A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute, John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U. and the author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, Lexington Books.

Truth and the Israeli Position

The drumbeat of anti-Israeli sentiment goes on virtually unabated and challenged infrequently. When three fourteen-year-olds were killed by Israeli soldiers, the European newspapers emphasized their youth and the tragedy of their death, not the fact that they wore explosives around their waists and were killed seeking martyrdom.

In response to the one sided United Nation’s view of Middle East events, the Israeli ambassador objected. He was summarily reproved by Secretary General Kofi Anan with the incredible statement “Do you think you’re right and the world is wrong?”

A UN mission about to be sent to “uncover atrocities” in Jenin hasn’t even taken off and already the judgment can be heard from Paris coffee houses to Harvard Square. Jenin has been converted into the Israeli My Lai.

Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell, after visiting this refugee camp, said, “there isn’t any evidence of a massacre.” As of this writing 39 Palestinians and 23 Israelis were found dead.

The available evidence also indicates that many homes were booby-trapped and that the Palestinians were armed and prepared to fight. Of course, homes were destroyed; after all this is war, but the destruction was limited to an area in Jenin where known terrorists were hiding.

However, the jury hasn’t waited to provide a verdict. Israel has been found guilty in the court of world opinion. In this case, the evidence is irrelevant.

Most startling of all is the belief that Israel is not entitled to strike at those who want only to kill women and children. Keep in mind that President Sharon did virtually nothing when teenagers were killed in a Tel Aviv nightclub and when guests were killed at a Bar Mitzvah or when dozens were slaughtered in Sbarro’s pizza parlor. In fact, even when helicopter gun ships were sent into the West Bank, Palestinian leaders were told and urged to leave the site of potential military targets. Considering this obvious restraint, it is risible to think of Sharon as a bloodthirsty warmonger. But the beat goes on.

According to official French figures there have been more than three hundred acts of anti-Semitism in the last several months ranging from the desecration of gravesites to graffiti on synagogue walls, the beating of Jews dressed in traditional garb and the burning of temples. When I inquired at the French Embassy about acts against Muslims and mosques the answer was “none to my knowledge.”

The French may criticize the United States for insufficient attention to global warming, a topic near and dear to French leaders, but burning synagogues doesn’t engender the same level of concern.

The French are not alone. Left wing opinion in the United States has found a new cause. At a recent rally held in Union Square Park demonstrators called for Israeli withdrawal from the “occupied territory” and an increase in the minimum wage. First, of course, the words “occupied territory” should raise all kind of red flags, but as significant, what, if anything, does the minimum wage have to do with Israeli policy? Not only do causes have strange bedfellows; strange bedfellows have strangely allied causes.

Let me turn to Kofi Anan’s acidic question: Is Israel right and the world wrong? I would answer unequivocally yes. Despite all the contentions about brutality, despite all the allegations of unfairness, Israel has maintained restraint and adherence to a just war position.

I am sympathetic to many Palestinians who have been used as pawns by Arab leaders and whose plight has been ignored by those who can and should help. That is where animus should be directed. Instead, Israel is regarded as the bogeyman and in the process innocent people die and the Israeli Defense Force is obliged to retaliate.

There may not be an end in sight, albeit utopians expect facile solutions. At the very least those in the West who know the truth should speak out. That is the first step on the road to stability, assuming anyone cares about the truth.

The Road to Energy Independence

September 11 has altered many concerns in Washington; among the most notable is the emerging consensus between Republicans and Democrats that reliance on Saudi Arabia for oil is not in the nation’s best interest. Evidence that most of those who attacked the United States carried Saudi passports; a reluctance to provide intelligence on accounts that fund radical Islamist activity and the emergence of sources which indicate that Saudi leaders have given aid directly to the Wahhabist movement, militate against any reliance on Saudi Arabia as an ally.

The question that remains is How do we wean ourselves from Saudi oil? Some experts on energy contend that alternatives do not exist or aren’t readily available or are to be found in the distant future. Surely the ease with which Saudi oil is extracted and delivered has led to complacency. But the time has obviously come to consider a new strategy for energy independence, or should I say near independence.

That strategy involves a combination of activities that can be put in place almost immediately.

