Death of a Hero

Death of a Hero.

Bobby Fischer is dead at the age of 64. Once again I am reminded of my own mortality.

First I was forced to deal with the deaths of my adult life heroes, that being the deaths of my parents. Now I am forced to deal with the death of a childhood hero. Bobby Fischer has gone to meet his maker.

It was always a dream of mine to face Bobby Fischer over a Chess table. I always knew I would never stand a chance. In my dreams, it always ended up with with the victor, (Bobby) reaching over the game table, shaking my hand and stating "good game". I never dreamed it was possible to beat the genius at his own game. My dreams where only that I would force him to think about beating me. Forcing him to exercise his genius and actually have to think about it before he wiped me slick.

I was intrigued that Bobby had actually developed a method of playing the game of Chess that might actually have given me a chance (or at least a little hope) of beating him. He seemed to have developed a distaste (which I agree with) for how the potentials of a good Chess game had become more of a product of the contest was that the winner of the contest could be he/she who had more experience (and that experience could be gained through study) in the game then his opponent rather then a measure of raw intelligence.

Bobby Fischer proposed placing the pieces on the board at random (I would imagine both players were given the same random placement) and then starting the game. Have you ever heard of a level playing field? Sure, some experience of the strengths of each particular piece would be beneficial, but experience and book study of the game would be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Nearly endless possibilities. The playing field would be tilted away from experience towards raw intellect.

Now I am still a realist. I would imagine that even under Bobby Fischer rules for Chess, most times I would end up being defeated by Bobby Fischer. After all, the man was able to overcome more experienced and studied opponents at an extremely youthful age. However I would have relished the chance to measure myself against his genius by the rules he came up with. Who knows, perhaps I could have occasionally won a game or two and kept his interest. By his rules, I stood a chance.

I mourn the death of Bobby Fischer, one of my childhood heroes. I would hope that the President of our nation would, posthumously, grant him a Presidential Pardon. While I would imagine that he will be buried in Iceland, I want it to be made official that it is not Un-American to place flowers at his grave.

Bobby Fischer, rest in peace. After my own death I look forward to perhaps being able to take the man on by his own rules. God willing, I might even win occasionally.

Opportunity lost. Bobby Fischer is dead. In my limited lifetime, I no longer have the chance to sit down across a Chess table against Bobby Fischer.

I weep at the expiration of the life of Bobby Fischer. The expiration of boyhood dreams points to my own human mortality. Why did I never travel to Iceland and challenge him to a game?

I had the chance. I have no one to blame but myself.

Huckabee and the Fair Tax

First let me state that I am dead set against the Fair Tax in the manner that Mike Huckabee and most Fair Tax proponents propose it. They propose completely replacing all Federal taxes with the Fair Tax and eliminating the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I wonder just how willing to compromise Mike Huckabee might be willing to be in order to get his proposal enacted.

I will admit that there are some advantages to the Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee has pointed out one not very controversial advantage, and there is at least one other strong advantage that would be rather controversial.

Mike Huckabee has pointed out that portions of the underground economy might be subjected to at least some taxation. Mike specifically pointed to profits from activities such as prostitution and illegal drug sales being forced to pay taxes when the recipients of the profits sought to spend the money. I think this is indeed a valid positive aspect. I would point out that the economic transactions made during illegal activity probably would not yield any tax revenue, however when those who gain from such activity attempt to spend their profits for legal merchandise, their expenditures woiuld be subject to tax just like everyone else. I am certain that a large majority of our citizens, including me, would agree that this would be a good thing. Little controversy here.

Now let us explore in some detail a more controversial advantage.

Lifting the tax burden from businesses and employers will make American made goods more competitive both domestically and within the general global economy. Removing the federal tax burden from business should yield, through lower production costs, cheaper prices for American made goods. Greater demand for American made goods should yield increased economic activity, higher employment rates, and higher wages for the American worker.

