McCain's Intelligence

While this Mother Jones article raises several disturbing issues, for me the worst is the connection between McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, and Ahmed Chalabi. This article says that Scheunemann was one of Chalabi's acolytes, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld among others, in his effort to get the US to invade Iraq. Chalabi wanted to replace Saddam Hussein, but ran into too much opposition. He has remained a central figure in the new Iraq, although usually just below the public appearance level. The last I saw he was the head of rebuilding Baghdad, a job that gives him lots of money to siphon off to his Swiss bank accounts.

This MJ article sheds some light on my concern that there may be some truth to the Russian allegations that Bush and the Republicans encouraged Georgia to invade South Ossetia in order to help John McCain's campaign. McCain apparently shares my view that there is no love lost between the CIA and President Bush, and perhaps by extension other Republicans, including McCain. Thus, I think it's unlikely that there would have been an official CIA operation encouraging Georgia to invade. I'm less sanguine about the military, and the MJ article says that's where McCain wants to shift intelligence responsibilities. That would certainly reinforce suspicions that if there were some kind of clandestine effort to foment a war in Georgia to help McCain, the effort would have been led by the US military, not the CIA.

I doubt that the US did anything official to foment war in Georgia, but Scheunemann's connection to Chalabi makes him even sleazier than I thought he was before. He may well have done something to stir things up through his unofficial contacts with Georgians. It also helps explain McCain's rabid stance in favor of the Iraq war. If looks like if you vote for McCain, you're also buying Scheunemann and all his lobbying clients.

Terrible Campaign

I'm disappointed with myself for the previous posts criticizing McCain's POW experience. I don't think they are wrong, but I am mad when others, such as the Swift Boat Veterans, criticize Vietnam veterans for their service. Now, I'm criticizing McCain for his service. But it's tough on veterans. I was thinking tonight watching the Republican convention praise the military to the heights, that a very small percentage of the US population serves in the uniformed military. But the vast majority is motivated to praise them, because the majority doesn't want to serve. It wants to make money. So, while it praises military service, the majority thinks, "Please let those fools keep going to Iraq and Afghanistan, so that I don't have to."

What has gotten me so mad at McCain & company is the dirty campaign they have been waging. One of the first things that set me off was McCain's accusation that Obama cancelled his visit to wounded troops in Europe because the military would not let him bring press. There seems to be no basis for that claim; it's just another way for McCain to call Obama unpatriotic.

Tonight, Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee attacked the current Democratic presidential nominee at the Republican convention. As some of the CNN commentators said, it was questionable, but perhaps forgivable, for Lieberman to speak for McCain, but it probably crossed the line when he attacked the nominee of what is supposed to have been his party. Now the Washington Post says that one of his charges was probably baseless. Obama did not vote against funding for the troops, as Lieberman claimed. Again, like the claim about not visiting the wounded troops, the false claim attacks Obama's patriotism. This strikes me as extremely low and sleazy. It illustrates that McCain and Lieberman have poor moral character. Here are two United States senators lying about one of their Senate colleagues. The Senate is truly a nest of filthy snakes! Poor America!

Sarah Palin's Daughter

The almost universal hesitancy to criticize GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin and her daughter for the daughter's pregnancy while in high school raises questions about how Republicans (and Americans in general) feel about women. One the one hand, Palin's selection by McCain seems to indicate that Republicans think women are ready to govern. On the other hand, by saying that it's okay to get pregnant in high school, they are saying, "We like our women barefoot and pregnant. Women don't need no education. Just keep turning out them babies." But if they happen to get through high school and college, then they are qualified to be vice president.

Which is it Republicans? McCain might say, "Hey, women don't need education. Just look at Cindy. She's a total airhead. All women need is a big inheritance. I dumped my first wife because she didn't have one, and she wasn't as hot looking as Cindy."

I'm glad Obama doesn't say impolite stuff like this, but I am sincerely disappointed that McCain has turned out to be such a sleazebag.

McCain's Nasty Campaign and POW Status

Obama's statement yesterday refusing to comment on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy shows the distance still remaining between his campaign and McCain's. McCain's negative attack ads dragged Obama down somewhat, but he is still far above McCain in the decency of his campaign.

The Economist this week talks about McCain's bio in an article entitled "No Surrender." It says, "After failing to dodge [a surface-to-air missile], he ejected from his plane, broke three limbs and fell into a lake. He was dragged out by a mob, stabbed in the groin and beaten nearly to death." It does not comment on the the major decisions in that sequence: to have ejected from the plane, not to have fought to the death despite his injuries, or not to have committed suicide before the mob captured him. It is arguable that the honorable thing for McCain to have done, especially in light of the fact that his father was the senior Navy commander in his theater, would have been to go down with his plane. Allowing himself to be captured placed his father in a terrible position. His father dealt with it, perhaps appearing callous, but perhaps he felt that his son had failed to live up to the family's naval tradition. McCain had a horrible career at Annapolis; then unlike the majority of his cohorts, he got shot down, and when he got shot down, he allowed himself to become a POW. It's not a sin to become a POW, but it's not heroic either. It became more heroic for Vietnam war POWs because it was one of the few things that the country embraced, probably because they were freed only when the war was over, and thus there was no need to use them to oppose the war. The regular veterans came home to contempt from their civilian counterparts, who saw them as tools used by the government to pursue a war that civil society opposed, and therefore as war criminals regardless of whatever courage and decency they may have displayed in combat.

Ironically, Vietnam POWs probably got treated more like heroes than POWs from previous wars, while ordinary veterans got treated worse. McCain came to believe the hype surrounded his return, deserved or not, and now is basing his presidential campaign on it.

I'm guessing he failed to live up to the standards of his four-star admiral father and grandfather, and in response tends to downplay their service. It order to portray Obama as an elitist, he tends to portray his four-star father as something only a little better than a bag-boy at Safeway. In reality, McCain was a failure by his father's standards.

Fortunately, Obama is too polite to say anything like this.

Putin Says Bush Pushed Georgia To Attack for McCain

Putin obliquely accused Bush of encouraging or helping Georgia attack South Ossetia in order to help John McCain get elected, according to a CNN interview reported in the NYT. I was already worried in an earlier blog that McCain had helped foment the war in Georgia.

