The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) which I helped create and to expand is still alive and well. This Commerce Department notice shows it's still in force and operating. The MTCR could have been a lot stronger if it had not been opposed so strongly by Richard Perle and his minions at the Pentagon. They wanted it to prevent developing countries from doing anything in the space launch field, and as usual, the best was the enemy of the good, and we got some least common denominator because other countries, mainly the Europeans and Japan were unwilling to agree to the draconian provisions forced as the US position by the Defense Department.
But, hey, at least we got something.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Obama Wins v. Bush
Obama's triumphal tour of the world shows that foreigners don't hate Americans; they hate George Bush and maybe most Republicans. Bush likes to stick his finger in other nations' eyes. Remember the invasion of Iraq? Remember ignoring the UN investigation of WMD in Iraq? Remember freedom fries? Remember old Europe? Remember Abu Ghraib? Bush, and maybe a lot of Americans who support him, hate foreigners.
Bush is low-class, trailer park trash, ill-bred, impolite, not a man you would like to associate with, unless you were going to grab somebody off the street and torture them. He's not stupid, but he's lazy, which is worse. You can't help being stupid; you can work hard.
McCain has accused Obama of being willing to lose a war in order to win an election. I don't think that's true about Obama, but I think Bush has already done that. I don't know whether the war will be Afghanistan or Iraq, but we are not doing very well in either. Things are going better militarily in Iraq, but Iraq just got kicked out of the Olympics because of its political system. That's not good. Our troops have fought bravely and well, but Bush doesn't care. If he did, he would do something to give them more time at home between tours overseas. He would take better care of the wounded.
Bush is low-class, trailer park trash, ill-bred, impolite, not a man you would like to associate with, unless you were going to grab somebody off the street and torture them. He's not stupid, but he's lazy, which is worse. You can't help being stupid; you can work hard.
McCain has accused Obama of being willing to lose a war in order to win an election. I don't think that's true about Obama, but I think Bush has already done that. I don't know whether the war will be Afghanistan or Iraq, but we are not doing very well in either. Things are going better militarily in Iraq, but Iraq just got kicked out of the Olympics because of its political system. That's not good. Our troops have fought bravely and well, but Bush doesn't care. If he did, he would do something to give them more time at home between tours overseas. He would take better care of the wounded.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae
With all the talk about the possible collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there is little said about the departure under a cloud in 2004 of Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. Raines was accused of cooking the books to hide losses so that his take-home pay would be higher by millions. In 2004 the real estate market was hot, maybe not as hot as it was a year or two later, but plenty hot enough for Fannie Mae to play fast and loose with the rules.
In 2004, USA Today reported: "In the financial arena, detractors say, Fannie Mae has grown out of control. It's the No. 2 debtor in the country, after the U.S. government, with $989 billion in debt. Some have even called Fannie Mae a giant hedge fund, since it uses derivatives and other potentially risky investment tools."
When Raines "resigned," USA Today reported: "Franklin Raines, the powerful and politically savvy CEO of Fannie Mae, was forced out Tuesday night by the mortgage finance company's board of directors, bringing an end to a contentious, three-month public brawl over the quality of Fannie's financial statements. That restatement of earnings is likely to wipe out $9 billion — or about one-third — of Fannie Mae's profits — since 2001. But analysts say that shouldn't have any effect on mortgage rates. To make up the anticipated $9 billion shortfall, Fannie Mae probably would have to sell part of its portfolio of mortgages, raise fresh capital by issuing stock or cut dividends — and its spectacular growth of recent years could be curtailed. The company was ordered by the regulators in September to boost its capital cushion against risk by some $5 billion by mid-2005."
So, Fannie Mae was already in trouble before the mortgage tsunami hit.
In 2004, USA Today reported: "In the financial arena, detractors say, Fannie Mae has grown out of control. It's the No. 2 debtor in the country, after the U.S. government, with $989 billion in debt. Some have even called Fannie Mae a giant hedge fund, since it uses derivatives and other potentially risky investment tools."
