they'll take us to no limit

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Günter Grass

Was gesagt werden muss

Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.
Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
einer Atombombe vermutet wird.

Doch warum untersage ich mir,
jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
in dem seit Jahren - wenn auch geheimgehalten -
ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
zugänglich ist?

Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
sobald er mißachtet wird;
das Verdikt "Antisemitismus" ist geläufig.

Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
die ohne Vergleich sind,
Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.
Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
und bleiben will, zuzumuten.
Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
Weil gesagt werden muß,
was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
auch weil wir - als Deutsche belastet genug -
Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
zu tilgen wäre.
Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
des israelischen atomaren Potentials
und der iranischen Atomanlagen
durch eine internationale Instanz
von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.
Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
vom Wahn okkupierten Region
dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.
_________________________




What must be said


Why I am silent, silent for too much time,
how much is clear and we made it
in war games, where, as survivors,
we are just the footnotes.

That is the claimed right to the formal preventive aggression
which could erase the Iranian people
dominated by a bouncer and moved to an organized jubilation,
because in the area of his competence there is
the construction of the atomic bomb.

And then why do I avoid myself
to call the other country with its name,
where since years – even if secretly covered -
there is an increasing nuclear power,
without control, because unreachable
by every inspection?

I feel the everybody silence on this state of affairs,
which my silence is slave to,
as an oppressive lie and an inhibition that presents punishment
we don’t pay attention to;
the verdict “anti-Semitism” is common.

Now, since my country,
from time to time touched by unique and exclusive crimes,
obliged to justify itself,
again for pure business aims - even if
with fast tongue we call it “reparation” -
should deliver another submarine to Israel,
with the specialty of addressing
annihilating warheads where the
existence of one atomic bomb is not proved
but it wants evidence as a scarecrow,

I say what must be said.

Why did I stay silent until now?
Because the thought about my origin,
burdened by an unclearing stain,
had avoiding to wait this fact
like a truth declared by the State of Israel
that I want to be connected to.

Why did I say it only now,
old and with the last ink:
the nuclear power of Israel
threat the world peace?

Because it must be said
what tomorrow will be too late;
Because - as Germans and with
enough faults on the back -
we might also become deliverers of a predictable
crime, and no excuse would erase our complicity.

And I admit: I won’t be silent
because I had enough of the Western hypocrisy;
Because I wish that many will want
to get rid of the silence,
exhorting the cause of a recognizable
risk to the abdication, asking that a free and permanent control
of the Israel atomic power
and the Iran nuclear bases
will be made by both the governments
with an international supervision.

Only in this way, Israelis, Palestinians, and everybody,
all people living hostile face to face in that
country occupied by the craziness,
will have a way out,
so us too.



Translation by Alessandro Ghebreigziabiher





_________________





another attempt at translating to English. Less literal but perhaps more to the point.







What must be said
Why have I been silent, silent for so long?,
Our generals have gamed it out,
Confident the west will survive.
We people have not even been considered.

What is this right to “preventive war”?
A war that could erase the Iranian people.
Dominated by it’s neighbor, pulsing with righteousness
Smug in the fact that it is they, not Iran,
Who have the Bomb.

Why have I so far avoided to identify Israel by it’s name?,
Israel and it’s ever increasing nuclear arsenal,
Beyond reproach, Uncontrolled, uninspected.

We all know these things
Yet we all remain silent, fearful of being labeled:
anti-Semitic
hateful
worse

Considering Germany’s past these labels stick
So we call is “business”, “reparation” take your pick,
As we deliver yet another submarine.
As we provide to Israel the means to deliver annihilation.
I say what must be said.

Why did I stay silent until now?
Because I’m German, of course.
I’m tainted by a stain I cannot wash out
I’m silent because I want so badly to make it right
To put my sins in the past and leave them silently there.

Why did I wait to say it until now?
And write these words with the last of my ink?
Declaring that Israel threatens world peace?
Because it is true and it must be said,
Tomorrow will be too late.

We Germans now carry a new burden of sin on our shoulders
Through the weapons we have sold
We are helping to carry out this foreseeable tragedy
No excuse will remove our stain of complicity.

It must be said. I won’t be silent
I’ve had enough of the hypocrisy;
Please shed the silence with me,
The consequences are all too predictable.
It’s time to demand free and permanent control
of BOTH Israel’s nuclear arsenal
AND Iran’s nuclear facilities
enforced with international supervision.

It’s the only way, in a land convulsed with insanity,
Israelis, Palestinians, everybody, will survive.
And we too, will survive.




TexicanAustin
The truth usually does provoke intense criticism.
April 4, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED22

aboParis
Well it *is* hypocritical of the West to complain about Iran and not Israel. And Israel *is* probably the greatest threat in the Middle East to world peace. We will get nowhere if every time a person who makes true statements get shouted down.
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED12

MadridMadrid
Grass just said what every person the world over is thinking-- the truth for the New York elite hurts, but someone had to say it. The world is scared not of Iran (which spends less on defense than Singapore) but ISRAEL, which Martin Van Creveld, eminent Israeli military historian, says is the 2nd or 3rd strongest nuclear power in the world and which, according to him, has nuclear weapons aimed at every capital in the world including Rome.
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED10

MadridMadrid
I don't believe the NYT's will publish my earlier note about how Grass's poem reflects how most of the world sees Israel... how the world is scared of Israel, not Iran. In that note, I cited eminent Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld talking about Israel's nuclear policy, a statement for which the NYT's monitors probably censored my post. So here is the direct quote along with the source so that they have no reason to censor me. Van Creveld states of the Israeli military, "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.boo...

That is why most of the world is scared of Israel, and not Iran, which spends less on defense that Singapore.
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED8

Ahmed AliHamburg, Germany
Knowing the many peace-loving and level-headed Israelis personally, I am sure that the staunchest support for Gunter
Grass will eventually come from within Israel. Only peace within and with its neighbors is the real guarantee of Israel's continued existence and its prosperity. Live and Let Live! This is as simple as that.

The reality on the ground is that Israel is the only (covert) nuclear power in that region. Other states which do not have these weapons of mass destruction must be protected. Using his poetic license, Gunter Grass has warned against a political course at the end of which a Holocaust is the only outcome. The sufferings of the European Jews, in particular the collective pain and uprooting endured by them under the Nazi regime, for which the present generation in Germany, including Gunter Grass, feels a collective guilt, and rightly so, is all the more reason why a collective punishment must never be initiated by Israel. Gunter Grass said what must have been said a long time ago. I fully understand his anguish. Like him, I also have very dear Jewish friends in Israel, but
it is absolutely essential to stem the current Iranian-Israeli rhetoric
before it spirals out of hand.
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED7

TenicanKnoxville
Thank you Mr Grass. Well done. You have now made my Honor List.
April 4, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.RECOMMENDED4

AFHLower East Side
would be nice if you included a link to an english translation.
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED4

PotterBoylston, MA
Perhaps some Israeli's are looking for this, need it, around this time of year--part of the business of claiming victimhood even when they have the upper hand.

I'd like to read the poem in English. If the NYTimes does not feel it can publish it, that would be a disappointment.
April 4, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.RECOMMENDED3

AMartinBoston
Ok, get ready for the onslaught of nasty comments from Israel haters. Perish the thought that they would spill ink criticizing truly tyrannical regimes of this world like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Myanmar, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Congo Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Cambodia, Chad...so many more...and oh yes, Iran! And yet they pick on the one country in the Mideast where gays, women, minorities of all sorts actually have a decent life. Can anyone explain this continuous, bizarre, obsessive focus on Israel??
April 4, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.RECOMMENDED3

reneenyc
"Israel possesses between 75-400 nuclear warheads."
April 4, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.RECOMMENDED3

LaurentIndia
Why can't the NYT publish an english translation of the poem?
April 4, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.RECOMMENDED2

Markus310773Munich, Germany
One problem is that Mr. Grass has had problems with his own history. He has often attacked others for their history but only recently admitted to his membership in the Waffen SS.

In his biography he tried to equate 6 million dead Jews with alleged 6 million dead German soldiers (in the Soviet Union). 6 minus 6 is zero. So he implied that Germans have paid their due for the Holocaust.

First of all, however, the number was completely made up. Appr. 1.1 million German soldiers died in the Soviet Union. Second of all, it was appaling to equate dead woman, children and men with soldiers who go to war.

This is but one example of his selective "knowledge" about history.

The manner and the words he used in the article had similarities to Nazi speeches.

Mr. Grass is growing old. He came from an illeterate family. Thus he was maybe not able to intellectually counter Nazi propaganda in his youth.

I am German. We know why we critisize Günter Grass. We understand the subtle hints in his "poem".

tough being distinctly smart in america

The bubble in education

NYTimes has it:

The 1.7 million members of the Class of 2011 witnessed, within the four-year span of their college careers, one of the greatest bull markets in United States history and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Last spring, they shed their caps and gowns and joined a kind of B.A. bread line. Unemployment among recent liberal-arts graduates, at 9.4 percent, was higher than the national average, and student-loan debt, at an average of nearly $25,000, had reached record levels. Worse still, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics was reporting that only 5 of the 20 jobs projected to grow fastest over the coming decade would require a bachelor’s degree. Though the statistics still show that a college degree correlates with both higher income and lower unemployment in the long run, diplomas didn’t seem very valuable when they were handed out last May.

