Another Bad Sign: More Republican Policy Ideas from the Obama Administration

Now this is discouraging. Not only is the Obama administration's idea of job creating stimulus at this point more tax cuts for business (which have been shown to have less than a third of the "ripple effect" in an economy than direct spending on jobs programs or even just sending people money as tax rebates); we see here that now former Budget Director Orszag has floated a trial balloon in the Atlantic, saying that a "compromise" of extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich for TWO YEARS would help the economy, but that after that, those big bad Republicans will just have to let them expire, unless, well, maybe another two years, or, whatever they want. OK, I'm paraphrasing. But talk about spineless. Or, more probably, in their pocket all along.  

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe Orszag said this without the full vetting and approval of Rahm Emmanuel and the administration. This is the exact opposite of what they should be saying.
 
If Obama were even a tenth the progressive that FDR was, he'd say he will veto any extension of tax cuts for upper income Americans and veto any cuts to social security or medicare benefits for ordinary people. That's the absolute least he can do.

And they wonder why "the base," that they insult and ignore alternately, isn't enthusiastic going into the midterms. Give us something to hope for, some change we can believe in, damnit, not more Republican policies!


I keep hearing that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot when they criticize the administration, but it's just a fact that this administration has watered down every major progressive idea they talked about in the campaign. Obama has really painted himself into a corner. He's talked tough to Wall Street, then backed "reforms" that did very little; gaining no support from beleaguered and angry people hurt by the economy, AND gaining the enmity of Wall Street. Health Care Reform, while a good start, failed to really control the costs of health care, and it doesn't go into effect for years, so it scares people; and the public has turned against it; political negative. People are increasingly (and rightly) concerned about a failing war in Afghanistan, which is a sure-fire presidential popularity killer. It's a crying shame, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this presidency is failing.

Robert Reich: income inequality prevents recovery

Robert Reich's piece in today's New York Times is spot on, although I would have liked if he had discussed some models for how the U.S. could change its policies to achieve a better balance between investment opportunity and a stable, well-compensated, well-educated, and healthy population. Such as the way the recovery has taken place in Germany, and just what it is that's different about Germany's socioeconomic model that's made that possible. 

We need to wake up in this country and realize that our political and economic systems, including our systems of compensating working people and providing social services to our population, are broken, and that there are models on the other side of the Atlantic that illustrate quite well the sorts of reforms we need to make. 

A reminder to us older folks

At times like these, when the world seems old and her problems insuperable, we should remember that this is how it seems to us, who have lived in her for however many decades, and seen the same problems go unsolved so many times: to the young, however it has devolved, the world is new, and full of wonder, and nothing is beyond imagination.

A short, and pithy, video on Euro social capitalism vs. USA system (+ a couple of other relevant video links)

Here.
Or, here is a short video summary of Steven Hill's book. 
And a longer lecture at the New America Foundation by Steven Hill, here. 

A case study; European social system vs. USA

I've mentioned here before Steven Hill's really excellent book, Europe's Promise. See this link. It is frankly a polemic, without pretense of being anything else. It's designed to convince the reader that the European sociopolitical/economic system he terms social capitalism is inherently superior to our system and that we should move towards adopting most of its features in order to improve not only the quality of our lives, but, even, the competitiveness and functionality of our economy. Still, it is thoroughly documented with facts. Some of these facts are not so well known in the US, where it's fashionable (albeit stupid and ignorant) to think of Europe as uncompetitive, marginal, overbureaucratized, and a socialist mess, not like the land of opportunity, USA. Things like codetermination, flexicurity, works councils, and just how much in services we have to pay for out of pocket that Europeans receive in exchange for their (yes, somewhat higher) taxes.

Here's just one case study involving actual acquaintances of his he uses  (Ibid., 88-89) to show just how differently similar events can impact the lives of people living in Europe (Switzerland, in this case, which doesn't even have all the EU mandated social policies in place), vs. the US:

A Swiss professional, who had been an accountant for 25 years, suddenly found himself unemployed and encountering more than usual difficulty finding a new job. While collecting his ~70% of salary unemployment, he was accidentally injured, requiring extensive (and expensive) knee surgery with complications and an eleven-month recuperation. The medical care including extensive physical therapy: no out of pocket cost. Continued to receive unemployment until after full recovery, whereupon he got a new high paying job and resumed his career, all with no serious disruption of his standard of living. He told Hill: "I would not even try to think about what would happen in the U.S.[...]"

Another friend of Hill's in the US, Doug, did have a similar experience. At 49, he was diagnosed with a common congenital heart defect requiring open heart valve surgery. He did have medical insurance (remember, 47 million, including many many working people, still don't: they become medically bankrupt and ruined financially when this happens). Even with health insurance, Doug had thousands of dollars in unreimbursed medical expenses. Plus there were complications keeping out of work longer than planned. His meager savings were nearly exhausted. The minimal disability check from his employment only lasted part of the time, and was barely enough so he could keep in housing and make his car payment. He lost the job as a result of being out so long. After the disability ran out, his car was repossessed, so that when he finally was ready to go back to work, he had no transportation to look for work and was essentially dead broke.

These two stories aren't identical instances, but they do illustrate important facts. As Hill puts it: "These kinds of gotchas and Catch 22s are all too common in America. Having no job and inadequate health care is not a place you want to end up in the good ol' USA."

So, what, really is going on here? At another point in the book, he cites an overheard exchange between a European and an American executive. The American accuses the European of that horrible dirty word in our country: socialism. The European says, "No, in Europe, we are capitalists. But in America, all you care about is making money, and there is a big difference."

Indeed there is. I wish I could somehow convince my fellow Americans, in the country I love and want to see better itself and be a leader in the World again, that we should not just feel bad about this.

We should not just accept the fact that our country has become inhumane, oligarchic, and just unquestionably less civilized than the old Europe we, just two generations ago, saved from the ruins of the complete collapse of its social order. We've become the land of a few very rich, where the ordinary working people are increasingly marginalized, facing declining living standards, declining educational levels, declining health and retirement security. We should take this as a challenge, roll up our sleeves, gather our mutual strength, and change our country, so that these kinds of negative comparisons no longer apply.

Rove: Obama will use election losses as excuse to end stimulus... WTF!??

TPM reports: Rove: Obama Will Use November Defeats to End Stimulus

If this evil toad is right about that, then the Obama administration is finished. As I argued here, they should be doing the exact opposite, and right now.

Alan Simpson and the Obama Deficit Commission

OK -- I hafta ask. Just why was right winger Alan Simpson, who, as TPM reports here, has a long history of advocating gutting social security, appointed to the Obama's administration deficit panel  “Fiscal Reform Commission” in the first place?

For that matter, since it's so obviously idiotic to worry about deficits on the brink of a potential deflationary depression, why does this panel even exist?

Democrats must commit to restoring jobs to the economy, and to maintaining the middle class safety net. Republicans and Republican ideas should have no place at the table.

President Obama, please listen!

Earth to President Obama! Come in Please!