The first is to promote the hybrid engine now being marketed in new Honda and Toyota cars and encouraging American manufacturers to introduce their own version of the hybrid car.

Second, the fuel cell should be regarded as the next revolution in car manufacturing, a condition already recognized by the Big Three as their investment in this technology indicates. Getting the fuel cell car made and marketed is another matter, but government incentives could accelerate the process. Moreover, the infrastructure expense this shift will cause gas stations should be paid for through tax abatements.

Third, despite objections from environmentalists, the Alaskan frontier (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) must be explored for reservoirs of new oil. Considering present concerns, the caribou will simply have to fend for themselves.

Fourth, it should be noted that within five years, oil flowing south from Alberta’s oil sands is expected to surpass the current output of one million barrels a day from Alaska’s North Slope. Recoverable reservoirs in Alberta are 40 times as large as the estimated reserves in the Alaska refuge; the 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil within a 250-mile radius of this Canadian province represents 15 percent more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Fifth, the known reserves in West Africa off the coast of Angola are roughly equal to the estimated reserves of Saudi Arabia. With Chevron and Exxon Mobil in the region for decades, oil exploration is well underway and will be accelerated due to the uncertainties in the Middle East.

Sixth, Caspian Sea oil reserves and the new pipeline through Turkey to the Bosporus offers yet another region of prospective development that is soon to be on line, albeit the politics of this project are certainly precarious.

Each one of these possibilities represents a long shot. However, in combination these new sources of oil, conservation measures and advanced technology make for a reasonable wager.

Skeptics, of course, will argue that some of these proposed ideas will take a decade to achieve, a decade in which oil use will increase. They also note that Saudi oil is relatively cheap as opposed to the alternative I’ve mentioned.

Alas, both criticisms are accurate even if they do not suggest the full picture. For one thing, the externalities of relying on Middle Eastern oil are rarely factored into the price of a barrel of oil. National security alone probably increases the price six or seven dollars a barrel. Then, of course, there is the risk that oil will be turned off completely, a prospect that in part prompted the Gulf War.

Finally, time may not be on the American side in this equation. But if we are on a war footing and the government offers incentives for development, all of the recommendations I’ve noted can move ahead.

The challenge of the future is here. We have an opportunity to guarantee security for our children and provide the energy required for technological advancement. The task at hand is difficult, but it is not insurmountable. In fact, if we act on all of the options in combination as noted, I am confident the oil problem can be addressed and energy independence of one kind or another can be achieved in our lifetime.

“My First Mister” Shatters Hollywood Stereotypes

For years I’ve been suffering through the indignities of modern filmmaking hoping against reality that maybe one day I will see a movie that is uplifting and life affirming. I was hoping as well that a film would rely on an interesting story rather than eye-popping special effects.

At last that day has arrived. The film in question is “My First Mister” directed by Christine Lahti and starring Albert Brooks and Leelee Sobieski, which, I should hastily note, was not considered for an Academy Award in 2002, nor praised by the critics of record or even mentioned when the list of best films of the year was compiled.

The story line is simple and affecting. Sobieski plays a thoroughly anti-social teenager who is both depressed and inflamed with dark passion. Her face is a tribute to ring piercing. But the self-flagellation is not restricted to the piercing. In moments of frustration she cuts her skin.

Her mother played by Carol Kane, is an airhead thoroughly immune to the demons immersed in her daughter’s soul. The Sobieski character amuses herself by sticking pins in dolls and dancing wildly to heavy metal music. At some point the depressive teenager decides she must leave the thoroughly stifling bourgeois environment in her home. “Dear we’re having brisket for dinner,” drives her to distraction. So she seeks employment with the goal of securing her own place.

As one might guess no self-respecting manager will hire this freakish figure. Albert Brooks, the manager of a men’s haberdashery store, tells her to leave, “You’re scaring the customers.” But as she sits on a bench in the mall pondering her fate, the Brooks character takes pity and offers her a job sorting shirts in the back room-away from public view.

She does her unchallenging job matter-of-factly until one day when the salesmen are occupied and a customer requires assistance. She rises to the occasion selling a jacket whose color she compares to the customer’s eyes. The store manager is impressed. So impressed, in fact that he decides to convert the clerk into a saleslady. First, of course she has to ditch the silver on her face and get a wardrobe appropriate for the job. She complies, but keeps her one nostril piercing as a symbol of her past rebellion.

