All the talk about the administration's investigation of intelligence leaks reminds me of one of my experiences about 20 years ago while I was in the Foreign Service. I was the chairman of a committee looking at violations of certain US export control laws. Occasionally we would get intelligence that somebody was trying to violate the laws, and we would debate whether we could take action on the intelligence, and if so, what kind of action. The intelligence agencies were often resistant to taking action on intelligence, because they worried that it might reveal "sources and methods." Occasionally I opposed taking action because I did not think the intelligence was good or reliable enough. In that case, I would usually ask the intelligence agency involved to try and get better or confirming information. Several times when I did not want to act on questionable intelligence, I got calls at home at 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock at night from Michael Gordon (I think) who had been told the intelligence information and wanted me to confirm it. I would not confirm it; I fell back on the old saw, "neither confirm nor deny." I don't even remember if the articles ran. However, I was amazed that the leaks must have come from the conservative side of the people working on the issue, probably from the CIA or the Pentagon. And the leaks were of very highly classified information. Somehow, I expected that if anyone were going to violate the law in order to "do good," it would be some crazy liberal, not some conservative, who claimed to be super patriotic. I never knew who did it, but I was appalled at the cavalier treatment of classified information.
I didn't have any personal connection to the Iraq war, but I was similarly surprised that Judith Miller wrote a number of New York Times articles on the war, particularly regarding weapons of mass destruction, that were false and planted by conservatives linked to Dick Cheney and company. It's as if conservatives have no regard for the law or the truth. I'm sure many do, but the moral standards on the right have in the past seemed to lower than on the left. I will be interesting if we ever find out where the new set of leaks came from.
Despite my experience, I am not in favor of the way the Obama administration is going about its investigation of the recent leaks regarding Yemen and North Korea. I don't think Obama should be pursuing journalists; he should limit his investigation to government employees. If the FBI is too inept to figure out who is doing the leaking without looking a journalists' phone records, then they should give up. The journalists are not violating the law (in most cases); the leakers are. Let the journalists do their job, and just go after the government employees.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
IRS Scandal Overblown
On its face, the IRS scandal involving the questioning of 501(c)(4) applications by conservative Tea Party groups looks bad, and it is, but it's not terrible. David Brooks makes a good point in his NYT column on the issue, generally critical, but pointing out that most Tea Party groups hate the IRS, which is reviewing their applications, and would eliminate it or drastically limit it. Brooks says, "It’s hard to tell now if the I.R.S. scandal is political thuggery or obliviousness. It would be one thing if the scandal is just a group of tax people targeting the most anti-tax groups in the country. That’s just normal, run-of-the-mill partisan antipathy."
In addition, the 501(c)(4) provision is bad policy, as Steve Rattner wrote in the NYT, and as Stephen Colbert illustrated when he created his bogus, but legal, Super PAC during the last election cycle. Rattner points out the one of the biggest advantages of 501(c)(4) status is that the group does not have reveal the names of its donors. Carl Rove has worked out a scheme where he collects money through his 501(c)(4) so that he does not have to reveal donors' names, and then transfers the money to his Super PAC. In theory the 501(c)(4) group should not be overtly political, but the Super PAC can be. So, the IRS was given the job of overseeing one of the most controversial election financing provisions, something that should be overseen by the Federal Elections Commission, but the FEC is toothless and worthless, the IRS is probably a better organization to it, if you are interested in protecting the American people from election fraud. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has only strengthened the legal channels for political corruption in America.
So, the IRS made a little stand against political corruption, and it has been viciously attacked for doing so. It is at fault, particularly if it routinely granted 501(c)(4) status to liberal groups while giving conservative groups a hard time. However, the real problem is the corrupt politicians who passed section 501(c)(4) in the first place so that their campaigns could rake in millions of dollars in untraceable contributions.
In addition, the 501(c)(4) provision is bad policy, as Steve Rattner wrote in the NYT, and as Stephen Colbert illustrated when he created his bogus, but legal, Super PAC during the last election cycle. Rattner points out the one of the biggest advantages of 501(c)(4) status is that the group does not have reveal the names of its donors. Carl Rove has worked out a scheme where he collects money through his 501(c)(4) so that he does not have to reveal donors' names, and then transfers the money to his Super PAC. In theory the 501(c)(4) group should not be overtly political, but the Super PAC can be. So, the IRS was given the job of overseeing one of the most controversial election financing provisions, something that should be overseen by the Federal Elections Commission, but the FEC is toothless and worthless, the IRS is probably a better organization to it, if you are interested in protecting the American people from election fraud. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has only strengthened the legal channels for political corruption in America.
So, the IRS made a little stand against political corruption, and it has been viciously attacked for doing so. It is at fault, particularly if it routinely granted 501(c)(4) status to liberal groups while giving conservative groups a hard time. However, the real problem is the corrupt politicians who passed section 501(c)(4) in the first place so that their campaigns could rake in millions of dollars in untraceable contributions.
Try Diplomacy with Syria
Here's an op-ed in the NYT by a real FSO in Colorado, Amb. Christopher Hill, arguing the case for diplomacy to solve the Syrian civil war. I think it is worth a try. We should be having meetings with the Russians, the Syrians, and anybody else signficantly affected by the war, like the Jordanians and Turks; however, I am not optimistic that anything will stop the bloodshed, including American boots on the ground, much less creating a no-fly zone, or other half-way measures. It is becoming increasingly clear that the US intervention in Libya, which appeared to be relatively cost-free and successful, was not so successful. The attack on the American mission in Benghazi, the attack on the Amenas oil facility in Algeria, and the al Qaida unrest in Mail all showed the remaining power of the Libyan rebels who do not like us. So, the American intervention in the relatively manageable Libyan civil war, was less than completely successful. Whether it turns out to be 25%, 50% or 75% successful, only history will tell, like the war in Iraq. Hopefully Libya will turn out better than Iraq. Unfortunately one of the best American strengths in Libya, the well-liked Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was killed by the anti-American group Ansar al Sharia, weakening America's future role there.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Too Much Benghazi
I have had enough of the Republicans' screaming about Benghazi. They are overjoyed that Amb. Stevens was killed, and they are dancing on his grave, making political capital with his death. They, of course, argue that it is the administration and the Democrats who are dishonoring his death by not saying that he was killed by terrorists. If you compare Benghazi to the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration actually lied to cover up the fact that he was killed by friendly fire, there is no doubt that the Obama administration was more honest and more concerned about the death of those serving this country.