Look, Mr. President, let me be clear right off the bat. I'm on YOUR side. I WANT you to succeed, and succeed brilliantly. But it doesn't take much political acumen to see that things are not going well and that it is well past time to make some major adjustments. I think it's important first of all to be very clear on several points, that I believe at this point are beyond dispute based on the evidence from the real economy and what Americans are actually experiencing. Many inside the beltway, unfortunately including quite a few people in your own administration, are just not getting this, but here goes anyway:

1.  You have lost the mandate from the American people to invest in the economy to generate a recovery, and as a result the recovery is faltering. The current housing cliff is clear evidence that we are likely heading for a double dip recession, which MUST BE AVERTED and would be completely disastrous to your administration, possibly even fatal to any chance of reelection.

2.  The recession you inherited was more serious than first thought. The focus on Health Care Reform, which unfortunately didn't work too well, and on a weak financial reform package, took away focus on jobs, which should be the main job, the second job, and the third job, of your administration until the economic recovery is self-sustaining. All else is secondary. There will be time to fix the failure of health reform to include meaningful provider cost controls and insurance rate limits, which are absolutely necessary if the mandate for coverage will be acceptable to the American people, later. Right now, it's the economy, stupid.

3. The focus on deficits is completely misplaced right now. The stimulus worked, but it had too many tax cuts in it, and it just wasn't big enough. What's needed is an infrastructure, education, and services investment that will focus not on just putting a little money into the economy at random, but be highly targeted at job creation. This must be SOLD to the American people. YOU, as president, must do this. There are only nine weeks left before the midterms, so this must be a top priority.

3.  Bipartisanship is a complete waste of time. The Republicans are your enemy. All of them. They want you to fail. You must appeal directly to the people. Explain how now is not the time to retreat, now is not the time to extend tax cuts for the rich, which is the only plan the Republicans have. Now is the time to get busy, like America has always done in times of crisis (bring in a WWII reference), roll up our sleeves, and get Americans working again. We can work on restructuring government finances later. This is a CRISIS. And you have to convince the people of this, which of course means you have to believe it.

4. There can be NO QUESTION of cutting social security benefits or medicare benefits (as opposed to other savings in medicare). The Deficit and Inflation are not the problem. Read Paul Krugman. We are facing looming deflation. You must promise that if the people return Democrats to Congress, we will create jobs, get the economy moving again, and there will be no cuts to social security or medicare benefits and no further raising of the retirement age. These are Republican ploys to increase further the power and wealth of their base, which is the very rich. They use lies and propaganda to attract votes, but your base is the middle and working class, so you need to tell them the truth, and mean it: you will work for their interests.

5.  You need to promise that there will be a big change in the way government works, going forward. We will do a comprehensive review designed to evaluate and eliminate unnecessary spending, including military and national security apparatus that are gobbling up huge sums without creating many jobs, and focus the attention of government on rebuilding our education system, investing in renewable energy and other infrastructure, and creating jobs for middle class and working people. It's a new world, and most of the threat to America today is economic. In due course, this needs to lead to a drawing down of America's involvement in military misadventures, including in Afghanistan, and greatly reducing the size of the "national security state." This needs to be finessed, but if portrayed as eliminating what's just not needed in order to make government leaner and more effective, it can be done.

6.  Point out to people that we can be competitive. We can have good jobs, with great benefits, secure health care for all, secure retirement for all, just like they do in Europe, because we can do anything we put our minds to. Appeal to the patriotism of your base, and come right out and say that it's not patriotic to foster policies that weaken our economy. Clearly imply that Boehner, McConnell, et al., are unpatriotic when they propose policies that will help the rich but hurt the Main Street Economy.

PLEASE, Mr. President, wake up! It's past time to completely rethink your agenda, and to start promising the people what Democrats will do differently from what Republicans have done, and start really focusing on job creation and economic recovery. The phony Republican financed Tea Party movement has all but stolen the populist force which got you elected. It can be won back, but only if you stop listening to old school Clintonites like Ruben and Summers, declare war on the Republicans once and for all (start by kicking their propaganda outlet, Fox, out of the White House), get out of Washington yourself and start telling the people exactly what you propose to do to economy and bring a productive economy roaring back in America. You can do this, but it means a major change of approach, and the hour is late. 

Thank you.
David Studhalter

Disincentivizing Greed

This op-ed by Neal Gabler in this past Sunday's L A Times is 100% correct, in my view. It expresses an opinion which has been gestating in me and others whom I confer with regularly: i.e., that the only way to address the fundamental cause of financial activities that destroy production and extract wealth from ordinary people, to the overall detriment of the US economy, is to disincentivize greed, through massive increases in top marginal tax rates.

I'd go further, and say, forget the Bush tax cuts. Let them expire, of course, but that's not even a real starting point. We need to completely reform taxation. We need to restore the estate tax fully on estates over $1 million, restore tax rates similar to those of the 1950s (at least 80% top rate, and highly progressive), tax financial (as opposed to personal) capital gains, progressively, with those in highest brackets paying the same taxes on capital gains as any other income, and imposing a carefully calibrated, (i.e., small but nonetheless meaningful), short term financial transaction tax to discourage casino like trading and encourage longer term investments (could be waived if securities held longer than one year).

Our real  (i.e. "Main Street") economy has been sliding at least since the regressive "Tax Reforms" of 1986; all the deregulation of the financial services industry just made matters worse. We need both re-regulation, and major progressive tax reform. These reforms would indeed reduce the rewards to our richest citizens, and begin to reverse the historic widening of the income gap since the 1970s. But rich people would still be plenty rich, and people don't "lose their will" to get rich because of high taxes. That's just a myth. It would begin to reduce the size of the financial sector of our economy, but that's a plus, not a minus: the fact that our economy has largely converted from production-based to extraction-based is the main reason real standards of living for the majority of Americans have been flat and then falling for nearly four decades now. What it would also do is begin to provide an adequate revenue base for a gradual switch to European style social capitalism, which would have entirely positive effects on the economy:

1. Increased competitiveness (Volkswagen and Daimler out-compete GM and Ford, in high-tax Germany): it's a myth that laissez faire policies increase competitiveness. Economic stability comes from having a reliable, incentivized, productive workforce, and a government that encourages innovation and industrial research and development
2. Keep Jobs in America (see Germany and France, again); public policy can disincentivize outsourcing and provide for adequate education and job training to ensure a well educated and productive work force
3. Reduce deficit and fund necessary social programs
4. Incentivize production and disincentivize casino capitalism
   

Mindf**k Media (a rant)

I consider the recent Mindf**k Media hype not only about

• the nonmosque not at Ground Zero, but also
• Lunatic Franklin Graham being given airtime on CNN to mouth outrageous and obviously racially motivated implicit slanders of President Obama about his faith (which is, after all, a private matter in this country)
• reports of a poll showing 56% of Americans "oppose health reform," with zero discussion of how the question was asked or just what it is that people are concerned about (such as that the current form of the law fails to adequately control insurance rates, or reimbursement rates to providers, while mandating private coverage).