When Raines "resigned," USA Today reported: "Franklin Raines, the powerful and politically savvy CEO of Fannie Mae, was forced out Tuesday night by the mortgage finance company's board of directors, bringing an end to a contentious, three-month public brawl over the quality of Fannie's financial statements. That restatement of earnings is likely to wipe out $9 billion — or about one-third — of Fannie Mae's profits — since 2001. But analysts say that shouldn't have any effect on mortgage rates. To make up the anticipated $9 billion shortfall, Fannie Mae probably would have to sell part of its portfolio of mortgages, raise fresh capital by issuing stock or cut dividends — and its spectacular growth of recent years could be curtailed. The company was ordered by the regulators in September to boost its capital cushion against risk by some $5 billion by mid-2005."
So, Fannie Mae was already in trouble before the mortgage tsunami hit.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
US and Israeli Interests Not Identical
Col. Pat Lang's blog has an excellent posting on the fact that Israel's and America's interests are not identical. Unfortunately it's true that many Americans see Israel as a 51st state. This worries me, because people perceive politicians who are fervently pro-Israel, such as Joe Lieberman, as fervently pro-American, but those stands may not be reconcilable.
John McCain should be careful about embracing Lieberman too closely; he may be embracing anti-American interests. It would be ironic if McCain, who holds himself out as the ultimate American patriot, were actually subjugating America's best interests to those of another country -- Israel. This is not an academic exercise. We probably invaded Iraq at least in part because of Israeli/Jewish/AIPAC influence. George W. Bush's hatred of his father and desire to show up Bush I's failure to depose Saddam in the first Iraq War was certainly another important factor. Now will we invade Iran, or support an Israeli attack on Iran, because of the same Israeli pressures? McCain is a hawk on both Iraq and Iran. While these beliefs are certainly genuinely held by him as in America's best interest, is he being hoodwinked to believing that everything in Israel's best interest is also in America's? McCain may be too gullible; as Lang points out, Israel and America have different interests.
John McCain should be careful about embracing Lieberman too closely; he may be embracing anti-American interests. It would be ironic if McCain, who holds himself out as the ultimate American patriot, were actually subjugating America's best interests to those of another country -- Israel. This is not an academic exercise. We probably invaded Iraq at least in part because of Israeli/Jewish/AIPAC influence. George W. Bush's hatred of his father and desire to show up Bush I's failure to depose Saddam in the first Iraq War was certainly another important factor. Now will we invade Iran, or support an Israeli attack on Iran, because of the same Israeli pressures? McCain is a hawk on both Iraq and Iran. While these beliefs are certainly genuinely held by him as in America's best interest, is he being hoodwinked to believing that everything in Israel's best interest is also in America's? McCain may be too gullible; as Lang points out, Israel and America have different interests.
Wasted Lives in Vietnam
An op-ed in the WP by Harold Meyerson laments the embrace by American business of manufacturing in Vietnam because the quasi-Communist government there keeps wages low. What was the point of fighting for democracy there, if we prefer a non-democratic government? The Republicans talk a good game of loving democracy, but a dollar trumps politics for a Republican any day.
A lot of Vietnam veterans have embraced the new Vietnam, but there is a difference between loving your enemies and making a buck off of them because they are being kept in poverty by their government. On the other hand, the lives of many Vietnamese are clearly better today than they were years ago.
We've been through this before, when both Germany and Japan came back from defeat in WW II to challenge the US economically. But in that case we defeated the governments, and the challenge came from western style government that we liked. That's not the case in Vietnam.
For Vietnam veterans, an additional cut is that the people making money from Vietnam tend to be people or children of people who avoided service in Vietnam. I guess this proves to them that they were right -- that the war was evil and that Vietnam veterans were sadistic baby-killers. But as a Vietnam veteran, I don't think that was the case. In most cases those who went to Vietnam were just submitting to the rule of law by submitting to the draft. Others believed the idealistic vision of stopping Communism and creating a better world. Both are being stomped on by American businessmen today. They wear American flag lapel pins and profit from the hardships imposed by the government that defeated America because these money-grubbing businessmen opposed the war and would not serve. They and their children by and large do not serve in the military today in Afghanistan or Iraq.
A lot of Vietnam veterans have embraced the new Vietnam, but there is a difference between loving your enemies and making a buck off of them because they are being kept in poverty by their government. On the other hand, the lives of many Vietnamese are clearly better today than they were years ago.
We've been through this before, when both Germany and Japan came back from defeat in WW II to challenge the US economically. But in that case we defeated the governments, and the challenge came from western style government that we liked. That's not the case in Vietnam.