Only recently has it become clear that Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate; it was some kind of other diplomatic mission, which seems to have been devoted to the CIA. There were relatively few State Department personnel there; the Ambassador and an IT specialist just happened to be visiting when the attack occurred. It's not clear what the CIA was doing; they could have been advising local leaders on political and security issues, or they might have been planning drone attacks on the very people who attacked the mission. If that's the case, they were just too slow.
I also think it's unbalanced to have a man of outstanding moral character arguing with a low-life like Issa. Wikipedia says Issa was accused of several car thefts, although he apparently was never convicted, and collected on a large fire insurance policy on his company under suspicious circumstances. He apparently served honorably in the military, although apparently without leaving the US or serving in combat. Meanwhile, Ambassador Pickering is an honorable man who has served in many senior jobs in the State Department, as ambassador to several countries and as assistant secretary and under secretary in Washington. While I was an intelligence analyst in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I worked with Pickering when he was Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment, and Science, and had such a high opinion of him that he is one of the reasons I stayed in the Foreign Service.
Ambassador Pickering's report led to the firing of several State Department employees from their jobs dealing with security. The Republicans are less interested in security; they are only interested in the talking points prepared for Ambassador Rice the Sunday after the Benghazi attacks, claiming that the talking points were modified for political reasons because of Obama's election campaign.
There seems to be some consensus that the attack was carried out by a group called Ansar al Sharia, although different from the group with the same name in Yemen. This group made a positive name for itself during the rebellion against Qaddafi, but it aroused hostility by its attack on the Benghazi mission, especially since Amb. Stevens was well known and loved by the Libyan people. It does not appear that it has done anything of significance since 9/11/2012. It seems to me that in a rational world the Republicans would be mad at Ansal al Sharia for killing the Americans, rather than at President Obama for allowing some watered-down talking points to be used while the US Government was still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Only recently has it become clear that Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate; it was some kind of other diplomatic mission, which seems to have been devoted to the CIA. There were relatively few State Department personnel there; the Ambassador and an IT specialist just happened to be visiting when the attack occurred. It's not clear what the CIA was doing; they could have been advising local leaders on political and security issues, or they might have been planning drone attacks on the very people who attacked the mission. If that's the case, they were just too slow.
I also think it's unbalanced to have a man of outstanding moral character arguing with a low-life like Issa. Wikipedia says Issa was accused of several car thefts, although he apparently was never convicted, and collected on a large fire insurance policy on his company under suspicious circumstances. He apparently served honorably in the military, although apparently without leaving the US or serving in combat. Meanwhile, Ambassador Pickering is an honorable man who has served in many senior jobs in the State Department, as ambassador to several countries and as assistant secretary and under secretary in Washington. While I was an intelligence analyst in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I worked with Pickering when he was Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment, and Science, and had such a high opinion of him that he is one of the reasons I stayed in the Foreign Service.
Ambassador Pickering's report led to the firing of several State Department employees from their jobs dealing with security. The Republicans are less interested in security; they are only interested in the talking points prepared for Ambassador Rice the Sunday after the Benghazi attacks, claiming that the talking points were modified for political reasons because of Obama's election campaign.
There seems to be some consensus that the attack was carried out by a group called Ansar al Sharia, although different from the group with the same name in Yemen. This group made a positive name for itself during the rebellion against Qaddafi, but it aroused hostility by its attack on the Benghazi mission, especially since Amb. Stevens was well known and loved by the Libyan people. It does not appear that it has done anything of significance since 9/11/2012. It seems to me that in a rational world the Republicans would be mad at Ansal al Sharia for killing the Americans, rather than at President Obama for allowing some watered-down talking points to be used while the US Government was still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Income Inequality Changes Housing Market
Income inequality is putting more and more houses into the hands of the wealthy 1 or 2 percent, raising prices and making it more difficult for regular people to buy a house. Stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times document this phenomenon. The big investors buying the homes are counting on regular people not being able to buy and having to rent the homes the investors are buying. The New York Times says that the investors are taking a risk, because renting a large number of single family houses is a new undertaking that is difficult to manage. The investors say that computer technology will allow them to keep up with the numerous records, repairs, etc., that have to be kept for each house.
The Washington Post says that in the formerly depressed Florida market, big investors are buying as much as 70% of the houses sold, perhaps inflating the figures indicating a revival of the housing market. These are houses that had been owned by individuals until they were foreclosed. Now they will be rental units being rented by the rich to regular people, who used to own their homes. The Washington Post says the percentage of Americans owning their home has fallen from 69.2% to 65.4% since 2004.
The attraction for big investors is that very few assets these days pay any significant return. Bond and stock yields are low and the risk is relatively high for the low return of 1 or 2%. Buying cheap, foreclosed properties that can yield an 8% return quickly is inviting.
Both articles point out the risks for investors if there is another housing downturn, but the problem with income inequality is that for the rich, an investment that turns sour is not the end of the world, while for a regular person, losing his only home to foreclosure is something like the end of the world.
The Washington Post says that in the formerly depressed Florida market, big investors are buying as much as 70% of the houses sold, perhaps inflating the figures indicating a revival of the housing market. These are houses that had been owned by individuals until they were foreclosed. Now they will be rental units being rented by the rich to regular people, who used to own their homes. The Washington Post says the percentage of Americans owning their home has fallen from 69.2% to 65.4% since 2004.
The attraction for big investors is that very few assets these days pay any significant return. Bond and stock yields are low and the risk is relatively high for the low return of 1 or 2%. Buying cheap, foreclosed properties that can yield an 8% return quickly is inviting.
Both articles point out the risks for investors if there is another housing downturn, but the problem with income inequality is that for the rich, an investment that turns sour is not the end of the world, while for a regular person, losing his only home to foreclosure is something like the end of the world.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Foreign Service Losing Ground at State Department
The op-ed in the Washington Post about the State Department's Foreign Service losing ground even within the Department struck a nerve with me. One of the authors was Susan Johnson, whose parents I knew in Washington; her father was a Foreign Service officer. Another was Amb. Tom Pickering, whom I worked with as a junior officer and whom I looked up to during my whole career in the Foreign Service.
