tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-187915382024-03-13T06:19:35.862-06:00What we know so far ...In proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward heaven ... <A HREF=http://schapira.blogspot.com/2005/12/give-me-liberty.html>Read more.</A>BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.comBlogger379125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-18244120711221574122015-03-27T17:46:00.004-06:002015-03-27T17:47:17.291-06:00I don't get MAD<div class="MsoNormal">
Today, I saw a Professor Heldman of Occidental College opine that we are “behaving like Persians don’t understand mutually assured destruction, when clearly they do.” Here’s why that is so dangerous.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Up until now, the political dialogue has been between those who favor going to war against Iran now, and those who say, “wait a few more days to see if there is a negotiated solution.” It is predictable that some will say, “let’s wait a couple more weeks.” I’ve been in the few-more-days camp, and even if Secretary of State Kerry is in the couple-more-weeks camp, I wouldn’t want that communicated to the other side just yet.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Basically, this puts me out of step with my peacenik friends so let me say straight away: War is hell and it should be avoided if at all possible. Every effort should be put into negotiating a solution to the problem of Iran, and I am more optimistic than my right-wing friends. But if they are correct, then this may be one of those terrible instances when war cannot be avoided. We’ll know soon enough.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It doesn’t help that a man who has been so wrong, so often, on such important questions seems to agree with me. Of course, I am referring to John Bolton, author of an article that appeared in the New York Times and entitled, “To stop Iran’s bomb, bomb Iran.” Though I detest everything about the man, (except his moustache) I am okay with the bottom line, which is No Nukes for Ayatollahs, and the idea that if necessary we can back it up with our own Air Force.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As usual, Josh Bolton, goes way beyond what the evidence will support. He suggests that Arabs would welcome a strike in Iran, and that he thinks that we could bring down the Iranian regime. Well, maybe he should be assigned to cleaning up the candy and flowers that greeted American liberators in Iraq. Thanks to American gullibility regarding Bolton's last prediction of being greeted as liberators, we are now giving air support to a Iraqi counter-insurgency in Tikret to oust Islamic State, in which effort we find ourselves allied with the Iranians.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know if Arabs would welcome an America strike in Iran or not, but, frankly, I don’t give a damn. If they have a better plan for achieving a “No Nukes for Ayatollahs” solution, I am open to it. I have been listening, and haven’t heard anything, but, as I said, I am willing to wait till the end of the month.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But along comes Professor Heldman, and she says that we don’t have to insist on No Nukes for Ayatollahs, because we can manage the risk of a nuclear Iran. She suggests one means of control is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, but presumably she is open to other strategies. But I am not. And here are two reasons why.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, if Iran acquires a nuclear breakout capability, other nations in the area are going to insist on the same. Reliance on mutually assured destruction is complicated and involves a series of very careful calibrations. With two parties, the complexity is great, but each new party raises the complexity exponentially. Ayatollahs-with-nukes is unacceptably bad. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Israel and Iran already having nuclear capabilities, is far worse.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, assured destruction sounds bad to me, but I confess I have no way of knowing the degree to which that is a threat for Ayatollahs. I respect religious folk, but I don’t understand the Islamic religion, especially in its eschatological aspects.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Professor Heldman may have other strategies for managing the proliferation risk and the Ayatollahs with a finger on the nuclear button, but the one she came out of the gate with was mutual assured destruction. If the professor has another idea, let’s have it, because that dog won't hunt.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even someone as consistently wrong as Josh Bolton got that one right. But what bothered me more about Professor Heldman’s suggestion is that it is the camel’s nose in the tent. The camel in this metaphor is the idea that a nuclear Iran can be managed. It is an attractive proposition to peaceniks like me, who believe that war is hell, which should be avoided if at all possible. But that doesn’t make it true.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-57767829517883460352015-03-25T00:24:00.000-06:002015-03-25T00:24:20.131-06:00Natural born questions<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Every-word of the Constitution is important. Let’s take a
look at three that have been in the news today: “natural-born Citizen.” First
of all, it is clear that there are two classes of citizens in the vision of the
framers, namely “natural born citizen,” and “others.” Clearly, naturalized
citizens are in the “other” class and therefore not eligible to be President of
the United States. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Are there citizens who are neither naturalized nor natural
born? Such a citizen would not be eligible to be President, according to the
express terms of the Constitution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Of course, there are those who are citizens but not eligible
because of age or residency requirements –- thirty-five and 14 years respectively.
But are there people other than naturalized citizens who are ineligible for the
presidency because of the nature of their citizenship? And might Ted Cruz be
one of them? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">First, some background: The Constitution says that a
qualification for being President is being a “natural born Citizen.” However, the
Constitution doesn’t define “natural born Citizen.” The Third Congress enacted The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790" title="Naturalization Act of 1790"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Naturalization Act of 1790</span></a>, which provided "the children of citizens of
the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the
United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the
right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States." Presumably, this is the law that
Ted Cruz referred to when he said the matter has been settled law for over two
hundred years.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The statute clearly recognized a distinction between non-naturalized,
foreign born citizens of the US, and “natural born Citizens.” The 1790 Act
provided automatic citizenship to the minor children of persons duly
naturalized, and according to the language of the statute, such individuals,
providing they are residents, become “citizens of the United States” automatically.
In the very next sentence, act grants to the children born to
citizens overseas the status of “natural born citizens.” The proximity of the
two clauses strongly supports the conclusion that the statute creates two different
classes of citizens: (1) Natural born citizens (and those granted that status) and (2) others, including naturalized as well as those who are minors acquiring citizenship automatically as children of naturalized citizens. Those in the first class are eligible to be President: those in the second class are not. And the facts of the case support the conclusion that Ted
Cruz is in that former class: the class of automatic citizens who receive the
additional status of the “natural born citizens” who are eligible to be
President. As Ted himself might say, “Case closed, eh?”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But here’s the funny part. That statute was superseded by
the naturalization Act of 1795, which provided, “the children of citizens of the
United States, born out of the limits of jurisdiction of the United States,
shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” provided that the father
of such a child had been a resident of the United States. Did you catch that? The superseding
statute removed the words, “natural born” from the description of children born
to citizens abroad. These children are "birthright citizens" to be sure. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Far be it from me to suggest that Ted Cruz is not a birthright citizen. But the statute makes it clear that not all birthright citizens are natural born Citizens, eligible to serve as President. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Congress is presumed to have intended to make a distinction
between the language of the 1790 statute, and the language with which it superseded
that law. And the courts are tasked with
giving effect to the Congressional intent. In fact, there are lots of people
who say that the courts should stick to the literal letter of statutes and these
people were out in force recently when King v Burwell was being argued. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">What will they say now? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I hope that as a minimum, any defense they have to what looks to me like a slam-dunk will at least have the decency to include an apology for the last 6 years of birtherism. But don't count on it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">“…
and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-46394825484416712602015-02-22T15:41:00.001-06:002015-03-25T00:30:46.130-06:00Give 'em hell, Barry! Part III<div class="MsoNormal">
Back in August of 2008, I argued that President Obama should
recall the election of 1948, and run against a “do-nothing, good for nothing”
Congress in his campaign for re-election.
See, <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2011/08/give-em-hell-barry-you-could-say-that.html">here</a>
and <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2011/08/give-em-hell-barry-part-2.html">here</a>.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once again, I am urging the President to emulate the predecessor
known for plain-speaking. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, an example of how President Truman earned that reputation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Truman didn’t much care for a review of his daughter’s
singing performance that appeared in the <i>Washington
Post</i> on December 6, 1950. The music critic Paul Hume described Miss Truman
as “extremely attractive,” but went on to state “Miss Truman cannot sing very
well.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The president jotted off a note to Mr. Hume: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Some day I
hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak
for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!” </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of this comes to mind because the President who has made
a career of being “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/04/AR2008080401824.html">the
least aggrieved black man in America</a>,” has just had to endure a
mean-spirited attack from the one of whom Joe Biden once said, “The only three
things he mentions in a sentence—a noun and a verb and 9/11.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Republicans are
not exactly distancing themselves from Rudy Guiliani.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The White House responded to Guiliani’s despicable comments. Press Secretary Josh Earnest dealt out the most genteel smack-down ever uttered without using the words “Bless his heart.” Said he:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's sad to see when somebody who has
attained a certain level of public stature -- and even admiration -- tarnishes
that legacy so thoroughly. The truth is, I don't take any joy or vindication or
satisfaction from that.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I think really the only
thing that I feel, is I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani today." </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, I have been saying that Guiliani was a complete fraud
since May of 2007, as you can see <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2007/05/previewing-republican-presidential.html">here</a>. A couple of months later, Wayne Barrett
of the <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-07-31/news/rudy-giuliani-s-five-big-lies-about-9-11/full/">Village
Voice</a>, joined me in calling “Bullshit!” on Guiliani’s self-promoting narrative. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nowadays,
Wayne Barrett is with the NY Daily News, and he is obviously still disgusted by
Rudy Guiliani, this time attacking Rudy’s <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/wayne-barrett-rudy-giuliani-love-article-1.2122253">pathological
family relations</a>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why can’t the President do the same? He might be accused of
picking the low-hanging fruit, but considering the pass that Guiliani has
enjoyed, it’s time someone mentioned some of the things that Barrett brought
up. They say it is a rule of politics that you don’t want to punch down, but
when you are at the top of the heap, what else is there to do?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It will be hard to top Truman’s directness. Still, the
President is liberated from having to run for office again and someone has to
mention the fact that when Guiliani attacked the President’s upbringing he
crossed into forbidden territory. To get the ball rolling, let me suggest an
opening gambit:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Mr. Guiliani has attacked me, which is part of his shtick.
That’s fine, because when I signed up for a lifetime of public service to the
country I love, I knew full well that there would be guttersnipes along the way
that would put hatred of me over their professed love of country. But I didn’t
sign up for an attack on my mama. That’s not acceptable coming from a lying
son-of-a-bitch like the worthless Guiliani.” </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fill in the rest, Mr. President…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“ and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-52677985284414937962015-02-04T20:32:00.000-06:002015-02-22T16:15:18.311-06:00Making history with Iran<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The U.S. and Iran may be on the verge of making a historic deal on nukes. The possible compromise was revealed ahead of the next negotiating round on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference that starts Friday. Will it be historically good, or historically bad?<br /><br />First, let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Reagan famously said of the Soviet empire that one must, “Trust but verify.” It’s a Russian proverb, Доверяй, но проверяй (doveryai, no proveryai) and the Gipper used it to great effect in negotiating arms reductions with Gorbachev, or so they say.<br /><br />Some people also say that we are in a “Trust but verify” situation with Iran. This is completely false. Trust must play no part in our dealings with Iran. They absolutely cannot be trusted to comply with any treaty obligations. The only thing they can be trusted to be is true to their nature. You can trust that they are an atavistic, apocalyptic, totalitarian theocracy, determined to destroy Israel, and that they have financed terror operations against Jewish targets in Argentina, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.<br /><br />As for their nuclear ambitions, trust that the Iranians will pursue weapons before, during and after these negotiations. The question on the table is whether or not sufficient obstacles can be placed in the way of an Iranian bomb. And by sufficient, I mean, sufficient to be certain that they won’t get a bomb that can be used in any way, including as a threat, or to arm a proxy.<br /><br />The plan being floated about is that Iran will keep 10,000 centrifuges. That’s a lot – enough to build a bomb. However, the idea is that Iran will have to export all of its production, and there will be an inspection and regulation regime to regulate the inputs and outputs to prevent Iran from getting the capacity to build a bomb. Finally, the centrifuges will be modified to limit how much nuclear fuel produced. I haven’t heard that the grade of the uranium produced is subject to controls under the proposed agreement, but my gut tells me that it is.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This might be a good outcome but only if Iranian compliance can be verified. Can the U.N. International Atomic Agency be trusted with the responsibility of verifying Iranian compliance, as contemplated in the compromise? I trust the Iranians to try to skirt the regulations, avoid the inspections, and get away with breaching the agreement. And then what?</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />War is the obvious option. The problem is that it takes time it takes to recognize a breach of the agreement. And then it takes more time to act on that knowledge, even in the case of unilateral military action under the command of the Commander-in-chief. What if, in that time, Iran gets a nuke? Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, Iran might be as little as one month and as much as a year from having a nuclear bomb under the terms of the compromise.<br /><br />The work-around for this little problem is that, at least in theory, the U.S can act upon less than certain knowledge. Maybe there is no will to go to war, but in the past, the U.S. has used sanctions to coerce Iran to behave better. The main sanction that the U.S. can impose is in the area of banking. By freezing bank accounts, the U.S. can more or less freeze the Iranian economy. As we shall see, this is a mixed blessing.<br /><br />Before we dismiss the rumored agreement out of hand, we need also to see what else is rolled into it. Will Iran commit to no longer funding Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the PLO (or, rather, it’s successor, the PA) and other terrorists around the world? What about a promise to stop its mischief in Iraq? All of this would be good, but there’s a rub.<br /><br />How would we enforce these collateral deals? Obviously, war is not an option because if it were, we would have gone to war a long time ago. Recall that the proposed deal depends upon Iran exporting all of its nuclear fuel. If, by a series of sanctions, we can prevent Iran from participating in international trade, that leaves them with no money, no food, and an excess of nuclear fuel. That’s not good. In other words, the problem is that the nuclear deal may reduce our leverage in non-nuclear arenas.<br /><br />The devil is in the details. How certain can we be that we will be able to detect Iranian cheating when it occurs? How much time will we have to react once we detect evidence that Iran is cheating? What will be our options, once we confirm cheating? Without these details we won’t know if this is a historically good deal or the opposite.<br /><br />We can be certain that this deal is not good enough for the Israelis, if for no other reason than that the current PM will go to any lengths to embarrass our President, especially if he thinks it will advance his chances of re-election. Bibi giving his hechsher to a deal negotiated by President Obama is not in the cards. I am concerned that this is the attitude of Republicans, especially the fundamentalist wing of the party. What a shame it would be if a good deal is scrapped for this reason. As has been said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”<br /><br />There’s talk that the deal is not likely to be good enough for France. And I must confess that I was disappointed when I heard the number 10,000 both because it is a large number, and because it does not reflect any movement by the Iranians. I am a big supporter of Obama, but I need to be persuaded that this is both a good deal, and the best deal we could get. I guess, I trust Obama, but I want to verify.<br /><br />In the last analysis, any deal with Iran must include the condition that a breach means a “shock and awe” style attack on the mullahs. And that has to be the outcome if no deal is reached, too. And that’s why I am not in favor of provisional sanctions.<br /><br />Stay tuned.</span></div>
</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-67396721347586514402015-01-30T02:26:00.001-06:002015-01-30T13:40:16.530-06:00Time for an old joke to explain what’s going on. <div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, the joke:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Zeyde! Zayde! Babe Ruth just hit his 6o home runs.”<br />
“Nu? Is this good or bad for the Jews?</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, let’s take a look at where we are. Things are very nasty between the Democrats,
who control the White House, and the Republicans, who control the Congress. As
with any grievance, the decisive factor will be this: Who frames the narrative?
