Americans Ignore Australia

Today I watched several US morning news shows - CBS & Morning Joe - and then I watched Aljazeera.  One of Aljazeera's lead stories was the fact that Australia had a new Prime Minister.  Neither of the US shows had mentioned that.  All of the the US networks focus on easy news.  They have virtually no staff overseas.  They send their one foreign correspondent to wherever the hot spot of the day is, now the refugees in Europe.  If they have any foreign story, it is that one hot spot, and often there is not foreign reporting.  Lately anything from the Middle East has just been reported from the foreign correspondent's base in Turkey.  If it's a European story, it's likely just to be reported from London, and if it's Asian, from Beijing or Shanghai, wherever their one correspondent is based.  Aljazeera actually has correspondents who go the where the news is happening, even if it is not in a major capital.

Instead of reporting news, the so-called news shows in the US mainly have pundit talking heads, pontificating about the US election, which is still more than a year off.  Right now, the campaign is really just a reality show, which partly explains why Donald Trump is doing so well.  He is good at reality TV, and the networks love him because he boosts ratings without requiring the networks to do any work.  There is always some new meaningless poll they can talk about.  With the advent of cell phones, polls are virtually worthless, but the pundits latch on to them as if they were solid gold.

Besides Aljazeera, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are about the the only organizations doing serious reporting.  Even on American stories, the networks seldom do any investigative reporting.  They just go to press conferences at the White House, the forest fire, or wherever the press gaggle assembles.  America is supposed to be an important country leading the world, but it's difficult for Americans to find out what is happening around the world, or even what is happening in the US.  How corrupt is Congress?  Americans have opinions, but nobody gives them the facts to back up or refute their opinions.

IIASA and Richard Perle

For a substantial part of my Foreign Service career, while Reagan was President, I frequently crossed swords with Richard Perle at the Pentagon.  He was much superior to me.  He was an assistant secretary of Defense; for much of this time I was a junior officer at the State Department.  However, I often worked on technology transfer issues, and Perle was very interested in technology transfer issues, especially as they related to the old Soviet Union.  He always kept an eagle eye on CoCom, the old Coordinating Committee that regulated technology transfers from Western, allied countries to the Soviet Union. 

My first brush with him must have been shortly after Reagan was elected and Perle was installed at the Pentagon.  I got a call from the science advisor to the State Department Under Secretary who handled technology transfers.  He said that Perle was cutting America’s support for and participation in IIASA. 

IIASA is the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria.  (IIASA web site, and IIASA Wikipedia entry.)  In the Cold War 1980s its mission was to promote cooperation between scientists from Western and Communist countries.  Perle was apparently concerned that it might be a conduit for uncontrolled technology transfer from the West to the East.  It was such an innocuous, academic institution that this seemed ridiculous.  The Under Secretary’s science advisor and I tried to stop Perle from blocking US participation, but as I recall, we failed. 

The good news is that IIASA survived and is still going today, with a broader mandate, since the old bipolar Cold War has ended.  It was my introduction to Richard Perle, who always seemed to be on the opposite side of issues that we were both interested in, from East-West technology transfers to third world transfers involving nuclear proliferation or other high tech problems.  

Reagan, Casey, and the Ayatollahs

I was in a meeting with Bill Casey not long after he became head of the CIA.  I had been the State Department representative working on NIE-11-12-80 (CIA link to it is here - http://www.foia.cia.gov/document/0000261310 ) regarding Soviet military science and technology.  Reagan was elected more or less while we were working on it.  The chief CIA honcho was a guy named Jan Herring, who is apparently still around (link - http://www.academyci.com/jan-herring/ ).  He and CIA deputy director Admiral Bobby Inman quit abruptly about the time of the election and the naming of Bill Casey to be CIA director. 

There were of course many military types working on the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), and I was the lone working level State Department rep.  After a while I got concerned that the hawks were going nuts finding new technological ways the Soviets were going to kill us in our beds, and I started to push back and say that we can’t be sure that this unusual frequency or substance is being developed to use as a super weapon.  And I found the CIA was supporting me, although they wouldn’t take the lead in opposing the military.  However, after Jan Herring left and Casey came in, there was no hope of toning down the Estimate.  In addition the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research usually is headed by a senior Foreign Service officer, but at this time it was headed by a senior CIA official on loan.  He was not about to take a stand against the new man who was going to be his boss when he returned to the CIA.  So, at the big, final meeting with Casey to approve the NIE (which I attended), he did not make any waves about State Department concerns.  Casey really did mumble; I could not understand a lot of what he said.  I would like to think some of the “alternative view” language in the NIE was due to me, but after 35 years, who knows where it came from. 

Anyway, I like to think that Reagan’s election was orchestrated by the Iranian ayatollahs, rather than the ayatollahs being manipulated by the Reagan campaign.  There is a movie about the “Manchurian Candidate.”  I think Reagan was the “Iranian Candidate.”  The Iranians hated Carter for letting the Shah come to the US for medical treatment when he was dying.  They wanted “anybody but Carter.”  If Carter had rescued the hostages there is some chance that he might have been elected, because he would have appeared a stronger, rather than a weaker ("malaise") President.  Reagan probably would have won anyway, but who knows? 

I saw Carter recently when he came to Denver to sign copies of his new book, “A Full Life.”  I bought one and he signed it.  Recently someone asked him if he had any regrets, and he said one was the failed rescue mission, because if it had not failed, he might have been re-elected.  The Iranian hostages were a major factor in the election.  Incidentally, one of the hostages was a classmate of mine in the A-100 class.  This is the group of 40 or 50 officers that you come in with and there is a 6 or 9 month orientation, and then you can kind of keep track of your classmates to see who becomes the first ambassador, who goes the highest, etc.  Several of my classmates became ambassadors, but I didn’t make it.  

Second Letter to Congressional Representatives

As the date for voting on the Iran nuclear deal approaches, please note that despite the split of public opinion on the issue, the vast majority of those knowledgeable about the issue support the deal.  A number of military officers, scientists and diplomats have publicly weighed in on the issue, and in almost all cases they favor approval of the deal.  I urge you to support the deal. 