Its readers have it:

Ms. Susan ChardonDenver CO

The article states that "Drew ranks 94th among 178 private liberal-arts colleges on U.S. News & World Report’s annual list."

You and all of the other legitimate news media are well aware that U.S. News's rankings are nothing but voodoo pseudo-science and that, in addition to exploiting college intenders and their families, they have exerted on demonstrably pernicious impact on the behavior of the colleges whose "quality" they purport to measure. (I am referring here to the many institutions who have admitted to submitting 'distorted' data to the publication in the hope of increasing their rankings.)

Why do you legitimize the U.S. News flim-flam by referencing their bogus rankings in your article? It strikes me as lazy - if not irresponsible - journalism.


MWCA

Both of my children are graduating from college this year in the Class of 2012, one from Berkeley as a history major and one from Seattle Pacific as an English major. Our daughter plans to continue to work as a nanny for two families after graduation. Our son will keep his waiting and bartending job at a Berkeley restaurant. They are fourth-generation college students. They hope to make their way into the top 80% doing meaningful work that requires higher-level thinking skills, which they have spent the last 17 years developing.

My husband and I, who worked three jobs between us and saved our entire marriage for their education, spent more than $200,000 on their four-year degrees. As much as we believe in the intrinsic rewards of university and as proud of our kids as we are, it's hard not to imagine that our son and daughter would be better off if we had given them $100,000 each and sent them to an investment class at the community college.

I really feel for their generation, especially those kids who have played by the rules, "done everything right" and worked hard. Hopefully, this is just a temporary setback for young, highly educated people and not the beginning stages of collapse of a higher education Ponzi scheme.


S.P.Saint Louis

The dreamer in me wants to tell these recent grads, stay positive and keep trying. But the pragmatist in me says, welcome to the new America - second world oligarchy, which is rapidly becoming third world tyranny (unless we stop the insanity of allowing corporations, banks, and insurance companies to buy our politicians).



Dave NullClaremont, California

Sadly, I seems that the most successful graduate ("I opened my own practice offering colonics-based nutritional treatments.") is one that is engaged in a medically useless swindle.



richCON

I hope this does not sound harsh. But if it does, tough.

I am a hiring manager in the aerospace industry, and a graduate professor of space operations.

If you just got a BA, you invested $200,000 in a degree that is, by itself, worthless. Unless you are a scientist or engineer, the demand for you is essentially zero. And scientists and engineers are not doing all that great.

What to do?

First take a job. Any job. If your resume shows a multi-year gap after college, it goes in the discard pile. We understand times are tough. Work at something. This demonstrates you can get out of bed, get dressed, and show up. Many of your fellows can't. It's a discriminator.

Get some skills. If you want to be a bank VP, get a job as a teller. If you have anything on the ball, you will be noticed and you will rise in the organization. But beware of looking better than your boss. He or she probably feels his or her job is on the line every day.

Nobody cares what you know. Nobody cares what school you attended. All we care about is what you can do.



PjoeStratford

We all have gone through this. I didn't have a "real job" out of college for years. And please stop with this absurd notion that people shouldn't have to be burdened with their loans. If you borrow $128K to get an English degree with no further plans for grad school... you're not very smart, sorry. I'm proud of my liberal arts education, but I didn't pay $50K for it. Go to a public university instead of insisting that on private schools that cost too much and usually aren't very good. Also, the POINT of an education is to BE EDUCATED - to get an education. It's not a guarantee for anything. No one is going to give you anything. And YES - it IS about who you know. It's called Networking - and it's the only way to get a job whether you're 22 or 52.




JPMcCluskeyHampton NJ

I would love to see a New York Times article on just how many companies, including the "Fortune 500" use free labor by giving internships. Yes, they may give the students experience in the job but aren't they also getting free hours of work. And how many of those interns get jobs in those companies after their free labor. Getting experience is very important for not only college students but also high school students. Yet, I can't help but wonder about the "Child Labor Laws?" Or doesn't that matter anymore? It would be nice if they at least go travel and lunch money or some kind of help to pay off their college loans.
So any reporter out there looking for a story to investigate, get data, and report on-well I would love to read what you find out.





mcNashville, TN

When I graduated with a BA at the end of the 70s, the economy was terrible, the state of the world was terrible, we were lucky to get jobs waiting tables, We all felt cheated. But eventually, after years of minimum wage labor, most of us got "good" jobs. Some of us got great jobs. I went to a state school and did not graduate with lots of debt.

What helped was having work experience, any kind. Do some kind of work while you're in school--skip the party, get a job. Another trick I learned is that you can volunteer to do things you don't know how to do yet, work hard and learn and do OK, and they'll give you a reference even if you didn't get a salary. I hate unpaid internships too, but you can learn skills, meet people and get referrals. In 2012, I'll bet there will be political campaigns that need willing hands...

Liberal arts majors: don't lose heart. At first, you'll look foolish compared to the accounting majors. But eventually, people who have good writing skills and can actually analyze and think will do pretty well. (All my liberal arts pals are doing just fine, thanks, and not just the ones that graduated long ago. Be creative and open-minded about what you'll do. Writing financial reports can pay the bills too.)

Nobody will ever hire a C- engineer or programmer. It is better to be an excellent, though underpaid, writer than an unemployable programmer or an accountant who can't really do the work. Just be ready to work harder to establish yourself.





MaximWashington DC

I, too, am a recent grad, but a non-traditional student. I'm 53 and just graduated with my second masters degree from a top university. But it has led nowhere.

I lost my job in public policy a year ago. Funny thing is that my first college degree in music is what puts bread and butter on the table because I teach a few piano students.

I empathize with young grads, but they should realize it's also tough for older people like myself because of ageism - age discrimination. I've had many interviews with interviewers who are half my age with only half my work experience in policy.

I look ahead to the elections and worry about the future considering what the legislators and Wall Street have already done to hurt the hard-working American public.



mlnyc

Dear grads: my class also graduated into a recession. It was the early 1990s. At that time, most "career resources" were tattered folders in the so-called "guidance" office. Since we did not belong to the cossetted cohorts of Baby Boomers offspring, society at large seemed not to give a hoot about our lousy job prospects and told we despised Gen X younglings to "take anything" (which seems to be what many of you have done as well.)

This is not a "I walked through a snowstorm to get to school at your age" speech; it's a note of support. The first few years were rough, but the Internet was on the rise, Prague and Japan were wide open, and today we're on average doing pretty well. Don't let your parents' anxiety or your (understandable) depression get the best of you. If you need to move for a few years to China to teach English, that's a great way to be independent, build up savings, pay off your loans, meet interesting people, see new things and develop new skills.

If travel isn't possible, fair enough.. Take the temp job or the Wawa stint if you can, and go to lots of professional Meetups and other evening talks/events in your area. Print up cards with your name and contact information. If someone asks you about yourself, say honestly that you are a recent college grad who want to learn more about opportunities in that field. Networking can feel frustrating and it is a learned skill like anything else. It will not work until it does.

Good luck.



Tim BalBelle Mead, NJ

Pay no attention to graduation speeches. Join the revolution. Change will not come until you force it. The 99 percent need to wake up.

Two sides of DAVOS WEF

Just to have the opportunity to be invited to Davos, you must be invited to be a member of the World Economic Forum, a Swiss nonprofit that was founded by Klaus Schwab, a German-born academic who managed to build a global conference in the snow.

There are several levels of membership: the basic level, which will get you one invitation to Davos, costs 50,000 Swiss francs, or about $52,000. The ticket itself is another 18,000 Swiss francs ($19,000), plus tax, bringing the total cost of membership and entrance fee to $71,000.

But that fee just gets you in the door with the masses at Davos, with entry to all the general sessions. If you want to be invited behind the velvet rope to participate in private sessions among your industry’s peers, you need to step up to the “Industry Associate” level. That costs $137,000, plus the price of the ticket, bringing the total to about $156,000.

Of course, most chief executives don’t like going anywhere alone, so they might ask a colleague along. Well, the World Economic Forum doesn’t just let you buy an additional ticket for $19,000. Instead, you need to upgrade your annual membership to the “Industry Partner” level. That will set you back about $263,000, plus the cost of two tickets, bringing the total to $301,000.

And if you want to take an entourage, say, five people? Now you’re talking about the “Strategic Partner” level. The price tag: $527,000. (That’s just the annual membership entitling you to as many as five invitations. Each invitation is still $19,000 each, so if five people come, that’s $95,000, making the total $622,000.) This year, all Strategic Partners are required to invite at least one woman along in an effort to diversify the attendee list.

Klaus Schwab - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012

reader France
I was at Davos a few times. It is more like a country club than a problem-solving event. You meet people like yourself - from the very top - and you schmooze (for want of a better term). It is considered important to be there because you are there. Big connections can be made, but usually are not.