Each side has a tale to tell in Washington, D.C. Call it “A City of Two Tales.”
As usual, each grievant tells a tale in which he plays the role of victim in
the opening salvo. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Republicans claim that the President started it all when he
took unilateral actions regarding immigration. It’s hard to take this seriously,
but at the time, Boehner talked about “poisoning the well,” or “playing with
matches.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They also claim that the President threw down a gauntlet at
the State of the Union address when he said that he would veto any bill that
would result in a break-down of negotiations with Iran, such as the conditional
sanctions bill in the Senate now. These Republicans didn’t pay attention to the
fact that the President also said that if negotiations break down, we will have
to go to war. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some Democrats, including Jews join these Republicans,
because they are disappointed with the progress of negotiations with Iran. Some
find the demands of Israel to be unrealistic. Iran will not dismantle anything
that can be used for a nuclear weapon program, especially since, as signatories
to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to develop a civilian
nuclear program.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the Democratic narrative, the story starts with Boehner’s
invitation to Bibi and the attendant breach of protocol. Not to mention law: The
Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified
at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized
citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and
last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under
federal law with imprisonment of up to three years. Some say that Boehner does
not have the authority to invite any foreign leader to Congress and that only the
POTUS or his designated official can. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Democratic view is that Mr. Obama is the duly elected mouth-piece
for foreign policy, especially if the message is one everybody absolutely
agrees upon. Everybody absolutely agrees on this message: The alliance between
the United States and Israel is ironclad, inviolable, and sacrosanct. Everyone also
agrees that Iran absolutely cannot be permitted to become a nuclear military power. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We should be saying these things with a united voice. Choose
your patter: “We are not a red country or a blue country,” or “Politics stops
at the water’s edge.” Some Republicans are attracted to this message just out
of respect for the office of President. Some Democrats, inclined to take Bibi’s
side, are pulled back onto the reservation just out of loyalty to the occupant
of the office of the President. So battle lines in this dispute are not completely
congruent with party lines.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nu? Is this good or bad for the Jews?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Funny you should ask. As it turns out, some Jews are
Republicans, and they think the President can’t be trusted with negotiating an existential
threat. They can say, with some validity, that they are standing with the duly
elected PM of Israel, so who can complain? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
President Obama's supporters say, we are willing to
threaten war against Iran if they don’t figure out a way to live without a nuclear
bomb, but we draw the line at Bibi interjecting himself in partisan domestic politics. And further, international norms of behavior look upon interfering with another country's election. Inded, Obama used this as justification for announcing that he would not meet with Bibi when he was in Washington.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Should Bibi be taking a side in the debate that we are having in the U.S.
between two political parties on the issue of how to conduct foreign policy? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bibi says, “It’s my job. I will go anywhere, anytime I feel
I can influence the debate in favor of not making a deal with Iran, unless it
is an acceptable deal to Israel. After all, the bomb is intended for us!” I’ll
give him that. But he doesn’t have to give the President a gratuitous dose of
disrespect. Message to Bibi: Put your personal animosity for our President
aside. There are some things that are more important than you getting
re-elected. And, by the way, being rude to the POTUS might not help your
chances of getting re-elected anyway. Right now, you're no better than a
coin-toss. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The real debate should be about what will be most effective in
preventing Iran from getting nukes. The
President is entrusted with foreign policy, and, so far so good. Are we okay
with Syria not having chemical weapons? Thank you, Mr. President. But,
remember: that outcome required cooperation from Iran.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Basically, the way I see it is we need an adult to negotiate
with Iran, and the Congressional foreign policy caucus is not that adult. They
have proved this with the impudent, childish way Bibi’s visit came
about. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The difference in the approach is that one side wants to
negotiate until failure is clearly the fault of the Iranians, and then go to
war. Good faith requires that the negotiation be conducted with the belief that
it is possible and reasonable to come to a peaceful solution. But realism
requires that you acknowledge that “the biggest long-shot Louie at Hialeah
wouldn’t put a fin on the fate” of a nuke deal with Iran.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I heard an AIPAC guy say that “Obama believes that he should
appeal to the Iranian’s better nature.” That’s not what Obama believes at all. If
war comes, America will want the right to say, “We tried diplomacy.” That’s
important, because we will need allies if we go to war with Iran, and, they
will need to hear that. And, there’s no way a war plan can get the requisite
support from the American people, if they
don’t hear that every alternative was exhausted first. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Team Boeher, as well as Bibi, say, “enough already with the
diplomacy,already” and “It’s time for the U.S, to be strong.” They should recall that for America
to flex military muscles she must have the support of a war-weary public, and
this is so much harder to do because the previous President was a little too
promiscuous with his use of force. The result is great instability in the
mid-East, and that can’t be good for the Jews.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even if the U.S. did resolve to torpedo the negotiations and use force, consider for a
moment some of the problems that would involve. You’ve got the rise of ISIL, which directly challenges the Jordanian regime, the Syrian civil war, Hezbollah in Lebanon, instability is Afghanistan, regime
change in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and Hamas in the Gaza. It’s hard to see how
military action could be confined to stopping Iranian centrifuges. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe Republicans
are right to believe that war is inevitable and to say, “If not now, when? When
will Iran be more vulnerable?” I trust the President to arrive at good answers
to these questions, and I don’t trust the Congress, especially in the run-up to
the 2016 silly season. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Two out of three Jews voted for the President, most of
them twice. Jews are a core constituency of his party. Significantly, the
pro-Israel Evangelicals are a core constituency of the Republican Party. The
two constituencies are at odds with each other in this matter, even though each
sees itself as staunchly pro-Israel.I blame Boehner and Bibi for aggravating the rift and, no, it's not good for the Jews.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
AIPAC and Likud side with the CUFI Republicans. J Street and
most Jews, especially liberal ones, side with the President and the
constitution. In a rather unpleasant moment, left-leaning MS-NBC host Ed Shultz
called Netanyahu a “war-monger,” a term that is usually reserved for American neo-cons.
It made me decidedly uncomfortable and I wondered if what I was feeling was a
visceral reflex to come to the defense of a fellow Jew being attacked by a
gentile. Now, to be sure, Ed Shultz is no anti-Semite. But was he aware of how the choice of
words sounded like age-old anti-Semitism? (And how did the Rothschilds make
their money?) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But then I reminded myself that Netanyahu is not the State
of Israel. In fact, he might not even be the PM of Israel in 6 weeks. Still,
whoever is responsible for lefties publicly rebuking the PM has not served
Israel well. Some of the blame goes to Bibi himself, but Boehner is clearly
responsible. It is understandable that when the Speaker of the House, and Bibi
conspire to disrespect the President, someone might just conclude that, to
borrow a phrase, there will be a price to be paid. Already, we have seen very sharp criticism from the White House directed at the Israeli ambassador, accusing him of putting Bibi's interests ahead of Israel's.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Boehner wanted to appeal to his base, especially the growing
number of pro-Israel evangelicals, who share Boehner’s view on social issues
like gay marriage and abortion. Christians United For Israel (CUFI) is an organization emblematic of this constituency. Boehner figured that he could dis the prez, boost
his pro-Israel bona fides, and side with Israel in a spat between Israel and
the United States. What could go wrong?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What went wrong is that Jews and most Americans don’t want
to see our President dissed, don’t appreciate Boehner playing nuclear roulette to
help Republicans polish their anti-Obama cred, and don’t particularly like to
see a spat between Israel and the U.S. especially one that is aired in public. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, nu? Is that good or bad for the Jews?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s not good. But it’s what will happen inevitably if you
put CUFI ahead of Jews. Eventually, their hatred of the President will trump
their love of Israel. Their love of Israel exceeds their love of Jews, and that's why I can't trust it. And that’s
why I condemn Boehner and Bibi. They put the first crack in the non-partisan
wall of American support for Israel, by playing politics with the special relationship. And it didn’t work.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The timing is right for Obama to make a bold move in the Middle
East if he wants this to be part of his legacy. Actually, he has no choice in
the matter: He must make a bold move. The situation in the mid-East demands it.
He knows that an atavistic, Iranian apocalyptic theocracy with hegemony over so
much of the world’s oil reserves, extraterrestial ambitions, and a nuclear bomb just won’t fly. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But what else
can be rolled into the deal? Obviously, the Iranians want relief from
sanctions, but what else? U.S. to step up against ISIS? Assad to be gone in
Syria? Progress in Israel-Palestinian conflict? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What even constitutes progress? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The U.S. and Israel are both
officially committed to a two-state solution, but how committed are they? And
can Obama ever really believe that he can get from here to there in two years
or should he simply accept that it is hopeless. Ought he to be guided by the
words of Pirke Avot: “Yours is not to finish the work, but neither are you free
to walk away from it.” For now, I am gratified by the fact that he is not pressuring the Israelis to make a bad deal with Palestinians.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At present, the important thing to do is to repair the
Israeli-American relationship. That has to start with Bibi figuring out a way
to back out of his date with Congress. He may also have to recall Ambassador Ron
Dermer, who is credited with having the horrible idea of having Bibi go over
the head of the President to speak to Congress.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If not, I fear that the U.S. will declare Dermer persona non
grata. Would this be good or bad for the Jews? It might seem good to you
especially if you are the kind who believes that Republicans are better for the
State of Israel than Democrats, and that Republicans can frame this as the
President snubbing our most important ally. Further, you must believe that
expelling the ambassador will bolster Bibi’s election prospects, and that Bibi
is good for Israel. I am doubtful of each of these propositions. On this last point -- is Bibi good for Israel? -- a majority of Israelis seem to think not, but we will know for sure on St. Patrick’s day, when Israeli
elections are scheduled. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What seems incontrovertible is that the relationship between
Israel and the U.S., and especially between Bibi and Obama, is at a low point.
I condemn Boehner for aggravating the situation, especially since it was not
merely a miscalculation. It was a conscious decision to insult the President. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
most generous thing I can say about Bibi is that he was sucked into this,
though obviously, he was not dragged kicking and screaming. If AIPAC takes up
with Boehner and Bibi, they are siding with the ones who thought that it was
okay to play politics with the special relationship. It's not even nearly okay.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And they owe us an apology.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-15670647387210833742015-01-28T21:00:00.000-06:002015-01-28T21:29:49.545-06:00Twenty years ago, there was a massacre of Jews in Argentina.<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Twenty years ago, there was a massacre of Jews in Argentina.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
A bombing of Argentina's largest Jewish center killed 85 people and injured more than 200. The identity of the terrorists has not been established. Recently, however, there have been allegations that the government of President Kirchner of Argentina may have reached a deal with the Iranian sponsors of this attack.</div>
<div style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Testimony was expected in the Argentine Congress on January 18th, regarding the claim that President<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"> Kirchner had secretly reached a deal with Iran to shield officials wanted in connection with the biggest terrorist attack in the country's history. The testimony never came because the witness, a prosecutor named Alberto Misman, himself a Jew, was found dead in his bathroom with a .22 pistol by his side just hours before he was to testify.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
At first, the President’s response was to suggest it was a suicide. Lately, it is acknowledged that Misman was murdered. This is awkward because the President is the obvious answer to the question, “who benefits?” Kirchner has tried to suggest that the Iranians did it. The issue threatens to disrupt the remainder of the President’s term as well the subsequent future of Argentina.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Here's what Big Mitch knows:86 Jews were killed, and hundreds were injured. Their lives were snuffed out because they were Jews. And it was to further someone’s political agenda. Ad mosai?*</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
If either President Kirchner or her accuser is telling the truth, Iran is right in the middle of it. So, if Bibi goes a little meshugah about the Iranians getting a bomb, forgive him.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
He really doesn’t want to alienate the President of the United States, or the 2/3 of American Jews who voted for him. Nor did he think America’s special relationship with Israel should be a matter of partisan politics. Besides, Bibi is smart and one thing he has to figure is that Obama is going to be president for 2 more years. Sure, it’s a little early to call the 2016 election, but if you have to place your bets today, Hillary Clinton is the early favorite. Do you think Bibi wants to be a tool of a permanent minority party in the U.S.? Forgive him already. What do you always say? “Forgive he because he knows not what he is doing?”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Iran is the threat we need to focus on. And in case of Iran, let’s not forget what the President said in the State of the Union Address. If negotiations break down, we are going to war. So, Bibi, relax. America’s got your six. Always will. Maybe you’re working too hard. Cancel some speaking engagements.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
"...and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"</div>
</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-60272104910580840512015-01-23T03:25:00.001-06:002015-01-23T03:25:57.855-06:00The Iranian Nuclear Threat: What to do<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">It has been an interesting week for U.S.