I state this is controversial because some will see any attempt to shift the tax burden from the supply side to the demand side as being a negative. Such people see taxes on business as being a freebie. As long as you do not directly tax them and only impose taxes on big, bad business for the services they want, they cheer. They do not realize the indirect costs on society through the suppression of wage potential of workers and outright job loss imposed on the domestic economy. Such people have strong allies. Extremely respected former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that a Flat Tax only tax code would suppress demand for consumption (in Greenspan speak... you know he can't ever say something in common English) and he saw this shift as being undesirable for the economy. However I personally think that our financial guru just did not think it all through. Yes, there might be a difficult period while the economy adjusted, however in the long run, it should be beneficial.

While there might initially be some suppression of economic activity due to increased costs for goods, remember the global economy. At times it seems that just about everything bought in America is made somewhere else. Perhaps foreign manufacturers have the most to fear from the Fair Tax. In the long run, goods made in America, due to the elimination of the tax burden, should be more competitive both internally and externally. This should result in increased demand for the now more cheaply produced goods "Made in America". With increased demand for domestic production capacity will come increased competition for able employees and increased wages. Increased wages (after a period of adjustment) will replace the lost demand, however now an increased portion of the demand will now be met from domestically produced goods. Increased foreign demand for the now cheaper American made goods will help reduce (I do not have the courage to say eliminate) the trade imbalance.

Now comes the aspects of compromise that Fair Tax advocates must agree to in order to win my complete support.

First, I will not let you destroy the American Way. If you want a flat tax, move to Russia. It is my understanding that Vladimir Putin is experimenting with a flat tax. Please go join his experiment if you want to do it the Russian Way. Personally, I think Vladimir is flirting with a peasant revolt, but hey, maybe an autocratic form of government can impose what I would describe as an unjust tax system on the masses. If you want a flat tax, move to Russia. How does the saying go? "America, love it or leave it." If you want a flat tax, move to Russia and see how you fare. You might become fabulously wealthy as a result... until the peasants revolt and strip you of everything. Perhaps you will escape with your life.

The Flat Tax will result an increased tax burden on the middle class. I look at these increased tax payments as an opportunity. If we can get all of the Fair Tax advocates to pay increased taxes to balance the budget, this should also yield a positive impact for our society. A balanced federal budget will yield many positive benefits to our society.

However I am unwilling to turn my back on the American Way. I guess I should define my definition of the American Way. My Daddy's generation came back from World War II and threw their weight behind a system that I will go to my grave supporting. The poor pay little in taxes. The middle class pays some. The wealthy pay more. Effort and ability were rewarded, but with increased rewards came a responsibility to support the society that provided the wealth.

I am getting around to my compromise. Before I get to my proposal, let me point out a serious negative aspect of the Fair Tax. An unadulterated enactment of the Fair Tax would allow foreign investors to invest in and profit from the American economy without paying any taxes at all. Do we want wealthy foreign investors to escape unscathed? Should foreign investors be able to profit from American know how and American labor without paying anything into the society that supports the cash cow? I say HELL NO.

I do not object to the small time foreign investor escaping taxes. However the reality is that investment in the American economy is a big time player game. If the wealthy foreign investor is going to profit, the foreign investor should have to pay his share of the freight.

Profits (income) received from the American economy beyond that which I would define as "reasonable" should be subject to additional taxes beyond the Fair Tax. If someone is going to get rich off of my society, I want to ensure he/she contributes to that which makes the economy possible.

So what would I propose? I would suggest that the continuation of the IRS is necessary to keep honest people honest. There are too many loopholes in the fair tax without someone looking over our shoulders. Decreased demand on keeping the "average citizen" honest by the Fair Tax will enable the existing IRS manpower to increase revenue through tightened enforcement on the decreased pool of claimed exempt economic activity. Increased chances of getting caught will result in increased honesty.

