David Brooks, "The Milquetoast Radicals": The Inanity of Occupy Wall Street

Yesterday, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "Panic of the Plutocrats," Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman spoke of the "actual goals" of Occupy Wall Street and opined, "It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction"(see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/10/paul-krugman-panic-of-plutocrats-paul.html). "Actual goals"? Name them.

Unlike Krugman, Eugene Robinson, in his October 10 Washington Post column entitled "The Occupy protests: A timely call for justice" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/occupy-wall-street-a-timely-call-for-justice/2011/10/10/gIQASKleaL_story.html), recognized the clueless intellectual underpinnings of Occupy Wall Street, but could not refrain from expressing his admiration for the movement:

"Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love ’em."

Not surprisingly, desperate "any port in a storm" Democrats now seem ready to embrace Occupy Wall Street. As observed in an article in today's New York Times entitled "Protests Offer Help, and Risk, for Democrats" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/politics/wall-street-protests-gain-support-from-leading-democrats.html?hp), Eric Lichtblau writes:

"Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.

. . . .

Mr. Obama has spoken sympathetically of the Wall Street protests, saying they reflect 'the frustration' that many struggling Americans are feeling. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, have sounded similar themes."

Needless to say, Krugman, Robinson, Obama, Biden and Pelosi don't trouble themselves to observe that 34% of the Occupy Wall Street protesters polled by New York Magazine believe that the US is no better than al-Qaeda, 37% believe that capitalism is inherently immoral and cannot be saved, and 55% didn't vote in the 2010 midterm elections (see: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/). Robinson "loves" these people? Excuse me while I lose my breakfast.

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date entitled "The Milquetoast Radicals" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?hp), David Brooks injects a bit of balance into the assessment of these would-be "Occupiers":

"If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent.

This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.

Unfortunately, almost no problem can be productively conceived in this way. A group that divides the world between the pure 99 percent and the evil 1 percent will have nothing to say about education reform, Medicare reform, tax reform, wage stagnation or polarization. They will have nothing to say about the way Americans have overconsumed and overborrowed. These are problems that implicate a much broader swath of society than the top 1 percent.

They will have no realistic proposal to reduce the debt or sustain the welfare state. Even if you tax away 50 percent of the income of those making between $1 million and $10 million, you only reduce the national debt by 1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. If you confiscate all the income of those making more than $10 million, you reduce the debt by 2 percent. You would still be nibbling only meekly around the edges."

But why should any of the facts cited by Brooks matter? When bad things happen to you, find someone else to blame.

Obama is ready to flirt with Occupy Wall Street in order to remain in the White House? Good luck to him. As observed by Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine in a "Contentions" item entitled "So Much for Gratitude" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/10/obama-bank-of-america/), 20% of Obama's 2008 campaign funds came from Wall Street, and Bank of America has contributed more to Obama than any other politician since 1991.

I would expand upon Goodman's piece and note Obama's ties with Goldman Sachs. As observed in the past by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS):

"According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees."

What a pity this money from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs was not used for medical research or to feed the poor.

Paul Krugman, "Panic of the Plutocrats": Paul Claims Occupy Wall Street Has Goals

In his New York Times op-ed "Panic of the Plutocrats" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=1&hp), Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman appears to take pleasure in the discomfiture of those troubled by the protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement:

"It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

. . . .

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to 'take the jobs away from people working in this city,' a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals."

Paul says that Occupy Wall Street has "actual goals." Perhaps he would care to delineate them for us. Do those uniform goals, coming from a broad spectrum of extreme leftist factions, consist of anything other than to occupy Wall Street and dismantle the nation's financial system? Occupy Wall Street and then what? Throw out the baby with the bath water? Start afresh in a brave new utopian world?

A desperate-to-be-reelected Barack Obama is unwilling to dissassociate himself from this movement, which apparently would put an end to the American free market system. In his October 6, 2011 press conference, he sought to explain their motives:

"What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded."

Well, I've got news for you, too, Barack: Life isn't fair. As I have tried to impart to my children, working hard never ensures that you get ahead. I can dig for oil everyday in my backyard with a spade and shovel, and I can promise you that I will come up dry. Even Herculean efforts demand thought and direction. Yet, I remain appreciative that I can still decide for myself where and when to dig.

