Israel Rejects Bush's Advice

The NYT rightly points out that Israel rejected Bush's advice directed at Obama not to negotiate with regimes you don't like, although it gave him time to get out of the country before Israel's talks with Syria became public. It just makes Bush and the neocons look like idiots. And they endanger the US in the process.

American-Israeli Pundits

In his blog, Patrick Lang takes on David Brooks' column in the NYT. I always liked Col. Lang's commentary on PBS, and I was happy to find his blog. Brooks is one of the more intelligent conservative columnists; so, it's disturbing when a reasonable moderate like Lang finds: "David Brooks is not an editorial columnist. He is a propagandist for the hard right in this country and in Israel." If this is Brooks, then what about a wild man like Charles Krauthammer. There's a more reasonable piece in the WP by James Rubin, but must the entire commentariat be Jewish? I definitely suspect their loyalty to the US, in that I believe they are more concerned about Israel's security than about America's. But it's arguable that that is a legitimate perspective for a 100% American. It's just not my perspective. I think the "I" by Sen. Joe Lieberman's party affiliation means "Israeli" not "Independent."

Just for the record, I am outraged at Bush's comments in Israel about an appeasement Senator (read Obama) who is the current day Neville Chamberlain. Bush should not have taken domestic politics overseas, although Republicans probably view Israel as a 51st state; maybe Democrats do, too. I don't, and so I thought his comments were extremely inappropriate. But it shows how much Jews control American foreign policy, and tilt it toward Israel. Bush probably raked in millions for the RNC and McCain by his comments.

MSNBC had a stupid but telling segment on Hardball, where Chris Matthews asked some apologist for Bush what Chamberlain did that was so bad. The apologist didn't know, but wouldn't admit that he didn't know. Matthews finally said that it was that Chamberlain agreed to Hitler's military occupation of Czechoslovakia, not that Chamberlain advocated talking to Hitler. McCain prostituted himself by buying into Bush's comments, but he will get lots of Jew money for doing so, and he needs money. But that's what prostitutes are: people who sell themselves for money.

HIV and American Visas

Andrew Sullivan's op-ed in the Washington Post reminds me of an experience at the State Department in the early 1990s. I was the deputy director of an office called OES/EHC, which stood for Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science/Office of Environment, Health, and Conservation. Under the health responsibility I had an M.D. who in theory worked for me, although as a doctor, he made far more than I did. He wanted to take on the Jesse Helms visa ban on HIV-positive foreigners, and I went along to give him bureaucratic support. He took me to meet with HIV medical specialists in HHS and other agencies, and they convinced me that the Helms proposal was improper. At that time, the only basis for denying a visa to someone coming to the US was that they had a highly infectious disease. Jesse claimed that HIV was highly infectious, but the medical people said it was not. The only disease that was categorized as truly highly infectious was tuberculosis. They said that you couldn't catch HIV by sitting next to someone on a bus, for example.

So, my M.D. and I wrote a memo to the Secretary of State, then Jim Baker, saying that the Jesse Helms proposal should be rejected. Both my boss, the Assistant Secretary for OES, and the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, who was responsible for visas, signed off on it. We sent it on its way to Baker, but it had to go through the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who was then Bob Zoellick, who is now President of the World Bank. Zoellick never passed the memo on to Baker; he kept it buried in his in-basket. I somewhat respected that decision, because the memo asked for a decision from Baker that put him in a no-win situation. Clearly the right legal, scientific thing to do was to reject the Helms proposal, because it had no legal or scientific justification. However, Jesse Helms was a great, powerful enemy of the State Department in the Senate. If Baker made Helms mad, there would be hell to pay on many other issues, probably ranging from the State Department budget to major issues of war and peace. So, Zoellick protected Baker from ever having to put his fingerprints on our memo.

It was bad law; it was unfair to HIV-positive people, but politically it was probably the best thing for the State Department. My colleagues and I periodically tried to press Zoellick to release the memo, but he never did. Neither of the Assistant Secretaries, much less people at our level, had the clout to bypass Zoellick.

I didn't know until I read Sullivan's column that Congress had subsequently passed a specific law banning HIV-positive people. A law has a better legal justification than Helms' regulation, although neither has scientific or humane justification, as Sullivan points out.

If you ask me, the fear of HIV is a sign of the same cowardice as the fear of terrorists. This generation of political leaders who grew up during Vietnam is, with a few exceptions, a generation of draft dodgers. They were either too afraid or too selfish to go to fight in Vietnam, and now they are afraid of HIV and terrorists, so afraid that they resort to torture of terrorists, and other extra legal means of dealing with both terrorists and HIV-positive people. It's a sad commentary on America.

