I question the Washington Post article, The current state of white supremacist groups in the U.S.,” using the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on who self-respecting people should hate or not hate.
I don’t think people should blindly accept the pronouncements of he Southern Poverty Law Center about who is a hate group and who is not. Although the SPLC’s main goal is defending the rights African Americans, an unstated but important goal is protecting Jews. Jews in general believe that they are superior to blacks, so that if they can protect the inferior race of blacks from discrimination, they can certainly protect superior Jews from it. (There are of course Jews who depend black on principle, not just self-interest.) Morris Dees. the primary founder of SPLC is not Jewish and was probably motivated by his genuine concern about protecting the rights of blacks. His cofounder and law partner, Joe Levin, was Jewish, and was motivated by an experience he had at the University of Alabama in which a fellow member of his Jewish fraternity was mistreated and discriminated against because he had argued in favor of integration in the school newspaper. Thus, he appears at least superficially to be motivated by Jewish self-interest rather than altruism.
My concern about Jewish attitudes toward race are due in large part to what is going on in Israel. Israel seems increasingly to be turning into an apartheid state espousing race hatred, perhaps not surprising since it was founded by Irgun terrorists like Menachem Begin, who killed almost 100 foreign officials when they bombed the King David Hotel. There are almost no blacks in Israel. Israelis would say that’s because there are no black Jews, I think it’s because Jews don’t want blacks to become Jews. In any case, Israel is lily white. And of course Jews hate Palestinians, although race is only one factor underlying that hatred. Now Israel is in the throes of deciding whether it should be a Jewish state or a democratic state. It can’t be both because Arabs outnumber, or will outnumber, Jews in Israel. Netanyahu wants to define Israel as a racist, Jewish state.
An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, “How to Fight the Campus Speech Police: Get a Good Lawyer,” about a dispute between Jewish students at Brandeis University points up the growing strength of the conservative, racist Jews in Israel.
So, the Washington Post tells us that Jews hate David Dukes. Big deal, they hate Palestinians, Arabs in general, and lots of other people. David Dukes has company, maybe undesirable company, but company nevertheless. The Washington Post picks sides and sides with the Jewish bigots rather than the Christian bigots.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
Friday, December 26, 2014
Jewish Spies in Cuba
As this Washington Post op-ed says, Alan Gross's involvement in the US rapprochement with Cuba is a subplot that will soon fade away. To me, however, it illustrates the enormous power of Jews in America and the Jewish lobby in Washington. The US embargo on Cuba and related sanctions, including the Helms-Burton Act which I find horrendous, has been in place for decades and attacked by various people and groups for decades, but it took the Cuban arrest of Alan Gross, an American Jew who was working on some sort of spy mission involving Cuban Jews, to break the back of the sanctions. The fact that Alan Gross was exchanged for three high value Cuban spies illustrates his importance and the Jewish influence behind him. The US claimed that the three Cubans were exchanged for an unidentified American spy, not Alan Gross, but the reason the other spy was never identified is because he did not exist. There may have been another spy exchanged, but he was nothing compared to Alan Gross and his importance to the Jewish lobby.
It's not clear to me what Gross's spy mission was. He was setting up a clandestine internet for Cuban Jews, but I don't know if this clandestine connection was for American Jews to use to support Cuban Jews, or was to get Cuban Jews to report information about Cuba to the CIA or some other American group collecting such information. In one case, Cuban Jews stood to benefit from outside contact, in the other they became liable to arrest as spies working for America. The Cubans seemed to view it in the latter light, no matter what the original intent was.
Interestingly, Raj Shah, the head of USAID, resigned shortly after Gross's release, although everyone claimed there was no connection between the two events. Shah was also accused of being involved in two other clandestine activities in Cuba, some kind of hip-hop activity and some kind of twitter set up. The Washington Post article noted above raises the question whether Gross was an unwitting civilian contractor manipulated by USAID. Of course the other question is whether Gross was really a CIA agent operating under USAID cover, or perhaps under the additional cover or some Jewish organization.
It's not clear to me what Gross's spy mission was. He was setting up a clandestine internet for Cuban Jews, but I don't know if this clandestine connection was for American Jews to use to support Cuban Jews, or was to get Cuban Jews to report information about Cuba to the CIA or some other American group collecting such information. In one case, Cuban Jews stood to benefit from outside contact, in the other they became liable to arrest as spies working for America. The Cubans seemed to view it in the latter light, no matter what the original intent was.
Interestingly, Raj Shah, the head of USAID, resigned shortly after Gross's release, although everyone claimed there was no connection between the two events. Shah was also accused of being involved in two other clandestine activities in Cuba, some kind of hip-hop activity and some kind of twitter set up. The Washington Post article noted above raises the question whether Gross was an unwitting civilian contractor manipulated by USAID. Of course the other question is whether Gross was really a CIA agent operating under USAID cover, or perhaps under the additional cover or some Jewish organization.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Cuban Relations
It sounds as if the US will restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, according to news reports. This is something that should have been done years ago. The terrible Helms-Burton Act denying visas to children with even the slightest connection to Cuba was one of the reasons I left the Foreign Service.
Nevertheless, I am disappointed that it happened the way it has. It gives the impression that Jews are in control of the United States Government. The main emphasis of the announcement was the release of Alan Gross, an American Jew, from a Cuban prison, and his return to the United States. According to the Jerusalem Post, Gross was sent to Cuba to set up a clandestine internet service for Cuban Jews. Although he is an American, Gross was essentially an Israeli Mossad spy sent to Cuba under American USAID cover. Interestingly, Gross was released while the US released three Cuban spies, but to cover the Mossad connection, the US said Gross was released on "humanitarian grounds, "not as part of a swap of spies. Despite the denials, Gross was apparently worth three Cuban spies.
So, we see the Jewish lobby is more powerful than the Cuban lobby, and also more effective than clear-thinking, normal Americans (as opposed to Jewish-Americans, Cuban-Americans, or other hyphenated Americans). It's sad that Jews and Cubans are both so racist, but in this case the result was the correct one.
Nevertheless, I am disappointed that it happened the way it has. It gives the impression that Jews are in control of the United States Government. The main emphasis of the announcement was the release of Alan Gross, an American Jew, from a Cuban prison, and his return to the United States. According to the Jerusalem Post, Gross was sent to Cuba to set up a clandestine internet service for Cuban Jews. Although he is an American, Gross was essentially an Israeli Mossad spy sent to Cuba under American USAID cover. Interestingly, Gross was released while the US released three Cuban spies, but to cover the Mossad connection, the US said Gross was released on "humanitarian grounds, "not as part of a swap of spies. Despite the denials, Gross was apparently worth three Cuban spies.
So, we see the Jewish lobby is more powerful than the Cuban lobby, and also more effective than clear-thinking, normal Americans (as opposed to Jewish-Americans, Cuban-Americans, or other hyphenated Americans). It's sad that Jews and Cubans are both so racist, but in this case the result was the correct one.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Congressional Torture Report
I think that to some extent the Congressional torture report is much ado about nothing. I haven't read the report, but based on TV and press discussions of it, I don't think that there is much new in it. It may just be official verification of allegations already made by journalists. It does accuse the CIA of torture, but I think torture is a vague term. When I was in Brazil, the military government used to do much worse things to Brazilian dissidents than waterboarding. I had one American prisoner who was sort of my responsibility since he was a fellow Vietnam veteran, and I went to visit him frequently to discourage the Brazilians from doing anything bad to him. He was held in the basement of an unmarked house in a very nice neighborhood with other "political prisoners."
But whether something is torture or not, it is probably good for the US to debate whether we want (or should) do it or not. We are debating this for us, to maintain our integrity, not to coddle the prisoners.
One thing that seems to have come out is that career CIA officers did not want to do these things, waterboarding, etc. So, the CIA hired some contractors to do it. The fact that career officers did not want to do it seems to speak well of the CIA, and seems to call into question whether it should have been done. The other question is whether these tactics worked, whether they got information. There seems to be a split of opinion on whether they did or not. It seems to me that this is a question that additional information should help clear up. How did we learn about Osama bin Laden's courier? Somebody must know the correct answer. But it seems like all we get are political answers.