The issue is an old one, the fact that political appointees are taking over more and more jobs at the State Department. It also highlights the Foreign Service's loss of prominence to the State Department's Civil Service employees.
When I was the Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, the State Department asked me if I would be willing to transfer to the American Embassy in Rome, because the Science Counselor in Rome was leaving, and Italy was taking over the Presidency of the European Union, which meant a big increase in the workload for Rome, since it would have to deal with the usual bilateral issues, plus EU-wide issues that came up to Italy as the EU President. I agreed to go, since I thought the State Department needed me there.
When I arrived, however, I found that Embassy Rome had been fighting with the State Department personnel system for some time over this position. The incumbent Science Counselor, who was being forced to leave was a political appointee, one of the problems pointed out in the op-ed. He had come in with Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew, who was then the American Ambassador in Rome. The political appointee had been in the State Department for eight years, which was the limit for "Schedule C" political appointments. Bartholomew had tried to get the Science Officer accepted into the career Foreign Service, but for whatever reason, the Foreign Service personnel system had refused; so, he was had to leave. Apparently Amb. Bartholomew was angry and the system, and was determined to get his own man, apparently someone other than a Foreign Service officer, if only the spite the system. The odd thing to me was that I knew the Civil Service officer they wanted. In a previous job, he had worked just across the hall from me. His office was partly responsible for assigned science officers overseas, and had had a role in my assignment to Warsaw, but apparently not to Rome. When I had worked with him, I thought he had been a nice enough guy, but under the circumstances I felt that I had been stabbed in the back. My immediate boss, the Economic Minister in Rome, obviously wanted to replace me to please the Ambassador. Since I was eligible to retire, I decided to retire rather than try to work for two people who did not want me there.
I was ready to retire anyway. In Warsaw, the budget for the American-Polish science cooperation that my office supervised had been cut to zero by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, although we had formally agreed to fund it for several more years. Then, the day I was to transfer from Warsaw to Rome, Gingrich shut down the entire US Government. My wife and I had moved out of our house in Warsaw, shipped all of our household effects to Rome, and just had a few suitcases in the car, ready to start to drive to Rome that night. At about 5:00 pm, Rome called and said, "Don't come." We had nowhere to live. I finally got Rome to agree that we could leave and go to Rome, but the idea that the US Government would put my wife and me on the street in the winter in Warsaw was abhorrent to me. It was like sending soldiers into battle and then abandoning them. It soured forever my opinion of the US Government.
When I got to Rome, one of my jobs was working with the Italians on North Korea. The US had agreed to supply North Korea with certain things if the North Koreans would give up their nuclear bomb building program. However, as part of the budget cutting, the Republicans were refusing to appropriate the money necessary to meet America's obligations under the agreement. Thus, one of my jobs was to go hat in hand to the Italians and ask them as Italians and as the European Union if they could put some money into the pot to pay for what we had to send to North Korea to meet our obligations. After what had happened in Warsaw and during my transfer to Rome, I was very unhappy to be representing a government that refused to pay its bills.
So, between the Embassy's lobbying to replace me with a Civil Service officer, and the US Government asking me to plead for money from the EU that the US was obligated to pay, I decided that I had had enough and I retired. It's sad that I left the Foreign Service feeling so bitter. I suppose I could have stayed and fought the system. I had tenure and good efficiency reports up to that assignment; I could have stayed for at least a few years, but I didn't really want to work for an Ambassador and immediate boss who wanted me gone. It was unpleasant while I was there, and if I had fought the system, it would have become still more unpleasant. I was replaced by the Civil Service officer, but I never heard how his assignment worked out. I hope for America's sake that it went well.
It's interesting that the op-ed highlights today's problems particularly in "policy bureaus that deal with issues such as ... environment and disarmament." Both of these fell in my area of responsibility in Warsaw and Rome, as well as in many of the assignments I had during my career. Had I worked more on bilateral political and economic issues, perhaps my career would have gone better.
When I worked with Amb. Pickering, he was Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES). I gather that it would be unusual for a career Foreign Service officer like Amb. Pickering to have this job today.
The issue is an old one, the fact that political appointees are taking over more and more jobs at the State Department. It also highlights the Foreign Service's loss of prominence to the State Department's Civil Service employees.
When I was the Science Counselor at the American Embassy in Warsaw, Poland, the State Department asked me if I would be willing to transfer to the American Embassy in Rome, because the Science Counselor in Rome was leaving, and Italy was taking over the Presidency of the European Union, which meant a big increase in the workload for Rome, since it would have to deal with the usual bilateral issues, plus EU-wide issues that came up to Italy as the EU President. I agreed to go, since I thought the State Department needed me there.
When I arrived, however, I found that Embassy Rome had been fighting with the State Department personnel system for some time over this position. The incumbent Science Counselor, who was being forced to leave was a political appointee, one of the problems pointed out in the op-ed. He had come in with Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew, who was then the American Ambassador in Rome. The political appointee had been in the State Department for eight years, which was the limit for "Schedule C" political appointments. Bartholomew had tried to get the Science Officer accepted into the career Foreign Service, but for whatever reason, the Foreign Service personnel system had refused; so, he was had to leave. Apparently Amb. Bartholomew was angry and the system, and was determined to get his own man, apparently someone other than a Foreign Service officer, if only the spite the system. The odd thing to me was that I knew the Civil Service officer they wanted. In a previous job, he had worked just across the hall from me. His office was partly responsible for assigned science officers overseas, and had had a role in my assignment to Warsaw, but apparently not to Rome. When I had worked with him, I thought he had been a nice enough guy, but under the circumstances I felt that I had been stabbed in the back. My immediate boss, the Economic Minister in Rome, obviously wanted to replace me to please the Ambassador. Since I was eligible to retire, I decided to retire rather than try to work for two people who did not want me there.
I was ready to retire anyway. In Warsaw, the budget for the American-Polish science cooperation that my office supervised had been cut to zero by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans, although we had formally agreed to fund it for several more years. Then, the day I was to transfer from Warsaw to Rome, Gingrich shut down the entire US Government. My wife and I had moved out of our house in Warsaw, shipped all of our household effects to Rome, and just had a few suitcases in the car, ready to start to drive to Rome that night. At about 5:00 pm, Rome called and said, "Don't come." We had nowhere to live. I finally got Rome to agree that we could leave and go to Rome, but the idea that the US Government would put my wife and me on the street in the winter in Warsaw was abhorrent to me. It was like sending soldiers into battle and then abandoning them. It soured forever my opinion of the US Government.
