Op-Ed Columnist - The Third Depression - NYTimes.com

"And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again."

I fear that I will be one of those who never work again.

Quoted from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print:

Op-Ed Columnist - The Third Depression - NYTimes.com

June 27, 2010

The Third Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, today’s governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: the recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.

But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment — especially long-term unemployment — remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks — but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity — but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.

Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.

It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.

So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

Harry's Place » Poster parents for rightwing libertarianism?

Quoted from http://hurryupharry.org/2010/06/27/poster-parents-for-rightwing-libertarianism/#more-35301:

Harry's Place » Poster parents for rightwing libertarianism?

Poster parents for rightwing libertarianism?

Guest Post, June 27th 2010, 5:32 pm

By Andrew Murphy

In California a couple were caught outside of a Wal-Mart trying to sell their six-month-old daughter for $25. Ordinarily this is one of those stories at which you shake your head and move on. However now that rightwing libertarianism is on the rise in the USA, exemplified by Congressman Ron Paul, his son Rand (Republican candidate for US Senate from Kentucky) and many in the Tea Party movement, this does raise an intellectual question for them. How far should the free market ideology be taken? If most things boil down to a question of a cash nexus, would these parents be prosecuted in a pure libertarian society?

Murray Rothbard, the godfather of modern libertarian thought, suggested that child-selling should not be a crime. In his book Ethics of Liberty, which spells out how a pure libertarian society would work without any form of state, he suggests that something like what these parents tried to do would be perfectly acceptable. Rothbard wrote:

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.

Ron Paul paid a handsome tribute to Murray Rothbard on his death in 1995.

Perhaps during this year’s election campaigns in the US, some honest reporters will start to ask libertarian candidates, and their friends in print and on the blogosphere, how far they want to take a pure market economy. An attempted child-selling may seem trivial, but Rothbard was at least intellectually honest in approving of it. Will his ideological children be as honest?

Who Are the English Defence League? And Are They Fascist?

An important article, even though it discusses European politics  it is pertinent to the American scene.

The EDL are not really fascists yet..... they are not as far down the road as say the Ron Paul wing of the right in America.  I would call the Paul/Palin wing, very careful proto fascists.