Three dozen retired generals and admirals have written an open letter supporting the nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.  They called the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html and http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/) 

Twenty-nine top American scientists have written President Obama supporting approval of the deal.  Many of those who signed have worked on America’s nuclear weapons program; some were Nobel laureates.  The New York Times notes that many of the scientists hold Department of Energy “Q” clearances allowing access to sensitive technical information about nuclear weapons.  I held a “Q” clearance when I was a State Department Foreign Service officer, because I worked on nuclear non-proliferation issues.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world/29-us-scientists-praise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html)

Finally, many of my former State Department colleagues have written supporting the agreement.  A letter to President Obama signed by more than 100 former American ambassadors stated, “If properly implemented, the comprehensive and rigorously negotiated agreement can be an effective instrument in arresting Iran’s nuclear program and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the volatile and vitally important region of the Middle East.”  I served with a number of the ambassadors signing the letter, some when we were young junior officers together; others were ambassadors under whom I served overseas.  I have recently been corresponding about this issue with Amb. Dennis Jett, who signed the letter.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/politics/former-us-diplomats-praise-iran-deal.html and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/16/us/politics/document-american-ambassadors-letter.html) 

I hope that you will take the views of these experts who favor the Iran nuclear deal into consideration in your deliberations.  In addition, they represent the views of many others from their professions, like myself.  I believe that it will make the world, the United States, and the Middle East, including Israel, safer.  It will significantly restrict Iran’s nuclear activities, and it will provide ten to fifteen years of breathing space in which to work out the next steps for preventing further nuclear proliferation in the region. 

No Reply from Representative Perlmutter re Iran Deal

Congressman Perlmutter did not reply to my letter regarding the Iran nuclear deal.

Reply from Sen. Gardner re Iran Deal

Thank you for contacting me regarding Iran. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.

Concern about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities has been growing for over a decade. In 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first discovered that Iran was engaging in a variety of nuclear activities, which violated its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The international community has since pressured Iran to discontinue these activities through both diplomacy and sanctions. After twenty months of negotiations, a deal was reached between Iran and the six P5+1 countries, which include the United States, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The parameters of this agreement are outlined in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA).

The more details we learn about the deal, the worse it seems. Reports indicate that this deal accomplishes none of the goals it should, nor the goals the negotiations began with. It would make Iran a globally approved nuclear threshold state. It would endanger our closest ally in the region, Israel. The sanctions relief in the deal would give Iran billions to pour into continued international terror operations. Full access to all of Iran's undeclared nuclear facilities or military facilities where nuclear work may be conducted is the only way to ensure Iran's compliance with the JCPA. In this agreement, however, inspectors must wait at least 24 days before they can set foot on these sites, which is far from the Administration's promise of "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to provide weapons and supplies to terrorist groups that have killed Americans, such as Hezbollah or Iran-backed militants in Iraq. Furthermore, despite the advice our military leaders, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, this deal lifts the current conventional arms embargo against Iran in five years and lifts sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program after eight years, allowing Iran to become an even bigger threat to the region. 

There is no doubt that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize an already volatile region and directly threaten our U.S. national security and that of our close allies, such as Israel. Ever since its statehood, Israel has been a shining light for democracy in a politically unstable region. Iran's regime, however, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has repeatedly said that it plans to "wipe Israel off the map". It is imperative that we do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and from becoming nuclear-capable. That means doubling down on the sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place and working to enact a deal like the President originally promised: one that prevents Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon rather than putting them on the glide path to a bomb in a few short years. We must also continue to provide all the support we can toward Israel. Standing by Israel is one of my top priorities in Congress. The American people and the world deserve a better deal. Congress should reject this deal and deliver on the promises made at the outset of these negotiations. 

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.

Sincerely,

Cory Gardner
United States Senator

Reply from Sen. Bennet on Iran Deal

Thank you for contacting me regarding U.S. policy toward Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.

Over the past decade, there have been international concerns that Iran has made progress toward obtaining a nuclear weapon - a prospect that we cannot allow.

In the Senate, I have supported tough sanctions on the Iranian government. Sanctions can be an effective tactic but they do not represent a coherent diplomatic strategy. We must aggressively use all of the political, diplomatic and economic tools available to us to mobilize the international community and ensure the effectiveness of our sanctions.

In November 2013, the Obama Administration along with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China (P5+1) began a series of diplomatic negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. While I support the efforts to engage Iran and its people through diplomacy, I'm cognizant of the security risks Iran poses to our allies in the region and to the international community at large.

On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 reached an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which I supported, Congress now has 60 days to review the final text. Our primary goal must be to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That would be the worst outcome. In evaluating this deal, we must weigh the terms of the agreement against the realities of the current situation. I am carefully reviewing the agreement and consulting with a variety of experts. Congress has an important responsibility in this process, and playing politics right now is the last thing we need. The stakes are high, and I take this decision very seriously.

Like many Coloradans, I am deeply concerned by many other issues with the Iranian government.  In May 2015, the Senate passed a resolution calling on Iran to release all U.S. citizens wrongly detained in that country and to  work with our government to locate missing U.S. citizens. I supported that amendment and will continue to address other areas of concern.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator

Letter to Congress re Iran Nuclear Deal

I am writing to urge you to approve the agreement among the United States, Iran, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China and the EU, under which Iran agrees to restrain its nuclear program in return for the relaxation of economic sanctions against Iran.

This agreement significantly restricts Iran’s nuclear program and will make it more difficult for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, which it was already prohibited from doing by its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The NPT allows members to develop nuclear energy in almost any way as long as it is not used for military or explosive purposes.  Nuclear energy, scientific research and medical activities are all allowed, along with the infrastructure to support those activities.  Iran has agreed to much stricter controls on its program.  Its current program will become much smaller and less threatening, with less nuclear material, less enrichment capability and less plutonium production capability.  It has agreed to a more intrusive inspection regime than that usually applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  I am sure that in addition, the US will use its own “National Technical Means” of verification like that it has used to monitor nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union and Russia, and to monitor the activities of rogue nuclear countries such as Pakistan and North Korea. 

For me, however, the main argument in favor of the agreement is the lack of a better alternative.  Without this agreement Iran would only be bound by the much less restrictive verification measures applied to NPT members, measures that already applied to Iran without this deal.  If this agreement had not been finalized, the other partners in our sanctions regime against Iran would probably have dropped out, leaving us with a much weaker regime.  The only non-diplomatic option that I see would be a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or perhaps a more generalized attack on the nation itself, like our earlier invasions of its eastern and western neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don’t support such an attack, and I think that most Americans are weary of war in that region.  It’s possible that the agreement could have been stronger, eliminating more of Iran’s centrifuges, for example, but this agreement is strong, and more delay might have alienated our partners as well as the Iranians, possibly jeopardizing any deal at all.  The best is often the enemy of the good. 

Therefore, I urge you to support the agreement. 

As background, I am a retired Foreign Service officer who spent ten or more years of my career working on nuclear non-proliferation issues.  I spent most of my time working on the South American nuclear rivalry between Argentina and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s.  At times this competition seemed to be following the course of Pakistan and India, but I was pleased that in the 1980s while I was serving as science officer at the American Embassy in Brasilia with responsibility for nuclear issues, Brazil and Argentina agreed to end their nuclear competition.  It took some time, but in the 1990s both countries joined the NPT.  While working on non-proliferation issues, I often crossed paths with other people working on the issue, such as Richard Clarke, Robert Gallucci, Charles Duelfer, and Gary Samore.  I have been retired for almost twenty years, but I remain interested in these issues and continue to follow them. 