When I got to Rome, one of my jobs was working with the Italians on North Korea. The US had agreed to supply North Korea with certain things if the North Koreans would give up their nuclear bomb building program. However, as part of the budget cutting, the Republicans were refusing to appropriate the money necessary to meet America's obligations under the agreement. Thus, one of my jobs was to go hat in hand to the Italians and ask them as Italians and as the European Union if they could put some money into the pot to pay for what we had to send to North Korea to meet our obligations. After what had happened in Warsaw and during my transfer to Rome, I was very unhappy to be representing a government that refused to pay its bills.
So, between the Embassy's lobbying to replace me with a Civil Service officer, and the US Government asking me to plead for money from the EU that the US was obligated to pay, I decided that I had had enough and I retired. It's sad that I left the Foreign Service feeling so bitter. I suppose I could have stayed and fought the system. I had tenure and good efficiency reports up to that assignment; I could have stayed for at least a few years, but I didn't really want to work for an Ambassador and immediate boss who wanted me gone. It was unpleasant while I was there, and if I had fought the system, it would have become still more unpleasant. I was replaced by the Civil Service officer, but I never heard how his assignment worked out. I hope for America's sake that it went well.
It's interesting that the op-ed highlights today's problems particularly in "policy bureaus that deal with issues such as ... environment and disarmament." Both of these fell in my area of responsibility in Warsaw and Rome, as well as in many of the assignments I had during my career. Had I worked more on bilateral political and economic issues, perhaps my career would have gone better.
When I worked with Amb. Pickering, he was Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES). I gather that it would be unusual for a career Foreign Service officer like Amb. Pickering to have this job today.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Fear of North Korea Overblown
Yesterday Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn disclosed a previously classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) evaluation that North Korea could put a nuclear warhead on a missile, according to the New York Times. When I worked at the State Department, including in its Bureau of Intelligence and Research, people uniformly thought that DIA's intelligence analysis was poor, except in areas such as particular tactical weapons evaluations. In strategic areas, such as nuclear weapons development, DIA always tended to overplay the threat, presumable because it meant budget money. The Pentagon needed dire threats to justify spending the huge amounts of money it wanted for its various weapons programs. Thus, it needed to build up the threatening image of the enemy, whoever it was, the old Soviets, or the new terrorists, or North Korea.
I think there probably was some collusion between Congressman Lamborn and the Pentagon. It may not just be accidental that the sentence or paragraph that Lamborn quoted was unclassified, while the rest of the report was. Somebody at DIA probably wanted to get that analysis out, and worked out a way to do it through Lamborn. But the rest of the US Government has pretty much disavowed the statement as just the unfounded opinion some crazy DIA analysts.
I don't think that even next door neighbor South Korea needs to worry about being hit by a nuclear tipped North Korean missile, although it might need to worry about a nuclear weapons delivered by some more conventional means, such as aircraft, truck or ship. In addition, North Korea probably has few nuclear weapons. Despite their flouting restrictions on their nuclear program, over the years the international pressure has slowed down their program, meaning that they have relatively little nuclear material, either plutonium or enriched uranium. Just recently they have threatened to restart the plutonium production reactor which has been shut down for years.
I think there probably was some collusion between Congressman Lamborn and the Pentagon. It may not just be accidental that the sentence or paragraph that Lamborn quoted was unclassified, while the rest of the report was. Somebody at DIA probably wanted to get that analysis out, and worked out a way to do it through Lamborn. But the rest of the US Government has pretty much disavowed the statement as just the unfounded opinion some crazy DIA analysts.
I don't think that even next door neighbor South Korea needs to worry about being hit by a nuclear tipped North Korean missile, although it might need to worry about a nuclear weapons delivered by some more conventional means, such as aircraft, truck or ship. In addition, North Korea probably has few nuclear weapons. Despite their flouting restrictions on their nuclear program, over the years the international pressure has slowed down their program, meaning that they have relatively little nuclear material, either plutonium or enriched uranium. Just recently they have threatened to restart the plutonium production reactor which has been shut down for years.
Fear of North Korea Overblown
Yesterday Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn disclosed a previously classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) evaluation that North Korea could put a nuclear warhead on a missile, according to the New York Times. When I worked at the State Department, including in its Bureau of Intelligence and Research, people uniformly thought that DIA's intelligence analysis was poor, except in areas such as particular tactical weapons evaluations. In strategic areas, such as nuclear weapons development, DIA always tended to overplay the threat, presumable because it meant budget money. The Pentagon needed dire threats to justify spending the huge amounts of money it wanted for its various weapons programs. Thus, it needed to build up the threatening image of the enemy, whoever it was, the old Soviets, or the new terrorists, or North Korea.
I think there probably was some collusion between Congressman Lamborn and the Pentagon. It may not just be accidental that the sentence or paragraph that Lamborn quoted was unclassified, while the rest of the report was. Somebody at DIA probably wanted to get that analysis out, and worked out a way to do it through Lamborn. But the rest of the US Government has pretty much disavowed the statement as just the unfounded opinion some crazy DIA analysts.
I don't think that even next door neighbor South Korea needs to worry about being hit by a nuclear tipped North Korean missile, although it might need to worry about a nuclear weapons delivered by some more conventional means, such as aircraft, truck or ship. In addition, North Korea probably has few nuclear weapons. Despite their flouting restrictions on their nuclear program, over the years the international pressure has slowed down their program, meaning that they have relatively little nuclear material, either plutonium or enriched uranium. Just recently they have threatened to restart the plutonium production reactor which has been shut down for years.
I think there probably was some collusion between Congressman Lamborn and the Pentagon. It may not just be accidental that the sentence or paragraph that Lamborn quoted was unclassified, while the rest of the report was. Somebody at DIA probably wanted to get that analysis out, and worked out a way to do it through Lamborn. But the rest of the US Government has pretty much disavowed the statement as just the unfounded opinion some crazy DIA analysts.