From Disssent Magazine

Ben Gidley - June 24, 2010 10:30 am

In the last thirteen months, a totally new political phenomenon has taken to the political stage in the UK. The English Defence League (EDL), along with its offshoots in Wales and Scotland (the Welsh and Scottish Defence Leagues) appeared in the spring of 2009. Its marches mobilize thousands of people but it has no clear agenda, apart from disliking Islam and defiant patriotism.
Despite the completely novel nature of the EDL, its opponents have little trouble in understanding it through the prism of the longer standing and more conventionally far right British National Party (BNP). Organizations like Unite Against Fascism have demonstrated against the EDL, calling it a fascist or Nazi organization. More recently, there has been some controversy on the Left when a Jewish Division of the EDL was alleged to have supported a Zionist Federation demonstration of solidarity with Israel in the wake of the Gaza flotilla events. The occasional brandishing of the Israeli flag alongside the flag of England’s Palestinian patron saint, George, has caused consternation among anti-fascists. So, what is the EDL? Is it fascist? And what’s with the Israeli flags?
The EDL is a somewhat unstable organization ideologically, because it brings together two very different trajectories, each one internally quite heterogeneous. One trajectory—let’s call it the suited wing of the EDL—draws from the growing and complex web of what I think of as “clash of civilization” organizations. These are the aggressively pro-Western anti-Islamic anti-multicultural currents which are flourishing in Western Europe and North America, operating at a reasonably high intellectual level compared to the traditional far Right, best represented by the EDL-linked Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). Many of these groups exist more in cyberspace than in the real world, and a number of websites, such as Gates of Vienna, have played a key role—but there have been plenty of real world manifestations too, such as the Pro-Koln movement in Cologne.
These currents are generally fairly middle- or even upper-class, and combine traditional patriotism with varying degrees of pan-European or pan-Western consciousness. They tend not to be interested in race and ethnicity, but focus entirely on culture and especially religion. They are diverse: they range from fairly conservative to fairly liberal and libertarian, between those with a strong commitment to traditional Christian (or Judeo-Christian) values and the militantly secular, and finally from a more moral majority type outlook to a strong defense of gay rights and women’s rights. There is also fairly strong support for Israel, and probably some Jewish people; Israel is seen as an outpost of Western civilization on the front line against Islam.
It would be wrong to call this diverse current fascist. It is broadly speaking on the Right, but lacks most of the key features that define fascism—for example, it is not particularly authoritarian, it has little or no interest in race, it is not drawn to elaborate conspiracy theories, to charismatic leaders, to uniforms or to bizarre mystical thinking, and, of course, it is not antisemitic.
In Britain, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is probably the closest political force to this current, although anti-Islamic and pro-Western themes are not really top UKIP agenda items, and UKIP’s defining hostility to Europe marks it off from others in the Gates of Vienna milieu. But the members of the House of Lords who hosted Geert Wilders take the UKIP whip, and it is significant that Alan Lake, the suited, middle-class EDL activist featured in a Guardian exposé, left the EDL for UKIP.
The second trajectory that feeds into the EDL—let’s call it the EDL’s booted wing—is football hooliganism. Football hooligans are generally ultra-patriotic, and Ulster Loyalism, one of the EDL’s main inspirations, has a fairly strong base among football hooligans. Many hooligans are casually racist, but long-term involvement of black people in the scene tempers this. (The common appearance of black faces on EDL marches bears this out.) Anti-foreign and anti-immigrant sentiment and old-fashioned xenophobia (popular sentiments in the hooligan milieu) are far more prevalent than anti-black racism. And there may be casual antisemitism, but no strong commitment to it. If these people have an opinion on Israel, it is more likely to be admiring of Israel’s military prowess rather than any particular view of Zionism, apart from among Loyalists, who have almost tribal links to Israel. The strong hostility to Muslims is a fairly new phenomenon, post-9/11 and especially post-2003, as this current is strongly supportive of the armed forces, who are mainly of course serving in Muslim countries and being killed by Islamist combatants. (It was Islamist contempt for returning soldiers in Luton that kickstarted the EDL.) In this context, the Israeli flag is a good way of winding up Muslims, rather than an indicator of a commitment to Zionist philosophy.
The National Front and, early in its life, the BNP attempted to recruit from the hooligan scene. The aggressive nationalism, the strong forms of networked organization, the ability to mobilize bodies in the street and the zest for violence make this scene a prime target for the far right. Although there were some in-roads, especially around teams with the strongest connections to Loyalism, there was nothing on a big scale. Again, though, it would be completely wrong to view this formation as fascist, although there might be an argument for seeing it as proto-fascist.
It is precisely this milieu’s strong forms of networked organization (greatly enhanced by internet forums and mobile technologies), its ability to mobilize bodies in the street and its zest for violence that make the EDL such a powerful political force. On the other hand, it is precisely these features that could be a liability if the EDL made any attempt to move beyond street mobilizations or to link up with any kind of electorally oriented force. The violence and the impatience with ideas would be an embarrassment for any emerging British Geert Wilders.
The unity of these two very disparate trajectories means that the EDL may not be sustainable as a political movement. However, there are at least three ways it may become significant. With the BNP going through an internal crisis, large chunks of it might realign with the EDL–its Euro-nationalist modernizers orienting towards the suited milieu, its fascist hardcore orienting towards the hooligan element. This in turn would radicalize the EDL, and pull it in a fascist direction.
Second, with or without BNP fragments and with or without its street fighters, the suited wing of the EDL could play a key role in the emergence of new form of right-wing electoral politics in the UK, along the lines of European parties like Holland’s Party for Freedom, Austria’s Freedom Party or the Denmark’s People’s Party, positioned outside mainstream conservatism but not classically fascist. Factor in the half million voters prepared to vote BNP in the last elections, the million UKIP voters, the growing discontent we’re likely to see with mainstream politics as the Con-Dems’ austerity kicks in, and a referendum on some form of proportional representation–and we have quite a grim scenario.
Third, the street activities of the booted wing of the EDL are themselves disastrous for Britain’s communities, as they have a very real effect in spreading violence, fear and intimidation, making life unbearable for many. There have been spikes in racist attacks in towns where EDL marches have taken place. Violence breeds violence, and the EDL are likely to contribute to the radicalization of Muslim youth and to the recruiting powers of the most aggressively posturing of Islamist groups.
To conclude, what is the implication of all of this? It means we need to challenge the EDL, but we need to challenge it smartly. But how? On the one hand, both the suited and booted wings of the EDL are adept at portraying themselves as the victims of the liberal elite, and hand-wringing moralistic opposition based on anti-racist or multicultural pieties will feed this discourse, as will calling for bans on their marches or for tougher policing. Similarly, chanting “Nazi” at them will have no purchase, although pointing out their fascist connections might serve to scare off a few of the UKIP types attracted to them.
On the other hand, the clumsy application of a “militant” or physical response is likely to be counter-productive. If the EDL win on the street, this will heavily contribute to its glamour. Socialist Workers Party students playing at being street fighters behind police lines or Muslim kids playing up to a script of extremist youth–this will only feed the EDL narrative.
A class- and community-based strategy which might work against the BNP–moving into the political vacuum they attempt to fill in white working class communities–will not work with the EDL either, because its constituencies are geographically and socially dispersed.
I genuinely have no suggestions then about the best way to respond to the EDL in the short term, but the nature of the EDL seems to me to have clear implications about how to defeat them in the long term.  In the long term, we need a politics that mounts a robust defense of the best elements of the Western enlightenment tradition against the genuine threat posed by Islamism. If we leave this defense to arch-reactionaries, we’ve failed in advance. One aspect of this is surely to engage with those forces within the communities targeted by the EDL who also care about Western democratic values, which is why campaigns like One Law for All and grassroots organizations like Southall Black Sisters are so important.
Second, we need to foster an ethics of hospitality and solidarity, so that the communities which the EDL seeks to inflame and divide are immunized against their provocations. This means we need to actually make the arguments for the value of immigration, cultural diversity, and religious tolerance. Since 2001 we have generally failed in this. Within Guardian-reading enclaves these values are just taken for granted, while in local and national politics the mainstream Left has been reticent about defending them to the point of silence. The absence of a debate has enabled the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Right to dominate the discourse while claiming an underdog status in relation to the liberal elite. People who are concerned about the impact of migration in their areas or about the threat Islam might pose are made to feel vaguely ashamed (as with Gillian Duffy, confronted with the prime minister calling her a bigot), but the counter-arguments are simply not articulated. The moment to articulate them is now long overdue