Putin seemed to imply that an American military or CIA officer was directly involved. I doubt this. If a CIA officer was involved, it was probably some rogue agent like those who worked in the Watergate break-in, not one working in a CIA operation. I think there is no love lost between the CIA and Bush. Bush has made the CIA's failures the scapegoat for his failure on 9/11, and by reorganizing the intelligence community has weakened the CIA significantly. It's unlikely that the career leadership of the CIA would undertake an operation mainly to support McCain's candidacy. It's also unlikely that SecDef Gates would risk starting a war for partisan politics, although I'm not so sure about some of the wild men in the special forces command; I just don't know enough about them.

Although I'm dubious that the US government would have encouraged Georgia to start a war to help McCain, I think the USG probably encouraged Georgia to tweak Russia's nose for its own foreign policy reasons, however stupid they may be. And I think that McCain used is own foreign policy contacts to encourage Georgia to be aggressive, particularly his chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Schuenemann, who is a lobbyist for Georgia. He basically gets paid to foment a war that advances McCain's campaign. McCain's connections are obvious; he and Saakashvili claim to talk several times a day, with Schuenemann's lobbying firm picking up a little commission every time they do. Plus, McCain has sent his own envoys to buck up Georgia's aggressiveness -- Sen. Graham, Sen. Lieberman, and his wife, Cindy McCain. No doubt they all said something like, "Don't give up," but the questions is how far they went in promising military aid either now or after "President McCain" is elected.

McCain Hides Behind POW Experience

I've had it with McCain's touting of his POW experience as the answer to every question, particularly to how many houses he has. Jay Leno was the final chapter for me, when McCain said he wasn't concerned about how many houses he had because he didn't have a house while he was a POW. Maybe not, but he had a wife, and he dumped her for Cindy not long after he got back. Cindy was the Paris Hilton of her day, an heiress with a hot body. McCain latched on to her pretty fast, before he got around to divorcing his first wife.

But what about being a POW? It's honorable, but several levels below the highest sacrifice for one's country. Obviously the greatest sacrifice is to die for your country. Why doesn't McCain talk about the pilots who died when they were shot down over North Vietnam? Maybe because that makes him look bad. Then there are those who don't surrender. They don't end up as POWs. They probably end up dead, too. Finally there are the POWs who try to escape. Maybe it was impossible from McCain's prison, but it should have been an objective. Being a POW is not an option for most Army soldiers and Marines who are face to face with the enemy, as opposed to flying miles above it. For most of them surrender is not an option. What about Gen. McAuliffe's reply to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne during World War II? "Nuts." Becoming a POW was not an option. While many Army Air Corps troops became POWs during WW II, many also escaped and worked with the resistance in France and other occupied countries.

McCain's father and grandfather were four-star admirals. By their standards, McCain's Navy career was a failure. He became a senator after he took over Cindy's money, but he couldn't cut it in the Navy. Maybe he sees becoming commander-in-chief as a way to redeem himself in the eyes of his father and grandfather.

McCain might be the first president to have surrendered in combat.

Is McCain Just Another Worthless Vietnam Veteran?

This article by a fellow POW of McCain's on why he will not vote for McCain gives me conflicting feelings. On the one hand, it's good to know that you don't have to fall down and worship McCain because he was a POW. On the other, it's disappointing that no one seems to have come out of Vietnam with a good reputation. The war tends to destroy those who served in it whether they were a "hero" like McCain or a poor grunt just trying to survive long enough to get back home. At least part of this is because the American elite did not serve and in order to make themselves feel better about avoiding service, they belittle the service of those who went to Vietnam.

As a Vietnam veteran, I am disappointed at veterans denigrating other veterans, whether it's "Swift Boat Veterans" running down John Kerry, or another POW running down McCain. When I came back, all any civilian wanted to hear was whether you killed any babies or committed some other atrocity in Vietnam. One book I remember reading was called "No Victory Parades." One problem for John McCain is that he missed all that. He came back praised as a hero rather than reviled as a criminal for his service. His tour of duty was a lot tougher than most, but his reception was a lot better than most. That may be one reason he is so ready to go to war, whether against Iraq, Iran or Russia. I liked him in 2000, but that was before he became such a warmonger. I think his defeat by Bush changed him for the worse. This article at least raises questions about how much people should bow down to McCain's POW experience. He uses it for everything, most recently defending himself for not knowing how many houses he has. His spokesman said something like, "He lived in only one house for five and half years, in prison" Maybe he should cool it on the POW stuff for a while.

Are We Winning in Iraq?

John McCain is hyping the line that the surge was successful in Iraq because violence has gone down drastically. It's good that violence has gone down, but does that mean we are winning? Basically we have set up al-Maliki and a few others as successors to Saddam Hussein. Are they our friends, or Iran's? Or, are they just in it for the money, like Ahmed Chalabi? Maliki has opened up to the Sunnis who are fighting for us, but is that going to be a lasting alliance? The Iraqis and Iranians in general don't like each other, but some dislike each other more than others. Where does Maliki fall on this spectrum?

Some Americans who are well plugged in to the Iraqi scene probably know the answers to these questions or have educated guesses, but if so, they are not talking. Basically all we know is that violence is down. Much of that seems to be due to the decreasing threat from al-Sadr's militia. But again, is that due to his being defeated by forces friendly to the US and to the westernization of Iraq, or is simply a tactical move intended to get the Americans to expedite their withdrawal.

We misjudged Iraq so badly during the invasion, expecting to be welcomed with flowers and candy, that it's unlikely that even the best analysts know exactly what will happen when we leave, although hopefully they are better informed than they were before the war. Of course, one problem is that many of the "experts" sent to Iraq by the Bush administration were just Republican political hacks who didn't speak Arabic and who had no knowledge of Iraqi society. Their time was largely wasted, although they made good money paid by American taxpayers.

My bottom line is that despite the drop in violence, we don't really know whether we are winning, and we probably won't know until after we leave Iraq and it's too late to do anything about it. I have a gut feeling that Maliki and his cronies are a lot friendlier with Iran than Saddam Hussein was, and that we are likely to see Iraq pulled into the Iran/Shiite orbit when we leave.

