Alan Krinsky 2014-12-28T10:59:22-05:00 Alan Krinsky Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alan Krinsky Good old fashioned elbow grease. The Piano Man and Nostalgia: On Listening to the Words We Sing,2014:/theblog//3.5558631 2014-07-07T16:13:37-04:00 2014-09-06T05:59:06-04:00 Alan Krinsky
Finally, after about three and a half decades of listening to his music, I saw and heard Billy Joel perform live recently at Fenway Park. Even though it was a stadium show, the sound proved stunningly sharp. His voice was strong and the lyrics quite clear.

The audience, however, puzzled me.

What really struck me was the audience members singing along the words to Piano Man, one of Joel's iconic songs. Now, I admit, generally I am no big fan of audiences joining in to sing. I attend concerts to hear the singer or group perform the songs, not my fellow attendees. I recognize that audience participation can enliven a show, but still, the singing along is not my ideal.

Part of the problem is that people join in on the songs they know and remember well, I imagine as a kind of nostalgia--regardless of the nature of the song. People smile and sing and dance, seemingly oblivious to the actual lyrics.

So back to the Piano Man. People sang happily, presumably out of nostalgia, but were they listening to the very words to which they gave voice? Piano Man is actually a profoundly sad song. It is about loneliness, alienation, dead-end jobs and dead-end lives, about being stuck, unable to escape an unfulfilling, provincial life:

They're sharing a drink they call loneliness
But it's better than drinking alone....

It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday
And the manager gives me a smile
'Cause he knows that it's me they've been coming to see
To forget about life for a while.

There is no joy or redemption at the end; there is music and alcohol to provide a temporary eclipse of the pains of life and living.

Indeed, if one listens carefully, many of Joel's songs echo such sentiments. Movin' Out (Anthony's Song) runs through a number of characters in similarly desolate situations, with the narrator seeking to escape. Allentown laments the closing of factories and the passing of better times. Joel sings, "I won't be getting up today." His closing song of the encore and concert, Only the Good Die Young, remains a rather cynical song (whether or not it reflects Joel's actual views).

Now, please do not take my observations as a critique of the Billy Joel songbook. To the contrary, he is brilliant at capturing these tones and moods of sadness and alienation, failure and loss. These are powerful feelings and experiences in our lives. Especially when linked to the frequent alienation and melancholia of adolescence, they touch and no doubt imprint our hearts. After the Fenway concert, I appreciate Billy Joel no less. If anything, more so. In a world where so much pop music is about boys and girls and relationship problems and break-ups, Joel's music and lyrics tell stories, draw characters, and evoke deep feelings.

I remain puzzled, though, how fandom and nostalgia can blunt the power of the music and words, replacing them with a fleeting happiness. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but would we not better honor the musicians by paying greater attention to the words they sing?]]>
A Four-party System for the U.S.,2013:/theblog//3.3531406 2013-07-09T18:42:42-04:00 2013-09-08T05:12:01-04:00 Alan Krinsky the cause, of the dysfunction currently paralyzing our political system, especially as it manifests in the chambers of government in Washington, D.C. The ideological base, the party faithful now wield too much power, particularly in promoting the most extreme candidates in party primaries.

I would suggest, however, that it is not so much ideological extremism as the fact that our two-party system less and less reflects the genuine diversity of political ideas professed by various segments of the American population. Basically, we continue to try to fit square pegs into round holes. The pegs simply do not fit.

Probably the most discordant note playing in the current system is the attempt to contain social and economic conservatives within a single party, the Republican Party. While many social conservatives have come to embrace economic conservatism, the same cannot be said about the reverse situation. Many economic conservatives are social liberals and oppose government legislation on lifestyle issues, such as the continued criminalization of marijuana or the prohibition of gay marriage. Libertarian or Libertarian-leaning individuals do not make ideal partners for the largely Christian, and often evangelical, segment of the Republican Party. This is at least in part why Ron Paul generated great enthusiasm among a small and vocal group of followers but found it impossible to capture the Republican Party as a whole.

Within the Democratic Party, we have the clash between those, such as the Blue-Dog Democrats, who embrace centrism and those who claim the mantle of the "Democratic Wing" of the party. Further to the left are those who lean towards a European-style socialist democracy. And there are plenty of people on both ends and across the political spectrum who do not feel comfortable belonging to either major party. The growing number and percentage of self-identified Independents demonstrates this.

In brief, our Two-Party System is something of an anachronism and does not match our ideological diversity. What we ought to do is scrap this system and replace it with one consisting of four major parties. Even this will not cover all Americans, but it will certainly encompass more of us and within a more rational framework.

For what might these four major parties stand? I would argue that a sensible division would include a Libertarian Party, a Social Conservative Party, a Liberal-Left Party, and a Centrist Party.

A Libertarian Party would attract those Americans who embrace both economic conservatism and social liberalism; although the Libertarian voice has become stronger in recent years, this has not translated into widespread electoral success.

A Social Conservative Party would be a comfortable home for the many religious conservatives who do think the government should play an active role in areas of social and individual behavior.

A Liberal-Left Party would attract a sizeable group of individuals who think the Democratic Party leans too often to the center. They see someone like President Obama not as a Socialist, but rather as a moderate who compromises too easily with the Republicans. Such a political party would also attract religious liberals, who think government should be active on social and economic issues, such as poverty and homelessness.

Finally, a Centrist Party would capture a broad segment of the population, from conservative Democrats to the dying breed of liberal Republicans, and probably many alienated citizens who now call themselves Independents. New York Times columnist David Brooks might be a champion of such a party, where people would see government as capable of doing good, but within carefully drawn limits.