I was motivated to write this letter by President Obama’s request on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” that ordinary Americans do so.  I agree with the President and Secretary of State Kerry that this agreement is good for the US, and for the world, including Israel and the Sunni Arab countries. 

Military Leaders

I am very disappointed that none of the ten Republican presidential candidates who appeared in the main Fox debate were veterans.  At least two of the candidates in the earlier kids’ debate were veterans – Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham.  This is due to changes in priorities in the US which have affected both the military and politics.  Twenty-six of our forty-four Presidents have served in the military.  This includes George W. Bush, whom I don’t include because he avoided service in Vietnam by joining the Alabama National Guard.  In the past, men who wanted to serve their country politically would often want to serve in other ways, such as defending it in the military.  When I was growing up, almost every man who could pass the physical had served in some military capacity during World War II.  The big change in attitude came during the Vietnam War, when the military became an object or derision, and the draft was eliminated. 

Before the elimination of the draft, the military was a rather democratic institution with people from across the US, socially, racially, financially, etc.  When the draft was eliminated, men from good families served much less than those from lower classes.  The military particularly drew from lower class white men, rednecks, to whom the military still appealed as a patriotic calling, and one that was financially as good as or better than any occupation they could find in the civilian sector.  It also took in many blacks and Hispanics, who had less family connection to the military and who were thus attracted mainly by the financial aspects rather than by patriotism. In any case, we have less diversity in the military and fewer veterans in most segments of civilian society.   

One example of the elite’s contempt for the military is the fact that while she was dean of the Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan blocked military recruiters from using the school’s office of career services to talk to prospective recruits.  Harvard is not a hotbed of students seeking to serve their country; they are too interested in getting rich on Wall Street.  Harvard is producing brilliant, selfish, greedy narcissists.  It’s an example of how America’s economy is doing well while its moral structure crumbles. 

Traditionally the military has represented some of the best qualities of America and its citizens, but as the pool of military recruits shrinks, it has fewer high class individuals to draw from.  There are of course many fine people serving in the military, but there is a higher proportion of people who are not so fine. 

As a result, the military has fewer leaders to offer to the American political system.  Colin Powell was one who served in many important positions, but who never ran for public office.  In this respect, he copied General George Marshall, one of the finest men ever to serve in the military, but who also refused to run for office, leaving the field to General Eisenhower.  Eisenhower is the last military leader to follow in the footsteps of General George Washington.  Other Presidents, like Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter, served in the military, but did not distinguish themselves as military leaders.  Eisenhower was primarily a soldier who also entered politics.  Kennedy and his cohorts were politicians who had served in the military.  Kerry and McCain fall in the latter category.

McCain is rightly characterized as a hero for his actions while a prisoner of war.  However, he was not a great military leader.  His father and grandfather were military leaders, but they did not go into politics.  McCain did not succeed in the military as his ancestors had.  Neither McCain nor Kerry carried the mantle of “great military leader” into their failed campaigns for President.  There is no military leader today with any claim to that title.  Even Colin Powell’s military success came mainly as a staff officer, not a line officer commanding troops in combat.  The closest probably has been General Petraeus, for his successful surge campaign toward the end of the Iraq war.  Unfortunately, his political chances have been undermined by his immoral personal life.  In any case, his success in Iraq pales beside the accomplishments of previous military Presidents like Washington and Eisenhower.  McCain’s and Kerry’s military accomplishments don’t even deserve comparison to those predecessors. 

I think America is poorer for not having a military cadre to draw from for political office.  Generals don’t only fight.  Marshall was known in WW II as “the great organizer.”  We could use a great organizer, or just someone who inspires confidence in their leadership.  Reagan did inspire people, and I think that is why the Republicans look up to him so, although many of his so-called accomplishments have paled in the light of history.  Obama, on the other hand, may have more lasting accomplishments, but he generally fails to inspire the confidence of American citizens, or the respect of his international cohorts. 

The Iran Nuclear Deal and Jewish Politicians

Senator Schumer’s decision to go against a Democratic President and oppose the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by former Senator John Kerry, whose father was Jewish, raises questions about the loyalty of some Jews to the United States.  Schumer is joined in opposition by Representative Steve Israel, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the House.  Do they oppose the deal because it is bad for the US, or because Bibi Netanyahu says it is bad for Israel?  Do they believe that Netanyahu is smarter than Obama, or that Israel’s survival is more important than America’s?  They have very Jewish constituencies and may be representing their constituents’ interests, but that would raise the broader question of whether Jews in general are more loyal to Israel than to the US. 

On the other hand, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Sander Levin have said that they will support the Iran agreement, making it clear that Jews are not a monolithic group any more than Christians, blacks, or any other ethnic or religious group.  But there are deep undertones of racial and religious bias, highlighted first by Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to give a speech to the Congress that vehemently attacked President Obama.  The fact that a foreign country that calls itself a Jewish nation has become so deeply involved in American politics illustrates the extreme involvement of Jewish interests.  Presidential candidate Huckabee, a Christian, joined in by likening the agreement to the beginning of the World War II Holocaust.  Speaker Boehner’s actions have also inserted greater ethnic, religious tensions into this debate. 

In addition there are dueling Jewish lobbies, AIPAC and J-Street.  AIPAC supports Bibi Netanyahu and the right-wing, hawkish, Likud party, while J-Street supports more liberal, less hawkish Jews.  Israel seems to be somewhat evenly split between hawks and doves, but AIPAC is much stronger in the US than J-Street.  In addition, many Gentile politicians, like Huckabee, support AIPAC, some out of principle, many because AIPAC contributes so much money to political campaigns.  In addition to AIPAC, billionaire Sheldon Adelson has contributed millions to politicians who support Israel’s hawkish views. 

The NYT reports that Obama has been angered by the AIPAC onslaught against the Iran deal, often making arguments that do not portray the deal correctly.  I think Obama has been remarkable in dealing with religious prejudice.  When he was campaigning for President the first time, Christians attacked him for the Christian church he attended.  He basically gave up his church because of a few inflammatory things his pastor had said.  I was appalled that Christians would drive a Christian out of a Christian church, but they did.  Now, the Jews have launched a full scale attack on him.  He is replying by making factual arguments, not resorting to ad hominem attacks.  The Jews seem confident that they can withstand any attacks by waving the Holocaust card, and perhaps they can. 

To me it seems ironic that, while the Iran nuclear deal will benefit the whole world, the biggest beneficiary may well be Israel, if indeed Israel is at the top of list of countries that Iran would like to attack.  The deal makes it much less likely that Israel will be attacked with a nuclear weapon.  It gives Israel and the rest of the world a ten year cushion to figure out what to do next.  