Underneath, the sessions to "solve problems" are largely a joke. You get the hyper-qualified talking at each other, past each other, through each other. I recall having seen Bill Gates discuss development strategies with Paul Wolfowitz: it was a whirlwind of articulate generalities. Of course, things occasionally do happen with the connections made, but they are lower-order stuff and I seriously wonder if they are worth the price of admission.

So much of it depends on maintaining that it is important, which is the brand of the WEF. It was fun to be there, very fun, but it wasn't important.



sipaNYC
And its all tax-deductable for the executives. Which means that the American taxpayer is picking up part of the bill and once again subsidizing the corporate executive class



Tony Dykes Oakland
If you can afford this by definition you are completely disconnected from all of the worlds major troubles. They are academic rather than personal problems; you can buy your way out of dealing with them.

What do these people know about fixing things they cannot relate to?



on-the-roadnew jersey
Unbelievable! It used to be that the wealthy could buy themselves a life of luxury. Now the super wealthy can buy intellectual seriousness and global influence. No one else's ideas are worth being heard, I guess. The super rich are both ridiculous and overwhelmingly powerful.



uebelgermany
Revolting.



AaronSFlorida
And that's why the rich stay rich: They mingle and network with other powerful people, well beyond the reach or ability of the masses.

Really, if Davos was to be swallowed by the earth when everyone was there, would it be considered an act of terrorism...or salvation?

Do we REALLY think that all the good ideas in the world are had by only a handful of wealthy people? Price barriers like this ensure that great ideas held by common people must travel much farther, must overcome many more barriers, to be heard...if ever.

Sorry, but this conservative Republican has become disillusioned with the rich and powerful that I used to respect. These are the very people who brought us the current world economy, who are even now swooping in to buy at "Distress Sale" prices, and here they are getting together again to plan their next steps.

I'm thinking Karl Marx's view of this class was more accurate than we give him credit for.



Kevin BitzReading, PA
Yup... and they are all paying for it out of their Bush tax cuts and the "hedge fund carried interest at 15%"...



John in SeattleWA
Solving the worlds' problems? Really, sounds to me like an excuse to spend outrageous sums of money for collective ego-stroking. The money would be better spent helping people in real need, and there are plenty of us in the world. Perhaps we should charter a jet and crash the party, now that I would like to see!



Fred M.RI
ah...so that's why dividends paid by large corporations are so low, even though their profits are so high....



dpe ottawa
when everyone is somebody,no one is any body



ShowMeMissouri
How out-of-touch are these people? No wonder the US economy is not working for the poor and middle-classes!

Impressions - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 28JAN12 - Impression of the session 'Creative Job Creation with the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania' at the Annual Meeting 2012 of the World Economic Forum at the congress centre in Davos, Switzerland, January 28, 2012

TCincinnati
And where is the voice of the people? Certainly not here. The ruling class meet and exclude the people. Democracy is subverted in these forums.



tarwaterSan Francisco Bay Area
" ...given by Google on Friday night for several hundred people, can run more than $250,000 for the evening. "

Money sickness. The "revolution" that Google postured is just another degenerative form of the money sickness.



David South of the equator
Disgusting



Jake WSan Antonio, Texas
That is obnoxious. These people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend parties with the other "elite"? Why not just meet for free somewhere and donate the money to Haiti or someplace that needs it? The ways people find to waste money never cease to amaze.



ScotNorth Carolina
Is anything concretely solved during the Davos Forum? $185 mil could do wonders in the rural area that I reside! In these tough economic tides it seems that the "great minds" could make greater waves with more doing than talking. Just the opinion of a simple-minded small business person.



TCDC
Why not select the most impoverished place in the world and pump money into it and host the forum there? Each time improve somewhere else in the world that needs help.

James DeVriesPontoise, France
So, presumably there won't be many drought-stricken subsistence farmers, penniless refugees from war-torn countries, chronically unemployed people who spitefully blame their lot on short term (and short-sighted) profits-driven corporate strategies, not to mention all those pesky foreclosed-upon, through-the-cracks dropouts from the lower middle-classes of developed countries who stubbornly refuse to recognise that they are just a bunch of shiftless,tricksterish, flim-flamming "losers"... wandering about the hallways... Crashing meetings... Trying to wheedle a symbolic dime of charity here... A nickel of shameless giveaway there.

Phew! Such disorder might confuse some of these other fine, well-oiled, undoubtedly well-groomed, upper-crust thinkers, movers and shakers. Participants' financing proves their merit, after all! Such other beggary as described above might muddle the issues that our well-greased representatives of the good life and how to achieve it should otherwise, and easily, slide right through. That's what oil and grease are all about.

Already it's hard enough to get back to the good old days, when business, economics and top-level humanitarian boffins could simply agree that developing countries MUST open their markets so as to offer severely disadvantaged developed countries a level playing field, at last! ...MUST accept any and all conditions the IMF and World Bank seek, in their infinite fatherly, even paternal, even paternalistic (no, bad connotation---scratch the latter) wisdom, to "grant" them. Free trade, strip away protections, cut coddling subsidies (encourages shiftlessness, dependency and corruption!), lower any walls against foreign direct investment on the investors' terms: that's the ticket!

We like it. Raise those ticket prices some more. Spike up attendant costs each year. That'll keep the riff-raff out.

Can't wait to read the reporting as the forum proceeds. What strikes one is that, faced with the withering enigmas, Gordian riddles and nearly impenetrable mysteries of making a complex world work in the interest of "the greatest good for the greatest number... (now who said that?)", they nonetheless maintain an unflappable sense of humour.

That is, their conclusions are always good for a laugh.



s q greyVermont squirrel's nest
"...ostensibly to contemplate how to solve the world’s problems." Wouldn't you think that with the scale of economic clout these people represent, and therefore the stake they have in a good outcome (earthwise, humanitywise, etc.), that there would issue forth from such a heady convergence of apparent talents at least some semblance of urgency in their addressing 'the world's problems'?



aperturemadWest Hollywood
Hey Bono - How many people could you feed with your entry fees?



DavidAshland, Oregon
And somehow, by spending all of this money, these people are to be seen as the world's "problem solvers"?

Puhleeeeze!

It's just a bunch of people with too much money on a weekend bender.

davidhuntington , new york
All this when every one knows business success only relies on paying your employees the least amount possible.



BimUS
This doesn't sound like a non-profit to me ...



Darrell Hampton Dayton Ohio
Even in the best of economic times this is just sinful. Any person who spends company or tax-payer funds in this manner should be removed from their position and sent directly to a Board Certified Licensed Psychiatrist for extended counseling. They are crazy!

that part of the world again

JudyB
Belgrade, ME


The Syrian government has gotten the message from the international community that it will not intervene, so it is free to destroy the opposition. The Russian and Chinese vetoes in the U.N. Security Council reflect these countries' fears of their own people, which is why they cling so desperately to the "nonintervention in internal affairs" excuse. I fear that the Russian foreign minister's visit and vague statements of talks with the opposition will give Assad time to completely obliterate Homs just like his father did. The world will stand by, be shocked, and do nothing.


Phillip
Houston, Tx

We are so gullible here in America. This is so much bigger than Assad trying to hold onto power. It's a power struggle for influence in the region. On one side you have China, Russia and Brazil. On the other side you have America, Germany and Great Britain. Both sides wish to excercise their influence in the region. During the Bush administration we kidnapped suspected terrorists and their supporters. The USA spirited them over to Syria and Egypt to be tortured outside of the authority of American courts.

Syria has received millions of dollars in military aid from Russia. That pales in comparison with the billions of dollars that America provides to Israel. If an armed insurrection happened in America we wouldn't call them the opposition. We would call them terrorists and they would be dealt with accordingly. Some of us in America still use our brains. We examine the history of the region. Collect the facts and are able to see the larger picture. We loved Assad during the Bush era. Now Assad is the villian. Assad became the villian when he began courting the Chinese, Russians and now Brazil.

The Syrian government isn't stupid. They see what happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan when we American's arrived. The see the ridiculous size of the American Embassy in Iraq. Syria understands how America is trying to exercise our influence in the region. The insurrection in Syria has been emboldened by the C.I.A.


common sense
New Hyde Park, NY

To know the source of strength underpinning Assad, look to the Iranian regime. That regime will not let Assad fall. It has already funneled billions to prop him up. His control over Syria is vital to keeping the mullah's weapon route open to the Iranian proxy army in Lebanon. To bring down Assad, the Arab League should be sanctioning the Islamic Republic.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards are now active in the military onslaught in Syria and some have recently been captured working for Assad's forces. The leader of the elite Quds Force is now in Damascus and using his successful experience in destroying the Iranian freedom movement to repress the Syrian feedom fighters.
The extremist Islamic regime which has control over Iran is the cancer of the Middle East. It is the source of weapons and money to the most violent, anti-peace forces in the region. Until that tumor of terror is destroyed, there will be no peace.