But whether something is torture or not, it is probably good for the US to debate whether we want (or should) do it or not. We are debating this for us, to maintain our integrity, not to coddle the prisoners.
One thing that seems to have come out is that career CIA officers did not want to do these things, waterboarding, etc. So, the CIA hired some contractors to do it. The fact that career officers did not want to do it seems to speak well of the CIA, and seems to call into question whether it should have been done. The other question is whether these tactics worked, whether they got information. There seems to be a split of opinion on whether they did or not. It seems to me that this is a question that additional information should help clear up. How did we learn about Osama bin Laden's courier? Somebody must know the correct answer. But it seems like all we get are political answers.
Constitutional Convention
The following are my thoughts on this article about calls for a Constitutional Convention.
When I grew up in the South, the standard justification for the Civil War was that it was not about slavery, it was about “states’ rights.” That is what this constitutional convention is promoting. I’m not worried that war is coming soon, but clearly discontent is building. Much of this article is about the evils of money in the political system. My view is that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are largely responsible for that problem, in part by striking down their fellow Republican’s legislation, the McCain-Feingold Act, and of course the more recent decisions, such as Citizens United v. FEC. This has basically turned Washington over to the billionaires and corporations and their lobbyists.
On term limits, I think their efficacy is debatable. Sometimes it takes a while to learn how the system works. In the old days, this meant that some old timers like Everett Dirksen, Bob Dole, Sam Nunn, etc., could get some good things done. Now they use their expertise to block legislation rather than create it, but that could change. Another big problem is gerrymandering. Each party creates safe house districts that make it impossible for the opposing party to challenge the incumbent. House elections are no longer genuinely democratic (small “d”); they are rigged by both parties to return the incumbent in every election.
When I grew up in the South, the standard justification for the Civil War was that it was not about slavery, it was about “states’ rights.” That is what this constitutional convention is promoting. I’m not worried that war is coming soon, but clearly discontent is building. Much of this article is about the evils of money in the political system. My view is that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are largely responsible for that problem, in part by striking down their fellow Republican’s legislation, the McCain-Feingold Act, and of course the more recent decisions, such as Citizens United v. FEC. This has basically turned Washington over to the billionaires and corporations and their lobbyists.
On term limits, I think their efficacy is debatable. Sometimes it takes a while to learn how the system works. In the old days, this meant that some old timers like Everett Dirksen, Bob Dole, Sam Nunn, etc., could get some good things done. Now they use their expertise to block legislation rather than create it, but that could change. Another big problem is gerrymandering. Each party creates safe house districts that make it impossible for the opposing party to challenge the incumbent. House elections are no longer genuinely democratic (small “d”); they are rigged by both parties to return the incumbent in every election.
Monday, December 01, 2014
Unfavorable Book on Gen. George Marshall
I was saddened to read the review of the new book on Gen, George Marshall, who is one of my heroes. The New York Times Book Review of George Marshall by the Ungers and Hirshson is critical of Marshall and downplays his leadership. The review by Mark Atwood Lawrence states:
Looking up Debi and Irwin Unger and Stanley Hirshson on the Internet, Iwas not surprised to find that they appear to be Jewish. Jews do not like Marshall because as Secretary of State he opposed Truman's immediate recognition of Israel when it was created. Marshall thought it might create problems in the Middle East. Jews also resent the fact that Allied leaders -- including FDR, Churchill, and Marshall -- delayed invading Europe until D-Day. Jews feel that the Anglos allowed more Jews to die while they were preparing the assault. Of course, more Anglos would have died, and the invasion might have failed, without that preparation. Nevertheless, many Jews hate the Anglo leadership, including Marshall, for not trying to stop the Holocaust years earlier than they did. Interestingly, the review states:
Of course, these decisions helped speed up the rescue of Jews from the Holocaust, just not by enough to win more praise from the authors.
Thus, I find this biography to be flawed by the prejudices of the authors.
Debi and Irwin Unger take exception to this [usual] heroic depiction [of Marshall] in their elegant and iconoclastic biography, which pokes innumerable holes in Marshall’s reputation for leadership and raises intriguing questions about how such reputations get made. Marshall emerges not as the incarnation of greatness but as an ordinary, indecisive, “less than awe-inspiring” man who achieved an unexceptional mix of success and failure.
Looking up Debi and Irwin Unger and Stanley Hirshson on the Internet, Iwas not surprised to find that they appear to be Jewish. Jews do not like Marshall because as Secretary of State he opposed Truman's immediate recognition of Israel when it was created. Marshall thought it might create problems in the Middle East. Jews also resent the fact that Allied leaders -- including FDR, Churchill, and Marshall -- delayed invading Europe until D-Day. Jews feel that the Anglos allowed more Jews to die while they were preparing the assault. Of course, more Anglos would have died, and the invasion might have failed, without that preparation. Nevertheless, many Jews hate the Anglo leadership, including Marshall, for not trying to stop the Holocaust years earlier than they did. Interestingly, the review states:
They also laud Marshall’s determination, in the face of opposition from much of the American public, to prioritize the war in Europe over the fight against Japan and, over British objections, to make a major attack across the English Channel the focal point of Allied strategy rather than operations in the Mediterranean.
Of course, these decisions helped speed up the rescue of Jews from the Holocaust, just not by enough to win more praise from the authors.
Thus, I find this biography to be flawed by the prejudices of the authors.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Bad News
I can’t find an American news network that has worldwide
coverage even close to matching Aljazeera’s.
I watched the main news summaries on several American morning shows –
Morning Joe, Good Morning America, CBS Morning.
None of them mentioned the fact that VP Joe Biden is in Ukraine. Even if he is not doing much, he presence is
news, especially his helping President Poroshenko mark the one year anniversary
of the protests that ousted Putin buddy President Yanukovych. I thought that Charlie Rose was going to add
some substance to the CBS morning show, but he hasn’t added much. Nevertheless, I think it has somewhat better
news coverage than ABC or NBC.
Recently Aljazeera has had good environmental reports on the
plight of elephants and rhinos in Africa.
I haven’t heard the US networks mention that, although the NYT has
covered the environmental group’s report that was the basis of the elephant
story.
Aljazeera reporting on the Middle East is extensive, but
probably questionable because of Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and
other radical Muslim movements. However,
it seems to be making an effort to be balanced.
On its main nightly news show John Seigenthaler recently interviewed a
Jewish correspondent about the situation in Jerusalem. I worry that American newsrooms are dominated
by Jews, who may skew their news coverage on the Middle East in an anti-Muslim
direction.
Mainly, the American networks no longer have correspondents
stationed around the world as Aljazeera does.
The networks have a few foreign correspondents that they fly around to wherever
the hotspots are, but they don’t have correspondents on the ground who have
some personal information about the situation.
By and large, the American network guys and girls just stand in front of
some local landmark and report what they have gotten from a recent press
briefing. Each American network has one
or two correspondents who spend lots of time in the Middle East (e.g., Richard
Engel), but Aljazeera appears to have dozens who go places the Americans never
visit. Martha Raddatz used to be very
good on covering the military in the Iran and Afghan wars, but since the wars
have wound down and she has lost her military contacts, she seems to be
relegated to the same rote reports as the other correspondents.
I don’t watch CNN much anymore because it just seems to have
pundits and talking heads arguing about news that somebody else reports. Aljazeera is what CNN used to be before it self-destructed.
The American network morning shows always have lots of reports on the weather. I think it is because weather is easy to do. They just send some reporter to stand in the wind, the rain, or the snow, and talk about how bad it is. If they are really lazy, they just use a local reporter rather than sending a national one. They know Americans probably care more about the weather than about foreign affairs or the economy. CNBC and Bloomberg do a fair job of reporting on the economy, but the evening and morning news tend to concentrate on easy topics, like the price of gas.
The one American news show that matches or exceeds Aljazeera is the PBS News Hour. Although it does not have its own overseas correspondents, it uses ITN's. It covers international and economic news much better than the commercial networks. Margaret Warner's coverage of international issues is superb. She travels frequently, and when she does, she interviews senior news makers, rather than just reporting press conferences.