The Brooks character is a lonely, frightened forty-nine-year-old man who reads magazines in an effort to capture some excitement in his life. He is a creature of habit, a man possessed by routine; she by contrast, is an adventurer, hellbent on challenging convention. As the story unfolds and the two grow closer, he adapts to her, and she to him.

Their generational differences particularly cultural preferences are reminiscent of a tender scene from “Save The Tiger.” Yet in this case, the differences bring them close together as each finds refuge in the friendship.

If this film were in the hands of a less sensitive director an “obligatory” sex scene would have been employed. Instead, the one scene that has them in bed together finds each acting consistently with their character’s personality. She puts his hand on her breast while he sleeps and he, on discovering the placement, jumps out of bed and goes for a jog.

When the secret behind his fearful behavior is revealed, she goes to great lengths to make him whole. He, in turn, extracts a promise to bring her dysfunctional family and his newly discovered family together in what can only be described as “a last supper.” It is a meal in which the joy of reunion is evident. The flaws in each personality, so obviously exaggerated when the characters are introduced on screen, seem to fade.

The Sobieski character even suggests that she and her mother should spend time together. This isn’t a melancholy love-cures-all sequence, but rather the human side of shared experience.

How odd leaving a theater feeling tearful yet buoyed by the human condition. Mirabile dictu, this film elicited conversation, particularly the culture gaps between teenagers and middleagers.

The critics have not been particularly kind to this small masterpiece. Perhaps they’ve been obliged to live on a cultural diet of Jackie Chan and Spike Lee. I should note that up until now I have not been an Albert Brooks fan. In this film, however, he is brusque and understanding, sensitive and crass-mood shifts that are subtle and masterful.

What this quite moving movie displays is that you don’t have to spend a hundred million dollars and employ an army of special effects experts to make a good film. A director who knows what to look for when looking through a lens, an adult story line and a few good actors will do the trick.

If Hollywood produces a few more films like this one, I may have to find a new hobby-horse to kick. It might even be enjoyable going to the movies again. Who knows, stranger things have happened.

Why Big Time College Basketball Players Don’t Graduate

Despite all of the attention given to graduation rates among Division I college athletes when former Senator Bill Bradley discussed this issue several years ago, the graduation rate of men’s basketball players continues to lag. A recent report indicates that forty-four percent of Division I basketball players who entered college in 1989 had graduated within six years, a figure eleven percentage points below the male average.

The graduation rate for male basketball players has not exceeded forty-six percent in the past six years, despite minimal academic requirements. With the NCAA basketball tournament now in full swing, it is a tragedy that black male basketball players had the lowest graduation rate in the survey. This is hardly surprising news since a disproportionate share of the top fifteen players selected since the 1997 NBA draft are underclassmen.

Administrators questioned about the relatively low graduation rate of basketball players attribute the seemingly lackluster academic performance to the rigors of a season that spans two semesters, the poor educational background of many athletes and the belief that college is a farm system for the National Basketball Association. While these conditions certainly militate against graduation, they are only a partial explanation of what ails big time college basketball players.

The college basketball season starts December 1, practice begins November 1, and ends in the beginning of March, unless the team is invited to a post-season tournament. Therefore the claim a basketball season spans two semesters is true for one month of the Spring semester, in most instances.

Second, many athletes do have a poor educational background, but this is due in no small part to the fact that their athletic ability is a passport to promotion. Coaches invariably avert their gaze to the academic deficiencies of their best athletes.

Third, Division I college basketball is indeed a farm system for the NBA, despite all the claims to the contrary. This doesn’t mean every Division I player aspires to a pro career, but with a handful of exceptions NBA players get their start, reputation and grooming in the college ranks.

Hence the hand wringing about ill-prepared college basketball players is the height of hypocrisy. Even with minimal Proposition 48 requirements, most college level study is ignored and most players care about what happens in the gym, not in the classroom. In the absence of genuine academic requirements imposed by the NCAA, the lagging graduation rate of college basketball players is likely to continue, even if an occasional exclamation of concern is heard in the halls of Congress.