Don Stubbs
Twin Cities MN

I would really like to know what "ordinary" Russians think about their government's involvement with Assad. In particular, what they think is the solution to ending Assad's assault on his own citizens. I don't get very far in my search because it seems there are no Russian news outlets - at least in English - that are not propaganda organs of the state.



robert
bruges

The time to discuss is over, I fear. To much blood has already been spoiled. We will be confronted with a political and ethnic conflict (Sunnis versus Shiites or Alawites) that will be terrible its consequences.

Like it was the case in Sarajevo in the nineties, we will be confronted with gruesome images, of suffering and dying children and women and young people.

Russia is again choosing the butcher's side, like it did with Milosevic.

China for its part has made a serious mistake by compromising its relationship with the Arab states, rich in the much needed oil and gas....

The international community should help the Syrian people, because a process of ethnic cleansing has been started.



Joe Rodrigez
NYC

oh man, give peace a chance. The US is not exactly an angel, we have "too many domestic issues" to be going around telling every one else how to live and do things. Dont forget us Americans have gone to Iraq and killed our own and hundreds of thousands of people, including innocent ones you dont hear about for a war that was a lie from the very beginning and everyday someone dies for some restless/paranoid/egotistical politicians !!! And what happened to the liberation in Libya ? its a joke, nothing has changed except businessmen having more leverage to buy everything out and the army got rid of their old stock ? I love this country but we are often getting ahead of ourselves , and bash anything to do with Russia, always looking to make them out as the evil ones and were the hero's, please stop this bull . Lets fix our own first , so that we can lead the world by example if that is so absolutely necessary !! Some cultures cannot change over night, real freedom is expensive and takes time! we should know this best!


Alex
Russian Federation

When US shuts down an embassy or sever ties with Syria's ruling political party , it's an important indicator of forthcoming events that are about to unfold in front of our eyes. Humanitarian aid to the 'freedom fighters' in Syria will be simular to the mujaheddin's aid in Afghanistan in early 80's . Civil war is imminent.



Albert Edelson
Nes Ziona, Israel

Putin, Lavrov and Assad are expert at denial, dismantling and confabulation.
Their twisted, murderous, disturbed logic symptomizes an as yet undiagnosed psychopathic destructiveness. This trio will go down in history as "folie a trois". The people of Syria need immediate humanitarian aid, and the presence of Doctors without Frontiers to alleviate their unbearable suffering. Every hour that humanitarian help does not come, is a stain on the conscience of the Western World.



Rob
Bradenton

The US has no business intervening in Syria's Civil War. No other country intervened in our Civil War when a huge % of the population was slaughtered (yes, including women and children!!) in the name of "preserving the union." Remember General Sherman? Yet Lincoln is considered our greatest president!! Many idiots compare this to WWII and say that the US went to war against Germany to "save the jews." Nothing could be further from the truth! Roosevelt and the antisemitic State Dept knew full well about the slaughter of the jews and specifically refused to bomb a single railroad link to Auchswitz for fear that America's war against Germany had anything to do with saving the jews. We are not the policeman of the world to stop anything that offends our sensibilities. Let Syria resolve its own Civil War as the US did. If Assad is a terrorist and murderer why wasn't Lincoln? I dare anyone to answer this question!



Gennady Shkliarevsky
Rhinebeck, NY

It is distressing to see that the majority of comments completely lack critical dimension--critical, that is, when you ask yourself a question: Is everything I am doing right? Is everything my opponent is doing necessarily wrong? I think that the strong point of Western democracy has always been the capacity for a compromise and giving the benefit of the doubt even to your opponents. It is regretful to see that this attitude is giving way to pro-Western advocacy, if not jingoism. Has the Western intervention brought peace, stability, and democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt? Whence comes this certainty that in the case of Syria an intervention will absolutely work out to the benefit of its people, rather than to a parochial benefit of those who will intervene? When has a pursuit of one's own national interests made the world stable? That is why we have the United Nations. Russia and China have exercised their legitimate right in the Security Council. The US has exercised it also many times. Why is it wrong in one case but right in another? Can anyone explain?



Matty
Boston, MA

Syria has long been a military client for the USSR/Russia.



Mk
NEW YORK CITY

The only reason Mr Lavrov vistied Syria so he can get paid for the arms shipment his country had send last week.



pppprppp
kansas city

and what about the thousands of Syrians who stil support Assad? Are their wishes to be ignored?



SBot
HuBot

Syria is a country that allows weapons to pass through its territory to Lebanon and the west bank. These weapons come from Iran. These weapons used to be rockets, explosives, small arms.

1. That the 'leaders' of these countries allow this to happen is bad enough.
2. That the black market arms dealers might transport weapons without the leaders' knowledge, is a threat to world peace.
3. How did China, N Korea, Pakistan get the bomb?
4. Why?

If America wanted to bomb the world and steal everything, we would simply do it.

Real heroes, of many nationalities, are working together to not only Contain, but Uproot the factors (people, associations) that permit rogue weapon transportation. These groups sell drugs, weapons, people - it must end.

I think Russia and China understand that it must end. Not too sure about al-Assad.

He is a fool. Soon, he to will be dead.



German
Orlando,FL

Russian diplomacy does not have any credibility and never has. They only look for their own interest and still live in a war cold mentality....so any outcome will not have significant results.



beholder
Saint Louis

" The death toll could not be independently confirmed ".This sentence should be at the beginning of the reports about Syria.It is meaningless and even misleading if tucked away somewhere else in a long report.

NYTimes readers about IRAN

Daoud Canada
I can't believe this is even a consideration. Is the Iranian government the best of all possible worlds? Hardly. BUT Has modern Iran invaded any other countries? Does Iran have aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf of Mexico? Has Iran shot down American airliners in American air space? (No, but the US has shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian air space). Were the 22 9/11 suicide terrorists and Al-Queda Iranian or supporters of Iran? NO, they were mostly Saudi. And the Saudis, Al-Queda, and the Taliban despise the Iranians. Is the ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan supported by neighbouring Iran? No. Saudia Arabia has done far more harm to the US and western interests than Iran has ever contemplated.

I greatly dislike the Iranian government and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a horrible buffoon, who says ridiculously stupid rhetorical things, but is vigorously opposed by many Iranians, the US should be very familiar with that situation from 8 years with George W. Bush!

Let Iran be, Ahmadinejad will fade away, and they will slowly evolve in positive directions with the energy and modernity of its enormous youth coupled, who are inevitably the future of a nation.

Attack Iran, and you unleash great horrors on the world, while uniting every Iranian with the worst of its government.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED148
SHARE THIS ON FACEBOOK
SHARE THIS ON TWITTER

WendiChico, CA
While I believe that Amedenijad is an egotistical nut job, supporting attacks on Iran by Israel is not the way to go. I know the Republicans are all over this, but getting involved in this kind ‘crazy talk’ will not serve this Country at all. We need to take care of our own problems and let Netanyahu worry about Israel.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.RECOMMENDED103

Archie1954Vancouver
Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, so please don't ever make the mistake of thinking an attack on it will be a cake walk. There will be huge collateral damage to American interests both at home and abroad, both military and economic. So please tell me why the US would accept the risk of such blowback. I really would like to know what part of US national security is threatened by Iran. Iran is a country that unlike the US has never attacked and occupied another country. It's history unlike the US's does not include numerous wars, attacks, occupations, threats, covert terrorist attacks, embargoes, economic warfare and ancillary belligerant offenses on other countries. So why is the US running scared, why is nothing off the table, why is the Congress just aching for another military debacle when there is absolutely no proof or evidence of a nuclear weapons manufacturing plant in Iran? Can you tell me? I sure would like to know.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.RECOMMENDED94

zorbeckFrankfurt
So, if I understand well, 2012 could be the year of the beginning of the end. I am not particularly fan of Amadenijad and his clerical masters, but I wonder how the West would have reacted if nuclear scientists in Dimona had been decimated in the same way as Iranins today. Denouncing a surge of insidious antisemitic terrorism maybe ?

Arabs have lived with 200 nuclear warheads at their doorstep for nearly 50 years and they survived. Can't Israel survive a nuclear Iran several thousand kms away ? Doesn't Iran have many other reasons to posess AMDs than Israel ? Can't Israel see that by attacking Iran it will trigger, in the long term and possibly even in the short term, precisely what it pretends to avoid ? There are numerous signs that young Iranians hate the regime in place, why pushing them in the ayatola's arms ?
Jan. 25, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED84

ElleCloudcuckooland
The Republicans, except Paul (whose foreign policy views seem scary to me) are beating the drum against Iran and in favor of the current Israeli government. I find this frightening, especially Gingrich, who will literally ($10,000,000 so far) owe his election to a rabid proponent of the current Israeli government.
I wish we could consider our own longterm interests and be less influenced by a certain stream of proIsrael opinion. (I consider myself proIsrael, and believe Israel is risking its future by the settlements, its disdain for other democracies, its brand of militarism)
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.RECOMMENDED82

billabalamma
Israel has nukes. Iran and what to do with the nucs is their problem.

Don't get me, my children or my grandchildren into a nuclear confrontation unless we, the US of A, are directly threatened. Do you know or recall, how Germany allowed Austria to drag it and the world into WWI?