Supreme Court Problems

Rick Warren asked the two candidates which Supreme Court justices they would like to get rid of. Obama said he would get rid of Clarence Thomas, my choice exactly. The problem with Thomas is not his political philosophy, although I disagree with it. The problem is that he is a second rate lawyer. He's not smart enough, hard working enough, or something enough to be on the Supreme Court. The justices should at least come from the first rank of lawyers and judges. Clarence Thomas would be okay on a state appeals court or something, but not on the US Supreme Court. He's just not up to the job.

Thomas is an example of the fact that Republicans like stupid people in government. Exhibit 1 - George W. Bush. Exhibit 2 - John Bolton. Exhibit 3 - Ronald Reagan. Reagan? I think he was somewhat senile for the latter part of his time in office. He thought things were true that weren't, e.g., Cadillac driving welfare moms. It might have been true, but it wasn't. He couldn't name names. Republicans don't like law. They don't like treaties because treaties assume that nations have some respect for international law, and Republicans don't. They don't like to pay taxes. They don't like anything that hinders their options. This is not new. It's basically how the warlords in Afghanistan operate and how despots have operated for years. The West moved beyond this, but now we're going back to the Middle Ages, led by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas.

When McCain was asked which justices he would get rid of, he just named all the liberal justices. He showed no real thought, and that's what Republicans like. They like McCain better in 2008 than in 2000 because he's more senile. He won't stand in the way of their unbounded greed and selfishness.

Did McCain Encourage War to Advance His Campaign

John McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheuneman, was (and maybe is) a paid lobbyist for the nation of Georgia. Did McCain get paid for promoting Georgia? Did he get special access to the President Saakashvili because of the lobbyists on his campaign staff? During one of the many visits and phone calls that he has touted on the campaign trail, did he encourage Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia, resulting in many deaths, as described in today's NYT by Mikail Gorbachev.

McCain probably didn't do anything unethical regarding Georgia to promote his campaign, but having a lobbyist for Georgia on his staff certainly raises ethical questions. It certainly gave him better access to Saakashvili than Obama had, if only because of Scheuneman's rolodex.

The Rich Are Different From You and Me

F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous line, "The rich are different from you and me," was met by Hemingway's rejoinder, "Yes, they have more money." Today, the rejoinder could be changed to say, "Yes, they don't pay taxes."

Included in an LA Times article on Rodeo Drive, is the following:

An Internal Revenue Service report obtained by the Wall Street Journal in March showed that the 400 richest Americans -- those with incomes of at least $100 million -- controlled 1.15% of the nation's wealth as of 2005, or twice the amount of a decade earlier.

Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, though, the average income tax rate for the mega-wealthy fell to 18% from nearly 30% over the same period.

The Wall Street Journal often complains that the rich pay too much in taxes, that a small number of taxpayers pay a high percentage of the total taxes collected. However, the reason is that those taxpayers receive a high percentage of all the income received in America, and for the amount of income they receive, their taxes are relatively low. Although the dates don't exactly match up, one study says that in 2005 the top 1% of taxpayers received 21.8% of all income. A Treasury press release says that in 2002 the top 1% paid 33.7% of all taxes. This doesn't seem disproportionately high.

Much of their income is taxed at a low rate, such as the taxes on dividends and other "investments." One argument for low taxes on dividends is that the company paying the dividend has already paid taxes on its income. But an article in the NYT recently said that two-thirds of businesses do not pay income tax.

Russia 1, US 0

Surprisingly (given its conservative bias), the Wall Street Journal says that Russia "gave the U.S. a bloody nose" in the Georgia dust up. But if Bush got a bloody nose, then John McCain got a broken nose and lost a few teeth as the most conspicuous friend and promoter of Georgia, as I noted previously.

Of course, Condi Rice didn't come out too well either. The NYT reports that in a recent visit to Georgia, Condi's public stance was one of "defiant support for Georgia in the face of Russian pressure," while she claims that privately she warned Saakashvili "not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win." Maybe Condi should not have been so shy about publicly warning Georgia not to get into a fight with Russia.

Did McCain Start the Russia-Georgia War?

According to the Washington Post, John McCain's principal foreign affairs adviser, Randy Scheuneman, is a lobbyist for the country of Georgia. On the one hand, McCain is well briefed on Georgia, on the other, has he been too hawkish in encouraging Georgia to tweak Russia's nose? Thanks to his lobbyist/adviser, he has talked to the Saakashvili numerous times, but what has he told him? The neocon Republicans hate Russia and want to bring it down. Did they see Georgia as a tool in their attempt to destroy Russia? Will Georgia be destroyed as a result? Is John McCain the leader of the use-Georgia-to-destroy-Russia bloc of neocon Republicans?

Republicans Hate America

CNN reports that the US is using contractors in Iraq more than any previous administration in any previous war. It's because Republicans don't like the government, and they love to give money to their political contributors, like Halliburton. But it you hate the government, you hate the basis on which the country was founded. Republicans would prefer that their wars be fought by Blackwater, paying over $100,000 per combatant, rather than by the US military, who would be $30,000-$50,000 per combatant And the people getting $100,000+ would be firmly Republican.

Republicans will fight for money, but not for the flag. When a country relies on mercenaries to defend itself, it's on shaky ground.

What's Up Between Russia and Georgia

No doubt what Russia did in fighting Georgia was bad, but to offset the hue and cry of "Let's go to war against Russia to save Georgia," remember the following:

-- Georgia started the war by sending troops into South Ossetia, which admittedly is part of Georgia, but there was no shooting until Georgian troops started shooting;

-- In spite of George Bush's professed love for Vladimir Putin, he has stuck his finger in Putin's eye on numerous occasions, such as:
-- Abrogating the ABM treaty with Moscow,
-- Encouraging former Soviet states to join NATO, including Georgia,
-- Encouraging pro-Western, anti-Russian, political movements in former Soviet states, such as the failed Orange Revolution in Ukraine,
-- Forcing the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, viewed as an insult by the (pro-Russian) Slavs,
-- Proposing to install ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Arguably, Bush never liked or trusted Putin and the Russians and thus he decided to make hay while the sun was shining on the US, encouraging more and more former Soviet citizens to be pro-West and anti-Russian. The question is, did these anti-Russian policies produce the current Russian belligerence, or was Russia going to do this in any case? I think Russia's belligerence is due at least in part to the anti-Russian policies pursued by the US. If Condi Rice had managed her Russian portfolio better the world might be a safer place today. But there is the argument that Russia was always evil and that Condi was right to continue the cold war policies she grew up with.