Today, big time college basketball translates into big time revenue and recognition. The bitch goddess mammon has converted student-athletes into a laughingstock. It is astonishing how many college basketball players major in “communications.” It is also interesting to note that college coaches refer to educational opportunity when recruiting athletes, but conveniently forget this matter when the basketball players are in their programs.

From the time a six-foot-seven-inch high school player with a size 18 sneaker is discovered by scouts, academic demands are relaxed. Special provisions are accorded this star in the making. Teachers understand the “rules” of the game and principals like the reflected glory. Friends tell the prospective star that he’s bound to make it to the pros. And newly discovered friends invite this player to college parties where morals are sometimes loose and adulation is easily granted. Most fifteen-year-olds in this basketball cycle have their maturity arrested. They are seduced by claims that are rarely realized.

Is it any surprise graduation rates are declining for college basketball players? What would be surprising is if coaches cared about graduation rates, if highly recruited players cared about something other than basketball and if colleges imposed the same requirements on athletes that they do on other students. This is March madness in more ways than one.

Japan’s Economic Future

If one relies on conventional opinion Japan, the second largest economy in the world, is flirting with disaster. It has been argued-with compelling evidence-that the country’s banks and businesses are in such dire shape that the economy could face a systemic crisis.

Time and again since 1991-when the Japanese “bubble” burst-Japan’s banking system and financial markets threatened to spin out of control, only to be reined in at the last moment by dramatic government action. Yet the core problems of deflation, nonperforming loans and an enormous debt burden persist.

Glenn Hubbard, chief economist for President George W. Bush, described recent Japanese government intervention as little more than a “Band-Aid.” Because Japanese companies, particularly banks and insurers, have very large portfolios of shareholdings, a stock plunge of the kind experienced in the Nikkei Index in recent years has resulted in debilitating losses. Moody’s rating service may downgrade the ratings of Japanese banks, thereby undermining confidence in lenders.

Years of writing off losses from soured loans have drained the resources of Japan’s largest banks, a condition that could trigger panic among depositors and foster the placement of savings in mattresses rather than savings accounts. Time deposits at banks were down eight percent from a year ago, suggesting depositors are already moving money to safe harbors.

That said, it would be a mistake in my judgment to conclude that the fate of the Japanese economy is sealed. In my recent meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi, I’m persuaded he understands the reform measures that must be taken to address the problem.

There is a commitment to increase the money supply from the present 3.5 percent to about 7 percent, despite opposition from the president at the Bank of Japan. Fear, perhaps somewhat irrational fear of another bubble, militates against this needed response.

There is also a belief that GDP growth is necessary to cope with the debt burden and that growth can be facilitated by reducing corporate and personal income taxes.

And last, there is the realization that the Keynesian fiscal stimulus engaged in for close to a decade has not affected the deflationary spiral and is not an approach that can redress the downward momentum in the market.

These steps and admissions represent the path to recovery. Although there are many who resist reform for obvious self-interest, and corporate balance sheets do not yet fully reflect the Prime Minister’s reforms, the stock market improved by twenty percent in the last few months and corporate prospects for the end of the fiscal year are more promising than any in the last decade.

Surely economic nirvana has not arrived. But the present positive signs do not tell the whole story about the future Japanese economy. If one considers the technical advantages the Japanese possess in nanotechnology, robotics, solid-state computer chips, and genetic research, among other developments, Japan is poised to be the engine for Asia’s economic take-off in the twenty-first century.

First, of course, the Koizumi administration must restore confidence in the future and remain firm in its commitment to reform. When I suggested that the Prime Minister is facing a crisis not unlike the one Lady Thatcher faced in England during the 1980s, he smiled in assent.

Most significantly, when I noted that she became the Iron Lady because of her devotion to reform in the face of extraordinary opposition and, if he sticks to his guns, he could be Japan’s Iron Man, he nodded enthusiastically.

Just as President Bush has found the mission of his presidency in the war on terrorism and President Reagan found his mission with the rollback of Communism, Prime Minister Koizumi has found his mission in economic reform and recovery. I would not underestimate his will in pursuing this goal. He may indeed be Japan’s Iron Man.