There are two serious problems with this proposal.

First, it is a wacky, impossible idea. And yet, is the current system not even wackier? Does its growing dysfunction not demonstrate that it is becoming impossible? A four-party system will be possible if some courageous political leaders take steps to break away from the current system to form these parties. There is political risk involved, but what of political courage if all fear even to make an attempt?

Secondly, our current winner-takes-all approach to elections will not fit well with a four-party structure. We would need to implement and experiment with alternate approaches, to make our political system more representative. Imagine, for example, statewide elections for the House of Representatives and State Legislatures, where seats are allocated according to the portion of votes received by each party. In this way, the scourge of partisan gerrymandering could be removed, and our elected officials would represent a broader variety of viewpoints.

Critics might worry that a multi-party system of this sort would lead to a greater instability more characteristic of parliamentary systems. And yet, this risk might reap much more productive government compared with the wonderfully stable gridlock we have now.]]>
Taxing and Spending: A Conservative Challenge and a Liberal Response,2012:/theblog//3.1807899 2012-08-20T11:01:29-04:00 2012-10-20T05:12:04-04:00 Alan Krinsky
I would further suggest that Conservative arguments over government spending present an important challenge to Liberals, who in the arena of public opinion have largely failed to articulate a persuasive defense of government spending, even (or especially for) worthwhile causes.

The central Conservative question is, in truth, a reasonable one: Why should I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I would?!

After all, governments are made up of individuals, and how could these individuals have a better incentive than I do to spend my (hard-earned) money? Indeed, they have much less at stake, much less incentive not to squander this money. Therefore, the Conservative thinker reasons (and the Libertarian takes this reasoning to an even greater degree), we should keep as much money as possible in my pockets and therefore out of the hands of government. In this sense, it is quite possible that the opposition to taxing is something of a by-product of the opposition to someone else having decision power over how to spend my money.

Is there a Liberal answer to this, especially given the long, evidential history of absurd and out-of-control government spending, all the pork-barrel spending and earmarks, and those tools costing hundreds or thousands of dollars? And, in terms of helping people, well perhaps we should leave that to charitable institutions and not see this as a government responsibility or role?

These are serious, reasonable, challenging questions. Can Liberals answer them in a satisfying manner? Well, I do think there are cogent, persuasive arguments in favor of responsible government spending. Here are four such points worth considering:

1. There are some things only governments can do well. These generally fall under the rubric of common interests or collective goods, activities such as securing a clean water supply, or responding to disease epidemics. Such matters simply cannot be left to individual citizens to choose how to spend their money. It would be a nightmare, for example, if clean drinking water were denied to people who could not afford it, or if the frontline against potential epidemics were left to private, voluntary groups or individuals. And despite some recent attempts to privatize police and fire-fighting services, are we truly prepared to allow houses to burn to the ground if the owner has not purchased such service in advance?

2. There are some things requiring universal participation to function effectively and affordably. Of course, this notion has been central to debates over healthcare reform. Perhaps the reality of universal participation is more evident in the justice system. What would it mean to privatize the court systems, and make participation subject to subscription? Likewise with policing. If we privatize this, then those who can afford police, whether for protection or to catch criminals, would benefit, while the rest of us would be at the mercy of a lawless society. It takes government, whether federal or local, to make these sorts of things work at all, let alone well.

3. Government does some things no one else will do. For all the controversy over President Obama's statements about building businesses, his basic point remains valid. That despite the importance of individual ingenuity and perseverance, wealth is not earned alone and is not possible outside of a society and polity providing basic infrastructure and stability. One might suggest that therefore there are implicit social contracts, that those who succeed in our society ought to contribute to building and maintaining the infrastructure and stability that allowed them to earn (or maintain) their fortunes.

4. Government does some things we are unwilling to stop. We already guarantee certain things to our citizens and even non-citizens, such as emergency medical care. Unless we are willing to become a society that turns away people from the emergency room and leave them to die of serious but not life-threatening ailments, then we are already committed to a certain amount and kind of government spending, so does it not at least make sense to rationalize this system and provide care in a more affordable and productive manner?

One might counter that this is not the job of government and that people will not die like this, because religious and other charitable institutions will pick up the slack (and will be better funded if taxes are lower). But will they? What will happen with a voucher program for Medicare when a person's care exceeds the value of the voucher? Will we let them die? What will happen if we privatize Social Security? Some individuals will be able to earn greater returns than they would receive under the current system, but what of those who make poor choices and squander their private accounts? Do we let them wander the streets and die?

Social science tells us rather persuasively that most people will not or cannot make good decisions about many things, especially when confronted with too many choices, and especially about their long-term future needs. We easily say "Sink or Swim," but are we truly prepared, as a society, to stand by while people drown? I realize that to some extent we already do this, but do we wish to make it official policy, a guiding principle of government?

We can see, then, that there are some strong reasons why we must rely upon government to tax us and spend our money, to provide necessary services that cannot or will not be provided by the private sector or private individuals. The debate is and should be around the extent of this government role. Perhaps almost all of us and even most Libertarians (Anarchists aside), agree that government must play this role in terms of national security and court systems, so the core of the debate must concern matters such as health care and the regulation of food safety and of Wall Street.

We have little choice but to trust that government authorities will secure our safety and clean water, among other goods, but of course we must maintain the right and responsibility to keep officials in check, to monitor for (in)efficiency, and to protect against the abuse of power.