State Comments on India Deal Kept Secret

The Washington Post reports that the State Dept. has asked Congress to keep State's comments on the US-India nuclear deal secret. It's not surprising, since the deal is sensitive in both countries. In India, the opposition believes the deal puts too many restraints on India's nuclear program; in the US, arms control advocates believe that it rewards India for flouting the nonproliferation regime and developing nuclear arms.

To me, one of the most interesting things is that the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs is Howard Berman, replacing Tom Lantos. Lantos was supposed to be the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, although it doesn't sound like he actually survived much; he was never in Auschwitz, Treblinka, or any of the real death camps. But he was Jewish, and his successor, Howard Berman is Jewish. And who is another country that like India has flouted the nonproliferation regime and developed nuclear weapons? Israel. Israel is not likely to come under much scrutiny in the House.

What's the impact of the US acceptance of proliferation by India and Israel on the problem countries of the day: Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, now Syria, et. al? Nobody knows for sure, but it's probably not good. But we (the US) will try to keep quiet about what's going on in India and Israel, so that we can beat up on the other countries. It might work, but I doubt it. It's ironic that the Jews, by developing Israeli nuclear weapons, are their own worst enemy in trying to prevent Iran from doing the same thing.

Israel, Marshall, and Truman

In today's Washington Post, Richard Holbrooke recalls America's response to the declaration of Israel's creation. He says that most of the "wise men" at the State Department opposed immediate recognition of Israel, because it would create so many problems with the Arabs. Defense Secretary Forrestal said there were 30 million Arabs [with oil] and 600,000 Jews [with no oil]. Secretary of State General George Marshall led the argument against immediate recognition. Clark Clifford, Truman's domestic political adviser, led the argument for recognition. Holbrooke, who wrote Clifford's biography says that domestic politics were not important, i.e., the Jewish vote. He might be biased.

Only with great effort was Secretary Marshall persuaded not to make a public stink when Truman recognized Israel, and then Truman went ahead and did it. It's still questionable whether this was the right decision. Clearly it's been good for Zionist Jews in America, who interestingly according to Holbrooke did not include the Jews who owned the Washington Post and the New York Times. But it's not so clear that it's been good for America as a nation. No doubt today's high price of gasoline is in part due to Truman's decision to side with Israel over the Arabs. And of course we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq doing something that is in part motivated by the defense of Israel. Both Hillary and McCain continue to pander to the Jewish vote by threatening to destroy Iran, which is the new target for Israel, now that the US has neutralized Iraq's threat to Israel.

But it's a never ending struggle for the US to defend Israel. Just in the last 24 hours Lebanon has threatened to blow up again. Will Bush "stay the course" in Lebanon, too, or will he follow Reagan's example and stay out?

Was Reagan So Great?

In this election year the Republicans often look back nostalgically to Ronald Reagan as the example of what a President should be. There are many, but two who love him are George Will and Peggy Noonan. Let's look at the record.

1) Reagan did not fight in World War II. Almost everyone fought in World War II, the last "good" war, the greatest generation. He had himself declared legally blind so that he could not fight, but he did become an Army officer who made movies in California for the military.

2) Reagan was divisive. His intra-party fight with Gerald Ford for the nomination in 1976 probably led to Jimmy Carter's election. If Ford had been uncontested for a second term, he probably would have won.

3) Reagan's election over Jimmy Carter in 1980 got a big boost from Ayatollah Khomeini and the other Iranian mullahs. The Iranians hated Jimmy Carter because he stood by the Shah and allowed him to have medical treatment and refuge in the US. Thus, they took over the US Embassy in Tehran and refused to let the hostages go while Carter was still President. They used the hostages as pawns to get Jimmy Carter out of office. Thus, Reagan was the Iranians' candidate. He probably could have won the election without Iranian support, but the hostage crisis helped his campaign enormously by hurting Carter enormously. The hostages were released within hours of Reagan taking office. We'll never know, but it's possible that the Iran-Contra scandal was the result of Reagan's trying to repay the Iranians for their support in the 1980 election.

4) He turned tail and ran out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks were blown up. All the Republicans talk about how brave Reagan was to stand up to the Russians, but they don't talk much a Lebanon, which is more closely comparable to the Iraq war today. He did not "stay the course" in Lebanon; after the massive Marine casualties, he brought the troops home quickly and left Lebanon to descend into civil war. Maybe Reagan was brave to stand up to the Russians, but Gorbachev was a new kind of Soviet leader, much more open to the West than his hard-line predecessors. At a summit in Iceland, Reagan is reported to have reached an agreement to totally dismantle the US nuclear arsenal before Richard Perle talked him out of it.