I don't think that even next door neighbor South Korea needs to worry about being hit by a nuclear tipped North Korean missile, although it might need to worry about a nuclear weapons delivered by some more conventional means, such as aircraft, truck or ship. In addition, North Korea probably has few nuclear weapons. Despite their flouting restrictions on their nuclear program, over the years the international pressure has slowed down their program, meaning that they have relatively little nuclear material, either plutonium or enriched uranium. Just recently they have threatened to restart the plutonium production reactor which has been shut down for years.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Jury Duty
I had to report for jury duty on Monday for the first time in my life. When I lived in Virginia, lawyers were automatically exempted, at least for part of the time that I lived there, plus I was overseas for much of my career and thus unavailable for jury duty.
I was one of the jurors initially selected for a misdemeanor trial. The judge and the lawyers asked the potential jurors a number of questions, and my reply to one surprised me. They asked how much faith we had in the American legal system on a scale from 1 to 10. I decided on 6, which made me lower than most. I chose such a relatively low number because I am unhappy with the American legal system.
I think that we are approaching a double standard for justice before the law, one for the rich and famous and one for everybody else. In particular, I'm unhappy that more people have not been brought to trial (and convicted) for the financial shenanigans that produced the banking crisis that created the "Great Recession." In addition, insider trading seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, for the rich. There have been a few trials, but I think it is only the tip of the iceberg. More and more rich people don't even trade on the public market; they trade in dark pools, where who knows what they do. They also come up with complex transactions, often through foreign markets, since much of their money is probably already in overseas tax havens. Hollywood actors may go to trial, but they seldom get convicted, and if they do, they seldom serve any actual jail time.
In theory the jury system, providing a jury of regular people, should counter this favoritism for the rich and famous, but good, expensive lawyers manage to sway jurors, who may already be overawed by the fame of the people they are judging.
I was one of the jurors initially selected for a misdemeanor trial. The judge and the lawyers asked the potential jurors a number of questions, and my reply to one surprised me. They asked how much faith we had in the American legal system on a scale from 1 to 10. I decided on 6, which made me lower than most. I chose such a relatively low number because I am unhappy with the American legal system.
I think that we are approaching a double standard for justice before the law, one for the rich and famous and one for everybody else. In particular, I'm unhappy that more people have not been brought to trial (and convicted) for the financial shenanigans that produced the banking crisis that created the "Great Recession." In addition, insider trading seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, for the rich. There have been a few trials, but I think it is only the tip of the iceberg. More and more rich people don't even trade on the public market; they trade in dark pools, where who knows what they do. They also come up with complex transactions, often through foreign markets, since much of their money is probably already in overseas tax havens. Hollywood actors may go to trial, but they seldom get convicted, and if they do, they seldom serve any actual jail time.
In theory the jury system, providing a jury of regular people, should counter this favoritism for the rich and famous, but good, expensive lawyers manage to sway jurors, who may already be overawed by the fame of the people they are judging.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Cheney's Military Service
I watched the Showtime movie "The World According to Dick Cheney," but was disappointed at its failure to challenge Cheney's views. My first objection was that it did not say anything about Cheney's failure to serve in Vietnam. It talks about how he was expelled from Yale and worked back in Wyoming as an electric lineman before resuming his education in Wyoming and then Wisconsin. This was in the 1960s, prime time for the Vietnam draft. His Wikipedia page and this Slate article describe how he weaseled out of the draft. Normally a student deferment was for only four years; Cheney got more. For his fifth deferment, he reportedly got a hardship deferment because his wife was pregnant. Wikipedia says he told that Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
I don't think that everybody who avoided the draft was a coward, but it certainly raised questions about their patriotism. I think that Cheney thought he was more important than America. Maybe he thought he was destined to save America from itself. If so, it didn't work out. The wars have probably weakened the US militarily and damaged our image abroad. The huge costs incurred without increasing taxes to pay for the wars damaged the US economy for years to come.
One new, unfavorable fact about Cheney that I learned from the movie was that toward the end of the Bush administration, he became seriously estranged from President Bush. Bush thought that Cheney had led him astray on foreign policy and defense issues, and in particular had sandbagged him on the issue of illegal wiretapping by the government.
I think it is safe to say that Cheney has no regrets because he has no heart and no conscience. While he avoided the draft as a young man, he let young men from Wyoming serve in the wasteful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although it looks like only 14 from Wyoming died in Iraq.
Dick Cheney: unpatriotic coward who undermined American greatness.
I don't think that everybody who avoided the draft was a coward, but it certainly raised questions about their patriotism. I think that Cheney thought he was more important than America. Maybe he thought he was destined to save America from itself. If so, it didn't work out. The wars have probably weakened the US militarily and damaged our image abroad. The huge costs incurred without increasing taxes to pay for the wars damaged the US economy for years to come.
One new, unfavorable fact about Cheney that I learned from the movie was that toward the end of the Bush administration, he became seriously estranged from President Bush. Bush thought that Cheney had led him astray on foreign policy and defense issues, and in particular had sandbagged him on the issue of illegal wiretapping by the government.
I think it is safe to say that Cheney has no regrets because he has no heart and no conscience. While he avoided the draft as a young man, he let young men from Wyoming serve in the wasteful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although it looks like only 14 from Wyoming died in Iraq.
Dick Cheney: unpatriotic coward who undermined American greatness.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Government Funding Deja Vu
The sequester episode brings to mind very bad memories of my government service. I basically quit the Foreign Service because of the government's refusal to fund things I thought it should have funded in the turmoil around the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996.
In the early years of the Clinton administration, before Newt Gingrich and the Republicans came to power in 1994, two years into the Clinton administration, the US had signed a agreement to provide funding for joint science projects between the US and Poland and other former eastern bloc countries for five years. When I arrived in Warsaw, the US had already provided $2 million funding for one year, and it provided the same amount for the second year, which was the first year of my assignment in Poland. But Congress refused to provide funding for what would have been the third year of the program.
A fairly senior Polish diplomat repeated called me into the Foreign Ministry to berate me on behalf of the United States for failing to live up to its obligations. I told him that if wanted results, he should call in the Ambassador rather than me, but at that time Poland was not yet a member of NATO, much less of the EU, and it did not want to do anything that would damage its efforts to join those organizations. So, he continued to tell me how upset Poland was at the US default. Having been raised in the South with a heavy dose of lecturing on the importance of honesty, honor, integrity, etc., the fact that I was the representative of a country that failed to live up to those standards hurt me deeply.
