Libya and Israel

The New York Times reported that Bernard-Henri Levy takes credit for persuading French President Sarkozy to enter the Libyan civil war on the side of the rebels. So how did that happen?

Part of the answer is what has been discussed in the press: The West -- particularly Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Smantha Power -- felt guilty about how long it took for the US to interview in the genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. They didn't want more genocide on their watch. Sarkozy is politically weak at home in France; some saber rattling would probably increase his favorability rating. I'm guessing Britain just went along with the US and France, and probably had some concerns of its own about genocide.

But I think there is more.

Levy is Jewish and proud of it. Sarkozy is something like one-quarter Jewish. The US is always under heavy pressure from Jewish lobbying. Israel would like to see instability in the Middle East countries that give it a hard time. Leading this category are Syria and Iran. Egypt and Mubarek, whom Israel liked, had already gone down the tubes. When Libya and Bahrain stood up to their protesters, it looked like the Middle Eastern spring opening might be in danger of being stopped before it could spread to countries where Israel wanted to see it overthrow the rulers, like Syria. So Israel encouraged the West through people like Levy and Sarkozy to stop Libya from putting down the protests there.

The NYT says that Levy was visiting Egypt and decided to go to Libya. Why? I think it's likely that the Mossad suggested he go, and set up the trip for him, which ultimately led to his meeting with Sarkozy, which led to the NATO/UN/West decision to support the rebels.

It's working. Protests are going strong in Syria, although the government continues to try to stop them. Assad may or may not survive. Not much has happened in Iran, but the protests throughout the Middle East put some pressure on it. It's not clear what effect the continuing civil war in Libya will have on Jordan and Bahrain, but they are lower priorities for Israel. Thus, to some extent, I think we are fighting (or giving air cover or whatever we're doing in Libya) for Israel. I think to a similar extent we partially fought the war in Iraq for Israel. Iraq with Scud missiles and possible WMDs was much more of a threat to Israel than to the US.

What About the Budget Deficit and the National Debt?

Anybody serious about solving the national debt/budget deficit problem has to consider both expenditure cuts and revenue increases. We should cut back some government programs, and we should increase some taxes. Until there is a serious debate about what to cut and what to tax, there is no serious effort to reduce the deficit/debt. S&P is right; the US is on a slippery slope towards bankruptcy.

On the expense side, people talk about Medicare and Medicaid, but they never mention doctors themselves. Many doctors are basically government employees with fees set by Medicare, but they earn much more than the average government employee, around $200,000 annually for doctors, compared with about $75,000 for federal government employees and about $50,000 for state government employees. Doctors who specialize in hot areas like cardiology or neurosurgery earn much more, often more than $500,000 annually. As a result, it is hard to attract doctors to lower paying, but more important areas like family practice. Somebody needs to come up with some original ideas for dealing with that, for example, using more nurse-practitioners to do triage, take care of simple things, and refer more difficult cases to specialists. Part of the problem is the cost of medical school. You can't ask students to incur thousands of dollars of debt for lengthy, expensive education and then take lower paying jobs. Government programs could subsidize medical education in return for an obligation to be a family practitioner, see "Northern Exposure." Also, one of the most expensive programs is the new drug assistance program under Medicare part D, passed under Bush. It is basically just a subsidy for the giant drug companies.

It's true that there is some unfairness about taxation. Some things are unquestioned duties of government: national defense, police, firemen, etc. Some are generally accepted and have been for a long time: public school teachers. Others are relatively new: extensive welfare programs. However, a legitimate comparison is how much people used to pay for these services and how much they pay today. Today, in general, federal taxes are much lower than they were fifty years ago, although they are higher than they were 100 years ago. A hundred years ago, people were still drinking milk with formaldehyde in it, starving to death if they fell on hard times unless some neighbor helped. If we are not rich enough to provide these services anymore, we need to have a debate what the most important services are and how we can maintain them. One area that has taken an enormous hit in recent years is education, particularly higher education, which has become more and more expensive. By cutting off universal access to higher education we are dooming ourselves to second class status among the nations of the world.

Wealth Distribution in America

This study on "Wealth, Income and Power" by University of Santa Cruz sociology professor William Domhoff contains much of the data that I was looking for regarding how wealth distribution has changed historically in the US. It has a political viewpoint, because in another study Professor Domhoff says UC Santa Cruz is "the most liberal public university in the country." My kind of place! He even uses the word "liberal," although in other places he uses the less lovely "progressive." I prefer a "liberal arts" education to a "progressive" education. Anyway....

The shift in wealth and income in America is not as great as I had thought, but it's significant. I like graphs, so here's one from the study:

It shows the current distribution of wealth between the top 1% and the lower 99% as about the same as 1920. It got worse in 1930, probably as a result of the Depression, and then went up considerably to 1950, probably as a result of recovery from the Depression and World War II. One effect of both factors was that the government virtually took control of the economy during that period -- first to help prevent poor people from starving and going homeless, and later to devote all productive resources to the war effort. Then there was a big surge in the 1960s and 70s, probably as a result of the government's war on poverty and civil rights efforts. The distribution started getting worse again in the 1980s when Reagan was elected. Reagan changed government policies and tax rates to favor the rich.

Government policies are very important. Both Republicans and Democrats understand this. Republicans like the general slope of the curve since Reagan began favoring the rich. They plan to fight to keep it moving in a direction that favors the rich. I don't think this is good for America. It makes America different from the country that I grew up in during the 1960s and 70s. I still believe that part of the goodness of America during that period was that all members of the "Greatest Generation," rich and poor, had fought together in World War II, which had imposed some self-restraint on the greed of the leaders of the country, a restraint that does not exist today. Significantly, Reagan, although he served in the military during WW II, did not fight; he just continued to make movies in California, albeit for the military while in uniform. George H.W. Bush was a much better representative of the Greatest Generation than Reagan was.

The fight over where we go from here may lead to a government shutdown. But from the looks of this graph, the last shutdown did not have much effect.

Goldstone's Reversal on Israel's War Crimes

Richard Goldstone has reversed himself on whether Israel committed war crimes. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, he says that investigations by the Israeli military "indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy." He blames his now-recanted criticisms of Israel on Israel's failure to cooperate with his investigation.

He seems to say that since Israel would not cooperate with him, he just made up accusations of war crimes. Now that Israel has begun to investigate them, according to a new report by Mary McGowan Davis, everything is okay. If Goldstone just made up the accusations and lied to the UN to start with, why should we believe anything he has to say now? He is totally discredited.

This is of course what Israel wants. Israelis hate Goldstone with a passion seldom seen elsewhere, even in Israel, a country founded on, and consumed by, hatred. I don't know her background, but I suspect that Mary McGowan Davis was chosen because the Israelis were confident that she would issue a report in their favor. Why is there even a follow-up report? Why did the Israelis cooperate with her and not with Goldstone? Apparently she accepted Israeli assurances unquestioningly, although the investigations that she accepted at face value are not finished and have not resulted in any punishment or changes in Israeli policy. She was much more of a patsy for the Israelis than Goldstone was, but she now provides a means for Goldstone to try to appease the Israelis and decrease the Jewish threats against himself and his family.

Fortunately, we don't need Goldstone to tell us that Israel is a corrupt nation of hate-filled racists. It's disgraceful that American Jews (and many evangelical Christians) defend and support such a vile, godless, despicable country. They sully their own image.