Writings of Interest

In the past year I have given considerable thought to how complicated the word is today. Posted here are some articles that make sense to me and I think are important to read, consider and maybe investigate further. The maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing and it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. Milton Friedman

Monday, October 24, 2011

Low-Tax but High-Integrity System


andrea scharfen - Sep 14, 2011 -
Google Reader
- Public



Closed Loopholes Are Not Higher Taxes - FrumForum

Obama proposes to raise revenue without increasing tax rates at all, yet Republicans accuse him of trying to raise taxes. The GOP’s logic? Under Obama’s proposals, more tax revenue would be collected. Therefore, it counts as a tax increase.

The Republican response to Obama’s tax reform ideas is false, damaging to the country, and, if you really think about it, inconsistent with their own low-tax philosophy.

First, it is not true that any effort to increase tax revenue amounts to a “tax increase.” Suppose that Congress took away all of the IRS’s funding, so that it effectively couldn’t collect tax. Honest taxpayers would still report and pay their taxes. Less scrupulous taxpayers wouldn’t bother. If Congress later restores the IRS’s funding, does that count as a tax increase?Hardly. It just means that what was in effect a “loophole” for dishonest taxpayers gets closed.

Similarly, legislation to close loopholes currently authorized in the tax code should not be called a “tax increase.” A “loophole” is just another name for a tax subsidy. Courageously, Obama has proposed closing some of the most notorious and entrenched loopholes in the Internal Revenue Code.

For example, Obama wants to curtail the tax exclusion for bonds issued by state and local governments. The tax exclusion for municipal bond interest is little more than a subsidy of state and local government. If you borrow money, the lender will have to pay income tax on the interest that you pay. All else being equal, that will increase your borrowing costs.

If a state or city government borrows money, by contrast, lenders don’t have to pay income tax on the interest they receive. Consequently, state and local governments can finance more spending than they otherwise could. The tax code artificially lowers the borrowing costs of government.

That’s right: The tax code subsidizes the growth of government. Obama wants to reduce this subsidy, yet Republicans, betraying their own small-government principles, are jumping all over him. The hostility of today’s GOP to taxes has become so extreme that it trumps their commitment to limited government.

Second, GOP opposition to closing tax loopholes is damaging to the country. For example, Obama wants to tax “carried interests” held by hedge fund managers at the same rate that employees’ salaries are taxed. From a purely Machiavellian perspective, Republican resistance makes no sense: for the most part, hedge fund managers are liberal blue-state Democrats. Republicans should want to tax them more so they have less money with which to fund the opposition.

In any case, there is no principled reason to tax hedge fund managers’ so-called “carried interests” more favorably than the salaries that constitute the incomes of the vast majority of Americans. A “carried interest” is a simply a performance bonus for a hedge fund manager’s work. If you receive a bonus, you will have to pay tax on it at a marginal rate as high as 35%. Yet a hedge fund manager’s bonus is currently taxed at a maximum of only 15%.

Not only are hedge fund managers’ bonuses taxed more favorably than bonuses received by other workers, but their “work” doesn’t even produce anything. A successful hedge fund guy is just someone who happens to be skilled at convincing others to invest money with him. If a hedge fund manager is lucky to have just one good year, he makes a huge fortune, and his reputation is made. If he’s not lucky, well, there’s always next year. It is statistically certain that, every year, some over-confident hedge fund guy will happen to have chosen just the right mix of investments and made a killing.

Bully for him: he now joins the ranks of superrich Wall Street all-stars. That doesn’t mean that government should give him that added perquisite of favorable tax rates.

Republicans nevertheless want to subsidize the hedge fund industry because they conflate any increase in the integrity of the tax system with an increase in tax rates. But it is crucial to distinguish the two. Someone truly committed to limited government would actually favor a low-tax but high-integrity system.

By “high integrity,” I mean a system characterized by faithful compliance, few loopholes, and effective enforcement. A low-integrity system, by contrasts, suffers from low compliance, many loopholes, and ineffective enforcement.

Put it this way: Either you can have a (I) a high-tax, high-integrity system, (II) a high tax, low-integrity system, (III) a low-tax, high-integrity system, or (IV) a low tax, low-integrity system. The following table summarizes the options:



These day, Republicans favor tax system IV, which has both low rates and low integrity. The low integrity that Republicans favor punishes honesty, rewards scofflaws, and diverts work and investment into unproductive activities. It is not the lowest tax system at all. On the contrary, its low integrity represents an indirect tax on the public.