However, even if we overcome the challenges and establish that sometimes government does do a better job of spending my money than I would, there remains a moral challenge: Why not allow people to make bad decisions, to sink and drown if they cannot swim? In this regard, it does not matter if the government spends well, because the taxation could still be considered theft. Does the government have the moral right to take my money to save someone else from drowning? And even if so, who ought to have the power to decide who should be rescued from drowning and by what means? To this problem also I believe Liberals can offer a thoughtful response, but that is for another essay.]]>
A Consideration of the Libertarian Party Platform: Part 1,2011:/theblog//3.993435 2011-10-04T15:27:53-04:00 2011-12-04T05:12:07-05:00 Alan Krinsky Libertarian Party Platform, the most recent version of which was adopted in May 2010?

The Preamble of the Platform emphasizes the value of freedom:




These opening paragraphs raise issues to which we must return as they are developed or given substance. Fundamentally, what are individual rights, and upon what ground do individuals possess them? Next, although it might be clear, perhaps even a tautology that such rights are necessary for freedom, are they truly necessary for prosperity? And what if this is not true in practice, that prosperity can be achieved by other means, by other forms of political organization?

Yet perhaps most intriguing is the following claim, that "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships." Is the word "must" here used as "ought to," that this is an ideal? Or, is it meant as a principle underlying what limited responsibilities governments rightly possess? If so, who determines what qualifies as fraud or force? And from a Libertarian perspective, why is it not within an individual's rights to use fraud to, for example, game the market by means of insider trading and thereby gain wealth? Should government regulation seek to prevent and punish fraud (do Libertarians praise the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission?!), or is the free market supposed to police itself in this regard?

The Preamble continues:




We are confronted with additional questions. Is "defend each person's right" meant in a philosophical sense? In a sense that justifies government protection? Or, does it indicate a willingness to take up arms? And again, in terms of judgment, who is to judge what is "peaceful and honest," and how do Libertarians justify prohibiting dishonesty? Would they prohibit it (and if so, how?), or just frown upon it?

As the second to last paragraph of the Preamble suggests, to answer such questions, we will likely have to wait for the explicit policy stands promised in the pages ahead. Likewise, my further analysis will have to await another post.
It Began With Ayn Rand,2011:/theblog//3.863395 2011-05-18T15:14:31-04:00 2011-07-18T05:12:01-04:00 Alan Krinsky It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, by Jerome Tuccille. At the time in spoke to me: an adolescent enamored by Rand's fiction and philosophy, yet ready for something more. For the author and for my cousin, the adult version of Rand's ideas could be found in the Libertarian Party.

I write "adult version," because in some sense I understood myself as having outgrown what I came to see as Rand's simplistic philosophy. In college in the late 1980s, I first turned to Libertarianism and then became a Progressive. And thus I am amazed at her continued and even revitalized place in our culture. Did we not all outgrow her? Apparently not.

Though Rand, who passed away in 1982, never quite fell from popularity, her name has been invoked with increasing frequency over the last two or three years -- both by anti-Obama protestors and cable television talking heads. About a year and a half ago, two new biographies of her came out, one of which was featured on the cover of the Book Review section of The New York Times. And now we have the recently released first part of a projected three-part film adaptation of Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. And events such as Ron Paul's declaration of his Presidential candidacy recall to me my years as a fan of Rand's.

Does Ayn Rand really have much to say to us today? As a former admirer, I can share my reflections.

Like a fair number of adolescents, I discovered The Fountainhead, a novel that swept me away, and then the massive Atlas Shrugged. Rand created powerful, strong, proud characters. No doubt her stories -- of bold and smart individualists, persevering against weaker people trying to sap their creativity -- gave hope to many young boys (and some girls) trying to assert themselves and to find certainty in an often alienating world.

And I fell for it: a simplistic, black and white view of the world, an unambiguous morality rooted in individualism. I arrived in Boston for college and looking for that next step, I reached out to actual Libertarians, members of a political group seeking a third party presence in government, in order to minimize that very government.

Within months, however, my world was thrown into chaos. This was in large part due to a seminar in Anthropology and Comparative Religion. I learned about other cultures and other ways of thinking, about language and meaning. I was thrust outside of my own narrow perspective, and suddenly I found I could no longer articulate a compelling defense of Libertarianism or Randian Objectivism. I had entered university as an Objectivist and become transformed into a Cultural Relativist.

It took a few years, but in time I abandoned that Cultural Relativism, though by no means the broad perspective it gave me. Nor did I abandon the Progressive politics, for that matter.

As for Libertarianism, I want to make clear that although I no longer espouse it, I do think it has its merits and can make an important contribution to our political culture. Libertarianism raises challenging questions about the proper role of government. I do not equate it with what I take to be the worldview of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand's world is one without community, a place where rugged individuals achieve success all on their own. Rand is therefore blind to the societal infrastructure that makes the accumulation of wealth possible and makes a polity stable enough for an economy to function. I would suggest that the logical outcome of Rand's philosophy is a fractured world, where the wealthy pay paramilitary forces to protect them in their gated communities. It is a world not of some ideal, free market competition, but one in which the absence of regulations leads to monopolization, the further concentration of wealth, and the breakdown of consumer protections. And in that sort of world, the production of wealth becomes more difficult, even for the wealthy. As trite as the phrase has become, it does take a village. Individual success and triumph often requires individual initiative and perseverance, but it also depends upon so much else and so many other people to create and maintain the foundations of a stable society.

Rand's lone individual is an illusion that must be challenged, not only because it is a lie, but because it will never work, at least not in the long run. If Ron and Rand Paul and the like achieve their goals, we will not see renewed prosperity, but rather the fraying of our society and economy, as healthcare and then education and then even fire and police protection become privatized. The inequalities of opportunity will only grow, and the dream of American mobility, already not as realistic a dream as many people imagine, will become a genuine fantasy.