Pickens Looking for Government Handout

Just to follow up on my previous blog, an article in the Denver Post points out that Boone Pickens is counting on government subsidies for his share of the natural gas part of his wind/gas energy plan. Like every other businessman he's looking for corporate welfare.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The turmoil around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is emblematic of the greed and corruption that permeate the American government and business community. If we were to let the Republicans' beloved free market system operate normally, their likely failure could destroy the national or possibly the world economy. So, in the short term a bailout is probably necessary. But Harvard's Larry Summers summed up the situation in an interview the other day saying that we may privatize Fannie's gains and socialize its losses, transferring the losses to the taxpayer. Of course, because the Republicans do not pay taxes, the actual losses will be transferred to our children and grandchildren. But we'll take care of them by letting inflation run wild, so that a trillion dollars will be nothing to them, just like it is in Zimbabwe's currency.

It's interesting that when the legislation dealing with the mortgage/housing crisis starting moving through Congress, it dealt mainly with a bailout for people who were being foreclosed, but when it finally passed the big winners were the financiers on Wall Street, in the form of the Fannie and Freddie bailout. The financiers get trillions, the homeowners only get billions.

More Tax Cheats

The latest example of rich Americans betraying the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is the report that they avoided $100 billion annually by hiding income and assets off shore. The most recently exposed hiding place is Lichtenstein. The Financial Times plays up the German connection, but many Americans were caught in the operation as well, many of them working through the Swiss bank UBS.

It would be interesting to know how many of these rich people who hate America are Republicans and how many Democrats. I would guess most of them are Republicans, since rich people tend to be Republican, and since rich Democrats tend to be more willing to pay taxes to support do-gooder stuff like education and health care, if not to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republicans have their shills like George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Fox News, who rail at the government and shout for free enterprise, which really means, "Let me keep all of my obscene wealth to myself! Let my neighbor starve and freeze in the dark!"

The Republicans say they love America but hate the government -- the petty, little bureaucrats who do the everyday stuff like monitor statistics, send out policy notices, etc. Reagan's famous statement was something like, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" But if you hate the people who work for the government, you essentially hate the government. The Republicans have tried to get around this by hiring private-sector contractors to do as much as possible. They pay their buddies in these private firms much, much more than a bureaucrat would make, and their buddies in return make generous political contributions to Republicans. See Sen. Ted Stevens, or Cong. Tom Delay, or Cong. Duke Cunningham, or Jack Abramoff, or many other corrupt examples! It's a nasty, unethical, little arrangement.

Boone Pickens, Windmills and Swift Boats

In his proposal to build windmills, Boone Pickens does not have have America's best interests at heart. He cares about Boone Pickens and nobody else. I don't know what his scheme is, but it's not to help America. He epitomizes selfishness and greed. By supporting the Swift Boat veterans who attacked John Kerry for serving his country in Vietnam, he showed his contempt for America and for military service. His bio in Wikipedia does not mention any military service by him, although he would have been of draft age back when they had the draft.

MTCR Still Alive and Well

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) which I helped create and to expand is still alive and well. This Commerce Department notice shows it's still in force and operating. The MTCR could have been a lot stronger if it had not been opposed so strongly by Richard Perle and his minions at the Pentagon. They wanted it to prevent developing countries from doing anything in the space launch field, and as usual, the best was the enemy of the good, and we got some least common denominator because other countries, mainly the Europeans and Japan were unwilling to agree to the draconian provisions forced as the US position by the Defense Department.

But, hey, at least we got something.

Obama Wins v. Bush

Obama's triumphal tour of the world shows that foreigners don't hate Americans; they hate George Bush and maybe most Republicans. Bush likes to stick his finger in other nations' eyes. Remember the invasion of Iraq? Remember ignoring the UN investigation of WMD in Iraq? Remember freedom fries? Remember old Europe? Remember Abu Ghraib? Bush, and maybe a lot of Americans who support him, hate foreigners.

Bush is low-class, trailer park trash, ill-bred, impolite, not a man you would like to associate with, unless you were going to grab somebody off the street and torture them. He's not stupid, but he's lazy, which is worse. You can't help being stupid; you can work hard.

McCain has accused Obama of being willing to lose a war in order to win an election. I don't think that's true about Obama, but I think Bush has already done that. I don't know whether the war will be Afghanistan or Iraq, but we are not doing very well in either. Things are going better militarily in Iraq, but Iraq just got kicked out of the Olympics because of its political system. That's not good. Our troops have fought bravely and well, but Bush doesn't care. If he did, he would do something to give them more time at home between tours overseas. He would take better care of the wounded.

Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae

With all the talk about the possible collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there is little said about the departure under a cloud in 2004 of Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. Raines was accused of cooking the books to hide losses so that his take-home pay would be higher by millions. In 2004 the real estate market was hot, maybe not as hot as it was a year or two later, but plenty hot enough for Fannie Mae to play fast and loose with the rules.

In 2004, USA Today reported: "In the financial arena, detractors say, Fannie Mae has grown out of control. It's the No. 2 debtor in the country, after the U.S. government, with $989 billion in debt. Some have even called Fannie Mae a giant hedge fund, since it uses derivatives and other potentially risky investment tools."

When Raines "resigned," USA Today reported: "Franklin Raines, the powerful and politically savvy CEO of Fannie Mae, was forced out Tuesday night by the mortgage finance company's board of directors, bringing an end to a contentious, three-month public brawl over the quality of Fannie's financial statements. That restatement of earnings is likely to wipe out $9 billion — or about one-third — of Fannie Mae's profits — since 2001. But analysts say that shouldn't have any effect on mortgage rates. To make up the anticipated $9 billion shortfall, Fannie Mae probably would have to sell part of its portfolio of mortgages, raise fresh capital by issuing stock or cut dividends — and its spectacular growth of recent years could be curtailed. The company was ordered by the regulators in September to boost its capital cushion against risk by some $5 billion by mid-2005."

So, Fannie Mae was already in trouble before the mortgage tsunami hit.