Israel relations. As is well known, both the U.S. and Israel are extremely
concerned about the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. The issue is
how to stop the Iranians from pursuing a nuclear bomb, and on this issue, the
White House and the Republican-controlled Senate don’t see eye-to-eye. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">In his
State of the Union address, President Obama said:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">"New sanctions passed by this Congress,
at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy
fails — alienating America from its allies and ensuring that Iran starts up its
nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto
any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.”</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Indeed, the Senate is not of one mind, as
differing bills work their way through the legislative process.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions" target="_blank">Here</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> is a good review of
the bidding.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Moreover, Israel does not adhere to only one
view of the matter. Prime Minister Netanyahu favors a bill that would impose
conditional sanctions on Iran, but </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">at a </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/01/236180.htm" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box;" target="_hplink">press conference</a></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"> with European
Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Secretary of State John
Kerry revealed that</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">“In Israel, one of the top intelligence –- one of the top
intelligence personnel within the Israeli intelligence field –- I won’t name
names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that
visited there over the weekend what the effect of sanctions would be. And this
person answered that it would be like throwing a grenade into the
process”</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Perhaps LIndsey Graham heard this Mossad official, because
on Meet the Press, Graham said that he would be willing to forego a provisional
sanctions bill if the President would submit any agreement with the Iranians to
the Senate for ratification. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">This is an idea that, to borrow a phrase from Wolfgang Pauli, is
"not even wrong." Any resolution of the problem will require many
interim agreements, and submitting each one to the Senate would make progress
impossible. This is especially true when one considers that the partisans in the Senate would
never aprove of anything that the President negotiated, because they are
dedicated to making sure that he fails at everything, regardless of the cost to
the country.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">To round out this catalogue of difficulties,
Speaker of the House John Boehner has invited the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to address Congress in
early March. In a rude breach of protocol the Speaker did not even notify the White
House. It has been theorized that this is pay-back for the President acting
unilaterally on immigration. If so, it is beyond ironic that the acolytes of
Ronald Reagan forget his admonition that “Politics ends at the water’s
edge.” (1)</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">If you want to see the extreme of using Iran
to bash the President in a disgusting appeal to the religious right, I give you<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/ted-cruz-u-s-iran-swilling-chardonnay-over-nuclear-negotiations" target="_blank">Ted Cruz.</a> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Bibi will be standing for early elections on
March 17, and he will be speaking to Congress in early March. There is a
longstanding norm of international politics that<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>disapproves of any action that smacks
of involving one country in the internal politics of another. Although Bibi is
arguably guilty of breaching this norm in November of 2012, the White House
referred to it in explaining why neither the President nor John Kerry would be
meeting with him in advance of the Israeli election.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">So, now might be a good time to re-read what
I wrote in February of last year, "<a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2014/02/aipac-reconsidered.html" target="_blank">AIPAC reconsidered</a>."</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Of course, today it is difficult to be as
sanguine as I was about the Arab Spring when I wrote that. However, I still
think that things are a lot better now than they were six years ago. ISIL is a
source of great concern but I have it on reliable information that no less an
expert than </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.1pt;">General Anthony Zinni.opines that t</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">he
U.S. could defeat this rag-tag non-professional gang of 30,000 fighters in
about 2 weeks, if we could only summons the political will to do so. Problem is we can't and therefore, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Syria remains an impossible situation,
perhaps, because people did not heed the advice I gave</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"> </span><a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-about-syria.html" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">So, there are two questions:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, where is AIPAC going to come out on the sanctions bill? Will
they see the wisdom of the President’s approach, as they did last go-round, or
will they defer to Bibi Netanyahu, thereby bolstering him in his election
campaign?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second, w</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">hat does Big Mitch think we should do?</span></div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
</ol>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Regarding the first we can only wait and
see. </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">As to the second question, I think it is
obvious that the U.S. needs to speak with one voice, and that it should be the
voice of a grown-up. Sadly, the only one who seems to fit that description is
the President of the United States. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">Wish him luck, and,</span> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;">“… tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.25pt;"><br /></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(1) It was actually </span></span><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: justify;">Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg who first uttered these words in 1947. Most of the Gipper's best lines were written by someone else. </span></span></div>
</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-23177204654888694812015-01-13T18:43:00.000-06:002015-01-18T23:59:42.344-06:00Je suis Juif.<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">While watching the famous liberal
media on TV, I saw Ron Allen, a reporter in Paris, talking about the number of
Jews leaving France because of the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe in general,
and in France in particular. The problem is real and substantial. Then, he used
an expression that jangled my ears. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">He
said that more and more Jews are “going back to Israel.”</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: large;">The choice of words rankled because
the Jews of France are generally not part of an immigrant community. Jews have lived in the south of France since at least the
first century, brought by the Romans as slaves after the destruction of the
Temple in Jerusalem.<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #252525;"> </span>Indeed,
the preeminent commentator on the Jewish Bible and the Oral Law, Rabbi Shlomo
Yitzchaki, known generally as Rashi, was born in Troyes, France in the year 1040.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Jews prospered after the
French Revolution, which gave them truly equal citizenship for the first time </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">anywhere in Europe. Their emancipation
in 1791 was the signal for ghettos to crumble all over the Continent. This is
what French Prime Minister Manuel Valls referred to when he said, </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">“</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">To understand what the idea of the republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews,</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">”</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> and, </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">“</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The en</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">dless list of famous
French Jews includes two prime ministers, a Secretary of State, and literary giants such as Marcel Proust. Marc Chagall, </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: large;">“</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #252525;">the quintessential<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Jewish artist<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #252525;"> </span></span><span style="color: #252525;">of the twentieth century</span>,” made his home in Paris,
having </span>emigrated there as a young man before the first World War.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">At least a quarter of the 330,000 Jews
in pre-war France were murdered by the Nazi and their sympathizers. After the
war, many Jews immigrated to France from Eastern Europe. These Jews were joined
in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s by large numbers of Jews from France's
predominantly Muslim North African colonies as part</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of the Jewish exodus
from Arab and Muslim countries. The Jewish community is strong in
France, and Jews are integrated into all levels of society. Negative attitudes
towards Jews in France are less common than in other European countries. One of
the victims in the Charlie Habdo was a much-beloved Jewish cartoonist.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: large;">And then, it occurred to me. Jews in
France are, literally, exiles from the Holy Land, as am I. The Hebrew word for exile is <i>galus</i>.
Nearly 2,000 years ago the Jewish nation was driven out of its homeland and sent off into a tear-soaked galus that lasts to
this very day. We wait and yearn for the day when our <i>galus</i> and
suffering will come to an end, when we will be returned to the Holy Land, with
the coming of our redeemer, the<span glossary_item="11885" style="background-position: 50% 100%; cursor: pointer;">
Moshiach (Messiah) may it be speedily and in our times.</span></span></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-71756120073457251352014-11-04T03:58:00.000-06:002014-11-04T04:18:53.843-06:00The race that is too tough to understand.<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is the election.princeton.edu final predictions for Senate Races, presented on a handy-dandy scorecard.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PN_z0xgzYVc/VFiVrZYCPoI/AAAAAAAAAkM/dfOJifSNCB4/s1600/senate-races-2014-final-snapshots.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PN_z0xgzYVc/VFiVrZYCPoI/AAAAAAAAAkM/dfOJifSNCB4/s1600/senate-races-2014-final-snapshots.jpg" height="240" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And here are the predictions for Governor's races.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SvJ_hfGdUd0/VFiXWpbqDMI/AAAAAAAAAkY/JCrubIcy1Lw/s1600/gubernatorial-races-2014-final-snapshots.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SvJ_hfGdUd0/VFiXWpbqDMI/AAAAAAAAAkY/JCrubIcy1Lw/s1600/gubernatorial-races-2014-final-snapshots.jpg" height="286" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Major news media are ignoring an exciting race in Alaska. Is
it is too hard to cover because of the time zones and the environment? Or is it
too hard to explain? To make the matter worse, people like Sam Wang, of election.princeton.edu,
don’t understand the situation in Alaska; and therefore, their math doesn’t add
up.<br />
<br />
Here’s what you need to know.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In both the gubernatorial and the senate races, the favored candidate is given a 62% chance of a win because he is ahead by one percentage point
(plus or minus 3 or more percentage points.) The surprising prediction is that in the
Senate, Dan Sullivan (the Republican) is favored, while in the Governor’s race,
the Republican is considered more likely to lose. <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For that to happen a LOT of Alaskans would have to split
their votes, choosing a Republican senator, and a Governor who ran as an
Independent and then formed a fusion ticket with the Democratic nominee, Byron Mallot, a leader the Native Rights movement. Given
that former AG, Dan Sullivan is to the Native Rights movement what the bus
driver who kicked Rosa Parks off the bus is to the Civil Rights Movement, it’s difficult
to imagine anyone who would vote for Native Rights Activist Byron Mallot <b>and</b> Former Attorney General Sullivan, prosecutor of Katy John So much the more so in light of the endorsement given to Begich by the Alaska Federation of Natives.<br />
<br />
It follows, that at least one of Sam Wang’s two
Alaska predictions is wrong. We don’t know which, so the odds that it could be
either is 50-50. Therefore, both races are precisely toss-ups. This sounds like some arithmatic sleight of hand, but it is no
different from the process by which Dr. Wang averages polls in a particular race.
The novelty is that I am averaging a senate race with a governor’s race: I reject the assumption that the two variables are independent. Do the
math, (But note that Dr. Wang is ever so slightly more sure of Sullivan than he is of Walker/Mallot.)<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, and here’s where subjective feeling enters in, I
say it is the prediction that Sullivan will beat Begich that is incorrect.
I am betting on Mark Begich and I say, it’s easy money. He is an Alaskan, son of an Alaskan congressman, who done good, and we don't set the bar too high up here. (Just google Sarah Palin, or Don Young.) Factor in women's issues and this ain't as hard to figure as some Sci-Fi movie. It's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psephology" target="_blank">psephology</a>.<br />
<br />
Plus: can you say, "ground game?"<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!” <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Written the night BEFORE the election.)<br />
<br /></div>
<br />BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-33800610979140742822014-06-06T09:07:00.000-06:002014-06-09T13:54:52.742-06:00The cure for predator corporations<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you are a corporation and you pay non-unionized labor so
little that they can’t live on their salary without government benefits such as
food-stamps, WIC, and TANF, then you are a predator corporation. You are taking
profits from the labor of others, and not paying for it. Instead, the
government is paying for it, and passing the bill along to the taxpayers. Some
might say it is highly immoral to “wring[ your] bread from the sweat of other
men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway, it isn’t illegal. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, just about any solution to this problem will
undoubtedly be condemned as “income redistribution” or, worse, “socialism.”
Never mind that anytime you go into Walmart and pay 25 cents for a trinket that
they got from China for 10 cents, your income is being redistributed to the
Waltons and the Chinese. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the Republican fetish for free markets regards the
Waltons as geniuses who are simply playing by the rules and making money. Ain’t
that what capitalism is supposed to be? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s an idea which is so crazy, it just may work.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A-2qsXeuYd8/U5YQye0BqfI/AAAAAAAAAhE/oc9LSYixj68/s1600/deblasio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A-2qsXeuYd8/U5YQye0BqfI/AAAAAAAAAhE/oc9LSYixj68/s1600/deblasio.jpg" height="236" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Supposed you passed a law that said that anybody who works
for a non-union shop with more than 500 employees is ineligible for government
benefits unless they are paid $15.00/hr.
The Republican anti-government crowd would have to at least acknowledge
that it is not an expansion of the social safety net. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They might even welcome
it as a dismantling of what they see as a “welfare state.” Since, by its terms
the law would enable some employers to pay union workers less than non-union
workers it might be seen as a blow to the unions. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most states and localities will see a savings from the
reduction of need for social services. They can pass the savings along in
reduced taxes. Or they can do a little infrastructure building, producing jobs
and higher quality of life. Or they can undo some of the cuts to education that
been necessitated by the recent reign of austerity. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But you know who isn’t going to like it? That would be the
Walton family. You see, their business model doesn’t work without getting
someone else to pay for their workers. What will they do when people refuse to work for them unless they are paid enough to live on? And by “paid enough to live on,” I mean, paid by their employers enough to live on. You see, it is just not worth it to work for the Waltons, without subsidies from the government. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe they will decide that unions aren’t
such a bad thing after all. I doubt it, but as they say, it’s hard to predict
the future. After all, unions have the power of numbers with which to negotiate a living wage. Maybe the Walton family will have to tighten their belts, though it
is hard to imagine what they will have to do without. Maybe the CEO of McDonalds will have to scrape
by 4.1 million a year (as he did in 2011) rather than the $13.8 million he was
given this year. I think we can all agree that this is a bummer for him but it
is not as bad as working for 30 hours a week and making $217.50.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It may be that prices at Walmart and fast food places have
to go up. That’s not so bad, either. According to the laws of supply and
demand, people may eat less Mickey D. You got a problem with that? It may be
that the trinket that Walmart purchased in China for 10 cents to sell to you,
may cost you 27 cents instead of two bits. Think of the two cent difference as
the amount your locality saved on costs, and if you didn’t get it back on your
tax bill, enjoy your new road, or your kid’s music class. By the way, if you
would like to manufacture trinkets in American, to sell in your own trinket
boutique, you are two cents closer to being able to compete with Chinese
imports. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Talk this over with the next economist you meet, </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-13606935862846327232014-05-12T17:22:00.000-06:002014-05-12T17:26:56.041-06:00The Catholic vote<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">In the last six
presidential elections the candidate who won the Catholic vote has won the
popular vote. Al Gore won the popular vote handily but lost the Supreme Court
case of Bush v Gore. (Held: counting votes is unconstitutional.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">President Obama carried the Catholic vote 50
percent to 48 percent while he won the overall national vote 51 percent to 47
percent. That's the third straight Presidential election where the Catholic
vote has been a near-carbon copy of the overall vote.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Many Catholic voters are Latino, a group that
gave Obama 71% of their votes. Republican attitudes towards immigration aren’t
going to win over many of these voters. Tom Donohue, president of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chamber-of-commerce-republicans-2016-immigration-reform">said</a>
the GOP shouldn’t even bother to field a presidential candidate in 2016 unless
Congress passes immigration reform this year. Spoiler alert: they are <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/john-boehner-terrible-horrible-immigration-predicament">not
going to do it</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">The Catholic vote historically was solidly
Democratic, but Richard Nixon undertook to create a “new majority” and enlisted
Pat Buchanan to capture the Catholic vote. Buchanan suggested, among other
things, appointing Italian-Americans to visible positions, going so far as to <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/47327/pat-buchanan-1971-give-the-scotus-black-seat-or-jewish-seat-to-a-catholic">suggest</a>
that the so-called “black seat” or “Jewish seat” on the Supreme Court be given
to an ethnic Catholic when it became available. (He was for quotas before he
was against them.) Today, there are no Protestants on the Court, and the only
Black on the court is Catholic. There are three “ethnic Catholics” – Alito,
Scalia, and Sotomeyor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">In 1972 President Nixon, upon the suggestion
of Buchanan, wrote to Cardinal Cooke expressing his opposition to abortion and
supporting the effort to repeal the liberal N.Y. law. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">(Interestingly, in the 1970s, conservative
Christian protests against sexual immorality began to surface, largely as a
reaction to the “permissive sixties” and an emerging prominence of sexual
liberties arising from</span><span style="font-size: 16pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">Roe v Wade</span><span style="font-size: 16pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">and the gay rights
movement. Christians began to “wake up” and make sexuality issues a priority
political cause, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right#Sex_and_sexuality">per Wiki</a>.</span>
I’ll discuss how these voters can be recaptured at a later date.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">The Republican efforts to appeal to Catholic
voters achieved some success. Today, it is still assumed that for many Catholic
voters -- especially white Catholics -- abortion is a key issue, that many of these voters went for Romney, and that
they may go to the Republican nominee in 2016. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">I am not so sure that the issue of abortion
has as much salience for Catholics as it once had. In a poll in October 2013,
thirty-nine percent of all respondents — and 42 percent of self-identified
Catholics – felt abortion should be illegal in either “all” or “most”
cases. Catholics are just not that different from Americans as a whole.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.85pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 11.7pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.85pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 11.7pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Pope
Francis is not going to change church doctrine regarding this issue. But he has
suggested that the church’s focus on abortion can be re-examined. Here is how
he put it:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 4.85pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; tab-stops: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">“We cannot insist only on issues related to
abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not
possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for
that. But when we speak about these issues</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the
church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not
necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">It is clear that he prefers to keep the
attention on wealth inequality and concern for the poor. His comments on fairness
very nearly amount to an open rebuke of Paul Ryan, an early contender for the
Republican nomination. For sake of discussion, let’s call the issue of wealth
inequality “fairness.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">This is not the place to discuss the many
reasons that “fairness” as an issue can be embraced by a huge majority of
voters, though they are not necessarily the most motivated. Suffice it to say,
that 2016 has the potential to pit populists against plutocrats and Catholics
are the natural constituency of the populists. Of course, this is true of
Latino Catholics, but it is also true of white Catholics in general, many of
whom are blue collars workers including those who are feeling disempowered by
the decline of labor union power.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Can the issues of abortion and fairness be
linked? It will take more than the formulation that Bill Clinton used, which
has been taken up by Hillary Clinton: “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">In point of fact, abortions are down in the
United States under President Obama. In 2011, approximately 1.06 million </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">abortions</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"> took place in the U.S., down from an
estimated 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in
2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. The main driver of abortion levels is the
economy. Put another way, improving the economic circumstances of the poor is
the most effective anti-abortion program available in America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">If this point can be driven home to
Catholics, a significant shift in voting patterns can be achieved. “Want to
eliminate abortion? Vote Democratic!” “Access to Birth Control means fewer
abortions.” “Fairness = fewer abortions.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">One hundred, twenty-seven million voters cast
votes in the 2012 election One quarter of the votes (i.e. almost 32 million)
were cast by Catholics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">A 51.1 – 47.2 percentage split of the popular
vote in favor of Obama produced a margin of victory of 1,053,000 votes, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 21px;">a decisive victory in the Electoral College. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">If the next Democratic candidate
can shift just 2% of the Catholic vote in his or her favor, that’s a 1,280,000
cushion that would virtually guarantee a victory for the Democratic nominee. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">And, if you are listening, Joe Biden, it wouldn’t hurt if the nominee himself
was a proud Catholic. And, Joe, if you do decide to run …<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">“… tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-56976237419949289182014-02-12T03:06:00.000-06:002014-02-12T12:43:56.337-06:00AIPAC reconsidered.<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
AIPAC is at a cross-road. It has sided with President Barack Obama in a
very public dispute with some of the most pro-Israel members of both houses of
Congress.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
First the background. The U.S. and Israel share a foreign policy goal
of keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel’s reasons are
existential. The American administration is motivated by our strong commitment
to Israel, as well as the realpolitik observation that Iran with nuclear
weapons is unstable enough all by herself, but if that were to come about, the
resultant nuclear arms race in the region would pose unacceptable risks. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
The U.S. has waged a campaign against Iran that included sabotage, in
which effort they have received support from the Israelis. Iranian nuclear
scientists have a habit of dying in suspicious circumstances, though, of
course, nobody is taking credit. And then there were the sanctions. <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2013/12/who-can-be-tougher-on-iran-democrats-or.html" target="_blank">Here</a>’s where you can read about the history of the U.S. efforts to first support and
then discourage Iran’s nuclear program. (Executive Summary: Democrats are
tougher on Iran than Republicans. By far.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
The election of 2008 produced Democratic majority in the Senate and the
House of Representatives, and, of course, a Democratic President. Congress
passed “the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of
2010 (CISADA), with bi-partisan support and President Obama signed it into law
July 1, 2010. The CISADA greatly enhanced restrictions in Iran. The
sanctions regime had the desired result: Iran came to the negotiating table.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
The negotiations resulted in an interim agreement which I discussed <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2013/12/more-sanctions-for-iran-why-not.html" target="_blank">here.</a> Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu said that
the agreement was the “deal of the century” for the Iranians, but President
Obama argued that the interim agreement was a reasonable effort to avoid war,
and further that the movement in Congress to pass additional, conditional
sanctions would be counter-productive.
