Republicans Hate America

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

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

What's Up Between Russia and Georgia

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

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

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

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

Pickens Looking for Government Handout

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

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

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

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

More Tax Cheats

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

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

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

Boone Pickens, Windmills and Swift Boats

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

MTCR Still Alive and Well

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

But, hey, at least we got something.

Obama Wins v. Bush

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

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

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

Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae

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

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

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

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

US and Israeli Interests Not Identical

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

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

Wasted Lives in Vietnam

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

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

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

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

Swift Boat Veterans Still An Issue

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

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

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

Anschutz Like Plato's Unjust Man

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

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

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

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

The Rich Don't Pay Taxes

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

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

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

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

Hooray for the Supreme Court Decision on Guantanamo

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

Wall Street v. Europe

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

Speaking Out on Guantanamo

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Encourages Israel to Attack Iran

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

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

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

Senate Seconds Scott McClellan

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

Obama Driven from Church

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

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

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