US and Israeli Interests Not Identical

Col. Pat Lang's blog has an excellent posting on the fact that Israel's and America's interests are not identical. Unfortunately it's true that many Americans see Israel as a 51st state. This worries me, because people perceive politicians who are fervently pro-Israel, such as Joe Lieberman, as fervently pro-American, but those stands may not be reconcilable.

John McCain should be careful about embracing Lieberman too closely; he may be embracing anti-American interests. It would be ironic if McCain, who holds himself out as the ultimate American patriot, were actually subjugating America's best interests to those of another country -- Israel. This is not an academic exercise. We probably invaded Iraq at least in part because of Israeli/Jewish/AIPAC influence. George W. Bush's hatred of his father and desire to show up Bush I's failure to depose Saddam in the first Iraq War was certainly another important factor. Now will we invade Iran, or support an Israeli attack on Iran, because of the same Israeli pressures? McCain is a hawk on both Iraq and Iran. While these beliefs are certainly genuinely held by him as in America's best interest, is he being hoodwinked to believing that everything in Israel's best interest is also in America's? McCain may be too gullible; as Lang points out, Israel and America have different interests.

Wasted Lives in Vietnam

An op-ed in the WP by Harold Meyerson laments the embrace by American business of manufacturing in Vietnam because the quasi-Communist government there keeps wages low. What was the point of fighting for democracy there, if we prefer a non-democratic government? The Republicans talk a good game of loving democracy, but a dollar trumps politics for a Republican any day.

A lot of Vietnam veterans have embraced the new Vietnam, but there is a difference between loving your enemies and making a buck off of them because they are being kept in poverty by their government. On the other hand, the lives of many Vietnamese are clearly better today than they were years ago.

We've been through this before, when both Germany and Japan came back from defeat in WW II to challenge the US economically. But in that case we defeated the governments, and the challenge came from western style government that we liked. That's not the case in Vietnam.

For Vietnam veterans, an additional cut is that the people making money from Vietnam tend to be people or children of people who avoided service in Vietnam. I guess this proves to them that they were right -- that the war was evil and that Vietnam veterans were sadistic baby-killers. But as a Vietnam veteran, I don't think that was the case. In most cases those who went to Vietnam were just submitting to the rule of law by submitting to the draft. Others believed the idealistic vision of stopping Communism and creating a better world. Both are being stomped on by American businessmen today. They wear American flag lapel pins and profit from the hardships imposed by the government that defeated America because these money-grubbing businessmen opposed the war and would not serve. They and their children by and large do not serve in the military today in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Swift Boat Veterans Still An Issue

The Swift Boat issue refuses to go away, probably because of Obama's decision to refuse Federal campaign funding, as the NYT reports. The Swift Boat 527 probably played a big role in defeating Kerry in 2004, and Obama doesn't want to get caught in the same bind, without money to challenge whatever the Republican dirty-tricksters come up with to attack him.

It still rankles me as a Vietnam veteran that Kerry's service in Vietnam was used against him. He may not have been the best example of a veteran, but at least he went, unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and many other leading politicians. Ironically, Al Gore also served in Vietnam; so, clearly this country hates veterans. It can kiss up to veterans now, because without the draft no one is in danger of going to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they volunteer. But McCain's opposition to the new, improved GI Bill of Rights shows that caring about veterans is not widespread.

I can only conclude that Swift Boat veterans are unpatriotic, America haters. It's probably an over generalization, but the image of a whole group of veterans has been sullied as far as I am concerned.

Anschutz Like Plato's Unjust Man

In the Republic, one of Socrates' students, Thrasymachus, argues that the "unjust" person is more successful:

"My most simple Socrates, you must see that a just man always comes off worst than an unjust. Take first, the case of commercial dealing, when a just and an unjust man are partners. At the dissolution of the partnership you will never find the just man with more than the unjust, but always less. Then in politics, where there are taxes to pay, out of equal incomes the just man pays more, the unjust less; where there is money to be got, the just man gets nothing, the unjust much. Then, again, when they are in office, the just man, apart from other losses, ruins his own business by neglect, while his justice prevents his making a profit out of the public; and in addition he incurs the dislike of his kinsfolk and acquaintances by refusing to be unjust for their advantage. With the unjust man it is the opposite in every particular."

But Socrates, like the Bible, doesn't think that acting unjustly works out in the end.

Not only does Anschutz not pay taxes, as noted previously, but he spoiled the retirement of many Qwest workers, who had spent most of their careers working for US West, by destroying the value of Qwest stock, which many of the retirees held.

The Rich Don't Pay Taxes

The Bush tax cuts greatly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay, but apparently not enough. Phil Anschutz is in trouble with IRS for some tax scheme that avoids his recognizing a taxable gain (and then having to pay taxes on it) for years and years, according to a number of papers, including the Rocky Mountain News.

The rich who balk at paying taxes are mostly Republicans. Rich Democrats, like Warren Buffett, tend to say the rich should pay more taxes. Thus, it's the Republicans who object to paying for government, including things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the soldiers fighting them. No armor for troops if it means you have to share your private jet!

People will argue we have to reduce American taxes because we are competing for business headquarters with other countries, like the Cayman Islands, who have lower taxes. It's a race to the bottom. I say, let them go. If Anschutz wants to move to the Canary Islands, good riddance to him and his filthy money. He can go join (Clinton Democrat) Marc Rich in Switzerland, but don't let him come back here to stay at some luxury vacation home or spa. He's scum, a traitor. We don't need people like him. It will be a tough adjustment for America to lose wealthy freeloaders like Anschutz, but while we're having a recession, let's bite the bullet and take on a little more misery to clean up the country.

I have been down on the New York Wall Street types for living large off of America without paying their fair share, and now it turns out that one of the worst offenders is right here in Colorado.

Hooray for the Supreme Court Decision on Guantanamo

Just a note to mention how great it is that the Supreme Court recognized the Constitutional right of habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo. If the US is to remain a great country, it must maintain a respectable legal system. I believe that the restraints on habeas corpus and the idea of having some kind of kangaroo courts in Cuba, rather than real civil trials in the US were due to cowardice on the part of the administration. Sure, trials will test the US, perhaps slightly increase the risk of further terrorist attacks, but that's what freedom is all about. Draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney were so frightened by 9/11 that they lost all respect for law, if they had any earlier. Thank goodness for the courage of a slight majority on the Supreme Court!