The American network morning shows always have lots of reports on the weather. I think it is because weather is easy to do. They just send some reporter to stand in the wind, the rain, or the snow, and talk about how bad it is. If they are really lazy, they just use a local reporter rather than sending a national one. They know Americans probably care more about the weather than about foreign affairs or the economy. CNBC and Bloomberg do a fair job of reporting on the economy, but the evening and morning news tend to concentrate on easy topics, like the price of gas.
The one American news show that matches or exceeds Aljazeera is the PBS News Hour. Although it does not have its own overseas correspondents, it uses ITN's. It covers international and economic news much better than the commercial networks. Margaret Warner's coverage of international issues is superb. She travels frequently, and when she does, she interviews senior news makers, rather than just reporting press conferences.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Soviets and the Holocaust
Jewish screaming about the horrors of the Holocaust and the evil indifference of the Allies in not coming to their aid soon enough has obscured the important role of the Soviet Union in winning World War II. If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union and brought them into the war, Hitler may have solidified his domination of Western Europe even if he had not been able to invade England or the US. The result would have been that many more Jews would have died and the status of Jewry in the world would have been greatly diminished. Israel would probably never have been created.
The Soviets suffered the most casualties of any nation in the War, about double what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust. But the Jews spit on the Soviet sacrifices although they probably saved millions of Jewish lives by defeating the Germans. It is unlikely that the US and UK alone could have invaded Western Europe on D-Day if the Soviets had not defeated a major part of the German army on the eastern front.
Even in America, we have a World War II memorial because the Jews made the war about the Holocaust. American GIs thought their victory over Hitler would have ensured their legacy, but the Jews perverted it by accusing them of delaying the invasion of Europe while Jews died in German prison camps. The Jews portray American leadership from FDR down as morally and militarily weak. America had to create World War II memorials to offset the Jewish defamation of World War II veterans. While Americans did fight valiantly and were probably a deciding factor in the defeat of Germany, the Soviets were also essential, but they get even more Jewish derision than American veterans.
The Soviets suffered the most casualties of any nation in the War, about double what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust. But the Jews spit on the Soviet sacrifices although they probably saved millions of Jewish lives by defeating the Germans. It is unlikely that the US and UK alone could have invaded Western Europe on D-Day if the Soviets had not defeated a major part of the German army on the eastern front.
Even in America, we have a World War II memorial because the Jews made the war about the Holocaust. American GIs thought their victory over Hitler would have ensured their legacy, but the Jews perverted it by accusing them of delaying the invasion of Europe while Jews died in German prison camps. The Jews portray American leadership from FDR down as morally and militarily weak. America had to create World War II memorials to offset the Jewish defamation of World War II veterans. While Americans did fight valiantly and were probably a deciding factor in the defeat of Germany, the Soviets were also essential, but they get even more Jewish derision than American veterans.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Oligarchy versus Free Markets
To function
well, capitalism requires a free market.
Markets in America are becoming progressively less free as they become
more oligopolistic. Antitrust is
basically dead. Mergers and acquisitions
are becoming more frequent and much larger, highlighted by this Wall
Street Journal story. A market
dominated by a few huge players is not free.
It’s bad for customers, who cannot bargain with so few alternatives, and
for employees, who are hugely overmatched by the power of management. It tends to stifle innovation, because in
many cases small companies cannot compete with the market giants, who will
drive new competitors out of business by cutting prices or other punitive
measures.
Outsourcing
and automation have increased the power of the already powerful market
giants. . Very little is manufactured in America,
despite ABC TV’s efforts to find things made here. Bank tellers are one of the latest entry
level jobs to go the way of the dodo bird, replaced by on-line banking and ATMs. Management of these large companies is
furiously trying to bring labor costs to zero.
They have enlisted the Republican Party to help them break unions. There are almost no unions left in the manufacturing
sector; the most powerful ones are in the public sector, particularly
teachers. For lobbyists’ money,
Republicans politicians have taken on the task of destroying the teachers’
union, which would probably be the death knell for unions across the
country. Republicans already dislike
education; how many times did Republicans say, “I am not a scientist,” during
this last election. They are uneducated
and proud of it, but they also have an
economic agenda behind their efforts to destroy schools and teachers.
The heart
of the matter is that Republicans love money and love people with money. This is why they are willing to outsource the
defense of the country to their friends who supply private armies for
money. That’s why they want to lower taxes, and end
regulations that in any way hinder their patrons from making a quick buck. That’s why we have even government healthcare
like Medicaid run by private insurance companies, of which there are only a few
giants who dominate the market.
The
American people sense these dislocations.
They recognize that American business is not the same as it was a
generation or two ago. That is one
reason they don’t have faith in the current economy. They see, either objectively or subjectively,
that the American economy is not a free market.
It is stacked in favor of the rich, who get their taxes lowered, their
political influence strengthened. At the
moment, relatively few people are starving; we are not on the verge of a French
Revolution, but we seem to be moving toward that sort of climax, rather than
away from it.
The most
recent episode of HBO’s “The Newsroom,” with federal agents swarming the
newsroom floor, was no doubt intended to be reminiscent of France’s “Le
Miserables” or perhaps even Nazi-era Germany.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Problems with 501(c)(4) Organizations
The recent elections point out how corrupting the influence
of 501(C)(4) organizations is. The
organizations are the means of protecting the use of dark money in elections
which cannot be traced to any individual or organization. The IRS was right to investigate applications
for 501(c)(4) organizations; almost everyone involved in them is corrupt and is
corrupting the American elections process.
To qualify under 501(c)(4), an organization must be a nonprofit
organized exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. It is not supposed to be a political advocacy
organization, except to the extent that something like historical preservation
or child welfare might get involved in the political process in order to
further its social aims. It may engage
in lobbying for its cause as its primary activity; however, political
activities may not be the organizations “primary activities.” Presumably this means that political
activities cannot constitute more than 50% of its activities, probably
determined by how it spends its money.
The OpenSecrets.org
web site list the following as the main 501(c)(4) spenders in the 2014 campaign:
Crossroads GPS
|
$26,015,174
|
NRA Institute
|
$10,686,049
|
Patriot Majority USA
|
$10,652,302
|
League of Conservation Voters
|
$9,472,561
|
American Action Network
|
$8,958,129
|
Kentucky Opportunity Coalition
|
$7.573,762
|
Carolina Rising
|
$6,459,252
|
Americans for Prosperty
|
$5,540,280
|
An Ohio
State College of Law article on 501(c)(4)’s states that they must file a
Form 990 with the IRS. While the 990
includes information regarding contributors who give at least $5,000, that
information is not made public. In
discussing the IRS controversy pursued by Congressman Issa, the article says:
When
Congress passed the disclosure provisions in § 527, it required disclosure by
organizations that intervened in political campaigns. Some organizations that
engage in significant political activity have claimed that their activities are
not political but are social welfare activities. If organizations primarily
engaged in political activity are classified as social welfare organizations,
then Congressional intent regarding disclosure will be flouted. Determining the
primary purpose of the organization, therefore, requires the IRS to examine the
political activities of the organizations seeking status as a social welfare
organization and to determine whether those organizations are social welfare
organizations or political organizations.
In discussing the IRS
investigation, the article goes on to say:
It
is very difficult to determine the primary purpose of an organization. The questions
asked of these organizations were clearly designed to try to examine the
organizations’ activities. Obviously, an organization seeking status as a
social welfare organization that is familiar with the legal rules in this area
is not going to state that its primary activity is intervention in a political
campaign. If it did so, it would be a § 527 political organization. The IRS
needs to examine an organization that applies for recognition under § 501(c)(4)
to determine its true purpose. To take an extreme example, if the organization
spent $10,000 on social welfare activities but had 1,000 volunteers who engaged
in campaign intervention activities, the primary purpose of the organization
would likely be political, despite the fact that it spent more money on social
welfare activities. It is understandable how an agent thinking about
investigating an organization would ask these types of questions. It is also
understandable that in the aggregate these questions were unduly intrusive.
The law appears to be
designed to facilitate misuse and thereby contribute to the corruption of
elections. My opinion is that anyone who
uses a 501(c)(4) organization is probably undermining the American electoral
system. It is a bad law and should be
repealed.