... all as examples of the ways in which the American political process is grossly manipulated by corporate media interests to create utterly false impressions and distractions from the real issues facing America (i.e., jobs, Wall Street's theft* of a trillion dollars with no real reform to show for it, and the failure of the government to do anything about the looming environmental crises and need to develop a renewable energy production economy..... you know, stuff that matters).

.....
* I use theft as shorthand for 'transfer of private debt into public debt, resulting from the socialization of risk and privatization of profit after the crash caused by radical deregulation of financial services,' (aka the gutting of the New Deal, which happened largely, I'm sad to say, under Pres. Clinton).

My Letter to AARP, help us defeat any effort to cut Social Security or Medicare Benefits

Reierating this post, I wrote this today to AARP:

I am a member and I am writing to urge AARP to become involved immediately to forestall a looming threat to social security and medicare. 

It's well known that Republicans in Congress by and large want to privatize and cut both Medicare and Social Security. These people are the enemy of ordinary retired Americans, and of anyone who ever hopes to become an ordinary retired American. However, it's the Democrats, who are apparently planing to hide behind the Republican-thinking Deficit Commission and its expected "package" of recommendations for "addressing" the deficit (forthcoming, watch for it), who are of concern. 

The stealth plan is to rip off American taxpayers who have paid through social security taxes to make social security 100% solvent till 2037. Those taxes were supposed to be for social security, not other purposes. It is a highly regressive tax, because it's supposed to pay for retirement security, not general budget items. If it's been ripped off, it needs to be paid back. I SAY, HELL NO. Congress must not cut social security or medicare benefits, or raise the retirement age further. No more regression. We elected a Democrat to the White House to get Democratic policies, not to get Republican policies. If they do this, they will have declared war on ordinary Americans, and I intend to do everything I can to defeat them; meaning anyone, Democratic or Republican, who votes to cut a program that we paid for and are continuing to pay for. This is non-negotiable.

I am asking AARP to get involved in this fight on behalf of its members. AARP should run advertising warning the public that both parties are apparently planning to steal from the trust fund by cutting benefits.

I am not opposed to further health reform to cut Medicare's reimbursement costs, but that's entirely different from cutting benefits. AARP should prove to the American people that its own insurance programs do not create a conflict of interest by supporting further health reform to ensure that we move towards a French or German style system, where private insurers are required to be non-profit and to accept defined Medicare benefits, where reimbursement rates are set by public commissions, and where care is optimized to the best quality of life, not necessarily the most expensive end stage treatments. But the bottom line is the retirement security of social security and medicare is sacrosanct, and Congress had better not plan on cutting it or raising the retirement age further, because the American people are TIRED of being scapegoated for all the bloated expenditures this government has undertaken at their expense, and in part from stealing the social security and medicare taxes to do it.

I'm writing to all the Senators, my Congressman, and some other key Congress members.

This issue is the battle line as far as I'm concerned. DO NOT CROSS. I will not support any politician who votes the wrong way, or the President if he supports any bill to do this. At some point, you just gotta say, NO FURTHER. I am asking AARP to get behind ordinary Americans in this oncoming political fight. The future is at stake. 

Thank you.

Cutting social security and medicare is off the table, but here are some ways to ease the deficit

To Congress Members:

Cutting spending during a recession is dumb, but if you're so all-fired determined to to "do something about the deficit," here's what you do (this isn't that hard to figure out, and you're not that dumb, so don't pretend you aren't beholden to oligarchic influences; you aren't fooling us anymore):

• Deep cuts to military spending ... close some of the 700 foreign military bases, quit building more and more cold war weapons systems, shut down the middle east war machine that's doing our country no good
• Not only allow the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% to expire, but reform taxes to impose much higher marginal rates on those earning over $400,000 --just like we had in the halcyon days of the 1950s (and even later, for the most part)... and impose taxes on earnings regardless of where the richies live or earn their money; if they operate in America, they pay taxes in America 
• End prohibition of marijuana and the "War on Drugs," at home and abroad--which costs a fortune and is counterproductive
• Invest in public transportation transportation, renewable energy, power grid, technology research (including automotive and energy research), and general infrastructure... these investments pay for themselves in economic development and improved trade balance (less foreign oil)• Yes, geniuses, you do sometimes have to spend money to save it later.
• Change tax and trade policy to keep jobs in America; give tax credits for retaining jobs; penalties for outsourcing
• Change tax policy to keep corporate money in America: you wanna do business here, you pay taxes here, no matter where your offices or factories are located
• Foster and encourage American industry through public relations: Buy American... what brings in revenue is a thriving real production economy
• Strengthen and finish the job of Wall Street Reform, to ensure no future bailouts; this can include new sources of revenue, including full taxes on hedge fund and derivative trading income and a reasonable financial transaction tax to not only raise some revenue, but to discourage short term trading in securities, which is destructive to the real economy (European countries do this)
• Strengthen and finish the job of health care reform: completely eliminate for-profit insurance system; all private insurers non-profit as they are in France & Germany; use public commissions to set medical (including pharmaceutical) reimbursement rates; provide for a robust public insurance option... this would do far more to cut growth in Federal health care spending than cutting medicare benefits directly

These would do more than any cuts to social security. Just eliminating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and repaying the social security trust fund with the savings would do that. And that's a fact. And the same applies to Medicare: cut the costs, and the profits, not the benefits; and the growth in health care spending will take care of itself.  

Would these things be easy, either technically or politically, to accomplish? Of course not. But that's what we're paying you to do, so get busy!  

Hell no, YOU WILL NOT cut social security or medicare, not and keep my vote!

Forget Republicans who want to privatize and cut both Medicare and Social Security. It's the Democrats, who plan to hide behind this Republican-thinking Deficit Commission and its "package" of recommendations (forthcoming, watch for it). The stealth plan is to rip off American taxpayers who have paid through social security taxes to make social security 100% solvent till 2037. Those taxes were supposed to be for social security, not other purposes. It is a highly regressive tax, because its supposed to pay for retirement security, not general budget items. If it's been ripped off, it needs to be paid back. I SAY HELL NO. You will not cut social security or medicare, or raise the retirement age further. No more regression. We elected a Democrat to the White House to get Democratic policies, not to get Republican policies. If you do this, you have declared war on ordinary Americans, and I intend to do everything I can to defeat you; meaning anyone, Democratic or Republican, who votes to cut a program that we paid for and are continuing to pay for. This is non-negotiable.

I'm writing to all the Senators, my Congressman, and some other key Congress members.
This issue is the battle line as far as I'm concerned. DO NOT CROSS. I will not support any Democrat who votes the wrong way, or the President if he supports any bill to do this. At some point, you just gotta say, NO FURTHER. 

MFM and Europe's Promise

In response to my previous rant about the non-story of the nonmosque not at Ground Zero, and the whole media shitstorm thereabout, my not-so-farflung correspondent Pablo in L.A.. remarked: 

We need a new term for media! There is informative media like PBS, still lacking in many ways. There is BBC, world reporting. Then there is the media which keeps our population dumb!