Wall Street v. Europe

Interesting that with all the talk on Wall Street about the benefits of globalization (for Wall Street, not for jobs on Main Street), one of the reasons that the stock market is supposed to be up today is because Ireland rejected the new EU constitution, which will throw the EU into a stew. So, Wall Street's attitude on this seems to be, "Europe's loss is our gain." I think that is ironically a shortsighted view. Wall Street should welcome a stronger, more unified Europe, but on the other hand should be more concerned about outsourcing American jobs to overseas firms.

Speaking Out on Guantanamo

Most of the news outlets covered the beginning of the trials (or whatever they are) of accused terrorists at Guantanamo. I think they are kangaroo courts. This administration does not like the legal system; it wants to appoint non-activist judges who will allow the administration to do anything it wants, like hold Communist-era show trials without legal protections like habeas corpus that have been part of the Anglo-American legal system for hundreds of years. For all the money that the administration has spent in Guantanamo to build jail cells, courtrooms, develop special judicial-style proceedings with military lawyers, etc., it could easily have held the trials in normal American courts for less money. Of course, the administration would not do that because it wants a guaranteed guilty verdict, no matter what, and in a real trial there is no guarantee of a guilty verdict.

I thought one of the most moving statements was by Navy Commander Suzanne Lachelier on the PBS Newshour. She said:

I think the American people, if they watched, and if they knew what was going on, if they understood the ramifications in the long term to our Constitution, to their Constitution, I think they would be ashamed.

I wear the uniform with pride. I am proud to be a member of the U.S. Navy, but I don't think these proceedings make for a proud day for any member of the service.

I hope that decent government officials, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Def. Sec. Robert Gates, will protect her from retribution by evil people in the administration, like V.P. Dick Cheney and President Bush.

Obama Encourages Israel to Attack Iran

A day after Obama gave a "pandering" speech to AIPAC, according to the Washington Post, Israel announced that an attack on Iran appeared unavoidable, according to Reuters. One of the most important things Obama said was that Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel and be undivided. This is a declaration that, if serious, probably makes moot (and impossible) future negotiations on peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem is a war spoil not granted to Israel by the UN, and if the Arabs have no part in Jerusalem, it's unlikely they'll negotiate about how to divide up the West Bank and Gaza.

Col. Patrick Lang points out regarding Hillary's pandering speech that some of her hawkish campaign advisers, who probably lost her the primary by advising her to vote for pro-Israeli positions versus Iraq and Iraq, were probably sitting in the audience at AIPAC. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart made fun of all of the candidates, particularly excoriating McCain for bragging that he took Sen. Joe Lieberman to Israel. Stewart said that you don't need to take your own Jew to Israel; there are already plenty there. Helena Cobban points out that the LA Times missed one of Obama's most significant statements by confusing what he said about Jerusalem.

My only hope is that Obama was not entirely sincere when he spoke to AIPAC. He had appear strong, because as he said at the beginning of his speech, the Jewish community suspects him of being a (closet?) Muslim and weak on Israel. If he gets to be President, he can always say that the situation has changed since he spoke to AIPAC, but will he?

Senate Seconds Scott McClellan

The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report basically reiterating what Scott McClellan says in his new book, What Happened, according to the Washington Post. The report says that Bush inflated the threat posed to the US by Iraq's supposed WMD. Did he give them the courage finally to issue their report? Is anybody surprised? Why isn't somebody -- Bush or Cheney, for example -- in trouble?

Obama Driven from Church

Barack Obama's having to leave his church is a bad sign for religious freedom in the US. People should be free to attend the church of their choice. Obama is a special case because he is running for president, but not that special. Admittedly, the US is not like the old Soviet Union where people were persecuted for going to church, or like a country that has an established religion connected to the government, like the situation that drove the Pilgrims and the Puritans to the US centuries ago, or like the Nazi persecution of the Jews, although that was more racial than religious.

What Obama's experience shows is that you have to be a member of a pretty bland, mainstream, widely accepted church if you don't want to be persecuted for your religion. While Obama's pastor may have been controversial, the United Church of Christ is not. And most recently, Obama was criticized because of what a visiting Roman Catholic priest said in his church. America says, "Don't you dare try to listen to other points of views. Don't you dare try to understand other religions. We'll crucify you."

It's hard to tell how much this religious hatred emanated from the Clinton campaign, how much from Republicans and their proxies like Fox News, how much from the evangelical right, and how much from news media that just wanted a story. But the end result was that Obama was not free to attend the church of his choice, and that's sad for America.

Israel Rejects Bush's Advice

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

American-Israeli Pundits

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

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

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

HIV and American Visas

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

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

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

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

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

State Comments on India Deal Kept Secret

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

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

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

Israel, Marshall, and Truman

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

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

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

Was Reagan So Great?

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

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

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

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

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

Does Reducing Taxes Increase Revenues?

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

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

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

Taxpayers Subsidize Richest Americans

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

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

Carter's Courage

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

Maureen Dowd, Deer Hunter

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

New Jewish Lobby

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

Here's Mother Jones report of the new lobby.

McCain and Charlie Black

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

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

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

Barack, Hillary and the Deer Hunter

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

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

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

House Value Graph

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

The Fed and the Markets

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

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

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

Lobbyists and Presidential Candidates

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

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

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

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

Israel, Jews, and the US Election

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

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

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

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

Wall Street vs. Main Street

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

Pimco Loses Confidence in Bernanke

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

Bill Kristol's Patriotism

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

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

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

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

Bushies Gut Non-Proliferation Effort

Just for the record, I worked with Linda Gallini and Dean Rust who are mentioned in this Mother Jones article about the Bush Administration's true believers who gutted the US non-proliferation efforts.

Will America Repeat Japan's Recession

The recession that Japan experienced in the 1990s, and that still pervades Japan today, started out in a very similar way to the way the subprime mortgage/credit crunch started in the US. The real estate market was in a bubble, and when that burst, the banks' problems made it worse. The NYT looked at the similarities and found that a better response by the US will prevent us from following Japan's downward trend.

The people whom the NYT interviewed are probably smarter than I, but I am not so sure we can beat the downturn without following the Japanese example, although I don't think we should be doomed to stay in the doldrums for a decade as the Japanese have been. The NYT sees the big difference as fiscal policy. The Japanese used only monetary policy -- keeping interest rates at almost zero for almost a decade -- but apparently not so much fiscal policy.