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
Chaos in the Middle East
I am disgusted by US policy in the Middle East. It appears to be the US policy to overthrow
every government and replace it with chaos.
We have created an enormous, fertile breeding ground for terrorism. Afghanistan pre-9/11 was a relatively safe,
orderly country compared to Syria today, and thanks to the US policy of
destroying governments that might have helped contain the chaos in Syria things
are getting worse.
The most recent target of US destabilization is Turkey. Whether rightly or wrongly, Turkey perceives
the Kurds, particularly under the leadership of the PKK, as terrorists who want
to form a greater Kurdistan that would take away part of Turkey, or ideally for
the Kurds, overthrow the Turkish government.
The US is supporting the Kurds despite the protests of the Turkish
government. Because of Turkey’s fear of
the PKK, the US came up with the idea of bringing Kurds from Iraq to fight in
Kobani, because Turkey doesn’t care of the Kurds create a Kurdistan in Iraq;
that is not their problem. The US
currently seems much more favorably disposed toward creating a Kurdistan from
Iraq than it did when Biden first proposed it years ago.
But Turkey is only the most recent target of US destabilization
attempts. We have already destabilized Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt (especially the Sinai), Libya, and Yemen. While Tunisia looks better, having just
completed fair elections, it is a big source of recruits for ISIS. Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq is
already going down the tubes, and Afghanistan looks set to follow after we
leave. Several recent articles have
compared the Iraq and Afghan wars to Vietnam, especially to the battle of Khe
Sanh, positing the idea that American soldiers won every battle, but the
political leadership lost the war.
It’s still not clear which way the battle for Kobani will
go, but today there are reports of the defeat of the American proxies, the Free
Syrian Army around Idlib in Syria, with the bad guys, reportedly al-Nusra,
capturing anti-tank weapons, after ISIS captured some of the supplies we
dropped for the Kurds in Kobani. The
American news reports of this on TV tonight were particularly bad. ABC’s Martha Radditz, who is usually good on
military issues, looked like she didn’t know what she was reporting on. Tom Friedman’s recent column in the NYT
raised the pertinent issue that because of the threats to news reporters in
these hot spots, we don’t have good information about what is going on. We are often depending on propaganda posted
on Twitter or Facebook, or on reports from ordinary people like refugees, who
may not be reliable sources. Hopefully
our intelligence agencies with all the billions we spend on them have some
humint, sigint and photint that the news people don’t have. And hopefully they will leak some sanitized
information to the news media that is not entirely spin supporting the
administration’s policies. But it’s hard
to verify.
I think that we are making things worse in the Middle
East. If we had let nature take its
course in getting rid of Saddam, Mubarak, Kaddafi, Assad, etc., we might have
more stability there and less terrorism.
I worry that the instability is a plus for Israel. Certainly al-Sisi’s takeover in Egypt has
been good for Israel. If the Israelis
believe this, then influential American Jews may be pushing America to pursue
policies that are good for Israel, but not necessarily good for America.
Monday, November 03, 2014
Is Jerusalem in Israel?
I have just learned of the Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v Kerry (see http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/argument-preview-court-edges-close-to-the-mideast-cauldron/), which asks the State Department to list the country of birth as Israel for Americans born in Jerusalem. Currently the State Department lists the country as Jerusalem because of international disputes over the legal status of Jerusalem. The UN resolution creating Israel did not include Jerusalem as part of Israel. In the years since, Israel has conquered most of East and West Jerusalem, but international law has not recognized the authority that Israel has claimed. A number of UN resolutions have criticized Israel for its violation of international law. See http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf
During the Bush II administration Congress passed a law requiring the State Department to list Israel as the place of birth for people born in Jerusalem it they want it so listed. Bush signed the law but issued a signing statement saying he would not enforce this provision because it impinged on Presidential power.
The US has resisted recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel, because Israel took it in violation of international law. Jews and Gentiles in Congress who are dependent on Jew money to get elected want the US to ignore international law and recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel. This Supreme Court case is another effort to reach the same result through another path.
I don't think that the Supreme Court should have taken this case either the first time or the second time. The District Court was correct. This is a foreign policy issue, not a domestic legal issue. To me it indicates that for all Jews, including those on the Supreme Court, Israel is the country that comes first, before the United States. The expatriate American plaintiffs bringing this case live in Israel, not in America. Former White House chief of staff Raum Emanuel served in the Israeli army rather than the American army. Jews are racists at heart, and Supreme Court justices are no exception. American GIs have largely gotten over Vietnam and gone on with their lives. Jews are still consumed with World War II, the Holocaust and hatred of Germans, FDR (for not invading Europe sooner), and everything related to them.
I don't think that the Supreme Court should have taken this case either the first time or the second time. The District Court was correct. This is a foreign policy issue, not a domestic legal issue. To me it indicates that for all Jews, including those on the Supreme Court, Israel is the country that comes first, before the United States. The expatriate American plaintiffs bringing this case live in Israel, not in America. Former White House chief of staff Raum Emanuel served in the Israeli army rather than the American army. Jews are racists at heart, and Supreme Court justices are no exception. American GIs have largely gotten over Vietnam and gone on with their lives. Jews are still consumed with World War II, the Holocaust and hatred of Germans, FDR (for not invading Europe sooner), and everything related to them.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Republicans Hate American Government
The Orbital Sciences launch failure illustrates to me the bankruptcy of the Republican effort to privatize everything that the US Government used to do. Republicans claim that they love America, but hate the government. They cite Reagan’s famous saying that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” I would reply that closing down the government and contracting out all of its activities to the private sector is an even bigger problem. Blackwater in Iraq and the absence of any manned space launch capability are only two of the most glaring examples. Another unfortunate one is ObamaCare, which expanded the private sector insurance model of healthcare insurance rather than expanding government-administered Medicare, the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney plan.
You can’t say you love America but hate everything the American government does. Private industry loves money, and Republicans love money, especially the campaign money that private industry gives Republican politicians to contract out government services to them. It undermines the civil service act that was supposed to keep outside money away from government service. In the old days, civil servants were proud of their jobs and did them well because they wanted to see their country succeed. By abusing government workers and denigrating government service, Republicans have undermined the morale of the civil service.
The revolving door is another problem. Private sector salaries and regressive income taxes make it impossible for government to compete with the private sector. A young lawyer can work a year or two at the SEC and then go out and work for Wall Street quadrupling his salary. A few people who have become obscenely rich will come back and work for government, but they consider their government work as pro bono, unpaid labor, although they are making the highest government salaries.
The result is that in addition to a dysfunctional Congress, we have an almost dysfunctional bureaucracy. It means the government will do a worse job of enforcing its laws, collecting taxes, protecting the environment, even fighting its wars. But Republicans like the fact that there is less de facto regulation, less strict enforcement of income tax laws, and they are by and large unwilling to fight in the military. Even for our military services, they basically contract out the fighting to poor rednecks. The wealthy don’t fight for America, they hire some else to do it. Bill O’Reilly’s proposal for a mercenary army is only the most obvious expression of this lack of patriotism.
You can’t say you love America but hate everything the American government does. Private industry loves money, and Republicans love money, especially the campaign money that private industry gives Republican politicians to contract out government services to them. It undermines the civil service act that was supposed to keep outside money away from government service. In the old days, civil servants were proud of their jobs and did them well because they wanted to see their country succeed. By abusing government workers and denigrating government service, Republicans have undermined the morale of the civil service.
The revolving door is another problem. Private sector salaries and regressive income taxes make it impossible for government to compete with the private sector. A young lawyer can work a year or two at the SEC and then go out and work for Wall Street quadrupling his salary. A few people who have become obscenely rich will come back and work for government, but they consider their government work as pro bono, unpaid labor, although they are making the highest government salaries.
The result is that in addition to a dysfunctional Congress, we have an almost dysfunctional bureaucracy. It means the government will do a worse job of enforcing its laws, collecting taxes, protecting the environment, even fighting its wars. But Republicans like the fact that there is less de facto regulation, less strict enforcement of income tax laws, and they are by and large unwilling to fight in the military. Even for our military services, they basically contract out the fighting to poor rednecks. The wealthy don’t fight for America, they hire some else to do it. Bill O’Reilly’s proposal for a mercenary army is only the most obvious expression of this lack of patriotism.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Roman Holiday 2
I remembered another incident connected with my Foreign Service transfer from Warsaw to Rome during the government shutdown.