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Quoted from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/:


June 19, 2010, 2:22 amThe Facts Have A Well-Known Keynesian Bias

There are many things to say about Alan Greenspan’s op-ed yesterday, none of them complimentary. But what struck me is the passage highlighted by Tim Fernholz:

Despite the surge in federal debt to the public during the past 18 months—to $8.6 trillion from $5.5 trillion—inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued. This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency that can have dire consequences.

You know, some people might take the fact that what’s actually happening is exactly what people like me were saying would happen — namely, that deficits in the face of a liquidity trap don’t drive up interest rates and don’t cause inflation — lends credence to the Keynesian view. But no: Greenspan KNOWS that deficits do these terrible things, and finds it “regrettable” that they aren’t actually happening.

The triumph of prejudices over the evidence is a wondrous thing to behold. Unfortunately, millions of workers will pay the price for that triumph.

An Open Letter To Those Reporting on the Questions about the "Rare Child Slave" Photo

Contributed by Kate Marcus (Reporter)

Wed Jun 16 22:00

Dear Sir/Madam:

I'm the author (or blogger I suppose) of the articles that have caused Keya Morgan to speak out to various news organizations in defense of his recent purchase.

Here are all the articles I've written on the subject:

June 12  Rare Slave Photo Not So Rare?  Same Photo Sells on eBay

June 13  Rare and Haunting Slave Photo: The Boy is Not Named John

June 14  Child Slave Photo Taken in 1870 Georgia?

June 15  Examining the Rare Child Slave Photo

(These articles have been removed  because of threats of lawsuits by Mr. Morgan...Photogirl)

As is obvious, I have an intense interest in this story.  

Although I originally doubted that the mounting of the carte-de-visite (CDV) photo was genuine for the studio of Mathew (or Matthew, although the correct spelling is Mathew) Brady circa the Civil War, I have since determined the the mounting is indeed correct for a Brady produced photo circa 1862-63, and my previous articles have been edited accordingly.

By the mounting, I mean the card upon which the photograph is glued. 

You may find my most recent article rather in support of Mr. Morgan.  For now.

Mounting aside, there are still doubts about the photographer or studio that produced the photo itself.  J.N.  Wilson was known for these sorts of photos in the post-war South.   Wilson's studio photographed and published many series with similar scenes.  Brady and his studio were not known for such subjects. 

Anyone with access to the internet can see examples of Wilson's work in the NYPL Digital Gallery collection.   Anyone can see samples of Brady's work at the same site.

The photo was absolutely, without a doubt, originally a stereo view, which is two slightly different photos taken at the same time and mounted on a stereo view card.  You would be hard-pressed to find comparative subject example in Brady's portfolio circa 1862-1863.  (If anyone reading this can give me examples, they are welcome).  You will find dozens in Wilson's circa 1868 onwards.  I freely conceded that if this photo is by Brady, it is quite rare indeed.

