August 1, New York Times, The Economist

NY Times, August 1, Tobin Harshaw, "Happiness is a Shrinking Economy?"
NY Times, August 1, Shalia Dewab, "Alabama Area Reeling in Face of Fiscal Crisis"
“Happiness Is a Shrinking Economy?” written by Tobin Harshaw presents a type of “small shoots” Bernanke, type of analogy. In the words of Mark Ambinder, the encouraging data represents a growing opportunity for President Obama.
My challenge with this type of thinking is the fine Times article by Shalia Dewan entitled, “Alabama Area Realing in Face of Fiscal Crisis.” Shalia looks at Jefferson County (Birmingham area), a former major growth engine for the state and examines, (1) sales and property tax revenues now down by 40 million, due to the court’s revocation of a tax the county had been levying since it was repealed in 1999, (2) political corruption tied to several former county commissioners, already convicted of bribery and kickback schemes, (3) pending major government layoffs–including Jefferson county. There is no happiness at all in Jefferson County from a shrinking economy.The solutions are difficult but seem obvious, (1) both the republican state senate and the evenly divided house must work together to solve this problem, (2) future leaders should be chosen from new resource pools that identify persons who are known for integrity, honesty, and ethical principles, (3) while waiting for impending layoffs, people should investigate any and all opportunities for work, including starting a small business. It may be pleasant to visualize these matters as a growing opportunity for the President to make things better. However, this is still America, Alabama is a strong state economically in many places, free enterprise does work. If free enterprise is instituted the “tide” shall rise again!
— Dr.Phillips
The Economist, August 1, Statement on Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Printed in The Economist
Dr, Alan Phillips, Sr. wrote:
August 1, 2009 18:06
The efforts of George Mitchell and others on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian debate, involved in genuine dialogue, issue identification, and discussion of time lines regarding progress, are to be commended. Yet, when one considers Hamas and revisits the single issue they have failed to disregard, modify or delete, namely the destruction of the State of Israel, there remains little hope of progress. Olmert's willingness to apparently allow a number of Palestinians to return to lost homes and properties in Israel, would have made little sense in view of the Hamas focus on destruction.
The problem in reaching a solution to the problem is both historical and contemporary. The historical discussion remains to this day, high pitched and fervent in its thrust. Cultural, ancestral and religious underpinnings make a rational exchange of views almost impossible. Frankly, the courage to draw boundaries raised by the article will have to come from the two principals, Israel and Palestine.
Yet, the contemporary "elephant" in the room is another matter. In contrast to those in government, wanting to dialogue and perhaps even mollify elements of Iranian leadership, there must be a firm resolve regarding the matter of the nuclear question on the part of the United States. The hints that America might take a more "even handed" approach as a legitimate peace broker is not reassuring to Israelis or many of our fellow citizens. An invitation given to or withdrawn from the Iranians to visit our embassies on Independence Day is at best ineffective, if not outright nonsense.
Leaders of the State of Israel continue to monitor with great intensity, the nuclear progress of the current Iranian regime. Those Americans in leadership, who have decided to tolerate and live with a nuclear Iran are at best naive, at worst, in denial. Talks are only effective when both parties move toward peace and show progress. Israeli leadership would be foolish to tolerate a nuclear Iranian State next door, as would the United States. If progress is truly desired by all parties in this process, the Iranian nuclear weapons program must be eliminated, through negotiation or force if required.Printed in The Economist