When we unexpectedly transferred, my wife did not have a job in Rome. The political minister of the embassy arrived about the same time as we did, and he offered her a job working as an assistant in the political section. She was happy to have a job and started off learning the many combinations of the safes in the political section where classified material was stored. A few days after she had started, the embassy security section informed her that she could not work there because her security clearance had lapsed.
It turned out that someone in Warsaw had forgotten to fill out some security forms that would have extended the security clearance that she had obtained before we left Washington for Warsaw. As a result, not only did she lose her job, but the political section in Rome had to change all of its combinations because an uncleared person had had access to them. She felt terrible for inconveniencing them.
Again, this was just another example of government bureaucracy at its worst, but I deeply resented the implication that my wife, and by association myself as well, were security risks. The embassies in Warsaw and Rome were full of first generation Americans of Polish or Italian ancestry who had managed to get assigned to their family’s home country. Even the Ambassador was an Italian-American. It turned out that Amb. Reginald Bartholomew’s original family name was Bartolomeo before they anglicized it. He remained in Rome after finishing his ambassadorship. All these people with strong ties to the host government were not security risks, but my wife and I, who were third-, fourth-, fifth- or more generation Americans of British ancestry were risks.
My wife’s security clearance was eventually restored. She ended up with a job in the embassy security office because she spent so much time there getting the situation straightened out. By itself the incident would have been just a blip on the radar, but combined with the government shutdown, the failure to provide housing, and the downgrading of my diplomatic title, it created the impression that the State Department was not an honest, reliable employer for whom I wished to continue to work.
When we unexpectedly transferred, my wife did not have a job in Rome. The political minister of the embassy arrived about the same time as we did, and he offered her a job working as an assistant in the political section. She was happy to have a job and started off learning the many combinations of the safes in the political section where classified material was stored. A few days after she had started, the embassy security section informed her that she could not work there because her security clearance had lapsed.
It turned out that someone in Warsaw had forgotten to fill out some security forms that would have extended the security clearance that she had obtained before we left Washington for Warsaw. As a result, not only did she lose her job, but the political section in Rome had to change all of its combinations because an uncleared person had had access to them. She felt terrible for inconveniencing them.
Again, this was just another example of government bureaucracy at its worst, but I deeply resented the implication that my wife, and by association myself as well, were security risks. The embassies in Warsaw and Rome were full of first generation Americans of Polish or Italian ancestry who had managed to get assigned to their family’s home country. Even the Ambassador was an Italian-American. It turned out that Amb. Reginald Bartholomew’s original family name was Bartolomeo before they anglicized it. He remained in Rome after finishing his ambassadorship. All these people with strong ties to the host government were not security risks, but my wife and I, who were third-, fourth-, fifth- or more generation Americans of British ancestry were risks.
My wife’s security clearance was eventually restored. She ended up with a job in the embassy security office because she spent so much time there getting the situation straightened out. By itself the incident would have been just a blip on the radar, but combined with the government shutdown, the failure to provide housing, and the downgrading of my diplomatic title, it created the impression that the State Department was not an honest, reliable employer for whom I wished to continue to work.
Roman Holiday
It’s stupid, but perhaps unavoidable, for me to dwell on the last serious job that I had, as the science officer at the American Embassy in Rome. I am probably thinking about this because my stepson is currently visiting Rome.
First, I had no intention of going to Rome, but was asked to go by the State Department in Washington while I was still assigned to the embassy in Warsaw. Second, when the day came for me to depart Warsaw for Rome, Newt Gingrich closed down the US Government, and I got a call from Rome telling me not to come. Third, when I arrived in Rome, I was supposed to have an apartment waiting, either the one that my predecessor had vacated, or another comparable one, but the day before I arrived the embassy gave that apartment to a new DEA officer, leaving me to live in temporary housing for an indefinite period. Fourth, after my predecessor left and before I arrived, the embassy office suite was redesigned so that anyone coming to see my assistant had to pass through my office, as if I were her receptionist. Finally, the embassy did not want me; it had tried to have a civil service officer named to replace the departing officer, but the Foreign Service personnel system had tried to keep the job as a Foreign Service position by asking me to fill it.
Before I was assigned to Warsaw, the US had signed a science cooperation agreement with Poland that was to last five years. Each side would fund the cooperation, which would consist of a number of small projects with at least one American and one Polish scientist working together. When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress about two years into the agreement, they refused to appropriate funding for the remaining years, causing the US to withdraw from the agreement. Since this was one of my main jobs of the embassy science officer, the Ambassador recommended that I not be replaced when my tour ended. Around this time, I got the call from Washington asking if I would go to Rome as science officer. I agreed since the job in Warsaw appeared to be turning into a dead-end.
On the day that I had been scheduled to depart several weeks or months previously, Newt shut the government down. I got a call from Rome saying not to travel to Rome. However, all of our clothes, household effects, etc., had already been packed and shipped to Rome. Our car was in the parking lot packed with suitcases and two dogs, ready to start driving to Rome. We had nowhere to live. Although we could have stayed in a hotel, probably at our own expense, I was outraged that the government basically said, “We don’t care what happens to you and your wife. You can freeze on the streets of Warsaw for all we care.” I persuaded Rome to let us travel, but I felt that the US had broken faith with me and my family. When a government sends troops into the field, it should not abandon them, and I felt that America had abandoned us. I felt that this was a despicable, irresponsible thing to do, particularly in light of my thirty years of government service in the US Army in Vietnam, as an attorney for the Veterans Administration, and as a Foreign Service officer. The American government acted in a dishonest, low-class, disreputable manner. I left for Rome as a very unhappy camper.
As result of the combination of this experience and being a Vietnam veteran, I believe that this country does not stand behind those who serve it. Most elites avoided service in Vietnam. Some with a family tradition of national service did go to Vietnam: John Kerry, whose father was a Foreign Service officer, Al Gore, whose father was a Senator, John McCain, whose father was an admiral, but most did not: Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush (who stayed in the US in the National Guard), Mitch McConnell (who was discharged in the middle of basic training), etc. The leaders who avoided service have some selfish, warped idea of what the relationship should be between the country and those who serve and defend it. In my experience during my last assignment in Rome, I lost a great deal of respect for this country. I certainly respect and love what it stands for, the Constitution, the service of great men over many generations, but sadly a lot has changed in the last twenty years. In this election the only person I see defending my ideas and the values I hold dear is Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps there are some others who are quieter. I liked and respected Sen. Sam Nunn, and if his daughter will follow in his footsteps as a senator from Georgia, I would be pleased. I admire President George H.W. Bush, although I think his son, George W., was a terrible president. I like President Jimmy Carter, who I think was defeated in large part by the Iranian ayatollahs who captured the American embassy and held the staff hostage until Reagan was elected. But I digress.
Upon arriving in Rome, I found that the apartment that the embassy had said it was holding for my wife and me had been given to a newly arrived DEA officer the day before I arrived. This was my first indication that in addition to the government shutdown, something else was wrong at the embassy itself. In most large embassies the State Department is a relatively small component, often less than 50% of the entire staffing. There are officers from DEA, FBI, the military, Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, almost every department of the government and many of the independent agencies, such as the FAA. However, the State Department is in charge of the administration of the embassy – arranging housing, payroll, etc. Therefore, the embassy could easily have held the apartment for me, simply saying that it had been assigned. The fact that it did not and that it gave away my predecessor’s apartment indicated that it was not looking out for me as it normally would for a fellow Foreign Service officer.