To which I replied:
You're right about that. PBS and NPR are only slightly better, because they (usually) still take their cue from Fox and other corporate media to define what the news is, which it usually isn't; this is a perfect example. BBC and Deutsche Welle are good solid (and stolid) reporting sources, but let's face it, their main focus is Europe and the rest of the world, and they treat America as a kind of Crazy World, reporting mostly on what goes on in Crazy World Media. Even Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann talk their entire shows about these non-stories (even if it's to debunk them; it still gives them presence and a sort of authenticity by attention, even negative attention). I rely on the saner segments of Pacifica like Amy Goodman and Ian Masters to actually talk about things that matter.

Instead of Mainstream, how about Mindf**k Media? I dunno, but you're right we need a better word for it. George Lakoff, the brilliant Berkeley psycholinguist and author of the Majority Rule initiative on the November ballot (which, thanks to Mindf**k Media and corporate money will probably go down), always stresses the importance of framing and controlling the message. The superrich, who pay to get their message framed and drilled into the minds of the millions, have hired and control a whole army of real experts at this; we progressives are keystone kops in komparison.

By the way, I recommend Were you born on the Wrong Continent? by Thomas Geoghegan [pronounced "Gann," that's Gaelic for ya], and, hewing a similar line, Europe's Promise, by Steven Hill. (The latter a more comprehensive and thoroughly researched presentation). The premise of both books is that our adoption of what Hill refers to as social capitalism, the regulated humanistic free market systems of Europe, is our only hope. Frail hope, I'm afraid, because the oligarchy that has total control in this country will not let the changes necessary to get us there occur. 

The irony is painful: 65 years ago, in the wreckage of the old system that destroyed Europe, the US fostered and encouraged them to develop the social and economic system that will end up beating the pants off of us, with our hidebound and increasingly unworkable casino capital corporatist system...meanwhile leaving their people with a much better average standard of living than we can hope to achieve. This has already happened, really, but it just hasn't dawned on most Americans yet that history has already passed them by. 

And I add: 

... or that they are being lied to, and they will never share in the American Dream they see on TV, because that's now the realm reserved for the rich, and the divide between THEM and the rest of us is greater than ever, growing, and already unbridgeable forever.
 

"Ground Zero Mosque": Come off of it, already!

I find it just amazing that the corporate media is pushing and pushing this ridiculous story about the "Ground Zero Mosque," just because some asshole Republicans keep harping on it.

Earth to CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, (Forget Fox): just because opportunistic assholes want to push a non-story doesn't make it news. Why not ask these fools how, if they claim to be patriotic Americans who believe in the Constitution, they could think the President was anything but absolutely right to note that Muslims have a perfect right to open an Islamic Community Center, or Mosque, or whatever you want to call it, in Lower Manhattan, several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, in a goddamn former Burlington Coat Factory, for God's sake! Hallowed ground, my ass. Come off of it. This is pure political opportunism and media manipulation, so typical of the party of no, and no ideas, which is also the party of no integrity.

Relenting on Target Boycott, and why

August 17, 2010

Target Guest Relations

Attn: Crystal

P. O. Box 9350

MS 1A-X

Minneapolis, MN 55440-9350

Re: Target Political Contributions

Dear “Crystal:”

I recently wrote to protest Target's political contributions, in particular with regard to the contribution to MN Forward, which ended up supporting a far-right bigot running for Minnesota's governor.

While I still believe strongly that corporations are not people, but rather public trusts, and should not presume to make personal political choices which frequently do not coincide with the wishes either of their shareholders or their customers, I appreciate the respectful reply and the fact that Target has apologized for this particular contribution and attempted to do outreach to the community to ensure that its activities are concordant with its reputation for corporate “good citizenship,” such as this principle is in this country.

Anyway, the purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am relenting on my stated intention to boycott Target, and am advising my friends and acquaintances that I believe Target's response to the public outrage over this issue was a reasonable attempt to listen to the voices of those who were offended, and to try to be responsive to their legitimate complaints, including even modifying the company's political conduct going forward. Target has not announced the policy I would like to see all American companies adopt: to voluntarily not make political contributions with corporate funds at all; but it has taken what I see as reasonable steps towards conciliation, which I believe deserve to be recognized.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

David Studhalter

published on The Gyromantic Informicon http://studhalter.blogspot.com

Social Security "Fix"

It's just not true that social security is bankrupt. This is a Republican myth. I won't even waste words proving this; it's been discussed at length elsewhere.

But if the administration is now so concerned about the federal budget, and the inability to steal enough from the social security tax in the future to pay for other things, the solution is really simple.

• Increase the cap on income for FICA and Medicare taxes to ... no cap. (All income taxed, including unearned income). 

• Make the tax progressive, with higher rates for those earning over some amount that represents the borderland between the "working middle class" and the upper middle class... say for now around $125,000 for individuals; $200,000 for couples.

Working people are getting really, really tired of having to shoulder every cost and provide for all the production in this country, with so little of the profit. 

E-mail to the White House: Don't even think about adopting Republican positions on Social Security

Now hear this. I have supported the President consistently despite quite a number of disappointments; public option, weak financial reform, weak jobs bill, the useless war in Afghanistan.

But if Krugman is right and an administration commission is going to call for benefit cuts and raising the retirement age for social security... buying into Republican myths and Republican thinking... and if the President goes along with this claptrap...that will be it. I will oppose the president as just a Republican light; and strive my damndest to get a real progressive elected next time. We are your base, Mr. President, and, unlike the Republicans, we want you to succeed. But if you adopt their policies, you will lose our support.

...A non-professional left progressive supporter of the President... so far.

Rein in the General

The New York Times is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus "began a campaign on Sunday to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the American-led coalition can still succeed here despite months of setbacks, saying he had not come to  Afghanistan to preside over a 'graceful exit.'" Now, this may be the administration's policy, for all I know (as someone who sees no real national interest in prosecuting this absurdly expensive and ineffective war, I hope not). But why, I ask myself, does the media not even question why a general is making policy comments? It is not, never has been, and never should be, the role of the military to set policy. This is not a question of military strategy. It is a question of American foreign policy.

Increasingly, these military leaders seem to think they are wiser than their bosses, and that they are free to state their views and try to "campaign" for policies that may, or may not, be the policies of their civilian commanders.

This must stop. Petraeus should be fired if he is not speaking with the explicit authorization of the President; and if he is, then Obama should say so, and should have said it first. This makes America look divided against itself, and ultimately undermines the very ability to project power that is the purpose of the military.

I favor an end to the war in Afghanistan, as quickly as is feasible; but even more importantly I think the civilian government must tell the generals to keep their traps shut unless called upon.

Get Low

Just saw Get Low, a production clearly guided into existence by its star, Robert Duvall; also starring Sissy Spacek and Bill Murray.

Hats off, an instant classic. Please don't miss this movie if you care anything about current cinema in America. 