First, the fact that the Japanese have kept interest rates at almost zero demonstrates the limits of monetary policy as practiced by the Fed. Secondly, the Republican tax cuts mean that we have been running our fiscal policy as if we have been in a recession for the last seven years. Now that we are in one, inplementing a strong anti-recession fiscal policy is likely to ignite inflation, because we are not starting with a balanced budget. We are starting with a budget already badly in the red. Printing money is a recipe for inflation.

I don't think the Republicans care much about inflation, because it allows them to decrease the value of the debt they have run up the last seven years. It allows them to pay if off in cheaper dollars. Of course, for everyone else, it means that they are stuck with cheaper dollars when they get paid, when they buy things and for everything else.

The lesson of inflation, and low interest rates in general, is don't save. Spend what you've got and borrow at low interest because you can pay it back in cheaper dollars. But look at Latin America: the chickens come home to roost. People won't invest in your country, because their investments lose money as the inflated currency depreciates. We are already seeing foreigners (Chinese, Saudis) talk about diversifying out of the dollar into the Euro or a basket of more stable currencies. At some point, inflation and the depreciating dollar will force interest rates to rise, back to the high rates of old days (the 1970s) of 15-20 percent, or more if things get really bad. Such high rates are very bad for domestic business. Maybe globalization will make the coming scenario different from the 1970s scenario, but it will be a first test; so, who knows.

I would like to know what Paul Volker thinks, who got us out of the 1970s stagflation painfully, but successfully.

Tom Friedman on Israeli Attitudes toward Race

Tom Friedman deals with Israeli attitudes toward race in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, first published in 1989. Since he's Jewish, I cite him as someone who should not be anti-Semitic. On page 269 of my paperback copy, he says:

The Lebanon invasion [in the 1980s] reopened the fundamental division in Israel over the questions: What kind of society is Israel to become? What kind of values does it stand for? Is it going to be a Jewish South Africa, permanently ruling Palestinians in West Bank homelands, is it going to be a Jewish Prussia, trying to bully all of its neighbors, or is it going to be a state with borders that will be based solely on considerations of what will preserve a secure, democratic, and Jewish society at peace with its neighbors?

These are almost exactly the same questions Jimmy Carter raised in his book, Peace Not Apartheid, and for which he was severely chastised by the Jewish community.

Friedman also deals with Israeli attitudes toward the Holocaust a few pages later. He describes how fatalistic and pessimistic Israelis are, in part because of their connection to the Holocaust. But then he says:

If Israel wasn't founded on the basis of such a fatalistic outlook, then how did it take over? ... In the early years of the state of Israel it was common for nativeborn Israelis to feel contempt for the Jews who died in the Holocaust, and even for some of those who survived, because they were viewed as sheep who simply went off to slaughter, while the Zionists were men of bold initiative, who went ou and found the British and Arabs and built a Jewish state.

Ruth Firer, an Israeli who came to Israel from Poland via Siberia during World War II said:

"When I was a student here [in Israel] in the 1950s, the Holocaust was a family secret -- a shame.... The feeling, the whole atmosphere, was that the future must triumph over the past. All of us, parents and kids, tried to cover up what had happened. When we taught the Holocaust then, we taught the heroism of the Warsaw Ghetto -- that was it."

Friedman continues:

The change began, I believe, with the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Otto Eichmann in 1961, which brought both the Holocaust and the survivors out of the Israeli closet.... Today -- unfortunately -- the teaching of the Holocaust is an essential element of Israeli high-school education and in the Israeli officers' course. No one goes to Kibbutz Degania [an early kibbutz founded in 1909] anymore. Most Israeli younsters I met had no idea what it represented. dEgania is not viewed as the gateway to Israel. Instead, that role has been taken over by Yad Vashem, the massive hilltop memorial in Jerusalem honoring the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.... Israel today is becoming Yad Vashem with an air force. The past has caught up with the Zionist revolution and now may be in the process of overtaking it. The Holocaust is well on its way to becoming the defining feature of Israeli society.

Republicans Are the New Communists

Rice's decision to call the US's UN Amb. Khalilzad on the carpet, as reported by Reuters, for appearing publicly with the Iranian ambassador at Davos smacks of the old Communist methods. Condi should know them well, since she used to be a Soviet analyst. She was probably under pressure from the right-wing apparatchiks like John Bolton, who emulate the methods of the old Soviet Union to maintain thought control.

While on the subject of X is the new Y, it looks like Israelis are the new Nazis. The turmoil in Gaza, with imprisoned Palestinians breaking out into Egypt, has shown that Gaza is the new Warsaw ghetto. Jews have all kinds of racist profiling methods that they use against Palestinians and other Arabs, but locking them in the Gaza ghetto is clearly reminiscent of Nazi policies against Jews during World War II. The race hatred that is seething in Israel is hard to fathom.

What about Inflation and the Dollar?

Bernanke's rate cut, expected to be followed soon by additional rate cuts at the next Fed meeting, helped the stock markets and the rich investors avoid a deep drop last week, but what effect will it have on inflation in the US and the value of the dollar? It's likely to be negative on both counts. The usual monetary tool to stop inflation is higher interest rates, which also depresses business. Unfortunately, cutting interest rates tends to encourage inflation, and it is likely to do so in this case. Furthermore, currency traders tend to invest in currencies that give a good rate of return, interest, on their holdings. Lowering interest rates discourages people from investing in that currency, the dollar. Therefore the rate cut will likely have the effect of lowering the value of the dollar. The effect may not be immediate, because the dollar is currently at almost historic lows against most major currencies, the yen, euro and pound. It may take a while for people to get used to even lower values for the dollar.

The US has a great incentive to allow inflation and devaluation of the dollar because of our huge debt. It's a common practice for third rate developing countries to run up huge debts with foreign lenders and then devalue their currencies so that they pay off the debt with cheaper money. Thus, if the dollar eventually is worth many less Chinese yuans, the US will have to sell a lot fewer goods overseas to pay off the billions we owe China. That's not going to happen immediately because the Chinese persist in pegging the yuan to the dollar, but if the dollar really starts to tank, they may change their mind. But it's a complicated case, like the one where if you owe the bank $1,000 and can't pay, you are at the bank's mercy, but if you owe the bank $10 billion and can't pay, the bank is at your mercy. Thus we and the Chinese each have leverage on each other.