Over time, I began to get some inkling of what had happened. My predecessor had not been a Foreign Service officer. He had been a Schedule C political appointee, who had come into the State Department as a special assistant to the then-Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew. I had worked with him and Bartholomew when Bartholomew had been Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance in Washington. Schedule C employees can usually only stay eight years (a double presidential term), unless they can work out some other way to stay. Usually they try to convert to Foreign Service or Civil Service. Apparently my predecessor had tried to do this and had been refused by the State Department personnel system, meaning that he had to leave when his eight years were up. I gather than the embassy had lobbied hard to get him converted to Foreign Service, and thus was mad with the personnel system when it refused to do so. When it turned out that he would have to go, the embassy apparently decided that it wanted a civil service officer at State whom they somehow knew. I don’t know how or why they decided on him, or even who “they” were. He worked in the office that oversaw the assignment of overseas science officers. It may be that he helped the embassy lobby to keep my predecessor, and they wanted to reward him for his help, or he may have worked with the Ambassador or another senior embassy officer on some project earlier. In any case, they had tried to get him assigned to Rome, but the Foreign Service personnel system resisted again, because overseas jobs are supposed to go to Foreign Service officers, not civil service officers. The personnel system was probably mad that the embassy had twice tried to go around the “system,” first by trying to get my predecessor into the Foreign Service, and when that failed , by trying to get a civil service officer assigned to replace him. I was the personnel system’s rebuke to the embassy, and I gather that the embassy did not like it, and for that reason, perhaps, did now like me. Perhaps the embassy had other reasons not to want me, but I had only just arrived, and nobody except for the deputy chief of mission, with whom I had served in Brazil, knew me.
Another minor insult was that my predecessor had been given the diplomatic rank of Counselor, which had also been my rank in Warsaw. When I arrived in Rome, it turned out that I had been downgraded to the diplomatic rank of First Secretary. The diplomatic rank does not affect pay, but it does affect benefits, such as housing, entertainment budget, and of course your status with the Italian diplomats with whom you work. In theory this was just part of the government cut-backs to save money, but combined with everything else, it looked like it was intended as an insult.
I suppose I could have fought the situation. I had been promoted to my then rank, FO-1, more or less like a colonel or GS-15, only a few years earlier; so, I had lots of time in grade left before I would have to leave if I didn’t get promoted. However, because I had gotten a number of awards that had increased my pay over the years, I was already at the top step of my pay grade. I could not make any more money unless I got promoted. The handwriting was on the wall that I was not going to get a good efficiency report or a promotion in that job in Rome. It could have been an opportunity to enjoy living in Rome and not care what happened on the job. However, I didn’t feel like I could do that. Furthermore, a diplomat is in many ways a salesman, sometimes selling US policies to the host government, sometimes actually selling goods, working with the Commerce Department, for example. I was not in a mood to be a salesman for the US government, given what was happening at the embassy. But I was too loyal to this country, if not the embassy and the Republican Party, to fail to do my best in my job on behalf of the country. In addition, life seemed destined to be miserable if I was always going to be at odds with the Ambassador and my immediate boss, the Economic Minister, who wanted to please the Ambassador. Rome might be nice, but not nice enough to be totally miserable on the job. So, I retired.
First, I had no intention of going to Rome, but was asked to go by the State Department in Washington while I was still assigned to the embassy in Warsaw. Second, when the day came for me to depart Warsaw for Rome, Newt Gingrich closed down the US Government, and I got a call from Rome telling me not to come. Third, when I arrived in Rome, I was supposed to have an apartment waiting, either the one that my predecessor had vacated, or another comparable one, but the day before I arrived the embassy gave that apartment to a new DEA officer, leaving me to live in temporary housing for an indefinite period. Fourth, after my predecessor left and before I arrived, the embassy office suite was redesigned so that anyone coming to see my assistant had to pass through my office, as if I were her receptionist. Finally, the embassy did not want me; it had tried to have a civil service officer named to replace the departing officer, but the Foreign Service personnel system had tried to keep the job as a Foreign Service position by asking me to fill it.
Before I was assigned to Warsaw, the US had signed a science cooperation agreement with Poland that was to last five years. Each side would fund the cooperation, which would consist of a number of small projects with at least one American and one Polish scientist working together. When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress about two years into the agreement, they refused to appropriate funding for the remaining years, causing the US to withdraw from the agreement. Since this was one of my main jobs of the embassy science officer, the Ambassador recommended that I not be replaced when my tour ended. Around this time, I got the call from Washington asking if I would go to Rome as science officer. I agreed since the job in Warsaw appeared to be turning into a dead-end.
On the day that I had been scheduled to depart several weeks or months previously, Newt shut the government down. I got a call from Rome saying not to travel to Rome. However, all of our clothes, household effects, etc., had already been packed and shipped to Rome. Our car was in the parking lot packed with suitcases and two dogs, ready to start driving to Rome. We had nowhere to live. Although we could have stayed in a hotel, probably at our own expense, I was outraged that the government basically said, “We don’t care what happens to you and your wife. You can freeze on the streets of Warsaw for all we care.” I persuaded Rome to let us travel, but I felt that the US had broken faith with me and my family. When a government sends troops into the field, it should not abandon them, and I felt that America had abandoned us. I felt that this was a despicable, irresponsible thing to do, particularly in light of my thirty years of government service in the US Army in Vietnam, as an attorney for the Veterans Administration, and as a Foreign Service officer. The American government acted in a dishonest, low-class, disreputable manner. I left for Rome as a very unhappy camper.
As result of the combination of this experience and being a Vietnam veteran, I believe that this country does not stand behind those who serve it. Most elites avoided service in Vietnam. Some with a family tradition of national service did go to Vietnam: John Kerry, whose father was a Foreign Service officer, Al Gore, whose father was a Senator, John McCain, whose father was an admiral, but most did not: Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush (who stayed in the US in the National Guard), Mitch McConnell (who was discharged in the middle of basic training), etc. The leaders who avoided service have some selfish, warped idea of what the relationship should be between the country and those who serve and defend it. In my experience during my last assignment in Rome, I lost a great deal of respect for this country. I certainly respect and love what it stands for, the Constitution, the service of great men over many generations, but sadly a lot has changed in the last twenty years. In this election the only person I see defending my ideas and the values I hold dear is Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps there are some others who are quieter. I liked and respected Sen. Sam Nunn, and if his daughter will follow in his footsteps as a senator from Georgia, I would be pleased. I admire President George H.W. Bush, although I think his son, George W., was a terrible president. I like President Jimmy Carter, who I think was defeated in large part by the Iranian ayatollahs who captured the American embassy and held the staff hostage until Reagan was elected. But I digress.
Upon arriving in Rome, I found that the apartment that the embassy had said it was holding for my wife and me had been given to a newly arrived DEA officer the day before I arrived. This was my first indication that in addition to the government shutdown, something else was wrong at the embassy itself. In most large embassies the State Department is a relatively small component, often less than 50% of the entire staffing. There are officers from DEA, FBI, the military, Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, almost every department of the government and many of the independent agencies, such as the FAA. However, the State Department is in charge of the administration of the embassy – arranging housing, payroll, etc. Therefore, the embassy could easily have held the apartment for me, simply saying that it had been assigned. The fact that it did not and that it gave away my predecessor’s apartment indicated that it was not looking out for me as it normally would for a fellow Foreign Service officer.
Over time, I began to get some inkling of what had happened. My predecessor had not been a Foreign Service officer. He had been a Schedule C political appointee, who had come into the State Department as a special assistant to the then-Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew. I had worked with him and Bartholomew when Bartholomew had been Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance in Washington. Schedule C employees can usually only stay eight years (a double presidential term), unless they can work out some other way to stay. Usually they try to convert to Foreign Service or Civil Service. Apparently my predecessor had tried to do this and had been refused by the State Department personnel system, meaning that he had to leave when his eight years were up. I gather than the embassy had lobbied hard to get him converted to Foreign Service, and thus was mad with the personnel system when it refused to do so. When it turned out that he would have to go, the embassy apparently decided that it wanted a civil service officer at State whom they somehow knew. I don’t know how or why they decided on him, or even who “they” were. He worked in the office that oversaw the assignment of overseas science officers. It may be that he helped the embassy lobby to keep my predecessor, and they wanted to reward him for his help, or he may have worked with the Ambassador or another senior embassy officer on some project earlier. In any case, they had tried to get him assigned to Rome, but the Foreign Service personnel system resisted again, because overseas jobs are supposed to go to Foreign Service officers, not civil service officers. The personnel system was probably mad that the embassy had twice tried to go around the “system,” first by trying to get my predecessor into the Foreign Service, and when that failed , by trying to get a civil service officer assigned to replace him. I was the personnel system’s rebuke to the embassy, and I gather that the embassy did not like it, and for that reason, perhaps, did now like me. Perhaps the embassy had other reasons not to want me, but I had only just arrived, and nobody except for the deputy chief of mission, with whom I had served in Brazil, knew me.