We must demand Fair Access for All to the Internet ("Net Neutrality")

President Obama made so-called "net neutrality," better called "fair access to the internet," one of the touchstones of his campaign. But, as with many other things, the follow-through has been weak. Please write to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the White House and tell them Don't leave "net neutrality" to Google and Verizon, that's like the Fox in charge of the Hen House. Please reverse Bush Administration policies, as the President has promised, to effectively regulate the internet to ensure equal access for all.



Chairman Genachowski's Contact Information
Room: 8-B201  •  Phone: 202.418.1000  •  E-mailFederal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Contact with Alien Civilizations

I just read a long and serious, but unfortunately rather tedious and repetitive book by Michael A. G. Michaud: Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials.

Many people, otherwise very intelligent and with broad philosophical perspectives on the world, life, and nature, are unreasonably, even irrationally, dismissive of this entire subject. This book, unfortunately, however, although it purports to go beyond the usual discussion of SETI (the search aspect), to discuss the likely implications of either communication or direct contact with intelligent aliens, really adds nothing new to the conversation.

The fact is that in all the evidence of the long history of life on Earth there's no proof  (at least that we've found so far) that anything was left behind that credibly indicates visitation by technological intelligent aliens to our planet at any time in the past. Also, despite some looking, we haven't found any evidence of alien technologies "out there" (either in the form of signals or indirect evidence, such as unusual radiation signatures from astronomical objects indicating technological origin). The search for any of these types of evidence (or for artifacts in the solar system other than on Earth), has been far from exhaustive. I think the case for spending at least some modest resources on all of these is pretty solid, but until there is unequivocal proof that humans are not effectively alone in this part of the universe (because if intelligent aliens are too far away, they effectively don't exist, for us), this subject just runs out of steam. It remains an endeavor of knowledge that lacks proof of the existence of its subject matter.

Current Buzz about prospect of Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities

Both the original article by neocon Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic (on the likelihood that Bibi Netanyahu will order a strike on Iran by next Spring), and Steve Clemons's commentary on it in The Washington Note (contains internal link to The Atlantic article), are "must reads."  

 

I think there is another side to this; I rather doubt that the national security apparatus in Israel is quite as unanimous as all this. There are huge downsides for Israel if it were to do this, and the fact is that both Tzipi Livni (opposition candidate for Israeli PM in last election) and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak have denied the proposition that Iran as currently constituted is an "existential threat" to Israel. Goldberg's article seems premised on the supposition that this is a nearly unanimous view in Israel.

I also am deeply suspicious of Goldberg's motivations. There is a strong intellectual current, left over from the heady days of neocon primacy in the Bush II First Term, that seeks to create a climate in American policy thinking that is unexaminedly pro-Israel, and that unthinkingly buys into the paradigm that Iran must be countered and defeated. To his credit, Goldberg does analyze the very significant potential negative consequences of what he's saying is a very real prospect. But the whole analysis makes assumptions about continued American military hegemony in the area that no longer make sense. I believe, instead, our interests are best served by exploring every avenue to find enough common ground to create a new way forward for our relations with Iran, in conjunction with our relations with Russia and China, which so far, along with Iran itself, have only had to sit back and watch our policy in the region implode, to their benefit. We have effectively lost sight of the crucial test for foreign policy for any nation: it must act not in the interests of factions or other nations, but in the interests of its own people. Rushing headlong into support of an Israeli war against Iran is clearly not in our nation's interests.

With that in mind, although in America it is hard for a president to say this and mean it (and especially, to be able to back it up), I think the President needs to make crystal clear to Netanyahu: you unilaterally attack Iran and you will destroy the relationship between Israel and the United States, including continued military or financial assistance. We simply will not support you in this, period, and you will end our alliance with you if you do it. 

See also Fred Kaplan in Slate commenting on Goldberg's article.

And a serious critique of Goldberg and his whole anlaysis and his credibility, by Glenn Greenwald.  

Amateur pianists: Janáček: V Mlhách

Check out this youtube of Mikhail Rudy playing the first two movements of V Mlhách ("In the Mist") by Leoš Janáček. 

Theses pieces are a good bit harder than I realized when I heard a bit of one of them on Pandora, but I think they're really marvelous, and I love the way this poster puts up the music.

This is an example of something I've found really valuable and wondeful on Youtube. I am an amateur pianist of very modest accomplishments, and if I'm thinking of dabbling in a particular piece of music, it's very helpful to hear (and even see) someone else playing it. I've found that even some rather obscure intermediate and early advanced piano repertoire is easily located in multiple instances on youtube. The same is true for people trying to learn other instruments or for vocal music, both classical and other styles. This is a really great resource, and yet another example of how the internet has transformed our lives in both minor and major ways.

My letter to Target's CEO

Mr. Gregg W. Steinhafel, CEO

Target Corporation

1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403     •     Fax:        612-696-5400

Dear Mr. Steinhafel:

I am writing to you with regret, and even some sadness. I have been a customer of Target for nearly thirty years, and have come to rely on my local store as a source of good value on many products that my household needs. My family and I have consistently spent several hundred dollars each year there for many years. I realize that the amount of money my family has spent and would continue to spend at Target is a tiny, almost insignificant blip on your balance sheets, but I would ask you to recognize that there are millions of people like me. People who believe in America, who believe in the idea of America, that each individual person has the same voice as every other, and that our system of laws should be so restrained as to preserve these principles.

I, like millions of Americans, was and am deeply dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case earlier this year, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns, including candidates for elective office and ballot propositions, and, still worse, to freely and anonymously funnel corporate funds through front groups, such as “MN FORWARD” and various chambers of commerce, political action committees, etc. We believe that this is literally inimical to our democracy; it dilutes the voice of individuals. It is, to be blunt, unpatriotic and un-American. Corporations are not people; when they, with their asymmetrically huge resources, are permitted to dominate politics, representative democracy is in peril. The very survival of our nation as a republic is in peril.

Having recently learned that Target Corporation has seen fit to contribute corporate funds to an organization that in turn supports a far-right wing candidate in Minnesota, I am outraged. Not merely because the candidate, a certain Mr. Tom Emmer, is a hate-filled bigot who has stated publicly that he favors the execution of gay citizens, although that is, of course, very deeply troubling in its own right. But also, on general principle. I have read just today that you, as Target CEO, apologized for this particular contribution, for which I applaud you. However, it is not enough. There must be a commitment not to engage in political contributions of corporate funds. Corporations, which are by nature public trusts, should not presume to make what amount to personal political choices. Yes, for the moment, you have the legal right to do this. But I, as a customer, have the right to say, No! If you do this, you will forego my custom. I will not do business with you.

I am appealing to you. Target should set an example. It is not too late to undo the damage, and regain the goodwill of your customers who oppose this kind of activity. Corporations, until such time as the law is changed to a more rational basis, should voluntarily forego contributing corporate funds to political movements, whether in support of candidates, legislative agendas, or ballot propositions. Regardless of ideology or party. And so I ask you to commit to permanently and completely refraining from this activity, as an organization, for the good of our Republic. And to say so forcefully, and publicly.