We recognized Israel in 48 or 49, maybe not wisely. We should keep our responsibility limited to ensuring the boundaries of the peaceful state we recognized then, not the one claimed now, are not erased.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.RECOMMENDED71

Jack1947NYC
India has lived with a nuclear Pakistan that shelters its terror proxies under a nuclear umbrella. Japan and South Korea have lived with a nuclear North Korea. Israel too will have to live with nuclear neighbors including Iran.

Ehud Barak's observation: "An Iranian bomb would ensure the survival of the current regime, which otherwise would not make it to its 40th anniversary in light of the admiration that the young generation in Iran has displayed for the West. With a bomb, it would be very hard to budge the administration.” is misguided. An Israeli attack will bring all Iranians together. The 'young generation in Iran is just as much in favor of nuclear weapons as the Ayatollahs. An Israeli attack will precipitate a 1000 years of heightened hatred in the middle east that will do no one any good.

Unlike Pakistan, the Iranian leadership are pragmatic and realistic. Iran's reasons for the nuclear option (as Barak has indicated) include immunity from western attack. It is lost on no one that if Iraq and Libya had nukes, Saddam and Qaddafi would still be in power. In fact the North Koreans said as much. Similarly, Pakistan continues its shenanigans and we put up with them because they have nukes.

No easy answers but attacking Iran is clearly the wrong answer.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.RECOMMENDED67

ArchArcadia, Ca
Ronen Bergman wrote, “and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.”
Right, that is why Israel needs US made bunker-busting bombs, US made jets to deliver them, US fuel tankers, and the US Navy to keep the straits open.
US soldiers have been fighting for Israel ever since the US military airlifted to Israeli massive quantities of weapons during the 1967 War. (Without logistics, the front-line foot soldier is useless: The man who carries the bullets to the battlefield is as important as the soldier who fires the bullets.)
Israel cannot defend itself without US aid.
Israel should be required to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Middle East should be a nuclear free zone.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.RECOMMENDED59

Archie1954Vancouver
Your point is well taken. The whole mess is keyed on the Israelis and it is up to them to settle it before it becomes a bloodbath. If the US weren't continually backing Israel whether wrong or right, Israel would have settled with the Palestinians decades ago.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED59

CarltonMontclair
If Israel continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip and oppress and humiliate the Palestinians that live there they will have no security ....Period
They are not hated because they are Jews. They are hated because they are occupiers of lands that don't belong to them.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.RECOMMENDED57

Palmer1619Warminster, PA
Natanyahu will do whatever he wants to do. He seldom tells us what his plans are. He feels he can get away with it because he can count on the US to react in his favor. But why should we have to answer for the voters of Israel? They are the ones who elected hawks. Do we think that the Israelis didn't know that? I don't think so. Israel has always been in a kind of limbo given what surrounds them. Why do the voters there insist on electing a government that relies more on military actions than negotiations? The things the Bush administration did, it did in our name and we are still answering for that. Why do we have to answer for what the Israeli government is doing?
Jan. 25, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED57

EronPA
"Will Israel Attack Iran?"
A better Question would be

Will Israel brow beat America into attacking Iran for it?

Here is an idea, Israel has the most powerful military AND atomic deterrent in the middle east. Why dont we let Iran and Israel sort it out on their own?
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.RECOMMENDED54

Padman Boston
I am exhausted after reading this whole report, I can see all the reasons why Israel wants to block Iran from making the nukes but still does not make sense. It is not possible for Israel to totally halt the Iranian nuclear project by means of a military attack witout American support and Americans would not go for it. A military strike by Israel and America would be catastrophic for the whole world. Israel should give up this crazy idea of attacking Iran. Let Iran have the nukes. Israel has to learn to live with a nucler Iran. I don't believe that just because Irann has the nukes they are going to wipe out Israel off the map. This is just paranoia. World has more reasons to worry about Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands ( al-Qaida) than Iran eliminating Israel.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED52

DavidSchaps
Although they frightened us at the time, it is now clear that neither Japan nor Germany had, or even thought they had, any possibility of conquering and holding even a small portion of the continental United States in 1941; and their decision to declare war put them on a course from which the best they could hope for was a stalemate, and the more likely outcome was their total destruction. Historians now marvel at the blindness that led them to start a war they had no hope of pursuing to a successful conclusion.
Israel, too, has no capability of conquering and holding even a small portion of Iran: they would not be welcomed by any section of the population (even those who hate the ayatollahs), and they haven't got the manpower to conquer, much less to police, so vast and varied an area. I am sure they do not even have a theoretical plan for a ground attack in Iran, just as the Japanese and the Germans had no plan, even theoretical, for an infantry assault on the USA.
And since the war can not end with the conquest of Iran by Israel, it can only end with a stalemate after both sides have been worn down awfully (and in the course of which the Iranians have probably developed and perhaps used nuclear weapons), or with a result yet worse for Israel. As an Israeli, I can understand why my government would want to give the impression of being willing to attack. I hope and pray that they are not foolish enough to stand behind their threats.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.RECOMMENDED50

Milby Boston, MA
Two points I don't see being made very often: 1) Imagine what the situation looks like to Iran. They are under siege from all sides, their citizens are being assassinated, they are constantly threatened with attack, invasion, and regime change, and they are the victims of a concerted and destructive economic war. 2) Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive. They are a guarantee that your nation wont be attacked. It is impossible for Iran to use them preemptively in an attack against Israel, or anyone else, because the entire country would be obliterated in the inevitable retaliation. It just doesn't make any sense that a nuclear Iran would be able to threaten its neighbors or extend nuclear protection to Hamas or Hezbollah or otherwise throw its weight around in the manner Israeli officials are suggesting because those threats simply couldn't be taken seriously. Given the siege mentality of Iran's political leadership, it is only logical for them to pursue nuclear weapons to protect against the invasion they are constantly threatened with. Remember, Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons that will blanket all of Iran within an hour of any nuclear attack. Iran is not suicidal.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED49

Buzz kSF, Ca
What does the Unites States get from a collective strike on Iran? More unilateral support for our paper "ally" Israel and another trillion dollar deficit to add to our tally sheet?

Good luck Israel.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.RECOMMENDED47

rUS
Of course it's up to Obama. It's entirely up to Obama.

He should be threatening the Israelis with an end to ALL aid, a naval blockade followed by a cruise missile strike on Tel Aviv should they DARE to further destabilize the region by launching an illegal attack on Iran.

Then he should issue an ultimatum: Israel can keep its nuclear arsenal and in exchange, the US will help Iran achieve nuclear parity with them, OR israel relinquishes its WMD and a non-nuclear zone in the Mid East under international supervision is put in place, which is very do-able and represents the only sane strategy to avoid catastrophe.
In reply to salgadoceJan. 25, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.RECOMMENDED45

Ann Delacy Columbia, Maryland
Israel has had warheads for decades, does that possibly frighten Iran and other neighbors of Israel?

Whatever the case, my position is that we have suffered a significant loss of American lives and expended resources that were sorely need by the USA during the last ten years. We simply cannot fiscally or emotionally afford to be dragged into another situation in the Middle East.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.RECOMMENDED40

simjamBethesda, MD
Why does the NY Times keep running incendiary articles that, in effect, keep the US getting involved in a war with Iran on the table? The owner/editors need to come clean.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.RECOMMENDED36

Jazd86Australia
Has everyone forgotten that time and time again the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has inspected and reported that Iran has no nucear weapons program or materials pure enough to even start one? This whole idea is a fear mongering campign. I wish the media would invest more time in reporting that Israel is not part of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, as Iran is, and poses more of a threat to world peace through this fear campaign than they are telling us that Iran does. This is shear madness! Get the facts people. Don't just believe what you hear.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.RECOMMENDED36

kcomesswashington
This is an excellent and thoughtfully prepared article. Unfortunately, the author's conclusion seems valid.

While I certainly support Israel's "right to exist" (not that my endorsement is necessary: that should be a given internationally), I do not support the attitudes and actions of the current government, which not only appears to have adopted many self-defeating actions and attitudes and has not only encouraged extreme right-wing domestic reaction, but is now (once again) on the verge of acting against its manifest best interests.

The problem, as nicely presented in the article, is that an attack on Iran simply won't work and it will be followed by consequences which will be internationally disastrous. So, if President Obama has any remaining sense, he will tell Israel something to the effect that, "You are an independent nation and we can't order you to do anything. However, the US has its own interests and an attack on Iran is not one of them for all the reasons that are well known to your government. So, if you proceed against our wishes, we will refuse to support you, including with logistical, intelligence and equipment resupply, we will cut off military and foreign aid and we will vigorously and unequivocally denounce your actions in the UN. We will follow that with sanctions."

Alternatively, Iran and Israel could reach some sort of compromise, either of an overt or tacit nature. Of course, neither of those will happen, will they?
Jan. 25, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED35

Maggie2 Maine
An attack on Iran would not resolve anything, but it most assuredly would unite the people of Iran, even those who oppose the current regime. For all its bluster and posturing, I doubt very much if Iran poses a genuine threat to Israel or any other country. All this talk of attacking Iran is not at all helpful to any possibilty of a return to the negotiating table and is irresponsible in the extreme.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED35

Mark ThomasonClawson, Michigan
Trusted
A war would be bad. Use of nuclear weapons against Iran by Israel would be an entirely different matter, essentially suicide.