Another minor insult was that my predecessor had been given the diplomatic rank of Counselor, which had also been my rank in Warsaw. When I arrived in Rome, it turned out that I had been downgraded to the diplomatic rank of First Secretary. The diplomatic rank does not affect pay, but it does affect benefits, such as housing, entertainment budget, and of course your status with the Italian diplomats with whom you work. In theory this was just part of the government cut-backs to save money, but combined with everything else, it looked like it was intended as an insult.
I suppose I could have fought the situation. I had been promoted to my then rank, FO-1, more or less like a colonel or GS-15, only a few years earlier; so, I had lots of time in grade left before I would have to leave if I didn’t get promoted. However, because I had gotten a number of awards that had increased my pay over the years, I was already at the top step of my pay grade. I could not make any more money unless I got promoted. The handwriting was on the wall that I was not going to get a good efficiency report or a promotion in that job in Rome. It could have been an opportunity to enjoy living in Rome and not care what happened on the job. However, I didn’t feel like I could do that. Furthermore, a diplomat is in many ways a salesman, sometimes selling US policies to the host government, sometimes actually selling goods, working with the Commerce Department, for example. I was not in a mood to be a salesman for the US government, given what was happening at the embassy. But I was too loyal to this country, if not the embassy and the Republican Party, to fail to do my best in my job on behalf of the country. In addition, life seemed destined to be miserable if I was always going to be at odds with the Ambassador and my immediate boss, the Economic Minister, who wanted to please the Ambassador. Rome might be nice, but not nice enough to be totally miserable on the job. So, I retired.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Rich Jew vs. Rich Jew
Two obscenely rich Jews are facing off in the New York Times over Hank Greenberg’s suit to recover millions of dollars for US Government
actions regarding AIG during the financial crisis. Greenberg says he was cheated by the
government, although his old AIG insurance company was bankrupt and threatened
to destroy the financial system unless it was rescued by the government. Steven Rattner, who was the “car czar” during
the meltdown attacks Greenberg for trying to profit from a situation that his
company created by its poor business practices.
Rattner, whom I really like on “Morning Joe,” is of course
right. I congratulate him for not
standing by Greenberg in some kind of Jewish solidarity. Rattner is correct in his closing statement
that “Average Americans [me] already feel distaste for Wall Street and rich
people; bringing these rapacious lawsuits can only unnecessarily exacerbate
class tensions.”
The most generous interpretation I can put on Greenberg’s
action is that he is embarrassed by the fact that his company was so poorly managed
that it made him and the people who worked for him look like incompetent
fools. Winning a lawsuit might bring him
a little redemption. But for now
Greenberg remains a very rich, stupid, incompetent fool. He is proof that you don’t need to be very
smart to make lots of money; you just need to be very greedy, unfeeling, and
probably somewhat dishonest.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Don't Soak the Rich, Let the Poor Help the Poor
The NYT has an interesting op-ed in defense of letting the filthy rich keep their money. "Don't Soak the Rich" argues that it is not tax collection that fights income inequality, but how government income is spent. It argues that Germany's regressive income tax structure is better at redistributing income that America's putative preogressive tax structure. It begs the question of how and where the government is going to raise the money it redistributes without raising taxes on the rich. It seems to argue that the government can help the poor by taxing them and then giving them their money back. This is exactly what the Republicans rail against when arguing against tax increases for the rich. They say you know better what to do with your own money than the government does. It is arguable that if the government increased taxes on lower incomes significantly that they would be less able to buy beer and cigarettes and the government could use that money to build infrastructure, new roads and airports. But I don't buy that argument. If you need to raise money, you need to tax those who have the money, the rich. Willie Sutton said he robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is." It's the same thing with taxes. If as the op-ed says, government redistributions of wealth help level inequality, then you need to raise some money to redistribute, and the rich people have it.
I think most Americans who have an opinion would say that the old days of Eisenhower and Kennedy were better in terms of income equality, when taxes on the rich were much higher than today. Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically, and America has become much worse for it over the years. In the short term, Reagan's tax cuts did not seem to pierce the soul of America, but in the decades since then, America has ceased to be a shining city on a hill, in large part because Reagan refused to pay the bill to keep the city's lights on. He destroyed that wonderful, shining city.
I think most Americans who have an opinion would say that the old days of Eisenhower and Kennedy were better in terms of income equality, when taxes on the rich were much higher than today. Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically, and America has become much worse for it over the years. In the short term, Reagan's tax cuts did not seem to pierce the soul of America, but in the decades since then, America has ceased to be a shining city on a hill, in large part because Reagan refused to pay the bill to keep the city's lights on. He destroyed that wonderful, shining city.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
History Is History, Patriotic or Not
The WSJ op-ed by Donald Kagan says, "Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education." He cites Thomas Jefferson for support, not thinking that Thomas Jefferson was not a British patriot, If he had been, the United States would probably not exist. By his definition, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and most of the leaders of the late 20th century were not patriots. They refused to fight for their country (the U.S.) during the Vietnam War. They rebelled against their government, which wanted to send troops to Vietnam; they didn't go. They had excuses, but they did not do what the government wanted them to do. By Kagan's definition, they were (are) not patriots.
Kagan rails against the intellectuals in universities who encouraged their students to examine reasons why the 9/11 terrorists may have done what they did. He mistakes the conflict of intellectuals versus regular people for the actual conflict between generations. The baby boomers who avoided war in the 1960s are the professors whom he denigrates as intellectuals. They are just rationalizing their own refusal to fight for their country years ago. The new, student generation which does not have the draft to contend with is less concerned about sending some poor rednecks to fight a war for them. And, yes, some are patriots who will go and fight, just as many young men in the 1960s went and fought in Vietnam. Fewer go today if you compare the number of individuals who fought in the Vietnam War and the number who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proportion of the population that serves today is much smaller that it was during Vietnam. But the elites did not fight then and will not fight now.
This is relevant in my neighborhood. The school board of Jefferson County, Colorado, wants to throw out the curriculum for the high school AP history course, because it is not patriotic enough. The school board wants to remove history about dissent and resistance to the government. They want to teach history as they wished it had happened, not as it actually happened. They wish the rebellion against the draft in the 1960s had never happened, along with civil rights protests, prohibition, the Civil War, and many other unpleasant episodes in US history, but they did happen, and if you ignore them, you are not teaching history, but you are just distributing some sort of propaganda. Welcome to the old Soviet Union! Will history be taught from little red books like those Mao distributed in China?
Kagan rails against the intellectuals in universities who encouraged their students to examine reasons why the 9/11 terrorists may have done what they did. He mistakes the conflict of intellectuals versus regular people for the actual conflict between generations. The baby boomers who avoided war in the 1960s are the professors whom he denigrates as intellectuals. They are just rationalizing their own refusal to fight for their country years ago. The new, student generation which does not have the draft to contend with is less concerned about sending some poor rednecks to fight a war for them. And, yes, some are patriots who will go and fight, just as many young men in the 1960s went and fought in Vietnam. Fewer go today if you compare the number of individuals who fought in the Vietnam War and the number who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proportion of the population that serves today is much smaller that it was during Vietnam. But the elites did not fight then and will not fight now.
This is relevant in my neighborhood. The school board of Jefferson County, Colorado, wants to throw out the curriculum for the high school AP history course, because it is not patriotic enough. The school board wants to remove history about dissent and resistance to the government. They want to teach history as they wished it had happened, not as it actually happened. They wish the rebellion against the draft in the 1960s had never happened, along with civil rights protests, prohibition, the Civil War, and many other unpleasant episodes in US history, but they did happen, and if you ignore them, you are not teaching history, but you are just distributing some sort of propaganda. Welcome to the old Soviet Union! Will history be taught from little red books like those Mao distributed in China?