This is what he said at the State of the Union address:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“It is American diplomacy, backed by pressure,
that has halted the progress of Iran's nuclear program -- and rolled back parts
of that program -- for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here
tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched
uranium.</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“It's not installing advanced centrifuges.
Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not
building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we're engaged in
negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share:
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“These negotiations will be difficult; they may
not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran's support for terrorist organizations
like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we're clear about the mistrust
between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these
negotiations don't rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based
on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that
Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could
negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can
negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“The sanctions that we put in place helped make
this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new
sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. For
the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“If Iran's leaders do not seize this
opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions and stand
ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear
weapon. But if Iran's leaders do seize the chance -- and we'll know soon enough
-- then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations,
and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time
without the risks of war.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
That “new sanctions bill” that the President referenced was actually a
thing, and AIPAC had been pushing it for months. But last week AIPAC reversed course,
and agreed with Democrats who had said that “now is not the time” for new sanctions. This move angered Republican supporters of
the new sanctions bill, and it didn’t go down too well with the Israeli
administration. According to the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/11/how-aipac-botched-its-biggest-fight-in-years.html" target="_blank">Daily Beast</a> one GOP Senate staffer put it like this: “Republicans responded with a
big middle finger.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
How did it happen that AIPAC was on the wrong side of this issue for so
long? And how could it be that AIPAC could fail so spectacularly in bringing
along the Republicans when it saw the light? And worst of all, how could it
possibly get cross-wise with the Israeli administration?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
There are people – you may even know some of them – who just hate
President Obama. Netanyahu’s strained relationship with the American President
has been reported on extensively. Perhaps it is because of Bibi’s close
association with Mitt Romney, which led to him breaching the well-known norm of
international behavior and interfering in the American internal politics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
More likely, he regards the change in American policy as a cause of the
Arab Spring and therefore a dangerous thing. He’s wrong, of course, since as we
have seen, the Arab Spring has resulted in the defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt, (exactly as I predicted <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2011/02/give-credit-where-credit-is-due.html" target="_blank">here</a>) and the emergence of a free Libya with the death of Quaddafi. And let's not forget the
disarming of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles. So, AIPAC could be
negative about Obama and be in line with the Israeli PM’s opinion, misguided
though it was. And if Bibi said that the interim deal with the Iranians was
bad, AIPAC can’t be blamed for saying so. After all, they are the Israel Lobby,
aren’t they? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Well, actually, I do blame them for saying that the interim deal was
bad. I’m willing to forgive and forget in light of the fact that they have come
to the position that I advocated before last Christmas. But I would hope that
AIPAC would learn from their mistake. And what was that mistake? The mistake
was in confusing Israel’s interests with Bibi Netanyahu’s interests. It has
been observed that AIPAC is no longer the Israel Lobby, but rather, the Likud
Lobby. (President Shimon Peres and many other prominant Israelis were much less critical of the interim deal than the PM.) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
But Bibi isn’t the only one who doesn’t like Obama. There’s a contingent
of Americans who can’t stand the sight of him. I won’t speculate on why that
is, though others have suggested that, like everything else in America,
considerations of race enter into it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Although AIPAC has taken steps to reverse the perception (or fact) that
it has a right-leaning bias, AIPAC has also reached out with renewed vigor to a
core Republican constituency, viz., evangelical Christians. Groups like CUFI (Christians
United For Israel) are a natural target audience for this effort.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Some Jews say that Israel – or Jews in general, for that matter – cannot
be too selective in her friends. It’s a case I might have made with regard to
Israel’s association with apartheid Union of South Africa in a by-gone era. But
in that case, I would have been observing Israel’s relationship to a third
party. Now, we are looking at the relationship between Israel – a country and a
people I love –and the United States, a country that I am proud to call my own.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
I am not the first person to question whether or not Israel can trust the
love of our Christian brethren. One of the founding documents of Zionism was Leo
Pinsker’s, <i>Selbstemanzipation</i> (Auto-emancipation),
published in 1882. Or more recently, Bob Dylan wrote, “Well, he got no allies
to really speak of; What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of
love.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
I’m all in favor of making strategic alliances. But in this instance,
we see that fundamentalist Christians’ love of Israel was trumped by their
Republican hatred of Obama. And since Republican politicians are petrified of
being challenged in a primary by some fundamentalist Tea-party buffoon, they
dance to whatever tune these fundamentalists call. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
Even if that amounts to a
big middle finger to AIPAC. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
After all, AIPAC committed an unforgiveable offense: it agreed with
Obama. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
“… and tell ’Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-27693223835516568922014-01-12T19:09:00.001-06:002014-01-13T01:49:03.471-06:00What does it mean if Chris Christie survives this political scandal?Let’s begin with something we can all agree on: Chris Christie is a mean, vindictive son-of-a bitch.<br />
<br />
It seems unbelievable that Chris Christie would exact retribution against a mayor in his state for the perfectly reasonable position that he, the mayor, as a democrat should not endorse a Republican candidate for governor. So much the more so because the prank didn’t hit directly at the mayor of Fort Lee, but rather severely inconvenienced (and endangered) Fort Lee residents, most of whom voted for Christie.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/rachel-maddow-chris-christie_n_4572367.html" target="_blank">Rachel Maddow</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/12/steve-kornacki-chris-christie-bridge-scandal_n_4585830.html" target="_blank">Steve Kornack</a>i have other theories to explain why Christie would take such a mean, punitive action. These theories might be right or they might be wrong, but the fact is that the prevailing story is that Christie was just being mean because Mayor Mark Sokolitch of Ft. Lee refused to endorse him.<br />
<br />
When such stories are not dismissed out of hand, and indeed, they are widely believed, it’s time to look at the culture that prevails in New Jersey.
The picture that emerges is one of a political culture that has been described as “brass knuckles,” where revenge is not merely to be expected, but rather it is engaged in with the glee and élan that attaches to a favorite sport.<br />
<br />
Let's take a closer look.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JcuOAz5EbBA/UtOLMe5B-kI/AAAAAAAAAUY/BiCzLGqCoZQ/s1600/CHRIS-CHRISTIE-TEACHER.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" height="100" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JcuOAz5EbBA/UtOLMe5B-kI/AAAAAAAAAUY/BiCzLGqCoZQ/s200/CHRIS-CHRISTIE-TEACHER.jpg" title="Note the admiring look on Mrs. Christie's face" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Christie hectors a member <br />
of the Teacher's union</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When Christie disagreed with the politics of State Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat, whose district includes Elizabeth, the governor shut down the DMV in that city, the fourth largest in the state, to show his displeasure.<br />
<br />
Here’s another example: Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop accuses Christie’s office of canceling several meetings with N.J. department heads on the day after he refused to endorse the governor. You may remember that Fulop’s name has already come up in connection with Bridge-gate. Emails reveal that a top Christie aide asks then-Port Authority official David Wildstein whether the agency had responded to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich’s complaints about the closures.
“Radio silence,” Wildstein, a Christie ally, wrote on Sept. 9. “His name comes right after Mayor Fulop.”<br />
<br />
In the spring, when Christie asked Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer to endorse him for re-election during a face-to-face meeting, Zimmer, a Democrat, told the governor no. After Hurricane Sandy, she applied to the state for a Hazard Mitigation Grant. When her request for grant funding came back, she said, Hoboken received $300,000 of the $100 million in grants requested — less than 1 percent. Pay-back, as they say in N.J., is a bitch.<br />
<br />
Do you will recall that in Christie’s marathon press conference he talked about how important loyalty was to him? After Christie won the last election in a landside, former Gov. Tom Kean, Sr. said, “Chris just won reelection, he’s popular, and there is a sense he would be able to compete everywhere.” Kean is the only Republican in modern political history to score a higher percentage of the vote than Christie did in November. When he ran for reelection in 1985, Kean won with 71 percent of the vote. More importantly, he was Christie’s first political mentor. There’s a guy who deserves loyalty.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it didn't extend to Kean’s son, Tom, Jr., who was in the Senate. He had a rather public feud with Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D), with whom Christie has to work to get legislation through. As part of his effort to produce a Republican majority in the Senate majority, Kean had targeted Sweeney’s seat in the election. This is considered bad manners: New Jersey legislative leaders usually do not target each other for electoral defeat, and it didn’t go down well with Sweeney.<br />
<br />
Rather than support his fellow Republican, Christie avoided campaigning in Southern NJ, where Kean hoped to oust Democrats. At a post-election news conference, Christie wouldn’t say he supported Kean’s continued leadership of the Senate caucus. Instead, Christie pointedly said he had just spoken — with Sweeney.<br />
<br />
In 2010, when a blizzard paralyzed the state, State Senator Sean T. Kean, (no relation to Tom Kean) a Republican, told a reporter that the “one mistake” the Senate president and governor had made was not calling earlier for a state of emergency, which might have kept more cars off the roads. Christie could not abide that level of criticism. As the NYT tells the story,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr. Christie was smarting from criticism that he had remained at Disney World during the storm. When he returned, he held his first news conference in Mr. Kean’s home district. Shortly before, a member of the governor’s staff called Mr. Kean and warned him not to show up. His seat was eliminated in redistricting the following year. </blockquote>
In another incident, Christie used his line item veto to eliminate a program to help women who suffer from post-partum depression. Why? Because the head of the foundation was married to State Senator Richard Cody, who happens to be a former governor. And what was his gripe against ex-guv Richard Cody? Nothing in particular. “I have to send Codey a message about who’s in charge,” said Chris Christie.<br />
<br />
On another occasion, Christie tried to blame Cody for stalling two nominations that were not progressing in the Senate fast enough to please the governor. Quite reasonably, Cody pushed back by pointing out that he had not only signed off on the nominations, but had held a meeting to try to hurry them along. Christie reacted by stripping Cody of the security detail that is customarily afforded former governors. And, just in case that was too subtle, “that same day, his cousin, who had been appointed by Mr. McGreevey to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was fired, as was a close friend and former deputy chief of staff who was then working in the state Office of Consumer Affairs,” according to the NYT.<br />
<br />
Last year, another Republican, State Senator Christopher Bateman, voted against the governor’s plan to reorganize the state’s public medical education system. Mr. Bateman had been working with the governor to get a judge appointed in his home county. Suddenly, after months when it looked as if it would happen, the nomination stalled.<br />
<br />
Consider the example of noted and respected Rutgers Professor of Political Science Alan Rosenthal. He had been the chair of the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission in 1992 and again in 2001. His obituary notes that “Rosenthal cast the deciding vote in the 2011 legislative redistricting, a process that dragged on for weeks, approving the map favored by the commission’s Democratic members.” What happened after that? The two programs at Rutgers that were most dear to Dr. Rosenthal were slashed in the next budget.<br />
<br />
Bill Baroni, who resigned over Bridge-gate had in the past been tasked with executing the governor’s vengeance. When Bill Lavin, an officer with a state firefighters’ union, publicly called for more productive dialogue between his organization and the governor, he received a call from Baroni, who said more than once, “The governor told me to make sure you don’t get this message mixed up; say these exact words.” What were those exact words? The New York Times didn’t consider them fit to print, but other sources have said that Mr. Baroni, quoted Mr. Christie as, “Go fuck yourself.”<br />
<br />
The question raised by this sordid portrait is this: Suppose Mr. Christie survives this scandal. Will this rough and tumble attitude play well in Iowa where it is assumed that traditional values of courtesy and fair play prevail?<br />
<br />
Before Bridge-gate, Cristie was the leading candidate for the Republican nomination. It is not because he was a soft-spoken, “blow-dried” creation of image consultants. Rather, he was famously rude to teachers and other constituents. Although this might have been off-putting, it set him apart from the anodyne Washington politicians. Some regarded his brusque, no-nonsense manner as an endearing quirk. <br />
<br />
As Bridge-gate develops, the public will become more familiar with the dark underside of his cruelty, some of which is catalogued above.