The Israelis must be made to understand that if they cross that psychological threshold for use of nuclear weapons, then someone will most certainly use one on Israel next. It might be Pakistan, or Saudis, or other Gulf Arabs, or Turkey, or China, or Russia, but someone will sooner rather than later take them out. Everyone would be harmed and threatened, and everyone will react to some extent. With that barrier broken, it would be just a matter of time. One or more would gain vengeance, or just end the problem, by ending Israel.

The threat of crossing that line is far more dangerous to Israel than the threat of Iran, nuclear or otherwise.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.RECOMMENDED33

JYNXNortheast corridor
I am exhausted by the trouble 7,992 sq mi causes world peace.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED33

rUS
Except they are NOT threatened by Iran--they're threatened by Israel.

Just as the regional powers were ALL opposed to America's massacre in Iraq. They did NOT fear Saddam, they feared the terrorists of the United States— with very good reason.
In reply to ZZJan. 25, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.RECOMMENDED31

HamzaRichmond
Israel had nuclear weapons before the Iranian threat. What was their raison d'tre?

America has been conducting covert and proxy wars with Iran before anyone ever put Iran and Nukes in the same sentence.

This is not about Iran or Nukes. It's about oil and the control of Libyan, Iranian, Iraqi Oil and the middle east.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.RECOMMENDED30

DoyenNY
Iran has been trying “to deal with us through diplomacy.” The response from Washington has been belligerent threats of military attack, unfounded and irresponsible accusations that Iran is making a nuclear weapon, sanctions and an oil embargo. Washington’s accusations echo Israel’s and are contradicted by Washington’s own intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Why doesn’t Washington respond to Iran in a civilized manner with diplomacy? Really, which of the two countries is the greatest threat to peace?
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED28

Joe New York
This may sound like an unorthodox view, but here it is, anyway. For almost 50 years, from the end of World War 2 unil the demise of the Soviet Union, the whole world lived under the specter of a nuclear catastrophe. Both Superpowers possessed - and still do - enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire planet many times over. Characteristically, Einstein is supposed to have said that he was not sure about the weaponry of World War 3, but, for sure, World War 4 would be fought with stones and slingshots. Reason prevailed and nothing happened. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) poilcy actually saved the world. It is also unclear whether the US would have bombed Hiroshima, if it knew that Japan possessed the same weapon. In the current Middle East situation, it is well known, if not officially confirmed, that Israel possesses a fairly large number of nuclear weapons. Looking at this historical analogy, one should ponder whether the world would be SAFER with an Iran that possesses a nuclear weapon, thus establishing a MAD equilibrium between Israel and Iran.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED28

AlexQueens, NY
A new year is here, but the same old story of treats by Israel against its neighbors continue! Today its the Iranians, yesterday was the Turks, Lebanese, Palestinians, etc..etc.. I just want this madness to stop, before we all suffer.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED27

RVN88Houston,TX
As long as there is Israel, there will never be world peace and prosperity for all nations! And as long as we support this rogue, artificial state, everyone in the world will hate us.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.RECOMMENDED26

EinsteinAmerica
In our world of humanity, Jews and Arabs actually have a lot in common.

This conflict is really more like a family feud that is engulfing the rest of humanity.

Both Jews and Arabs and Persians have beautiful ancient cultures. Why can't they try to respect each other. Why can't they use their collective intelligence to show the world a new way to peace?

Most of humanity just wants to live in peace. We beg you to overcome your differences and create a nuclear-free zone.

It is time to find a path to peace and harmony for the sake of all humanity.$
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.RECOMMENDED24

JerryVNYC
As a longtime supporter of the State of Israel (but not its current government), I believe that an airstrike on Iran would be stupid. We can hope that the young people of Iran will someday be successful in creating an Iranian Spring and the development of a more moderate Iranian government. But an airstrike on Iran would alienate these youg people. Patriotism would come first and all hope of an Iranian Spring would be lost. This is how the young people reacted when Iran was attacked by Sadam's Iraq. They would do so again.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED24

dubiousnew york
Isn't Amed's term over soon?. Sounds like Israel wants to remain the only super power in the area. How come they are allowed to have 500 nukes that they are fitting into subs now.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.RECOMMENDED22

Jon DavisNM
Netanyahu = Ahmedinejad.

If the world could rid of both men and their followers, the world would be a better place. But their existence does highlight two fundamental truths: All religions are the same and no religion has anything positive to offer the world.

And after all, some of the cruelest Islamic practices...like stoning rape victims to death for allowing themselves to be raped...was taken directly from the Jewish Old Testament.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.RECOMMENDED22

DeVonAtlanta, GA
With Iran's nuclear facilities all deeply underground, what exactly would Isreal be bombing? And I just don't see Iran makeing a pre-emptive or unprovoked attack on Isreal, knowing that the rest of the world would bomb the country out of existence. Plus in a possible war with Iran, do we know what side Russia and China are on? I think that President Obama would only go after Iran if there is an international coalition. He does not believe in a pre-emptive go it alone policy like Bush believe in.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED22

Colin WrightRichmond, California
"...On the other hand, when a scientist — one who is not a trained soldier or used to facing life-threatening situations, who has a wife and children — watches his colleagues being bumped off one after the other, he definitely begins to fear that the day will come when a man on a motorbike knocks on his car window.” "

In other words, Israel openly practices terrorism, and we continue to support her and protect her from the consequences of that.
Jan. 26, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.RECOMMENDED21

Buzz kSF, Ca
US Aid to Israel is $3.2 billion a years in military allowance plus loan guarantees for billions more plus in August, Ehud Barak told the US Govt Israel wanted $20 billion more.

Every cent we give this wealthy democracy in weapons only "aids" in the perception they don't ever need to make peace. We will just come stuffing them with more and more weapons to kill muslims....not a good plan.
In reply to ArchJan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED21

Archie1954Vancouver
If as the US says, Iran is attempting to get nuclear weapons, an accusation not yet proven, it is for one reason and one reason only, the possession of such weapons by Israel. Either that part of the Middle East was to be nuclear weapon free or it was to have equal access to such weapons by the nations located there. The US with a nod and a wink allowed or even perhaps assisted Israel in possessing those weapons, so today's problems once more can be laid at America's door as is usual in all the hot spots in the world.
In reply to zorbeckJan. 25, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.RECOMMENDED20

Joe Schmoe Brookyn
I agree with Arch. Even if the US aid is a "small part" of Israel's budget, the fact is that they at least have the implicit backing of the USA, and are thus emboldened to do things that effectively make the USA look bad, all the while knowing that the big bully on the block will swoop in to save them if the going gets really rough. Anybody who believes the country of Israel to be an entity that could exist as it currently does, with its currently aggressive policies, without the well known support of the United States is deluded. Watch how quickly Israel plays nice if the USA openly told Israel they're on their own unless, in return for their foreign aid and military backing, they do things that are actually in the USA's interests, like finally making peace with the Palestinians, halting settlement building, etc.
In reply to ArchJan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED19

DTNYC
The author makes a leap at the end which is not supported by the latter half of the article. He shows how much of the Israeli military leadership agrees that it would be futile to attack Iran alone. Netanyahu and Barak are not foolish. They are military men and they know this. And yet the author argues the he believes Israel will attack in 2012. It should be abundantly clear from all these discussions that Israel would not embark on such an adventure alone. And the US is certainly unlikely to go along in the current political environment. So Israel really has no choice but to continue covert operations (assuming they are behind the sabotage), and push for crippling sanctions and encourage opposition groups for regime change. The one major benefit to the Iraq war was the removal of a tyrant. Imagine a free and liberal Iran. The potential is huge. There's a large, young, Western-admiring population. Iran could be a major ally to the US, and yes, even Israel (as they were before the Islamic Revolution). A war would negate any possibility of a friendly Iran, and Israel wouldn't risk creating a permanent enemy who is hellbent on obtaining and using nuclear weapons.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED19

Mark ThomasonClawson, Michigan
Trusted
"For Israel to do this successfully they will have no choice but use tactical nuclear bombs"

Yes, there is a choice not to commit a nuclear holocaust, and Israel of all nations ought to know that.

But if you were right, then that would itself justify an Iranian nuclear deterrent. That is the logic of going around nuking people.

And once that starts, one bomb countries that don't get along with anyone will have a very short life span.

So it is not just criminal, it is also a losing move.
In reply to FigaroJan. 25, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.RECOMMENDED17

Mark ThomasonClawson, Michigan
Trusted
That may be because its not true, and everyone who cares actually knows that.
In reply to Seward RileyJan. 25, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.RECOMMENDED17

HankMaine
TO: r . US

Your comments could be an excellent solution. The United States must make every reasonable effort to stop any war between Israel and Iran within the next 90 days.

