book, since her experiences seem to belie her stated beliefs.

I'm not sure why this bothered me, but it did. Below is list of the people quoted at the beginning of the chapters. Now I suppose it's possible that Ms Novogratz happened to be moved by everyone in the list, but much more likely that the list was put together by someone anxious not to offend. I guess that some habits, like some blue sweaters, are hard to shake. The cynic in me wonders if they broke up some of the chapters to get a few more quotes in. 'Hey, Jackie, we need a quote from a Muslim. Where's Maathai from? Never mind, we're going with the Koran.'

1- Nelson Mandela
2- Eleanor Roosevelt
3- Lu Xun
4- Marian Wright Edelman
5 -Madagasy Proverb
6- Okot P'Bitek
7- Rainer Maria Rilke
8- George Bernard Shaw
9- Buddha
10- Gandhi
11- Martin Luther King, Jr
12- The Koran
13- Wangari Maathai
14- Lao Tzu
15- Oliver Wendell Holmes
16- Robert F Kennedy

Read more!

Juanes Picks His Fights Very Carefully

The well known Latin pop singer and UMPG client who has made Miami -- Key Biscayne more exactly -- his home, has made an important career decision. He has agreed to perform in Cuba. Why does that represent such a controversial decision? Because the kind of people welcomed to perform in Cuba are the kind of people who the Cuban government can count upon to be complicit in their tyranny.

OK, so he's going there and being diplomatic with his hosts, why such a big deal? Because Miami is full of Cuban-Americans whose roots in the US can be traced to people escaping -- some successfully, but not all -- that particular communist regime. What there is no escaping is that Juanes is getting in the face of the community [largely Cuban-American] he choose to live in with this decision.

Perhaps you are asking yourself, 'maybe he's the sort who can't help himself, the always taking a stand type.' Well, not exactly. In an interview last year he described himself as 'belonging to the extreme center.' Given that his decision to play in Cuba will no doubt be spun as an 'act of bravery,' let me suggest what would I would consider a real act of bravery on the part of the wealthy Colombian-born singer.

Speak out against FARC, the terrorist group which has in effect held his country hostage for many years, assuming he opposes their methods and beliefs.

Last year Juanes issued a statement inviting FARC to a dialogue. Of course, no dialogue transpired [but it was great PR]. But now what? Was that it? Why not take on FARC in his own way? And not just through press releases which state how 'unafraid he is' from Miami. No he could really show it by moving back to Colombia. Can you imagine a more powerful statement in Latin American politics? Can you imagine what a boost that could be to Uribe and the brave women and men who have been fighting the good fight, while self-exiled 'heroes' practice silence? Imagine ... there's a song in there somewhere.

Imagine there's no FARC
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or kidnap for
No guerrilla territories too

Imagine a world with no copyright infringement
Living life in peace with UMPG's legal department
[Juanes agents even get a cut from his dreams]

None of that will happen of course. There is a word for the type of person who voluntarily leaves their ravaged homeland, and its very real dangers, only to manufacture controversies at the expense of a people whose hard-fought efforts he has benefited from. But since this is a family blog, I won't use the most appropriate word. Ingrate, as Joel Goodson might say, is a poor substitute, but will do.

I hope we remember all fellow travelers, like Juanes and Magglio Ordonez. But not with violence in the moment, which is morally wrong and counter-productive. The kind of remembering I advocate is unsentimental and unrelenting in reciting the facts of an issue and not having that remembrance be subject to any expiration date. Along those lines, allow me to introduce Juanes to the #1 fellow traveler, the traitor Alger Hiss.

Two of my favorite bloggers have weighed in on this issue on the same post - I highly recommend this particular blog post by Robert at the 26th Parallel which incorporates the views of Cuba's truly courageous Yoani Sanchez on this issue.

Read more!

First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit Expiring Soon

As part of the stimulus package earlier this year, a 2009 law enables first-time homebuyers are eligible to take a tax credit on the larger of $8,000 or 10% of the purchase price of the home if the home is purchased before 12/1/09. A few things to keep in mind:

• First-Time Homebuyer defined:

  Any individual (and spouse if married) who had no present ownership interest in a qualifying principal residence during the 3-year period ending on the date of purchase of the principal residence for which a first-time homebuyer credit is being claimed.

• If you are scheduled to close on a property later than mid-November, you are cutting it very close given the Thanksgiving Holiday and other delays which are typical for loan closings.
• Taxpayers who qualify for the 2009 credit can elect to claim the credit either on their 2008 tax return [amend] or on their 2009 tax return.
• If you fail to meet the 12/1/09 deadline, you can still be eligible for up to a $7,500 tax credit from the 2008 law, however that credit must be repaid over a 15-year period. A rather bitter procrastinator pill to swallow.
• There is a chance the $8,000 credit -- which does not have to be repaid -- will be extended. But there are no guarantees at this point.
• For you wretched self-preparers out there, here is the IRS form to file [#5405] to claim the credit.

Read more!