I also demand that after a reasonable level of wealth, that wealth would still be subject to income tax. I do not desire to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I do not desire to motivate a peasant revolt within America. Hard work should be rewarded. Flagrant wealth should be taxed. We peasants live in America. Thanks to the beauty of the American Way our citizens can revolt at the voting booth without taking up arms.

I love America. I love the American Way. I am appreciative that I am offered the opportunity to change (or object to the change of) things without having to kill anyone.

A Reasonable Stance for Peace in the Middle East

A Reasonable Stance for Peace in the Middle East.

Recently I have engaged in some criticism of the recent historical position and actions of the US/Israeli alliance on Israeli/Palestinian issue as it relates to the prospects for peace. Even more recently, I have witnessed some voices, including the voice of Israeli PM Olmert, speaking out in ways that I consider at least marginally reasonable.

I am going to attempt to define my own definition of a reasonable position on the prospects for peace in the Holy Land. My definition is not going to satisfy the right wing of our side because they blanch at even the suggestion of "two states for two peoples" and they consider all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as part of Greater Israel and refuse to even give up one inch for a future Palestinian state.

Now I am going to self define myself as being a supporter of Israel. While the right wing might describe me as being an "Arabist" (like they describe Condi Rice) for my viewpoint, I am going to take solace that I probably comfortably fit into Israeli PM Olmerts definition of a supporter of Israel. I am going to say that it is PM Olmert who has changed his definition to include me. I did not change my position to match his definition. However Olmert had to change his definition in order to find majority support for his proposals in the Western World and in my opinion the developing majority opinion within the United States and even amongst Diaspora Jews. Now that Israeli leadership has emerged that represents majority Western opinion (and conceivably majority Israeli opinion) on the issue, it is time to reward such expressions of leadership with backing as long as such expressions (and actions) continue.

Make no mistake about it. Soft words accompanied by contradictory actions will be judged harshly. However if conciliatory words are matched with the actions required... if Israel takes the steps necessary for peace? Well, in my opinion, we must then give Israel credit, stop being unreasonable, and start giving voice to our expectations about what the other side must be do to prove they are worthy of our continuing support.

First I am going to point to some articles that support points that I wish to make.

To the question "Can Olmert deliver from the Israeli side?" I ask you to (see here) where Olmert states he can provide the leadership necessary towards the painful compromises that will be required to resolve the issue. Now I am not saying the leadership task that Olmert is going to take on will be easy. Strong elements within his current coalition are threatening to increase the stakes and attempt to crash his currently assembled coalition if he makes any progress towards real steps towards compromise. However Olmert does have the realistic threat of then excluding these right wing elements from his government and then continuing on with a coalition comprised of/with replacements gathered from left wing elements. Even the left wing has threatened to desert him at the first sign of progress. However it is my opinion if the Olmert government collapses, peace efforts should continue. If the ability of the Israeli government to represent itself once again is removed, the Western World is going to have to continue on with peace efforts absent a voice that can claim to legitimately represent the Israeli people. I am fairly confident such an effort would yield the best deal possible for the Israeli side even if the Israelis insist on ripping their tongue out and taking a vow of silence in the resulting peace efforts. Even if the Israeli government, as currently comprised, collapses? The path to peace still is still clear. We do not need an Israeli representative to lead the rest of us down the correct path.

But what happens if an extremist, right wing Israeli leadership quickly rises from the ashes of the Olmert government? Such a government should be forced to settle for DICTATED terms. It is my opinion that the international community has proven itself capable of providing inducements to other powerful entities within the world community to "change their evil ways" in the past. If the Israeli right wing wants to turn its back on the leadership of Olmert, perhaps it will be time to take off the felt lined gloves of encouragement and replace it with the steel fist of forced compliance.

Is the world community willing to support Israel in a just resolution of the conflict? (See here)
a Haaretz piece, written by Bradley Burston, that seems to point towards a developing consensus amongst supporters of Israel towards a just and reasonable end to the conflict. Please note that nothing expressed by Bradley suggests Israel needs to lay down and commit suicide. It is my opinion that this piece (as well as the previously sited articles statements to Israeli PM Olmert) supports a developing consensus in the Western World (perhaps including Israel) for a just settlement of the conflict.