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Is Ukraine Putin's Cuban Missile Crisis
To what extent does Putin see the crisis in Ukraine the same way that Kennedy saw the Cuban missile crisis: a foreign military threat to the national security of the country? It is not clear what NATO is going to do vis-Ã -vis Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member; so, NATO has no treaty obligation to defend it, although it does have treaty obligations to Poland and the Baltic states. Who knows what Putin thought, but it would be reasonable to see Ukraine (and Belarus) as a buffer between Russia and the NATO allies, a kind of a Finland, as many commentators have described it. He counted on his puppet rulers in Ukraine to keep the lid on yearnings to join the West, but they failed him while he was busy with the Olympics. While there is a lot of talk about Ukraine never joining NATO, who knows what might happen in ten or twenty years.
On the other hand, it is arguable that NATO is not a threat to Russia,as long as Russia behaves itself and does not engage in aggression. In the past there was some talk that Russia itself might join NATO.
This may be where the sense of Russian greatness comes in. Russia has always been on the border of Europe, not quite European, but always interacting closely with Europe, whether under attack by Napoleon or Hitler, or engaged in a cold war, or in a trade dispute with the EU. Russia has historical justification for distrust of Europe. Now Russia’s first capital city, Kiev, is looking to the West to join the EU rather than to the East as an ally of Russia.
Despite the historical and military consequences for Russia, does Russia have any right to interfere in the self-determination of the Ukraining people? If the US experience with the Cuban missile crisis is relevant, them the answer might be yes, if there are legitimate national security risks for Russia. The West says, no, there is no national security risk, because NATO and the West will never be an aggressor against Russia. For Russia, the question is whether that assurance is one on which it can stake its existence for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, it is arguable that NATO is not a threat to Russia,as long as Russia behaves itself and does not engage in aggression. In the past there was some talk that Russia itself might join NATO.
This may be where the sense of Russian greatness comes in. Russia has always been on the border of Europe, not quite European, but always interacting closely with Europe, whether under attack by Napoleon or Hitler, or engaged in a cold war, or in a trade dispute with the EU. Russia has historical justification for distrust of Europe. Now Russia’s first capital city, Kiev, is looking to the West to join the EU rather than to the East as an ally of Russia.
Despite the historical and military consequences for Russia, does Russia have any right to interfere in the self-determination of the Ukraining people? If the US experience with the Cuban missile crisis is relevant, them the answer might be yes, if there are legitimate national security risks for Russia. The West says, no, there is no national security risk, because NATO and the West will never be an aggressor against Russia. For Russia, the question is whether that assurance is one on which it can stake its existence for the foreseeable future.
Another national security issue is the Russian warm water
port in Crimea. This was traditionally
Russian territory until Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine in 1954. Putin has already taken Crimea back for
Russia, but it has no overland connection to Russia. Contact with Russia must be over Ukrainian
territory. Putin may not find this
acceptable, but so far it sounds as if there may be room for negotiation. If the pro-Russian, eastern provinces of Ukraine
were granted lots of autonomy by Ukraine, so that Putin felt he could rely on
this for transport to and from Crimea, he might not feel that he has to annex
them as part of Russia. It remains to be
seen what assurances Ukraine will give and whether Putin will accept them. If not, he may feel that he has to take
eastern Ukraine militarily.
Discussing strategic access by Russia to Crimea avoids the
issue of whether Russian has a special obligation to Russian speaking, Russia
loving populations in surrounding countries.
This is the issue that brings fear to the Baltic republics. They might prefer to see the Ukrainian issue
resolved without getting into the question of what to do about ethnic Russians
in countries bordering Russia.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Network News
After watching most of the network news shows, I think the PBS News Hour and Aljazeera’s John Seigenthaler are the best. ABC, CBS and NBC are abysmal in covering foreign events. They have two or three foreign correspondents that they stick on planes to report from some recognizable building near where the event occurred, often not in the same country, but maybe in the same continent, e.g., reporting about Greece from London or about Libya from Lebanon. Aljazeera actually has some foreign correspondents who report from where the news is happening, e.g., from eastern Ukraine where fighting is going on. No one can top Margaret Warner of PBS for her foreign reporting, often from dangerous places that the big networks appear afraid send correspondents to, or are unwilling to spend the money to send correspondents there.
Money appears to be a big issue. ABC, NBC and CBS have clearly decided to cut spending on news coverage. Scott Pelley, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer appear lazy or stupid. Diane Sawyer has apparently embarrassed herself so badly that she is leaving ABC news to do something easier. The morning news shows (Today, etc.) have almost no news; they are mainly extended weather reports and stories about celebrities, often just pulled straight off the Internet. Charlie Rose was supposed to add gravitas to CBS, and he has helped, but the CBS news division appears to be so worthless that he has nothing to work with.
The networks would probably say that their flagship news shows can’t compete with the 24 hour coverage of the cable channels, but the Daily Show and Colbert Report frequently ridicule CNN and FOX for their terrible reporting. The networks, particularly MSNBC, have decided that it’s a lot cheaper to pay some talking heads to argue about politics and what’s been reported the New York Times than it is to do actual reporting. Cable news is just nonstop screaming at each other by the same mindless ideologues. Here, Seigenthaler has again excelled by having some interesting guests who are not on all the other talk shows, including people like Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter. Whether it is correct or not, she made the interesting point that today, as in World War II and may wars before that, the Russian people are willing to make great sacrifices, including giving their lives, for Russian greatness. The lesson is: don’t be too optimistic that sanctions on Russia will work.
The other cable news exception is Fareed Zakaria on CNN. His Sunday morning program is the best news show on television. It shows what it is possible to do with a talk show. He has interesting, intelligent guests and he asks them interesting, intelligent questions. NBC finally realized that Zakaria made David Gregory of “Meet the Press” look uninformed and incurious, and got rid of him. Brian Stelter of CNN’s Reliable Sources is another exception. I had enjoyed the show under Howard Kurtz and was disappointed when he left, but the show has gotten even better under Stelter. Meanwhile Kurtz at Fox has gone completely off the rails. I tried to watch him for several weeks, but he has apparently swallowed the Fox line completely. In addition he has the usual blond Fox minders to make sure he hews the party line. What a disappointment! I hope Kurtz is getting a lot of money because he has certainly embarrassed himself by becoming a whore for Fox News.
Money appears to be a big issue. ABC, NBC and CBS have clearly decided to cut spending on news coverage. Scott Pelley, Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer appear lazy or stupid. Diane Sawyer has apparently embarrassed herself so badly that she is leaving ABC news to do something easier. The morning news shows (Today, etc.) have almost no news; they are mainly extended weather reports and stories about celebrities, often just pulled straight off the Internet. Charlie Rose was supposed to add gravitas to CBS, and he has helped, but the CBS news division appears to be so worthless that he has nothing to work with.
The networks would probably say that their flagship news shows can’t compete with the 24 hour coverage of the cable channels, but the Daily Show and Colbert Report frequently ridicule CNN and FOX for their terrible reporting. The networks, particularly MSNBC, have decided that it’s a lot cheaper to pay some talking heads to argue about politics and what’s been reported the New York Times than it is to do actual reporting. Cable news is just nonstop screaming at each other by the same mindless ideologues. Here, Seigenthaler has again excelled by having some interesting guests who are not on all the other talk shows, including people like Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter. Whether it is correct or not, she made the interesting point that today, as in World War II and may wars before that, the Russian people are willing to make great sacrifices, including giving their lives, for Russian greatness. The lesson is: don’t be too optimistic that sanctions on Russia will work.
The other cable news exception is Fareed Zakaria on CNN. His Sunday morning program is the best news show on television. It shows what it is possible to do with a talk show. He has interesting, intelligent guests and he asks them interesting, intelligent questions. NBC finally realized that Zakaria made David Gregory of “Meet the Press” look uninformed and incurious, and got rid of him. Brian Stelter of CNN’s Reliable Sources is another exception. I had enjoyed the show under Howard Kurtz and was disappointed when he left, but the show has gotten even better under Stelter. Meanwhile Kurtz at Fox has gone completely off the rails. I tried to watch him for several weeks, but he has apparently swallowed the Fox line completely. In addition he has the usual blond Fox minders to make sure he hews the party line. What a disappointment! I hope Kurtz is getting a lot of money because he has certainly embarrassed himself by becoming a whore for Fox News.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)