A truly low tax system would be tax system III, which has both low rates and high integrity. This was the system that was achieved by Ronald Reagan in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is the system that Republicans should be calling for today, even if it does mean agreeing with President Obama.

Ghastly Performance of the Country’s School Children has Caused More Devastation on the Economy than the Recession



U.S. education falling behind those of other countries

By Grishma Athavale

The U.S has been perceived upon as a country of hard workers, overachievers, and gifted people all having a vigorous work ethic. Americans work approximately 40 hour work weeks, compared 35 for the French and a measly 30 hours for the Germans. In addition to this, Americans only get an average of four weeks of vacation, whereas the French get the month of August to recover from their ‘hectic’ work weeks, causing Americans to dub the Europeans as a bunch of lazy people. There is some bias and exaggerations to these statements, but overall Americans do work more than other Europeans—the same can’t be said however, for the nation’s youth.

Unfortunately, the vigorous work ethic and strive to learn has not rubbed of on the nation’s children. American children have school for only 180 days year, compared to the 195 days in Germany and 200 in East Asia. Furthermore, they only have about 2-3 hours of homework per night and are not pressured by society to take extra classes after school; a fact that appalls nations such as Japan and India, whose children take after school classes regularly to help them with their studies.

Americans also have the shortest school day, a mere six and half hours, all packed into the morning and early afternoon. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden boast a staggering 40 to 50 hour school week, making some American education reforms re-think they way the write guidelines for the nation’s schools. This morning to early afternoon school schedule gives children the opportunity to engage in some extra-curricular activities, such as soccer, tennis, or art. This is good, since the child can venture out and find something that he or she is good at, however the benefits of this are only short-term for they don’t really help the child progress further academically. The U.S needs to lengthen the school day to emphasize the fact that fun and games aren’t everything, and children should engage in something educational after school, to help them in their studies.

When summer rolls around in early to mid June, all the material that is learned over the year is quickly forgotten as the lack of practice takes effect. The three month stretch serves as an ‘education eraser’, as the typical student forgets about two months of material, a phenomenon called “summer leaning loss”. American scholars noticed however that this isn’t true for all American children. Children coming from poor families tend to do worse academically because of weak family bonds and are therefore more susceptible to learning loss. Richer kids, on the other hand, improve, for their parents send them to camps and classes to stimulate their minds, and encourage them to do something productive over the summer.

It’s no wonder that this three month stretch makes American children perform so poorly on international education tests; coming behind China, Japan, and India. These countries work harder on their children than America, do, even though they spend less on education. This embarrassing statistic shows the United States just how ineffective our education system really is, and should make the boards of education realize that our country is in dire need of an educational reform if it want to compete and match the caliber of children form other countries, notably East Asian ones.

Over the past several years, reforms have been made to several hundred schools across the country. These schools, part of the Knowledge is Power Programme (KIPP) start the school day at 7.30am and end at 5pm, and have more instructional days than the average American school. These fortunate students get 60% more education than the average American child. The county’s economy is also tied with education. A recent report from McKinsey, a management consultancy, emphasizes that the ghastly performance of the country’s school children has caused more devastation on the economy than the recession. Barrack Obama has urged school administrators to “rethink the school day”, arguing that “we can no longer afford an academic calendar designed for when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home ploughing the land at the end of each day.”America needs to ‘buck up it’s act, if it want to remain the most powerful and influential country in the world, by ensuring the education of its future generations.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution

By Arthur Schlesinger Jr., published in the Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2004:

The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.

George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion.
John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian.

The Godless Constitution

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 -- thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a soveriegn being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

From Legacy Of Freedom by Rob Boston, Church and State, January, 2003. "Jefferson, Madison And The Nation's Founders Left Us Church-State Separation. Can We Keep It?"

Many Amer¬icans seem not to know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Consti¬tution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian. The Religious Right's constant appeals to documents like the Declaration of Independence, which contains a deistic reference to "the Creator," cloud the issue and make some people believe their rights spring from these other documents.

The Godless Constitution was written by two professors of government and history at Cornell University. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have spent their careers studying religion in American life. Some quotes from their book:

The preamble of the Constitution invokes the people of the United States. It does not invoke any sort of God

The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office. A godless person is just as eligible as a godly one! (Article 6, Paragraph 3)

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin strongly suggested on June 28 that the convention have prayers said there. Evangelists take this as proof that the convention then went on with prayers. But, in fact, the convention did not accept the suggestion, and the convention went on without prayers.