Psychologists and social scientists have long been aware of the authoritarian personality type. Originally, it was measured on something called the f-scale. The f stands for fascism. More recently, social scientists have refined the concept and now speak of Right Wing Authoritarian Personality Type.<br />
<br />
Call it what you may, but one characteristic is that the authoritarian personality admires a “leader who will use any means necessary.” It values “power and toughness.”<br />
<br />
If the good people of Iowa turn from the nice man in the sweater vest who won last go-round, and they decide that what the country needs is a mean son-of-a-bitch to run against Hillary Clinton, then we will know that the soul of the Republican is really, at its core, pretty high on the f scale.<br />
<br />
Of course, in the meantime, a steady trickle of revelations may lead to a situation in 2016 where Christie is, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, a pariah.<br />
<br />
“... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!”BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-6806106087368395032013-12-27T04:58:00.002-06:002013-12-27T14:47:30.869-06:00Free Association<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By the time Nelson Mandela died earlier this year, the idea
of justifying apartheid was hard to fathom. Just what did P.W. Botha and F.W.
de Klerk say in those pre-enlightenment days to excuse a hate-based system of
oppression? Well, they started with a noble sounding sentiment: people have a
right to freedom of association.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We all agree with that, but in South Africa it was
understood to mean that white people could associate with whom they chose,
i.e., whites, and also, that nobody could force them to associate with those with
whom they chose not to associate, i.e., blacks. Of course that was then, and
this is now.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And by “this is now,” I mean people are still claiming that
their “freedom of association” is being violated so that they can justify raw
bigotry. It’s happening in the U.S.A., and I don’t mean Union of South Africa.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As everyone knows by now, there has been a bit of a kerfuffle because as it turns out, Duck Commander Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck
Dynasty family said some things that are not politically correct. (Neither were
they factually correct, but people don’t seem to object to that so much.) That
he would condemn homosexuality should surprise nobody, since his fundamentalist
Christian faith is the hallmark of his TV persona. That he would express it in
such harsh terms took some people aback, but still, he could justify the sentiments
by selective reference to the New Testament. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What was really shocking was his assertion about life in Jim
Crow Louisiana when he was growing up:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I
never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where
we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with
them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the
field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black
person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word! Pre-entitlement,
pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one
was singing the blues.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The
take-away from this is that Phil Robertson is a jerk. But who cares? Predictably,
people criticized him, and A&E network suspended him from their mega-hit.
That’s when the fight started. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sarah
Palin talked about Mr. Robertson’s First Amendment freedom, proving what we
already knew: she’s an idiot. Later she defended herself by saying she hadn’t
read the Robertson interview. Bobby Jindal said some nice things to say about
Phil Robertson. “The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints,
except those they disagree with. … In fact, I remember when TV networks
believed in the First Amendment.” </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Alabama, State Sen. Jerry
Fielding (R) promised to introduce a bill calling for the state to lend its
support to suspended Robertson. Ian Bayne, a candidate for the 11th
congressional district in Illinois sent out an email to
his supporters comparing Phil Robertson to Rosa Parks. And Newt Gingrich takes
a back seat to no one on the stupid bus: He compared Phil Robertson to Pope
Francis.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of
this would be funny if it weren’t for the peculiar aspect of right-wing talk
that is so obnoxious. I refer, of course to the victim stance, the most
egregious example of which is the faux war on Christmas. It was wearing thin
until the Duck Dynasty contretemps came along, to breathe new life into the
conceit that Christians in America are somehow victims of oppression. </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here's what Walter Hudson has to offer on his own a reactionary
right-wing blog:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the
drama surrounding cable network A&E’s suspension of <i>Duck Dynasty</i> patriarch
Phil Robertson enters its second week without losing steam, our analysis of the
incident becomes more refined by critical thought. Where emotional reactions at
first prevailed, we now see thoughtful consideration of why this episode
matters so much to so many people.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Caring about Phil Robertson and his ordeal says something about those who stand
with him. It reveals a solidarity informed by shared values, and similar
experiences. For Christians in today’s increasingly secularized culture, there
exists a persistent subversion of our religious expression. While it often takes
the form of private censure, as it has in Robertson’s case, the influence of
the state can be sensed bearing down on private decisions.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.75pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Actually,
I can’t sense the influence of the state bearing down on private decisions. So, as if to help those like me, the author
asks what the ACLU would do if A&E had suspended a reality TV personality
for urging closeted gays to come out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We know
the answer. We know it because the unequal recognition of the freedom of association
lies naked in the various public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws
strewn throughout various levels of government. Indeed, mere days before the <i>Duck
Dynasty</i> controversy erupted, a judge in Colorado ordered a Christian baker to serve cake for a gay wedding or face fines. Where’s the ACLU on that one?
Naturally, they represented the gay couple and stood against the baker’s <i>freedom of association.</i> ‘No one should fear being turned away from
a public business because of who they are,’ they said in a statement.[emphasis added]</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.75pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Did you
catch the false dichotomy? You have “public accommodation and
anti-discrimination laws” on one hand, and “freedom of association” on the
other. Lest you think this was a casual usage of an ill-advised phrase,
consider that on his own website his comment policy states: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Free speech is
great. You are entitled to speak your mind in whatever way you see fit – on
your own blog. Here, we flaunt the right to free association.<o:p></o:p></i></span></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.75pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It seems like an odd use of the word “flaunt” which
means “display (something) ostentatiously, esp. in order to provoke envy or
admiration or to show defiance." But perhaps it is more thoughtful than I gave the writer credit for.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The author is indeed defiant. He opposes government
intervention into the private affairs of citizens even when it is to eliminate
discrimination and segregation. He adopts the rationale for apartheid that the
rest of the civilized world has rejected. Yes, he embraces it -- defiantly.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For a long time now, Progressives have had a strong
feeling that Conservatives are racists. It’s a serious accusation and one that
ought not to be made without strong evidence. It is true that Conservatives
have found a home in the Republican Party, and starting with Nixon, the GOP
pursued a Southern strategy that explicitly embraced racism. The vast majority of the South has moved on from the racism of those days, but there persists a strain of it in Dixie. Still, racism is so
universally condemned that it is easy to assume that discriminatory laws, e.g.
voter ID laws, are not aimed at Blacks because they are Black, but rather
because they are Democrats.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When Rachel Maddow asked Rand Paul (R-KY) in May
2010 about his views of the landmark Civil Rights Act, he allowed that he has
concerns about the idea of ordering private business owners to implement
non-discriminatory practices. (Of course, he lied about it when speaking to Howard University students, but that's Rand Paul for you.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">De jure discrimination is dead in America. But
there is a great divide between those who want to be able to discriminate in
their private businesses and those who reject the philosophy of apartheid. The
former are now embracing even the rationale of the apartheid regime. They flaunt
the “Right of Association.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Keep your eyes out for them …</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 4.75pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-88586528667990426852013-12-24T04:53:00.000-06:002013-12-24T04:53:40.491-06:00Who can be tougher on Iran -- Democrats or Republicans?<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 9.15pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>Do you really have to ask?</i> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Some of my friends are saying that the current administration is not doing enough to oppose Iran’s quest for nuclear arms. It made me wonder: What is the Republican record on this crucial point?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Last year, just before the election, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) wrote to affirm President Obama’s strong support of Israel. He reminded us that, “President Reagan is rightly remembered as a strong friend of Israel, although he led the world’s condemnation of Israel at the U.N. when Israel knocked out Iraq’s threatening nuclear facility.” But that was then.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Back in 2006, I noticed that the Washington Post had reported that: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">President Bush declared [Friday, Jan. 13, 2006] that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose ‘a grave threat to the security of the world’ as he tried to rally support from other major powers for U.N. Security Council action unless a defiant Tehran abandons any aspirations for nuclear weapons.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;">I wondered at the time how it was that Iran was in a position to seek nuclear arms. As it turns out, it’s a pretty good tale.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In 1975, President Gerald R. Ford proposed to sell nuclear technology to the Iranians according to a declassified National Security Decision Memorandum, signed by Henry Kissinger. Iran was ruled by a Shah, and he convincingly made the case that oil was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">President Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. It was a 6.4 billion-dollar deal that would have benefited principally two companies, Westinghouse and General Electric, and it would have resulted in Tehran having control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium. Thank G-d the deal fell through when the Shaw was deposed.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The deal was for a complete “nuclear fuel cycle” -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis. That is precisely the ability the current administration is now trying to prevent Iran from acquiring, as it was in 2005, during the G.W. Bush administration.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It’s interesting to note that in 1975, President Ford’s Chief of Staff was a man named Dick Cheney, and his Secretary of Defense was a man named Donald Rumsfield. Paul Wolfowitz was responsible for nonproliferation at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. This is the crew that was at the White House when George W. Bush, under false pretenses, removed the only regional counter-balance to Iran.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But let’s not get too far ahead of the story. Before he became Vice President, Mr. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. During the 1990’s, Halliburton paid out more than $3 million in fines for selling Libya nuclear detonator devices, which violated a U.S. trade embargo imposed on Libya because of that country's ties to terrorism. Also under Cheney leadership, Halliburton sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources. More recently, Cheney has been critical of President Obama’s deal which halted Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">While Cheney was busy helping a Iranian terrorist regime acquire nuclear capabilities, Bill Clinton was busy being President of the United States. He imposed some of the toughest sanctions against Iran in 1995, prohibiting U.S. trade in Iran's oil industry in March, and prohibiting any U.S. trade with Iran in May. Trade with the United States, which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. He also signed into law the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) imposing severe sanctions on all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The sanctions did have an effect. In 1997 a reformer, Mohammad Khatami, was elected President in Iran. President Clinton responded by easing sanctions somewhat. However, the basic outline of the sanctions regime remained in place, including ILSA.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In any event, George W. Bush was “elected” in 2000. What was going on when he was trying to get the U.N. to impose sanctions in 2006, as reported in the Washington Post, above?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">After being elected president in 2005, President Ahmadinejad lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment that had been agreed upon with the France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards agreement to the UN Security Council. The U.S. government then began pushing for UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. What had the Bush government done on its own?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In June 2005, President George W. Bush issued an executive order freezing the assets of individuals connected with Iran's nuclear program. Some might say that was a pretty weak sanction. In fact, some did. In June 2007, the U.S. state of Florida enacted a boycott on companies trading with Iran and Sudan, while New Jersey's state legislature was considering similar action.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The election of 2008 produced Democratic majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and, of course, a Democratic President. Congress passed “the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010. The CISADA greatly enhanced restrictions in Iran.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">These sanctions have been so effective that Iran has been forced to suspend its nuclear program for six months while a long term deal is worked out.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So, what can we learn from this history? If you want to cripple Iran to bring them to the negotiating table and get them agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program, you’re better off going with the Democrats …</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-46511784361104440362013-12-23T04:37:00.000-06:002013-12-24T23:16:04.152-06:00More Sanctions for Iran? Why not.<div class="MsoNormal">
So, there is a regime of sanctions that has crippled Iran’s
economy, with the result that Secretary of State John Kerry has managed to get
Iran to negotiate a stand down from their nuclear weapons program. Everybody
with the good sense God gave animal crackers has made the observation that the
Iranians cannot be trusted. Also, the sun rises in the east. Both observations
are true, but since the interim agreement does not rely on trust, both are also
useless in the context of new sanctions.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rather than rely on trust, the interim deal provides daily
access to Natanz and Fordo sites to IAEA inspectors and access to other
facilities, mines and mills. The inspectors will be able to confirm compliance or
report breaches of the other obligations imposed on Iran, namely:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity.
(Uranium enriched to 3.5-5% can be used for nuclear power reactors, 20% for
nuclear medicines and 90% for a nuclear bomb.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->“Neutralize” its stockpile of near-20%-enriched
uranium, either by diluting it to less than 5% or converting it to a form which
cannot be further enriched</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Not install any more centrifuges (the machines
used to enrich uranium)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Leave half to three-quarters of centrifuges
installed in Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities inoperable </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Not build any more enrichment facilities</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low-enriched
uranium</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Halt work on the construction of its heavy-water
reactor at Arak, not attempt to produce plutonium there (an alternative to
highly enriched uranium used for an atomic weapon)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]-->Provide “long-sought” information on the Arak
reactor and other data</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
To put it mildly, this was a huge achievement. When Israeli
Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu drew a red line on a cartoon bomb at the United
Nations, he said that Iran must not be allowed to go any further than that. The
interim agreement more than meets his demand at least as long as it holds up.<br />
<br />
On the other side of the negotiation is the P5+1 (viz., five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France, plus Germany.) In return for the foregoing promises, the P5+1 has agreed to a “limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible” relaxation of the sanctions regime. Additionally the U.S. has agreed to transfer about $4.2 billion to Iran in installments from assets seized by the U.S. government from sales of its oil.<br />
<br />
A key commitment that the P5+1 made is that it would not
impose further nuclear-related sanctions if Iran meets its commitments. Now, several
in Congress, including Senators Begich and Murkowsky and 22 other senators, want
to impose further sanctions, a move which the Iranians say will queer the deal.<br />
<br />
The supporters of new sanctions say that they will be
conditional, i.e. would only go into effect if the Iranians fail to live up to
their agreement. It is passing strange indeed, that the number one argument in
favor of these new sanctions is that they are a hollow gesture. After all, is
there anyone in his right mind who thinks that if the Iranians breach the
interim deal, America and her allies will have any difficulty imposing new and
harsher sanctions? And above and beyond that, the President of the United
States has said he will veto the new sanctions bill, even if it were to pass
through Congress.<br />
<br />
So, there are no benefits to the bill to impose new sanctions. But,
and my grandmother once said, “What could it hurt?”<br />
<br />
Maybe Congress can over-ride his veto. But to what avail? In
the end it is still a meaningless gesture and the debate attendant to a veto
override will merely highlight to the Iranians the lack of unanimity in the
Congress. If there is a fight over a veto over-ride, along the way, you can
expect to see the usual accusations made in some quarters that the U.S.
Congress and/or the President are controlled by AIPAC and the Jews. Pollyannas
who don’t believe that there is a latent strain of anti-Semitism in America don’t
worry about the effects of this kind of talk. I do.<br />
<br />
Iran has asserted that if the new sanctions are passed in Congress, they will consider the interim deal breached and proceed accordingly.
They express the view that it is a sign that Congress is not interested in a
negotiated settlement. This latter point is not irrational, since there are
many, including PM Netanyahu, who seem to believe that no deal is a good deal,
and that war is the only response to the current regime.<br />
<br />
The Wall Street Journal argues that Iran’s position is either
a bluff, or a sign that it is looking for an excuse to break off negotiations.
From there, it makes the extraordinary leap that we should therefore call the
bluff, give Iran an excuse to break off negotiations and then … well, they don’t
really tell us what to do then.<br />
<br />
The supporters of the new sanctions claim they are a means of
strengthening the President’s hand in his negotiations with the Iranians. It is
quite obvious that this is a transparent after-the-fact rationalization. The
President and Secretary Kerry are opposed to the sanctions bill, and presumably
they know whether or not they need the help. Moreover, since when is it a sign
of strength to tell your negotiating partner your next step if they fail to
comply with your last demand? Rather it is a limitation on what the President
will do, since presumably a bunker-busting strike and/or a decapitation strike is
not off the table, at least until Congress dictates a different response.<br />
<br />
There is another risk, that none of the supporters of
sanctions have talked about. The U.S. has managed to persuade the EU, Russia, China, South
Korea, and Japan to adhere to a steadily escalating catalogue of sanctions
against Iran. These sanctions have been so damaging to the Iranian economy that
the regime is now engaged in negotiations to end its nuclear weapons program.