Does Reducing Taxes Increase Revenues?

This morning in a debate on CNBC about tax policy, CNBC rolled out the old Laffer-curve argument that reducing taxes increases revenues. They showed this graph, which appears about 6:18 into the video. In it, you can see that when capital gains taxes were reduced, there was a spike in tax revenues. What they didn't mention is that the spike was quickly followed by a drop off to normal levels. What that shows is that legislating is a relatively slow process. When lower capital gains rates are being discussed, wealthy people hold off on realizing profits until the new lower rates are in effect. Then they do some profit taking on which they can pay the lower rates. A lot of the assets sold are probably ones that have been held a long time and perhaps would not otherwise have been sold.

Another factor as tax rates become even lower is that it encourages speculation. If there's little or no capital gains tax, it encourages people to "speculate" for short term gains, not "invest." Hence, there is more churning and more taxes on more individual transactions.

Reagan's belief in the Laffer-curve showed that his Alzheimer's had set in while he was still President. And for those crazies who still believe in it, it just shows that they are crazy. There probably is some very high level where the Laffer hypothesis applies, close to a 100% tax rate, but that it largely irrelevant in today's world.

Taxpayers Subsidize Richest Americans

The NYT reports that several hedge fund managers took home over a billion dollars in pay last year. It says, "Combined, the top 50 hedge fund managers last year earned $29 billion." Interesting that the $29 billion figure almost exactly matches the $30 billion bailout of Bear Stearns. It's more than a coincidence.

The hedge funds don't really do much useful. They don't make anything; they don't start businesses. They don't even pretend to make businesses more efficient, as private equity funds claim to do. They are basically gambling institutions, betting on various, esoteric market fluctuations. So, when they win, somebody else loses, because they are not creating wealth; they're just taking somebody else's wealth. So, the winners made $29 billion and the losers got bailed out to the tune of $30 billion by the taxpayers. The taxpayers are contributing to the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the super rich.

Carter's Courage

Jimmy Carter has a lot of courage to take on the American Jewish community's virulent, racist, Zionist, hate-filled campaign against the Palestinians. This blog by Marc Ginsberg is just one example of the hate expressed toward him by Jews. Don't be fooled by the "more in sorrow than in anger" tone of the blog. It's a hate screed. The ironic thing is that as the Jews have garnered more and more power in the US, so that both the Republican and Democratic parties support Israel unquestioningly, the US has lost more and more power in the world, partly because of the hateful, racist, Israeli-inspired policies it pursues in the Middle East.

Maureen Dowd, Deer Hunter

Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT is the first I have seen that mentions the "Deer Hunter" movie. She says Pennsylvania is Deer Hunter country. What does this mean if it's not something weird having to do with bitterness and guns. Is it common for Pennsylvanians to play Russian roulette? Do they just naturally love Russian roulette like they love their God? Did Maureen and Hillary learn to play Russian roulette with their dads out behind the vacation cabins their grandfathers built? I don't think the characters in Deer Hunter would have been playing Russian roulette if they hadn't been messed up by the Vietnam war and faced a pretty depressing situation at home in Pennsylvania.

New Jewish Lobby

The Washington Post reports that liberal Jews have created a new lobby, J Street, to compete with AIPAC. This sounds great; we'll see how it works in practice. It seems true that there is much more political debate about Israel's future in Israel than there is in the US, where AIPAC is the only Jewish lobby, and AIPAC means Zionism supported 100% by the US.

Here's Mother Jones report of the new lobby.

McCain and Charlie Black

The NYT features lobbyist Charlie Black's prominent role in John McCain's presidential campaign. I didn't know that he got his start with Jesse Helms, Lee Atwater, and other assorted right wing zealots. Not a good sign for me, since Jesse was a virulent hater of the State Department and an author of the Helms-Burton Act, which was one thing that encouraged me to get out of the Foreign Service.

While I was assigned to the US Embassy in Rome, an Italian contact whose little daughter had been denied a US visa under the Act remarked to me about how it penalized the children of those it targeted. I found its operation to be very similar to the way the Nazis targeted Jews in Italy during World War II as described by Herman Wouk in Winds of War and War and Remembrance. I was not happy that the US was punishing children for the "sins" of their parents.