For Vietnam veterans, an additional cut is that the people making money from Vietnam tend to be people or children of people who avoided service in Vietnam. I guess this proves to them that they were right -- that the war was evil and that Vietnam veterans were sadistic baby-killers. But as a Vietnam veteran, I don't think that was the case. In most cases those who went to Vietnam were just submitting to the rule of law by submitting to the draft. Others believed the idealistic vision of stopping Communism and creating a better world. Both are being stomped on by American businessmen today. They wear American flag lapel pins and profit from the hardships imposed by the government that defeated America because these money-grubbing businessmen opposed the war and would not serve. They and their children by and large do not serve in the military today in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Swift Boat Veterans Still An Issue
The Swift Boat issue refuses to go away, probably because of Obama's decision to refuse Federal campaign funding, as the NYT reports. The Swift Boat 527 probably played a big role in defeating Kerry in 2004, and Obama doesn't want to get caught in the same bind, without money to challenge whatever the Republican dirty-tricksters come up with to attack him.
It still rankles me as a Vietnam veteran that Kerry's service in Vietnam was used against him. He may not have been the best example of a veteran, but at least he went, unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and many other leading politicians. Ironically, Al Gore also served in Vietnam; so, clearly this country hates veterans. It can kiss up to veterans now, because without the draft no one is in danger of going to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they volunteer. But McCain's opposition to the new, improved GI Bill of Rights shows that caring about veterans is not widespread.
I can only conclude that Swift Boat veterans are unpatriotic, America haters. It's probably an over generalization, but the image of a whole group of veterans has been sullied as far as I am concerned.
It still rankles me as a Vietnam veteran that Kerry's service in Vietnam was used against him. He may not have been the best example of a veteran, but at least he went, unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and many other leading politicians. Ironically, Al Gore also served in Vietnam; so, clearly this country hates veterans. It can kiss up to veterans now, because without the draft no one is in danger of going to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they volunteer. But McCain's opposition to the new, improved GI Bill of Rights shows that caring about veterans is not widespread.
I can only conclude that Swift Boat veterans are unpatriotic, America haters. It's probably an over generalization, but the image of a whole group of veterans has been sullied as far as I am concerned.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Anschutz Like Plato's Unjust Man
In the Republic, one of Socrates' students, Thrasymachus, argues that the "unjust" person is more successful:
"My most simple Socrates, you must see that a just man always comes off worst than an unjust. Take first, the case of commercial dealing, when a just and an unjust man are partners. At the dissolution of the partnership you will never find the just man with more than the unjust, but always less. Then in politics, where there are taxes to pay, out of equal incomes the just man pays more, the unjust less; where there is money to be got, the just man gets nothing, the unjust much. Then, again, when they are in office, the just man, apart from other losses, ruins his own business by neglect, while his justice prevents his making a profit out of the public; and in addition he incurs the dislike of his kinsfolk and acquaintances by refusing to be unjust for their advantage. With the unjust man it is the opposite in every particular."
But Socrates, like the Bible, doesn't think that acting unjustly works out in the end.
Not only does Anschutz not pay taxes, as noted previously, but he spoiled the retirement of many Qwest workers, who had spent most of their careers working for US West, by destroying the value of Qwest stock, which many of the retirees held.
"My most simple Socrates, you must see that a just man always comes off worst than an unjust. Take first, the case of commercial dealing, when a just and an unjust man are partners. At the dissolution of the partnership you will never find the just man with more than the unjust, but always less. Then in politics, where there are taxes to pay, out of equal incomes the just man pays more, the unjust less; where there is money to be got, the just man gets nothing, the unjust much. Then, again, when they are in office, the just man, apart from other losses, ruins his own business by neglect, while his justice prevents his making a profit out of the public; and in addition he incurs the dislike of his kinsfolk and acquaintances by refusing to be unjust for their advantage. With the unjust man it is the opposite in every particular."
But Socrates, like the Bible, doesn't think that acting unjustly works out in the end.
Not only does Anschutz not pay taxes, as noted previously, but he spoiled the retirement of many Qwest workers, who had spent most of their careers working for US West, by destroying the value of Qwest stock, which many of the retirees held.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Rich Don't Pay Taxes
The Bush tax cuts greatly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay, but apparently not enough. Phil Anschutz is in trouble with IRS for some tax scheme that avoids his recognizing a taxable gain (and then having to pay taxes on it) for years and years, according to a number of papers, including the Rocky Mountain News.