The Treaty of Tripoli

The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 between the US and the Barbary States, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797, specifically states that the US is NOT a Christian nation. At that time, the US government was still dominated by those who are referred to today as the "Founding Fathers". ARTICLE 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...

Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992:
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

From Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:

"It is true that the literal phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."

A resource on the Constitutional Principle of Church and State debate.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office." Katherine Yurica, author of the Yurica Report, reports on this bill that reveals the theocratic intentions of its sponsors including Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

"The constitutional principle of separation of church and state has given Americans more religious freedom than any people in world history. Around the globe, those suffering under the heavy heel of government-sponsored religious oppression look to America's church-state model with longing. The "wall of separation between church and state" is America's bulwark of true religious liberty."
The Supreme Court Case, Locke v. Davey.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on February 25, 2004, that states cannot be required to extend scholarship aid to college students training to become members of the clergy. This decision affirms the right of those thirty-seven states whose constitutions do not support government funding of religious studies. It was a victory for the separation of church and state. From Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, February 25, 2004.

Excerpts from A "Cockeyed Contention" by Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry -- Metro New York:

"In fact-and it is a little-known fact today-devout evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the separation between church and state that took shape in the formative years of the republic. In 1784, the revolutionary firebrand Patrick Henry introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that would have assessed taxes on all citizens for the support of "teachers of the Christian religion." That proposal was defeated by a now-unlikely but then-familiar coalition of dissident evangelicals and Enlightenment rationalists, led by James Madison. The rationalists feared religious interference with government and the religious minorities feared government interference with religion."

Freedom of Reproductive Choice Without Government Intrusion

Freedom of Reproductive Choice Without Government Intrusion

Republicans for Choice®


In the wake of the House vote to bar Planned Parenthood federal funding, we are proud to have received the following statement of support from Republicans for Planned Parenthood:

For 95 years, Planned Parenthood has made vital health care and education available to millions of American families. As a specialist in women’s health, Planned Parenthood provides vital sexual and reproductive health services to three million patients every year at more than 800 health centers nationwide. One in five American women has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center during her lifetime, and for many Americans, Planned Parenthood’s doctors and nurses are the only health care providers they see. An essential community provider of lifesaving primary and preventive care, Planned Parenthood represents the very best of traditional Republican values — which is why so many Planned Parenthood health centers were founded by Republicans years ago. Republicans for Planned Parenthood are proud to support this vital American institution, which safeguards women’s rights to control their reproductive health and destinies from government interference, and provides necessary care that enables women to plan their families and lead productive lives.

STAND WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice® (RFC) is dedicated to the preservation of individual rights and reproductive freedom. We believe our nation is best served by policies that support family planning and a woman's right to choose, and we actively support Planned Parenthood as a critical health care service provider, especially for women and young people worldwide.

The Republican Party was founded on a commitment to individual liberty and freedom. The party has a proud history of defending individual rights — from fighting to end slavery and working to secure equal protection and voting rights for African Americans, to leading the way in achieving women’s suffrage.

Too often, we only hear about anti-choice Republicans who claim to represent the majority of our party. The simple truth is that they don’t. Republicans for Choice is working to make sure pro-choice Republicans’ voices are heard across the country. We will not be silent while others try to perpetuate the myth that most Republicans are anti-choice.

— Darlee Crockett and Randy Moody, National Co-Chairs, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice

Our Beliefs

Core Republican values are in harmony with our statement of beliefs:
We believe in the constitutional right of individuals to exercise freedom of reproductive choice without government intrusion.
We support the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state.
We oppose using the Republican Party to impose specific religious beliefs on others and respect each individual’s right to make private, moral decisions.
We believe that honest, medically accurate sexuality education — including, but not limited to, abstinence — and affordable, accessible family planning services help reduce the numbers of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

Each day, we work at the local and national levels to build support for contraceptive equity, emergency contraception, comprehensive sex education, access to affordable birth control, and access to abortion services.

Awards

Each year, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) presents The Barry Goldwater Award to an outstanding public official who has supported Planned Parenthood and reproductive health issues.