Senate Testimony on Iran Deal

Tempers are flaring over the Iran nuclear deal.  On C-Span, I watched some of the testimony by State Under Secretary Sherman and Treasury Under Secretary Szubin before the Senate banking committee, and the Senators I watched were not very polite, even the Democrats.  It looks like the Senators want to kill some Iranians’ they want the streets of Tehran to run red with blood.  I was appalled.  These are the same senators who have basically approved Israel’s and India’s nuclear weapons program.  And they have done little but complain about Pakistan’s and North Korea’s bombs.  This is a strange country and Congress is a strange institution.  We have already invaded two of Iran’s next door neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq; do they just want to drop one huge, multi-megaton atomic bomb and destroy all three countries at one time? 

Meanwhile, on the PBS Newshour, Ray Takeyh and Nicholas Burns debated the effectiveness of Obama’s speech.  Takeyh thought Obama had utterly failed, and Burns did not do very well defending Obama.  Takeyh complained that the agreement will expire in ten or fifteen years, and then Iran can build a bomb, glossing over the fact that in ten or fifteen years Iran will stand exactly where it stands today without the deal.  It will still be a member of the NPT, which says that it cannot build a bomb.  He said that the negotiated deal was bad and that the US should go back and renegotiate it.  When asked if it would not be hard to drag the other parties, including Russia and China, back to the table, he said it would be hard but not impossible. 

What he failed to say, and what no opponent has said that I have heard, is that the deal will give the next President, or Israel, or the UN, or whoever, at least ten years to negotiate a new deal or extend this one.  The attitude seems to be that Kerry is a lousy negotiator, but the Republicans have no one who can negotiate anything better in ten years.  This is probably true, because Ronald Reagan is dead, and he was the only Republican who seemed able to negotiate any kind of arms control agreement.  Colin Powell has basically become a Democrat, because the Republican Party has become some kind of an insane asylum.  It turns out that Condi Rice plays the piano much better than she can negotiate treaties.  No wonder Donald Trump is doing so well.  “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”  The Republicans know they are so stupid that they cannot even understand this nuclear agreement, much less negotiate anything better. 

Another aspect of this that is very odd to me is that many of the negotiators and defenders of the Iran deal are Jewish, while Israel’s allies in trying to kill it are good ol’ Christian white boys.  Those most conflicted over the agreement are Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer.  Do they go with Israel, or with the President’s Democratic Party?  They may well determine whether the Senate can override the President’s veto of the bill rejecting the Iran agreement.  John Kerry’s father was Jewish, although he claimed to be Irish.  Wendy Sherman is Jewish, according to Wikipedia.  Her Treasury colleague today, Adam Szubin, appears to be Jewish.  They were grilled, and I thought mistreated, by some angry, white senators from some agricultural states, who apparently know more about cotton and corn than about nuclear energy or international agreements.  

Obama's Iran Speech

Obama gave a good speech today in defense of the Iran deal.  He dealt with all the major issues, and answered the objections to it.  Of course, those dead set against it, many Republicans and Israelis, will not be convinced.  But it should have convinced moderate, thinking people that on balance this is a deal that should be supported because it makes the world, and the Middle East in particular, a safer place. 

He dealt with the provision most roundly criticized by opponents, the 24 day period to resolve disputes concerning sites that have not been declared as nuclear related, e.g., conventional military bases, perhaps some civilian research laboratories.  He explained that the 24 day provision applies only in controversial cases; most inspections would take place in a shorter time period.  And he made the argument that the deal is better than any alternative, especially another war in the Middle East. 

He invoked Reagan and Kennedy as two Presidents who embraced diplomacy and arms control over war.  He stopped short of pointing out that Reagan had a secret policy of appeasement with Iran by providing them banned weapons under the Iran-Contra deal.  He did mention that Bush and Cheney had strengthened Iran by eliminating its worst enemy, Saddam Hussein.  He also mentioned that the US had been one of the early providers of nuclear technology to Iran in the 1960s and 1970s.  And he did not mention that one reason Israel fears the Iranian program is that they know that Israel developed its nuclear weapons capability by tricking western countries, including the US and France, into providing much of what Israel needed for weapons. 

Israelis probably fear Iran because they have more respect for the Persian race than for the Arab race.  The Israeli-Persian relationship goes back to the Old Testament, more than 2000 years ago, when the Persian king Darius sent Daniel to the lions’ den because Daniel prayed to the God of Israel.  The Israelis probably believe that the Iranians have the expertise and infrastructure to build a bomb, unlike most or all of the Arab states, who would need much more help. 

I don’t know whether the Iran deal will be blocked by Congress.  It looks like it will be close, and the best bet for upholding it is the fact that it will be difficult for the Senate to overcome an Obama veto of a Congressional bill blocking it.  I hope the deal is allowed to go into effect.  If not, either Iran will have a much easier path to a bomb, or we will invade yet another Middle Eastern country, and this time one that is not entirely stuck in the Middle Ages, as Afghanistan and Iraq were, thus promising a bloodier, more costly war, also likely to end in defeat for the US as the Iraq war did. 

In general, I think that Obama has been a good President, especially when compared with his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Bush was probably a nice man personally, but a terrible President.  He was asleep at his post when Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center.  A relatively minor upgrade in airport security would have prevented the attack.  In contract to Bush, who was stupid and lazy nice guy, Cheney was a spiteful, mean-spirited villain.  For most of his administration, Bush was a coward before Cheney, afraid to confront Cheney’s desire to go to war with almost everybody except out closest friends.  Toward the end of his administration, as things began to visibly fall about, Bush finally began to distance himself from Cheney.  Strangely, his father’s choice of Dan Quayle to be his Vice President was one of George H. W. Bush’s worst decisions, and George W. Bush’s decision to name Cheney his Vice President was one of the son’s worst decisions.  In addition to the unsuccessful wars, Bush, who had an MBA, oversaw the destruction of the US financial system by reckless Wall Street banks, although Clinton shares the blame for his repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had reined in Wall Street. 

Obama was faced with the possibility of a second Depression when he took office, and he avoided it.  He gets criticism from the Republicans for winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who insist that if we had stayed the course we would have won.  But it we can’t win a war in a small, backward country in eight or ten years, something is wrong with our military or our strategy.  Cheney and Rumsfeld were strategic failures, whom Bush stupidly put in charge of two wars.  Their failure is highlighted by Bush I’s successful prosecution of the first Iraq war, noted recently by Richard Haass in the Wall Street Journal.  