At that moment when my world shattered, it was no longer self-evident why Rand's principle of individualism was absolute, no idea in her atheistic world should compel anyone else, let alone society, to be bound by it. I think the balance is tricky and difficult -- I am by no means opposed to individual rights -- but I would argue, I have argued, that communal values also have a claim upon us, and we may indeed be responsible for one another, ideally or practically, if we wish to maintain a vibrant and prosperous society.

(Note: An earlier version of this essay previously appeared in the Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald.)]]>
Progressives in Middle Eastern Exile?,2011:/theblog//3.817884 2011-02-02T23:13:40-05:00 2011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00 Alan Krinsky
You have only this one minute to make up your mind.

Perhaps you are not only progressive, but also gay. Or a woman. Or both. Maybe you are an atheist. Or a liberal Christian. Or a Jewish progressive.

Your time is almost up.

What do you choose?

If you wanted to live in a democratic state with women's rights, where gays and lesbians can live openly and march in pride parades, where you have freedom of religious expression -- well there was only one good choice.

If you are a progressive who sees Israel as the greatest violator of human rights in the world, as a pariah state rightfully deserving to be far more frequently censured by the United Nations than any other state, as the one nation that should be the target of an international boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement -- did you, perhaps, still choose Israel as your home in exile?

Or, do you continue to believe that Israel is a worse criminal than the other four (singly or combined)? That the Palestinians are merely victims of an unprecedentedly brutal Israeli regime? That the lack of not only Israeli-Palestinian peace, but the lack of Middle Eastern peace, is a result solely of Israel's intransigence and criminality? That ideally, for there to be true justice, the obstacle named Israel must disappear?

If, however, you are a progressive who believes in the values of freedom of speech and religion and the press, in women's and gay and lesbian rights, then perhaps you might not wish Israel out of existence so quickly. Perhaps you would find it a more welcoming home in exile than your other options. An imperfect home, no doubt, but one where you would remain free to express your dissent.

It's true, of course, that the authorities in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would all allow you to express criticism openly. Well, that is, if you limit your criticism to Israel and Jews. But should you wish to advance the causes of gay rights, or freedom of worship, or freedom of the press, or democratic reform, then your convictions might not be so welcome. (With the revolution in Egypt, we will have to wait and see what emerges, but I would not bet on the blossoming of a liberal democracy.)

Progressives ought to come to terms with this juxtaposition. They ought to question, within progressive circles, the almost unconsciously reflexive singling out of Israel for condemnation, the efforts to delegitimize its existence in a way not applied to any other nation in the world. When progressives -- and I count myself as a progressive -- can get to such a point, when we can analyze Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an international context, then we might be able to engage in constructive criticism instead of demonization. And then we can all take part in a serious conversation of what it will take to bring peace -- and full international recognition at the United Nations -- for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Why Do Progressives Favor Regulation -- and Should We?,2011:/theblog//3.812811 2011-02-01T15:15:20-05:00 2011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00 Alan Krinsky
As Progressives, we often take what appears to us to be a pragmatic approach. An unrestrained market system does not appear to do a good job in certain areas. Clearly, in healthcare, we have a wealthy country, yet there remain tens of millions of people lacking insurance at all, and tens of millions more with inadequate insurance or inadequate access to healthcare. In societies with greater regulation, such as those in Europe, healthcare is not only provided universally, but for less money per capita and with better outcomes than we get here in the United States.

So, with better outcomes at a lower cost, why is there such opposition, even fear, over healthcare reform in the United States?

It comes down, in large part, to a matter of trust. Progressives tend to trust public institutions and officials to spend money more wisely and with less overhead than the private sector. For all the outcry over Medicare, the system runs on much less overhead than private insurance companies (as researched and reported in the past by The Commonwealth Fund). And, in a critical area like healthcare, Progressives worry that the private sector's profit motive trumps providing quality care.

Conservatives challenge this. With healthcare, as with government spending more generally, they wonder why we should trust the government to spend our money any more wisely than we would as individuals? After all, will we not pursue our own interests better than government bureaucrats? And if the reality is that most people tend to make poor choices (in part because they are overwhelmed by the variety of choices), the principle is more important than the outcome, ideology more important than results. Indeed, Conservatives see the regulatory approach as patronizing and fundamentally immoral. For Libertarians, any government taxation and regulation are necessary evils, to defend society.

And do Progressives not know from mistrusting government? When it comes to keeping secrets, Progressives understand that government and government officials ought not always to be trusted. Take, for example, former Vice President Cheney's secret meetings on energy policy. And surely there is corruption and waste throughout government, as with most institutions to one degree or another.

Furthermore, Progressives distrust the use of government to promote the agenda of Social Conservatives, to restrict various practices or to impose others.

So, why should Progressives trust government with their money and with regulation more generally?

Well, despite the serious criticisms, regulation not only works, but is necessary, at least in certain areas.

For example, securing the safety of our water system or our food system (inasmuch as the latter has been a mess, it has not been due not to over-regulation but to a confused regulatory system, spread over many agencies with sometimes conflicting responsibilities and authority). The market simply will not do a good enough job of protecting the water supply. People will cut corners, and we could wind up at a place where only the wealthy can purchase clean water. And in consumer protection and product safety, does anyone doubt that at least a minority of manufacturers would sell dangerous products to unwary customers? What would happen if we had to purchase consumer protection on the market? Most of us would have to do with taking our chances on what we buy. Without regulation, companies could continue to sell paint and gasoline and children's products containing lead. And can we risk waiting for the market to respond correctively by putting such companies out of business?