About six months or so after the US decision to abrogate the cooperation agreement, the Ambassador decided that the embassy had no need of a science officer, because there was little scientific activity outside of the cooperation agreement. He said that I could finish my tour, but I would not be replaced when I left. A little while after that, the State Department in Washington asked if I would be willing to transfer from Warsaw to Rome to take the science job at the embassy there. I agreed and was scheduled to leave in a few weeks.
It turned out that the day of my departure from Warsaw to Rome was the day the United States Government shut down, November 14, 1995, according to Wikipedia. My wife and I had moved everything out of our government housing in Warsaw. Most of our things had been shipped to Rome, but we had a car full of clothes and two dogs that we planned to drive to Rome. At about 4:00 pm, while I was saying farewell to some friends in the embassy, Rome called and said not to come because I had been furloughed and there was no funding for travel. However, we had nowhere to live in Warsaw and everything we owned was either in transit or in the trunk of the car.
Unfortunately, this reminded me of an experience in the Army during the Vietnam War. My artillery battery was stationed on a mountaintop at a base called Firebase Barbara, west of Quang Tri, near the Laotian border, where we were shelling the Ho Chi Minh trail. Vietnamization had started; so, we had no American infantry to defend us. Instead we had two "dusters," old anti-aircraft weapons systems that shot 40 mm rounds like a machine gun. The duster crews were always stationed in isolated, dangerous places and had a reputation of having gone native and not being very professional. One night we got an intelligence report that enemy troops were massing at the base of our mountain, apparently planning to attack us. I got a radio call from our headquarters telling us not to give the dusters any gasoline, because they were famous for not having any, and it was too hard to get it out to us. However, it looked like if the dusters could not shoot, we were all going to die. We made sure the dusters had gas; they blew away the area at the base of the mountain where the enemy was supposed to be assembling, and the attack never materialized.
But that's how it struck me -- that the US Government would rather that my wife and I freeze to death in Poland than provide us shelter. A government that sends troops into the field and then fails to provide them with ammunition and other necessities is a pretty worthless government, and that's what I thought of our government. We weren't going to die, but for all the government cared, we could have. Unfortunately, a similar attitude led to the deaths of the American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, a few months ago.
I tended to be just a soldier in the Foreign Service. I was not an outstanding diplomat. The assignment in Rome was a plum, but it had fallen into my lap. Most people who go to nice places lobby hard for the assignment. I didn't know much of anything about the personnel in Rome. I was so mad that this time, rather than be the good soldier and camp out in some hotel in Warsaw, I called Rome to complain about being left on the street. It turned out that the DCM, the deputy ambassador, was someone I knew from a previous assignment in Brazil. He said to go ahead and travel to Rome and they would figure out the paperwork somehow. I did, but that basically ended my desire to serve the US government. I would not serve a government that abandons its troops in the field.
A diplomat is many things: a journalist reporting on the country where you are assigned, a mailman carrying messages from our government to theirs, but also a salesman, both for American products and for the American way of life. When the government I was representing fell to some mean-spirited, dictatorial, third-world standard, I didn't want to represent it anymore.
I went to Rome. One reason they wanted me there was that Italy was assuming the presidency of the European Union, which meant that most of the diplomats in the embassy did double duty, they had to deal with the Italian government on the usual bilateral issues, but also on European Union issues. The presidency lasts for six months. I stayed for six months to take care of the extra work, but then retired from the Foreign Service and left.
In the early years of the Clinton administration, before Newt Gingrich and the Republicans came to power in 1994, two years into the Clinton administration, the US had signed a agreement to provide funding for joint science projects between the US and Poland and other former eastern bloc countries for five years. When I arrived in Warsaw, the US had already provided $2 million funding for one year, and it provided the same amount for the second year, which was the first year of my assignment in Poland. But Congress refused to provide funding for what would have been the third year of the program.
A fairly senior Polish diplomat repeated called me into the Foreign Ministry to berate me on behalf of the United States for failing to live up to its obligations. I told him that if wanted results, he should call in the Ambassador rather than me, but at that time Poland was not yet a member of NATO, much less of the EU, and it did not want to do anything that would damage its efforts to join those organizations. So, he continued to tell me how upset Poland was at the US default. Having been raised in the South with a heavy dose of lecturing on the importance of honesty, honor, integrity, etc., the fact that I was the representative of a country that failed to live up to those standards hurt me deeply.
About six months or so after the US decision to abrogate the cooperation agreement, the Ambassador decided that the embassy had no need of a science officer, because there was little scientific activity outside of the cooperation agreement. He said that I could finish my tour, but I would not be replaced when I left. A little while after that, the State Department in Washington asked if I would be willing to transfer from Warsaw to Rome to take the science job at the embassy there. I agreed and was scheduled to leave in a few weeks.
It turned out that the day of my departure from Warsaw to Rome was the day the United States Government shut down, November 14, 1995, according to Wikipedia. My wife and I had moved everything out of our government housing in Warsaw. Most of our things had been shipped to Rome, but we had a car full of clothes and two dogs that we planned to drive to Rome. At about 4:00 pm, while I was saying farewell to some friends in the embassy, Rome called and said not to come because I had been furloughed and there was no funding for travel. However, we had nowhere to live in Warsaw and everything we owned was either in transit or in the trunk of the car.
Unfortunately, this reminded me of an experience in the Army during the Vietnam War. My artillery battery was stationed on a mountaintop at a base called Firebase Barbara, west of Quang Tri, near the Laotian border, where we were shelling the Ho Chi Minh trail. Vietnamization had started; so, we had no American infantry to defend us. Instead we had two "dusters," old anti-aircraft weapons systems that shot 40 mm rounds like a machine gun. The duster crews were always stationed in isolated, dangerous places and had a reputation of having gone native and not being very professional. One night we got an intelligence report that enemy troops were massing at the base of our mountain, apparently planning to attack us. I got a radio call from our headquarters telling us not to give the dusters any gasoline, because they were famous for not having any, and it was too hard to get it out to us. However, it looked like if the dusters could not shoot, we were all going to die. We made sure the dusters had gas; they blew away the area at the base of the mountain where the enemy was supposed to be assembling, and the attack never materialized.