The Economist magazine takes Bernanke to task for his precipitous cut in interest rates, mainly because it smacks of panic. But it's also likely to have some harmful long-term effects.

The Bernanke Put

It will be interesting to see how Fed Chairman Bernanke's rescue of the stock market works out. It may be easy to compare his approach with a less activist approach, since all the other central bank governors appear to be resisting the temptation to rescue their stock markets. The Bernanke put seems to have replace the Greenspan put, allowing big investors to maintain an option to sell their stocks at a higher price if the market goes down too much. In essence this administration has said that it will rescue the rich investors immediately, and maybe later it will do something for the small fry.

The Europeans so far seem to think that the stock markets and the rich investors can take care of themselves. If they make some bad investments, they should have to live with them. This runs the risk of being a drag on the economy in the short term, but it gets the trash out of the financial system and creates a foundation for future growth. Bernanke and Greenspan are acting in the present, but are they mortgaging the future? Greenspan had twenty good years, which argues that his approach may work out. But the turmoil we have today is at least in part due to Greenspan's decision to keep credit cheap and let the good times roll.

Banks in Trouble

An excellent op-ed in Friday's Wall Street Journal (which I can't access on the web) explained the credit crunch problem well to me, and why the Fed has so far been unable to solve it.

The problem is that banks don't trust each other. Therefore, it's clear that there is another shoe to drop. Banks have expanded their risks enormously because they used securitization (selling loans as some kind of paper) to get loans off of their books. If the loans stayed on their books, the banks would have been limited in their loan making by their capital and their access to funds. Once banks were close to being limited in making loans by the size of their capital, the Fed could regulate new lending by expanding or limiting the banks access to additional funds.

If they moved the loans off of their books, however, they were never limited. Furthermore, at least in theory, moving the loans off of their books also moved the risk off. But now all of this junk that the banks thought they had gotten rid of is coming back home. Citibank has recently taken several of the "SIV" off-books sham entities it created back onto its own books, thus limiting the amount of new lending it can do.

To the extend that Citibank or other banks become capital limited, the Fed can help in its traditional way. However, if the majority of the loans are floating around as commercial paper being held by who knows who, there is not much the Fed can do. In essence the banks created money that was beyond the control of the Fed.

The rub is that the banks know how much trash is out there, because they know how much trash they sold. Therefore, banks are reluctant to lend to other banks, because they don't trust the other bank to stay solvent to repay the loan. The scary thing is that the banks know better than anybody what risk is out there, and they are too scared to lend to their colleagues. That makes it look bad.

Everybody talks about the subprime housing crisis, but what if there is other bad stuff out there. Banks have been "securitizing" everything, getting loans off their books. What about credit card debt? Car loans? Business loans? If banks lowered their lending standards considerably in these other sectors as they did for mortgages, won't some of them start to go belly up, too?

Paul Krugman has an article in the NYT saying that we are in more than a liquidity crisis. A liquidity crisis is when you have the capacity to pay off a loan, but you just don't have the cash on you. In this case, somebody (the Fed) can loan you the money to pay it off now, and then you can pay them (the Fed) off later as you continue to get salary paychecks, or your house finally sells, or whatever. But if you can never pay off the loan, it's a different problem. The money is gone for good. In this case the banks may have paid themselves huge profits on bad loans in a giant ponzi scheme. If the debtor can never pay, a Fed loan is not going to help. It may be that the banks believe this, and that's why they won't lend to each other.

If only a small percentage of the loans are bad, the system can handle it, but at some point this could grow from a liquidity crisis into a financial crisis.

Chalabi's Back

Ahmad Chalabi is back in power in Iraq. I had been wondering what happened to him. The LA Times reports that he is now in charge of restoring the Baghdad infrastructure -- electricity, water, trash collection, etc. No doubt he is using to good personal advantage his ability to give away politically valuable stuff that is paid for by someone else, probably the US. Since he was one of the main people responsible for starting the Iraq war, it is not surprising that he is benefiting from it. His ability to make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz his puppets who danced to his instructions showed how clever he is. Now, to come back like the phoenix from the ashes of his banishment from Baghdad shows it again. It probably does not bode well for Iraq, since Chalabi is much more interested in helping himself than in helping Iraq. It just shows how American policy in Iraq has failed, failed, failed, while Chalabi has won, won, won at America's expense, figuratively and literally.

How Are Services in Baghdad?

There has been a lot of press about how well the surge is working in Baghdad and how many people are returning from Syria and Jordan. But how well is the reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure going? Until now, a major problem has been security. We couldn't build things like sewage plants, electrical generation stations, etc., because people kept getting killed working on them. Now what's it like? How many hours do Baghdad residents have electricity? Do they have water?

The other question is what has happened to the neighborhoods? Has violence dropped because the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, because neighborhoods that were once mixed Sunni and Shiite are now only one or the other?

And, has the violence dropped because we defeated al Qaeda and other opponents, or have they just faded into the woodwork until the surge is over? It appears that the surge is about over. Troops are coming home that are not being replaced, because there are no troops to replace them.

It looks like the surge proved that we needed more troops than we had for most of the war. Why did it take us four years to learn that? Just how bad are our military planners and leaders?

Bush Lessens US Standing in the World

The Financial Times had an excellent editorial saying that the US needs to make some more friends in the world to help it achieve its objectives. Bush loves to stick his finger in other countries' eyes and call for regime change, but it doesn't work that well, as Iraq illustrates. This editorial is apparently based on a a report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. It says, "One of the chief casualties of the Bush administration's foreign and security policies has been US standing in the world. This loss of reputation matters. In testing the limits of its 'hard power', the administration has sacrificed precious 'soft power' resources too. It hurts the country that so many people around the world no longer trust it to act responsibly, and that (according to a recent BBC poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries) one in two says the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world."

It adds, "Dethrone the 'war on terror' as the organising principle of US action - not because containing terrorism is unimportant, but because subordinating everything to that aim makes it harder to achieve."

But in general, even of the this report, the FT says, "there is a whiff of hubris about it."