And for the financial markets, there are endless debates as to whether the recent crisis was caused by under-regulation or over-regulation, but what remains clear is that the financial community socialized their risks: when things went well, they favored a market system and reaped great profits; when things went bad, they turned to the public coffers to finance their losses. It is not clear that recent regulations will prevent this from happening once again.

In the end, Progressives should take Conservatives seriously in their concern over regulation, and even oppose regulation when it is ineffective or unnecessary. But in areas where regulation protects public safety or is much more efficient than the market in providing services such as healthcare, Progressives should proudly embrace it and champion its virtues. The irony of the healthcare debate is that despite the seemingly fierce opposition to the reform legislation, most Americans support its main components when taken individually. It is the fear of change and dread of regulation that fuel the opposition, so that many people oppose both what will likely benefit them and what they actually say they want.

8 Reasons Leftists Should be Pro-Israel,2010:/theblog//3.653432 2010-07-20T18:55:14-04:00 2011-05-25T17:05:23-04:00 Alan Krinsky
In most ways, my own politics tend to be Liberal-Left: I support single-payer, universal healthcare, I opposed the war in Iraq and the Bush-Cheney "imperial presidency," I even voted twice for Ralph Nader. However, like French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, I differ on Israel and reject the demonization of Israel, whether at the United Nations, in the world media, or among American and European Leftists.

If my fellow Leftists or even Liberals think that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement will help bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as peace to the Middle East and harmony to the community of nations, they are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between criticism and demonization, and the campaign against Israel is of the latter type. Criticism, and there is much of it within Israel's own healthy democracy, can result in positive change. But the focused attempt to demonize Israel, not undertaken against any other nation, is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and undermining its very existence, as if the problems of the world were the fault of the Israelis -- the fault of the Jews -- and if they would only go away, all would be better.

Not only is this a sorry illusion, but this concerted assault on Israel itself betrays the principles of the Left.

Here, then, are 8 reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel (or, at least, Pro-Peace rather than Anti-Israel):

1. Human Rights. The Left fights for human rights in the world. Even if one thinks Israel or its soldiers guilty of human rights violations (and I am not willing at the outset to grant this point), there is no international or historical comparison that could reasonably rank Israel among the worst criminals of the world or of history. Whether we look at the scale of the conflict, the numbers of lives lost, or the treatment of the press or of dissidents, there are far too many examples of bloodshed and persecution dwarfing anything done by Israel against the Palestinians over the last four decades since the Six Day War, when Israel was attacked by its neighbors. Even Arab treatment of Palestinians, such as in Jordan's Black September massacre, caused thousands of deaths, possibly more in 10 days than in four decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And how can we compare Israel to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or the Chinese crackdown on Tibet and Tianneman? Or the disappearances and death squads of Latin America Square or the killing fields of Pol Pot? Let alone the genocide pursued by Hitler or Stalin's murderous reign? Let us be clear: genocide is the attempt to exterminate an entire people and culture; this is not what has happened to the Palestinians, and it is not the goal of Israeli policy. By contrast, the explicit aim of Hamas is to eliminate Israel. So, if we support human rights and oppose persecution, ought we not first to focus our efforts on the places where we find the worst situations? Can anyone rationally claim that among these places, let alone the most horrendous of all, is a small nation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?

2. Internationalism. Leftists tend to support internationalism. One would think that the United Nations would be the world body most dedicated to furthering this aim. But how is it that Israel, this small nation, has become such a central concern? From 2003-2010, there have been more than 900 human rights actions against Israel at the U.N.; the next closest is Sudan at just under 400. Israel is the only member of the U.N. to be excluded from any of the five regional groups. And should not all on the Left oppose the absurdity of the so-called Human Rights Council, whose members include such paragons of humanitarianism as China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan? How can Leftists stand silent when the Turkish Prime Minister denounces Israel for human rights crimes while then promising that the Kurds will "drown in their own blood," in a conflict with human rights abuses on both sides and tens of thousands individuals killed? If Gaza is not the ideal place to live, if the Gazans are suffering, nevertheless the photos in the New York Times and elsewhere and the testimony of reporters clearly demonstrate that Gazans are not starving, their store shelves are not empty, whether for food or consumer goods; as difficult as the situation may be, it is simply not the pinnacle of human rights disasters, and Israel is thus not deserving of international condemnation above all other nations in the world.

3. Peace. Leftists want peace. In the Middle East and elsewhere. The polls make clear that, overwhelmingly, Israelis desire peace with their neighbors; the difficult sacrifices, including the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza make this evident. Israelis are prepared for a secure, two-state solution, to live side-by-side in peace. Meanwhile, the stated goal of its enemies is to end its existence. A simple thought-experiment should make the matter starkly clear: If tomorrow Hamas and other Palestinian groups unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Peace. If Israelis unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Millions of dead or exiled Jews. Anyone on the Left who does not recognize this is living in denial. Leftists should support peace and not live in denial.

4. Anti-Authoritarianism. Leftists oppose authoritarianism and dictatorship and instead support popular, democratic rule. Israel maintains a vibrant, parliamentary democracy, with a broad range of views represented, much more so than in the United States, for example. Indeed, Arabs parties and Communists have long had representatives voted into the Israeli Knesset. Can we imagine such representation, as well as the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in Israel's Arab neighbors? In the Gaza ruled by Hamas? In Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia? By opposing Israel and supporting groups like Hamas, the Left is not supporting a liberation struggle but rather the effort to replace the Middle East's only democracy with yet another repressive dictatorship. Do Leftists really desire such an outcome? How can the one major effort to boycott, divest, and sanction be aimed at a democratic nation like this? As Bernard Henri-Levy has written at the Huffington Post of the "Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as though they were dictatorships or fascist States. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last thirty years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled."