And so, as I said, with regret, I am letting you know that unless, or, more hopefully, until, Target Corporation commits to not contributing corporate funds to organizations or individuals to support individual political candidates, political agendas, or ballot propositions, I will not shop at Target or its affiliates, and I will let everyone I know know why I am not doing so, and ask them to join me in this boycott of Target.

The favor of a response will be much appreciated.

Sincerely,

                                                                                          David Studhalter

♦♦
In truth, something like this e-mail, apart from the specifics that triggered this particular response, could and probably should be sent to most large US corporations. I really believe that the principle that corporations, as public trusts, should not be making personal-type political choices with their corporate funds, needs to be adopted, if not enshrined in law, then voluntarily; and if it takes public pressure to get them to do it, I'm ready to do my bit to apply that pressure. 

Today's e-mail to the White House

The President just MUST take a strong stand against extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 1-2%. This is absolutely critical. A speech on the subject is desperately needed. The President needs to summon Kent Conrad and Stenny Hoyer and any other wavering Congressional Dems and say, this is critical, it's what defines us: we stand opposed to special privileges for the very rich and FOR Main Street; you're not a Democrat if you don't stand with us, and we will not support any Democrat who doesn't vote with us on this and other key economic democracy issues.

It's HIGH TIME for the President to show some real backbone on this issue, and to USE his communication skills to explain to the people why the Republicans are trying to hoodwink them on this, as well as on the estate tax.

Another point, the WH needs to take credit for the end of the "BUSH BAILOUT" (TARP) in Fin. Reform, because polls show most Americans DO NOT KNOW that the TARP Bailout was enacted under Bush.

My note to the white house

The president needs to make clear to all Congressional Democrats that Democrats must stand FOR the people and AGAINST the special interests that stand in their way. And that means NO EXTENSION of plutocratic Bush Tax Cuts that benefit only the very rich, while at the same time continuing the MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts that were part of the stimulus.

Republinomics 101

As exemplified by John Boehner, the Republican "plan" to create jobs is just plain idiotic. Except that in reality, it is no such thing. The real Republican plan is much simpler: help the richest 1% keep theirs, and to everyone else: Go to Hell, except we pretend we didn't really mean that by lying and prevaricating.

Time for Bold Action

I am so fed up with hearing from Republicans and some Democrats that we have to stop spending so much, that the deficit is dragging us down, etc. etc. This is just so much balderdash, and so completely ignorant of the lessons of history. Look, folks: we’ve been down that road before. What we need is just the opposite: bold programs to engage the energy of our people to overcome the economic setbacks we’ve experienced, and solve the technological problems that face us as a civilization, all at the same time.

Here’s an example of the kind of nonsense that’s floating around out there, from a widely circulated right wing e-mail that depicts Obama as Norman Rockwell painting his self-portrait (except the image he’s painting is Jesus’):

“These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.”

As economic principles, these are just plain false (not to mention mind-numbingly stupid). Of course, they sound good, in the way that slick propaganda phrases always do, but it isn’t the way the world works. An economy in a deflationary phase can only recover by increasing the amount of money in the hands of working people and the unemployed, who will spend it. This increases commerce and employment, and brings about job growth and recovery. Incentivizing hoarding by the wealthy, combined with spending cuts by government during severe recession such as was tried in 1930-31 by Hoover, and again, against better advice, in 1936 by Roosevelt, are the surest way to turn recession into Depression (the Depression was much improved by 1935, but the 1936 fiscal tightening policies brought it roaring back). Republicans' favored economic policies would be like a volte face, just as we were clear of the cliff and inching away, they would have us turn around and leap right off of it.

These are tried and true principles, which have helped America prosper in good times and bad for eighty years, and which we seem to be forgetting right when we need them most.

The Obama administration doesn’t entirely get it either. You hear some of this same fiscal restraint mantra even from them. And Bernanke keeps worrying about inflation. He’s supposed to be the great student of the Depression, but his policies aren’t noticeably different from that eminent psychotic Alan Greenspan. What we need is stimulus, and jobs, jobs, jobs. Nothing else will bring about recovery. Inflation is not the problem right now; in fact, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, we are actually facing a significant risk of a deflationary spiral.

The only thing that really ended the Depression of the 1930s was World War II, during which the floodgates of national debt were opened wide and the survival of civilization was used as a justification for a level of debt not seen since that time (proportionally), and which lasted a good many years after the war ended. If we really wanted to pull the US economy out of deep recession and bring about real growth so that 10 years out we would have near full employment and have turned the balance of revenue vs. obligations around, we should undertake the “moral equivalent of war.” This is a phrase that got Jimmy Carter nothing but ridicule when he used it, but actually was a good idea then and is an even better idea now.

We need to make huge public investments, and yes, with borrowed money, to build a renewable energy infrastructure to move away from a fossil fuel based energy economy. We need to invest in solar thermal power plants, ocean thermal energy and materials production, crash fusion energy research programs, crash exotic biofuel and biomaterials research and development, nonfossil transportation energy systems research and development… using the national laboratories and Depression era jobs programs as models, including facilities with thousands of employees... plus pushing and developing to the hilt the already existing solar, wind, and biofuel technologies... all with borrowed money.... as soon as possible in a truly massive way, and make the government the employer of millions of people to do it. And none of this fraudulent “clean coal” nonsense, or conventional nuclear energy, which isn’t worth it, because it’s never paid for itself, when even a fraction of the costs of waste disposal are taken into account.

Equally essential, as well, we need to abandon the military adventures which have already cost us trillions of dollars since 2001, and which are simply not yielding any appreciable benefit to either our national security or our economy (apart from a select group of contractors; the program I’m outlining would far more than offset that, and give us far more bang for the buck both economically and in terms of America’s reputation in the world).

If we actually did these things, and really reformed our financial industry so it was no longer a parasite, and reformed the tax code to raise taxes substantially on the very rich and impose windfall profits taxes on financial and energy companies... and (and this is essential) abandoned the “globalization” paradigm that encourages corporate interests to export jobs and race to the bottom in terms of productive labor in America... we could be looking at 1954 all over again in 10 years’ time: the dawn of an era of prosperity, with, yes, a big national debt (then it was the residual war debt), but with the means to partly grow out of it, and, (to be honest), partly inflate it away. This is the way governments have always handled big residual debt.

I think this is actually possible, but it would require the kind of real, positive leadership that isn't just oriented towards greed and preserving the wealth of them that's already got it; the kind of leadership we haven’t seen in this country, since John F. Kennedy. Regrettably, I don’t see this kind of leadership on the horizon. Where are you, great leaders, in your country’s hour of need? Step forward!