"The size of a carte de visite is 2⅛ × 3½ inches mounted on a card sized 2½ × 4 inches"

"The traditional stereo view card format is 3.5 x 7 inches (89 x 178 mm) with an image area that is usually about 3.5 x 6 inches 89 x 152 mm) or slightly narrower. However, images may be taller than 3.5 inches -- for example, 5 inches high x 6 inches wide." 

It's obvious the Morgan/Brady photo is a cropped stereo view mounted as a single image on a CDV card format.  This cannot be disputed.

Additionally, the mainstream news reporting on the story missed another essential point.  There is absolutely no logic in assuming the John of the sales document is one of the boys in the photo.  The document purchased by Morgan does not say the age of John.  However, the Petition in the Digital Library on American Slavery does. 

If the John of the Petition (and Morgan's Document) was 27 or 28 in 1854, there is no way one of the children in the picture is the John of the Petition.

There is no other record of a petition to sell a slave named John by the Potters of Brunswick County, NC in 1854.

All the experts in the world can confirm the mounting seems to be 1862-63  Brady. 

None have confirmed that the subject has any relevance to any other Brady studio photos of that era.  None have mentioned the dozens of similar Wilson stereo views which are available in a public domain.  None have addressed the association of the boys in the photo to the document.  None have addressed the eBay sale that included not only the stereo view of the boys, but other images never seen before.  None have expressed even the mildest surprise that the eBay sale was on June 8, and the story about the Morgan photo broke on June 10.

I make no inferences about the mysterious coincidence of those dates.  But, it piqued my interest enough to dig further and further.

I've personally communicated with the eBay seller.  For Mr. Morgan to call this a case of sour grapes is dismissive and derogatory towards the seller at best.  The eBay seller has nothing to do with my interest in researching the photo. 

According to an interview conducted by Doug Stanglin of USA Today OnDeadline: "Mr. Morgan attributes some of questions raised about his purchase to "buyer's remorse" from the eBay seller who sold his photos for $163. Morgan says that the seller probably could have gotten around $1,000 for the photos, although not much more."

The eBay seller, who wishes to remain anonymous, responded:  "I always find it disheartening when an auction buyer, who may have grossly overpaid, resorts to defaming the very credible evidence that proves [an attribution or provenance.]  Very sad indeed.  Oh, by the way, I have absolutely no remorse for the results of my auctions.  I paid $5.00 for the stereo view and a paper bag of cards.  My return was over $1,000.  I call that a pretty fair profit margin, wouldn't you?"

To quote Mr. Morgan in an article published by the Charlotte Observer:

"(The blogger) quotes an anonymous lady off eBay who's never studied these photographs, who's never even heard of the terminology, or knows anything about authenticity, said Morgan, who said he has collected or handled thousands of Brady photos. His photo, he said, was taken around 1862 or 1863. Its mount and albumen paper were typical of the materials Brady used in that period."

1). How does Mr. Morgan know the sex of any sources I may have used?  Who is he referring to? I did not ask any of my sources what sex they were. 

2).  Indeed, no one but Morgan seems to have personally studied the photo.

3). The mount may be typical for Brady, but albumen paper was commonly used for just about all collodion photos of the era.

I am not a critic, as a few have labelled me.  None of the interested parties are "moronic" as Mr. Morgan stated. I'm an interested observer and sometimes blogger/reporter.  OK.  Call me a blogger, but don't call me a critic.

The coincidence of the eBay sale and the AP story piqued my interest enough to raise a flag.  It is not my intent to attack or be "a critic" of Mr. Morgan. 

What hit me about this photo is that it depicts children.  Nameless, as has been proven, children.  Not celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, but poor and bedraggled kids sitting on a barrel next to a clump of sugar-cane in the dreary world of the late (?) 19th century American South.

You might as well all click this link too.  It proves a point.

I'm shocked more people did not question this story in it's entirety, and I applaud those who have.   I do not doubt the photo is a "real" photo.  I did not once call it a fake, as Mr. Morgan and Mr. Sapp of the Smithsonian implied.  I'm merely trying to place it at a certain point in history so we can all know for sure whether these boys were slaves, or not, at the time the photo was taken. 

Others have the same concern.  There is an entire eBay Forum devoted to the topic.  A Civil War forum topic is devoted to discussing every detail of the photo including the plants.

Many fail to see how "Haunting Photo of  Emancipated Children Found" would have been a less compelling headline than the original AP headline.  Many question how the document was so tenuously and off-handedly associated with a boy in the photo, without proper research.  Many question why the experts have dismissed the J.N. Wilson (or another photographers) photos as being the originals.  Many question why Mr. Morgan is happy to comment about the "authentic Brady circa 1862-63 mounting" of the photo, but none of the other elements in question.