In addition, ObamaCare expanded health care significantly.  There are still health care issues, cost and the single-payer issue, but ObamaCare was progress.  On the negative side, Guantanamo is still a prison camp that is America’s gulag.  People are being held in violation of US and international law, in spirit, if not under the letter of the law.  It is an embarrassment to a country that prides itself on its morality and rule of law.  Reagan’s “city on a hill” has slid down into the mud.  Bush and Cheney are responsible for pushing it into the mud, but Obama has not pulled it out. 

The Republicans blame Obama for his budget deficits and the growing national debt, but at least part of the problem is the Republican’s refusal to raise taxes.  No doubt some cuts are necessary, but some additional revenue is also necessary.  Today’s column by Tom Friedman in the NYT points out the intransigence of the Republicans in refusing even to raise a five cent tax per gallon of gas to fund the repair of roads and bridges.  Obama could have done better, but the Republicans made sure he was not playing with a full deck. 

Reagan's Election by the Iranian Ayatollah

“The Brink” TV show on HBO made a gag of what I think is a real reason for Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election.  The show’s Secretary of State tells a potential head of Pakistan that he can be the Pakistani Reagan by being the president when some Pakistani hostages are released.

The Iranians were really mad at the US for overthrowing their national leader and imposing the American selected Shah.  They were mad at Jimmy Carter for letting the Shah come to the US for medical treatment when he was dying of cancer.  Therefore, the Ayatollah who had taken the American hostages in the American Embassy in Tehran, wanted revenge on Carter, which he got by supporting Carter’s opponent in the American presidential election, Ronald Reagan.  Reagan was the Iranian candidate to rule America, like the Shah was the American puppet to rule Iran. 

Reagan later recognized his debt to the Iranians by giving them prohibited weapons in the Iran- Contra deal.  The Republicans owe the Iranians a huge debt for putting the man they most love into office.  Reagan wasn’t the “Manchurian Candidate,” he was the “Iranian Candidate.” 

I thought that I was one of the few who thought this until I saw the latest episode of “The Brink.”  

Hero

The cable and network news have been describing the military personnel killed in Chattanooga as “heroes.”  Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been saying that John McCain is not a hero.  So what is a hero?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “hero” as “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. “  That leaves open the question of what degree of courage, achievement, or nobility qualifies someone to be characterized as a hero.

In the Chattanooga case, it seems that to be a military recruiter has not required a high degree of any of those qualities, compared with serving in combat overseas.  If dozens or hundreds of recruiters are slain in the future, then much more courage will be required to serve as a recruiter.  If that were the case, then serving as a recruiter would be heroic in the same way that going to Afghanistan or any other war zone would be heroic.  I think that to say everyone who goes into a combat zone is a hero, debases the word.  Clearly, everyone who is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is a hero.  You can keep going down the list of medals, but the further down you go and keep calling the recipient a hero, the more you debase the use of the word to describe those who won the highest medals.  You have to come up with some superlative beyond hero for them.

John McCain may fall somewhere in that gray region below Congressional Medal of Honor, but I think any pilot or crewman who flies into heavy anti-aircraft fire probably deserves the appellation of hero.  The idea of going into great danger despite one’s fear is what makes the act heroic to me.  Again, there could be debate about what “great danger” is.  Does it mean almost certain death, or only some risk of death?  If very few planes were shot down over North Vietnam, that would make McCain’s act less heroic, but I think he went on a pretty risky mission.  In addition, his refusal to leave the POW prison before his colleagues was heroic in its nobility.

Again, describing as heroes the slain Marines in Chattanooga, who were shot while going about routine tasks, tends to lower the respect the term gives to people such as McCain and those who won the Congressional Medal of Honor.  People use the term loosely because most of them have no interest in or respect for service in the military.  They would not serve, and tend to think those who do serve are somewhat foolish or stupid; they are people who could not get a real job in the civilian world.  This contempt for the military started with Vietnam, maybe with Korea, and has diminished today, but still exists in the background.  People tend to be over complementary of the military to offset the slight contempt they have in the backs of their minds.  Maybe because I am a Vietnam veteran who came home to contempt, I misjudge this feeling, but I tend to see the overuse of hero to describe anyone killed as evidence of continuing contempt for real heroism.

In 9/11 for example, all of the first responders seem to be called heroes, but obviously some were more heroic than others.  The failure to discriminate between the real heroes and the almost heroes tends to discredit the term.  It is the same attitude that today means everybody who competes in some event gets a blue ribbon; it’s why we have grade inflation.  But there are differences.  Some heroic people are more instrumental in defeating the enemy; some heroes save more lives than others.  Failure to recognize that results are important has consequences that may come back to haunt the US someday.

Bob Hormats on Greece

I had not seen Bob Hormats on TV for years. When I was on the Brazil desk, he was a deputy assistant secretary working in the State Department economic bureau. Today he was on Bloomberg, which said he is now at Kissinger, where he is working on Greece. He said the Greek deal was worth it to keep ball rolling; it was better for Greece. Greece will need some concessions. from the EU, perhaps to prolong the payment period. When his interviewer asked him about Piketty's comment that Germany should not pressure Greece because Germany never repaid it WW II debts, Hormats said it was not relevant, just ancient history.

Regarding the Iran nuclear deal, he said that no perfect Iranian deal was possible, but this deal accomplished many U.S. objectives.  He said he had heard that Iran was going to send a trade delegation to the US in September. 

His Bloomberg interviewer was not great; she was enthusiastic, but not too well prepared.

Zero Interest Rates Are Welfare for the Rich

Recently the stock market seems to move in the opposite direction from the news.  If the economic news is good, the market goes down, and if the news is good, the market goes up.  This seems to be mainly because the market is looking at what the Federal Reserve is going to do.  If the economy does well, the Fed says it will raise rates, if the economy stays weak, interest rates may remain near zero.  Everyone seems to think that one reason the market is doing so well, hitting new all time highs, is because of the low Fed interest rates.

I think the Fed has meant well in keeping interest rates low, it has had the perverse effect of accelerating income inequality.  The main beneficiaries of zero interest rates are the wealthy.  For every poor or middle class person who buys a $100,000 house with a low mortgage rate, some billionaire has made hundreds of millions more in the stock market or in real estate or other investments that require many millions to play.  Low rates have disproportionately benefited the wealthy.  The Fed justifies this by saying that if had not done it, the economy would have fallen apart, possibly dragging us into a real depression.  This is partly true.  Interest rates are basically the only weapon the Fed has to stabilize the economy, but Congress and the administration have other weapons.  

Congress did pass Dodd-Frank adding regulations on the wildly irresponsible bankers who brought on the 2008 financial crisis, but it did almost nothing for the average citizen.  It's understandable, if some poor guy on main street goes bankrupt because his house was foreclosed, it's no big deal; it happens everyday.  But if Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt it's a very big deal, and everybody says it threatens the existence of America.  But there could be another, bottom-up approach.  Let the big guys accept the consequences of their malfeasance, and create a safety net for the people at the bottom.  It would have been more difficult, but it would have been fairer.  