How has the U.S. been able to pressure the Europeans and the Asians to adhere
to these severe sanctions?<br />
<br />
A key has been to portray the Iranians as the crazies, the
intransigents, and the blood-thirsty. The Iranians have helped lend credibility
to this portrayal every chance they got with wild rhetoric and holocaust
denial, etc. But that could change. The Iranians, having signed onto an interim
accord could say with some credibility that the U.S. is being unreasonable,
unwilling to take ‘yes’ for an answer, and thereby undermine the cooperation
that is the bulwark of the current sanctions regime. If Iran can peel off just
one or two of the Europeans/Asians, they can buy some more time to advance to a place where they can make a sprint for the bomb. At that point, it is game
over.<br />
<br />
American interests in the deal are broadly to keep Iran from
getting a bomb, fulfill its moral obligation to defend Israel, and support our
nominal ally, Saudi Arabia, who is Iran’s main regional competitor. If Iran
obtains a bomb the Saudis, and the Jordanians would probably be compelled to
seek nuclear weapons as well. These risks are unacceptable, as is the potential
for Iranian nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists.<br />
<br />
For the foregoing reasons, if Iran cannot be compelled to
disavow its nuclear ambitions, there is no alternative to a military option,
either by the U.S. or by Israel. Those who don’t trust President Obama to put
into place crippling sanctions if the negotiations are not productive, argue
that they can trust the U.S. to go to war for Israel. Beyond the fact that it is
illogical, it must be observed that even if the President did undertake to go
to war to destroy Iran’s nuclear bomb capability, Congress and the American
people might not support him. Consider the fact that the President was rebuffed
by Congress in his effort to use the military to disarm Syria of her chemical
warfare capabilities and the idea was wildly unpopular.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 3.8pt; mso-line-height-alt: 8.6pt;">
It is true that many Republicans will do anything to see that
the President fails. (Witness the unwillingness of Republican governors to take
Federal money to expand Medicaid in their states.) But on matters of foreign
policy there is a strong tradition and a good reason for entrusting it to the
executive branch. Especially when, as now, he has accomplished so much that is so positive.<br />
<br />
"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-64271426685700726132013-08-28T17:52:00.002-06:002013-08-29T11:36:00.675-06:00What about Syria?<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing.” </b>(Attributed to Edmund Burke.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zcWsZEd-ARc/Uh6MzctLKhI/AAAAAAAAAQo/PI3rJv6gxPs/s1600/victims.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zcWsZEd-ARc/Uh6MzctLKhI/AAAAAAAAAQo/PI3rJv6gxPs/s400/victims.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have seen unspeakable evil in the case of the Syrian
regime’s use of nerve gas on children and non-combatants. Secretary of State
John Kerry did not overstate the case when he said it was “a moral obscenity.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a general principle, little is gained from comparisons to
Hitler. On the other hand, the use of Zyklon B, the murder of children, and the
totalitarian regime are fresh – and painful – in our memory. And so is the
reluctance of the world to confront the evil of Nazism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All wars are tragic, and the Syrian civil war seems to be
especially so. According to various opposition activist groups, between
80,350 and 106,425 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians.
According to the U.N., about 4 million Syrians have been displaced within the
country and 1.8 million have fled to other countries. This is in a country of
22 ½ million people.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
President Obama has said that the use of gas warfare would
cross a “red line.” There is no doubt that nerve gas has been used, nor that
the Assad regime is responsible. There is <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">some evidence</a> that the use of chemical weapons may have been the work of a General who
over-stepped his authority. A more likely suspect is Maher al-Assad, brother of
the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Maher is the commander of its most
formidable military division. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Doubters of the responsibility of the Assad regime ask “Why
would he invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then
launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day
they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?” Since I am convinced that
the Syrian regime is in fact responsible for the nerve gas attack, the question
is not rhetorical, and, indeed, it demands an answer. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The only answer that makes sense to me is that Assad made
the calculation that America and her allies did not have the stomach to oppose
this heinous violation of international law. He wanted to test this proposition with the hope that the answer would be demoralizing to the opposition. Was he correct in his calculus?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Basta! Something must be done! The question is, “What to
do?”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Congress is in recess now, but the President has the power
to call them back into session. It is fundamentally the power of Congress to
declare war. Though this should be a completely non-partisan issue, the current
Congress is so intractably anti-Obama that it cannot be counted upon to do the
right thing. I would like the President to be able to share the responsibility
for his decision with the elected officials and political leaders of our
country, but is there any reason to believe that Republicans can act responsibly?
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, it’s theoretically possible that the President
can get commitments from the Republican leadership in Congress before he calls
them back into session, so that he doesn't have to risk embarrassment. However,
the rumblings from people like Senator John McCain don’t inspire confidence in
this regard. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, whatever is done in Syria will be a tough slog,
and the sight of a potential quagmire for the President is too tempting for
Republicans, who routinely talk about shutting down the government, defaulting
on our debt, and de-funding every program aimed at helping people to improve
their lot in life. The President wanted to make America great again after the
destruction brought about by the George W. Bush administration, and Republicans
openly declared that they wanted him to fail.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
History, or fate, has cast this President in the role of a
great leader, and now he must lead. Let him be mindful that President Clinton’s
biggest regret of his presidency is that 1,000,000 people were slaughtered with
machetes and US never intervened. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some will say, with considerable justification, that this is
a matter for the United Nations. The problem is that in the U.N., it is the
Security Council that has primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security. The Russian Republic has a veto in the
Security Council and therefore, it is inconceivable that anything positive will
come out of it with regards to Syria. If, as I hope, the U.S. can play a
constructive role in the resolution of this “Problem from Hell,” then it is
possible that Arabs at some future time will recognize that Russia is indifferent
to their slaughter, while America took a moral stand, backed by action, to
oppose tyranny.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps the U.N. General Assembly will provide a forum in
which the U.S. can lay out its case that the Syrian regime is responsible for a
nerve gas attack on non-combatants. Oh, if only George W. Bush had not
squandered our credibility!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Still, the U.N. has another role to play in this matter. At the
time of this writing, U.N. inspectors are in Syria seeking definitive evidence
that nerve gas was used. There are still doubters, encouraged in their doubt by
the Russians, and waiting a matter of days to get their report makes sense. For
one thing, when (not “if” but “when”) opponents of our President accuse him of
jumping the gun, so to speak, it will be nice to have the cover of the U.N. inspectors’
report.<br />
<br />
These inspectors have been fired at, and the area they are inspecting
has been contaminated with conventional weapons making their task more
difficult, but not impossible. In any event, they will not pass an opinion
regarding responsibility. Rather they will answer the somewhat straight-forward
question of whether or not Serin has been used. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although the U.N. is not capable of giving international
cover to an intervention in Syria, it is important that the U.S. does not act
alone. France has announced that it is ready to take action in response to the
egregious violation of international law. In Great Britain, the PM has called
Parliament into session and it is debating military action in Syria. The
task of assembling an international coalition is not done, but it is off to a
good start. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Syria’s main allies are Russia and Iran. The Russians
maintain a naval facility in Tartus It is the last <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Russian
military</span> facility outside the former Soviet Union, and its
only Mediterranean repair and replenishment spot, sparing Russia’s warships the
trip back to their <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Black Sea</span> bases through the <span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Turkish
Straits</span>. This is of strategic importance to the Russians, and any
action by the Americans must not directly threaten Russian access to the Med.
This is a serious limitation on the range of American choices. <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Russia has another interest in Syria. An attack by the U.S.
will most likely involve cruise missiles, drones, and aircraft. The Syrian
air-defenses will have to be neutralized. These defenses are supplied by the
Russians, and it will be a definitive test of their capabilities. My gut tells
me that the Russians are not eager to see the results of this test.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nor are the Iranians, who also have Russian air defenses. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I have said before that Assad made the calculation that
America and her allies did not have the stomach to oppose this heinous
violation of international law. It makes sense to me that the Iranians
encouraged Assad to test this proposition. This is a crucial point, because if
my speculation is correct, Iran wants to know the answer as it contemplates is
choices with respect to developing nuclear weapons. And even if I am wrong
about Iran encouraging Syria to use nerve gas, still it must know that America
is not paralyzed in the face of evil, even nuclear threats. <br />
<br /></div>
The
Washington Post reports that according to Israeli officials and retired
officers who serve as military analysts there, the general consensus in the
country’s intelligence community is that Syria will not strike against Israel
in retaliation for a U.S. launch of cruise missiles. The paper points out that Israeli
warplanes have bombed Syria twice so far this year, in January and May,
apparently in an attempt to stop the transfer of weapons from inside Syria to
Hezbollah outposts in Lebanon. Neither attack provoked a response from Syria.<br />
<br />
However,
there is a long term risk to Israel and to the U.S. that comes from degrading
the capabilities of the Assad regime. Nature abhors a vacuum, and never more so
than when it is a vacuum of power.<br />
<br />
If the U.S. and her allies intervene in
Syria, what will a post intervention Syria look like? Again,
quoting from the Washington Post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The one
thing we should learn is you can’t get a little bit pregnant,” said retired
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was at the helm of U.S. Central Command when the
Pentagon launched cruise missiles at suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan
and weapons facilities in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. “If you do a one-and-done and
say you’re going to repeat it if unacceptable things happen, you might find these
people keep doing unacceptable things. It will suck you in.”</blockquote>
If
Allied intervention triggers more brutal attacks by the regime, then our
intervention will have been a failure. Therefore, it may seem that our response
must be robust enough to prevent an escalation of the regime’s war crimes.<br />
<br />
On
the other hand, there is a risk that by degrading Assad’s military capability
we may be strengthening rebel factions aligned with al-Qaeda, and so, our
response must be sufficiently restrained. It’s a difficult balance, to put it
mildly. The Obama administration has already announced that any proposed
reaction <a href="http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?from=homepage" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">will not be about regime change</a>.<br />
<br />
Basically,
it boils down to this. What we want in Syria is a stale-mate in the civil war,
during which both sides lose blood and treasure. At the conclusion, both sides
will be too tired, poor, or degraded to do any further mischief. Shed no tears
for the opponents of Assad: they are self-proclaimed enemies of America, of
Israel, and of democracy.<br />
<br />
In the
meantime, the U.S. and our allies need to supply – in a very big way –
humanitarian support for the civilians and refugees affected by the war. It is
fair to assume that nothing we can do will win favor with the jihadist
components of the opposition, and we don’t want to be associated with the
tyrant, Assad. But there is a hope that we can go over the heads of the
combatants and reach the average Syrian. It is even possible that Israel can
play a role in providing humanitarian aid.<br />
<br />
I believe in the idea of democracy, and I believe that the arc of history bends
in that direction. But there is more to democracy than elections. There must
also be open debate, free speech, a right to petition the government, a rule of
law, etc.<br />
<br />
The question is, how can Syria move from where it is now to that
blessed place where democracy can flourish? We need to find a way.<br />
<br />
To do so, we
must understand that for the time being, Syria will require an autocratic ruler
who has the strength and the disposition to oppose the Islamists. America needs
to identify and support such a leader, and then gradually groom him to become a
father of democracy.<br />
<br />
What I
have laid out here is an ambitious program, but the reasons stated
justify the necessity of undertaking it. Besides, what choice do we have?<br />
<br />
Please join me in wishing the President great success and wisdom in facing these challenges.<br />
<br />
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-5881032011233437672013-07-05T18:57:00.000-06:002013-07-05T18:57:56.905-06:00The Beauty of Texas State Senator Wendy Davis<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">State Senator Wendy Davis, a Texas Democrat is an attractive woman, a graduate of Harvard Law and tough as nails. She proved the last point by filibustering an anti-choice measure, for which she was required to use a catheter. But what’s the point of mentioning that she is an attractive woman?</span><br />
<br style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PZ8s_GdEIDc/UddpeM4v4HI/AAAAAAAAAO4/YdulNXQWd0k/s1600/WendyDavisNow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PZ8s_GdEIDc/UddpeM4v4HI/AAAAAAAAAO4/YdulNXQWd0k/s320/WendyDavisNow.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">It turns out that Conservatives are being dismissive of her because of her looks. A new website called “<a href="http://realwendydavis.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Real Wendy Davis</a>” has <a href="http://realwendydavis.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/superhero_or_superfake/#comment-225" target="_blank">exposed</a> Davis as "the first woman ever to look hotter than her 1991 yearbook photo." She's described as a Surgically Constructed “Human Barbie Doll”</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">"Most people — at least those without a plastic surgeon on retainer — do not become more good looking as they age from their late 20s to their early 50s. Without extreme artificial intervention, even the luckiest among us — those blessed with good genes who exercise prudence toward their physical safety and health (for example, by avoiding guns and alcohol) — can at most aim to delay life’s inevitable physical decline, and come close to maintaining their good looks." </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">What these buffoons do not understand is that women like Senator Davis mature and grow as they move from their 20’s to their 50’s. Just like men, they acquire a well-defined sense of self as they accumulate accomplishments, and build self confidence. They discover what is important to them, and they figure out how to pursue it with purpose and determination. Their values crystallize, and if these are values of caring and concern, they exude a sense of power that is charismatic. This is what is so attractive about Senator Davis. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">It’s also true that Senator Davis showed tremendous grace and poise, as, for example, when she responded to Rick Perry’s mean-spirited attack on her which brought up the fact that she was raised by a single mother, and had a child out of wedlock. The contrast between these two Texas politicians highlighted another quality of the Senator’s appeal, but we cannot tell from the 1991 photo if this, too, was acquired with experience.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RhPftJuyirA/UddrB3LyLDI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/wEe_E5nIGDM/s1600/youngWendyDavis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RhPftJuyirA/UddrB3LyLDI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/wEe_E5nIGDM/s1600/youngWendyDavis.jpg" /></a></div>
</span><br />
<br style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Conservatives who attack her because she is more attractive than she was when she sat for her yearbook photo 22 years ago imagine that the apex of womanly beauty is youthful inexperience, and powerlessness. A woman in her 20’s is near the height of her fertility, and those who see woman as only useful in the reproduction process, naturally see this stage of a woman’s growth as the pinnacle of her beauty. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">It is easy to dismiss the caviling of conservatives about Senator Davis’s looks as the carping of guttersnipes. I think it reveals in sharp relief the disdain with which they regard women with power and accomplishment.</span></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-16470384346035750982013-07-04T18:52:00.000-06:002013-08-29T00:28:54.434-06:00Peering into the future of Egypt.<div class="MsoNormal">
Today, Fareed Zakaria opined on the <i>Situation Room with Wolf
Blitzer</i> that the interim government in <st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place> <i><b>must</b></i> allow the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in future
elections. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
“If they are not [allowed to
participate] then the whole thing would be a complete sham, and frankly, that
would be very dangerous. The real story here is that the Islamist political
movement – not just in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>,
but in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Tunisia</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Morocco</st1:country-region> and other places, potentially in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Jordan</st1:country-region> –have
been joining the mainstream, and joining the democratic process. Remember,
there are many parts of the Islamist movement that have always been very
distrustful of this. They have wanted a Caliphate, or they've wanted something
that doesn't reek of a Western style of government. The Muslim Brotherhood
embraced nonviolence and democracy. And so, for them to be ruled out of this process
would be very dangerous. It might marginalize them. It might push them underground.