Do we want to know the truth about these boys?  Or will they be relegated to "one helluva picker find" from the estate sale of a childless, elderly, African-American woman in Charlotte, North Carolina?  Will one of the boys in the photo be forever remembered by the wrong name? Will our collective consciousness forever envision their faces as slaves, when they could have been free at the time?

According to various collectors, researchers, and sellers of photographic memorabilia I’ve spoken to, many of whom have been in the business longer than Keya Morgan has been alive, my quest to answer these questions is likely fruitless.

But I can still try.  I would just like the truth.

I believe the children in the photo deserve that.

Thank you,

Kate Marcus

---

Harry's Place » Decoy Jews

Quoted from http://hurryupharry.org/2010/06/22/decoy-jews/:

Harry's Place » Decoy Jews

Decoy Jews

Marcus, June 22nd 2010, 7:04 pm

You know things are gettingbad when you read this report from Amsterdam and remember the city was once famous for its tolerance:

Dutch police are to use “decoy Jews”, by dressing law enforcers in Jewish religious dress such as skullcaps, in an effort to catch anti-Semitic attackers.

Secret television recordings by the Jewish broadcasting company, Joodse Omroep, broadcast at the weekend, have shocked Amsterdam, a city which prides itself on liberalism and which is home to the Anne Frank museum.The footage showed young men, often of Muslim immigrant origin, shouting and making Nazi salutes at a rabbi when he visited different areas of the Dutch capital.

To T.S. Eliot

To T.S. Eliot

Eminence becomes you. Now when the rock is struck
your young sardonic voice which broke on beauty
floats amid incense and speaks oracles
as though a god
utters from Russell Square and condescends,
high in the solemn cathedral of the air,
his holy octaves to a million radios.

I am not one accepted in your parish.
Bleistein is my relative and I share
the protozoic slime of Shylock, a page
in Sturmer, and, underneath the cities,
a billet somewhat lower than the rats.
Blood in the sewers. Pieces of our flesh
float with the ordure on the Vistula.
You had a sermon but it was not this.

It would seem, then, yours is a voice
remote, singing another river
and the gilded wreck of princes only
for Time’s ruin. It is hard to kneel
when knees are stiff.

But London Semite Russian Pale, you will say
Heaven is not in our voices.
The accent, I confess, is merely human,
speaking of passion with a small letter
and, crying widow, mourning not the Church
but a woman staring the sexless sea
for no ship’s return,
and no fruit singing in the orchards.

Yet walking with Cohen when the sun exploded
and darkness choked our nostrils,
and the smoke drifting over Treblinka
reeked of the smouldering ashes of children,
I thought what an angry poem
you would have made of it, given the pity.

But your eye is a telescope
scanning the circuit of stars
for Good-Good and Evil Absolute,
and, at luncheon, turns fastidiously from fleshy
noses to contemplation of the knife
twisting among the entrails of spaghetti.

So shall I say it is not eminence chills
but the snigger from behind the covers of history,
the sly words and the cold heart
and footprints made with blood upon a continent?
Let your words
tread lightly on this earth of Europe
lest my people’s bones protest.

—Emanuel Litvinoff, 1973
(written c. 1950)

Que Bonitos es Israel

This is from a posting at Harry's Place  , a very strange but interesting video from Peruvian pop singers Delfin Hasta El Fin, La Tigress Del Oriente y Wendy Sulca, celebrating Israel   !

This is the english translation of the song

I want you to know Israel.!

Through my life
to teach this place
ay, ay, ay, how beautiful this place.

In Jerusalem, I will dance.
Oh, sweetie in Jerusalem, I, me, me, me, me
I love you.

Israel, Israel Israel is nice,
Israel, Israel Israel is nice,
Israel, Israel, dance on your land.
Israel, Israel Israel is nice,

Mama, Mama,
how beautiful it is Tel Aviv,
with its stars and its little moon
I will dance in Tel Aviv

Let us sing together, dance together
And my people as the Red Sea will be left
all men and women in the dance aaaaa

My God, how beautiful it is Israel.

Israel, Israel Israel is nice,
Israel, Israel, that Israel is beautiful

For everyone, children elderly, teachers, fishermen and footballers
star, famous, baker or farmer. Without prejudice, love flows through the veins
of all Israel come closer to Latin America, come to Latin America Israel

Israel, Israel Israel is nice,
Israel, Israel Israel is nice,
Israel, Israel, dance on your land.
Israel, Israel Israel is nice...

  

Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World

This video was removed from youtube for 
copy write violations , but under copy write law you can use work for satire
and 
parody... This NOT a violation... The removal of the video was because of political pressure on youtube. The removal is 
pure
political
censorship. CENSORSHIP!