The upshot is that the Fed, doing it's job to sustain the US economy, has greatly aggravated income inequality in America.  I think the Fed chairmen have been well intentioned, but it looks bad for Jews.  The Jewish chairman who ran the Fed, Greenspan, Bernanke, and now Yellen have taken actions which have enormously benefited their Jewish colleagues who make up a huge contingent of the financial community.  The US has intentionally or unintentionally pursued a racist solution to the great recession.  Barney Frank is Jewish, and Janet Yellen's deputy, Stanley Fischer, is an Israeli citizen.  Of course, the Fed took action to respond to the crisis, while the Gentiles in Congress did little or nothing.  Gentiles Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner did take action, and got some Gentiles in Congress to support them.  But everything was directed at propping up the wealthy bankers at the expense of the common man.  

Ironically, it's another Jew, Paul Krugman, in the New York Times who has most vocally espoused more robust fiscal measures by the Congress and administration to help the common man.  Like me, he is still ranting years later, that the US should have gone into debt to undertake more ambitious infrastructure projects.  In that case the common man would have benefited from the fact that the US could borrow money for these projects at ridiculously low rates, like the Wall Street tycoons were doing to fatten their own wallets.   

James Comey and Anne Applebaum on the Holocaust

As he stated in his Washington Post op-ed, FBI Director Comey was sincere about sending all FBI officers to the Holocaust Museum to see how bureaucracies can run amok.  It alerts FBI officers to the evil that they are helping to stop, and alerts them not to be sucked into the banality of evil, of accepting evil orders unquestioningly. But he unwittingly pointed out the dangers in carelessly accusing innocent parties of complicity in that evil.  He buys into a way of thinking that Jews have encouraged, that anyone living within 100 or 200 miles of anything connected to the Holocaust is tainted and should die or at least go to prison for years and years. 

By this standard, almost all Poles are complicit, and Comey named them as “murderers and accomplices for Germany.”  His doing so elicited a protest from the Polish government, a Jewish columnist (married to the speaker of the Polish parliament), and an apology from American Ambassador Steve Mull.  The Washington Post columnist, Anne Applebaum, wrote that the Germans destroyed the Polish government, and introduced “the power of fear,   the danger of lawlessness and the horror that was made possible by a specific form of German state terror in the years between 1939 and 1945 – a terror that convinced many people to do things that they knew were terribly, terribly wrong.”

Trial of Auschwitz Guard

I think we should let trials for World War II end.  The ongoing trial for 93-year-old Oskar Groning for serving as a prison guard at Auschwitz is too much, too late.  Apparently the allegations against him are that he collected and stored money taken from Jewish prisoners, not that he had any direct role in their execution.  The trial is being carried out in a German court, but no doubt it is a result of Jewish cries for revenge.  They should let it go.  If they find someone who had a major role in killing people, like Josef Mengele, then that might be worth pursuing, but I think all those key people are now dead.  This trial only serves to remind people like me of the visceral Jewish hatred on which Israel was founded.  Israel would not exist if it were not for the Holocaust.  Israel owes its existence to Adolph Hitler.  That is a tremendous irony, one that casts a pall over the state of Israel.  They need to move on.  Israelis would be well served to do so.  They can of course honor their ancestors who died at in the various Holocaust death camps, but they can do so as other nations honor their war dead.  Americans will not vilify Germans at their Memorial Day commemorations.  I was impressed that memorials at sites in Poland where Poles were executed in various horrible ways always said that the deeds were done by the Nazis, not by the Germans.  About as many Poles died at the hands of the Germans as Jews, about six million, many of them in the same camps, like Auschwitz, but the Poles have moved on.  The Israelis are still enmeshed in unquenchable hatred that does Israel no honor. 

Israeli Segregation

It is amazing that Israelis are so tone deaf that they would propose segregating buses, as reported by the New York Times.  Integrating busses was the iconic act of civil rights in the US.  Israelis almost proclaimed to the world that they are racist bigots and proud of it, until someone recognized what a public relations disaster it would be, although the Israelis themselves may have seen no problem with it.   

It goes hand in hand with an earlier story in the Washington Post that the Israelis are refusing entry to black African refugees. The Jews hate America for doing something similar regarding Jewish refugees before World War II, but apparently don’t see any problem in doing the same thing themselves. 

It appears that Jews have no sense of compassion for other races.  Apparently they think they are the chosen people of God, and other races are not.  Therefore, Jews consider themselves superior to everybody else.  They had better hope they are right, but the Holocaust may have thrown some doubt on that hypothesis.  Maybe God is not too happy with them.   

Jews In The American Media

The following is from this web site:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

Jews in the American Media: 

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, “world’s biggest media giant” (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch’s News. Corp., owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his “mentor.”
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring “anti-Israel media.”
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya’s press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet’s first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of “alternative weeklies.”
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O’Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann’s American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN’s Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC’s Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC’s 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron’s
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

More on Art about Gay Love

Frank Bruni in the NYT and I in my blog both addressed the role of art in dealing with love: why there is not more art celebrating gay love, and why there is virtually no great art celebrating it.  I guess there is some that I’m not aware of, perhaps in India or ancient Greece, but if there were great art that celebrated homosexual love, I think we would be hearing about it constantly these days; therefore, I think it does not exist.  The Wikipedia article of homosexuality in ancient Greece stresses that the relationships were usually between adult men and young boys, a pederast relationship that would be frowned on today, but an enduring aspect of gay activity that is downplayed by the press in deference to the gay community. In any case, it’s hard to promote Greek art celebrating pederasty. 

Bruni felt deprived because when he was growing up, there were no songs on the radio glorifying gay love.  He raises the question, why hasn’t Elton John written some moving songs celebrating gay love?  Songs, paintings and novels about homosexual love may be on their way, but it’s indicative that thousands of years of great art have so far produced virtually nothing of interest in that department.  Even if new gay art becomes popular, will it stand the test of time and be appreciated by people a hundred or a thousand years from now?  In short, Bruni may get the music he wants, but it’s unlikely to be worth much in the long run.   

Will the Supreme Court Define Love?