5. Human Dignity and Equality. The Left fights for the values of dignity and equality. Are these traits exemplified more by Israel or its neighbors? Look at how much Israelis value the life of a single soldier, in the willingness to trade hundreds of prisoners for one soldier, and even to trade prisoners to recover their dead for proper burial. Look at the rules of engagement of the Israeli Defense Forces, at how the IDF calls and leaflets civilians to warn them; does any other military do such a thing? In terms of equality and human rights, compare the state of women's and gay and lesbian rights in Israel with that in the rest of the Middle East. And in terms of human dignity, do people on the Left think so little of Palestinian dignity that they are willing to claim Palestinians have "no choice" but to turn themselves into homicidal-suicidal bombers to kill Israeli children? Can we not expect more of people? Treating Palestinians like helpless victims does less than recognize their human dignity.

6. Anti-Discrimination. Leftists oppose sexism, racism, and any similar sort of discrimination. And so, Leftists do or ought to oppose anti-Semitism in the same way. And yet, Leftists too often give a pass to anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism or anti-Israel sentiment. The playwright David Mamet has written in the Huffington Post as follows: "Yet most of the Western Press, European and American, pictures Israel as, somehow the aggressor, and the Israelis as somehow inhuman, and delighting in blood." As Mamet has elaborated in his book The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, this is nothing less than a reworking of the old Blood Libel against the Jews--except this time, instead of being accused of using non-Jewish blood to bake matzah, the Jews are accused of spilling blood for no reason other than gratuitous pleasure. Leftists ought to be vigilant in distinguishing between constructive criticism of Israel and dehumanizing caricatures of Jews.

7. Self-Defense. Only the most uncompromising pacifists oppose the right to self-defense, and certainly most Leftists uphold this right. At least when Palestinians are doing the defending. Why are Israelis exempt from this right? How many Leftists would sit idly by while rockets rained down on their towns and families, with their children traumatized? And if we said, oh, but people are only killed occasionally, would that minimize your commitment to protect your family? Only Jews are expected to lay down their weapons and offer their throats. How dare the Jews have the chutzpah to fight back?!

8. Progress. We want movement on Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Yet, demonizing Israel, singling it out, as is done at the UN and on college campuses will do little to advance peace. We all know, have all known for decades the basic outlines of a peace settlement. The Israelis have been prepared for this and have prepared their citizens. The Left should be pressuring Palestinians to accept peace and to stop teaching their children that Jews are monsters after their blood. This sort of pressure might bring some progress.

It was long ago time for Leftists to tear down the poster that features Israel as the demon-child of human rights abuse and repression. It is time for Leftists to become outraged not over Israel, but over the distortions and demonization of Israel on college campuses and at the United Nations and throughout the media and politics. It is time for Leftists to reject the treatment of Israel as a pariah, or Jews as bloodthirsty murderers, and time instead to welcome Israel into the community of nations as a full member, subject to the same criticism and praise as any other nation.
What Do We Do When Freedom Undermines Freedom?,2010:/theblog//3.545463 2010-04-20T22:58:10-04:00 2011-05-25T16:15:25-04:00 Alan Krinsky
For instance, what if someone uses the free market to gain a monopoly or otherwise suppress the free market? Or builds institutions too big to fail, meaning that they accrue profits in good times but pass debts to the public in bad times?

What if someone uses free speech to silence others? And what if equating money with free speech subverts the democratic system by selling access and air time to the highest bidders?

The current debate over financial reform, along with the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate election spending as free speech, raises such issues.

Indeed, if we really believe spending money on elections ought to be protected free speech, then what is the justification for restricting any speech? Why should there be libel and slander laws? Let people say and publish whatever lies they wish, let the victims use their own money or free speech to counter such lies, and let the public adjudicate.

Why should there be laws against false advertising? Let manufacturers and merchants make any claims they wish. Why have product safety laws? Let people produce and sell whatever they wish: toys made with toxins, cars without airbags or even seatbelts, food without any health safety oversight. Private organizations such as the Consumer Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, or AAA can vet products, services, and ads. Whoever can afford access to their reports might manage some protection against lies and faulty manufacture. However, if we truly believe, in a profound, absolute way, in the free market and in free speech, why should we have any governmental restrictions or regulations?!

But, of course, we do believe in restrictions and regulations. Except for the most extreme anarchist-libertarians, we recognize the necessity for some breaks and buffers. For, if the free market and free speech have unlimited license, they will consume us and the free society that gave birth to them.
So, if we agree we need regulations of some sort, then we need to figure out what they should be. We have already established the undeniable necessity of regulating free speech and the free market, now we just need to negotiate the extent and limits of such regulation.

In the United States, there is a widespread and longstanding fear that government will do an unsurpassably poor job of it, but no other institution can provide and enforce such regulations. Therefore, we might as well avoid hysterics and come up with some reasonable principles, ones that will preserve as much freedom as possible while securing the stability of the market, the political realm, and society in general. And we ought to leave ideology aside as we do this, relying instead on evidence and what works.

For example, we might reasonably suggest that there ought to be restrictions on companies becoming too big to fail, because such organizations undermine the market by privatizing profits while socializing risk.