If this continues to escalates after the 90 day period the US should with all member countries of the United Nations immediately cut off any and all aid, commerce, banking, diplomatic relations, military assistance etc. to Israel and Iran.

I believe this could resolve the stalemate that has not only affected stability in Iran and Israel but the whole region and possibly the world.

Smart leaders and citizens of these two countries must understand war is not the answer as neither may not survive.

Rational leadership must understand negotiation is the proper way to resolve this matter. Talks vs. all out war, should and must be the only option.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED17

DeVonAtlanta, GA
Well after 10 years of war in the middle east, the last thing this country needs is to start a new war with Iran. As someone else pointed out when has Iran attacked or bombed any other country? I think the American people need to rise up and be heard and fight against the right's constant drumbeat for war with Iran.
In reply to AriJan. 25, 2012 at 4:48 p.m.RECOMMENDED17

green444 Ann Arbor, MI
You assume the Palestinians would have "settled" with the Israeli's. Is there no room in your world view to accept that the Arabs in the region, Palestinians included, have never accepted Israel as a neighbor and are still focused on their destruction?
In reply to Archie1954Jan. 25, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.RECOMMENDED17

bergamo italy
attacking iran would be another of the crazy things that the Israeli governments since the inception of the state, have accustomed us to expecting. It will not work, because no "surgical" strike has worked so far. It will unite Iranians under Khamenei, while now there is a chance for a change in government, and will bring support for an acceleration, not delay, of the process.
And, in the end, why should Israel have hundreds of bombs, Israel the most war mongering, conservative, aggressive state in the region?
Jan. 26, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.RECOMMENDED14

Mark S Boston, MA
There is the complicating factor that 2012 is an election year in the US. While I don't want to imply that this is the sole (or even major) impetus behind the mounting pressure, I can't imagine Netanyahu DOESN'T know that if he attacks, he will put a president who has struggled against being perceived as anti-Israel in a very, very tight bind only a few months before his election. Obama will probably have little choice at that point, and that's unfortunate.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED14

rUS
"Why do the Arab nations seem to have no interest in stopping Iran?"

Because Iran is not the problem. The US and Israel are the problem.
In reply to Jeff S.Jan. 25, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED13

salgadoce New Mexico
Even if the Israelis force regime change (via US intervention), the 'green' reformists are just as likely to aggressively pursue a nuclear program, so I don't really see the long term benefits of preemptive military action.

If Israel strikes unilaterally, the best it can hope for is to precipitate a US reaction to an Iranian counterattack. I don't believe they are prepared or even capable of any type of prolonged ground offensive (it'd be more of a 'defensive' anyway), given their difficulties in Lebanon in 2006, and given the fact that the IDF is ill-suited to stray too far from Israeli territory. They have robust airstrike capabilities, but as the US campaign in Afghanistan has showed, air-power can only take you so far.

In terms of US interests, any type of kinetic engagement would put the kibosh on the nascent economic recovery at home and in Europe. And with regards to our military materiel and personnel, we just don't have the manpower or assets to pacify the region, should things spiral out of control. The worst case scenario would obviously be a complete mess, but I can't get past the thought that we would probably end up needing to send troops back to (or through) Iraq, and that would be the mother of all sick and twisted absurdities.

If it was up to Obama, I would feel fairly certain that military action would be a no-go. The problem is that it's not up to him. The US, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are all keying on the Israelis.
Jan. 25, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED13

ScientellaPalo Alto
What happened to the rule of law. When Teller died here on Stanford Campus it was from natural causes. No one wanted to buy his house. Bad Karma. However this lackey of the military industrial complex died from natural causes.

Exjudicial assassinations are barbaric. And especially coming from a country, Israel, who actually HAS nukes not just threatening to get them.

Shame on all those who consider starting world war three on the grounds of racist land grab!

some have spoken, have the others learned?

NYTimes OP-ED:

Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign

Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.

Mr. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who is doing particularly well in Iowa’s precaucus polls, published several newsletters in the ’80s and ’90s with names like the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report. The newsletters interspersed libertarian political and investment commentary with racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and far-right paranoia.

Among other offensive statements, the newsletters said that 95 percent of Washington’s black males were criminals, and they described the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as “Hate Whitey Day.” One 1993 article appeared under a headline lamenting the country’s “disappearing white majority.” Other articles suggested that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, praised the Louisiana racist David Duke and accused some gay men with AIDS of deliberately spreading the disease, “perhaps out of a pathological hatred.”

A direct-mail ad for the newsletters from around 1993 warned of a “coming race war in our big cities” and said there was a “federal-homosexual cover-up” to suppress the impact of AIDS.

Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House.

When the newsletters first became an issue during his Congressional campaigns in the 1990s, however, he did not deny writing some of them or knowing about them.

Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It’s especially important that he do so immediately. Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

The Times reported on Sunday that dozens of members of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront are volunteering for the Paul campaign, along with far-right militias, survivalists and anti-Zionist groups. Don Black, the Stormfront director, said his members were drawn to Mr. Paul by the newsletters and his positions against immigration and the Fed (run by Jews, Mr. Black said), even if Mr. Paul were not himself a white nationalist.

Mr. Paul, saying he still hopes to “convert” these supporters to his views, has refused to disavow them or to chase them out of his campaign. If he does not do so, he will leave a lasting stain on his candidacy, on the libertarian movement and, very possibly, on the Iowa caucuses.

business talk vs. busiiness sense

What Is Business Waiting For?
By JOE NOCERA

Our current government isn’t going to create jobs, so it’s up to business to do it.

_____________________________
Marie Burns
Fort Myers, Florida


There's a reason your scenario won't happen, and it has nothing to do with fear of going first. It centers on greed, but it's a little more complicated. And not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans figure into the reason business won't be "altruistic" enough to increase the American labor force.

Warren Buffett made a compelling case in yesterday's Times for raising taxes on the rich. That, of course, includes the corporate rich. He pointed out that when taxes on investments were much higher, investors still invested and corporations were big jobs producers.

So why not now? Yves Smith, writing in Salon, notes that what corporate management really wants is "a high degree of certainty in their own profits and pay. Rather than earn their returns the old fashioned way, by serving customers well, by innovating, by expanding into new markets, their 'certainty' amounts to being paid handsomely for doing things that carry no risk."

So -- in the World According to Marie -- where does corporate management get that "certainty" that profits -- and their own pay -- will increase? From Republicans in Congress. A corporation's small investment in lobbyists will yield some fabulous tax breaks. Tax cuts mean higher profits -- profits gained with very little outlay, and comparatively little risk.

Thus, not only do lower corporate taxes not create jobs, as you say, the probability of Republicans bestowing tax breaks on corporations is actually a disincentive to jobs creation. Developing, making & marketing new products is a big risk -- an unknown unknown. Lobbying Congress is a cheap corporate investment that will yield the same profits with very little effort & very little risk. Congressional Republicans are clamoring to comply.

As long as Republicans and ConservaDems rule, don't expect corporate management to put Americans to work. Congress keeps telling them there's an easier way to make a buck.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com



John Farrish
Lafayette, LA

It is to laugh. Surely you jest.

The quest for immediate gratification in the form of short term profits has been institutionalized. If some company were to announce it will be foregoing short term profits for the purpose of putting people back to work, the stock value would tank, stockholders would revolt, and company officers would wave their seven figure salaries goodbye.

Anyway, this plan wouldn't work unless a large number of businesses bought into it, because one company hiring a few hundred employees isn't going to help sell stuff to people who don't have any money. And if other people aren't hiring along with the one, there won't be anybody to purchase the excess inventory that was just created.

The mistake you're making here, Mr. Nocera, is the same one supply siders have been making for a very long time: The economy is not supply driven; it's demand driven, and until people have money to spend, not one single "job creator" is ever going to spend a penny making anything. The way to put people to work is to put them to work. Jan Schakowsky, at least, gets this.

When I was working on my bachelor's degree in business administration they taught us about stakeholders. The stakeholders in a business, we were taught, used to be the company's stockholders alone, but that was no longer the case. My professors told me we lived in a much more enlightened society in which not just stockholders, but employees, customers, and the communities in which companies were located were all seen to have a legitimate stake in a company's performance, and managers were ethically bound to serve them all.

My professors lied to me. No such sense of obligation exists, not to employees, not to customers, and not to communities. Certainly not among corporate boards sitting on record piles of cash; their only sense of responsibility is to their own bank accounts. And if what has happened over the last 30 years isn't enough to convince you, then nothing ever will.


Morton Kurzweil
Margate, Florida

Germany has a safety net if universal health care, education, and unemployment income. The investment in workers in a country that has a favorable trade balance, that doesn't use cheap foreign labor to undercut consumer income or permit cash flow to safe havens and relies on the United States to spend an unsustainable level of its budget on international defense, is a great example of where we should be economically - except that our profligacy and uncontrolled "free trade" has been the cause of worldwide recession.
We do not need a smaller government. Our problem is small minds fixated upon the myth of American Christian Dominion, a belief in the manifest destiny of America to lead the world to a new social and moral
order.
That is the Tea Party agenda, a cheap knock off of nineteenth century Western empire building,
We are confused by those who insist that corporations are people with the people who are the We in "We the People". We are confused by those who suggest that morality requires a religious basis. We are confused by those who speak of human rights as they are defined by some religious extremist group.
We need to regain our secular balance if we are to have a government responsible to all the people all of the time.
Economic theories benefit those who would control an economy. Political theories in a secular democracy should respond to the needs of all.