I don't care for the Tea Party, and I am appalled by the predatory trading tactics, bundling schemes and novel derivatives which have helped bring the US to its knees. I am also in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall and the Uptick Rule. However, I have absolutely nothing complimentary to say about Occupy Wall Street.

These days, there is very little room left for those in the middle, as aptly illustrated by my most recent transatlantic flight.

Thomas Friedman, "Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio?": The End of a Grand Friendship

Thomas Friedman and his wife Ann are unlikely ever to be invited back to a state dinner at the Obama White House.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/friedman-where-have-you-gone-joe-dimaggio.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp%3F8dpc), in which he observes the absence of Steve Jobs's leadership in US national politics, Friedman levels scathing criticism at the president:

"What is President Obama’s vision? I cry just thinking about the question. The Republican Party has been taken over by an antitax cult, and Obama just seems lost. Obama supporters complain that the G.O.P. has tried to block him at every turn. That is true. But why have they gotten away with it? It’s because Obama never persuaded people that he had a Grand Bargain tied to a vision worth fighting for.

. . . .

Obama has given the spending plan, but he has not produced a credible, this-really-hurts fiscal plan — and many Americans know it. The paucity of Obama’s audacity is striking."

A little slow on the uptake, Tom, but you're beginning to get the picture.

Saddest of all is that with the US mired in stagnation, Obama is already in campaign mode, seeking a scapegoat for failing to deliver on his 2008 promises. Although he might capture the imagination of the Occupy Wall Street buffoons, malingerers and Marxists by threatening to tax the hell out of Friedman and other multimillionaires, Obama is not going to emulate Jobs, create jobs or win reelection in this manner.

A "Grand Bargain" tied to a captivating "vision" from Obama? It never was and never will be. Indeed, Obama never proffered anything approaching a "Grand Bargain." Rather, it has all proven a "Grand Illusion," courtesy of Axelrod, Plouffe and friends.

Obama, Solyndra, the Banks and Wall Street: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

We are more than a year away from the 2012 presidential election, yet Obama is already in full campaign mode, seeking to blame others, i.e. the banks and Wall Street, for America's persistent economic woes. Obama's October 6, 2011 press conference was illustrative of this offensive (in both senses of the word) strategy:

"So I'm going to be fighting every inch of the way here in Washington to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector.

I will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers. We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending more to small businesses. We need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing business and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. But until the American people see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules.

. . . .

What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded.

And that's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we're getting back to some old-fashioned American values in which, if you're a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefitting everybody."

Ah yes, the old-fashioned American value of making prudent loans to enable businesses to build plants and hire workers to create products that benefit everybody. And I suppose that the half billion dollars in federal loans granted to Solyndra provide an example of this rock solid, old-fashioned American value?

Let there be no mistake: I am in favor of reinstating both Glass-Steagall and the uptick rule in order to prevent predatory financial practices. On the other hand, Obama and friends have demonstrated their own incompetence in providing federal loans and are hardly in a position to furnish financial oversight by way of a "consumer watchdog." Given the warnings about the legality of the Solyndra loans from within Obama administration (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html?hpid=z1), this scandal appears ready to enmesh the highest echelons of the West Wing and even the president himself.

Federal supervision of the banks and Wall Street? By all means, but who will guard the guards?

David Brooks, "Where Are the Jobs?": Look and You Will Find Them

David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where Are the Jobs?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/brooks-where-are-the-jobs.html?_r=1&hp), would have us know that there has been significant innovation in information technology of the kind created by Steve Jobs, but this pace of innovation has not been matched in other sectors. Brooks writes:

"Let’s imagine that someone from the year 1970 miraculously traveled forward in time to today. You could show her one of the iPhones that Steve Jobs helped create, and she’d be thunderstruck. People back then imagined wireless communication (Dick Tracy, Star Trek), but they never imagined you could funnel an entire world’s worth of information through a pocket-sized device.

The time traveler would be vibrating with excitement. She’d want to know what other technological marvels had been invented in the past 41 years. She’d ask about space colonies on Mars, flying cars, superfast nuclear-powered airplanes, artificial organs. She’d want to know how doctors ended up curing cancer and senility.

You’d have to bring her down gently. We don’t have any of those things. Airplanes are pretty much the same now as they were then; so are cars, energy sources, appliances, houses and neighborhoods."