We might have an extended public discussion about the virtues of our democratic system and what it truly means to have a meaningful, participatory democracy. How can citizens have a voice? And does the amount of money and the influence it buys corrupt the system and its ideals? Is it possible that certain restrictions will advance and preserve our democracy? And if so, can we not as a society accept such restrictions?

Finally, do we really believe that the founders of our nation and the authors of our constitution believed they were articulating principles that could undermine the nation itself? That they believed in an unregulated free speech that could hinder free speech and the democratic process, or in an unregulated free market that would make the market less free and thereby increasingly concentrate wealth among a small minority?

We ought to entertain such questions and engage in thoughtful rather than polemical public discussions about them.
Perverse Incentives in Healthcare,2010:/theblog//3.505260 2010-03-18T23:44:12-04:00 2011-05-25T15:55:20-04:00 Alan Krinsky Journal of Pediatric Surgery reveals once again our healthcare system's perverse incentives.

The authors, from the Yale University School of Medicine, investigated the treatment of newborns with congenital anomalies. Drs. Loren Berman, Marjorie S. Rosenthal, and R. Lawrence Moss wanted to know if such infants born at non-children's hospitals received different treatment depending upon whether or not they had health insurance. Their conclusion: newborns with congenital anomalies but no health insurance were 2.5 times as likely as those with health insurance to be transferred to children's hospitals!

Why would this be? The answer is both obvious and disturbing: the birth hospitals want to keep the paying patients but push off those who cannot pay. And this should not surprise us. Surgery and other care for such patients is usually quite costly. Who can blame cash-strapped hospitals from seeking to avoid covering the bills of the uninsured?

Now, one might think, at least this is good for the uninsured--they are more likely to get transferred to the children's hospitals, with more readily available expert care. And this is why the article is titled "The paradoxical effect of medical insurance on delivery of surgical care for infants with congenital anomalies." Yet, as the authors point out, by placing a greater economic burden on the children's hospitals, the specialty care available at such institutions will become endangered, making care worse for everyone in the long run.

In the end, we find that medical care is provided not solely by need or what will be best for the patient, but instead is shaped, is incentivized in subtle, but important ways by our methods of financing healthcare. This is far from the only study to demonstrate this.

And, furthermore, this is not the only perverse incentive we find in our healthcare system. What are some other examples?

1. Health problems often take years to develop, but because the relationships between insurers and the insured are frequently temporary, the insurance companies have little incentive to invest in the future health of the insured. Why should an insurer spend funds on preventing or delaying the onset of conditions such as Type 2 Diabetes, when many or most of the insured will be under a different insurer 5, 10, or 20 years down the road? It will cost the first company money now to save the second company money later on the patients who will stay healthier longer because of the earlier investment.

2. Because, in general, we pay physicians for doing things, physicians are being incentivized to provide services patients might not need. And they are incentivized to offer those services providing the greatest reimbursement for the least time required. We are talking increasingly about value in health care, and this is quite important, but we need to redirect our entire system so that our goal is to protect our health as appropriately and as efficiently as we can--and this is a very different goal from paying people to do things.

3. Although primary care is most critical for preventing health problems, we pay our specialist physicians much more, two or three times as much, as we pay our pediatricians, internists, and family doctors. This incentivizes medical students to go into the specialties even though investing more in training and compensating primary care practitioners will likely result in overall improvements in health.

4. Finally, insurance companies are incentivized to cover those individuals who are least likely to need medical care and to avoid individuals who are most likely to require it. This has resulted in "cherry-picking" the insured, as well as the horrendous practice of recission, where insurers seek often flimsy reasons to cancel retroactively the coverage of individuals who are facing expensive treatments.

So, how can we counter a healthcare system shot through with these and other perverse incentives?

The current effort to overhaul the healthcare system is certainly a good first start. Yet it remains unclear how we can truly abandon perverse incentives so long as we maintain such a fractured system. The way health insurance and healthcare work best is by placing all of us in a single risk pool. This means that, as with many other sorts of insurance, some years I pay more than I take out and other years I pay less. Those who are younger and healthier pay in now, in part so that they will have care available for when they become older and less healthy, and in part because some small percentage of the young will require expensive healthcare, and we cannot predict who will wind up in this group. The more we divide the risk pool, the more expensive it becomes to provide care for those who are most in need. And of course we do not deny care to those outside of the risk pool when they suddenly need to jump in. Healthcare for the uninsured is not free, as the Yale study on congenital anomalies makes clear.

By further combining risk pools and by increasingly paying for value instead of for doing things, we can reverse the perverse incentives. We should be able to insure everyone in our country, and actually slow the growth of and even lower our overall costs. We know this is the case because many nations pay much, much less per capita for healthcare while attaining considerably better results.
A Modest Proposal to Eliminate the Public Option From Our Policing System,2010:/theblog//3.488826 2010-03-06T20:06:00-05:00 2011-05-25T15:45:22-04:00 Alan Krinsky
As a freedom-loving citizen, I want to see policing returned to the private sector, because we know government does not do much of anything well. And why should the government have the right to tell me who my police officers should be? I should be able to choose who protects my person and property, and I do not need a government bureaucrat telling me who that should be, or limiting what policing services I purchase for myself and my family.

Furthermore, I do not see why I should have to help pay for policing for other people. Policing should be just like any other insurance--like health insurance, for example. If some people do not want to purchase police insurance, then they will not be protected, and the government has no right to tax me to pay for those without policing insurance.

The free market will allow for private policing insurance companies to compete for my business. And these companies would negotiate with private policing service providers to protect paying customers. They could also contract with prisons, many of which are privately run already. The insurers would be able to operate across state borders, removing the possibility that individual states could pass laws or regulations to guarantee a minimum level of protection--this, after all, is something for the free market to decide. And we ought not to retain any public option, as this would be unfair competition for the private companies.