DonB
Reno, NV

Why should we expect business to hire people they don't need?

As a businessman who is not hiring, I can only ask the above. The problem is simply lack of demand for goods and services. Period. It has been clearly documented that the American people have lost something on the order of $7.38 trillion in wealth since 2008. This is the position of the middle class, which heretofore represented 70% of the GDP:

(1) Their houses (their principal asset) are still losing value,

(2) they're not too sure they'll have the same job paying the same wages next year, and

(3) their level of debt is still very high, particularly given (1) and (2).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Obama needs to buckle down, do a little studying, then come back with his silver tongue, explain clearly what has befallen the middle class over the past 35 years (as Robert Reich has done) and sell infrastructure projects to kick this place into gear. If the repubs don't go along, nail them to the wall with facts, over and over and over again until the history has sunk in.


cbi
Pennsylvania

Joe - I ran a company for 25 years. We had good years and years not so good. We weathered 3 recessions and in all those years I only had to let one person go (out of a staff of 40) because of the economy or product demand. How did we survive? First, in bad years, none of us got raises. As the CEO, I had the very same benefits that my employees had. I received no special perks, got no golden parachute from our board and traveled in coach (150,000 miles per year on average). I set up a pension program for employees that they did not have to put a penny in, but they knew was in lieu of a slightly larger salary. In my 25 years only two employees left the company even though they had better offers. They liked what we did, how we did, and were committed to making it work.

We did put people first. Our employees and our customers. In good years we put the money back into the business, not into bonuses or hiring unneeded staff. We expanded as we saw opportunity and found that recessions created opportunities as our competitors fell by the wayside because of their extensive over-borrowing and greed during their good times.

Yes, we were a small business, but all the Fortune 500 companies in our region learned lessons from us. In fact, at a local meeting of business executives back in 2001, I sat next to the CEOs of three Fortune 500 companies. They were asking me how we kept profitable during those tough times. I said just look out the door. My 8 year old car was parked in a spot next to the three limos with drivers waiting to take these "titans of industry" back the three or four miles to their isolated headquarters. The looked at me with glazed eyes. They didn't get it. And most of the leaders of our biggest companies still don't get it.

Satisfied customers create more business. Respecting employees and creating a level playing field spawns creativity. And ultimately that creates jobs and growth, no matter how small or big the company.


G. Morris
NY and NJ

US corporations are still tied to the Jack Welch dictums:

Keep Full Time Employees to a absolute minimum,

Create a two-tier employee structure with management paid mostly in stock options,

Even our universities have embraced this short-sighted mandate with over 70% of college students now being taught by temps (adjuncts) and the dream of tenure thrown over-board. The average age of a tenured professor is now 55; they shoud be put on the endangered list. They only get to work if their courses are filled by cash-carrying students.

Productivity is high, wages are low and corporate profits are massive. And the income paradigm of our country looks like a template for a Banana Republic.

My children and their spouses work 80 hours a week while some of their friends are either unemployed or waiting tables. They are all well-educated, highly skilled and under utilized by a management class that is addicted to short-term movements in stock prices. Jack Welch's management philosophy only works in the short -term which is now behind us.


Jerry Kriss
Baltimore, MD

Many of the writers above have noted the fallacy in Mr. Nocera's suggestion---that U.S. businesses would voluntarily create jobs in the absence of any increased demand. It's the same fallacy promulgated by the supply-side economists. Our economy is demand driven, and employers won't hire until there is increased demand. That's why they'r sitting on hoards of cash.

In situations like this, the only entity that increase demand is the government. Increased government spending puts more money in people's pockets that they can spend, and demand goes up. How do we pay for that? Increasing taxes! If businesses won't spend the hoarded cash (much of it accumulated from the Bush tax cuts), then the government should. Increased capital gains taxes and taxes on corporate dividends will actually *increase* job creation by business. The higher tax gives them an incentive to put their money back into the business. While hiring workers immediately is not a good idea, plowing that money into refurbished equipment, new equipment, and improved facilities is an investment in the future that will pay off when demand returns. Companies avoid taxes then because that moneyt has turned into a business expense. This purchasing in upgrades also increases demand and stimulates the economy. With higher tax rates, hiring more employees actually will cost a business *less* in net income. The taxed profit has been turned into a business expense.

The evidence for all this is quite clear in the economic record. The economy always boomed when marginal tax rates and taxes on dividends and capital gains were higher, during the Eisenhower era and the Clinton presidency. We should be pushing for higher taxes in these areas now to boost the economy.



John F. McBride
Seattle, WA

Growing up through the Korean War and Cold War years, then Vietnam, I assumed the truth of the constant assertion of living in America: that America is superior and because it is superior everyone wants to live here.

But the decades have gone by and I was disillusioned with time. America has some superior qualities, but isn't carte blanche superior. There are other methods in the world that work as well, and in many cases that work better.

Germany's societal understanding about jobs and employment is one. The much lower cost of health care in other nations and yet equal and even superior care is another.

A truth about America is that we in some large minority, even at times a majority, prefer belief, believing what America is, to the truth.

Sadly our Republican Party in general, and the Tea Party specifically, our extreme right conservatism, refuses to accept that it can learn from others and to insist that even if an idea has been tried time and again, during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years, and failed, it will work. It has to work.

Maybe you're right Mr. Nocera, and corporations will voluntarily take on solving our employment problem. But I don't believe it. That's not happened in this nation before because our business model prefers strict capitalism and I know it. I'd have be as insane, in trusting after all this time that corporations can be trusted this first time to take this one as Republicans are in asserting that this time supply side and cutting spending in a severe contraction will work even though it never has before in the history of economics.

I'm not that crazy. Once burned, in my case, twice shy.


dickginnold
San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico

Great article, Joe. I trained as an economist in the l950s when 'enlightened self interest' was the key word and stocks traded in the 5/10 PE range. Corporate CEOs didn't get rich. There might have been a few $1 to 2M CEOS, but most made a couple hundred thousand. To get through school for a couple years I piled pigs and poured metal for Kaiser Aluminum. I could earn $7,000 with overtime. Henry Kaiser, the CEO got about $200K, 30 times my wage. Our union was respected. Now US CEOs make 10s of millions, maybe up to 100M,, or 100s of times worker salaries,while their corporations are breaking unions, cutting benefits, laying off people, paying off Congressional represenatives and frequently losing money.

In 2008 I visited my relatives in Germany and travelled the country from Berlin to Hamburg. Amazing. Corporate boards have union reps and there is a social compact to share sacrifice, the origin of the hours reduction policy to reduce unemployment.

The country and its flourishing economy puts us to shame, full of windpower and several kinds of fast, modern transit, in its infrastructure, in the mixture of nationalities, social benefits and dignity of workers. I saw huge numbers of export containers in Hamburg, which exports 10M containers a year, mostly filled with industrial goods. During my visit, a Berlin paper had a spread on the top CEO salaries in Germany, major companies like Lufthansa, BMW. I don't believe there was a one above 1 to 3 M Euros,around 40 times the worker earnings, like we had it 60 years ago. They learned democratic capitalism, while the US was taken over by Wall Street and corporate rapists.


Jumper
South Carolina

Twenty-five years ago a young associate professor of business I knew relentlessly repeated to everyone who'd listen a key difference between Japanese managers and U.S. managers. Japanese managers could recite their market share but seldom knew their return on investment (ROI.) U.S. managers could recite their ROI but seldom knew their market share.

This same associate professor condemned the U.S. quarterly-report fixation. It was one of many indicators but it led U.S. investors to want every quarter to be better than the last. Simple algebra with exponents shows that folly.

Today, that former associate professor is Chair of the Department with no shortage of students.

An important question will be how the companies will judge the success of their efforts. Are they willing to be patient? Are workers willing to start at a lower salary? Are corporations willing to raise the pay as profits increase? Some may bring up unions. Only 6.9% of the U.S. private sector workforce is in unions.

You mention the Germans, but the Japanese also have a practice of setting aside money to keep workers on the job. The work may involve a lot of equipment and building maintenance but they are kept employed.

What's also going on in Japan and Germany is that fear is minimized in the workplace. When workplace fear is minimized, productivity increases. People pay attention to productivity and creativity rather than worrying about how to word their resume, or worrying about what they need to ask HR. They discuss coordinating efficiency or product improvement rather than discussing the latest company rumors.

In early 1914, at the height of a two year recession, Henry Ford doubled the daily wage to $5.00. He also cut the work day to eight hours. He was able to keep workers on the job and he was able to run three shifts. Car prices dropped.

Those were benefits to his corporation but those changes also had positive impact on American prosperity and standard of living in general.