And it might push some parts of them toward violence. That is the probably single
most important thing to see – that the Muslim Brotherhood is included in
whatever democratic processes is now re-established in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe yes, and maybe no.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A constitution is not a suicide pact. It is possible to have a constitution that
incorporates a civil government, which guarantees, if I may borrow a phrase,
certain inalienable rights. Given that the Coptic churches are believed to
account for 10% of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>’s
population, and that relations between Christians and Muslims in <st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place>
are generally harmonious, a constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience
is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Indeed, this appeared to be a key demand of the protesters
in <st1:street w:st="on">Tahrir Square</st1:street>.
Consider, for example, the fact that protesters projected laser images of the
cross along with the crescent on buildings surrounding them. Furthermore, the Pope
of the Coptic Church of Alexandria was on stage with General Abdel Fattha Al
Sisi, when he announced the military intervention, and that he, Pope Theodoros II, endorsed
it. (Ninety-five percent of Egyptian Christians regard him as their religious
leader.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Could the Muslim Brotherhood sign on to a guarantee of religious freedom? As I pointed out in <a href="http://schapira.blogspot.com/2011/02/give-credit-where-credit-is-due.html">The
Dog that Didn’t Bark</a> on Feb 13, 2011, their website stated their vision of
the future, thus:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
We envision the establishment of a
democratic, civil state that draws on universal measures of freedom and
justice, which are central Islamic values. We embrace democracy not as a
foreign concept that must be reconciled with tradition, but as a set of
principles and objectives that are inherently compatible with and reinforce
Islamic tenets.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, that same website also said, “We do not intend to
take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My point is not that the Muslim Brotherhood can't be trusted:
you already knew that. My point is that given the failures of the Islamist
government, there is no reason to suspect that the framers of the next Egyptian
constitution will not create a secular state similar to the government that
brought <st1:country-region w:st="on">Turkey</st1:country-region>
into the twentieth century. By the way, in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Turkey</st1:country-region>, the military has always played
the role of stop-check against the civil authorities to guard against excesses, as the military has done in Egypt.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I can imagine a constitution that specifically prohibits
religious parties. Could the Muslim Brotherhood sign on to <i><b>that?</b> </i> I wouldn't bet on it, but as Niels Bohr* famously said, “Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that brings up back to where we started. Can a
government that forbids religious parties be accepted by the majority of
Egyptians? That remains to be seen. For now, the Army is supported by the
people, and the Army has been historically non-sectarian. Though this is an
implicit rejection of Islamistism, the Army took care to publish videos
of soldiers engaged in their daily prayers today, and it is well-known that General Al
Sisi is a devout man, which may account for why Morsy appointed him to head the
military.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Muslim Brotherhood was the largest, but not the only
Islamist political party to get support in the last Egyptian elections. For
now, it remains to be seen if the pro-secular interests in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region> can carry
the day.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Stay tuned, </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
* Or Yogi Berra. Or Casey Stangel.</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-12819257523519889812013-03-04T14:27:00.001-06:002013-03-04T14:27:28.653-06:00Congratulations to the Tea Party<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">Sequestration is underway, and Tea Partiers are
claiming victory in their war against deficits. They see this as the first win
in their campaign to impose austerity on the American people. Many Republicans,
fearful of being challenged from the right in a primary, have argued that “everyone
knows that spending is out of control.” Never mind that Federal nondefense
discretionary spending — all spending minus defense and entitlements — is </span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">on track to hit its lowest level as a share of GDP in more
than 50 years, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.</span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">These self-proclaimed deficit hawks argue that
we need austerity because, just like many American families, we have to “tighten
our belt.” Unlike many American families, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> government can print money.
Also, it can spend on a scale that alters the unemployment rate around the
country, stimulating the economy and producing more revenues. And it can borrow
money at rates that approach zero per cent. Nevertheless, the acolytes of Grover
Norquist insist that we must shrink government until it is the small enough to drown
in a bathtub.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">If only we could be certain of how austerity
works. Does it enable the economy to flourish? For that, we would need something
like a controlled experiment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">The</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;"> <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> government “austerity programme” <span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">is a series of sustained reductions in public
spending, intended to reduce the budget deficit.</span><span style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"> How’s that working out? The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.K.</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy is
3.3% smaller than it was in 2008. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy is 2.9% larger (both
adjusted for inflation).</span> Get it? The U.K is in recession and the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> isn’t. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">What’s the number one cause of deficits?
Recession. Hail Britannia! As Paul Krugman put it:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">“It's important to understand that what we're
seeing isn't a failure of orthodox economics. Standard economics in this
case—that is, economics based on what the profession has learned these past
three generations, and for that matter on most textbooks—was the Keynesian
position. The austerity thing was just invented out of thin air and a few
dubious historical examples to serve the prejudices of the elite.</span>”</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">Think about that if you have some extra time
today. Maybe you are trying to get through the shrunken TSA while trying to
catch a plane that is delayed because of layoffs of air traffic controllers. Or
maybe you are driving over unsafe bridges and on roads with potholes, with your
kids whose Head Start program was shutdown, to get some meat at the market,
where, because of a lack of meat inspectors, prices have shot up.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">And think on this: the sequestration is the
result of Republicans refusal to close tax loopholes that it said were unfair
and non-productive when negotiating a way to avoid the fiscal cliff. They claim that the President “already got his
tax hikes.” Of course, last time I checked, Republicans controlled the House of
Representatives and had a filibuster/veto in the Senate. So go ask John Boehner
to name names: Which Republicans voted for a tax increase? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 11.5pt;">“ …. and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-61337230884358339012013-02-27T03:20:00.000-06:002013-02-27T17:57:15.164-06:00The Republican Opposition to Chuck Hagel Explained<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Republicans promised not to abuse the filibuster. They
promptly broke that promise, along with precedent and filibustered Chuck Hagel’s
nomination to be Secretary of Defense. What made the Senate Republicans hate
Chuck Hagel so?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If it were true that he is an anti-Semite, as alleged by anonymous Republican staffers, I would be right
there with them. But he’s not, at least according to the Anti-Defamation League
of the B’nai Brith. So, that was a rather libelous smear. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They said that he was bad for <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. Again, if it were true, I’d
be all like, “Screw him.” But there’s no evidence there, either. In fact, the
evidence was quite the opposite, starting with Chuck Shumer’s endorsement of
him. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These and other false accusations were largely propagated by
such groups as <i>Americans for a Strong Defense</i> which is run by former Mitt Romney campaign staffers, according to ABC News. Another group, <i>Use Your Mandate</i>, claims to be composed of anonymous Democrats and Independents, but uses "<i>Del Cielo Media</i>, an arm of one of the most prominent Republican ad-buying firms in the country, <i>Smart Media</i>" according to The New York Times.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Okay, I get it. Republicans hate Chuck Hagel. But it wasn’t
always thus. Straight-talking John McCain said he would make a good Secretary
of State, back in the day when he was also pushing the line that Sarah Palin
was qualified to be President. And lest
we forget, Chuck Hagel himself is a – wait for it – Republican!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lindsey Graham took after Hagel like a woman scorned.
Ostensibly, it was all about Benghazi The question was what did the President
know and when did he know it. Fey! Suffice it to say, Hagel was not in the
government on September 11, 2012. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The highlight of the hearing might have been when Senator
Graham asked the nominee if he could name one Senator who was intimidated by
the <st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place>
lobby, or one dumb thing that the Senate did because of intimidation by the
Israeli lobby.<br />
<br />
The line of questioning was revealing in this way: it revealed
why I would never be confirmed by the Senate. To wit: I would have answered, ‘Damn
straight Senator. Someone who is intimidated by the Israeli lobby is you. And
one dumb thing you did because of intimidation is ask that question of a
Senator who has a perfect voting record on <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel, you shmuck!</st1:country-region>”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
Maybe it sounds like I am being a little harsh on Lindsey. Of course, that may have to do with the fact that when Elana Kagen was
being confirmed by the Senate, he had to ask her if she remembered where she
was on the day the Underwear Bomber failed in his attempt to blow up a
jetliner. She offered up some legal mumbo jumbo about giving terrorists legal
rights.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
"No, I just asked you
where you were at on Christmas," Graham said.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
"You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a
Chinese restaurant," Kagan replied, garnering a good guffaw from the
audience.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
But not from me. See, I couldn’t figure out why it was
even vaguely relevant. Except that Graham was trying to defeat the President’s
nominee by highlighting the fact that she didn’t celebrate Christmas like real
Americans do.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
So, naturally, I was amused, but not very much, to see
Lindsey Graham trying to portray Chuck Hagel as no friend of <st1:country-region w:st="on">the Jews</st1:country-region>. Then
again, it’s hardly news that Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite. At least he didn’t
join the Log Cabin Republicans in criticizing Hagel for his 1998 opposition to
James Hormel’s appointment as ambassador to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Luxembourg</st1:country-region>. (Hagel’s opposition to Hormel, for which he
has since apologized, was based on the fact that he was openly gay.) Graham
wasn’t in the Senate when Republicans stood unified against Hormel, and surely
he would have been with them. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br />
Some of the criticism of Hagel was just plain ludicrous. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) bought into the report in Breitbart
that Hagel had spoken to the <i>Friends of
Hamas</i>, a group that is distinguished from all other groups by its non-existence. Tailgunner Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that we don’t know if Hagel spoke to
radical groups, but, at a minimum, he shouldn’t be confirmed until we have
answers. (Relatedly, we don’t know if Ted Cruz masturbates while watching “2
Girls 1 Cup,” but it may be significant that he has never denied it.) <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think we can all agree that Cruz was not amusing himself with coprophagia when he told the
Senate that the Hagel nomination had</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“something that was truly extraordinary,
which is the government of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region>
formally and publicly praising the nomination of a defense secretary. I would
suggest to you that to my knowledge, that is unprecedented to see a foreign
nation like <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region>
publicly celebrating a nomination.” </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When it was suggested that Cruz had gone too
far, the ranking member of the committee, Sen. James Inhoffe, (R-OK) defended Cruz, saying Hagel was “endorsed by [Iran], and you
can’t get any cozier than that.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not that it matters much, but here’s the basis for that
claim: Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was asked a question
about Hagel's views on <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>
and <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> sanctions on <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> at his
weekly news conference. He ducked the question, and replied, </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<o:p> </o:p>“We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign
policy and that <st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state> becomes respectful
of the rights of nations.” </blockquote>
<span id="midArticle_2"></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
In the last analysis, it was straight talking John
McCain who committed what amounts to a cardinal sin in <st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state>: he told the truth about why
Republicans wanted to filibuster, smear and block Senator Hagel’s nomination. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“It goes back to … there’s a lot of ill will towards
Senator Hagel, because when he was a Republican he attacked president Bush
mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since Herbert Hoover,
said the surge was the worst blunder since the Viet Nam war – which is nonsense
– and was very anti- his own party and people. People don’t forget that.”</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
There you have it! It was all about Hagel’s breach of Ronald
Reagan’s 11<sup>th</sup> commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of any
Republican.” </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
Still, it all seemed a little over the top. There must
be a deeper level of resentment for Chuck Hagel than what can be ginned up by
faux outrage about his criticism of the George W(orst) Bush. What could it
really be?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
The answer is that the time has come for Republicans
to send a message. They must circle the wagons, and let it be known that any
defectors will be punished for the rest of their lives. Why? Because
Republicans know that they are on the wrong side of the tax debate, the wrong
side of the austerity debate, the wrong side of the background check and assault weapons debate, the wrong side of
the gay marriage debate, the wrong side of the immigration debate, the wrong
side of the entitlement debate, the wrong side of the voting rights debate. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
Maybe there is a philosophical consistency in their
positions taken by conservatives, though I am yet to discover it. Be that as it
may, in every area mentioned above the public is on the side of the Democrats,
sometimes by a wide margin. Democrats won the popular vote in five of the last six
presidential elections. A majority of votes cast for members of the House of
Representatives were for Democrats, although gerrymandering gave the majority
of the House to Republicans. And of course, the Senate is and will be for the
foreseeable future, in the hands of Democrats. Republicans know that they are
increasingly perceived as a party that can’t govern, doesn’t try to, and stands
against the idea that government should work. Far be it from me to say that it
is the party of racists, but General Colin Powell intimated as much.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
At a time like this, Republicans are bracing themselves
against a wave of defections. Governors who opposed Obamacare are starting to
accept the idea of expanding Medicaid. Chris Christie earned himself a
non-invitation from the CPAC convention because he praised the President's
efforts on behalf of his state when Hurricane Sandy hit, and he was unstinting
in his recriminations against the Republicans who blocked relief to the
devastated parts of <st1:state w:st="on">New Jersey</st1:state>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
So, now you know. If you’re a Republican and you’re
sick of being in the “party of stupid,” in the words of Bobby Jindall, the party of Christine O’Donnell, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and
the rest of the rejects from the funny papers, keep your mouth shut, and your
head down.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
Otherwise, John McCain will chase you off his lawn
with a rake, Lindsey Graham with throw another hissy fit, and Ted Cruz will reprise the tactics of Joe McCarthy to destroy you.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 9.0pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
Errata: In paragraph 6, the word “Feh!” is misspelled.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="outline: 0px;"></span>BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-53168513455231642972013-02-20T03:28:00.001-06:002013-02-20T03:40:31.159-06:00Minimum wage. It's the least we can do.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
About 1.7 million people earn the Federal minimum wage of
$7.25 per hour. Let’s pretend they each work 40 hours a week, and 50 weeks a
year, which is to say that they each work 2,000 hours per year. (They don't because most minimum wage jobs are also part-time.) Raising the
minimum hourly wage $1.00 would therefore cost employers of these workers, $3,400,000,000.