But that's how it struck me -- that the US Government would rather that my wife and I freeze to death in Poland than provide us shelter. A government that sends troops into the field and then fails to provide them with ammunition and other necessities is a pretty worthless government, and that's what I thought of our government. We weren't going to die, but for all the government cared, we could have. Unfortunately, a similar attitude led to the deaths of the American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, a few months ago.
I tended to be just a soldier in the Foreign Service. I was not an outstanding diplomat. The assignment in Rome was a plum, but it had fallen into my lap. Most people who go to nice places lobby hard for the assignment. I didn't know much of anything about the personnel in Rome. I was so mad that this time, rather than be the good soldier and camp out in some hotel in Warsaw, I called Rome to complain about being left on the street. It turned out that the DCM, the deputy ambassador, was someone I knew from a previous assignment in Brazil. He said to go ahead and travel to Rome and they would figure out the paperwork somehow. I did, but that basically ended my desire to serve the US government. I would not serve a government that abandons its troops in the field.
A diplomat is many things: a journalist reporting on the country where you are assigned, a mailman carrying messages from our government to theirs, but also a salesman, both for American products and for the American way of life. When the government I was representing fell to some mean-spirited, dictatorial, third-world standard, I didn't want to represent it anymore.
I went to Rome. One reason they wanted me there was that Italy was assuming the presidency of the European Union, which meant that most of the diplomats in the embassy did double duty, they had to deal with the Italian government on the usual bilateral issues, but also on European Union issues. The presidency lasts for six months. I stayed for six months to take care of the extra work, but then retired from the Foreign Service and left.
Hegel Confirmed
Chuck Hegel was confirmed today as Defense Secretary according to the Wall Street Journal. The article cites Hegel's positions on Israel and Iran as obstacles to his nomination. Iran is really a subset of the Israel issue, since Iran is much more of a military threat to Israel than to the US. I have been upset that his nomination was being blocked by Jews who were more concerned about Israel than the US. However, in the final vote, most of the Jews in the Senate are Democrats who vote for Hegel, while the good-old-boy,
Christian, conservative Republicans voted against him. The one favor that some of them did was to vote against filibustering his nomination. Many of these conservative, Christian Republicans were responding to urging by the Jewish lobby AIPAC, which represents the conservative wing of Israeli politics.
Christian, conservative Republicans voted against him. The one favor that some of them did was to vote against filibustering his nomination. Many of these conservative, Christian Republicans were responding to urging by the Jewish lobby AIPAC, which represents the conservative wing of Israeli politics.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Jewish Vendetta
This Politico article reinforces the impression that there is a Jewish vendetta against Hegel for his comments about the Jewish lobby. It says that right-wing Hegel opponents were seeking a video of a speech he made to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League because they thought it would contain anti-Israel or anti-Semetic comments. So, the opposition to Hegel seems motivated by those who love Israel more than America and who consider themselves Jews rather than Americans. But Politico says Hagel said nothing of note to the ADL. Nevertheless there seems to be a lot of race hatred behind the opposition to Hegel
Friday, February 15, 2013
Gutless Federal Government
Stephen Colbert had great segments tonight on the failure of the US to prosecute anyone in the banks responsible for the meltdown that led to the great recession, although it is going after one rating agency, and Wells Fargo is going after one employee who put slugs in a coin laundry 40 years ago. But Wells Fargo thinks it is fine to defraud customers of millions of dollars. No punishment for that!
The S&P rating agency was basically a character reference for the banks, who were the actual crooks. It was the banks who put together the fraudulent financial packages. S&P was stupid enough to believe the banks, who lied through their teeth to the rating agencies and there customers. Is there no penalty for the banks lying in exactly the same way the rating agency did? The difference is that the banks own the American government, which has become increasingly corrupt.
The S&P rating agency was basically a character reference for the banks, who were the actual crooks. It was the banks who put together the fraudulent financial packages. S&P was stupid enough to believe the banks, who lied through their teeth to the rating agencies and there customers. Is there no penalty for the banks lying in exactly the same way the rating agency did? The difference is that the banks own the American government, which has become increasingly corrupt.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Bloomberg in London
The N Y Times article about mayor Bloomberg's love for London and his big investment there goes against my hypothesis that Jews secretly love Israel more than America. The same may be true for Ralph Lauren, whose fashion inspiration often seems to come from Britain. I am happy about that, but I worry that there are many American Jews, represented by AIPAC, who do love Israel more than America. But fortunately it is not a universal phenomenon.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Too Tough on Jews
Not all Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the United States, but the Jewish outcry about the Hegel appointment has aroused my worst fears about Jewish disloyalty.
I really didn't think that much about Israel and the Jews until I was assigned to Poland in the mid-1990s. First, as part of the acculturation process we went to visit the Holocaust museum which was just opening in Washington. While it was moving, I was not pleased with the criticism of President Roosevelt for failing to come to the aid of the Jews in Europe sooner. I suppose we will have more museums on the National Mall that are critical of America's history: museums condemning Washington and Jefferson for being slave owners and condemning the US Army for war crimes against Indians, etc. But the Holocaust did not even occur in America, and none of the victims were Americans.
Then, in Poland in 1995, it was the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, and Clinton and Gore both came to mark different events. It was all-Holocaust all the time. There was no celebration of the Allied victory, in which my father fought. It was just about the millions of Jews who died. Of course, it's not clear in Poland what the war meant. The US lost much less than one million killed in WW II. The Soviets lost about twice as many killed as the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. The Jews did not really fight. One of the biggest Jewish battles was the Warsaw ghetto uprising, but that uprising was insignificant compared to the Warsaw uprising by the whole city's population. The ghetto uprising was put down fairly easily by the Germans; the Warsaw uprising led to the destruction of the whole city during the fierce battle with the Germans.
Of course, the Allies never made it to Poland; they hardly made it to Berlin. The Soviet Union ended up controlling Poland. It's questionable whether Britain and the US could have defeated Germany without the Soviet Union, which suffered horrendous casualties. So, the Poles didn't have much to celebrate about the Allied victory. The Jews didn't have much to celebrate either, except of the fact that some survived and wnt on to post-WW II lives, often in the US or Israel. During the commemorations, I was not put off by those who had actually survived the death camps, but I was somewhat put off by the younger Jews who had not been through the Holocaust. The survivors seemed to be grateful; the next generation seemed to have an attitude of, "You owe me," The West had not responded quickly enough, and they were there to collect for the West's failings. There was some of the same attitude from the Poles for being abandoned to the Soviets, but in 1995 the were more joyful at finally getting out from under Soviet domination.