Barry Goldwater Award Winners

2010 — State Sen. Jean Schodorf (Kansas)

2009 — U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert (Illinois)

2008 — U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (Illinois)

2007 — State Assemblyman Keith Richman (California)

2006 — State Rep. Stan Adelstein (South Dakota)

2005 — U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (New York)

2004 — U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons (Connecticut)

2003 — former Lt. Gov. Joy Corning (Iowa)

2002 — U.S. Rep. Steve Horn (California)

2001 — State Sen. Jeff Wentworth (Texas)

2000 — U.S. Rep. Connie Morella (Maryland) and U.S. Sen. John Chafee (Rhode Island - posthumously)

1999 — U.S. Rep. Bill Green (New York)

1998 — Mary Dent Crisp, former chair of the National Republican Coalition for Choice

1997 — former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater (Arizona) and his wife Susan

1996 — U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) and U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson (Connecticut)

1995 — former Gov. Jock McKernan (Maine)

National Leadership

Darlee Crockett, national co-chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, has a long history of working with Planned Parenthood and other service organizations. Darlee started as a pregnancy counselor at Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties. Years later, she became president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and then chair of the PPFA Western Region. She served on the PPFA Board of Directors for six years, serving two years as an officer.

Randy Moody, national co-chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice and a lifelong Republican, retired in 2010 as manager of federal advocacy at the National Education Association in Washington, DC. There he was the chief lobbyist of the 3.2 million member teachers’ union. Randy was an original board member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the political and advocacy arm of PPFA, and a founding member of its PAC Committee. Active as a 20-year volunteer for Planned Parenthood, he was a member of the PPFA Board of Directors from 1995 to 2002.

Freedom and Choice

Freedom and Choice: an Anthology

"See," proclaims the Torah in Deuteronomy 30:15, "I have set before you life and goodness, and death and evil... And you shall choose life."

"If G-d were to decree," writes Maimonides, "that a person be righteous or wicked; or if there were to exist something in the very essence of a person's nature which would compel him toward a specific path, a specific conviction, a specific character trait or a specific deed... how could G-d command us through the prophets 'do this' and 'do not do that'...? What place would the entire Torah have? And by what measure of justice would G-d punish the wicked and reward the righteous...?"

On many accounts, the idea of "Freedom of Choice" seems a self-evident truth. It seems indispensable not only to any "religion", but also to any world-vision that holds the human being responsible for his or her actions. It resonates with the most fundamental element of our self-knowledge: that life is something that we live ("live" being an active verb) and our actions are things that we do. The fact that our choices and decisions have consequence does not need to be proven to us -- we experience it first hand, 24 hours a day, 3,600 seconds an hour.

But no sooner do we attempt to scratch the surface of this self-evident truth, that a flood of questions, paradoxes, absurdities and dilemmas overwhelm us. For this self-evident truth clashes with other, seemingly no less immutable truths: the apparently mechanical nature of our reality, the laws of cause and effect, and -- from a theological standpoint -- G-d's absolute knowledge of the "future" and His omnipotence and Oneness.

Much has been written on the subject through the ages by theologians and philosophers. Most fascinating are discussions to be found in Kabbalistic and Chassidic writings, where the very concepts of "freedom" and "choice" assume multiple meanings, questioning some of our most basic assumptions about ourselves, our will, our soul and our world. In particular, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has expressed some very innovative ideas on the subject.

Over the years, a large number of essays, stories and short pieces on "Freedom" and "Choice" have appeared in Chabad।org Magazine. Here is a collection of twenty approaches -- ranging from 300-word "insights" to a six-part series of essays -- to the most basic of human convictions: that we are beings possessing the freedom to make choices that decide our actions and influence our fate.

Compiled by Yanki Tauber
Short Insights
The Lady, the Tiger and Freedom of Choice
By Yanki Tauber
The Right Not to Know
By Yanki Tauber
Toddling
By Yanki Tauber
A Choice of Choices
By Yanki Tauber
A Tale of Two Birds of Paradise
By Tzvi Freeman
The Discovery of Darkness
By Tzvi Freeman
Why Does Esau Hate Jacob?
By Yanki Tauber

In-Depth Essays
The Paradox of Freedom of Choice: Six Questions
By Tzvi Freeman
How Does G-d Decide What's Right and What's Wrong?
By Tzvi Freeman
The Bubble
By Tzvi Freeman
Inverse Realities
By Tzvi Freeman
Beyond Yes and No
By Tzvi Freeman
On the Essence of Choice
By Yanki Tauber
The Question that Everyone Asks
By Yanki Tauber
Is Judaism a Theocracy?
By Yanki Tauber
Are Religious Jews Narrow-Minded?
By Yrachmiel Tilles

Stories
Freedom
By Jay Litvin
Resistance
By Tuvia Bolton
The Czar's Rubles
By Tuvia Bolton
Freedom of Choice
By Zvi Yair