Reducing Corporate Influence on Politics

Well, this is embarrassing. I wrote this comment on the implications of corporate control of elections, based on reports last night that showed Prop 16 and 17 had passed; but I now see that late returns, many from Northern California, have tipped the balance and both propositions lost. So, chalk one up for you can't fool all the people all the time. Much of what I had to say here is applicable anyway.
♦♦♦

No time just now for a lengthy comment, but I just wanted to say a few things about yesterday's election, especially to Californians, but also to folks living beyond our Golden Border. This isn't a left/right issue; it's a question of whether the people will rule or whether elections will be simply bought and sold. Representative Democracy or Elite Plutocracy •• the choice is that stark.


The passage yesterday of two wish-list bought-and-paid-for corporate initiatives here (one to ensure the perpetuation of the iron grip of monopoly by the State's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, and the other a carefully crafted rate hike scheme by one of the state's largest auto insurers, Mercury Ins. Gp.) serve to illustrate two things, in my mind:


1.  The unfettered access to political influence now granted corporations in our political system nationwide, particularly in the wake of Citizens United v. F.E.C., is a catastrophe. We need to amend the constitution or get judges on the Supreme Court who will reverse this. We need to pass public campaign financing, and, as soon as the court's rulings will permit, severely limit if not eliminate the power of corporations to influence electoral politics.


2.  Unless No. 1 can be accomplished pretty neatly and quickly, the initiative process in California, hallowed progressive reform though it was, is now doing more harm than good and we need to consider amending the State Constitution to eliminate it... how about conditionally eliminating it, until such time as prohibitions on corporate financing of elections can be enforced?


Both of these propositions passed due to incredibly deceptive and mendacious corporate advertising blanketing the airwaves for weeks and weeks. PG&E, for example, outspent opponents to Prop. 16 by 511 to 1. In the face of this kind of power of money, rational discussion of the issues is completely lost in the cloud of misinformation and mendacious propaganda.


As another kind of example, the wonderfully simple initiative proposal put forth by George Lakoff, to eliminate 2/3 public and legislative supermajority vote requirements for budget and tax matters (which is quite literally crippling governance in this state), has likely failed (for the November ballot), for lack of corporate and party establishment support.


Not entirely relevant to the above, except that the PG&E ballot initiative (Prop 16) was falsely advertised as a "power to the people" law when in fact it requires one of these 2/3 supermajorities whenever a local jurisdiction wants to challenge its monopoly, here's my utopian proposal for an Initiative Constitutional Amendment:

Sec. 1.  No election, and no vote of the legislature, or of any other legislative body in this state, shall require more than a simple majority vote for passage. All provisions of the constitution and laws of this state to the contrary are repealed by this provision with immediate effect, with simple majority voting requirements deemed substituted for the supermajority votes specified in such provisions. Neither the legislature nor the electorate shall make any law which shall require more than a simple majority vote for passage in any election or vote of the legislature or other legislative body in this state.

Sec. 2.  [Definition of "legislative body"]

Call it the "Restore Majority Rule Initiative." Of course, my expansion of Lakoff's idea to all laws governing all lawmaking bodies stands no chance of ever passing, because the vast power of corporate wealth would and will stand in opposition. The status quo benefits them, so why would they cede power back to the electorate?

Republican Logic: bailout and apologize to BP, but nothing for real people

The sheer lack of logical consistency in Republican policy positions is just unbelievable. They oppose Stimulus, because it "costs too much" (having spent trillions on their President's unnecessary wars and bailing out Wall Street as a result of idiotic deregulation they supported and their gurus like Greenspan and Friedman provided intellectual underpinnings for; and ignoring the well-known process, well-nigh inevitable after the crash, that if you don't get the economy working again it spirals downward; and ignoring the fact that thanks to their voodoo economics tax cuts for the rich, a trillion dollar surplus was turned into a 2 trillion dollar deficit under their president's watch).

But now, rather than hold BP, a foreign corporation, accountable for the promises it made in obtaining a permit to perform deepwater drilling it now appears it had no real ability to perform safely, they want the American taxpayers to pay the bill.

This makes no sense, even according to their own mean-spirited and proven-unworkable policy theories. It only makes sense if you disregard their fibs and look to their real policy: support crony capitalism at all costs, no matter how much it harms the interests of the nation and the people.

And yet, about half the electorate buys this crap.

I just don't get it.  
♦♦
Since I wrote this, we've had even more ridiculous comments from Congresspersons Bachmann and Barton. Sheesh

Comments to White House on President's Speech

I sent the following to the White House in response to the President's speech last week:

There seems to be a widespread view that the part of the President’s speech relating to “accelerating” the changeover to nonfossil fuels and renewable energy was short on specifics. One could imagine the President, echoing John F. Kennedy, having said something like “before this decade is out, I am committed to ensuring that at least half of America’s electric power will be generated from renewable sources, and at least 25% of the motor fuels used in this country will come from biomass, not oil.” (That would be extremely ambitious… but that’s what the people are yearning for… real commitment to something that will be a mission to make our country secure from foreign oil, and reduce the detrimental impact of fossil fuel use, with the added benefit of creating millions of Green Jobs).

It’s not too late… the President needs to follow up on this speech… and soon… with ambitious and concrete proposals, for R&D into biomass, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, Ocean Thermal, local energy generation, biofuels, synfuels, and putting the electric grid in place to where the new power sources are… all of which will be a huge commitment. Emphasis: not just research, but we will build what works, and quickly, because our nation’s future depends on it. It needs to be a teaching moment, where the President informs the American people about what is possible, and what he intends that we will do.

Then, speak directly to the American people and ASK for their support. Most people WANT to support the President, but they need to have something real and concrete to latch on to.

This will work, but the President has to be very determined and really mean it, and he needs to say it soon, forcefully, and repeatedly.

Rachel Maddow for President

I gotta say, I wish Rachel Maddow were President. Or at least that he would hire her as chief speechwriter, and follow her advice. (And mean it).

Here's her version of what the President should have said the other night.

Californians: N O on 16, 17

I've been a bit preoccupied lately, and haven't had a chance to comment on some of the very anti-democratic and destructive initiatives on the California primary ballot. PLEASE look into, especially, Prop. 16 and Prop. 17, both of which are corporate power-grabs.

NO on 16. Requires undemocratic 2/3 vote for decentralization of power sources in California... a naked power grab by P G & E and Southern California Edison to hold on to their monopolies by creating yet another supermajority provision to prevent majority rule in California. VOTE NO.

NO on 17. Interferes with rational regulation of insurance to increase profits... virtually singlehandedly bought and paid for by Mercury Insurance. VOTE NO.

Please see Courage Campaign's Progressive Voter Guide here.

O'Reilly compares gays to terrorists...well, not exactly

There's a bit of an uproar in the LGBT activist community about Dumbo O'Reilly's offensive comments [link] about a French McDonald's gay-friendly ad, which his show aired along with his dumb (and a little offensive) remarks. Supposedly equating gay people with terrorists. Well, not really. It was his lame attempt at humor, combined with his general contempt for everyone not like him. But that's nothing new and hardly surprising.

But to me, the real story is how sweet and positive the ad itself is. O'Reilly says they'll never run one like it here... gotta wonder why not? It would go a long way towards fostering a positive image of tolerance and welcoming.