The NYT reports that during the arguments about gay marriage in the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts asked, “If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t.  The difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” 

I think that this is a misleading question because of the word “love.”  Is the love between a man and a woman the same as the love between a man and a man?  At least that is a question that should not be dismissed as obvious.  Almost everyone loves their mother, but should they be allowed to marry their mother?  You can say, no, because their children would be the products of incest, and there is a public interest in preventing incest.  But what if it’s a daughter who wants to marry her mother, or what if the mother and son promise never to have sex.  Is there still a public interest in preventing this union?  There is, because the love between a mother and her children is different from the love between two unrelated people

People also talk about the fact that they”love” ice cream, they love sunny days, they love beautiful music.  People also talk about making love, when they mean that they are having sex.  These “loves” are obviously not the same.  Can the Supreme Court definitively rule that the love between two men is the same as the love between a man and a women?  Can they definitively say that this is love and not lust?  If it is all about finances and hospital visitation, aren’t there other ways to correct those problems without defining “love”? 

Poets, novelists and songwriters have been expounding on love for thousands of years.  Can the Supreme Court do a better job than they did.  Is it irrelevant that there is a lot less poetry about the love between a man and woman than there is about the love between two men?  Does the Supreme Court really know more about love than Shakespeare, John Donne, Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters, Tolstoy or Danielle Steele.  Roberts should think hard before calling Shakespeare and Tolstoy fools.  

The Clintons and the Rothschilds

It’s interesting that this NYT article about the Clinton’s son-in-law, Mark Mezvinsky, discloses the role among the Clintons of the prominent European Jewish family, the Rothschilds, reputed to have been kingmakers and to have the power of inciting war or maintaining peace in Europe for centuries.  Mezvinsky is a partner in the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners.  The article says that many of the investors in the fund are longtime supporters of the Clintons, including a firm connected to the Rothschilds.  Another investor is the Rock Creek Group, chaired by Afsaneh Beschloss, the wife of historian Michael Beschloss.  Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was also an early investor.  The article says that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Oxford sponsored by the Rothschilds, but that there was no connection to the investment.   

The Clintons are trying to form an alliance with rich Jews who support them, the Rothschilds, to offset the rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson who support the Republicans.  

More Welfare for the Rich

Working on income tax reminds one of all the welfare that the US government gives to the rich.  The biggest is probably the home mortgage deduction.  It's nice for average people, but the average person probably gets only a few thousand dollars.  On a mortgage in the $300,000 to $350,000 range, not too cheap, interest will be about $1,000 per month, or about $12,000 per year.  On a $1 million mortgage, monthly interest is about $3,300 per month or about $40,000 per year.  In addition the smaller homeowner will probably be paying taxes in something like the 20% range, which means that his deduction will be about $2,600.  The richer homeowner will probably be paying taxes at a higher rate, say 35%, so that his deduction will be around $13,800.  So, the government gives the richer person $11,000 more for living in his house than it gives the poorer person.  And of course, renters, who tend to be poorer than homeowners get no help from the government to keep a roof over their heads.

Another less obvious giveaway to rich people is the lower tax rate for capital gains and qualified dividends.  In this case the government basically rewards people for playing the stock market.  Arguably, the provisions discourage just playing the stock market like gambling in Las Vegas, because they make you hold stock for at least a year.  But if you do hold the stock for a year, the savings are enormous, cutting your taxes in half on stock market income, whether for trading stock or just collecting dividends.  The richer you are, the more the government gives you.  The government gives people like Mitt Romney millions and millions of dollars just because they are rich.  No wonder Mitt Romney despises poor people who get hundreds of dollars a month from the government, when he gets millions.  If poor people had any ambition, they would soak the government for millions, like he does.  Like most rich people, Mitt hates paying soldiers in Afghanistan or widows on Social Security.

Gifts to the Rich

Abolishing traditional defined benefit retirement plans has been a huge gift to wealthy investors.  In the old days, retirement funds invested in bonds, which returned something ike 4% annually, and which over a working life would provide the bulk of the funds needed for retiring employees.  Now most companies offer 401(k) plans, in which the employee has to invest part of his salary, and the company may or may not match his contributions.

Companies could hire experts to decide how much they needed to invest and how to invest it.  They weren't always right, but they had a better chance of being right than the average worker.  Investment companies can help with 401(k) plans, but often their fees are so high that they eat up a significant part of the earnings.

But the huge benefit for big investors is the influx of new money into the stock market.  This is partly due to low interest rates, which make it impossible to invest in bonds, but it is also due to the fact that small investors need rapid, big returns to cover their retirement.  This is often possible in the stock market, but it is the exception, not the rule.  In the meantime, the small investors create a huge pool of money for the rich to play in.  It's somewhat like bringing thousands of players into a poker game and creating a gigantic pot.  One of the small investors might theoretically win, but more likely one of the rich players who can keep anteing up will take the big pot.  The 401(k)s mean that there is more and more money flowing into the market, funding IPOs and bidding up stock prices.

Low interest rates mean that the wealthy can borrow for almost nothing to bet on the market, and with all the help of quants, hedge funds, etc., are more likely to win big.  The 401(k)s and IRAs will work out well mainly for the wealthy, like Mitt Romney, who had $102 million in an IRA.  Romney hates the low income takers from the Federal Government, but because of the tax breaks he gets, the government is shoveling money to Romney with both hands.  If he had to pay 40% tax on $100 million, that would be $40 million; so that is more or less what the government has given him, a lot more than if he collected food stamps.  Meanwhile the average investor in an IRA will save a few thousand in taxes.

Christians in Muslim Lands

The massacre of 147 Christian students in Kenya is only the latest attack on Christians in the Muslim world.  Christians are under attack almost everywhere there, including in some places where the US has intervened, particularly Iraq.  Christians had a better life under Saddam Hussein than they have under the government imposed by the United States.  America has abandoned them at least party under the influence of Christ-hating gays and Jews in the US.  We have seen the hatred directed at Christians by gays in Indiana, and we have seen the strong attacks on Obama by Jews in Congress for not prostrating himself before Netanyahu and Israeli/Jewish hatred of Iran.

Gays hate the Bible because it says they are immoral.  Jews only support Christians if it does not adversely affect Jews.  Jews largely see the Middle East as a zero-sum game in which if you help Christians, you hurt Israel and the Jews.  Fundamentalist Christians love Israel, but that love is not reciprocated except to the extent that it strengthens Jewish power in the US.

In Syria, Assad has generally been tolerant of Christians, who had a much better life under him than they have under ISIL or any of the other Muslim factions fighting against Assad.  Sen. John McCain and many other Republicans want to get rid of Assad by military force if necessary, thus condemning Syrian Christians to a horrible fate under his successor.  McCain doesn't care; he now worships money and power, and has abandoned the faith of his fathers, Christians be damned.

In Libya, as a result of Gaddafi's overthrow by a coalition of American, European, and Jewish leaders, 21 Christians were beheaded in February.  Christians did not have a great life under Gaddafi, but it was probably better than under the chaos of Muslim rule that exists in Libya today.  They have taken control in the power vacuum left by the US and its allies in removing Gaddafi.  Poor Christians!