I have just returned from a lightning trip to New York and Toronto on behalf of a client, and in the course of my travels, there was indeed evidence of the stagnation referred to by Brooks. I flew in on a Boeing 747, an aircraft first flown commercially in 1970. Even more frustrating was my journey on the Long Island Railroad, which I have been riding since I was a boy, and which, to the best of my recollection, has changed little over the past 50 years.

However, my journey also served to illustrate why I don't agree with David. I had come to these cities to demonstrate the progress being made by a tiny Israeli company, Nano Retina (http://www.nano-retina.com/), which is creating a miniaturized artificial retinal device, which after a 30-minute minimally invasive procedure is expected to restore vision to many persons suffering from advanced macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and retinitis pigmentosa. The leading ophthalmologists with whom we met, gazed at the chip with admiration, given that human clinical trials are already being planned for the first generation device, intended to immediately provide functional vision, in 2013.

Brooks goes on to say:

"The Green Revolution improved grain yields by 126 percent from 1950 to 1980, but yields have risen only by 47 percent in the decades since."

I would suggest that David examine the progress being made by Evogene (http://www.evogene.com/), which is using computational genomics technologies to attain plant trait improvement to address growing demands for food, feed and fuel.

Brooks adds:

"The big pharmaceutical companies have very few blockbuster drugs in the pipeline. They are slashing their research departments."

On the other hand, Compugen (http://www.cgen.com/), whose discovery efforts consist of in silico (by computer) hypothesis-driven drug product candidate prediction and selection, has a constantly growing list of promising drug candidates in their pipeline.

Brooks concludes:

"If you want to be the next Steve Jobs and end the innovation stagnation, maybe you should start in hip-hop."

Sorry, David, but as best I know, none of the visionaries and scientists at Nano Retina, Evogene or Compugen had their beginnings in hip-hop. Rather, the disruptive technologies that they are developing are being born from genius, discipline and perspiration.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.

I am a part-time external consultant to Nano Retina.

I am an Evogene shareholder, and this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Evogene shares. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Evogene.

The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information.]

Nicholas Kristof, "Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?": With Friends Like Kristof, Who Needs Enemies?

Rarely have I witnessed a more distorted, sickeningly myopic opinion piece than that written by Nicholas Kristof in today's New York Times, entitled "Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/kristof-is-israel-its-own-worst-enemy.html?_r=1&hp). Kristof's begins:

"These days, the world has been turned upside down. Now it is Israel that is endangered most by its leaders and maximalist stance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy."

Netanyahu stands in the way of peace? Let's have a look at Netanyahu's "maximalist stance" in his September 2011 speech to the UN:

"The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations.

. . . .

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises.

. . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response."

Netanyahu offered to meet with Abbas that same day at the UN. Abbas refused.

Earlier this month, Israel accepted the Quartet's proposal to resume peace talks (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-Accepts-Quartet-Proposal-to-Resume-Peace-Talks-130938678.html). Abbas refused.

Kristof would have us believe that future Israeli construction of 1,100 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo means that Israel now demands sovereignty over all of Jerusalem:

"With that diplomatic fight at the United Nations under way, Israel last week announced plans for 1,100 new housing units in a part of Jerusalem outside its pre-1967 borders. Instead of showing appreciation to President Obama, Mr. Netanyahu thumbed him in the eye.

O.K., I foresee a torrent of angry responses. I realize that many insist that Jerusalem must all belong to Israel in any peace deal anyway, so new settlements there don’t count. But, if that’s your position, then you can kiss any peace deal goodbye. Every negotiator knows the framework of a peace agreement — 1967 borders with land swaps, Jerusalem as the capital of both Israeli and Palestinian states, only a token right of return — and insistence on a completely Israeli Jerusalem simply means no peace agreement ever."

This is pure sophistry on Kristof's part. Every peace proposal proffered by former Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert to their counterparts Arafat and Abbas have been premised upon the 1967 lines with land swaps and a division of Jersualem, and, in the case of Olmert's proposal, with sharing of Jersualem's holy places. Although they refused these peace agreements, Arafat and Abbas never contested that the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo would remain with Israel. Nevertheless, Kristof would have us believe that future construction of 1,100 housing units in Gilo is the equivalent of Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem. Sorry, Nicholas, but your claim amounts to scurrilous bunk.