Their message: venez comme vous êtes....applies even if vous êtes homosexuel. In France, this doesn't even raise an eyebrow, as it shouldn't.

Shame on you, Bill Clinton

The very idea that Bill Clinton is attacking unions in an ad supporting DINO ("Democrat in Name Only") Blanche Lincoln makes me want to retch. Link.

Generally, national politicians should stay out of local and state primary races (and Bill doesn't live in Arkansas)...after all, the people of the jurisdiction should be the ones who decide who their representatives will be. The big exception to this I would propose is where a candidate is a fraud or traitor to the principles of the majority of the party. In this case, that's Lincoln, who is in the pocket of Wall Street, was instrumental in killing the public option, has consistently voted against Democratic principles and has misrepresented her positions. It isn't her opponent Halter, who is a pretty straight line Centrist Democrat. So there's no plausible excuse for Clinton to be attacking unions in support of Lincoln in a primary. National leaders should support Halter, a real Democrat, not Lincoln, who isn't one. The fact that unions, who are a bulwark of progressive politics in this country, have taken this stance should tell Clinton something: Real Democrats are supporting Halter.

Dialog on the "flotilla" incident and implications in region

I had the following exchange with a colleague who is more inclined to see Israel's side in various affairs than I am. I post this because I think it shows an interesting dialog on policy, where both sides have goodwill but just don't see the same reality in the news reports.

Me:
You and I see Israel/Palestine issues and US/Israel issues rather differently, but I appreciate that we can discuss these issues with mutual respect.

Anyway, I haven't had time to immerse myself in the whole Turkish blockade-running ship boarding incident (a better description that "flotilla" I think), but the International consensus seems to be that the video you referred to was, at minimum, "decontextualized" by the IDF. The ship was, after all, boarded in international waters, so I think it's fair to say, at least, that the breakout of violence can't just be blamed on those on board based on an edited video without investigation.

I'm sure there's questionable conduct on both sides, as usual. Yigal Arens, who, unlike his father Moshe, believes that the siege of Gaza is wrong, and is in favor of an aggressive pursuit of a territorial settlement, had some very interesting comments on Ian Masters' The Daily Briefiing yesterday.

Whatever your view of what happened, and who's right and who's wrong, I think it's pretty clear this was not a foreign policy win for Israel.

If anything good may come of it, it's at least conceivable that it could cause a shift in the complete bogdown of the so-called "peace process," whatever that's supposed to mean (more like "stalemate process").

Your view that Hamas and Hezb'ollah are going to launch a two front war this year is definitely not on most commenters' radar screens. I'd be curious what you're reading that makes you think this. If it's true, it shows that the leadership of both organizations are among the stupidest political leaders on the face of the Earth. (Not an ideological judgment, but a strategic one. There's just no way such action could benefit them in even the medium-range future). Still, without more information, I just don't see it. 

Colleague:

Dave, check out the actual video.  Activists? Upon arrival with clearly visualized paint ball guns the mob attacks to kill. We stop ships in int waters all the time.  If it was an aide mission, boats could have docked as asked so cargo could be inspected first as is done all the time.  Israel is at war.  Blockade has legitimate purpose.  I see no issue there.  Organizng turkish group has tie with muslim brotherhood.  After 6k rockets fired at them since gaza withdrawal, I can imagine suspicion of boats unchecked making deliveries. Reality is that This was a pr war event that israel blindly walked in to.  The people on that boat were clearly and expressly determined to deliver as planned or succeed in martydom.  Very clever as   paving way for hostilities I forsee soon. The pr war is just as important as fighting war.  I'm sure the lebanese christian community beleagured as it is, is not fooled by any of this.  classic hezbo. Tactic.

Here is the real issue.  Whether the us is engaged in ME peace process or not, I don't think it makes any difference.  What israel does or not does not make a diff. Either.  We are dealing with proxy forces. Period.  So long as political ambitions of syria and iran dictate otherwise, the palistinian will continue to be used as cards by their arab brethren who only stand to loose leverage should peace break out.

God forbid there should be peace.  To what external enemy would these barbaric regimes look to in order to keep their own people confortably distracted and preoccupied?  Would the masses with free time to consider their own "civil" institutions soon question the religio-political yoke of islam that has trapped 50% of their population under burkas, out of classrooms, and socially retarded. Oh no.  This civilization is 50-75 years from being ready for peace.  Everything else is a side show and let the reality of demographics plod on.

Me:
Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see it this way, and I am only concerned about US interests, which I don't see as congruent with Israel's. It's in our interests to disengage from this regional conflict, and the best way to do that is to try to foster (broker is too strong a term), a 2 state negotiated settlement. There is precedent. The peace with Egypt has lasted 30 years, and Jimmy Carter is the only US president to have ever actually brokered a peace deal in the Middle East.

If Israel is at war, it's her war, not ours, and in my view if that's the case, it's to a large extent Israel's choice in the matter. You can interpret history differently, but I reject the Neocon analysis outright, and believe that continued occupation and population transfers into occupied territories are illegal. (It's the world consensus view, although of course some don't agree). Israel is in a difficult position. It wants to be a first world country in a region that just isn't; but if you want to be a first world country you have to sign on to the norms of International Law. Sure, the other powers didn't get where they are in that regime, but that's the way it is.

I pretty much favor walking away from continued US involvement Middle East if a settlement can't be induced through diplomacy. The risks outweigh the potential benefits, to this country. I think our differing views are in part based  on a different analysis of whose interests are important. To me, the risks in the region outweigh the benefits, and the US would be better off trying to pressure a negotiated settlement, then disengaging from the entire region as much as possible, including economically (by developing alternative energy resources). Not least because those of us in this country who want to defuse the Forever-War party and reduce the military sector of the economy have to think longterm about changing the entire dynamic in that part of the world vis-a-vis the US. What happens between Israel and the other regional powers is their problem, unless nuclear weapons are used, in which case all bets are off and whoever is dumb enough to have used them will be responsible for destabilizing the world totally at the worst possible moment in history; very possibly a fatal outcome for the human race. But I can't see current US policy as making that less likely.

I still don't see where you conclude that a two front war is likely. (I don't see where it's in Iran's or Syria's (which are pretty much identical) interests anyway; the status quo is to their benefit).

Tough Times for Israeli People

Unfortunately for Israel's people (as opposed to their government, which I pretty much deplore), perception is reality, at least in terms of the fact that perception influences real world circumstances. I readily acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument over whether Israel's actions in the so-called Flotilla incident were rational or justifiable; certainly they were badly executed. (I also deplore the Siege of Gaza as a completely unjustifiable policy, but that's a separate issue). In any case, the fact is, Israel is losing the last remnants of goodwill and cooperation in the region, and even the relationship with the United States is probably more strained than at any time in quite a few years.

Here's the Jerusalem Post piece noting that Israel is losing its prime regional ally, Turkey:
(link)

And a comment by Josh Marshall:
(link)

(follow the link to Gideon Levy's column in Ha'aretz as well)