Plus, as I said earlier, I am not happy about lobbyists having big roles in presidential campaigns, especially of someone like John McCain, who claims to be the king of straight talk. The Black connection seems to indicate that McCain has swung hard to the right. I worry that although he has a history as a maverick, he was neutered by George Bush in the 2000 campaign when Bush beat him in South Carolina by claiming that McCain's adopted daughter was actually a black bastard conceived out of wedlock. Now, to see McCain fawning over Bush is more than I can take. Plus, I hate seeing him get his Middle East policy whispered in his ear by Israel hawk Joe (Bomb Iran) Lieberman.

Barack, Hillary and the Deer Hunter

All of this political talk about Obama's description of Pennsylvanians as turning to religion and guns because they are bitter about how life has treated them sounds like it's straight out of the movie "The Deer Hunter." I find it strange that none of the talking heads I have heard have mentioned the movie. It's probably because it's about the Vietnam war and nobody except John McCain was involved in it. McCain's experience was hardly typical; he had little in common with the characters in the movie although they also were POWs. McCain came from a patrician family; his father and grandfather were admirals. Like John Kerry (not one of my favorites) he became a Congressional military aide when he came back from Vietnam. He didn't go back to a working class family in a steel mill town. As a returning hero, he didn't have any moral qualms to deal with when he came back, unlike the average grunt who was fighting in the jungles of Vietnam one day and back on his hometown streets two or three days later amongst cohorts who had avoided service in Vietnam. I don't think there are many ordinary Vietnam vets among the talking heads on TV. One is Sen. Chuck Hagel, but he's the exception who proves the rule, and I don't think he was on today. I think it is significant that he has not endorsed McCain, a fellow Republican and Vietnam vet.

If Hillary knew about the movie, she would probably see herself as the Meryl Streep character, but she is more like the wealthy Meryl Streep character in "The Big Chill," who owns the ante-bellum plantation house in South Carolina where the movie takes place.

Anyway the Deer Hunter is certainly about Pennsylvania and guns, and to a lesser extent about religion. Ironically, Obama doesn't seem to know about it either. He could simply reply to Hillary that if she doesn't understand what he is talking about, she should watch the Deer Hunter.

House Value Graph

Just for anybody who missed it, here's the Shiller graph of the bubble in house prices. It looks like something unprecedented has occurred, so that unwinding or popping the bubble may take a while and be fairly disruptive.

The Fed and the Markets

Although I have been critical of the Fed for not worrying more about inflation, there's no doubt that its main concern should be to avoid a financial meltdown that could lead to a depression or a breakdown of the financial markets. My main complaint is not with the Fed, but with Congress and the Administration for cutting taxes on the wealthy so drastically while waging very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are shuffling money by the handfuls from lenders in China to Republican war profiteers, including Dick Cheney.

The Fed may have prevented the onset of a major financial crisis due to the subprime mortgage situation. Nevertheless, America is still sitting out there -- exposed because of its huge indebtedness. Runaway inflation will reduce the size of the indebtedness over time, but not in the short term (hopefully). Therefore, we remain at the mercy of the Chinese and the Arabs, our largest creditors. It's unlikely that they want to destroy the US for financial reasons; they would stand to lose a lot of money by doing so. But if the political/military situation goes downhill, they might try to destroy the US economy for geopolitical reasons. China is now feeling a lot of international pressure over Tibet, as well as the traditional US pressure over Taiwan from the Republican right. There is some small risk that China could retaliate by dumping all of its US dollar investments, triggering a collapse in the dollar's value and perhaps pushing American interest rates into the stratosphere.

Alan Greenspan claims in the Financial Times that he's not responsible, and he's not the worst culprit, although the FT columnists have some legitimate gripes about his performance. But one thing he did which was very bad was to come out in favor of the dangerous Bush tax cuts because he claimed he was afraid that America would end up paying off its debt. In retrospect his claimed fears had no merit, and were no doubt expressed to please the political powers, Bush and company. By sacrificing his integrity for political expediency, he ensured his share of the blame for America's financial debacle.

Lobbyists and Presidential Candidates

Two recent articles illustrate the extent to which lobbyists dominate Presidential campaigns. One hope for Obama is that he may be less influenced because he has been in Washington for less time and thus the lobbyists have had less time to get control of him.

The New York Times reported on the role of Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn's, lobbying firm's role in getting US approval of the Columbia free trade agreement. It sounds like his firm, Burson-Marsteller, has lost its contract with Columbia at the same time Mark Penn has lost his position with Hillary's campaign.

Meanwhile The Nation reports on the role of the lobbying firm of one of John McCain's insiders, Charlie Black, in making Ahmad Chalabi one of the most important men in Iraq. Black is a principal at Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey, another one of the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington, which is also owned by Burson-Marsteller.