In any case, two years in Poland pounded the Holocaust into my head, not always in a good way. Now Jews want Americans to hate themselves for not invading France sooner during WW II. And to make up for not doing so, we must pay reparations to Israel, giving them billions and billions of dollars. And making sure that we do is AIPAC, which is a Jewish lobby as well as an Israeli lobby, because many Jews cannot separate being Jewish from loving Israel.
I really didn't think that much about Israel and the Jews until I was assigned to Poland in the mid-1990s. First, as part of the acculturation process we went to visit the Holocaust museum which was just opening in Washington. While it was moving, I was not pleased with the criticism of President Roosevelt for failing to come to the aid of the Jews in Europe sooner. I suppose we will have more museums on the National Mall that are critical of America's history: museums condemning Washington and Jefferson for being slave owners and condemning the US Army for war crimes against Indians, etc. But the Holocaust did not even occur in America, and none of the victims were Americans.
Then, in Poland in 1995, it was the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, and Clinton and Gore both came to mark different events. It was all-Holocaust all the time. There was no celebration of the Allied victory, in which my father fought. It was just about the millions of Jews who died. Of course, it's not clear in Poland what the war meant. The US lost much less than one million killed in WW II. The Soviets lost about twice as many killed as the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. The Jews did not really fight. One of the biggest Jewish battles was the Warsaw ghetto uprising, but that uprising was insignificant compared to the Warsaw uprising by the whole city's population. The ghetto uprising was put down fairly easily by the Germans; the Warsaw uprising led to the destruction of the whole city during the fierce battle with the Germans.
Of course, the Allies never made it to Poland; they hardly made it to Berlin. The Soviet Union ended up controlling Poland. It's questionable whether Britain and the US could have defeated Germany without the Soviet Union, which suffered horrendous casualties. So, the Poles didn't have much to celebrate about the Allied victory. The Jews didn't have much to celebrate either, except of the fact that some survived and wnt on to post-WW II lives, often in the US or Israel. During the commemorations, I was not put off by those who had actually survived the death camps, but I was somewhat put off by the younger Jews who had not been through the Holocaust. The survivors seemed to be grateful; the next generation seemed to have an attitude of, "You owe me," The West had not responded quickly enough, and they were there to collect for the West's failings. There was some of the same attitude from the Poles for being abandoned to the Soviets, but in 1995 the were more joyful at finally getting out from under Soviet domination.
In any case, two years in Poland pounded the Holocaust into my head, not always in a good way. Now Jews want Americans to hate themselves for not invading France sooner during WW II. And to make up for not doing so, we must pay reparations to Israel, giving them billions and billions of dollars. And making sure that we do is AIPAC, which is a Jewish lobby as well as an Israeli lobby, because many Jews cannot separate being Jewish from loving Israel.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Many Jews Hate Gentiles, Starting with Hegel
The Hegel confirmation hearings have illustrated Jewish hatred of gentiles. I don't understand why gentiles like McCain, Graham, and other senators from the South join them in what is essentially self-loathing. Meanwhile, the New York Times, which is owned by Jews, and which displays its nondiscriminatory policy by running an article about Israeli race hatred directed at Muslims on the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team. No wonder Republicans hate the Times; compared to the Times they look like Nazi storm troopers.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Chambliss Leaving
I am disappointed that Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is leaving the Senate because he has been too liberal and cooperative. I will never respect him because of the campaign he ran against Max Cleland, a disabled Vietnam veteran, questioning Cleland's patriotism. Chambliss did not serve in the military and received draft deferments during the Vietnam war. He is a Republican chicken hawk.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Need for Seriousness on Debt
Paul Krugman has been campaigning against taking action on the US debt until the recession is over. I would be more supportive if there were some plan to address the debt in the future, but I don't see any plan. Krugman seems to claim that addressing the debt is and will be painless. We shouldn't do it now while we are in a recession, and when the recession ends, growth in the economy and tax receipts will automatically take care of the problem. But this is not the government of the 1970s, Medicare is huge, and tax rates have been slashed. The recession was imposed on a country that was already badly out of whack.
It looks like Krugman's plan is to wait for inflation. It is relatively painless to run up debt now, while interest rates are low. When interest rates go up, or when we decide that our debt is unsustainable, we will just allow (or encourage) inflation to take off. Then we can pay off our huge debt with dollars worth much less than they are today. However, that does not bode well for whoever is living in the US when that time comes.
We need a plan now to address the budget deficit and the national debt, even if it doesn't go into effect immediately. Obama's decision to accept the Republican definition of $450,000 income annually as middle class does not help.
It looks like Krugman's plan is to wait for inflation. It is relatively painless to run up debt now, while interest rates are low. When interest rates go up, or when we decide that our debt is unsustainable, we will just allow (or encourage) inflation to take off. Then we can pay off our huge debt with dollars worth much less than they are today. However, that does not bode well for whoever is living in the US when that time comes.
We need a plan now to address the budget deficit and the national debt, even if it doesn't go into effect immediately. Obama's decision to accept the Republican definition of $450,000 income annually as middle class does not help.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Schumer Supports Hegel
The NYT reports that Sen. Schumer said after a White House meeting, "I am currently prepared to vote for his [Hegel's] confirmation" as Secretary of Defense. Although the implication is that this says something good about Hegel, to me it says something good about Schumer -- that he is not as much of a racist as I thought. I am pleased that the fact that Hegel used the word "Jew" does not appear to have totally disqualified him to be Defense Secretary.
The idea that there is not a "Jewish lobby" is ridiculous. There is a liberal Jewish lobby, J-Street, but it has almost no influence compared to the conservative, militaristic AIPAC, which competes with the NRA to see who is the most powerful lobby in Washington. Because of its power and visibility, AIPAC speaks for all Jews, even if some Jews may not agree with it.
The idea that there is not a "Jewish lobby" is ridiculous. There is a liberal Jewish lobby, J-Street, but it has almost no influence compared to the conservative, militaristic AIPAC, which competes with the NRA to see who is the most powerful lobby in Washington. Because of its power and visibility, AIPAC speaks for all Jews, even if some Jews may not agree with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)