Just like healthcare insurance companies, the policing insurance companies would be at liberty to charge different rates to different clients according to estimated risks. High-risk individuals, depending upon such factors as neighborhood and income, would be charged more, and low-risk individuals less. Indeed, low-risk individuals, just like seemingly healthy 25-year-olds in the healthcare market, might choose to forego police protection altogether--at least until unexpected disaster struck and they showed up at the emergency room, or its equivalent, where they could not be turned away. At least not unless they were immigrants. I mean illegal immigrants.

I do admit that subscribers would risk, as in our current healthcare system, being denied coverage and having their policing insurance plans cancelled retroactively, due to some possible error on their insurance application forms--such as forgetting to report a pre-existing condition (for example, two owners ago, the individual's house had been broken into, though he or she had no knowledge of this). Indeed, individuals with "pre-existing conditions" might have a hard time finding affordable police insurance on the individual market; but we do not want government meddling in our police care.

Some might argue that we maintain a single payer and single provider system for policing because it works, and it is the most efficient, cost-effective way to do so. Advocates for retaining our socialist policing system might point to the low, single-digit administrative costs of Medicare as compared with the double-digit overhead of private insurers.

They might explain that the basic idea is that all of us are at risk, and we never know when we might require the benefits of police services. We pay into it, and some years we do not need any help from the police; other years, some tragedy occurs, and we use much more police services than we paid in taxes that year. Basically, all Americans are joined in a single risk pool, where everyone is guaranteed access to a basic, comprehensive level of police protection. They might claim that the alternative is chaos, as some might say we have in our healthcare system today.

Why, then, do we have a highly-regulated, single-payer system for policing, but a confusing, deregulated system for healthcare? Well, it does not matter if our policing system works and is an efficient way of protecting the public--because we have surrendered our liberty with this system, and private companies in the free market could do a better job anyway.

In brief, just as the government should not get between you and your doctor, it should not get between you and your constable.
Rational Theists and Rational Atheists of the World, Unite!,2010:/theblog//3.482207 2010-03-02T10:33:53-05:00 2011-05-25T15:40:24-04:00 Alan Krinsky is an is. That there is a world, a universe at all. That there is something rather than nothing. Existence is a great, awesome, wondrous mystery.

In the face of this mystery, Atheists remain as stunned and speechless, as flabbergasted and inarticulate as Theists. From within the confines, within the perspective of our universe, solving this mystery is probably not even possible. All we can do is reach for answers, always seemingly just beyond our grasp.

And the Atheistic answers to this mystery are no more rational than the religious ones. Is it any more rational to assert that existence arose out of nothing or that existence has always existed than to assert that a divine intelligence -- outside of time and space -- created it? Science, in the end, cannot disprove the Theistic conjecture nor prove one of the Atheistic ones. We ought not therefore conclude that it is by definition irrational to confront this mystery and cast one's lot with Theism. Theism and Atheism are equally reasonable beliefs.

And so, we have in the world, many quite rational people who, facing the enigma of the why-ness of the world, find a Theistic approach more compelling, perhaps even more rational, than the alternatives.

In contrast to the caricatures penned by the New Atheists of a mob or herd of mindless sheep, the ranks of the religious include many rather thoughtful people. Many scientists and other academics and professionals lead lives of religious practice and faith and yet engage fully with the physical, medical, and social sciences and the worlds of politics and literature. Such people are rational and thoughtful and skeptical. They are critical thinkers.

They do not live lives of blind faith, but experience the religious life as a persistent challenge. Instead of a life of entitlement, they live lives of obligation -- to family, to community, to God.

Often, probably usually, such people are able to integrate their religious and professional lives, and many see their contributions to the world as something of a calling, a use of their talents, in some small way, as serving God in the redemption of the world.

It is an insult to such people, Nobel Prize winners among them, to suggest that they are engaged in self-deception, that all people of faith are naïve or stupid or misguided or dupes.

And so, the New Atheists miss a second profound point: the richness, the thickness, the texture of the everyday life of so many believers.

They fail to see, for example, the bonds of community, the ways members of many a religious community remain ready at any hour of the day to assist their fellows and often strangers: to prepare food, watch children, provide financial assistance, visit the sick, and bury the dead.

The New Atheists fail to see the meaning-fullness possible in religious life, in communities of faith, a life of breadth and depth evident to any undergraduate major in anthropology or sociology.

No doubt atrocities have long been committed in the name of religion, as they have in the name of a host of secular ideologies. It is religion, however, as Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has pointed out, that has given the world the very notion of hope. As Rabbi Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, has so eloquently explained, the ancient prophetic tradition of Judaism gave birth to hope, to the idea of progress, to the longing for a messianic age. This prophetic tradition, Rabbi Sacks explains, is a protest against the world as it is, a call to transform our world into a different and a better place. It is precisely a thoughtful, critical and self-critical, religious orientation that can move us in such a direction while avoiding the fanaticism of various religious and secular ideologies alike.

Perhaps religion is irrational. But so is hope. And given the very mystery of existence, I and many other seemingly rational individuals embrace -- and struggle with -- both religion and hope.

Finally, it is in hope that Rational Theists and Rational Atheists can find common ground. We all want a better world, a more rational one. Given the mystery of existence, and the equal rationality or irrationality in choosing Theism or Atheism in confronting the mystery, I call upon Rational Atheists and Rational Theists of the world to unite! To combat the irrationality in our schools, our politics, and our public discourse.]]>