It looks as if Hillary and McCain are not masters of their own destinies, but are rather tools of backroom masterminds intent on bringing Washington under their control. It appears that Burson-Marsteller is America's Rasputin.

Israel, Jews, and the US Election

It appears that there are a substantial number of American Jews who oppose Barack Obama because of what they perceive as his position on Israel, as reported by The Nation in "(Some) Jews Against Obama. As the article points out, there is no basis for most of their concerns. This was followed up by a Nation article on "Smearing Obama" that said a particular target of the false smears against Obama were directed at Jews.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones reports that Hillary is pandering to American Jews and Israel by taking a position that Israel should have "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital." This appears to mean that she believes the Palestinians have no right to any part of Jerusalem. By deciding one of the major issues beforehand, this makes talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians virtually pointless. The problem with Hillary's position on Jerusalem is illustrated by Helena Cobban's recent posting on Jerusalem, for example.

Finally, John McCain's recent visit to Israel appeared designed to pander to American Jews. Besides visiting the Holocaust memorial in his yarmulke, he seemed to be getting his foreign policy advice from Sen. Joe Lieberman, who advocates an American war with Iran on behalf of Israel. The sight of Joe whispering in John's ear about what to say about al-Qaida in Iraq was not a pretty sight.

I'm reminded of the movie Bulworth, where Warren Beatty's senator character says something like, "My staff knows they always have to put the rich Jews on my campaign schedule." Hillary and McCain need that "rich Jew" money. Obama has enough money coming in from regular people that he doesn't have to pander to any particular group. Thus, it appears that the Jews fear him because they are afraid that they can't control him, as they do Hillary, McCain, and most Presidents, certainly including George Bush, whose Middle East policies are blatantly pro-Israel, to the point of arming Fatah Palestinians in the hope that they will kill Hamas Palestinians.

Wall Street vs. Main Street

The economy lost 80,000 jobs and the stock market barely went down. To me this signifies the disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street, the rest of the country. It's fairly typical that bad news for middle America is good news for Wall Street, but with everybody concerned about the financial turmoil on Wall Street and the potential recession for the whole country, that attitude is particularly poignant. Wall Street is happy that jobs are being outsourced to China and India because it reduces labor costs. Detroit and the rest of the rust belt is already suffering from this Wall Street attitude, but the pain is spreading to the rest of the country outside of the playgrounds for the rich, like Manhattan, Beverly Hills and Aspen. Meanwhile, the fat cats on Wall Street, who got us into this mess, just got bailed out to the tune of $30 billion or more, while the average Joe, who has just been minding his own business, will get a tax rebate of $600 or so.

Pimco Loses Confidence in Bernanke

It's not a good sign when Bill Gross of Pimco, probably the foremost bond trader in America, loses confidence in Bernanke, as he has according to this Bloomberg report. Gross does not think that Bernanke is committed to fighting inflation. Bernanke is more concerned about cutting interest rates to keep the stock market up, which seems to be working, since it's up over 100 points at the moment. But what's best for America's future? Probably not another stock market bubble.

Bill Kristol's Patriotism

Bill Kristol's op-ed in the NYT criticizes Barak Obama for making a point of not wearing a flag pin in his lapel. I guess the NYT is printing Kristol to show how open minded it is. It just happens that I agree with Obama on this issue. In the old days when American presidents were patriots they earned military decorations, and chose to wear them or not, depending on their personal attitudes toward public displays.

The most notable example is probably President Lyndon Johnson's Silver Star, a lapel pin that he wore most of his life, although it was probably undeserved. See this CNN story. Many true heros feel no compunction to wear their decoration, believing modestly that their actions were more important than any display. Because most of the politicians in Washington today were cowards who failed to serve their country, they don't have any military decoration to wear and therefore have chosen to wear the flag. No modesty for the Republicans!

I'm guessing that Bill Kristol is not a combat veteran, and probably not a veteran at all. He's a flag man, and a typical Republican coward, who has no hesitation about sending our troops to fight in Iraq, although he would not go himself. Barak Obama shows his patriotism and courage by standing up to cowardly bullies like Bill Kristol.

I still have bad memories of seeing Zbigniew Brzezinski introduce Vice President Al Gore to an audience of Polish World War II veterans at the Ambassador's residence in Warsaw, Poland. Brzezinski introduced Gore as a Vietnam veteran. The Polish veterans greeted the introduction with applause, but the Americans murmured, "Doesn't he know that President Clinton didn't serve in the military?" Military service is no longer admired in the US, especially by slackers like William Kristol.