An op-ed in the Washington Post summed up the situation of Christians in Iraq: "Christianity in Iraq Is Finished."  Speaking about the ISIL takeover of part of Iraq, the article says:

... for Christians in Iraq, the past three months have been the climax of 11 years of hell. We Americans have short memories (that goes for you, too, in the “Bush Was Right” crowd), but it’s worth noting that Christians began having serious problems within a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sometimes it was the work of al-Qaeda, sometimes Sunni insurgents pining for the return of Sunni control of Iraq. Sometimes it was Shiite militias fighting the Sunnis but finding time to persecute Christians....

So when I ask refugees their plans, it is unanimously to leave Iraq altogether. Enough is enough. This runs counter to the desire, expressed mostly outside Iraq, that a Christian presence be preserved in a land that has known Christianity for 2,000 years. It’s sad but true: Christianity in Iraq is finished. As one refugee told me, “We wanted Iraq. Iraq doesn’t want us.”  

 America has essentially abandoned Christains in Muslim lands.  Apparently Christianity doesn't matter.  The worst is that we are largely responsible.  We have destroyed the leaders and governments that allowed Christianity to exist.  I wish fundamentalist Christians would quit worrying about Israel so much and worry about their Christian brothers and sisters.

Uncertainty about Taxes

Republicans and businessmen complain about uncertainty for planning, but a lot of that is due to the fact that businessmen are lobbying for change, and Republicans want to give them lower taxes.  Meanwhile they block major changes to the tax code that might increase some sort of taxes.  The Republicans have problems because they have so many special interests to take care of, from defense contractors to oil companies, to neighborhood businesses.  Something that helps one, might harm another.  So, they are responsible for much of the uncertainty that they complain about.  

Kissinger and Shultz Op-Ed on Iran

Kissinger and Shultz have a thoughtful op-ed in the WSJ on the Iran nuclear deal.  However, they criticize it without offering an alternative.  Could the deal be better?  Of course, Iran could have renounced all nuclear ambitions and completely shut down its nuclear activities.  But I doubt that even Kissinger and Shultz could have negotiated an agreement on those terms.  So what is the alternative?  Implicit in their op-ed is the conclusion that only a military attack taking out all of Iran's nuclear facilities would prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology throughout the Middle East.  But would "shock and awe" work better in Tehran than it did in Baghdad?  It would probably bring on a wider war that would make the Iraq war look like a small skirmish.

Furthermore, they do not mention Pakistan (or India), the elephants in the room when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear technology in the region.  India does not appear to be a problem under its present government and the present international situation, but Pakistan is a big problem.  Pakistan has many nuclear weapons, most aimed at India, but available for other purposes, if the government so decides, or if terrorists get their hands on them, and Pakistan's Waziristan region is full of Taliban terrorists.  Even if Pakistan does not sell a nuclear weapon and if the terrorists don't get their hands on one, it is a source of nuclear technology.  It has probably already provided some assistance to Iran and North Korea.

Pakistan is a more clear and present danger to the world than Iran is, mainly because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not.  In theory Pakistan is a friend of the US, but in fact it is a fickle friend, often providing sanctuary for Taliban terrorists from Afghanistan who have been fighting American troops.  In addition, it is probably a closer friend of China than it is of the US, with whatever geopolitical consequences that may produce.  China is much less concerned about world peace than it is about the welfare of the Chinese state.

So, Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz, why should we be more worried about Iran than Pakistan?  Shouldn't we be happy to turn down the heat with Iran, even a little bit, while new fires seem to be springing up daily in the rest of the Middle East?

Jews Bought Sen. Cotton's Letter to Iran

I was distressed by this article in the NYT, “GOP’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift.”  It says that Republican support for Israel in partly ideological, but also “a product of a surge in donations and campaign spending on their behalf by a small group of wealthy donors.”  One of the main beneficiaries of this Jewish largess was Senator Tom Cotton, the author of the Senate letter to Iran, advising it not to negotiate with Obama and Kerry.  It sounds like Sen. Cotton got well over $1 million from these Jewish contributors.  The article quotes a source downplaying speculation that the draft letter and plans for its circulation were developed by Sen. Tom Cotton, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, and Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson in a room of Mr. Adelson’s Venetian Hotel.

The growing Jewish support for Republicans is odd because Jews have traditionally supported the Democratic Party, and tend to support more liberal causes.  According to J Street, a majority of Jews still support liberal Democrats, but the fewer extremely wealthy Jews supporting the Republicans throw the money balance in favor of the GOP.  For this group, the main issue is support for Israel.  This one reason Republican House Speak Boehner invited Israeli PM Netanyahu to make a speech to Congress attacking President Obama. 

I don’t believe that American and Israeli interests always converge.  Thus I question Sen. Cotton’s patriotism in supporting Israel over the United States.  Clearly the choice of Netanyahu and his Republican supports was (and is) to have the United States carry out a bombing attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.  There is certainly a significant risk that American planes could be shot down, or that Iran would respond to the attack.  Among other potential targets, there are thousands of American service men and women next door to Iran in Afghanistan, and a few still left in Iraq.  Sen. Cotton apparently is happy to have them die for Israel.  

Revisionist Holocaust History

For Jews, World War II was all about the Holocaust.  How many people died in the Soviet Union or Western Europe, or certainly in the Pacific doesn’t matter.  All that matters in how many Jews died in the Holocaust.  Even there, what’s important is only the Jews who died.  They don’t care about the Poles, the Gypsies, the blacks, the gays, or any other groups who died in the German prison camps.  Jews are attempting to rewrite history to support their view, and because of the single-mindedness of their effort, they are succeeding. 

The latest shot in this Jewish war against honoring the Allies’ victory in World War II is Nicholas Berg’s “The Holocaust and the West German Historians.”  According to the review in the Wall Street Journal, this book is something of an academic attack on West German historians for playing down the role of the Holocaust in their histories of World War II.  Appropriately the reviewer, Brendan Simms, is somewhat critical of the book.  He says:

Mr. Berg presents his case in a tone of polemical outrage, which occasionally jars in an academic narrative but seems excusable in light of the story he is telling.

Mr. Berg fails to acknowledge that German historians were engaged in not only a personal but also a national survival strategy. They were desperately seeking an intellectual and ethical basis upon which the German people could start again amid the wreckage of 1945.

My main complaint is that Jewish historians do not give enough credit to the Allies, Soviet, British and American, for their victory.  As bad as the Holocaust was, life for Jews would have been worse if the Germans had won.  I believe that the reason we have a World War II memorial on the Washington Mall is that history, led by Jewish historians, has been rewritten to downplay the Allied victory.  WW II vets thought that their victory would be memorial enough, but as their victory became less praiseworthy, they eventually needed something concrete to memorialized their deeds.