However does not this piece hint at what the Western World might be facing in our efforts to bring about a just settlement? That perhaps the Palestinian side will be unwilling to settle for a just peace? I think it does. The only thing we can do is dangle the carrot. If the Palestinian side refuses to take the carrot, then perhaps we must allow the Israelis to keep going after them with a stick.

Israel must not be forced to accept suicide as being the price for peace. When a just settlement is offered, Israel needs go no further. It is my opinion that a continuing occupation of the West Bank is even justified (without continuing expansion of land that might be annexed into Israel) until the Palestinian People are following leadership that promises peace.

The Israeli right wing argues that expansion of settlements in the West Bank is justified by the failure of Palestinians to settle for peace. (See here) where the Israeli right wing promises to meet current peace efforts with resistnance. I argue that such continuing expansion during such attempts continues to fan the flames of passion that prevent the Palestinians from settling for that which is offered. While the Palestinians might be forced to compromise and accept some of the "facts on the ground" due to previous expansion by the Israeli right wing, that does not mean the Palestinians must be forced to roll over and accept an ever changing, endlessly expanding, definition of the "facts".

When the world community settles on the definition of just what "just boundaries" are, then we will have the boundaries of just what claims of "reasonable resistance" and "reasonable annexation" really are.

It is my opinion that the Western World made a grave mistake by allowing the life of Yassar Arafat to expire without negotiating a peace agreement with him. However it is impossible to go back in time, and now we are forced to deal with that which is left after the death of Yassar Arafat. While no Palestinian leader remains that could as justifiably claim to represent the Palestinian side of affairs, we must continue on with negotiating with fractured Palestinian leadership. Those Palestinians that follow the path of Abbas will be met with welcoming arms. Those that follow the leadership of Hamas in Gaza will have to deal with hardship and suffering.

It is on this premise that my opinion on what to do about the Israeli Palestinian conflict stands. Israel has the right to just self defense. Israel does not have the right to defend injustice.

I am willing to honestly judge the efforts of Israel and Palestine towards gaining peace. Perhaps I am all to willing to negatively judge Israeli efforts to reward the Israeli right wing with the trophy of new "facts on the ground" in their efforts towards a just settlement. I balance my decisions on judging justice on the pivot of how for nearly 60 years the conflict has gone on, and for nearly 60 years Israeli leadership has dominated without leading us to peace. For 60 years, the result of failure to accept peace (by one side or the other) has resulted in continuing expansion of the Israeli state.

It is time for the expansion to cease. It is time for final boundaries to be set. Efforts by the Israeli right wing to scuttle peace efforts must be met harshly, if need be. Then we can turn our eyes of judgement upon the Palestinian side and be just as honest.

Another Issue With the Fair Tax

Another Issue With the Fair Tax.

How would the Fair Tax impact foreign investors? Which foreign investors are awash in dollars? Right now the answer to that is China due to the large trade imbalance and members of OPEC due to high price for a barrel of crude oil.

So let's pick an example. Let's say an Arab Sheik from Dubai chooses to invest in Boeing. If the Fair Tax is enacted, Boeing will not be paying any federal business taxes (although the new jetliners they sell to the domestic market would be taxed). Our Arab Sheik would receive a return on investment for anything that is exported (a large part of Boeing's profit market) tax free. He then withdraws the profits, doesn't pay any income tax because income tax has been abolished, and takes the money back home to Dubai to purchase American exports that are also tax free to support his lavish lifestyle.

It would seem that our Arab Sheik can invest in America, profit from the investment, take the profits back home and purchase American made goods (like F-16 jet fighters) without paying a dime in federal taxes. Sure seems fair to me! Sure it does. (Sarcasm intended.)