The rich who balk at paying taxes are mostly Republicans. Rich Democrats, like Warren Buffett, tend to say the rich should pay more taxes. Thus, it's the Republicans who object to paying for government, including things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the soldiers fighting them. No armor for troops if it means you have to share your private jet!
People will argue we have to reduce American taxes because we are competing for business headquarters with other countries, like the Cayman Islands, who have lower taxes. It's a race to the bottom. I say, let them go. If Anschutz wants to move to the Canary Islands, good riddance to him and his filthy money. He can go join (Clinton Democrat) Marc Rich in Switzerland, but don't let him come back here to stay at some luxury vacation home or spa. He's scum, a traitor. We don't need people like him. It will be a tough adjustment for America to lose wealthy freeloaders like Anschutz, but while we're having a recession, let's bite the bullet and take on a little more misery to clean up the country.
I have been down on the New York Wall Street types for living large off of America without paying their fair share, and now it turns out that one of the worst offenders is right here in Colorado.
The rich who balk at paying taxes are mostly Republicans. Rich Democrats, like Warren Buffett, tend to say the rich should pay more taxes. Thus, it's the Republicans who object to paying for government, including things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the soldiers fighting them. No armor for troops if it means you have to share your private jet!
People will argue we have to reduce American taxes because we are competing for business headquarters with other countries, like the Cayman Islands, who have lower taxes. It's a race to the bottom. I say, let them go. If Anschutz wants to move to the Canary Islands, good riddance to him and his filthy money. He can go join (Clinton Democrat) Marc Rich in Switzerland, but don't let him come back here to stay at some luxury vacation home or spa. He's scum, a traitor. We don't need people like him. It will be a tough adjustment for America to lose wealthy freeloaders like Anschutz, but while we're having a recession, let's bite the bullet and take on a little more misery to clean up the country.
I have been down on the New York Wall Street types for living large off of America without paying their fair share, and now it turns out that one of the worst offenders is right here in Colorado.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Hooray for the Supreme Court Decision on Guantanamo
Just a note to mention how great it is that the Supreme Court recognized the Constitutional right of habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo. If the US is to remain a great country, it must maintain a respectable legal system. I believe that the restraints on habeas corpus and the idea of having some kind of kangaroo courts in Cuba, rather than real civil trials in the US were due to cowardice on the part of the administration. Sure, trials will test the US, perhaps slightly increase the risk of further terrorist attacks, but that's what freedom is all about. Draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney were so frightened by 9/11 that they lost all respect for law, if they had any earlier. Thank goodness for the courage of a slight majority on the Supreme Court!
Wall Street v. Europe
Interesting that with all the talk on Wall Street about the benefits of globalization (for Wall Street, not for jobs on Main Street), one of the reasons that the stock market is supposed to be up today is because Ireland rejected the new EU constitution, which will throw the EU into a stew. So, Wall Street's attitude on this seems to be, "Europe's loss is our gain." I think that is ironically a shortsighted view. Wall Street should welcome a stronger, more unified Europe, but on the other hand should be more concerned about outsourcing American jobs to overseas firms.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Speaking Out on Guantanamo
Most of the news outlets covered the beginning of the trials (or whatever they are) of accused terrorists at Guantanamo. I think they are kangaroo courts. This administration does not like the legal system; it wants to appoint non-activist judges who will allow the administration to do anything it wants, like hold Communist-era show trials without legal protections like habeas corpus that have been part of the Anglo-American legal system for hundreds of years. For all the money that the administration has spent in Guantanamo to build jail cells, courtrooms, develop special judicial-style proceedings with military lawyers, etc., it could easily have held the trials in normal American courts for less money. Of course, the administration would not do that because it wants a guaranteed guilty verdict, no matter what, and in a real trial there is no guarantee of a guilty verdict.
I thought one of the most moving statements was by Navy Commander Suzanne Lachelier on the PBS Newshour. She said:
I thought one of the most moving statements was by Navy Commander Suzanne Lachelier on the PBS Newshour. She said:
I think the American people, if they watched, and if they knew what was going on, if they understood the ramifications in the long term to our Constitution, to their Constitution, I think they would be ashamed.I hope that decent government officials, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Def. Sec. Robert Gates, will protect her from retribution by evil people in the administration, like V.P. Dick Cheney and President Bush.