Where’s it going to come from?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let's take a look at the top fifty employers of minimum wage workers. The average compensation of the CEOs of these companies is $9,397,302. Ninety-two percent of these companies were profitable last year, and 78% were profitable over the last three years. Compared to pre-recession levels, 75% have higher revenues, 63% have higher profits, 63% have higher operating margins, and 73% higher cash holdings. The recession is over and everything is looking up for these companies. Except the wages of minimum wage workers, which haven't seen an increase since 2009. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fast food industry is one of the biggest employers of minimum wage workers. Here’s the executive compensation of some of the best
paid CEOs in the fast food business.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
MacDonalds 18,403,830<br />
Burger King 17,072,427<br />
Wendy’s 10,174,638<br />
YUM 142,069,337<br />
Starbucks 483,279,878<br />
Sonic
17,630,484<br />
<u>Domino’s Pizza 47,821,255</u><br />
Total: 736,451,849</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Wal-Mart paid its CEO a mere 14.4 million, and we don’t know
how much the CEO of Subway made. We do know that he is worth 1.5 billion, and
is reputed to be compulsively frugal. Let’s just put him down for making 5% on
his money, and call him good for 75,000,000. Add them all together and you get well
past one and a half billion dollars.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s kind of hard to believe that these guys (they are all
men) wouldn't find it worth their while to get out of bed and do whatever they
do for half that amount. If the other
half went to increasing the pay of the minimum wage workers, there would be over
22% of what was needed to give every single minimum wage worker in the <st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place>
a $1.00/hr raise. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Take a minute to drink that in. By paying 9 CEOs something
just south of Croesus, we can finance a quarter of what it takes to pay workers
not quite enough to live on. Of course, if the CEOs want to make more money, their
path is clear. Hire more low-paid workers and wring your wealth from the sweat
of their brow.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-47974567773081356252012-11-25T12:48:00.001-06:002012-11-25T15:06:48.419-06:00Carly Fiorina -- a 40 year low<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Carly Fiorina was on Meet the Press today, where she was
introduced as the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. It would not have been polite
to introduce her as former advisor to losing presidential candidate John
McCain, who had her ass handed to her when she ran against Barbara Boxer for
the U.S. Senate. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UPOerg55C1M/ULJrnxavv1I/AAAAAAAAANU/e9iEJ7P5eWI/s1600/fiorina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UPOerg55C1M/ULJrnxavv1I/AAAAAAAAANU/e9iEJ7P5eWI/s1600/fiorina.jpg" /></a></div>
Much kinder to boost her bona fides by referring to her
storied career in business. In doing so, if we are to continue in the spirit of
generosity, let us overlook the fact that during her tenure, HP stock lost half
its value and then she was shit-canned by the HP’s Board of Directors. She
was given $20 million dollars to walk away and never bother them again, though
a restraining order would have been cheaper. Anyway, it must have been
money well spent, because the share value of the company jumped on news of her
departure. Be that as it may, she’s still a reliable spokesperson for the failed
policies various described as trickle-down or supply side economics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That anyone would try at this late date to defend these
policies and be able to maintain a straight face is not a testament to the
validity of these ideas, but rather to the shamelessness of the kleptocratic class.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I found one thing she said to be of particular interest. “Small
business formation is at a forty year low,” said Ms. Fiorina. Now, I have no
idea if this is true of false, except for the fact that it was uttered by a
woman who has been thoroughly discredited so many times before. Let’s assume it
is true. The question is <i>why</i> is small
business formation stalled?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ms. Fiorina suggested that the reason is that the tax-code
is too complex. That’s nonsense, of course. If you want to start a niche
boutique, or dress factory employing 5 or 6 cutters and sewers, and a salesperson
or two, there’s not too much to know about the tax code that can’t be learned
by purchasing Quickbooks. This is not to suggest that you shouldn’t have an
accountant. But if you think that the reason you are having trouble competing
with Walmart is that they have a better grasp of the tax code, then you shouldn’t
be in business anyway. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reason that small business formation is at a 40 year low
(if it is) is that big corporations have consolidated power under the
laissez-faire economic policies of the previous administration, and the
recession which these policies caused has paralyzed our abilities to deal with
this problem. One of the longest lasting legacies of the Bush years will be the
reactionary Supreme Court which gave us the Citizens United decision. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am assuming that everyone who reads this knows about how
Walmart moves into neighborhoods, and undercuts the competition, putting them out of business. It then
purchases in quantities from suppliers that are so significant that the
suppliers can’t survive without Walmart’s business. Next step: demand price
breaks from suppliers to the point that the only way they can avoid going out
of business is to turn to Chinese manufacturers. Goodbye, more American jobs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SlRoR7OQL0M/ULJp3VsxWaI/AAAAAAAAANM/XPVn3oq0Ico/s1600/historical.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="336" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SlRoR7OQL0M/ULJp3VsxWaI/AAAAAAAAANM/XPVn3oq0Ico/s400/historical.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Along the way, Walmart pays its workers coolie wages. You
could stop right there and say that’s immoral, and you would be right. It is
indefensible to pay people for working full-time for you and leave them unable
to provide for their basic needs. It’s just unconscionable. In a by-gone era, Unions would have protected our fellow workers and preserved the dignity of labor. Walmart, and the candidates it supports are on the forefront of the “let's kill unions movement.” But it’s worse than
that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The workers, who labor for the Walton family but can’t
provide for their own, must turn to local governments and charities to keep the
wolf from the door. Who pays for that? Of course, it is not the people who get
paid $20 million dollars to leave their jobs, or the Walton family who own more
than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. No, it’s the folks who would like to
start a mom-and-pop grocery or a small business, but can’t because local taxes
are too high. It’s the former factory workers who are now out of work because
their jobs are being done in <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And there’s another reason that our would-be small business owners
can’t open their doors. There are no customers in their communities. Why? It’s
because a Walmart worker or an unemployed factory worker can’t afford a new
dress. That’s not justice.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
By the way, I was
just kidding when I said I didn’t know if Carly Fiorini was lying when she told us that business formation was at a 40 year low. Of course, I know, and so do you.
Remember, that last March, John Boehner said, that business formation was at a
30 year low? Well, that wasn’t true either. The very highly regarded Kauffman Index shows that, despite a drop from 2010, <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> startup activity remains above
pre-Great Recession levels. The Index shows that 0.32 percent of American adults created a business per month in 2011, the last year for which figures are available. This is a 5.9 percent drop from 2010, but still among the highest levels of entrepreneurship over the past 16 years. As Casey Stengel was fond of saying, “<a href="http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/new-business-startups-declined-in-2011-annual-kauffman-study-shows.aspx" target="_blank">You could look it up</a>.”<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“ ... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
<br />BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-90708429120525584962012-11-18T22:49:00.001-06:002012-11-18T22:50:09.455-06:00Foreign Aid -- Your tax dollars at work<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Iron Dome is a missile defense system that has been 90% successful in intercepting and destroying Palestinian rockets coming from <st1:city w:st="on">Gaza</st1:city>, directed at Israeli
civilian population centers. It distinguishes between those rockets that are
heading for residential areas and those that would fall harmlessly in forests
and elsewhere. It was developed with Israeli technology heavily subsidized by
American foreign aid. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Was the American foreign aid well spent? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If not for Iron Dome, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> would have sustained
numerous civilian casualties from the thousand or so rockets launched by Hamas
terrorists. Under such circumstances, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>
would have been compelled to invade <st1:place w:st="on">Gaza</st1:place>.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Where would <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>
stand if <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> had invaded <st1:city w:st="on">Gaza</st1:city>? Evidence is
mounting that President Mohamed Mosni, of the Muslim Brotherhood, would offer
more than rhetorical support to the Hamas government in <st1:city w:st="on">Gaza</st1:city>. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Note</st1:city>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place> is the
second largest recipient of American foreign aid. <st1:country-region w:st="on">Turkey</st1:country-region>,
a member of NATO, is siding with <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>
against <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> because it
still has not received an apology for <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>’s actions when blockade
runners on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara" title="MV Mavi Marmara"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">MV Mavi Marmara</span></a> attacked Israeli commandos in 2010. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Meanwhile, with <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>
engaged in a ground war in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Gaza</st1:city>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Iran</st1:country-region></st1:place> could
proceed with its nuclear ambitions unchecked. If it gets a nuclear bomb, the
Saudis and the Jordanians will surely want them too. A nuclear arms race in the
<st1:place w:st="on">Middle East</st1:place> is a terrifying thought but the
threat of loose nukes raises the stakes exponentially. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Syria</st1:country-region> is
already a catastrophe and the war is spilling into <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. For now, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> can protect herself from attacks from the
<st1:place w:st="on">Golan Heights</st1:place>. But what if she were involved
in a ground war with the Gazans backed by <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What would <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region>’s
course be in the nightmare described above? NATO unraveling, American foreign
aid recipients using military force against Israel, nuclear Iran, an arms race
in the mid-East, and Israel facing a threat from the North and the potential
for nuclear bombs falling into the hands of Hamas terrorists: it’s not a pretty
picture. <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region>’s
commitment to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> is
supposedly inviolate, and the credibility of the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United
States</st1:country-region> depends upon standing by <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. Beyond
that, if <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> is not
defended by the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>,
the entire Middle East will be taken over by Islamists, including <st1:country-region w:st="on">Jordan</st1:country-region> where
the Monarchy is enduring mass public protests even as I write these words.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think about it next time you hear someone complain about the
<st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> giving foreign
aid to <st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place>.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”</div>
BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18791538.post-26648970749080928902012-11-12T21:48:00.005-06:002012-11-13T01:11:34.631-06:00Why was General Petraeus outed?<br />
On Friday, General David Petraeus resigned his position as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. His stated reason was that he had been discovered having an affair, and that his conduct was unbecoming to one who occupied his station.<br />
<br />
He was hailed as one of the great generals of our generation, and a man who demonstrated how honorable he was by owning up to his misconduct. As for the actual misconduct – which involved betraying one of the heroines of returning veterans – the networks had the usual amount of hand-wringing about <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/12/petraeus-affair-why-men-cheat/1699817/" target="_blank">why powerful men cheat</a> on their wives risking their life’s work and reputation to do so. Interspersed with this pabulum were frequent reminders that the FBI had accidentally stumbled on this, security was not compromised and that no actual laws were broken. (Never mind that Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 133 and 134 authorize court martial for consensual affairs.)<br />
<br />
I am not qualified to comment on his military career, and even less qualified to cast the first stone regarding his personal life. However, there is a story here to be told and it is passing under the radar.<br />
<br />
The right-wing infotainment industry is promoting the idea that there must be a conspiracy here because this story was not revealed before the election. Further, they would like us to believe that the demise of Gen. Petraeus is related to the ginned up controversy regarding Benghazi, which the geniuses are calling “Obama’s Watergate.” They speculate that the resignation was necessary to silence the general who was expected to testify in congress next week. They insinuate that the general had been unduly cozy with the Romney campaign and that his humiliation and demise was payback. They point out that not everyone who has an affair is drummed out of the corps.<br />
<br />
As Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Eugene Robinson pointed out, General Petraeus was the head of a spy agency, and that makes the story of his affair like a spy novel. Further, there are no coincidences in spy novels. Just the fact that the President didn’t learn of the matter until after the election is enough fodder for plenty of conspiracy theories.<br />
<br />
Here’s what we know so far. Members of Congress are shocked that they were not informed earlier about the investigation of General Petraeus. Crazy, no? Imagine! A man who was not suspected of any criminal conduct who was only tangentially connected to an investigation was not exposed for having an affair to the members of Congress. Hardly the stuff of outrage unless, of course, you are a right-wing conspiracy nut in the employ of Fox infotainment buffoons.<br />
<br />
In fact, a better question is why Congress was notified at all? People at all levels of government have had affairs and not lost their jobs over it. Remember, nobody alleges that General Petraeus violated any law. He was just a name on a report of an investigation by the agency once headed by J. Edgar Hoover, he of pristine private behavior.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the fact that Congress was notified at all is rather remarkable. If one accepts the premise that there are no coincidences in spy novels, especially when sex is involved, the fact that Congress was advised that General Petraeus was cozy with his biographer is the hanging thread that begs to be pulled so that we can see what unravels.<br />
<br />
And let’s take a look at the way Congress was notified. The Washington Post reports that:<br />
<blockquote>
An aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says the Virginia congressman first heard about CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair on Saturday, Oct. 27, from an FBI source he didn’t know. <br />
<br />
Communications director Rory Cooper told The Associated Press Monday that Cantor notified the FBI’s chief of staff of the conversation, but did not tell anyone else because he did not know whether the information from an unknown source was credible.</blockquote>
So, as for keeping this story from the electorate for fear that it would derail the President’s re-election campaign we can be fairly certain that if there had been such a conspiracy, the point man would not have been the Republican Majority Leader, and that if he were, he wouldn’t have kept the story under his hat for 9 days, until the election passed.<br />
<br />
Far more likely is that someone with a political agenda leaked the story to the leader of the House Republicans. Nearly half of the country wanted the President to lose the election, and it is not unlikely that there is at least one agent in the FBI who is in that group. For his part, Leader Cantor couldn’t see how this story would hurt the President so he filed it away for use later, if needed.<br />
<br />
Okay, so far. But that just begs the question, why did the story come out after the election? It’s a good question, and I am open to any reasonable explanation.<br />
<br />
The most commonly given answer is that as a philanderer, David Petraeus was vulnerable to blackmail. This is not a reasonable explanation, because if he was going to be exposed, he could have grabbed a microphone, stated that he is taking a 28 day leave of absence to deal with problems in his marriage, and been back on the job within a month, with no vulnerability.<br />
<br />
As I have said, the folks a Faux News are pushing the line that Petraeus was canned because his testimony at a hearing about Benghazi would hurt the President. The problem with this theory is that the news of the General’s conduct unbecoming an officer passed out of the usually secure FBI to the Republican power elite, and only then to the wider public. If anyone was trying to silence the Director of Central Intelligence, it was Eric Cantor. But why?<br />
<br />
A current Republican talking point is that the mainstream media is suppressing a story that Navy SEALs requested help in defending the consulate in Benghazi, that their requests were denied, and that this failure is condemnable if not indictable.<br />
<br />
General Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs on the night of Sep. 11. A week and a half ago, Petraeus went to Tripoli and conducted a personal inquiry into the Benghazi attack, NBC News reported.<br />
<br />
On November 2nd, Reuters reported that:<br />
<blockquote>
CIA officials on the ground in Libya dispatched security forces to the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi within 25 minutes and made other key decisions about how to respond to the waves of attacks on U.S. installations on September 11, a senior American intelligence official said yesterday.
<br />
<br />
Officials in Washington monitored events through message traffic and a hovering U.S. military drone but did not interfere with or reject requests for help from officials in the line of fire, the official said.<br />
<br />
The information emerged as officials made available a timeline chronicling the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other American officials died. The material appears to refute claims by critics that officials in Washington delayed sending help to the besieged personnel.</blockquote>
Those are the facts, but they run counter to a favorite right-wing narrative, viz., that the heroes were denied assistance, and if it wasn’t Petraeus who held up the help,then it must have been the President.<br />
<br />
If Petreaus were to testify next week about Benghazi, he would likely confirm that this right wing story line is as wrong as their predictions of a Romney landslide. Furthermore, it is nearly certain that he will testify, probably in closed session, since his resignation doesn’t make him immune to a subpoena.<br />
<br />
But now, when he exonerates the President, he will be a man who despite all his accomplishments will be remembered for being a cheat, while married to the daughter of the Superintendent of West Point. <i>Cui bono? </i>(To whose benefit?)<br />
<br />
It is a most remarkable coincidence that the leader of the obstructionist Republicans in the House of Representatives was the first one outside of the FBI to know of General Patraeus’ infidelity, even before the National Security Council of the President, himself.<br />
<br />
But there are no coincidences in spy novels. Or in life.<br />
<br />
Pay attention, and,<br />
<br />
“… tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”BigMitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07080098946949894183noreply@blogger.com0