Kristof continues:

"The Israel Defense Forces can deal with suicide bombers and rockets fired by Hezbollah. I’m not sure that they can defeat Palestinian women blocking roads to illegal settlements and willing to endure tear gas and clubbing — with videos promptly posted on YouTube."

Kristof, are you referring to those same Palestinian women who are repeatedly subjected to "honor killings" by their Palestinian male kin? Peculiar, how Kristof has avoided writing about this horrifying phenomena. Kristof's attempt to conjure up a picture of the IDF systematically clubbing Palestinian women is little less than a blood libel.

But wait, there's more. Kristof blames only Israel for a deterioration of relations with Turkey:

"Mr. Netanyahu has also undermined Israeli security by burning bridges with Israel’s most important friend in the region, Turkey."

No mention by Kristof of the increasingly radical Islamic stance adopted by Turkey's ruling AKP party and its attempts to curry favor with Iran and offer succor to the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza. By the way, where is Kristof's story about Turkey's oppression of its significant Kurdish minority? Where is Kristof's story of Turkey's imprisonment of journalists? Where is Kristof's story of how Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan accepted the Qaddafi 2011 Human Rights Prize, then refused to participate in NATO's operation to dislodge the Libyan tyrant.

Nicholas writes:

"If Jews in the West Bank can vote, then Palestinians there should be able to as well."

Peculiar, how Kristof fails to mention that Abbas insists that the future Palestinian state will be free of Jews ("judenrein")and that Abbas will never accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Kristof concludes:

"Today, Israel’s leaders sometimes seem to be that country’s worst enemies, and it’s an act of friendship to point that out."

Nicholas, with friends like you, who needs enemies.

Thomas Friedman, "How Did the Robot End Up With My Job?": Friedman Contradicts Himself

It was only a week ago that Tom Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Help Wanted: Leadership" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/Friedman-help-wanted-leadership.html?_r=1), explained the measures, purportedly known to all, which are required to heal the current economic crisis:

"We know what to do — a Grand Bargain: short-term stimulus to ease us through this deleveraging process, debt restructuring in the housing market and long-term budget-cutting to put our fiscal house in order. None of this is easy and the economy will not be fixed overnight; it will take years. But there is every chance it will get healed if our two parties construct the Grand Bargain we need."

"We know what to do"? A "Grand Bargain"? As I observed this past Thursday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/09/paul-krugman-phony-fear-factor-blame.html), remedying unemployment and curing our economic ills are anything but simple matters, owing to the effects of hi-tech:

"I believe that we have entered a new era in which computers, robotics, automation and information technology are responsible for an efficacy which has made many jobs redundant. I do not foresee future demand for unskilled labor. For that matter, I believe that even with respect to skilled labor, mediocrity will no longer suffice in the marketplace."

Lo and behold, in his New York Times op-ed of today's date, "How Did the Robot End Up With My Job?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-did-the-robot-end-up-with-my-job.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Tom appears to have changed his tune:

"In the last decade, we have gone from a connected world (thanks to the end of the cold war, globalization and the Internet) to a hyperconnected world (thanks to those same forces expanding even faster). And it matters. The connected world was a challenge to blue-collar workers in the industrialized West. They had to compete with a bigger pool of cheap labor. The hyperconnected world is now a challenge to white-collar workers. They have to compete with a bigger pool of cheap geniuses — some of whom are people and some are now robots, microchips and software-guided machines."

Friedman concludes:

"Indeed, there is no 'in' or 'out' anymore. In the hyperconnected world, there is only 'good' 'better' and 'best,' and managers and entrepreneurs everywhere now have greater access than ever to the better and best people, robots and software everywhere. Obviously, this makes it more vital than ever that we have schools elevating and inspiring more of our young people into that better and best category, because even good might not cut it anymore and average is definitely over."

Yup, Tom's "Grand Bargain" isn't going to cut the mustard.

Friedman and I are now in agreement? "Not entirely," he replied with a sigh of relief. Regardless of whatever "elevating and inspiring" are achieved by US institutions of higher learning, the overwhelming majority of graduates are not destined for the categories of "good," "best" or "better." Most will be "average" given that such is the nature of the curve, and the value of that bachelor's degree may no longer be worth the paper it's printed on. College an expensive gamble? You bet! Welcome to our Brave New World.