I wear the uniform with pride. I am proud to be a member of the U.S. Navy, but I don't think these proceedings make for a proud day for any member of the service.
Obama Encourages Israel to Attack Iran
A day after Obama gave a "pandering" speech to AIPAC, according to the Washington Post, Israel announced that an attack on Iran appeared unavoidable, according to Reuters. One of the most important things Obama said was that Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel and be undivided. This is a declaration that, if serious, probably makes moot (and impossible) future negotiations on peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem is a war spoil not granted to Israel by the UN, and if the Arabs have no part in Jerusalem, it's unlikely they'll negotiate about how to divide up the West Bank and Gaza.
Col. Patrick Lang points out regarding Hillary's pandering speech that some of her hawkish campaign advisers, who probably lost her the primary by advising her to vote for pro-Israeli positions versus Iraq and Iraq, were probably sitting in the audience at AIPAC. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart made fun of all of the candidates, particularly excoriating McCain for bragging that he took Sen. Joe Lieberman to Israel. Stewart said that you don't need to take your own Jew to Israel; there are already plenty there. Helena Cobban points out that the LA Times missed one of Obama's most significant statements by confusing what he said about Jerusalem.
My only hope is that Obama was not entirely sincere when he spoke to AIPAC. He had appear strong, because as he said at the beginning of his speech, the Jewish community suspects him of being a (closet?) Muslim and weak on Israel. If he gets to be President, he can always say that the situation has changed since he spoke to AIPAC, but will he?
Col. Patrick Lang points out regarding Hillary's pandering speech that some of her hawkish campaign advisers, who probably lost her the primary by advising her to vote for pro-Israeli positions versus Iraq and Iraq, were probably sitting in the audience at AIPAC. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart made fun of all of the candidates, particularly excoriating McCain for bragging that he took Sen. Joe Lieberman to Israel. Stewart said that you don't need to take your own Jew to Israel; there are already plenty there. Helena Cobban points out that the LA Times missed one of Obama's most significant statements by confusing what he said about Jerusalem.
My only hope is that Obama was not entirely sincere when he spoke to AIPAC. He had appear strong, because as he said at the beginning of his speech, the Jewish community suspects him of being a (closet?) Muslim and weak on Israel. If he gets to be President, he can always say that the situation has changed since he spoke to AIPAC, but will he?
Senate Seconds Scott McClellan
The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report basically reiterating what Scott McClellan says in his new book, What Happened, according to the Washington Post. The report says that Bush inflated the threat posed to the US by Iraq's supposed WMD. Did he give them the courage finally to issue their report? Is anybody surprised? Why isn't somebody -- Bush or Cheney, for example -- in trouble?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Obama Driven from Church
Barack Obama's having to leave his church is a bad sign for religious freedom in the US. People should be free to attend the church of their choice. Obama is a special case because he is running for president, but not that special. Admittedly, the US is not like the old Soviet Union where people were persecuted for going to church, or like a country that has an established religion connected to the government, like the situation that drove the Pilgrims and the Puritans to the US centuries ago, or like the Nazi persecution of the Jews, although that was more racial than religious.
What Obama's experience shows is that you have to be a member of a pretty bland, mainstream, widely accepted church if you don't want to be persecuted for your religion. While Obama's pastor may have been controversial, the United Church of Christ is not. And most recently, Obama was criticized because of what a visiting Roman Catholic priest said in his church. America says, "Don't you dare try to listen to other points of views. Don't you dare try to understand other religions. We'll crucify you."
It's hard to tell how much this religious hatred emanated from the Clinton campaign, how much from Republicans and their proxies like Fox News, how much from the evangelical right, and how much from news media that just wanted a story. But the end result was that Obama was not free to attend the church of his choice, and that's sad for America.
What Obama's experience shows is that you have to be a member of a pretty bland, mainstream, widely accepted church if you don't want to be persecuted for your religion. While Obama's pastor may have been controversial, the United Church of Christ is not. And most recently, Obama was criticized because of what a visiting Roman Catholic priest said in his church. America says, "Don't you dare try to listen to other points of views. Don't you dare try to understand other religions. We'll crucify you."
It's hard to tell how much this religious hatred emanated from the Clinton campaign, how much from Republicans and their proxies like Fox News, how much from the evangelical right, and how much from news media that just wanted a story. But the end result was that Obama was not free to attend the church of his choice, and that's sad for America.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, May 09, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)